Kurt Aland (1915–1994)

Reviewing or rating the GNT seems somewhat impertinent. I have been reading/rereading parts of the GNT since graduate school over three decades ago (3rd ed then, 4th now because I haven't got around to buying the 5th), so it may live in currently reading on a quasi-permanent basis.

The Gospels are the main course. Mark's Greek is terse and abrupt, the syntax somewhat jagged. Everyone is constantly afraid and the genuine ending at 16.8 ἐφοβοῦντο γάρ characterizes it well. It has show more the ring of authenticity in a way that Luke's novelization doesn't. Although John remains my favorite.

There is a lot (too much) of Paul. He has his moments, but often leaves you wondering what the bishops at Nicaea were thinking when they put it in the canon. show less

It will perhaps tell you something that the leading book on New Testament Textual Criticism still hasn't gotten a LibraryThing review after more than a decade in print.

Textual criticism is the task of comparing late copies of a work to determine what the lost original said. Almost every ancient book -- from the Iliad to the Bible to the Canterbury Tales -- required textual criticism. But textual criticism of the New Testament is a bit different.

Some of this is because it's the New Testament. show more That of course means that people have a somewhat different attitude about it. But the main reason is simply that there are so many New Testament manuscripts -- about three thousand in Greek, plus lectionaries, plus translations into other languages, all of which have some role to play in reconstructing the text.

So, obviously, there is a great need for an introduction.

Sadly, this book, while very strong in some regards, is weak in others. It's not because it's a translation from German; the translation is excellent. The problem is in the German version. The Alands provide a good catalog of the materials of textual criticism (the manuscripts, translations etc.). There is some circularity in their assessments of the materials, but this shouldn't harm the beginner very much.

But while they do a good job with the "what" of textual criticism, the "how" is badly neglected, and the "why" is rather weak as well. The Alands have a list of canons of criticism -- that is, ideas for how one reconstructs a text -- but their examples are weak. This book doesn't really give a feeling for how to be a textual critic. And, since that's the whole point of the exercise, it's a real defect. This is a good book for a textual critic to have. But it can't really be the only book. show less

This was fascinating reading. I certainly did not spend the time on the examples and lists that a student would have to, but the general information was valuable. However, anyone trying to use it needs to be aware that 'a beginner' is someone with a few years of Greek. The big thing I learned is that I don't need the critical apparatus. I'm perfectly willing to do with the results of the research the Alands and others have put in. Maybe some day when I get to the rank of beginner...

There are show more always going to be problems with a book that is 30 years old. (Even the second edition is nearly 20.) While the Alands celebrate the advances the computer age has brought to their work, I spent time today discussing what texts are available (or will be available soon) to down load or at least use online with my iPad. When it comes to advice on reference materials anything this old is useless. Not just the specific books, but how they are used is different since we have apps. show less

I'm not a scholar, but a blogger researching textual criticism. This book is written for people who are either experienced in TC, or are willing to dedicate a significant amount of time to learn about it. This book would not be a good choice for someone who just wants an introduction to TC. Knowing Greek would help in a number of places, but I was able to get quite a bit out of the book without knowing Greek.