H. A. G. Houghton, Professor of New Testament Textual Scholarship at University of Birmingham, UK, has provided a long-awaited replacement for Bruce Metzger’s textual commentary bearing the same name (with the obvious exception of a difference in subtitle, reflecting a difference in critical editions of the Greek NT). For unfamiliar readers, the second edition of Metzger’s textual commentary was published in 1994—thirty-one years prior to the publication of Houghton’s textual commentary.

Unlike Metzger’s earlier commentary on the UBS4/NA27, Houghton’s commentary reflects shifts in NT textual critical methodology with the emergence of the “Coherence-Based Genealogical Method” (p. 21). This method, to date, has been applied to the Catholic Epistles (e.g., James, Jude) in UBS5/NA28 and to Mark, Acts, and Revelation in UBS6/NA29. Houghton’s commentary engages with these recent revisions and thus the most recent text-critical scholarship, reflected in the publication of UBS6/NA29 in late 2025 as well as the extensive and ongoing Editio Critica Maior (ECM) project.

The author builds on Metzger’s work and cross-checks his own commentary with Metzger’s, as well as the simplified version of Metzger’s commentary, edited by Roger L. Omanson (A Textual Guide to the Greek New Testament [Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2006]). Beyond these resources, Houghton takes pains to interact with two recent scholarly editions of the Greek NT, namely, The SBL Greek New Testament (SBLGNT; ed. Michael Holmes [Atlanta: SBL Press, 2010]) and The Greek New Testament: Tyndale House Edition (THGNT; eds. Dirk Jongkind and Peter Williams [Wheaton, IL: Crossway, 2017]) as well as various articles in the field of NT textual criticism. This commentary follows the earlier ranking system (A, B, C, D) used by Metzger and the UBS4 committee, reflecting, in descending order, degrees of certainty regarding the textual reconstruction. Also, the author adds the symbol ◆, denoting decisions that have been left open.

One aspect of this commentary that is clearly distinct from Metzger’s is that Houghton’s work does not reflect the decisions of a committee. Given this, “rather than” defending “the committee’s text,” his commentary “seeks to present a rationale for each decision while indicating which of the alternative readings are worthy of serious consideration” (p. 35).

A few examples of Houghton’s commentary will be discussed to give the reader a sense of how this commentary compares with Metzger’s earlier work. Commenting on Mark 1:1, while Metzger only offers a rationale as to why the phrase “son of God” is included, not discussing the Byzantine reading which has a definite article before God (thus, του θεου), Houghton gives a C ranking for the Byz. reading and provides a much more ample discussion, covering the various readings, the potential reasons why this reading could be the original, and how the ECM of Mark 1:1 compares with SBLGNT and THGNT. Houghton and Metzger both give a C rating for Mark 1:4, but in different directions, with Houghton (again, with Byz.) arguing for the omission of “the” (ὁ) before βαπτίζων, resulting in “John baptizing,” and Metzger, in contrast, favoring the title “John the Baptist/Baptizer” given its parallel with Mark 6:25 and 8:28 and its occurrence in Matthew and Luke. However, as in Mark 1:1, Houghton’s discussion is noticeably more thorough.

Perhaps most noticeable is the vast difference between Houghton and Metzger in their respective discussions of Revelation. Houghton’s ◆ appears throughout, e.g., 1:5 (λύσαντι ἡμᾶς / λουσαντι [Byz.]); 2:13; 5:11 (φωνὴν / ως φωνὴν); and 21:3, strongly suggesting the need for continued text-critical work on Revelation, since readings once undisputed are now seen as undecided alongside other strong readings. In addition, there are numerous times when Houghton is commenting on a given reconstruction of the text that is not noted by Metzger and vice versa. Metzger’s commentary in fact includes many smaller textual discussions that are simply absent in Houghton’s work (e.g., 2:16, 20, 22; 5:6; 10:6, 10; 11:2, 12, 17, 18, 19; 12:10; 13:7, 17; 14:1, 6, 8, 13, 20; 16:1, 4, 16; 18:12, 17, 22; 19:5, 6, 7, 11, 13), and, on occasion, Houghton includes what was omitted in Metzger (e.g., 1:4; 20:5). Metzger’s attention to smaller textual readings omitted by Houghton means that Metzger is not dispensable yet, at least for the most thorough students.

Also, there are many times when Houghton’s reading, reflecting the ECM, departs from Metzger’s reading (e.g., Rev 4:11; 5:9; 6:17) as well as readings whose certainty is demoted (e.g., 5:10, from {A} to {C}; 15:3 and 6, from {B} to {C}) and promoted (6:3-4, from {B} to {A}; 13:6, from {B} to {A}) by Houghton. These differences between the author and Metzger, rather than rendering the former’s work obsolete, actually establish Metzger’s commentary’s further usefulness as it allows the serious student of NT textual criticism to compare the discussions between these two works in the many areas where they differ. In summary, for the aforementioned reasons, Houghton’s work adds to our understanding of recent progress in the field of NT textual criticism in a way that not only illuminates previous debates but also furthers our understanding of current scholarship. As such, this commentary is essential for anyone working in NT textual criticism.