Print Editions and Online Editions of the Novum Testamentum Graece Facing New Challenges


Print editions and online editions have competed with each other for some years. Different types of editing can have advantages for different sections of readers. A text without an apparatus, an apparatus without a text, there are valid reasons, why one is more useful than the other in any given case. But it is necessary for an editor to collect and to present variants. If it is an online edition, hyperlinks may be inserted for various groups of readers. And the editor has a duty to do this. In the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland, for example, photos and transcripts of ancient witnesses can be retrieved from the online text. Parts of the text can be cut out to be inserted into a different context.

1 An Online Edition of the NT Graece Faces New Challenges

For years theological publishers have offered online access to journals and even to their whole publishing programme. On receipt of the annual payment, subscribers to the Theologische Literaturzeitung receive a code through the post by means of which they can obtain access to all articles and reviews for the years 1996 to 2013. 1 In addition it is possible to search through the indexes for the volumes 1876 to 1995. 2 Similarly an important reviewing tool does not appear in print but only as an online journal: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. 3 The first online edition of the Greek New Testament edited with a critical text appeared in 2010. This edition was presented as SBLGNT: Society of Biblical Literature Greek New Testament. 4 At the same time its text was offered as a printed edition. It was edited by Michael W. Holmes together with Rick Brannan. This edition, according to the editors, was intended to serve practical purposes, but would also suit the requirements of critical analysis. In more than 540 units of variation the text differs from the widely-used text of Nestle-Aland. 5 The text also differs frequently from the textual decisions found in the


Editio Critica Maior of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster. 6 The textual apparatus names neither Greek nor Latin witnesses, or other ancient translations, does not quote Fathers nor early lectionaries. It does not mention known corruptions and abstains from emending or from recommending emendation, even where emendations have been accepted into modern Bible translations. 7 In a Panel Review Session which took place in San Francisco in 2011 and which was later published, the editor explained in detail the considerations which determined the form of the apparatus. 8 Instead of witnesses, the text-critical decisions from four seminal editions are named throughout. 9 Here the marginal readings are considered, if believed by editors to be equally valid alternatives. Occasionally the edition is alone with its decisions, and this deserves full recognition. In Matthew 6:25 Holmes substitutes the reading om. ἢ τί πίητε,


in Matthew 27:15 and 16 Ἰησοῦν Βαραββᾶν and Ἰησοῦν τὸν Βαραββᾶν , in John 1:34 the reading ὁ ἐκλεκτός , in Hebr 2:9 χωρίς , in Hebr 3:2 the variant om. ὅλῳ , in Hebr 3:6 the reading ὅς οἶκος , in Hebr 4:3 om. τήν , in Hebr 11:39 om. οὗτοι , in Hebr 12:27 om. τήν 10. I am prepared to approve of all of these decisions. In addition, text and notes were supplied with an „Extensible Markup Language“, so that a reader is able to mark words or parts of the text, to cut out text or to make notes in the margins. 11 Readers are requested to add their name when they add marginal notes. The entire text can be obtained free of charge from the internet as a pdf-file.

2 The Nestle-Aland Online Faces the Challenge of the Internet

The Nestle-Aland is also available from the 28th edition onwards both in a print and an internet version. 12 The print edition is presented with an impressive richness. This applies to the critical apparatus as much as to the additional information in the margins, and for the 4 appendices (I Codices Graeci et Latini, II Variae lectiones minores, III Loci citati vel allegati, IV Signa et abbreviationes). The detailed introduction in English and German shows to what a great extent many specialists have collaborated: In the examination of the Coptic versions of the Gospel of John, in the examination of the Latin, Coptic, and Syriac notations in the area of the Catholic Letters, and in the documentation of the patristic quotations in the area of the Catholic Letters. 13 The most important innovation in this edition is that it includes the progress of the Editio Critica Maior in its research on the Catholic Epistles. In this part of the New Testament the text of the ECM2 is offered


together with a large number of variants, while the rest of the text presents the decisions made for the 27th edition. The Nestle-Aland together with a great number of its resources is also available via the internet. 14 The presentation on the website of the Institute is no less impressive than the print edition. 15 The 27th edition can be read online. 16 Access to a text without a textual apparatus is given. Even something one would not advise anyone to do is possible here. Also online access to the most important Coptic manuscripts and to extensive bibliographical data is granted: SMR Datenbank koptischer neutestamentlicher Handschriften (SMR data base for Coptic New Testament manuscripts). 17 Access to numerous transcripts of important witnesses has been available for some time now; the bibliography shows that this file was generated in 2003. If we open the file, we find on request positive witnesses together with a list of witnesses unable to give testimony. We can work our way through the text either verse by verse or word by word. 18 We can obtain either complete transcripts of the manuscripts we have accessed or careful descriptions regarding the verses covered by the specific fragment, and, additionally, numerous bibliographical data. For this file it was deemed necessary to inform the reader which requirements his home computer would have to meet, in order to use the file. Namely, the SBL Greek font, Windows Internet Explorer 5.0 or a later version, Netscape 6.0, Opera 6.0 or the later versions, and for Macintosh at least the version Mac OS X 10.0. The Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster is interested in obtaining the help of external researchers for numerous tasks which are still unfinished. For instance there are transcripts of Greek witnesses still to be made, and, if necessary, suggestions for improvements to be passed on to the Institute. In the journal Early Christianity, the Director of the Institute has already noted the collaboration with the University of Birmingham in the operation of the Virtual Manuscript Room, and thus


encouraged internet users to collaborate. 19 But in the meantime many of the internet addresses given there are out of date. The local-genealogical method, developed by Gerd Mink, can be used to generate probabilities in the assessment of relationships between documents. 20 This, however, is a demanding task, which the file „Genealogical Queries 2.0“ can introduce us to. 21

3 A Challenge from the Local-genealogical Method of Gerd Mink

Gerd Mink’s „Coherence Based Genealogical Method“ (CBGM) contributed in a definitive way to the completion of the Editio Critica Maior of the Catholic Letters. Numerous transcriptions of witnesses and specific computer programmes were necessary in order to overcome the editorial problems and to produce a justifiable, although hypothetical, basic text. 22 Mink emphasises in his reports that philology and philological methods shape the „iterative“ approach toward clarification of the genealogical relationships between textual witnesses. 23 In this respect his method can only be an addition to traditional philology, because it must contend at the same time with the problem of contamination, as also with the problems of the development of numerous variant readings, and likewise with the enormous loss of ancient witnesses. However, a caveat by Mink should be treated with reservation. Mink argues that work done on the basis of three types of ancient text is in the meantime


out of date. 24 This traditional division of the ancient texts into Alexandrian, „Western“, and Byzantine manuscripts, which has been used for so long, is the basis of the procedures used in the SBL edition. With the aid of these, remarkable text-critical decisions were made. First, Mink’s admittedly complicated techniques must be introduced in brief. These are intended to deal with the effects of early contamination. Mink proceeds on complete transcriptions of selected Greek manuscripts, which are not produced by hand but generated digitally by means of the COLLATE programme. 25 To begin with, computer programmes decide which manuscripts are possibly related to one another. The resulting data do not yet imply genealogical relationship, but serve to establish lists of witnesses dependent on one another. A number of variants show a „textual flow“, sometimes very clearly, sometimes without sufficient clarity. In order to handle such variants in computer programmes, numerical addresses are assigned to each word of the basic text and to each blank, a procedure which ensures the exact placing of all variant readings. Next, each witness receives numerical recognition on the basis of the quality of his transmitted text. By drafting local stemmata and then by drafting stemmata of complete passages a “basic text” is aimed for. A full criticism of this procedure can and will not be given. 26 But in the meantime the results and the collections of the Editio Critica Maior are available. It is possible to examine the text-critical decisions of these volumes cautiously and in a limited fashion. It must be emphasised that, with the completion of this edition in its impressive richness, variants and their witnesses have been listed and arranged with great clarity. Beside the patristic quotations ancient translations are among the witnesses. The editors maintain that in making text-critical decisions it is not possible to claim the same degree of certainty throughout. A system of conspicuous dots in the lines of the edited text - ° - alerts the reader to alternative readings, which from a critical viewpoint are possibly preferable. Similarly the


use of square brackets- [ ] - serves to emphasize this critical position. The 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland uses for this purpose rhombic signals. 27 Beside the new developments in the field of New Testament textual criticism presented here, tried and tested philological approaches continue in use. The careful observation of the procedures of copyists belongs to these. 28

4 The Impact of a “Digital Revolution” on the Interpretation of New Testament Texts

Digital editions of the New Testament open up new possibilities for scientific work on the texts. Further possibilities are becoming available now. In the course of the publication of the Editio Critica Maior much preparatory work was included in the printed volumes, and in particular the result of collations covering test-passages. 29 Also digital editions of manuscripts and of collections of variant readings 30 have been prepared or have already been published. The important Codex Sinaiticus has been available digitally for some time. 31 At present the main focus of work is on the analysis and presentation of the transmission of the Acts of the Apostles as well as on digital materials for the edition of the Gospel of John in the framework of the Editio Critica Maior. 32


5 A Text-critical Comparison of Two Online Editions

Two digital editions of the Greek New Testament are presently available. A comparison of their edited texts will be given in brief. Attention is centred upon the decisive arguments. 33


James 2:4 Here the form of the argument and the specific variation of the testimony support the text of the SBLGNT, at any rate if we give due weight to the Egyptian witnesses. The first edition of the Letter of James in the Editio Critica Maior preferred this version of the text. In the 2nd edition of the ECM the Byzantine witnesses were given greater weight, so that now a different reading was chosen: καὶ οὐ διεκρίθητε ... ; 34

James 2:14 In the Editio Critica Maior τί τὸ ὄϕελος is preferred in 2:14 and in 2:16. Paul uses the expression similarly in the apodosis of a conditional phrase: τί μοι τὸ ὄϕελος (1 Cor 15:32). The majuscules B and C* as also the minuscules 631 1175 L 593 Dam in the Letter of James leave out the article. In such a type of variation this testimony is not sufficient to decide against the large majority of witnesses.

James 4:12 However, the testimony for a νομοθέτης lacking the article is strong: P 74 P 100 01 02 03 025 044 and numerous minuscules. Here we prefer the reading of the SBLGNT.

James 5:4 Bruce M. Metzger adopted the text of B* and א, namely ἀφυστερημένος , and argued in a minority vote for the rare wording which was apparently later replaced by scribes. 35 Walter Bauer had also opted for this reading in his dictionary. So here we should fall in line with the SBLGNT.

1 Peter 1:16 Holmes apparently made a wrong decision here. διότι γέγραπται ἅγιοι ἔσεσθε, ὅτι ἐγὼ ἅγιος is correct.

1 Peter 1:22 The variants reveal that καθαρᾶς should be deleted. Holmes deleted it. Metzger’s Textual Commentary remained undecided and printed the adjective in square brackets: [καθαρᾶς]. The Nestle-Aland printed καθαρᾶς καρδίας and used a rhombus to signal uncertainty as to its status. 36


1 Peter 2:5 The testimony of this unit of variation and the language of the letter support θεῷ without the article. Accordingly the SBLGNT and the 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland omit it. ECM and ECM 2014 offer τῷ θεῷ, and include the article between black dots to signal a possibly preferable alternative.

1 Peter 2:25 The text of this epistle originally had the elision ἀλλ’ , and not ἀλλὰ . Hence the text of the Editio Critica Maior and of the Nestle-Aland is to be preferred.

1 Peter 3:1 γυναῖκες without the article is the better reading and claims the better testimony. We ought to agree with Holmes. Metzgers Textual Commentary stayed undecided and put the article in square brackets: [αἱ]. 37 The ECM put the article between two black dots to signal a possibly preferable alternative.

1 Peter 3:22 The testimony of this unit of variation and the language of the epistle support θεοῦ without the article. Holmes decided accordingly. The Editio Critica Maior printed like Nestle-Aland τοῦ θεοῦ and put the article within black dots.

1 Peter 4:16 ECM 2014 enclosed τῷ μέρει τούτῳ within two black dots, which here signals a factual problem. 38 The alternative τῷ ὀνόματι τούτῳ commands strong external support. The testimony for the former reading is rather strong, but is almost confined to Byzantine witnesses. It is an important issue, whether occasionally Byzantine readings may be accepted. Holmes accepted.

1 Peter 5:9 ἐν τῷ κόσμῳ is to be preferred because of its testimony: P 72 א B . Holmes prints it thus. The second revised printing of the Editio Critica Maior 2014 edited the insertion of the article and its omission both as acceptable alternatives.

1 Peter 5:11 The brief εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας is preferable. Thus the Editio Critica Maior and Metzger’s Textual Commentary. 39 Both editions, however, print as signals a dot or a rhombus.


2 Peter 1:9 Because of the frequency of abstract nouns ending in -μα, it appears that in v. 9 the original reading is ἁμαρτημάτων. But the testimony in this unit of variation speaks against this assumption. The Editio Critica Maior decided accordingly, but admitted uncertainty and for this reason printed between two black dots ἁμαρτιῶν . Nestle-Aland likewise printed ἁμαρτιῶν.

2 Peter 2:6 Here Holmes accepted the convincing text and the stronger testimony: ἀσεβέσιν, so P 72 03 025 and among numerous minuscules 442 1175 1243 1852 sy. The Editio Critica Maior preferred ἀσεβεῖν, printed between dots, Nestle-Aland ἀσεβεῖν . Metzger’s Textual Commentary remained undecided: ἀσεβέ [σ] ιν . 40

2 Peter 2:11 As παρὰ κυρίου has not been preserved firmly, the decision of the SBLGNT is justified. The Editio Critica Maior preferred παρὰ κυρίῳ . So Nestle-Aland, adding a rhombus. Bruce M. Metzger supported the omission of the phrase in his minority vote, but did not argue assuredly. 41

2 Peter 2:19 The Coptic text, among other good witnesses such as P 72 א* B, justifies the omission of the additional καὶ. The Editio Critica Maior decided accordingly, but signalled uncertainty. Nestle-Aland omitted.

2 Peter 2:20 The phrase τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ is found repeatedly in the text of the author (1:11; 3:18). If we accept the pronoun ἡμῶν in the passage 2:20, we have here the comparable passage τοῦ κυρίου καὶ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ. Occasionally words have been lost in the course of transmission as for instance καθῶς καὶ ὁ κύριος ἡμῶν in 1:14 by א . The phrase τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν , as found in 3:15, was transmitted in a defective form by P and, among other minuscules, by 307 1175 1243 sy ph bo ms : τοῦ κυρίου . Here, in the passage 2:20 , the pronoun ἡμῶν is missing in B 88 307 321 453 720 915 918 996 1661 1678 1751 2818 Byz PsOec, which seems to be in conflict with the regular language of the author, but we should not follow these witnesses here. The text of the Editio Critica


Maior is to be preferred, τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν καὶ σωτῆρος Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, even though its text is placed between two black signals. Metzger’s Textual Commentary decided differently. His verdict states ἡμῶν to be an addition. 42

2 Peter 3:6 The context demands the reading of P 69 398 876 945 1067 1175 1729 2652 L 590 vg mss Aug, which must be followed: δι’ ὃν; so Nestle-Aland and Editio Critica Maior 2014. Holmes judged differently.

2 Peter 3:10 As can be gathered from diverse variants, the text has survived only in translations, in particular in the Sahidic: οὐχ εὑρεθήσεται sy ph mss sa cv vid . Nestle-Aland and Editio Critica Maior 2014 printed their texts accordingly. Holmes decided differently. Metzger discussed the numerous variants and gave a list of modern emendations. 43

2 Peter 3:16 The future tense is not really supported by the context. So we should follow with Holmes the simpler and well supported στρεβλοῦσιν.

2 Peter 3:18 In the Festschrift for Heinz Schreckenberg I argued that the Amen should be retained at the end of the Second Letter of Peter. 44 The SBLGNT has also adhered to this text-critical judgement as against the Editio Critica Maior 2014 and Nestle-Aland. Metzger’s Textual Commentary put the Amen in square brackets and expressed „a considerable measure of doubt as to its right to stand in the text.“ 45

1 John 1:7 The testimony for a δέ is very impressive. To its omission testify Ψ, some minuscules, the original hand of the Ancient Latin z*, and in addition manuscripts of the Bohairic translation, Cyrill, and MaxConf. That is not much. And yet the flow of parallel conditional phrases shows that no δέ is needed. A sequence seemingly continuing the text of verse 6, was the cause of the insertion. Nestle-Aland and the Editio Critica Maior were printed correspondingly, but a black signal was also inserted into the ECM 2014.

1 John 2:6 The testimony for leaving out οὕτως is rather weak. B and A are the two


majuscules. But the testimony of the Fathers is clear: Cl Cyr. And again the Itala witness z is among the witnesses. Therefore the οὕτως will have to be deleted, as in Holmes. Metzger’s Textual Commentary remained irresolute: [οὕτως]. 46

1 John 2:16 The SBLGNT prints ἀλλὰ ἐκ τοῦ κόσμου. Yet the author evidently seeks to avoid the hiatus, an endeavour in which he is not always successful. Several times we find ἀλλ’ in his texts (2:7,16,19,19,21,27; 3:18; 4:18; 5:6,19). We cannot rely on the testimony of B and C in such a matter. The ἀλλ’ in the Editio Critica Maior is correct.

1 John 2:29 This καί is superfluous and disrupts the author's measured style. The testimonies of B and Ψ for its omission are strengthened by numerous Byzantine and non-Byzantine minuscules, by translations, and especially by the Itala witnesses. Holmes printed accordingly.

1 John 3:13 The evidence for the omission of καί , namely B A and numerous minuscule manuscripts, is crucially strengthened by the Latin and the entire Coptic transmission. Holmes, together with Metzger’s Textual Commentary remains undecided here: [καί]. 47

1 John 3:19 As in verse 13 the testimony of B A and the Byzantines is strengthened by the Latin and the Coptic transmission, by sy h mss , by the redaction A1 of the Old Georgian, and here by Clement of Alexandria as well. καί should be deleted, as in the SBLGNT.

1 John 3:21 The unclear position of ἡμῶν before καταγινώσκῃ was the reason for additions, but also for the discarding of the pronoun by B. The testimony of C is strengthened by 442 1852 L 596, by Cl lat and Or. The Editio Critica Maior as also Nestle-Aland printed accordingly ἡμῶν μὴ καταγινώσκῃ . Metzger’s Textual Commentary remained undecided: [ἡμῶν]. 48

1 John 5:10 It is not appropriate to print a reflexive αὑτῷ. Holmes does not. Nestle-Aland


does not. The testimony of א Ψ and some of the Byzantines is here not decisive. Accordingly the Editio Critica Maior prints ἐν αὐτῷ . But the Textual Commentary of Metzger decided on ἐν ἑαυτῷ . 49

Jude 15 πᾶσαν ψυχήν, by testimony of P 72 א 1852 sa bo mss sy ph mss , fits the context well. Byzantine and other witnesses accentuate the text and emphasize the element ἀσέβεια . The Editio Critica Maior 2014 offers a completely justifiable text here.

Jude 16 ἑαυτῶν cannot be justified in this sentence. We agree with Holmes.

6 Result of the Comparison

With the publication of two online editions, a new situation has arisen for the user of philologically edited New Testament texts, which affects the practical access to these texts in many ways. In view of this new development an important point may easily be overlooked. Each edition introduces its own approach. It should not be overlooked that the SBLGNT has appeared with a new approach, an approach that led to revised decisions in many places of textual variation. Michael Holmes, the editor, has expressly focussed on a comparison with the Editio Critica Maior. This challenge must be recognised. The Editio Critica Maior likewise presents a new text-critical approach, which undertakes a revaluation of variants by means of sophisticated computer programmes. Moreover this edition expressly emphasizes uncertainty in the evaluation of its results. These points should both be appreciated and ought to be considered. My comparison above of both texts seeks to point out decisive features for future discussion. This comparison also leads to its own provisional result: As the text-critical examination has shown, the use of both editions, insofar as they have edited the same texts, is to be recommended. 50

Back to the Homepage


2 The full access to all volumes of this journal is being prepared at present, see Theologische Literaturzeitung 139 (2014): 146.

3 TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism. Address:


5 Michael W. Holmes, ed., The SBL Greek New Testament: SBL Edition (Atlanta, Georgia: Society of Biblical Literature and Bellingham, Washington: Logos Bible Software, 2010), viii.

6 Holmes (see n. 5), „Appendix: The SBLGNT in comparison to ECM,” 515-516.

7 Holmes (see n. 5), ix-xviii. Suggested emendations are not normally listed. An exception to this rule will be mentioned later. In 2Peter 3:10 a reading accepted into the text of the ECM is quoted in the apparatus by the note em, but is not accepted into the critical text. The ECM relies here on several ancient translations which testify to a negation. Among the rare conjectures in Nestle-Aland, Holmes names in Acts 16:12 πρώτης μερίδος τῆς – an absolutely convincing emendation of Le Clerc, yet he does not accept it into his critical text. The 28th edition of the Nestle-Aland integrated it into the edited text, see Novum Testamentum Graece. Based on the work of Eberhard and Erwin Nestle. Edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger. 28th Revised Edition. Edited by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster, Westphalia under the direction of Holger Strutwolf (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), 435. Cf. Jan Krans, „Conjectural Emendation and the Text of the New Testament,“ in: Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes eds., The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (Leiden/Boston: Brill, 2013), 613-635. A careful discussion of the problems of emending together with a new conjecture is presented by Nathan Thiel, “The Old but New Command in 1 John 2:7-8? A Proposed Emendation,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 19 (2014): 1-13.

8 Michael Holmes, David Parker, Harold Attridge, and Klaus Wachtel, eds., “The SBL Greek New Testament: Papers from the 2011 SBL Panel Review Session,” TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism 17 (2012): 1-24, cf. 1-7. 21-24.

9 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, ed., The Greek New Testament Edited from Ancient Authorities, With Their Various Readings in Full and the Latin Version of Jerome (London: Bagster; Stewart, 1857-1879); Brook Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort, eds., The New Testament in the Original Greek, vol. 1: Text , vol. 2: Introduction [and] Appendix (Cambridge: Macmillan, 1881); Richard J. Goodrich and Albert L. Lukaszewski, eds., A Reader’ s Greek New Testament (Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2003); The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform 2005, compiled and arranged by Maurice A. Robinson and William G. Pierpont (Southborough, Mass: Chilton, 2005).

10 There is good reason to regard the investigations of the classical scholar Günther Zuntz as indispensable, see Günther Zuntz, The Text of the Epistles: A Disquisition upon the Corpus Paulinum. The Schweich Lectures of the British Academy (London: Published for the British Academy by Oxford University Press, 1953); Eberhard Güting, “The methodological contribution of Günther Zuntz to the text of Hebrews,” Novum Testamentum 48 (2006): 359-378.

11 Technical aspects of such work are presented by Fotis Jannidis, „Elektronische Edition,“ in: Rüdiger Nutt-Kofoth and Bodo Plachta, Editionen zu deutschsprachigen Autoren als Spiegel der Editionsgeschichte (2 vols.; Tübingen: Niemeyer, 2005), vol. 2, 457-470, and by David C. Parker, „Through a Screen Darkly: Digital Texts and the New Testament,“ Journal for the Study of the New Testament 25 (2003): 395-411; Reprinted in David C. Parker, Manuscripts, Texts, Theology: Collected Papers 1977-2007 (Arbeiten zur Neutestamentlichen Textforschung. 40; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2009), 287-304.


13 Novum Testamentum Graece. 28th Revised Edition (see n. 7).

14 Several internet ports offer revised versions of the 28th edition. These add lexical, grammatical, and text comparing notes. Upon opening such ports, one is confronted with distinctly economic interests. The materials are offered on DVDs and are meant to promote the sales of further products. The following addresses may by used: or or





19 Holger Strutwolf: „Der ‚New Testament Virtual Manuscript Room’ – eine Online Plattform zum Studium der neutestamentlichen Textüberlieferung,“ Early Christianity 2 (2011): 275-277.

20 Gerd Mink: “Contamination, Coherence and Coincidence in Textual Transmission: The Coherence - Based Genealogical Method (CBGM) as a Complement and Corrective to Existing Approaches,” in: Klaus Wachtel and Michael Holmes, eds., The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (SBL Text-Critical Studies. 8; Atlanta, Society of Biblical Literature, 2011): 141-216.


22 Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland+, Gerd Mink, Holger Strutwolf, Klaus Wachtel (Hrsg.), Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior : Bd. IV Die Katholischen Briefe (2. rev. Aufl., 2. rev. Druck; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014). In the internet Gerd Mink introduces his Coherence Based Genealogical Method“ in detail:

23 Mink (see n. 20), 204: „In the course of a revision it will be checked carefully whether a relationship between variants that appears to be philologically and genealogically plausible, was overlooked or whether a previously favored relationship conflicts with the overall picture. In such cases strong philological reasons will be required to sustain the original assumption.”

24 Mink (see n. 20), 148 Anm. 16: „At any rate we should not try to impose the concept of text-types on evidence that is far too complex to be adequately sorted by it.”

25 As the volumes of the Editio Critica Maior appeared, procedures were developed and, in the course of time, refined. Compare Peter M. Head, “The Editio Critica Maior: An Introduction and Assessment,“ Tyndale Bulletin 61 (2010): 131-152. The software designed by Peter Robinson and named Collate may be accessed at the following port:

26 The Journal TC published a review, see Klaus Wachtel and Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (Text-critical Studies. 8; Atlanta: SBL, 2011), in: TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism (2013).

27 Nestle-Aland, 28th Revised Edition (see n. 7), 54* : „Square brackets in the text ([]) except in the case of the Catholic Letters indicate that textual critics today are not completely convinced of the authenticity of the enclosed words ….. Square brackets always reflect a great degree of difficulty in determining the text.” 55*: "The sign Raute indicates passages where the guiding line is split in the second edition of the ECM, because there are two variants which in the editors’ judgement could equally well be adopted in the reconstructed initial text."

28 Klaus Wachtel and Michael Holmes, eds., The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (Text-critical Studies. 8; Atlanta: SBL, 2011).

29 Kurt Aland, ed., Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung, vols.1-5, 9-11, 16-21, 27-31,35-36; Berlin/New York: de Gruyter, 1987-2005).

30 Among the materials available is a collation of chapter 18 of the Gospel of John which covers 2000 manuscripts, as well as a collation of all majuscule manuscripts of the Gospel of John prepared by the International Greek New Testament Project:

Papyri and minuscule manuscripts have largely been transcribed and may be accessed online:


32 Details concerning the above paragraph may be found in Hugh A. G. Houghton, “Recent Developments in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Early Christianity 2 (2011): 245-258. For additional information see Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes, eds., The Text of the Greek New Testament (see n. 7) and Peter M. Head, “Editio Critica Maior: An Introduction and Assessment,” Tyndale Bulletin 61 (2010): 131-152, cf. 143 n. 23: “K. Wachtel and D. C. Parker, ‘The Joint IGNTP/INTF Editio Critica Maior of the Gospel of John: Its Goals and their Significance for New Testament Scholarship,’ (SNTS 2005 – 1.”

33 Critical reviews: Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland+, Gerd Mink, Klaus Wachtel, eds., Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior. IV. Catholic Letters. Installment 1. James. Part 1: Text; Part 2: Supplementary Material (2nd edn.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1997), Novum Testamentum 40 (1998): 195-204 (J. Keith Elliott), Theologische Literaturzeitung 127 (2002): 297-300 (David C. Parker); David C. Parker, “The Development of the Critical Text of the Epistle of James: From Lachmann to the Editio Critica Maior,” in: A. Denaux, ed., New Testament Textual Criticism and Exegesis: Festschrift J. Delobel (Leuven: University Press and Peeters, 2002), 317-330; Installment 2. The Letters of Peter, Part 1: Text; Part 2: Supplementary Material (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2000), Novum Testamentum 42 (2000): 328-339 (J. Keith Elliott), Theologische Literaturzeitung 127 (2002): 297-300 (David C. Parker); J. Keith Elliott, „The Editio Critica Maior: One Reader’s Reactions,“ in: Wim Weren and Dietrich-Alex Koch , eds., Recent Developments in Textual Criticism: New Testament, Other Early Christian and Jewish Literature (Assen: Royal van Gorkum, 2003): 129-144; Installment 3. The First Letter of John, Part 1: Text; Part 2: Supplementary Material (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2004), Theologische Literaturzeitung 129 (2004): 1068-1071 (J. Keith Elliott); Installment 4. The Second and Third Letter of John. The Letter of Jude. Part 1: Text; Part 2: Supplementary Material (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2005), Theologische Literaturzeitung 131 (2006): 1156-1159 (J. Keith Elliott); Peter M. Head, „Editio Critica Maior: An Introduction and Assessment,” Tyndale Bulletin 61 (2010): 131-152. Novum Testamentum Graecum: Editio Critica Maior . Edited by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster. IV. Catholic Letters. Edited by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland+, Gerd Mink, Holger Strutwolf, Klaus Wachtel. Part 1: Text, Part 2: Supplementary Material (2nd rev. edn.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2013), Theologische Literaturzeitung 138 (2013): 1236-1238 (Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr). Novum Testamentum Graece: Based on the work of Eberhard and Erwin Nestle. Edited by Barbara and Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Carlo M. Martini, Bruce M. Metzger (28th Rev. Edn. Edited by the Institute for New Testament Textual Research, Münster/Westphalia under the direction of Holger Strutwolf; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2012), Theologische Literaturzeitung 138 (2013): 323-325 (Karl-Wilhelm Niebuhr); J. Keith Elliott, “A New Edition of Nestle-Aland, Greek New Testament,” The Journal of Theological Studies N.S. 64 (2013): 48-65; Anthony J. Forte, ”Observations on the 28th Revised Edition of Nestle-Aland’s Novum Testamentum Graece,“ Biblica 94 (2013): 268-292. The Greek New Testament. With Dictionary. Hrsg. vom Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung, Münster (5. rev. Aufl.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2014), Theologische Literaturzeitung 140 (2015): 64-65 (Eberhard Güting).

34 Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior. IV. Catholic Letters. Installment 2. The Letters of Peter. Part 1: Text (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2000), see Part 1, 24* n. 4.

35 Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament: A Companion Volume to the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament – Fourth Revised Edition (Second Edition; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Societies, 1994), 614.

36 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 618.

37 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 620.

38 Gerd Mink, “Problems of a Highly Contaminated Tradition: The New Testament Stemmata of Variants as a Source of a Genealogy for Witnesses,” in: P. van Reenen, A. den Hollander, and M. van Mulken, eds., Studies in Stemmatology II (Amsterdam/Philadelphia: John Benjamins, 2004), 13-85, cf. 43-45.

39 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 628.

40 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 633.

41 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 633.

42 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 635-636.

43 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 636-637.

44 Eberhard Güting, „Amen, Eulogie, Doxologie: Eine textkritische Untersuchung,“ in: Begegnungen zwischen Christentum und Judentum in Antike und Mittelalter. Festschrift für Heinz Schreckenberg, unter Mitarbeit von Karina und Thomas Lehnardt herausgegeben von Dietrich-Alex Koch und Hermannn Lichtenberger (Schriften des Institutum Judaicum Delitzschianum.1; Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1993), 133-162, see 158-159.

45 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 638.

46 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 639-640.

47 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 642-643.

48 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 643-644.

49 Bruce M. Metzger (see n. 35), 649.

50 The text of this essay has been published, see Thomas Bein, ed., Vom Nutzen der Editionen: Beiträge zur Bedeutung moderner Editorik für die Erforschung von Literatur- und Kulturgeschichte (Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015): 47-57.