I was just looking at Comfort on a passage (John 9:35), and wondered how he differed from Metzger. Then, I sketched out how each apparatus tends to demonstrate predictable differences ... maybe others wish to know. In the image below, coloration is relative to estimated dating.
An 'apparatus' basically just lists differences between texts, usually associated with manuscript copies, but also quoting (such as from a church father). Since there's many (many) differences of minor significance, an apparatus chooses what to include. And therein demonstrates the display below (and Logos has many more apparati).
Metzger (col 1) tends to key in on the more significant variances, quickly showing supportive mss's, his thinking, and possibly some committee thinking.
Comfort (col 2) tends to track verses included in Metzger, but discusses the problem in more depth. He also groups the manuscripts, and lists the translations that use the variant.
SBL (col 3) expands somewhat the number of variants included, but groups them by 4 major texts, showing how each chose. Good for quick looks.
Tyndale (col 4) tends to limit itself to the more important variants, but expand on the more important manuscripts. Sort of takes a middle road.
NA28 (col 5) picks up more variants, and additional supporting manuscripts, also reaching into early translations and church father usage. It's cousin UBS5 goes even further into post-NT usage.
CNTTS (last col) goes considerably further, both in variants considered, and manuscripts included. It's quite voluminous, but useful for more depth.
So, if you don't 'like' apparatus usage, which one (if any)?? Well, you're in luck. Logos offers a 'big-picture' level ... 'Lexham Textual Notes'. Here's the matching entry for John 9:35:
"τὸν υἱὸν τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
When Jesus heard that they had thrown him out, He found the man and said, “Do you believe in the Son of Man ?”
Most early manuscripts have “Son of Man,” but at least one early manuscript and later witnesses related to it have “Son of God.” Many textual critics (Metzger, Comfort, Omanson) consider it to be less likely for scribes to change “Son of God” into “Son of Man,” thus see “Man” as the more likely reading. Others (e.g. Alford) prefer the reading “Son of God."
