Yes, I'm a little late to the game here, but I thought I'd blog regarding Michael F. Bird's post on Euangelion about commentaries based on particular NT manuscripts.

For background, here are a few posts:

• Euangelion: Writing a NT Commentary
• Evangelical Textual Criticism: TC Heresy?
• Stuff of Earth: bird's text critical insanity
• Euangelion: More on Textual Criticism

I read Michael's first post on the day it was written and even commented on it, but it's been mulling in my mind ever since (BTW, kudos to Stephen C. Carlson [Hypotyposeis] for pointing out that I was wrong in my comment on Euangelion and that Reuben Swanson's stuff uses Vaticanus, not Alexandrinus -- Can't believe I messed that up).

I'm still intruiged by this idea of doing exegesis/commentary on particular manuscripts. I don't know how much value it would have directly for exegetical or homiletical purposes, but I think rigorous work on individual manuscripts (particularly larger manuscripts) could be quite useful in other contexts.

I'm thinking particularly of the areas of MS provenance and history. The NA27/UBS4 MS table in the back (or in the tri-fold insert) may tell me wher an MS is housed today, but that's not much. Because an MS was found or is housed at a particular location doesn't mean it has always been at that location (e.g. monastry or library or museum). The MS history could be (was, in most cases) quite different. Doing detailed studies and even exegesis of MS as written could help in establishing provenance, couldn't it? To develop theories about unique aspects of particular MS and align those with other data that helps us understand the distinctives of what was being taught in a particular area at a particular time?

Ever since reading an article by Eldon Jay Epp in the Spring 2004 JBL, “The Oxyrhynchus New Testament Papryi: 'Not Without Honor Except in Their Hometown'?” (watch out, link is to a PDF file) I've thought it would be cool to have access to these sorts of systematic MS studies, all done with a particular goal: To establish the provenance of a particular MS, to determine what elements of the MS lead one toward particular conclusions regarding provenance. To be useful as a group, the same basic template and/or methodology would have to be followed. But I can see something like:

• Transcription of the papyrus, or rights to use existing transcription (e.g. Comfort & Douglas')
• Critical apparatus listing variants in NA/UBS, Byz, and perhaps major uncials or other MS (e.g. Sinaticus, A, B, D, etc.)
• Translation of the MS itself.
• If there could be an evaluation of the MS against quotations in the church fathers, that would be most excellent -- particularly for readings unique to the MS or minority readings the MS contains.
• Same thing, only comparing against early versions. Does the Latin, Syriac, Coptic or Ethiopic seem to prefer a reading espoused by this particular MS?
• Exegetical commentary of the MS itself focusing on the unique spots (as compared to NA/UBS) and on how exegesis based on these areas leads to conclusions that might be different from exegesis based on the critical text.

Can you imagine a series that would focus on this sort of thing? It would need to focus on some of the larger MSS. Perhaps focus on MSS that cover a given proportion (let's say more than half?) of a single book of the Bible. These 'commentaries' would therefore cover the length of the MS, not necessarily single books (though perhaps they could?)

Anyway, I think it would need to be clear that such volumes would not be written with the intent of providing source material for homiletical purposes, or for foundation of doctrine (particularly the variants that are way out there). But from a text-critical perspective, wouldn't it be valuable to have access to studies on provenance, text history, textual distinctives and resulting effect on exegesis, as well as areas where minority variants have been potentially cited? Couldn't that, in turn, have a beneficial effect on textual criticism as practiced today, particularly as applied in the continued development of the eclectic critical text?

Update (2005-11-08): Michael Pahl has a response and further discusssion. I say: bring it on! I'd hate to think I could define a whole series in five minutes of banging out a bulleted list in a blog post.

Also, in the comments below Michael Bird (Euangelion) wonders aloud if publishers would be willing to print such a beast. Of that, I have no idea whatsoever. But some academic publishers (e.g. Brill, Eisenbrauns, etc.) publish some narrowly focused material.

Update II (2005-11-08): Danny Zacharias (Deinde) adds his views to the conversation. He's right too; "commentaries" along the lines discussed in all of these posts would have limited appeal and those using them would need to realize they are commenting on a particular manuscript (and therefore on a particular era or community of believers) and not necessarily advocating new practice or doctrine when dealing with theologically significant variants.