Textual criticism is like a phoenix: Something very old that periodically must be burnt up and reborn.

There are many reasons for the changes in the discipline. One of the most important is the discovery of new materials -- new manuscripts of the Bible, or of quotations from it. But the pace of discoveries has slowed. So why do things keep changing?

Some of the reasons are technological: Computers make comparisons of texts much easier. Others are methodological: People keep coming up with new ways to make comparisons between versions, or to classify and group manuscripts. Add it all up, and there is a constant need to update the discipline. This need is even greater due to the lack of a single comprehensive textbook of the discipline.

This volume represents a valiant attempt to examine the changes in the discipline as things stood in the early 1990s. It covers all the basic areas -- manuscripts (papyri, uncials, etc.), versions (Latin, Syriac, Coptic, plus the lesser-known versions), church fathers, methods of criticism. There is something here for every critic.

And yet, somehow, it all feels just a little incomplete. There flatly isn't enough coverage of statistical methods or computers for a document compiled in the 1990s. Signs of mathematical sense are utterly lacking. And there are no theoretical breakthroughs. It's all stuck in the rut of "reasoned eclecticism" -- the current standard method of criticism, which is good enough but which isn't going anywhere.

This isn't really the fault of the book. Some of the articles are a lot better than others -- it seemed to me that some of the writers on the versions really didn't have a plan for what they were trying to say. But most of this is because we are in what Eldon J. Epp has repeatedly called an "interlude" in textual criticism. It's time for a breakthrough. The breakthrough isn't here. But if you want to see a long list of places where breakthroughs might be sought, this is a good book to consult. ( )