This is the "go-to" book if you want to learn about the philosophies behind textual criticism. It is very dry. For example, the book starts by telling you what types of materials were used by scribes through the centuries. However, there are some parts that pick up and are a bit more interesting. For example, the time of the Reformation and manuscripts used by Erasmus.
This book will give you exposure to the reality of how ancient manuscripts have been handed down through the generations, the technical work scribes go through in copying manuscripts, and a variety of different errors and mistakes that can occur in the transmission process. For example, a scribe might copy one line and then accidentally pick up his copy on the next line without finishing the previous line. I think anyone who has copied anything can relate to this. Our eyes don't always stay where they're supposed to as we are looking back and forth while copying.
There were some interesting details about scribes adding or subtracting from the text intentionally. For example, to defend a particular doctrine or try to make sense of a difficult text Some scribes may have altered the text because they thought the last scribe made a mistake when they did not. Rather, the newer scribe just didn't understand how to reconcile what was being copied, so it seemed like an error that needed amending. Some changes were innocent mistakes; some were even honorable attempts; others were more malicious.
The Scriptures have been used in liturgy since the beginning, so there are times when liturgical readings and practices could have made it into manuscripts. Lots of real-life things happened as these manuscripts traveled through the ages. It's very interesting. It sort of reminds me of the Incarnation. In the same way that Jesus is fully God and fully man, the Scriptures are God-breathed and written by men and are subject to all the realities any ancient work is subject to, as well as Divine Providence.
What the book doesn't get into is Providence. This is an academic work, but without a doctrine of Providence, we're not looking at the history and transmission of the Canon through Spiritual eyes. That is extremely important to note, and the reader will have to go elsewhere to study that topic in order to determine how to blend the two (the natural and Spiritual histories of the Canon). We can't separate the two realities. The Spiritual is arguably more real than the natural, after all.
If I were forced to choose a manuscript tradition, due to my appreciation for Orthodoxy, I'd go with the Majority (Byzantine) Text. However, I do also think there is a very real way of doing academic studies in textual criticism while also holding to Divine Providence, so I'm not anti-textual criticism. For example, was the story of the woman caught in adultery originally written by John and included in his gospel? Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't. Textual critics say that it was not. But a doctrine of Providence doesn't need to have John be the author and for that passage to originate in the gospel of John in order for it to be true, even "inspired," and included by the Spirit for the building up of the Body.
Anyway, there's a snippet of my two cents. I'm no textual critic, nor am I an academic. This is me dipping my toes in the water. So take what I'm saying with a grain of salt.