Critical Editions of the New Testament

Contents: Introduction * Aland: Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum * Bover * Editio Critica Maior * Hodges & Farstad * Huck * IGNTP (International Greek New Testament Project) * Legg * Merk * The "Nestle" text: Nestle editions 1-25 | Nestle-Aland editions 26, 27 | Nestle-Aland edition 28 * Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus * Ropes * Souter * Swanson * Tasker * Tischendorf * United Bible Societies Edition * Vogels * Westcott & Hort
Summary: A Comparison of the Various Editions
Appendix: The Variorum Bible
Appendix: Latin Editions
Appendix: Editions of the LXX


Karl Lachmann (1793-1851) broke with the Textus Receptus in 1831. This, then, was the first "critical edition" of the New Testament -- an edition compiled using specific rules based on the readings of a significant selection of important manuscripts. Since then, many others have appeared. Some of these (Lachmann's own, and that of his younger contemporary Tregelles) are now almost completely obscure. Others -- notably those of Westcott and Hort and the United Bible Societies -- have exercised great influence.

Ideally, a critical edition will include an apparatus supplying information about how the readings were decided upon. There are, however, critical editions (e.g. that of Westcott & Hort) which do not include such information. The list below describes most of the major editions since Tischendorf's vital eighth edition.

Aland: Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum

Editor. Text and apparatus edited by Kurt Aland.

Date of Publication. The first edition appeared in 1963. A revised edition, listed as the fourth, appeared in 1967; another revised edition, the ninth, came out in 1976. The final major revision, the thirteenth, was published in 1985. The first three major editions (officially listed as the first through twelfth) use the same basic arrangement of the text; the revisions took place primarily in the apparatus. The thirteenth edition entirely recast the work; a new text was adopted and a new apparatus created. The structure of the synopsis was unchanged, but otherwise it was an entirely new publication.

The Text. The text of the first twelve editions is essentially that of the early Nestle-Aland editions. With the thirteenth edition, the text was adjusted to match that of the Nestle-Aland 26th edition.

The Aland Synopsis is one of the more substantial now available. All four gospels are presented in full, and there is a complete text of the Gospel of Thomas (in Latin, English, and German; neither Coptic nor Greek texts are offered!). The critical apparatus is also more than usually complete; an apparatus is usually supplied wherever a passage is cited, not just at its "main" appearance -- a substantial advantage. In addition, the apparatus gives a fairly full list of variants -- many more than are found in the equivalent editions of the Nestle-Aland text, and not limited primarily to harmonization variants as in Huck/Greeven. While SQE will not allow the student to completely reconstruct the cited manuscripts (especially the minuscules), it includes enough data to allow a valid comparison of the various text-types. (This cannot be said of NA27!)

The Apparatus For compactness, SQE uses the same set of critical symbols as the Nestle text (for details, see the picture in that article).
Unfortunately, the apparatus does have its drawbacks. (We are now referring specifically to the recent editions, from the thirteenth on.) For one thing, it has a high number of errors (most of them seemingly errors of the press; these are slowly being corrected). The selection of witnesses is also questionable. The Byzantine text of the uncial era, for instance, is represented by four manuscripts, E F G H. All of these, it should be noted, belong to the Kx recension. Thus, although there are more Byzantine witnesses than in the Nestle-Aland edition (which offers only K and Γ), they offer less diversity (of the witnesses in Nestle-Aland, K is a member of Family Π, while Γ is Kx). The new minuscules are also an odd lot. Why would anyone make 1006 (purely Byzantine) an explicitly cited witness, while omitting 1241 (arguably the most Alexandrian minuscule of Luke)? As a final note, we should observe that while SQE cites many member of Family 1 (1 and 209, as well as 205, 1582, 2542 not cited explicitly as members of the family) and Family 13 (13, 69, 346, 543, 788, 983; note that the best family witness, 826, is omitted), it cites them in such a way that the readings of the individual manuscripts can only be determined when the manuscript is cited explicitly (that is, if -- say -- 346 is not cited explicitly on either side of a reading, it may agree either with f13 or 𝔐).
To sum up, SQE is a good synopsis with a useful critical apparatus, but one should take care not to rely upon it too heavily (due both to its inaccuracies and its slightly biased presentation of the evidence).


Editor. Text and apparatus edited by José Maria Bover, S.J.

Date of Publication. The first edition, Novi Testamenti Biblia Graeca et Latina appeared in 1943. The first four editions (1943-1959) are essentially identical; the fifth edition of 1977 and following (revised by José O'Callaghan Martínez) is slightly different, but primarily in the area of the parallel texts.

The Text. The Latin text of Bover, until the fifth edition, is simply the Clementine Vulgate (in the fifth edition the Neo-Vulgate was substituted and a Spanish version added). Thus the Latin text has no critical value (this is true no matter which edition of Bover is used).
The Greek text is somewhat more reputable. It is a fairly typical Twentieth Century product, compiled eclectically but with a clear preference for Alexandrian readings (though not as strong a preference as is found in the Westcott & Hort and United Bible Societies editions). It has been esteemed by some for its balanced critical attitudes; others might view it as having no clear guiding principle.

The Apparatus. In its later editions, Bover's Latin text has no apparatus at all (from the critic's standpoint, there is really no reason for the Latin text to be there; there was a very brief apparatus in the first edition, but too short to be of much use), and even the Greek apparatus is limited. Bover's manuscript data, like that of Merk, comes almost entirely from von Soden. Like Merk, Bover cites a few manuscripts discovered since von Soden's time (papyri up to 𝔓52, including the Beatty papyri; uncials up to 0207; a few of the minuscules up to 2430, plus a modest handful of lectionaries).
In construction Bover's apparatus strongly resembles Merk's, using essentially the same manuscript groupings and much the same set of symbols. (For an example, see the entry on Merk). Bover does mark places where he is unsure of the original text by placing a * by marginal readings which he thinks as good as, or almost as good as, the reading in the text. The most significant difference between Bover and Merk in their presentation of the data, however, is that Bover also lists the readings of the various editions -- T=Tischendorf, S=von Soden, V=Vogels, L=Lagrange (Gospels, Romans, Galatians only), M=Merk, H=Westcott & Hort (h=Hort's margin; (H)=Hort's text against the margin); W=Weiss; J=Jacquier (Acts only), C=Clark (Acts only), A=Allo (1 Cor., Rev. only).
These critical editions also define the apparatus; Bover only offers manuscript information at points where the critical editions disagree. His apparatus is thus much more limited than that of Merk or even Nestle. It also shares the defects one would expect from a work based on von Soden: Many of the collations are inaccurate or imperfectly reported (for details, see the entry on Merk), although Bover claims to have tried to check the readings against Tischendorf and other sources (he said he sometimes worked from the manuscripts themselves, but I didn't see much evidence of this). Bover's transcription of von Soden's symbols is somewhat more careful (and often more explicit) than Merk's, and is therefore perhaps slightly more reliable. It is, however, less full even for the readings it contains -- citing, e.g., fewer fathers (the introduction does not even list the fathers cited!) and fewer versions. And Bover has recast Von Soden's groupings a bit -- instead of having five sets of witnesses (for Gospels, Acts, Paul, Catholics, Apocalypse), he uses the same groupings for Acts, Paul, and Catholics. This is reasonable in one sense -- the groupings for the three are fairly similar -- but it makes it harder to use the apparatus, as one is always having to look up exceptions (e.g. 1739 files with H in Paul, but I in the other two). Also, a warning for those with older eyes: The typeface (at least in some editions) is rather unsuitable for the purpose; the symbols | and ] -- keys to understanding the apparatus -- are almost indistinguishable.

Editio Critica Maior

Editor. Many -- e.g. the volume for James lists Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland (even though he was dead before it was published), Gerd Mink, and Klaus Wachtel. The edition will be published over many years, so there will be many editors before it is done.

Date of Publication. The first volume began appearing in 1997.

The Text. The text is being newly edited, mostly on the basis of the Coherence Based Genealogical Method, despite all the methodological flaws in that instrument. The text is similar to the United Bible Societies text but does have some differences. On the whole, it has probably retreated slightly away from the Westcott & Hort text. The text of the Catholic Epistles has also been adopted by Nestle-Aland edition 28. Münster is of course very proud of its shiny new text; it does not seem to have impressed others nearly as much.

The Apparatus. The apparatus of the ECM is on a completely new model, which makes me think of a cross-breed between Swanson and von Soden. A sample will surely help; this is a reset version of James 1:1 (which has far fewer variants than most verses!)

6 bπατρος και
cκαι πατρος
8-12 bκυριου ιησου
cκυριου ημων ιησου χριστου
dιησου χριστου


26-28 bδιασπορα
cταις διασποραις
30 bfφερη

Jak 1,1

6 aκαι P74. 01. 02. 03. 025. 044. 5. 33. 69. 81. 88. 218. 322. 323. 398. 400. 436. 621. 623. 629. 631. 808. 915. 918. 945. 996. 1067. 11127. 1175. 1241. 1243. 1270. 1297. 1359. 1409. 1448 1490C. 1505. 1524. 1563. 1598. 1609. 1611. 1661. 1678. 1718. 1735. 1739. 1751. 1842. 1852. 1890. 2138. 2298. 2344. 2374. 2464. 2492. 2495. 2523. 2541. 2805. Byz. L:FV. K:SB. S:PH
bπατρος και 206. 429. 522. 614. 630. 1292. 1490*. 1799. 1831. 2080. 2147. 2200. 2412. 2652.
cκαι πατρος 378
-P20. P23. P54. 04. 048. 0166. 0173. 0246. 1066. 1840. 1846. L60. L1126. L1442
8-12 aκυριου ιησου χριστου ...P74V. Cyr. Did. PsOec. Tht.Anc. L:F. K:S. S:PH
bκυριου ιησου 945. 1359. Did.
cκυριου ημων ιησου χριστου L:V. K:B. Ams. Ä
dιησου χριστου 365. 1842. 1850.
-P20. P23. P54. P74. 04. 048. 0166. 0173. 0246. 1066. 1840. 1846. L60. L1126. L1442
26-28 aτη διασπορα ... 456f1. 1718f2. 2674f2.
bδιασπορα 522 K:Smss
cταις διασποραις L921
a/b P74. L:FV. K:SmssB S:PH
-P20. P23, P54. P74. 04. 048. 0166. 0173. 0246. 1066. 1840. 1846. L60. L1126. L1444.
30 aχαιρειν ... L:FVT. K:SB. S:PH
bfφερη L170
-P20. P23. P54. 04. 048. 0166. 0173. 0246. 1066. 1840. 1846. L60. L1126. L1442

This clearly takes a lot of explaining. The top line -- the only part in fully accented Greek -- is relatively straightforward: it's the critical text that the editors propose as the original. The line below that, consisting of numbers (2 4 6 8 10...), has no direct critical significance. It's just a number assigned to each word of the critical text. So Ἰάκωβος is word 2; θεοῦ is word 4; καὶ is word 6.

If you're wondering what happened to all the odd numbers, they refer to the spaces between words. So, e.g., the space between Ἰάκωβος and θεοῦ is item #3. If some manuscripts, for instance, added δε before θεου, then the apparatus would refer to 3, not 2 or 4 or 2-4.

Below that we see the variants themselves, in the Swanson-like format. For example, the first variant is

6 b πατρος και
c και πατρος

This refers to word 6, καὶ. The apparatus means that, instead of καὶ, some texts read πατρος και; others read και πατρος.

Of course, that doesn't tell you which manuscripts have which readings. This is the information found in the apparatus below. The relevant section is the part that reads

6 aκαι P74. 01. 02. 03. 025. 044. 5. 33. 69. 81. 88. 218. 322. 323. 398. 400. 436. 621. 623. 629. 631. 808. 915. 918. 945. 996. 1067. 1127. 1175. 1241. 1243. 1270. 1297. 1359. 1409. 1448 1490C. 1505. 1524. 1563. 1598. 1609. 1611. 1661. 1678. 1718. 1735. 1739. 1751. 1842. 1852. 1890. 2138. 2298. 2344. 2374. 2464. 2492. 2495. 2523. 2541. 2805. Byz. L:FV. K:SB. S:PH
bπατρος και 206. 429. 522. 614. 630. 1292. 1490*. 1799. 1831. 2080. 2147. 2200. 2412. 2652.
cκαι πατρος 378
-P20. P23. P54. 04. 048. 0166. 0173. 0246. 1066. 1840. 1846. L60. L1126. L1442

An interesting feature of the apparatus is the relative lack of formatting. Note that it uses Roman and Greek alphabets, but no font variations -- so, e.g., P20 rather than 𝔓20 and L60 rather than 𝓁60. And you have to know the numbers for the major uncials ℵABCPΨ. (My funny feeling is that the whole thing was set up to be done in HTML, and using the simplest possible coding. Admittedly it has advantages in legibility -- no superscripts in tiny print -- but they could have used, say, 𝓁60 instead of L60 and had the best of both worlds.)

Also note the use of the symbol "C" for a corrector. So 1490C stands for the corrector of 1490, which would be marked either 1490c or 1490** in an earlier edition. The first hand of 1490 is still 1490*, as we see from reading b. If there are multiple correctors, then the corrector number follows the "C" -- so 1490C1 would be the first corrector and 1490C2 the second, although we don't see an example of that notation in this sample; there is an example in 1:20 20↑ a.

Also, you will occasionally see a C followed by an f. This is not Latin confer, i.e. compare, as it would be in any normal context. Instead, it refers to a correction with an orthographic failing. There is more on "f" readings below; the point is that the corrector, rather than the original text, has a reading which you will have to look up in the apparatus of f readings. This is not a common notation, but (e.g.) in James 2:25 34 a 400 has a (Cf2) reading. There are also Vf readings (e.g. in James 2:25 24-26 a 33 has a Vf variant), but that isn't an abused abbreviation for something else....

So the manuscript apparatus tells us that there are three readings (as we could tell from the text lines above). The reading of the text, και, here labelled "a", is supported by the manuscripts P74, 01(=ℵ), 02(=A), 03(=B), 025(=P), 044(=Ψ), 5, and so on through manuscript 2805.

The symbol Byz is used only in cases where all witnesses are cited, and refers to a list of many thoroughly Byzantine witnesses which are being cited in a group (apart from those explicitly cited for another reading). In a strange decision, the text volume of James doesn't tell you which manuscripts constitute Byz; you have to go to the supplementary volume (on which more below) to find out that it consists of (translating into easier-to-understand notation) K, L, 049, 056, 0142, 1, 6, 18, 35, 38, 43, 61, 93, 94, 104, 180, 181, 197, 252, 254, 307, 312, 319, 321, 326, 330, 365, 378, 424, 431, 442, 453, 456, 459, 467, 468, 607, 617, 642, 643, 665, 676, 720, 876, 999, 1251, 1367, 1390, 1501, 1509, 1595, 1729, 1765, 1827, 1832, 1837, 1838, 1840, 1845, 1848, 1850, 1853, 1874, 1875, 1893, 2080, 2180, 2186, 2197, 2242, 2243, 2423, 2494, 2544, 2674, 2718, 2772, 2818, 𝓁60, 𝓁156, 𝓁170, 𝓁422, 𝓁427, 𝓁590, 𝓁593, 𝓁596, 𝓁623, 𝓁884, 𝓁921, 𝓁938, 𝓁1126, 𝓁1141, 𝓁1281, 𝓁1440, 𝓁1441, 𝓁1442, 𝓁2087.

Note that several of the Byz witnesses are cited contrary to Byz: 2080 goes with b, 378 goes with c, 1840 𝓁60 𝓁1126 𝓁1442 are listed with -.

There are no Fathers cited for this particular variant, but many are cited in the work as a whole (although, as is typical of Münster products, it seems to consist almost entirely of Greek and Latin Fathers). There is, however, no list of Fathers cited in the main volume; as with the list of Byzantine witnesses, you have to go to the supplementary volume. I also note the strange fact that the dates of the witnesses are given in Arabic rather than Roman numerals -- e.g. the first entry is "AcacM: Acacius Miletenus (5)" which should be read "Acacius of Miletus (fifth century)" or "Acacius of Miletus (V)." And there are at least some instances where the notation used for citing fathers does not quite match that for ordinary witnesses -- e.g. in James 1:11 32-44↓ a we have HesHv, not HesHV, for an apparent reading of Hesychius of Jerusalem, and at 1:15 10-20↓ a we have Andrv and Polychrv; in 1:15 20↑ a we see AndtT.

There are no major issues with the lectionaries in this variant, other than the use of L rather than the standard 𝓁, but there can be issues when a lectionary contains a passage twice. A (very trivial) example occurs in Jude 6, reading 18 a. Here one passage in L1281=𝓁1281 has αλλα, another αλλ. So αλλα is reported as the reading of L1281/L1, while αλλ is the reading of L1281/L2.

The versional data requires practice to understand. Most versions are cited -- Latin as L, Coptic as K, Syriac as S (in that order -- contrary to the practice in the Nestle editions, Coptic precedes Syriac), Armenian as A, Georgian as G, Old Church Slavonic as Sl, and Ethiopic as Ä. The different versions in a particular language are cited under that language, e.g. K:SB refers to the Sahidic and Bohairic Coptic versions (the former newly examined; the latter taken from Horner; there are also a few citations of K:A, the Akhmimic as edited by Rösch; this may be cited as K:AV where the reading is uncertain). The Syriac for James consists of S:PH, i.e. the Peshitta and Harkleian; for the Harkleian apparatus, HT means the text, HM the margin, and HA is material in asterisks, i.e. what normal critical apparatus would probably mark H**. Other Syriac versions are cited for other books, e.g. S:Ph=Philoxenian for the shorter Catholic Epistles. Of the lesser versions, G is broken out into subgroups (with some inaccuracy of notation; the text on pp. 11-37 of Molitor's edition is called A1 in the introduction but A1 in the citation in James 1:11 30 a); A and Ä are not (although some individual witnesses are cited); Sl has citations from editions, some of which represent manuscripts, but the result probably shouldn't be considered critical.

The real trick, though, is the Latin versions, because the symbols don't refer to manuscripts; they refer to types (although the types often consist of just one manuscript, or none). The types are derived from the types defined in the Beuron Old Latin volumes: ACFGSTV (many of which don't exist for James; the typical citation is just L:FV). V is the Vulgate. Places where the major Vulgate manuscripts are divided may be marked Vmss, but individual manuscripts are not cited, and the claim is made that the "mainstream Vulgate tradition can always be determined" (which makes me wonder if the editors have ever actually looked at the Vulgate tradition). The other types... often don't even exist. F, not to put too fine a point on it, is the Old Latin ff. C is a hypothetical type mined from others. S is the Old Latin l insofar as it exists, plus some Fathers which rarely cite James (which produces some really strange notations, such as that found in 1:19 10-12 d, for which PS-AM fi is cited. This, be it observed, is a citation of a Latin version, even though it looks like a Father, and the "fi" does not mean "failure," as it does elsewhere, but here means that the Libellus fidei. Nowhere that I can find are we told who PS-Am was!). T consists of the Old Latins s w (neither of which exist for James) plus some readings of Vulgate types where they disagree with the majority plus some low-value Fathers (Quodvultdeus, Fulgentius). G is "peculiar" readings of s and w. A is Augustine. Thus the Latin evidence is all indirect; one must use a more reliable source to actually know what any given manuscript says. In particular, one is still stuck needing Wordsworth and White for the Vulgate, and good luck finding a copy! An instance of this is in James 1:18 2 a, where L:V is cited for βουλεθεις without γαρ and L:Vmss for βουλεθεις γαρ. Since the evidence for adding γαρ consists of amiatinus vallicellensis sangallensis Alcuin and most of the late manuscripts, while fuldensis dublinensis harleianusc omit, I certainly don't consider it an open-and-shut case that the original vulgate omitted γαρ!

Note that, although the other versions are often cited from editions rather than manuscripts, the editions of the Vulgate are not cited at all. There is no way to ascertain the Clementine, Sixtine, Stuttgart, or Wordsworth-White reading. Obviously knowing the manuscript readings is more important, overall, than knowing the editions, but this limit leaves users with still more sources that need to be looked up.

Also keep in mind that "L" can have a different meaning depending on whether it is bold or not; L means a lectionary, L is the Latin versions. (Of course, L will always by followed by a lectionary number, while L will have Beuron text-types, so this is unlikely to produce real confusion. K/K and S/S also have different meanings, but they are in different positions as well, so this is genuinely not a problem to my mind.)

Care also needs to be taken with the Fathers. Since many of the Latin types consist only of the readings of Fathers, you'd think that some care would be taken to assure that the Fathers were cited consistently. But they are not. Latin Fathers are cited only where they disagree with their type. Thus you cannot tell, from the ECM, whether a father agrees with the type Beuron associated him with, or whether the father does not testify to the reading; you can only tell where he goes against the type. Thus, in practical terms, you can only tell what a Latin father reads when he is cited explicitly, or when he is the only father associated with a type. In any other situation, you need the Beuron volume.

Below the citation for the main reading a are those for the variants b and c. The apparatus for reading b tells us that, instead of και 206 429 522 614 630 1292 1490* 1799 1831 2080 2147 2200 2412 2652 read πατρος και. The ECM does not group witnesses, but if it did, what this tells us is that one of the two major strands of Family 2138, represented by 206 429 522 614 630 1799 2200 2412 and probably some of the others that I don't know about, reads πατρος και. Since many others of Family 2138 (e.g. 1505 1611 2138 2495) have the reading και without πατρος, there is little doubt (based solely on the external evidence) that πατρος is an addition.

Reading c και πατρος for και, is read only by 378, and shows every evidence of being an error.

The fourth reading, labelled -, is another instance of the ECM ignoring everything that went before and substituting its own notation. The text "- P20. P23. P54. 04. 048. 0166. 0173. 0246. 1066. 1840. 1846. L60. L1126. L1442," i.e. "- 𝔓20 𝔓23 𝔓54 C 048 0166 0173 0246 1066 1840 1846 𝓁60 𝓁1126 𝓁1142," does not mean that the witnesses 𝔓20 etc. omit the reading; it means that they are not extant for the reading. It is obviously good to note which witnesses have lacunae (one of the major defects of all the Nestle editions was their failure to do so), but it would probably have been clearer to say something like defect or illeg.

This point of variation has only three readings, a, b, c, plus the null reading -. Other locations have more. It is rare, but not unknown, to find more variants than there are letters in the alphabet. The inscription of James, for instance, is cited in 36 different forms. So the list of variants for this runs through the Latin alphabet and then repeats with a prime symbol, so a, b, c, d, e, f, ... x, y, z, a', b', c', d', e', f', g', h', i', j'. The inscription for Jude has even more possibilities; it gets all the way to n'. Jude is infamous for variants anyway. Verse 1, reading 26-34 has variants to j; verse 4, variant 48-58, reaches to m; verse 5 12-20 goes all the way to e'; verse 15 20-28 has variants to k; verse 15 20-28 has variants to k; verse 18 8-14 reaches s; verse 23 2-22 reaches p; verse 24 8-14 has a variant k; verse 25 40-52 is another s, and the subscription is also s. The other Catholic Epistles rarely go that far, but at James 2:11 20-28 there are 23 different readings; they are classified as a-n, but could have been listed as a-w. James 5:10 2-16 reaches z, and with four variants that might have been split, it could have reached d'.

The second variant, 8-12 a/b/c/d/-, κυριου ιησου χριστου, shows two new features. One is the use of ... as a symbol for all witnesses not cited for another reading. In other words, it means rell. The notation "V," as in P74V, is another instance of the ECM making a change for the sake of making a change; it means vid. That is, P74V means 𝔓74 vid -- because the extant text of 𝔓74 reads κ̣α̣ι̣ κ̣υ̣ [ιυ] χυ δουλος. So the only part we're sure about is the word χριστου, and we have no confidence at all about ιυ; its presence is inferred only by length. Ideally, the ECM would show just how uncertain this reading is. Note also that the apparatus here lists Ams, i.e. an Armenian manuscript, but it doesn't say which Armenian manuscript.

It should be noted that this "V" notation applies only to Greek manuscripts; as we already saw, for a version or father, the "V" is superscripted. So 03V is the same as Bvid, but there is no notation such as CyrV for a videtur reading of Cyril of Alexandria; this would by CyrV. And a videtur reading of, say Priscillian, would not be Priscvid but rather, because of all the miscellaneous misdirections in the apparatus, L:PV.

The third variant, 26-28 a/b/c/?/⟷/- τη διασπορα, exhibits three more new notations. The variant in the text, τη διασπορα, is supported by ... 456f1. 1718f2. 2674f2. Here again, ... indicates all witnesses not otherwise cited. The interesting and somewhat peculiar notation is the use of "f" after the three minuscule witnesses. This stands for "failures." So 456 has failure 1, 1718 and 2674 have failure 2. This is not very well explained, but the idea seems to be that these are misspellings which presuppose the accepted reading. If you want to know what the error is, though, you have to go to the supplementary volume, because, well, they have to do something to make you buy the supplementary volume. So turning to page B12 of the supplement, we read "1/26‑28 af1 τη διαασπορα ‑ af2 ταις διασπορα." So instead of τη διασπορα 456 reads τη διαασπορα (with a double α); 1718 and 2674 read ταις διασπορα. The unfortunately thing about this is that, while the reading ταις διασπορα might obviously be an error for τη διασπορα, it might also be an error for ταις διασποραις of 𝓁921, so this look-it-up-in-the-other-book notation makes it easy to miss potentially-related readings.

The number of "f" variants of a single reading can at times be quite high. In Jude 8 24-28 we have four different "f" variations on just the a reading (P72f1, 93f2, 1729f3, 1751f4) and another on the c reading.

For the second reading at this point of variation, we again have a version cited for a reading other than that of the text: K:Smss supports reading b. This means that certain Sahidic manuscripts have this reading -- but we don't know which Sahidic manuscripts, or indeed how many Sahidic manuscripts have the reading, except that it is more than one (although there is information in the supplementary volume)-- and we don't know how many Sahidic manuscripts don't have the reading, so we can't tell if this is a rare Sahidic variant or a common one. Below that, we have a reading "?" -- i.e. a reading which is uncertain. The "support" for this reading is L:T, i.e. the Latin type T. Given that T is first, a reconstructed type, and second, a type not constructed from any actual witness, it's little surprise that we don't know what it reads; I'd have filed it under "-" rather than "?" -- but, as you have doubtless figured out by now, my opinion was not asked.

Next below that is the line
⟷a/b P74. L:FV. K:SmssB S:PH
The symbol ⟷ is an important one, because it means "cannot distinguish between." So this notation means that the witnesses cited cannot distinguish between readings a and b. Since the difference between a and b is add/omit τη, it will be evident that the Latins cannot testify, and little surprise that several of the other versions don't testify either. The surprise is 𝔓74. Obviously a Greek witness can convey this variant. So why is it listed here? For that, we need to turn to something that actually shows what 𝔓74 reads. It turns out that, in that manuscript, the variant occurs at the end of a line, with a damaged margin. Line three ends φυλες τες εν... [note the reading τες for ταις, not cited in the ECM]; line four begins with διασπορα. So the word τη might be at the end of line three, but we can't be sure. Thus the ECM is correct that 𝔓74 does not testify to this reading, but it would be nice if it explained why. (A great example of this is in 1:5, at 8 a. 𝔓74 is listed as ⟷ for υμων versus ημων. This reading crosses a line break. The letters μων, which are on the second line, are certain; the first vowel is entirely missing. Some of this information is in the supplementary volume, which has a section "Further information on Greek witnesses (marked ⟷)," but this is simultaneously incomplete and another inconvenience that has no rational purpose except to force you to buy the suppmementary volume.)
Although ⟷ variation units will usually list the readings concerning which they are unable to testify, there are a few exceptional cases. For instance, in James 5:10 2-16, there is a reading
⟷ alle außer/all but b/n/v 048. This means that 048 (which contains only three letters of the reading, υπο at the very beginning of the verse) could have any of the readings except b, n, or v (b and v being readings with lectionary incipits and n having απο... for υπο...). Presumably we may see a few others of these special case explanations in other volumes.

The fourth place of variation, 30 a/bf/-, exhibits another new notation, the use of "f" in a variant label -- in this case, bf φερη L170. That is, for χαιρειν, the reading of all other extant witnesses, 𝓁170 reads φερη. The use of f here indicates that the reading is grammatically unacceptable and cannot be associated with any other reading. To try to explain what that means, if the reading here had been φερειν, it would have been grammatically correct (if really strange), and so would have presumably recorded as variant b without the f notation (I would assume). If it had been a spelling error for χαιρειν, say χαιριν or even χαιρη, it probably would have been filed as error af3 and moved to the supplement. But because it is neither grammatically correct nor an orthographic error for χαιρειν, it is marked as an "f" error. The problem with this notation is, of course, that an f error might be confused with an af error, or with reading f, but it's a helpful notation if one is careful to remember the whole complex ECM system.

Note that one can have an f error that is the only variant reading at a particular point. For example, in James 1:4, we have
16 a ητε ... 400f
That is, every witness here reads ητε except for 400, which has η, a reading which the editors have decided is a clear error for ητε.

Further down in 1:4 we have this:
20-22 a και ολοκληροι ...P74V. 629C. 631f. 1595Z. 2374V. Cyr. (etc.)
So the text reading is found in most of the witnesses, including 𝔓74 vid 629c (631 reads και ολοκληρον) 2374vid. But what about 1595Z? This indicates an alternative to the reading of the text, but it's not clear whether it is a replacement for the text reading (i.e. a correction) or an alternative (a variation or gloss). The alternative here is

b om. 400. 629*V. 1270. 1297. 1595T. 1598. K:Sms
Here, the T after 1595 means the text -- the main body of the manuscript. In other words, 400 629*vid 1270 1297 1595txt 1598 and one Sahidic manuscript omit these words. In 1595, the words were added (although note that the Z notation does not tell us whether they were added between lines or in the margin). But the editors are not clear on whether the words were added as a correction or as an alternate reading, so they mark the words with a Z to say that they were added but the reason for the addition is unclear.

The symbol "om." is used somewhat inconsistently in the fascicles of the ECM. All of them use "om." in the manuscript apparatus to indicate that the cited witnesses omit the whole reading. But the apparatus of variants differs. For instance, in James 1:4, we have this:

καὶ ὁλόκληροι

By comparison, in Jude 10, we have this:


There isn't really much danger of misunderstanding either version, but it is an inconsistency

That's it for variations in this verse, but not for ECM notations. If we continue through the James volume we will occasionally spot others. For instance, in James 1:3, we find a section in the apparatus that reads
2 a γινωσκοντες ...631*f1. 631Cf2
 ao γιγνωσκοντες 2544
Thus every extant witness except 631 and 2544 has γινωσκοντες (although it's interesting to note that there is no list of manuscripts with lacunae). 631 has two different orthographic failures, in first and second hands, using the f notation described above. 2544 is different. It's an "o notation." This is a different sort of orthographic variant than the preceding -- in this case, γν for ν. But this notation is also used for itacisms (e.g. 1:18 ↔︎a/bo), for which surely a separate notation would be helpful!

We should also observe that "o" variants are generally not shown in the apparatus of distinct texts, even when there is a possibility that they might tell us something about the ancestry of the reading. In Jude 7, for example, the ECM follows the large majority of manuscripts in reading Γομορρα. This is reading a. But reading ao, Γομορα, is found in 𝔓72 522 876 1241 1243 1524 1729txt 1751 1832 1852 2186 2344. There are some fairly noteworthy witnesses in that list, yet the variant is not shown below Γομορρα in the text; it is only found in the apparatus of manuscripts. Can we be sure Γομορρα is the original, and if not, what does that tell us? The ECM gives us the data to decide, but its failure to present the variant in the main apparatus could mislead us into thinking that the reading Γομορρα is firm and not examine the matter. (The ECM, as best I can tell, never lists "o" variants in the first apparatus -- note that the reading in James isn't listed either -- but it matters a lot more for variants like the one in Jude where there no readings at all are shown in the first apparatus to point you to the second.)

A curious instance occurs in Jude 14, word 2, προεφητευσεν. Reading ao επροεφητευσεν is supported by 𝔓72 ℵf B*, with all others having the text reading. But B2 has reading ⟷ a/ao. In other words, they aren't clear what B2 reads. This is an instance where the best thing to do might be to print a photograph of the word. C'mon, this is the twenty-first century!

Returning to James, at 1:3, at the point of variation 16-18a κατεργαζεται υπομονην, we have the variant
⟷ a/c L:FV K:S>B
The symbol > means that, for the Sahidic Coptic, you must consult the supplementary volume. This will inform you about the reading of one abberent Coptic manuscript -- with the reading given in Coptic and translated into German and English but not Greek!

1:6 shows an interesting problem of this apparatus: It is very bad at crossing boundaries of variants. At 2 there is a variation: all Greek witnesses except 𝓁921 read αιτειτω; 𝓁921 reads αιτειτε. At 12 there is another point of variation, this time with several readings. Still, the vast majority of manuscripts agree in reading διακρινομενος; 𝓁921, once again alone, reads διακρινομενοι. The two readings of 𝓁921 clearly go together; functionally, they are one variant. But, because there is another variant between 2 and 12, the ECM has to cite this as two separate points of variation with a "cf." to point out the link between the two. (And there are a few cases where two readings coordinate but the cross-references go just one way. An example is Jude 12. There are variations at words 12 and 14. At 14 we have d αυτων (cf. 12bf) 02C, etc. -- but at word 12 we have just bf απαταις 02. 04 etc. Even if one is willing to write off απαταις as simply an error (which, given its support, I would hesitate to do), there is no notice at word 12 that this situation caused a response at word 14 which might affect how we assess this variant.)

The variant 1:6 12 also gives us another notation, in readings a and c. Reading a, διακρινομενος, is attested by most of the tradition: ...P74V 429A 1490C etc. In other words, all the witnesses not cited elsewhere, as well as 𝔓74 vid 1490c, have διακρινομενος. So does the "A" or alternate text of 429. But reading c says that 429T 630 2200 read απιστον οτι ληψεται. The symbol T refers to the text; A refers to a reading in the margin that is clearly an alternative to the reading of the text. In other words, here, 429txt reads απιστον οτι ληψεται along with its fellow member of Family 2138, 630 2200. But 429marg reads, as an alternative, not as a correction, διακρινομενος, the reading found in the large majority of texts.

Thus there are three different notations for alternate readings: "C" stands for a reading that is clearly a correction of the text, "A" stands for a reading that is clearly an alternative to the text, and "Z" stands for a reading which is not necessarily either (the ECM is a little unclear about the definition of "Z" readings; the introduction to James says that a Z is "not clearly either a correction either a correction (C) or an alternate reading (A)," implying that it might be either but we're not sure; the card that accompanies 2 John-Jude says that the reading is "clearly neither a correction (C) nor an alternate reading (A)" -- though there is no explanation of what it is in that case). In all cases, the original text of the manuscript is marked "T." Note in particular the variant at 1:6 14-18, where four different manuscripts -- 38 43 1875 2818 -- have "T" readings, but in 38, the other variant is marked as a "C" while 43 1875 2818 all have "Z" readings.

There are also "K" variants; this refers to a reading in the commentary, once again this coordinates with a "T" reading. This is a rare notation in the Catholic Epistles -- in fact, several books do not appear to have any at all. But it will presumably be more common in the Paul volumes, where 1739 will have many commentary readings.

All these symbols -- T, A, Z, K, C -- can be further marked as "f" readings. I think my favorite example of a reading is at Jude 7 24-28 d -- where the only witnesses supporting the reading are 0142Tf 0142Z and 206S*V!

Note that this constellation of symbols does not include one for supplements. NA27, for instance, says that 1241 in James is a supplement from a hand other than the main hand of the manuscript. The ECM manuscript list does not mention this. This was rectified in the later volumes; in Jude, for instance, we see readings from 206S (e.g. Jude 1 4-8 a), meaning that this is a citation of a supplement to 206. (It appears that the apparatus of James was rather casually planned; they did not consider the need for a supplement symbol, or certain symbols for lectionaries, or "K" readings, all of which were added to the list of symbols later.)

There is also a curious handling of lacunae. In James 1:5, words 16-24 and in 1:13 word 30 through 1:14 word 4, for instance, 629* is listed in the apparatus as having a lacuna -- but the supplementary volume shows it as having text that is illegible. Thus one must be very careful to check on lacunae and supplements and who the scribe is!

James 1:7 2-24 brings us another new set of symbols, the up and down arrows ↑ ↓. This is another way to handle grouped variants, like the "cf." we saw above. The first variant in the verse is
2-24↓ a μη γαρ οιεσθω ο ανθρωπος εκεινος οτι λημψεται τι παρα του κυριου ... Chrys...
where the only variant readings offered are b om. 631 (meaning that 631 omits the words) and the usual list of lacunae. To put it another way, all manuscripts except 631 have these words in some form, but with variations. The ↓ arrow alerts you that you need to check all the variants below which have an upward arrow ↑ to refer to the first variant. In a way, the pair ↑ ↓ are almost like a pair of parentheses: They say that these readings go together in a block.

Note that, in 1:7, there is just one downward arrow ↓, but many upward arrows ↑. So the first variant is
4↑ a γαρ ... Chrys. [etc.]
   b om. 206 1799 [etc.]
   ↑ 631
(plus the usual list of lacunae). So, if we look back to the first variant, the main text of the verse is
μη γαρ οιεσθω ο ανθρωπος εκεινος οτι λημψεται τι παρα του κυριου
Most manuscripts have this reading, and 631 omits the whole passage, as the notation "↑ 631" reminds us. But the Family 1611 witnesses 206 1799 (plus a few versional witnesses) omit γαρ
The next point of variation is
6↑ a οιεσθω ...642f
So, here, instead of the οιεσθω of the text, 642 has an errant reading (which, this being the ECM, you can't learn from the text; you have to go to the supplementary volume).
These two variants are trivial (minor variants with minimal support), but the variants below, 8↑, 14-18↑, 22-24↑ are significant. So this is a notation that it is important to understand.

Observe that there are some variants readings that are ↑↓ readings, that is, they connect with both a point of variation above them and one below; there is one such at James 1:11 34-48. Also, some ↑ variants have a variant symbol associated with them and some do not. So at James 1:7 4↑, reading a has a ↑; below it, 631 is associated with a reading marked ↑ with no associated letter. In the case of 631, this means that you should refer exclusively to the point of variation above and not look for an explanation at this place in the apparatus.

In 1:12, we find a variant
1 a om. ...L:FV. K:SB S:PH
  b αδελφοι (Λ) L1442.
In other words, 𝓁1442 adds αδελφοι at the start of the verse. The notation "(Λ)" tells us that this is derived from the lectionary (αδελφοι is one of the standard lectionary incipits, very common in the Epistles. It is a little strange to see it marked as a reading in a lectionary rather than being treated as simply the opening of a lection). A more normal lectionary reading occurs in 1:19; 2-8 g converts ιστε [±δε] αδελφοι μου αγαπητοι to αδελφοι μου αγαπητου to conform to the lectionary (here again, most of the support for the reading comes from lectionaries, but 1838 also has it.)
It is interesting to note that the only versions cited in 1:12 are the Latin, Coptic, and Syriac, although this is clearly a variation that could be recorded in the other versions. Although the ECM cites the Armenian, Georgian, etc., it still treats them as second class citizens.

There are also a few cases where one wonders about the reconstruction of the versions. For example, in 1:13 24-26 the main reading, supported by all Greek witnesses except 61 and 629, is εστιν κακων. 61 has εστιν των κακων (reading (c); 629 reads κακων εστιν (reading b). As regards the versions, we have
⟷ a/b/c L:FV. K:SB. S:P.
⟷ a/c S:H
We need not doubt that the Coptic and the Peshitta can do little to distinguish these readings, and that even the Harkleian might struggle between εστιν των κακων and εστιν κακων. But the Latin? It read malorum est -- a hint, at least, that the text it translated was κακων εστιν, or at least that 629, which is a Greek/Latin diglot often conformed to the Latin, was here influenced by the Vulgate reading.

We find one more notation in James 2:1120-28, which officially has variants from a to n. However, under variant b we also have bv1, bv2, bv3, bv4, bv5; under d we have dv; under g we have gv, and under i we have iv1, iv2. These grouped variants are the same except for changes of vowels (e.g. ει for η or ι for ει). The editors think these probably represent the same original, but split them off because it is possible that they represent another reading. This notation occurs only a few times; possibly it should have been used more often.

The other volumes of the ECM are similar in format and style, although the witnesses are of course different (e.g. the shorter Catholic Epistles cite the Philoxenian Syriac, S:Ph, instead of the Peshitta). Some of the volumes include errata for others. And, of course, the later volumes have their texts influenced by the Coherence Based Genealogical Method, though it is an open question whether that represents an actual improvement over plain old eclecticism, let alone whether it is better than using an actual rigorous method.

The newer volumes also have a notation for places where the text is considered very uncertain -- the equivalent, more or less, of Westcott and Hort's text and marginal readings. These variants are marked •. An example is in Jude 5. The variant is in the second word of the verse, so I'll cite just the first two words:

2 bαναμνησαι
4 • b ουν
cδ ουν

Note the bullets • around the word δὲ in the main text, and the bullet • in front of ουν in the apparatus. This mean that the editors consider both δε and ουν to be strong candidates for originality.

What is fascinating is the manuscripts with the various readings:

4 a δε ... 424T Cyr. PsOec. L:VT K:S S:HPh
aoδ 61
bουν 04. 044. 6. 323. 1241. 1243. 1501. 1739. 2298. 2492
cδ ουν 424Z
dom. 1881 2186 K:B
b/c L:R
-P74. 025. 0316. 614. 1852. L156

To summarize this using more familiar symbols, the basic variants here are:
δε ℵ A B K 049 33 81 630 1505 1611 2138 2495
ουν C Ψ 6 323 1241 1243 1739 2298 2492
omit 1881

This reading is so minor that it wasn't even listed in UBS4. Essentially, Family 1739 reads ουν (C is a member of Family 1739 in the Catholics, and the reading of 1881 is probably the result of a misunderstood correction); everything else reads δε. No other edition would have considered the reading ουν, but the CBGM gave it enough support that it at least gained consideration in the ECM.

These • readings can be complicated to read in the apparatus. There is a second one in that very verse, Jude 5. The only variation that is marked • is at word 20, Ἰησοῦς in the text but κυριος as the • reading in the margin. However, the apparatus cites a five word text, with 31 different variations (that is, a-e') in their text, υμας απαξ παντα οτι Ιησους. So all of these need to be assessed to decide whether to read Ιησους or κυριος. If I summed this up correctly, here is what I find:

The new Nestle-Aland28 apparatus does not mark this variant as uncertain -- but, in some ways, the Nestle apparatus is more helpful, because it makes it clearer that the only witness which supports the whole text of the ECM (as opposed to this particular one-word set of alternatives) is B. This even though the reading is a change from the UBS3/NA27 text. Also, UBS4 cites several versions not cited by the ECM. (It is a very difficult reading; the original UBS3 committee split three to two on this variant.)

There are a few other notations in the ECM for which I cannot point to an example. "VL" is a reference to the Vetus Latina, i.e. the Old Latin -- even though the Old Latin is usually cited as L:). And "Pr" refers to the Prophetoogion.

It is interesting to compare the information available in the ECM with that available in other editions. Taking again the case of James 1:1:

Since the supplement is an integral part of the package, it's also worth considering the information for which we are referred to the supplement -- and to compare what is given there to what occurs in the auf Papyrus volumes. The supplementary volume has, by my count, 91 different manuscript mentions in chapter 1 of James, of which only nine involve a minuscule or lectionary. The other 82 are all either defects or lack of diacriticals in a papyrus or uncial -- in other words, are available in the auf Papyrus volumes. The lack of diacriticals is to be expected and hardly needs a notation; the defects in the manuscript really should have a symbol in the apparatus. In James at least, more than twenty of the ⟷ readings are listed as "without an accent" or "without a breathing." Given the immense number of notations already created, why not create another notation for the lack of diacritical marks rather than making people read two volumes?

Thus, although the ECM does include information not found in other editions, it still doesn't have all the tools a textual critic might desire, and it's not very easy to use. Even while writing this explanation, which obviously meant working with the ECM a lot, I kept having to go back to the instructions, or comparing the ECM apparatus against other apparatus, to reason out what it was saying. It's too complicated. And if I had to choose between buying the supplementary volume or the equivalent auf Papyrus volume, I'd probably go for the latter.

Hodges & Farstad

Editors. Zane C. Hodges and Arthur L. Farstad

Date of Publication. The first edition, The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, appeared in 1982. A slightly revised second edition appeared in 1985.

The Text. Unlike most critical editions, that of Hodges and Farstad does not attempt to reconstruct the original text on the basis primarily of the earliest manuscripts. Rather, it assumes that the Byzantine Majority text is the original text, and reconstructs this text. For the most part, this is done by "counting noses" -- looking for the reading which has the highest number of supporters (which in the gospels often becomes a matter of printing the reading of Kx). In the Apocalypse and the story of the Adulteress, however, H & F resort in a limited way to stemmatics, meaning that they print a few readings which, although well-supported, are not the majority reading.
It should be noted that Hodges and Farstad did not assemble their text based on manuscript collations; rather, for the most part they simply followed Von Soden's K text and its subgroups (which, in their edition, is denoted 𝔐 when entirely unified and M when a portion of the type defects). Thus the edition may not always represent the actual majority text. Even so, H & F is the only edition of the Byzantine text-form to have an apparatus of any sort. This makes it useful to anyone who wishes to examine the strength and depth of the Byzantine tradition. (The critic does not have to subscribe to the editors' theories to find the edition useful.) The edition also serves as a useful demonstration that the Byzantine text-type, although more united than any other known type, is not the monolithic entity its opponents sometimes make it out to be.

The Apparatus. The H & F text has two apparatus. The first, and more important for the editors' purposes, is the apparatus of variants within the Byzantine tradition. Here the editors list places where the Byzantine tradition divides, even noting some of the strands identified by Von Soden (e.g. H & F's Mr is von Soden's Kr; their Mc is von Soden's Kc, etc.) They also note the variant readings of the Textus Receptus (demonstrating, incidentally, that the TR is a poor representative of the Byzantine type). This first apparatus, which contains relatively few readings, has its variants marked in the text with numbers and has lemmata in the margin.
The second apparatus lists variants between the H & F text and the United Bible Societies edition. A quick sample indicates that these are roughly three times as common as variations within the Byzantine tradition. For these variants the editors use the same symbols (⸂ ⸃ ⸄ ⸅ ⸆ ⸇ ⸉ ⸊ ⸀ ⸁ etc.) as the recent editions of the Nestle-Aland text.
A handful of witnesses -- Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi Rescriptus, and certain papyri -- are noted in both apparatus, but their readings are noted only for variants included for other reasons. The H & F apparatus gives far less information about these manuscripts than even the Nestle apparatus, and cannot be used for textual classification of any specific witness.
Although the apparatus of H & F is very limited, it serves a useful purpose even to those who do not believe in Byzantine priority. It is the only available tool (other than von Soden's cryptic edition) for determining if a reading is the Byzantine reading, a Byzantine reading in cases where that text divides, or entirely non-Byzantine. This can be important when dealing with mixed manuscripts. Also, H & F includes some variants not covered in NA28.


The name "Huck," like the name Nestle, is actually a term for a constellation of editions (in this case, of a gospel synopsis rather than a critical edition), with various editors over the years. The two, in fact, are almost of an age. Albert Huck published his first synopsis in 1892, but this was designed for a particular class and synoptic theory; the third edition of 1906 was the first for general use. With the ninth edition of 1936, the book passed from the hands of Albert Huck to H. Lietzmann and H. G. Opitz. At this time the text was revised (Huck's own editions were based on Tischendorf's text; Lietzmann used a text approximating that of Nestle). The 1981 edition was taken over by H. Greeven, and the arrangement of pericopes significantly altered. Greeven also altered the text, using his own reconstruction rather than any previous edition.

Editors. Albert Huck; later taken over by H. Lietzmann, H. G. Opitz, H. Greeven

Date of Publication. The first edition was published in 1892; a revised third edition came out in 1906, another revision constituted the fourth edition of 1910. The revised ninth edition of Lietzmann-Opitz was published in 1936. Greeven's thirteenth edition appeared in 1981.

The Text. Prior to the appearance of Greeven's edition, Huck could not really be considered in any way a critical edition. Huck used Tischendorf's text, Lietzmann a modification of Nestle's. Neither editor provided a full-fledged critical apparatus. (Lietzmann admitted to having a "limited" apparatus. Not only was the number of variants limited, but fewer than a dozen Greek witnesses were cited, and the data on the versions was much simplified.) The value of Huck, at that time, lay in the arrangement of the parallel gospels (Matthew, Mark, and Luke; John was not included). This, obviously, was sufficient to keep the book in print for nearly a century, but the editions have little value to the textual critic. For this reason, the remainder of this discussion will be devoted to Huck-Greeven, which simultaneously provided a new text (edited by Greeven), a much fuller apparatus (also by Greeven), and a modification of the synopsis itself, including more parallels as well as some portions of the gospel of John.
The text of the Greeven revision is somewhat problematic. Greeven claims that it averages about nine variations per chapter from the UBS/Nestle text. This would be about typical for a modern edition -- if anything, it's at the low end of the scale. The problem is, Greeven gives not a hint of his critical principles. Nor does Greeven give us a list of differences from UBS. Thus it is almost impossible to reconstruct his method. This makes it difficult to know how far to rely upon his text. My impression, in compiling its readings for the list of Most Uncertain Readings, is that, in those readings at least, it inclines very strongly toward the Byzantine text; the result is probably about like von Soden in its "feel," though the rate of actual agreements may not be excessively high (there are a lot of ways to mix a lot of Byzantine readings in with the Alexandrians).
The apparatus is as peculiar as the text. In no sense is it complete; the focus in upon parallels, almost to the exclusion of other variants. It is at first glance an easy apparatus to read; each reading begins with the lemma, followed by its supporters if they are relatively few, then a square bracket ] followed by the alternate readings and their support; different variation units are separated by large spaces and bold vertical lines. Deciphering the list of witnesses is a much different matter. Witnesses are grouped by type (though Greeven denies that his groups have any actual meaning), and cited by group symbols (e.g. λ φ are the Lake and Ferrar groups), and are cited in group order. However, Greeven does not list the order of the witnesses outside the four groups (Alexandrian, Lake, Ferrar, Soden). Nor are the contents of the various fragments listed explicitly. Thus it is almost impossible to be certain which manuscripts are actually cited within the notation Rpl (referring to all uncited uncials and the large majority of minuscules). It is best to trust the apparatus only where it cites a witness explicitly. And even there, it appears that many of the citations are from von Soden.
The citation of the versions, as opposed to the citing of the Greek witnesses, is excellent. All Old Latin witnesses are cited by name, with lacunae indicated. Where the Harklean Syriac attests to multiple readings, Greeven shows the nature of each variant. Where the manuscripts of the various Coptic versions do not show a consensus, Greeven indicates the number on each side of the reading. Unfortunately, the Armenian and Georgian versions are not handled with anything like the same precision, but this is no reason to condemn the edition; most others treat these versions with equal disdain.
The list of Fathers cited is quite full and unusually detailed, listing both the language and the date of the author, and including at least a handful of Syriac, Coptic, and even Arabic sources as well as the Greek and Latin Fathers. A wide variety of Harmonies are also cited (under a symbol which implies they are versions of the Diatessaron, though this is not stated). The introduction gives a good concise description of these harmonies.
Great care must be taken to understand Greeven's apparatus, which is strongly dependent not only on the order of the witnesses, but on the typographic form in which they are presented (e.g. Or does not mean the same thing as Or, even though both refer to Origen).
To sum up, the apparatus of Greeven is very difficult, though it offers a wide variety of useful information, and does not list all the variants one would "expect" to find. Students are therefore advised not to rely solely upon it, but to use at least one other source -- both to get a full list of variants in a particular gospel and to check one's interpretation of the apparatus for the variants it does contain. Greeven can give a sense of the support for a reading. It cannot and does not give specifics capable of being transferred to another apparatus.

IGNTP: The International Greek New Testament Project

Editor. The IGNTP is the successor to Legg, but there is no general editor. The project is overseen by a committee, and even the committee chairs have changed over the years. Contributors to the volumes are listed; for the Lucan volume, if I counted correctly, there are 266! (It is an open question whether this extremely large number of contributors actually improved the volume....) I find it noteworthy that, of the five editors of the United Bible Societies Edition, only Bruce M. Metzger chose to participate.

Date of Publication. An ongoing series. The first volume, Luke 1-12, was published in 1984, with Luke 13-24 following three years later. This edition included all the information -- Greek witnesses, versions, fathers, etc. -- in one place. This plan has now been abandoned, with the volume on John being published in parts -- so far, the papyri and uncials have been done. Thus there is no single volume containing all the witnesses for John. Paul is now underway; the expectation is that the whole project will take about twenty years, following the same format.

The Text. Since Luke, and only Luke, will be published in a single place, the rest of this discussion refers specifically to IGNTP Luke. The text of the Luke volume is the 1873 edition of the Textus Receptus, without intentional alteration. This was deliberately chosen as a text that no one would claim had any critical authority. (This was a major change from Legg, which worked from the best critical edition available, Westcott & Hort's.) The reason for using the Textus Receptus was that it was close to the Byzantine text, so the apparatus would be shorter (since there wouldn't have to be endless lists of Byantine manuscripts which disagreed with the critical text) without either having to determine "the" majority text or (I add somewhat sarcastically) being so close to the Majority text as to let MT advocates nod off and just accept what was printed.

The Apparatus The apparatus is of course the whole point of the IGNTP edition, and it is certainly extensive. For the Lucan volume, I count eight papyri, 62 uncials (although several of these are known to come from the same original copy, a point which the IGNTP does not deign to notice), 128 minuscules (if I counted correctly), 41 lectionaries, 19 individual Old Latin manuscripts, and fifteen other versions (of which only the Georgian is broken out by individual manuscripts).

The apparatus has three parts. First is a list of witnesses, then a list of patristic sources, then the real apparatus, showing the readings of the various manuscripts.

I'm tempted to call these the bad apparatus, the OK apparatus, and the good apparatus, in that order.

The first apparatus: witnesses. The problem with the witness list is the sheer bulk of the IGNTP citation base. With some 250 items cited, obviously the reader needs to know what manuscripts do and don't exist for a particular verse. The list of manuscripts at the beginning does not list this; there is no way to know, for instance, that 𝔓7 has parts of only three verses but that 𝔓45 has parts of all four Gospels and Acts. There is a card listing all the witnesses cited, but that's all it does: list the witnesses. No indication of contents. The only way to learn which manuscripts exist where is to consult the list of defective witnesses, verse by verse! Want to know if, say, minuscule 1079 is complete or fragmentary? Good luck.

Even if you're looking at the witnesses to a particular verse, rather than checking on a particular manuscript, there are difficulties. The problem is that there are two lists of defects for each verse. One, at the start of each chapter, lists witnesses which are defective for the whole chapter. The other, the apparatus associated with each verse, lists the manuscripts which exist for at least part of that chapter but don't exist, or are incomplete for that verse.

Take Luke 1:9 as an example. The list at the beginning of Luke 1 says that the following witnesses lack all of Luke 1: 𝔓3 𝔓7 𝔓45 𝔓69 𝔓75 𝔓82 N Q T 063 070 0102 0108 0113 0115 0117 0124 0139 0147 0171 0181 0182 0190 0191 0196 0202 0239 0250 0253 0265 0266 0267 669 vta2 vti vt λ vts sycur.

Turning to verse 9 in particular, we learn that 𝔓4 𝔓42 G H 0130 0135 0177 174 2322 2399 vtβ EthBodl 41 lack the verse entirely, that F is missing about the first half, and that vta is fragmentary.

Now, first, this omits to mention that 070 0124 0190 0191 0202 are all part of the same manuscript (the one the Alands call 070), so the above list makes it seem as if there are more manuscripts of this book floating around than really exist. But the real difficulty is that the full list of witnesses absent for 1:9 is
𝔓3 𝔓4 𝔓7 𝔓42 𝔓45 𝔓69 𝔓75 𝔓82 (F partial) G H N Q T 063 070+0124+0190+0191+0202 0102 0108 0113 0115 0117 0130 0135 0139 0147 0171 0177 0181 0182 0196 0239 0250 0253 0265 0266 0267 174 669 2322 2399 (vta fragmentary) vta2 vtβ vti vt λ vts sycur EthBodl 41.

But there is no way to learn this without constantly flipping back and forth. And it really wouldn't have taken much more room to list all the manuscripts that were defective for each verse!

The second apparatus: fathers. This apparatus also suffers from an information problem. There is no way to learn, from the IGNTP volume itself, the sigla used! Readers are instead referred to Lampe's Patristic Greek Lexicon, a book that is far too rare and expensive for people to have sitting around on their own bookshelves, and H. J. Frede, Kirchenshriftsteller: Vereichnis und Sigel, plus some lesser works. Fortunately, if you can figure out who is being cited and in what book and edition, the readings of the text are fairly clear. If you can't figure it out, well, at least a subset of the information is included in the third apparatus as well:

The third apparatus: Greek manuscripts and versions. This apparatus finally gets it right. It's straightforward: The lemma (or at least the first and last words) is quoted, then a colon, then the alternate readings and their support. Let's take Luke 1:60 as an example, since its apparatus is relatively sort:

TEXT: και αποκριθεισα η μητηρ αυτου ειπεν, Ουχι, αλλα κληθησεται Ιωαννης.

και: om. Gg (I)       αποκριθεισα: + [αυτοις] Gg       αυτου: om. 713       ειπεν: ελεγεν l70c; + [αυτοις] Sp Dta Dtp Gg (II.III)       ουχι αλλα: om. Chrys       κληθηται ιωαννης: 2, 1 l253 Lvt (c) Et Chrys; [ιωαννης εστι το ονομα αυτου] Am Lc 2, 31 HI Lc       κληθησεται + το ονομα αυτου C* D 213 l211 Lvt (d) Sj (3 mss.) Cb (4 mss.) OS       ιωαννης: ιωανης D 0211 579

So that's eight variants in this verse. (By comparison, NA28 has just one). To interpret these:

There are several things worth noting here. First is how much the whole apparatus is dependent on formatting -- you need to observe the boldface, e.g., to know if something is a version. A second is that there is no marker to show where one unit of variation ends and another begins -- a space, yes, but no other symbol. When a unit spreads across multiple lines, or columns, it can be very hard to know just what you're reading, or where one variant ends and the next begins.

The other thing is the number of variants which are cites based solely on the versions or fathers. As a sample, I took the first 25 verses of Luke 4. In all, I counted 378 points of variation cited for those 25 verses (an average of 15 per verse, which shows how comprehensive the IGNTP apparatus is; that number may be slightly off, because I was skimming the hard-to-read apparatus, but it's close). But, of those 378, fully 115 were cited based solely on versions, or the fathers -- or even the Diatessaron. That's 30.4% of the total. And there were many other instances where there was a variation in the Greek witnesses, but one or more readings were cited which had no Greek support. There was only one verse in the sample (Luke 4:15) where all points of variation involved variation in the Greek. Given that most of the fathers, and several of the versions, were cited from non-critical editions (e.g. the Ethiopic), and others were clearly cited without knowing the genuine habits of the version (e.g. the Old Church Slavonic -- and probably the Armenian and Georgian), I am genuinely bothered by the quality of the versional information.

The bottom line, for me, is that IGNTP Luke is very valuable, but that everything in it needs to be carefully verified.


Editor. Apparatus edited by S. C. E. Legg, A. M.

Date of Publication. The only volumes to appear were those for Matthew and Mark, which were edited in the 1930s (the Markan volume, from 1935, is new enough to include 𝔓45; the last uncial cited is 0188).

The Text. The text is that of Westcott & Hort, printed without deliberate modification.

The Apparatus. Legg's might well be called the last of the old-style critical apparatus, in the style of Wettstein or Tischendorf: it was compiled by one man, and all the text, including the introduction, is in Latin, not English or German (even though Legg was a native speaker of English). Greek manuscripts are referred to by Gregory numbers. All uncials are cited; in Mark, e.g., this includes ℵ A B C D E F G H K L M N P S U V W X Y Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ψ Ω 047 (the Byzantine uncials E F G H K M S U V Y Ω are grouped as ל) and some 28 fragments. Minuscules cited include 1 13 22 28 33 69 118 124 131 157 346 543 565 579 700 892 1071 1071 1582 (plus occasional readings from others as collated by other editors such as Scrivener and von Soden). The only lectionary cited consistently is the fragmentary 𝓁1353. The versions are cited in great detail although generally from printed editions (e.g. Horner for the Coptic, Blake for the Georgian).
Many fathers are cited, but many instances are in a separate apparatus at the bottom of the page. This apparatus is surprisingly short, but where it cites at all, it cites the full context, so that the reader can truly judge if the father agrees with the reading, rather than trusting the editor who cited the passage (a regular complaint against the Nestle editions, e.g.).
Apart from this peculiarity (which on the whole is more helpful than otherwise), the apparatus is easy to read as long as you can understand the Latin. The first two variants in Mark, for instance, are as follows:
1. αρχη του ευαγγελιου: = nil nisi euangelium Sy.hier. | Ιησου Χριστου sine add. ℵ*Θ 28 (om. χριστου*) 255. 1555* Sy.hier. (=praem. domini) Geo.1 Arm. (9 MSS), item. cf. Iren. Orig. Epiph. Tit. Serap. Victorin. Hieron., cf. etiam Scholia in Minuscs. 237. 238. 259: + υιου θεου ℵaBDLW; +υιου του θεου AΓΔΠΣΦל Minusc. rell., item +filii dei it. vg. (etiam praem. domini nostri vg. 3 MSS) Sy.pesh.hl Geo.2 Arm. (ed. cum 3 MSS optim.) Aeth., item xf. Iren. Aug. Amb. Hier. al.; om. etiam Ιησου Χριστου Iren. semel Epiph. uid. infra.
In other words, from Legg's text Αρχη του ευαγγελιου Ιησου Χριστου, the Palestinian Syriac omits Αρχη and perhaps του. Ιησου Χριστου is the reading of ℵ*Θ 28c 255 1555*, plus the Palestinian Syriac, geo1, and nine Armenian manuscripts. 28* omits Χριστου. To this ℵa B D L W add υιου θεου; E F H K M S U V Y Γ Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 1 13 22 33 69 118 124 131 157 346 543 565 579 700 892 1071 1071 1582 have υιου του θεου; the Old Latin and the Vulgate plus many other versions support one or the other of the latter two readings.
Legg has often been accused of being error-prone, and there is certainly some truth in this. But it is interesting to compare the second of these variants with the apparatus of SQE13, Swanson, and UBS4, the three editions which cite the most manuscripts.

Ιησου Χριστουℵ* Θ 28c
255 155*
armmss geo1
ℵ* Θ 28c ℵ* Θ

ℵ* Θ 28c

sypal copsa-ms
arm geo1
Ιησου Χριστου υιου θεουa B D L
it? vg?
c B D L
1 B D L
W 2427
it? vg?
1 B D L
W 2427
it? vg?
Ιησου Χριστου υιου του θεου A E F
f1 f13   22 33
157         565
579     700 892
     1342 1424
it? vg? sypesh,hark
geo2 armmss eth
A E F Gsupp
H K M S U   Y
Γ Δ Π   Φ Ω
f1 f13 2    33
579     700
  Δ         0233
f1 f13      33
        205 565
579     700 892 1006
     1342 1424
it? vg? sypesh,hark
A E F Gsupp
  Δ   Σ
f1 f13      33
    180 205 565
579 597 700 892 1006
1010 1071 1243
1292 1342 1424
it? vg? sypesh,hark
Ιησου Χριστου υιου του κυριου   1241

In this case, at least, we see no disagreements between the various editors about how the manuscripts read. Of course, this is the first substantial variant, so errors would be less likely. But what is noteworthy here is that Legg's list of witnesses is superior to any of the editors who came after him. Swanson has the best list, without question, but he omits 1241 -- and, even worse, he omits 892, which is surely the most important minuscule of Mark!

SQE's list is peculiar indeed. It has most of the important minuscules, but omits 28 (important in Mark if nowhere else) and 1241 (not as good in Mark as in Luke, but certainly not to be ignored). In exchange for these important omissions, we get 205 (which is so close to 209 that its inclusion makes no difference), 1006 (valuable in the Apocalypse but worthless in the gospels), 1506 (valuable in Paul but worthless in the gospels), and 2542 (at best, a weak member of family 1). And SQE has only a handful of Byzantine uncials -- and all of them Kx; there is no representative of Family Π or the M groups. Thus the Byzantine tradition is not adequately covered.

Much the same criticism can be leveled at UBS4. It at least has 1241, as well as 1071, but it omits 28, and 157, and instead gives us 1006 and some other useless items, and like SQE, it doesn't have a sufficient range of Byzantine uncials. Thus Legg still supplies genuinely useful information not available from any other single apparatus (or, in the case of 22 and 157, any apparatus at all). It may be inaccurate, but it remains surprisingly useful.


Editor. Text and apparatus edited by Augustinus Merk, S.J.

Date of Publication. The first edition, Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine, appeared in 1933. The tenth edition, issued nearly four decades after the editor's death, was published in 1984. Overall, however, the changes in the edition, in both text and apparatus, have been minimal.

The Text. Merk's Greek text is a fairly typical mid-Twentieth-Century production, an eclectic edition which however leans strongly toward the Alexandrian text. The Latin text, as one would expect of a Jesuit, is the Clementine Vulgate.

The Apparatus. The significance of Merk lies not in its text but in its apparatus -- by far the fullest of the hand editions, and accompanied by a serviceable critical apparatus of the Vulgate (a noteworthy improvement, in this regard, over the otherwise fairly similar edition of Bover).
Merk's apparatus is largely that of von Soden, translated into Gregory numbers and slightly updated. Merk includes nearly all the variants in von Soden's first two apparatus, and a significant number of those in the third. In addition to the manuscripts cited by von Soden, Merk cites several manuscripts discovered since von Soden's time (papyri up to 𝔓52, including the Beatty papyri; uncials up to 0207; minuscules up to 2430, although all but four minuscules and three lectionaries are taken from von Soden). Merk also cites certain versions and fathers, particularly from the east, not cited in von Soden.
But this strength is also a weakness. Merk's apparatus incorporates all the errors of von Soden (inaccurate collations and unclear citations), and adds errors of its own: his translation of von Soden's apparatus is occasionally inaccurate, plus the edition suffers from a very high number of errors of the press and the like. Merk does not even provide an accurate list of fathers cited in the edition -- e.g. the Beatus of Liébana is cited under the symbol "Be," but the list of Fathers implies that he would be cited as "Beatus." The Venerable Bede, although cited relatively often (as Beda), is not even included in the list of Fathers! The list of such errors could easily be extended (a somewhat more accurate list of fathers cited in Merk is found in the article on the Fathers).
Thus the student is advised to take great care with the Merk. As a list of variants, no portable edition even comes close. Every student should have it. But knowing how far to trust it is another question. The following table shows a test of the Merk apparatus, based on the readings found in the apparatus of UBS4 in three books (Galatians, Philippians, 1 Thessalonians). The first column lists the manuscript, the second the number of readings for which it can be cited, the third the number of places where Merk's apparatus disagrees with the UBS apparatus, and the fourth the percentage of readings where they disagree.

ManuscriptReadingsDisagreementsPercent Disagreement
11755148% (but see below)

(Note: Data for 330 and 462 taken from the collations by Davies.)

We should add one caveat, however: Merk does not list where manuscripts such as 𝔓46, C, and 1175 have lacunae -- in the case of 1175, he cites the manuscript explicitly for certain readings where it does not exist! In addition, it is often impossible to tell the readings of the manuscripts in the bottom parts of his apparatus, as they are cited as part of al or rel pl. Thus the table cites 256 for 59 readings instead of the 63 citations for the Old Uncials because there are four readings where it is simply impossible to know which reading Merk thinks 256 supports.
Still, we see that overall the Merk apparatus is almost absolutely accurate for the Old Uncials (though it sometimes fails to note the distinction between first and later hands). Minuscules vary in reliability, though there are only three -- 263, 330, and 436 (all members of Ia3, which seems to have been a very problematic group) -- where Merk's apparatus is so bad as to be of no use at all. The conclusion is that students should test the apparatus for any given minuscule before trusting it.
The Merk apparatus, adapted as it is from Von Soden, takes getting used to. The apparatus always cites the reading of the text as a lemma, then cites variant(s) from it. Normally witnesses will be cited for only one of the two readings; all uncited witnesses are assumed to support the other reading. To know which witnesses are cited for a particular reading, however, requires constant reference to Merk's list of groups (given in the introduction), as witnesses are cited by position within the groups, and often in a shorthand notation -- e.g. 1s means "1 and the witness immediately following" -- which in the Gospels is 1582; 1ss would mean "1 and the two witnesses immediately following" (1582 and 2193).
Note that "1s" is not the same as "1s." 1s means "1 and all manuscripts which follow to the end of the group." So where 1s means 1 1582, 1s means 1 1582 2193 (keep in mind, however, that if the subgroup is large, not all manuscripts of the group may be intended). 1r has yet another meaning: from 1 to the end of the major group -- in this case, from 1 to 131.
All this is not as bad as it sounds, but the student is probably well-advised to practice it a few times!
Other symbols in Merk's apparatus include >, indicating an omission; |, indicating a part of a versional tradition (or the Greek side of a diglot where the Latin disagrees); "rel" for "all remaining witnesses," etc. Many of the remaining symbols are obvious (e.g. ~ for a change in word order), but the student should be sure to check Merk's introduction in detail, and never assume a symbol means what you think it means!
The example below may make things a little clearer. We begin with the table of witnesess -- in this case for Paul.

H𝔓46 BSCA 1739 424c 1908 33 PΨ 104 326 1175 81 1852(R) HIM(1 2CHb) 048 062(G) 081(2 C) 082(E) 088(1C) 0142 P10·13·15·16·40  |
Ca1D(E)G(F) 917 1836 1898 181 88 915 1912  |
Ca2623 5 1827 1838 467 1873 927 489 2143  |
Ca3920 1835 1845 919 226 547 241 1 460 337 177 1738 321 319 69 462 794 330 999 1319 2127 256 263 38 1311 436 1837 255 642 218  |
Cb1206 429 1831 1758 242 1891 522 2 635 941 1099  |
Cb2440 216 323 2298 1872 1149 491 823 35 336 43  |
Cc11518 1611 1108 2138 1245 2005  |
Cc2257 383 913 378 1610 506 203 221 639 1867 876 385 2147  |
KKL  |

Let us take Romans 2:14 as our example verse. Merk's text of the verse (without accents) reads:
(14)οταν γαρ εθνη τα μη νομον εχοντα φυσει τα του νομου ποιωσιν, ουτοι νομον μη εχοντες εαυτοις εισιν νομος
In the apparatus we have
14 γαρ ] δε G| ar Ωρ| -- i.e. for γαρ, the reading of Merk's text, the Greek side of G (but not the Latin), the Armenian, and part of Origen read δε. All other witnesses support Merk's text.
ποιωσιν B SA-1908 104-1852 Ds 467 1319-38 436 43 Cl Ωρ ] ποιη rel -- i.e. ποιωσιν is supported by B, S (=ℵ), the witnesses from A to 1908 (=A, 1739, 6, possibly 424**, and 1908), the witnesses from 104 to 1852 (=104, 326, 1175, 81, 1852), by D and all other witnesses to the end of its group (=D G 917 1836 1898 181 88 915 1912, with perhaps one or two omitted), by 467, by the witnesses from 1319 to 38 (=1319 2127 256 263 38), by 436, by 43, by Clement, and by Origen. The alternative reading ποιη is supported by all other witnesses -- i.e. by the uncited witnesses in the H group (in this case, P Ψ), by the entire Ca2 group except 467, by the uncited witnesses of Ca3 (=920, 1835, etc.), by all witnesses of the Cb groups except 43, and by all remaining witnesses from 1518 on down to L at the end.
ουτοι] οι τοιουτοι G d t vg Ωρ| -- i.e. for ουτοι G (and its Latin side g), the old latins d t, the vulgate, and part of Origen read οι τοιουτοι. Again, all other witnesses support Merk's text.

The Nestle Text

The history of the "Nestle" text is complex; the text has undergone one major and assorted minor revisions, while the apparatus has been upgraded repeatedly. The sections below outline the history of the early versions of the edition, then proceeds to describe the modern form (Nestle-Aland 27 and its predecessor Nestle-Aland 26).

Nestle Editions 1-25

The first edition of "Nestle" was prepared in 1898 by Eberhard Nestle (1851-1913). It was not really a critical text; Nestle simply compared the current editions of Westcott & Hort, Tischendorf, and Weymouth. The reading found in the majority of these editions became the reading of the text (if the three disagreed, Nestle adopted the middle reading). The apparatus consisted variant readings from the three texts (plus a few variants from Codex Bezae).

The text was slightly revised with the third edition, when the text of Bernhard Weiss was substituted for that of Weymouth. With some further slight revisions, this remained the "Nestle" text through the twenty-fifth edition.

The nature of "Nestle" changed radically with the thirteenth edition of 1927. This edition, under the supervision of Eberhard Nestle's son Erwin Nestle (1883-1972), for the first time fully conformed the text to the majority reading of WH/Tischendorf/Weiss. It also added in the margin the readings of von Soden's text. But most importantly, it included for the first time a true critical apparatus.

Over the following decades the critical apparatus was gradually increased, and was checked against actual manuscripts to a greater extent (much of this was the work of Kurt Aland, whose contributions first began to appear in the twenty-first edition of 1952). More manuscripts were gradually added, and more variants noted. It should be observed, however, that the "Nestle" apparatus remained limited; often no more than five or six manuscripts were noted for each variant (it was exceedingly rare to find more than twelve, and those usually comprehended under a group symbol); most manuscripts were cited only sporadically; the Byzantine text was represented by the Textus Receptus (ℜ) the Egyptian text (ℌ) was cited under an inadequate group symbol. Also, the apparatus included fewer variants than might be hoped -- not only fewer variants than von Soden and Tischendorf (which was to be expected), but also fewer variants than Merk. Even the readings of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, the papyri, and the Textus Receptus were inadequately noted.

In addition, some regard the form of the apparatus as a difficulty. Instead of noting the text of variants in the margin, a series of symbols are inserted in the text. The advantages of this system are brevity (the apparatus is smaller) and also, to an extent, clarity; the scope of variants can be seen in the text. (Though the reason appears to have been rather different: the Nestle apparatus was as it was because the editors continued to use the original plates of the text, meaning that any apparatus had to fit in a fairly small space.)

The illustration below illustrates several of the major features of the Nestle apparatus, along with some explanations. The form of the apparatus resembles that of the twenty-sixth and twenty-seventh editions, but the same symbols are used in all editions. (Note: If you cannot read the symbols clearly, perhaps because you don't have the required unicode fonts, click here for a low-res bitmapped version).

° means that the following word is to be omitted.
⸋...⸌ means that the words between ⸋ and ⸌ are to be omitted
⸆ means that the word(s) in the margin are to be added
⸀ means that the word(s) in the margin are to be substituted for the word in the text.
⸂...⸃ means that the word(s) in the margin are to be substituted for the words in the text
⸉...⸊ means that the order of the words in the text are to be rearranged as described in the margin.

Where a symbol is followed by a dot or a superscript number, it means that there are multiple instance of that sort of variation in the verse, and one is again referred to the appropriate point in the margin. So, for instance, if there are multiple omissions of single words in a verse, the symbols will be °,°1, °2, etc. If there are multiple insertions in the text, the notation will be ⸆, ⸇, ⸆1, ⸆2, and so forth. Multiple substitutions are marked ⸀, ⸁, ⸀1, etc.

An artificially constructed sample of how the above might work is given below. The sample is of the beginning of Matthew 1, but the apparatus, with the exception of the variant in verse 3 which is found in the actual text, is entirely fake, being set up to show how the Nestle apparatus works. The Nestle symbols are shown in red; the uncertain text in blue.

1 Βίβλος γενέσεως Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ υἱοῦ Δαυὶδ υἱοῦ Ἀβραάμ
   2 Ἀβραάμ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰσαάκ, Ἰσαάκ δὲ ἐγέννησεν °τὸν
Ἰακώβ, Ἰακώβ δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Ἰούδαν καὶ τοὺς ἀδελφοὺς
°1αὐτοῦ. 3 Ἰούδας δὲ ἐγέννησεν τὸν Φάρες καὶ τόν Ζάρα

The apparatus would appear as follows:

1 ⸉ B | ⸋ L pc2 ⸂ και Ισαακ א | ° B D al |
°1 B L 892 sa pc ¦  𝔓1 א D W ⨏113 33 𝔐 latt sy •
3 ⸀  Ζαρε 𝔓1 B mae

Here is how this is to be interpreted:

1 ⸉ B indicates that B (only) rearranges the words in the order Χριστου Ιησου | ⸋ L pc indicates that L and a few other, lesser witnesses omit the words υιου Αβρααμ2 ⸂ και Ισαακ א indicates that א (only) reads και Ισαακ for Ισαακ δε | ° B D al indicates that B, D, and a selection of other witnesses omit τον | °1 B L 892 sa pc ¦  𝔓1 א D W ⨏113 33 𝔐 latt sy indicates that B, L, 892, the Sahidic Coptic, and a few lesser witnesses omit αυτου; the word is found in 𝔓1, א, D, W, family 1 (⨏1), family 13 (⨏13), the Majority Text (𝔐) and the witnesses included in it (e.g. K, Γ, Δ, Ψ, 28, 565, 579, 1010, 1424), the entire Latin tradition (latt), and the Syriac tradition (sy). 3 ⸀  Ζαρε 𝔓1 B mae indicates that 𝔓1, B, and the Middle Egyptian Coptic, and those three witnesses only, read Ζαρε for the Ζαρα of the text.

This notation has been preserved in all texts of Nestle, despite occasional complaints. Most of the other problems mentioned above were removed in the completely redone Twenty-sixth edition:

Nestle-Aland Editions 26-27

The twenty-sixth edition of Nestle-Aland, published in 1979, was the first to be produced entirely under the supervision of Kurt Aland. The result was very nearly a new book.

The Text. The text of NA26 is, in all major respects, the same as that of the United Bible Societies Edition, of which Aland was an editor. The only differences lie in matters not directly associated with textual criticism, such as accents, punctuation, and arrangement of paragraphs. The characteristics of the text are described under the section on the UBS edition.

The Apparatus. The apparatus of NA26 is equally radically revised. Instead of the haphazard citation of witnesses found in the earlier editions, a select list of witnesses is cited for all readings. The witnesses cited include all papyri, all early uncials, and a selection of late uncials and minuscules -- usually about twenty witnesses for each reading. The most important of these witnesses, the papyri and the early uncials, are cited explicitly. (In the twenty-seventh edition, certain important minuscules -- 33, 1739, 1881, 2427 -- are elevated to the ranks of the explicitly cited witnesses.) The remaining witnesses, mostly Byzantine or mixed, are cited explicitly only when they differ from the Byzantine text; otherwise they are contained within the Majority Text symbol 𝔐 (that is a Gothic M; your browser may or may not display it correctly). An example of the use of the Majority Text symbol is shown in the example above.

This apparatus offers distinct advantages. It cites many important manuscripts in a minimum of space, and is quite convenient to use once one becomes accustomed to it. In addition, the Nestle-Aland apparatus is probably the most accurate since Tischendorf. The several appendices offer additional useful information, e.g. about the differences between the major twentieth century editions. The margin has a much fuller set of cross-references than most comparable editions, and includes several ancient systems of enumeration.

There are still a few drawbacks. Some witnesses have lacunae which are not noted in the appendix. The reader may therefore assume, falsely, that a witness agrees with the majority text when in fact it is defective. (This was a particular problem in the twenty-sixth edition with 33, which is often illegible. This was solved in the twenty-seventh edition by citing 33 explicitly. However, the even more problematic 1506 is still not cited explicitly. In addition, the Nestle text does not list lacunae precisely; when it says, e.g., that 81 lacks Acts 4:8-7:17, 17:28-23:9, it means that it lacks those verses in their entirety. The verses on the edge of these lacunae -- Acts 4:7, 7:18, 17:27, 23:10 -- will almost certainly be fragmentary, so one cannot trust citations from silence in those verses.)

The set of variants in NA26 is still relatively limited; with minor exceptions, only those variants found in NA25 are cited in NA26. The thorough critic will therefore need to use a fuller edition -- Tischendorf, Von Soden, or Merk -- to examine the full extent of variation in the tradition.

Students are also advised to remember that Nestle-Aland cites only Greek and Latin fathers. The eastern tradition is entirely ignored. Those wishing to know the text of Ephraem, say, will have to turn to another source.

Finally, although it is often said that NA26 and NA27 share the same text, this is not quite true. There were in fact some changes made between the different printings of NA27 -- and at least one was not just a correction of a typographical error, either. The reading is in Romans 16:7, where the un-accented text clearly read ΙΟΥΝΙΑΝ. But whether this is feminine ("Junia") or masculine ("Junias") depends on how it is accented. The earliest manuscripts did not mark accents, but (as far as is known) every later manuscript read Ἰουνίαν, Junia. Nonetheless most post-Hort editors, being sexist males, had accented it as Ἰουνιᾶν, Junias. In the 1998 centennial edition of NA27, someone woke up and smelled the twentieth century and changed it to Ἰουνίαν -- almost certainly the correct reading. However, the point from the student's standpoint is that the different printings of NA27 do not agree (and they don't show that the text was changed). And even NA28 has no notation to let users know that the earlier Nestle editions instead read the completely un-attested Ἰουνιᾶν.

Nestle-Aland Edition 28

The twenty-eighth edition of Nestle-Aland, published in 2012, is clearly an extension of the tradition of the 26th/27th edition, but it was revised by Holger Strutwolf and others; no Nestles or Alands were involved. The text is revised in the Catholic Epistles; the apparatus is revised throughout. There is a new foreword as well, explaining the changes in a very passive-voice sort of way.

In the Catholic Epistles, the text is the entirely new version found in "The" Editio Critica Maior, that is, the major edition released by Institute für Neutestamentliche Textforschung (the fact that they call it "the" major edition perhaps tells you something about the editors and their rather limited acquaintance with the notion of humility).

The apparatus has also been updated, substantially. The fundamental change is that the cited witnesses are now cited in full. There are no constant witnesses of the "second order," that are only cited as part of 𝔐.

The chart below perhaps illustrates this better than an explanation. It shows the text of 1 Corinthians 6:14-16 and the apparatus as it appears in NA25, NA26, NA27, and NA28. Note that the text, including even the critical symbols (⸀ etc.), is the same in all the editions, but the apparatus changes. (The critical symbols are shown in color to make them more obvious.)

[14] ὁ δὲ θεὸς καὶ τὸν κύριον ἤγειρεν καὶ ἡμᾶς ἐξεγερεῖ διὰ τῆς δυνάμεως αὐτοῦ. [15]  οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι τὰ σώματα ὑμῶν μέλη Χριστοῦ ἐστιν; ἄρας οὖν τὰ μέλη τοῦ Χριστοῦ ποιήσω μέλη; μὴ γένοιτο. [16] °ἢ οὐκ οἴδατε ὅτι ὁ κολλώμενος τῆ πόρνῃ ἓν σῶμά ἐστιν; ἔσονται γάρ, φησίν, οἱ δύο εἰς σάρκα μίαν.

NOTE: In NA26-28, the ἢ at the start of verse 16 is in [brackets] as dubious; it is not bracketed in NA25.

The NA25 Apparatus

14 εξηγειρεν 𝔓46c2 B 1739 r t Or; h : εξεγειρει 𝔓11.46* A D 69 pc : txt 𝔓46c1 א C 𝔎 pm vg     15 η G pc  |  ημ- א* A Irarm  |  αρα P al : ἢ αρα G     16 ° 𝔓46 𝔎 Dal Mcion

The NA26 Apparatus

14 εξηγειρεν 𝔓46c2 B 6 1739 it vgmss ¦ εξεγειρει 𝔓11.46* A D P 1241s pc ¦ txt 𝔓46c1 א C Ψ 𝔐 vg syh co; Irlat Tert Epiph Ambst • 15 η F G a; Epiph | ημ- א* A; Epiph | αρα P Ψ 81. 104. 630. 1175. 1241s. 1739v.l. 2495 pm ¦ ἢ αρα F (G) ¦ txt 𝔓46 א A B C D K L 33. 365. 1739*. 1881. 2464 pm lat sy; Epiph • 16 ° 𝔓46 D K L Ψ 6 pm r syh; Tert Spec ¦ txt א A B C F G P 33. 81. 104. 365. 630. 1175. 1241s. 1739. 1881 2464. 2495 pm lat syp; Cl Cyp Lcf Epiph

The NA27 Apparatus

14 εξηγειρεν 𝔓46c2 B 6 1739 pc it vgmss; Irlat v.l. Or1739mg ¦ εξεγειρει 𝔓11.46* A D* P 1241s pc ¦ txt 𝔓46c1 א C D2 Ψ 33. 1881 𝔐 vg syh co; Irlat Tert Meth Ambst • 15 η F G a; Meth | ημ- א* A; Irarm | αρα P Ψ 81. 104. 630. 1175. 1241s 1739c 2495 pm ¦ ἢ αρα F (G) ¦ txt 𝔓46 א A B C D K L 33. 365. 1505. 1739*. 1881. 2464 pm lat sy; Irlat Meth • 16 ° 𝔓46 D K L Ψ 6 pm r syh; Spec ¦ txt א A B C F G P 33. 81. 104. 365. 630. 1175. 1241s. 1505. 1739. 1881 2464 pm lat syp; Cl Cyp Lcf Epiph

The NA28 Apparatus

14 εξηγειρεν 𝔓46c2 B 6 1739 it vgmss; Irlat v.l. Or1739mg ¦ εξεγειρει 𝔓11.46* A D* P 1241 ¦ txt 𝔓46c1 א C D2 K L Ψ 33. 81. 104. 365. 630. 1175. 1505. 1881. 2464 𝔐 vg syh co; Irlat Tert Meth Ambst • 15 η F G ar; Meth | ημ- א* A; Irarm | αρα P Ψ 81. 104. 630. 1175. 1241. 1739c. 2495 pm ¦ η αρα F (G) ¦ txt 𝔓46 א A B C D K L 33. 365. 1505. 1739*. 1881. 2464 pm lat sy; Irlat Meth • 16 ° 𝔓46 D K L Ψ 6 pm r syh; Spec ¦ txt א A B C F G P 33. 81. 104. 365. 630. 1175. 1241. 1505. 1739. 1881. 2464 pm lat syp; Cl Cyp Lcf Epiph

The gain in information between NA25 and NA26 is obvious; in NA25, the only manuscripts whose readings you can reliably infer from the apparatus are 𝔓46 א A B D G, plus C if you can be sure it is legible. In NA26, you can infer the readings of all these plus K L P Ψ 33 81 104 365 630 1175 1241 1739 1881 2464 2495 (the latter replaced by 1505 in NA27). There is also more information about the non-Latin versions and about the Fathers (although it is interesting to see how the readings of the fathers shift over time; note e.g. how Origen is cited in verse 14 in NA25, disappears in the next edition, then reappears; also how Marcion is cited in NA25 for verse 16, but not in the later editions -- a legacy, one suspects, of von Soden).

The down side is, you have to know where there are lacunae in the witnesses to use NA26 and NA27. P has major lacunae; do you have them all in your head? And some of the witnesses -- notably 33 -- have un-acknowledged lacunae, where they are illegible and NA26 gives you no clue. This was addressed in NA27 by citing 33 explicitly, but that didn't address the fundamental problem. This was finally taken care of in NA28 by citing all witnesses.

Except that this doesn't help when the apparatus cites only the variant and not a txt reading. Also, when it/lat are cited, there is no way to know which Old Latins support which reading. And the other down side is that the NA26 apparatus is two and a half times as big as that in NA25, and by the time we get to NA28, it's three times as bulky. The increase in size from NA25 to NA26 is certainly justified. That from NA26 to NA28 is far harder to justify -- all that is needed is to note exactly where witnesses are illegible! If NA29 were to revert to the format of NA26, but note lacunae, then NA29 could add perhaps half a dozen more useful witnesses (e.g. 049 6 256 424 442 2127) at no additional cost in space. The Stuttgart Vulgate and many volumes of the Göttingen Septuagint note lacunae "on the page"; there is no reason why "Nestle" could not follow suit.

Still, there is no question that the apparatus is getting better. And the new apparatus of the Catholic Epistles is especially noteworthy. A comparison of the "constant witnesses " in each will make this clear. (Incomplete manuscripts are shown in brackets.)

MS.Cited in
Cited in
K (*)
L (*)

* NA28 claims to have retained K and L as constant witnesses in the Catholic Epistles, but they do not seem to be cited even when the Byzantine text is divided. Thus, for these witnesses, one must consult NA27 or the ECM or something.

It will be observed that NA28 has dropped several fragmentary uncials -- a sad decision but one that affects the text very little because they are fragmentary. It also drops the Byzantine uncials K L, which is truly unfortunate; no matter how bad one thinks the Byzantine text, one can get a better feeling for it by having some actual manuscript witnesses as well as the "Byz" symbol. We also lose 1505, an important manuscript of Family 2138. It is changes like this that make it almost a rule of the NA editions that for every two steps forward there must be a step back. But in return for this loss we gain a large number of very important minuscules: 5 307 436 442 642 1243 1448 1611 1735 1852 2344 2492. That's twelve manuscripts, of several different types. With these manuscripts added to the apparatus, it appears that we finally have a sufficient set of manuscripts to span the spectrum of text-types -- except the Byzantine text.

Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus

Editor. Volume 1 (Catholic Epistles) edited by K. Junack and W. Grunewald; Volume 2.1 (Romans, Corinthians) edited by K. Junack, E. Güting, U. Nimtz, K. Witte; Volume 2.2 (Galatians-Hebrews) edited by K. Wachtel and K. Witte; additional volumes forthcoming.

Date of Publication. Ongoing. First volume published 1986.

The Text. This is not truly a critical text; in one sense it is not a text at all. A continuous text (that of the United Bible Societies Edition) is printed, but this is followed by continuous texts of the various papyri extant for the particular passage.

The significance of this edition, therefore, is not for its text but for its apparatus, which is the fullest collection of the texts of the papyri and uncials now known, at least for the books for which the Editio Critica Maior has not been published. It is also esteemed as highly accurate.

The apparatus in general falls into three parts: The text (as found in UBS and any extant papyri), the commentary on the papyri (describing their readings as well as information on early editions), and the full apparatus, noting readings of all papyri and uncials extant for this passage.

It should be observed that the edition is not a true collation of the uncials, though it is a full transcription of the papyri. While every significant variant in the uncials is noted, spelling and orthographic variants are not noted, nor peculiar forms used in the manuscripts (e.g. the text does not note places where D/06 confuses the endings -θε and -θαι;).

The apparatus of the Auf Papyrus edition is unusually simple and straightforward. The three basic sections of the apparatus are shown in the sample below -- adapted, obviously, from the apparatus for Philippians 1:1. This is the actual apparatus, save that it has been reset for on-screen clarity and to fit the limits of HTML and unicode, and omits all sections not relevant to Philippians 1:1.

𝔓46 |168,21φιλιππησιου̣ς̣
1,1Παῦλος  καὶ  Τιμόθεος  δοῦλοι  Χριστοῦ  Ιησοῦ The Basic Text:
The UBS reading, with the readings
of 𝔓46 below (in smaller type)
𝔓46 |22παυλο̣ς̣κα̣ι̣τειμοθε̣οςδο̣υ̣[λοιχρυιηυ
𝔓46    ]|23 τ̣ο̣ι̣[ςαγι]ο̣[ι]ς̣ε[ν]..[...].[
1,1     ἐν    Φιλίπποις    σὺν    ἐπισκόποις    καὶ    διακόνοις,

𝔓46  (168,21) Auf den Galaterbrief und die entsprechenden
stichometrischen Angaben folgt die Überschrift zum Phil,
de durch je drei Zierstriche ober- und underhalb
hervorgehoben wird. -Ed. pr.2: ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ,
aber der Schlußsrich des Ϛ ist zu erkennen. (22) Ed.
2: δ[ουλοι]. (23) Keine Lesung in ed. pr.2
 The Commentary, describing the details
of what the papyri read, including comments
on previous editions. Note that, had other
papyri contained this passage, their readings
would also have been discussed under
separate heads

Insc.Προς Φιλιππησιους 𝔓462AB2IKΨ 048vid 049 0142
0150 0151; αρχεται προς Φιλιππηνσιυς D; αρχεται
προς Φιλιππηνσιυς FG; προς Φιλιππισιους επιστολη
075; Παυλου αποστολου επιστολη προς Φιλιππισιους
0278; του αγιου αποστολου Παυλου επιστολε προς
Φιλιππισιους L; του παναγιου αποστολου Παυλου
επιστολε προς Φιλιππισιους P; om. ℵ*B 056
The Apparatus, showing the major
readings of both papyri and uncials.
The section for Philippians 1:1
is exceptional in that it has a part both
for the book title and the text itself. Most
pages will show only one part.

1,1Χριστου Ιησου 𝔓46ℵBDIvid; 2 1 FGKLPΨ 049 056 075 0142
0150 0151 0278; illeg. 048; incert. A | πασιν ... Ιησου2 ]
om. 0151 (homoioteleuton) | συνεπισκόποις B2D2KPvid 075

The first section, at the top of the page, shows the readings of 𝔓46 in detail, setting them off against the UBS text. Note that the apparatus shows even the page layout (e.g. the line ΠΡΟΣ ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ is page 168, line 21. This is shown with the notation "|168,21"). Where the text of the papyrus agrees exactly with the UBS text for a given word, this is noted with the ditto mark („). If there is any difference, or if some of the letters in the papyrus are uncertain or illegible, the word is spelled out, with (as is normal) dots below letters indicating uncertainty and letters in brackets [ ] indicating lacunae. Observe that 𝔓46 is totally defective for the final words of verse 1, and so there is no text cited below the UBS text for that line.

Below the actual text is the discussion, describing the actual readings and the differences between editions. Notice, first, the discussion of order, followed by the discussion of individual lines. So, e.g, we learn that the Kenyon edition (Ed. pr.2) omitted the terminal sigma of ΦΙΛΙΠΠΗΣΙΟΥΣ in the title, as well as the two uncertain vowels of δουλοι in line 22 and all letters in line 23.

Below the discussion of the papyri we see the actual apparatus. This is exceptionally clear and easy to understand. To begin with, it lists all papyri and uncials which contain the passage (though lacunae in the uncials are not noted with the fullness of the papyri). The apparatus is straightforward: Every variant starts with a lemma (the UBS text of the variant in question), along with a list of supporters if appropriate. This is followed by the variant reading(s) with their supporters.

Again, we should note what this edition is not. It is not, despite the very full apparatus (which genuinely invites comparison to Tischendorf, save that it is restricted to readings found in papyri and uncials), a collation. Since the orthographic variants of the uncials are not noted, you cannot use it to reconstruct the actual text of an uncial. And if you wish a collation of a papyrus, you will have to do it yourself. Finally, if you wish to know which corrector of an uncial gave rise to a correction, you may have to refer to another edition.

Despite these drawbacks, Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus is one of the most useful tools available -- the first real step in many years toward a full critical apparatus of the Epistles. It's most unfortunate that it is priced so high; this volume should be on every textual critic's desk, not confined to seminary libraries.


Editor. James Hardy Ropes.

Date of Publication. Volume III of The Beginnings of Christianity: The Acts of the Apostles, edited by F. J. Foakes-Jackson and Kirsopp Lake; although Ropes was entirely responsible for this volume, at least one recent edition does not place his name on the cover! The original was published 1925.

The Text. Unlike most critical editions, Ropes does not print a single text. Rather, it prints two texts on facing pages, one labelled "Codex Vaticanus," the other, "Codex Bezae." To illustrate this, it might be easiest to simply print a sample of the parallel texts. I picked Acts 12:15-20 because it seems to have all the types of variants and, frankly, the spine of my copy of the book, not being well-bound, cracked there. (Apologies for any typos; this was extremely hard to recreate in HTML!)

[12:15] οἱ δὲ πρὸς αὐτὴν εἶπαν· Μαίνῃ. ἡ δὲ διισχυρίζετο οὕτως ἔχειν. οἱ δὲ εἶπαν·, Ὁ ἄγγελός ἐστιν αὐτοῦ. [16] ὁ δὲ Πέτρος ἐπέμενεν κρούων· ἀνοίξαντες δὲ εἶδαν αὐτὸν καὶ ἐξέστησαν. [17] κατασείσας δὲ αὐτοῖς τῇ χειρὶ σειγᾷν διηγήσατο αὐτοῖς πῶς ὁ κύριος αὐτὸν ἐξήγαγεν ἐκ τῆς φυλακῆς, εἶπέν τε· Ἀπαγγείλατε Ἰακώβῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ταῦτα. καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἕτερον τόπον. [18] Γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας ἦν τάραχος οὐκ ὀλίγος ἐν τοῖς στρατιώταις, τί ἄρα ὁ Πέτρος ἐγένετο. [19] Ἡρῴδης δὲ ἐπιζητήσας αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ εὑρών, ἀνακρείνας τοὺς φύλακας ἐκέλευσεν ἀπαχθῆναι, καὶ κατελθὼν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς Καισάρειαν διέτριβεν. [20] Ἦν δὲ θυμομαχῶν Τυρίοις καὶ Σειδωνίοις· ὁμοθυμαδὸν δὲ παρῆσαν πρὸς αὐτὸν, καὶ πείσαντες Βλάστον, τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος τοῦ βασιλέως, ᾐτοῦντο εἰρήνην διὰ τὸ τρέφεσθαι αὐτῶν τὴν χώραν ἀπὸ τῆς βασιλικῆς. [12:15] ο<ἱ> δὲ ἔ[λε]γον αὐτῇ· Μαίνῃ. ἡ δὲ διiσχυρίζετο οὕτως ἔχειν. οἱ δὲ ἔλεγον πρὸς αὐτήν· Τυχὸν ὁ ἄγγελός αὐτοῦ ἐστιν. [16] ὁ δὲ ἐπέμενεν κρούων· ἐνἀνοίξαντες δὲ καὶ ἰδόντες αὐτὸν καὶ ἐξέστησαν. [17] κατασείσας δὲ αὐτοῖς τῇ χειρὶ ἵνα σειγᾴ[σω]σιν εἰσῆλθεν καὶ διηγήσατο αὐτοῖς πῶς ὁ κύριος αὐτὸν ἐξήγαγεν ἐκ τῆς φυλακῆς, εἶπέν δέ· Ἀπαγγείλατε Ἰακώβῳ καὶ τοῖς ἀδελφοῖς ταῦτα. καὶ ἐξελθὼν ἐπορεύθη εἰς ἕτερον τόπον. [18] γενομένης δὲ ἡμέρας ἦν τάραχος ἐν τοῖς στρατιώταις, τί ἄρα ὁ Πέτρος ἐγένετο. [19] Ἡρῴδης δὲ ἐπιζητήσας αὐτὸν καὶ μὴ εὑρών, ἀνακρείνας τοὺς φύλακας ἐκέλευσεν ἀπ[ο]κ[τ]ανθῆναι, καὶ κατελθὼν ἀπὸ τῆς Ἰουδαίας εἰς Καισάρειαν διέτριβεν. [20] Ἦν δὲ θυμομαχῶν Τυρίοις καὶ ειδωνίοις· οἱ δὲ ὁμοθυμαδὸν ἐξ ἀμφοτέρον τῶν πόλεων παρῆσαν πρὸς τὸν βασιλέα αὐτὸν, καὶ πείσαντες Βλάστον τὸν ἐπὶ τοῦ κοιτῶνος αὐτοῦ ᾐτοῦντο εἰρήνην διὰ τὸ τρέφεσθαι τὴν χώρας αὐτῶν ἐκ τῆς βασιλικῆς.
15 διεσχθριζετο
Editors15 ειπαν 20 ] ελεγον WH Soden JHR  ειπαν WHmarg      αυτου εστιν Soden d 15 ad illi ad eam dixerunt insanis ad illa vero perseverabat ita esse qui autem dixerunt ad eam forsitam angelus ejus est  16 ipse vero perseverabat ita esse qui autem dixerunt ad eam forsitam angelus ejus est  17 cumque significasset eis de manu ut silerent introienseterrabit eis quamadmodum dnm eum liveravit de carcere dixit autem renuntiate jacobo et fratribus haec et egressus abiit in alium  18 facto autem die erat turbatio in militibus quid petrus factus esset  19 herodes vero cum iriquisisset eum et non invenisse interrogatione habita vigiles jussit obduci et cum descendisset a judaea in caesaraem demorabatur  20 erat enim animus inpugnans tyrios et sidonios unanimitur autem ab invice civitates venerunt ad regem et cum suasissent blasto qui a cubiculo erat postulabant pacem propter ne alienarentur regiones eorum de regno
Old Uncial15 ειπαν 20 B  ελεγον ℵA 81(+D)     ο BAℵc 81(+D)  om ℵ     εστιν αυτου BℵA  αυτου εστιν ℵc 81(+D)     17 κατασείσας δὲ αὐτοῖς Bℵ81(+D)  κατασεισαντος δε αυτου A     αυτοις 20 B(+D)  om ℵA 81     ο κυριος αυτον εξηγαγεν Bℵ(+D)  αυτον ο κυριος εξηγαγεν A  ο κυριος εξηγαγεν αυτον 81     19 δε Bℵ 81(+D)  τε A     διετρειβεν Bℵ 81(+D)  διετριψεν A1     20 ητουντοBℵ 81(+D)  ητησαντο A
Antiochian15 ειπαν 20 ] ελεγον HLPSϛ(+D)     αυτου εστιν HLPSϛ(+D)     17 τε ] δε HLPϛ(S def.)(+D)     19 την καισαρειαν HLPSϛ     20 ην δε  +ο ηρωδης HLPSϛ Harclean17 εισηλθεν και διηγησατο αυτοις ] ※ ingressus est et narravit iis ⸔
20 εξ αμφοτερων των πολεων ] ※ ex ambibus civitatibus ⸔
18 ουκ ολιγος is omitted by D d 142 perp gig Lucifer, and may be an addition to the original text.

It all reminds me somewhat of a gospel parallels: Two different versions of related texts, with apparatus for each. On the left-hand side of each page is the text of Codex Vaticanus, with modern orthography but the text edited in only the most minimal way, to correct obvious errors. Facing it on the right-hand side is the text of Codex Bezae, given similar orthographic treatment but the same hands-off approach to the text itself. Where Codex Bezae fails, Ropes does not print a Western text but just offers variants that might be "Western." So, for instance, p. 230 prints Vaticanus's text of Acts 25:12-21. On p. 231, which faces this, Ropes merely prints
16  ἄνθρωπον ] + εἰς ἀπώλειαν HLPS
19  ἔφασκεν ] ἔλεγεν 614 1518 minn

Below the two texts we see six apparatus -- sometimes more. Those on the Bezan pages are more straightforward: They consist of other allegedly-"Western" witnesses. On the sample page, the top one is just commentary on Bezae itself -- marginal readings, corrections, places where the text is uncertain. This is relatively minor. The main apparatus is the Old Latin d, but the Old Latin h is also given where it exists; like d, it is printed in complete form. Where a church father has an extensive quotation, that will also be quoted. There are long quotations from Augustine, Cyprian, Irenaeus, and Tertullian at one place or another.

Below this is the apparatus for the Harkleian Syriac. It will be noted that this is not printed in its fullness, either in Syriac, Greek, or Latin. Rather, its readings that are, or might be, "Western" are cited. In this sample, the variants are all enclosed in ※ ⸔, but the margin is also quoted, with the text rendered into Latin. (The text is rendered in Greek; there is no Syriac. It is a peculiar way to run an apparatus!) The Harkleian is consistently the last item on the Bezan side of the page.

On the Vaticanus side, there are always three apparatus: Editors, Old Uncial, Antiochian. The Editors apparatus cites places where different editions disagree with the Vaticanus text -- but only two editions are cited: Westcott and Hort (WH; as you can see, both text and margin are cited) and von Soden. No Tischendorf, no Weiss -- nothing else. Ropes does cite cases where he would print a different text (cited as JHR) -- but keep in mind that Ropes is not proposing a complete text. The readings marked "JHR" are just a set of proposed readings. If JHR is not cited, you don't really know what Ropes would print as a text if you forced him to print a text.

Below this is the "Old Uncial" section. This is obviously a bit of a misnomer, because while Ropes cites ℵ A B (and C where it exists), he also throws in 81, which isn't an uncial although it is significantly Alexandrian. You'll note that Ropes also tells us which of the Alexandrians agree with D (if any of them do). A few fragments are also cited where extant (e.g. 057 096, plus 𝔓8 as Pap8)

Below this, Ropes gives a selection of Byzantine ("Antiochian") witnesses: H L P S(=049) and the Textus Receptus (ϛ). His introduction goes into some detail about von Soden's subgroups of the K text, but Ropes does not bother with them except in very special cases.

Thus the regular witnesses cited by Ropes are just ℵ A B C D K L P 049 81 -- ten in all, several of them far from complete. Obviously sorely lacking from that list are, among others, 33 and 1739, as well as family 2138 (except as represented by the Harkleian, or as cited after D fails). There really aren't enough witnesses to properly reconstruct the text either of Acts as a whole (assuming you believe that possible) or even of the Alexandrian or Byzantine texts of Acts.

At the bottom, running across both pages, is a textual commentary, which is perhaps the most valuable part of the whole book. In our six-verse section there is only one comment, but note that that one comment cites three witnesses and a father (the minuscule 142, the Latins perp gig, and Lucifer) who are not cited in any of the other apparatus. The textual commentary often cites additional witnesses, e.g. on verse 12 Ropes cites 614; on verse 14 he cites E 1518 e pesh; on verse 23 he cites Ephraem, on verse 24 he has several notes which between them cite E 181 614 1898 e gig perp vg pesh sa bo. The notes don't really make the critical apparatus adequate (remember, no 33 or 1739 -- the latter isn't even in his list of manuscripts -- and family 2138 is represented mostly by 614 and occasionally 1518), but they give a better sense of the support of the important variants.

It doesn't seem as if Ropes even has a theory of the text; he quotes a lot of earlier authorities about the Old Uncials (including E, even though he doesn't cite it), but adds little of his own. And, as we've said, he doesn't reconstruct the text.

Ropes has various items of textual interest apart from his actual text and apparatus. The introduction includes discussion of the major manuscripts (ℵABCD; also E, even though Ropes rarely cites it). The section on the versions includes even such late and secondary versions as the German and the Provençal, although the Latins and the Harklean get most of the text.

At the end is a complete transcription of what Ropes calls Papyrus Wess237; this is now filed as 𝔓41. Other appendices look at the versions: Appendix II looks at the Vulgate at points of variation, and classifies it as agreeing with B (this is implicit rather than explicit), with ℵAC81 as individuals, with the Byzantine text collectively, with D, and sometimes with other witnesses, e.g. 614 or Ψ. Ropes does not really classify the Vulgate text, but it gives you the chance to look up what it says. Appendix III treats the Peshitta the same way (though based on a non-critical edition). Appendix IV treats the Sahidic, although this is naturally much more complicated due to its fragmentary state. Appendix V is about the Bohairic, and it includes an examination of the 11 manuscripts cited by Horner for Acts. Appendix VI is a translation and examination of (the Armenian version of) Ephraem's commentary by Conybeare; given the Nestle apparatus's complete omission of Fathers in languages other than Greek and Latin, this is probably one of the most useful parts of the book for today's scholars.

It is a curiosity that Ropes, having gone to all that work to examine these versions, didn't cite the results in the main apparatus.


Editor. Critical apparatus by Alexander Souter; the text itself is considered to be that underlying the English Revised Version of 1881.

Date of Publication. The first edition, Novvm Testamentvm Graece, appeared in 1910. A revised edition (offering, e.g., the evidence of the Beatty papyri) was released in 1947.

The Text. The text of Souter is that of Archdeacon Edwin Palmer, and is considered to be the Greek text underlying the English Revised Version. This produced a rather curious edition. To begin with, the scholars responsible for the RV were mandated to make the fewest possible changes in the text of the King James Version. It was decided that changes in the text could only be made by a two-thirds majority of the committee.
What is more, the committee had a rather haphazard method for determining the original text, allowing Hort (who generally favoured the Alexandrian text) and Scrivener (who preferred a more Byzantine text) to state their cases, then choosing between the two. The result is a text which frequently follows Hort, but sporadically adopts Byzantine readings as well.
Palmer's method exacerbated this problem. Since he wished to keep the text as close as possible to the KJV and the Textus Receptus, he made only the minimal number of revisions to the Greek text. Thus the text of Souter always follows the TR at points of variation which cannot be rendered in English, while more often than not following the text of Westcott & Hort at points where the variation affects the sense of the passage.
At least, this is what commentaries on the edition say. Interestingly, Souter's introduction does not mention Palmer. Even more interesting, a check reveals that the text of the Apocalypse was not prepared by this method; it regularly goes against the TR in variants which have no significance in English. I do not know the source of Souter's text of that book. Mark's text also has many agreements with Westcott and Hort where a TR reading would be expected, though here it is less consistent. One suspects that Palmer was not very careful in this book.
Still, that leaves perhaps 25 books largely based on the Textus Receptus. For this reason, critical editors rarely pay much attention to the text of Souter. The apparatus is another matter.

The Apparatus. Souter's apparatus lists only a limited number of variants (perhaps a third the number found in Nestle-Aland). The apparatus is, however, exceptionally clear and easy to use (which is fortunate, since the introduction consists of a mere two and a half pages, in Latin). The reading of the text is given, usually followed by its support (in the order papyri, uncials, minuscules, version, fathers; Souter does not classify witnesses into types). The variant readings and their support follow (in some readings where the variant is thinly supported, the evidence for the text is not listed).
A noteworthy feature of Souter's apparatus is the degree of detail it gives about the Fathers. These are cited in careful and specific detail. This is one of the best features of Souter's edition.
The revised edition of Souter cites papyri through 𝔓48, uncials through 0170, minuscules through 2322, a full list of versions (including Armenian, Gothic, Georgian, and Ethiopic), and nearly two hundred fathers of all eras. The Byzantine text is cited under the symbol ω.


Note that Swanson edited two somewhat different editions, the Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels, intended to show parallel passages, and New Testament Greek Manuscripts, which is a presentation of Greek manuscripts. Both undertake to show the complete readings of all manuscripts cited.

Editor. Critical apparatus and parallels compiled by Reuben J. Swanson.

Date of Publication. The first part of the original Swanson volume, The Horizontal Line Synopsis of the Gospels, Greek Edition; Volume I. The Gospel of Matthew, was published in 1982

The editions of Greek New Testament Manuscripts began with Matthew in 1995, followed by Mark (1995), Luke (1995), John (1995), Acts (? -- I don't have this one), Galatians (1999), Romans (2001), 1 Corinthians (2003). Dr. Swanson died in 2009, so presumably the series will not be completed.

The Text. The Greek text of the Horizontal Line Synopsis, as noted, is that of the UBS edition; Greek New Testament Manuscripts doesn't really have a base text). The value of Swanson lies not in it text but in its bulky but extremely clear apparatus -- in Paul, even more than the Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus volumes, Swanson probably deserves the term "the new Tischendorf."

The Apparatus. Swanson's apparatus in New Testament Greek Manuscripts is clear enough -- just the texts of all the cited manuscripts in parallel lines. The more complicated Horizontal Synopsis apparatus consists of three parts: Texts with parallels, critical apparatus, and list of Old Testament allusions (the later simply a list of the Gospel verses and the Old Testament passages they cite).

The apparatus of parallels is perhaps the simplest of any now available. The first line of the text is that of the Gospel under consideration. (This text can readily be recognized by the typeface; in Matthew, e.g., it is underlined.) Below it are the texts of the other gospels. This arrangement in parallel lines has the advantage of allowing much easier comparison with the other gospels. The parallels are pointed up by the type, since places where the other gospels match the chosen edition are printed in the same style. The example below illustrates the point for the opening words of Matthew 9:1 and its parallels in Mark 5:18, Luke 8:37b.

M  9. 1   Και εμβας εις    πλοιον 
Mk 5.81   και εμβαινοντος αυτου  εις  το  πλοιον  παρεκαλει αυτον ο δαιμονισθεις
L  8.37b  αυτος  δε   εμβας εις    πλοιον 

The apparatus is equally straightforward (and equally bulky). The apparatus for the above line of text, for instance, appears as follows, showing the full text of all the witnesses Swanson cites, including variations in spelling:

M 9.1εμβας    εις πλοιον    ℵBL 1.565.1582
 εμβας    εις  το  πλοιον  ο Ιησους  C*
 εμβας  ο Ιησους  εις  το  πλοιον    Cc
 εμβας    εις  το  πλοιον    EFKWΠ
 ενβας    εις πλοιον    Θ*
 ενβας  ο Ιησους  εις πλοιον    Θc
 εμβας  ο Ιησους  εις πλοιον    13

As mentioned, in New Testament Greek Manuscripts, Swanson simply prints the texts of the various manuscripts. So here, for instance, is a part of Galatians 5:12.

οἱ ἀναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. B 𝔓46 ℵ A D F G K L Ψ 056 075 0122 6 33 69 88 104 205 209 226 323 440 460 489 517
οἱ ἀναστάτοντες ὑμᾶς. C[↑ 547 614 618 796 927 945 999 1175 1241s 1242 1243 1245 1270 1315 1319 1352
οἱ ἀναπατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. 131[↑ 1424 1448 1505 1573 1611 1646 1734 1735 1738 1739 1827 1836 1837 1854 1874
οἱ ἀναστοῦντες ὑμᾶς. 910[↑ 1891 1982 2125 2147 2344 2400 2412 2464 2495 2815 u w τ Er1
οἱ συναναστατοῦντες ὑμᾶς. 330
οἱ αναστατοῦν.... .......P
οἱ ἀναστοῦντες 1

(Where u represents the UBS reading, w that of Westcott and Hort, and τ the Textus Receptus; all other sources cited are Greek manuscripts.)

Thus Swanson lists seven different readings here, although one of them -- οἱ αναστατοῦν of P -- is not really a separate reading; it's just that P is defective at the end of the reading and cannot testify to the presence or absence of ὑμᾶς. Still, we have two real variants: the particular verb and its form, and the presence or absence of ὑμᾶς. Only one witness -- 1 -- omits ὑμᾶς. As for the verb, the vast majority of witnesses have ἀναστατοῦντες; the only exceptions are C, 131, 330, and 910. Hence the use of the notation [↑, which means that all the witnesses on this line following this symbol go with the reading above them. So ἀναστατοῦντες is read not only by B 𝔓46 ℵ A D F G K L Ψ 056 075 0122 6 33 69 88 104 205 209 226 323 440 460 489 517 but in fact by all the following witnesses: 𝔓46 ℵ A B D F G K L Ψ 056 075 0122 1 6 33 69 88 104 205 209 226 323 440 460 489 517 547 614 618 796 927 945 999 1175 1241s 1242 1243 1245 1270 1315 1319 1352 1424 1448 1505 1573 1611 1646 1734 1735 1738 1739 1827 1836 1837 1854 1874 1891 1982 2125 2147 2344 2400 2412 2464 2495 2815.

ἀναστατοῦντες is also the reading of the editions cited: u w τ Er1, that is, the United Bible Societies fourth edition/Nestle-Aland 27th edition (u), Westcott and Hort (w; the particular edition cited is the 1935 Macmillan printing), the Textus Receptus (τ; the particular version cited is the 1873 Oxford edition), and Erasmus's first edition (Er1). Observe that, because Swanson prints only continuous texts of manuscripts, and the editions do not always agree with any particular manuscript, the editions may be cited for several lines (especially in the case of w, since Westcott and Hort had both the reading of text and margin).

It will be evident that Swanson cites a lot of witnesses -- more than any other recent edition -- and cites them in their entirety, not just for specific readings. It is an amazing publication.

This strength of Swanson is also a weakness, as it results in extremely massive volumes. The Synopsis of Matthew, for instance, requires 362 pages of text and apparatus. Taking page size into account, this is 15.4 square metres of paper surface. By comparison, the Aland synopsis of all four gospels takes only 29.1 square metres, and manages to include more material (more manuscripts in the apparatus, if perhaps a poorer selection; citations from non-canonical gospels and other sources; a fuller set of cross-references, etc.)

Notes at the bottom of the page cite various divisions of the text (κεφαλια, τιτλοι, lectionary incipits, Eusebian numbers), limited cross-references, and (in some volumes) errata in other editions.

The list of witnesses cited in Swanson is, in many ways, superior to the various Aland editions. It is a relatively short list, omitting fragmentary manuscripts and (for obvious reasons, given the nature of the apparatus) versions and fathers, but the witnesses are generally balanced (as opposed to the Aland apparatus, which is biased toward the Alexandrian text and heavily biased against the Byzantine). Again taking Matthew as an example, Swanson includes the earliest Alexandrian witnesses (ℵ B C L), the one and only "Western" witness (D), several leading "Cæsarean" witnesses (Θ 1 13 28 565 1582), two important mixed witnesses (𝔓45 W), and (most unusually) an adequate set of Byzantine witnesses (A E F G K Y Π). While the apparatus contains some errors (inevitable in a project of such scope), it is generally accurate, and contains details not found in any other critical edition. It is also interesting to examine a passage such as Matthew 15:22, where the Nestle text seems to indicate a fairly stable tradition (no variant with more than four readings), but Swanson reveals no fewer than thirteen variants in this passage, despite only fifteen of his witnesses being extant.


Editors. Text and apparatus compiled by R. V. G. Tasker based on the version translated in the New English Bible.

Date of Publication. The New English Bible itself appeared in 1961; Tasker's retroversion into Greek, The Greek New Testament, Being the Text Translated in The New English Bible, appeared in 1964. (As noted, Tasker's text is a retroversion; for the most part the NEB committee did not actually prepare a text.)

The Text. As has often been the case when a text is compiled by a translation committee, Tasker's text is rather uneven. It has been admitted that the reading adopted is often simply that preferred by the person who first attempted a translation. The result is a text largely Alexandrian (normally following the pre-UBS Nestle text on which it is largely based), but with odd mixtures of "Western" and Byzantine readings depending on the opinions of the translators. This text, since it does not adhere to any textual theory or display much coherence, has not met with widespread approval.

The Apparatus. Tasker's apparatus is very limited; it discusses only the few hundred variants noted in the NEB margin. Only a handful of manuscripts (including 11 papyri up to 𝔓51, 27 uncials up to 0171, and 44 minuscules up to 2059) are cited, and those sporadically. It is a rare note that cites more than ten manuscripts. On the other hand, the notes do describe why the committee adopted the reading it did -- a useful practice since adopted by the UBS committee in its supplementary volume. This is probably the most noteworthy feature of the edition.


Editors. Text and apparatus edited by Constantin von Tischendorf.

Date of Publication. Tischendorf published no fewer than eight major editions in his life, as well as abridged editions and various collations and facsimiles. His magnum opus, however, was the Editio octava critica maior (1869-1872), which remains unsurpassed as a complete edition of the New Testament text.

The Text. Tischendorf's text is eclectic, taking readings from many sources; Tischendorf did not have a detailed textual theory. In practice he had a strong preference for the readings of his discovery ℵ, especially where it agreed with D. His text thus has something of a "Western" tinge, although it is generally Alexandrian (insofar as that text was known in the mid-nineteenth century, before B was made widely known). The resulting text, therefore, is not held in particularly high regard; the value of Tischendorf lies in...

The Apparatus. Tischendorf's apparatus was, in its time, comprehensive, and it remains the most complete available. It cited all major readings of all major manuscripts, offering the evidence of almost all known uncials, plus noteworthy readings of many minuscules, the versions, and the Fathers.
Tischendorf's apparatus is generally easy to read, particularly if one knows Latin. A lemma is cited for all variants. If each variant has significant support, the evidence for the text is listed following the lemma, followed by the variant reading(s) and their support. If the variant is supported by only a few witnesses, the variant reading is cited immediately after the lemma. So, for example, in Gal 1:4 the apparatus reads:

περι cum ℵ*ADEFGKLP al50 fere syrp Or1,238 etc ... ς (= Gb Sz) υπερ cum ℵcB 17. 67** al sat mu Ignintpol314 al

This translates as περι, the reading of Tischendorf's text (read also by the uncited editions, i.e. Lachmann and Tischendorf7) is supported by the uncials ℵ* A D E(=Dabs) F G K L P and about fifty other witnesses plus the Harklean Syriac (syrp) and the cited text of Origen. The variant υπερ is supported by the Textus Receptus (ς) and the editions of Griesbach and Scholz; by ℵc, B, 17 (=33), 67** (=424c), by many other Greek witnesses, and by the cited text of Ignatius.
The greatest single difficulty with Tischendorf's apparatus is the nomenclature. Tischendorf died before he could finish his introduction, so many of the witnesses cited were difficult to identify (this is particularly true of the Fathers, cited by a complex system of abbreviations). Another complication is attributions; Tischendorf lived in the nineteenth century, and even he did not have the time or the resources to verify everything he cited (nor could he always identify the manuscripts cited in prior editions). So one often encounters a notation such as "6 ap Scri" (i.e. 6 according to Scrivener) or "copms ap Mill et Wtst" (i.e. a manuscript of the [Bohairic] Coptic according to Mill and Wettstein). An introduction supplying much of the needed background was supplied by Caspar Rene Gregory in 1894, but it is worth remembering that Tischendorf wrote before Gregory revised the manuscript numbering system. Thus almost all minuscules (except in the Gospels), and even some of the uncials, have the wrong numbers. In Paul, for instance, the minuscules most often cited include 17, 31, 37, 39, 46, 47, 67, 71, 73, 80, and 115; in modern notation, these are 33, 104, 69, 326, 181, 1908, 424, 1912, 441+442, 436, and 103. In addition, the names used for the versions have sometimes changed (e.g. syrp is the Harklean version, not the Peshitta!). To make matters worse, Tischendorf often did not even use numbers for manuscripts; the sigla for more recently-discovered documents often consists of a letter and a superscript indicating a collator, e.g. ascr means the "a" manuscript collated by scr=Scrivener. This is the manuscript we know as 206. Most of the manuscripts cited under these symbols are relatively unimportant, but it is worth noting that loti=pscr is the important minuscule 81.
To save space, in the Gospels Tischendorf cites a group of uncials as unc9; these represent a block of Byzantine uncials.
In addition to manuscripts, Tischendorf cites the readings of earlier editions: the Stephanus and Elzevir editions of the Textus Receptus, Griesbach, Scholz, Lachmann, and Tischendorf's own previous edition). (In fact, Tischendorf's editio minor includes only those variants where these editions disagree.) Tischendorf also gives more explicit Latin evidence than most editions; see the notes on Tischendorf under the Latin Editions.

United Bible Societies Edition

Editors. Original edition compiled by Kurt Aland, Matthew Black, Bruce M. Metzger, and Allen Wikgren; Carlo M. Martini joined the committee for the second and third editions; the fourth edition was prepared by Barbara Aland, Kurt Aland, Johannes Karavidopoulos, Martini, and Metzger.

Date of Publication. The first edition, The Greek New Testament, appeared in 1966. The second edition, slightly revised, appeared in 1968. The third edition (1975) contained a significantly revised text (now generally cited as UBS or GNT) and a slightly revised apparatus. The fourth edition (1993) has the same text as the third, but a significantly revised apparatus.

The Text. The UBS3 text, which is also shared by the 26th and 27th editions of Nestle-Aland, was prepared by a committee. As a result, it has few of the erratic readings which might be found in the text of a single editor (a fact which has been in large measure responsible for its widespread adoption). On the other hand, it is a strongly eclectic text, with no clear textual theory behind it. In general it follows the Alexandrian witnesses, and is closer to the Westcott & Hort text than most of the other modern editions, but it is not as radically Alexandrian as Westcott and Hort.
The supplementary volume to the edition describes how the committee decided its text -- but only by example. The volume gives the basis of why the committee chose many readings -- but makes no attempt to describe the theories followed by the five editors. Nor do we know how the individual editors voted on the various readings (except for the handful of readings where they have filed signed "minority opinions"). We have very little real sense how the text came about. Despite its widespread acceptance, it does not really conform to any particular theory of the text.

The Apparatus. The apparatus of UBS is extremely limited; it is concerned only with variants "meaningful for translators." In any given chapter of a book, one can expect to find only a half dozen or so variants. Thus the apparatus can in no sense be considered complete.
On the other hand, the apparatus is easy to use and very full. For each reading, all papyri, all early uncials, and a handful of late uncials are cited, as are several dozen minuscules, an assortment of lectionaries, a number of versions, and a wide selection of fathers. All witnesses are explicitly cited for all variants, usually in the order papyri, uncials, minuscules, lectionaries, versions, fathers. (There are a few minor exceptions to this; lectionaries are generally grouped under the symbol Lect, and in the fourth edition certain uncials are listed following the symbol Byz, denoting the Byzantine text.)
Care must be taken with the list of witnesses, however. UBS1-UBS3 contain lists of uncials and minuscules cited; however, many of the uncials (e.g. E F G H of the gospels) are cited only exceptionally (this even though the list implies they are cited fully), and many of the minuscules are cited for only part of their content. The correct list of minuscules cited for each section of UBS3 is as follows:

This problem has been reversed in UBS4, which explicitly lists which minuscules are cited for which sections -- but no longer lists the actual contents of the manuscripts. This information must now be gathered from other sources.


Editors. Heinrich Joseph Vogels.

Date of Publication. Original Greek text published 1920; Latin parallel added 1922; revised edition published 1949; final edition (not really changed that I can see) published 1955.

The Text. It's hard to imagine a critic who would rate this text highly. If you encountered the text without knowing its background, you would probably think that the editing principle was "choose the Alexandrian reading unless the Byzantine is easier." This is especially true in the gospels, where the Byzantine element is very strong (almost strong enough that we could call it a Byzantine edition for those books), but has some truth elsewhere also. The text has many major agreements with the Byzantine text (e.g. Colossians 2:2, where Vogels chooses the Byzantine reading against the united opinions of every modern editor), but also curious agreements with the Alexandrians. It is thus the most Byzantine of the major editions, with some influence from Von Soden, but not Byzantine enough to be considered even faintly a Majority Text edition.

The Latin side, as one would expect of a Roman Catholic scholar, is the Clementine Vulgate. There is an apparatus of sorts, but it merely shows the places where the Wordsworth-White edition disagrees with the Clementine Vulgate; it does not show the manuscript support of the readings.

The Latin apparatus perhaps explains the nature of the text. This is not really a Greek edition. It is the Vulgate in Greek dress. Vogels, by and large, took the Latin, found the closest Greek reading among the manuscripts, and adopted it. There is very little critical sense to the result, and even less value in the result. Vogels had no theory of the text; he was just making a crib (and not a particularly good one, because he often failed to notice that there were variations in the Greek text).

The Apparatus. The apparatus is as frustrating as the text. The number of variants cited is at the low end of adequate, the number of witnesses cited is small -- and the minuscules are cited by Tischendorf numbers! (E.g. the only minuscule regularly cited in Acts is 614, but it's cited with the symbol "137.") The early editions also omitted the Beatty Papyri; they were added in the later editions. The only non-Beatty papyrus cited is 𝔓13. In addition, for the most part only the letter uncials are cited -- the only exceptions are 0121/0243, cited as M, and 046, cited as Q. Interestingly, ℵ is cited with that siglum, and S/028 is cited as S.

It's not hard to read the apparatus; it uses the fairly standard system of citing the lemma, then a bracket ], then the variant readings, then their support. Vertical bars | separate the variants. The real question is, why would anyone want to use the apparatus? If you're going to have to deal with Tischendorf numbers anyway, why not use Tischendorf (since it's now available online)?

Vogels's introduction makes something of a point of saying that it is not the Nestle edition. So I thought it might be interesting to compare the Nestle edition that Vogels was comparing himself against with the Vogels edition. I picked two samples, Mark 12 and Galatians 1. I'm going to base the comparison on the Nestle-Aland 15th edition, since that's roughly contemporary with Vogels. I'll list this in four columns. The first shows the point of variation and the text adopted by Nestle 15 (N) and by Vogels (V). This is followed by a column showing the Vogels apparatus, then the Nextle apparatus, then the actual attestation of each variants.

In the sample of Mark, I have included all non-orthographic variants where there is a disagreement between ℵ(*), A, B, and D, even if neither Nestle nor Vogels cites the variant; these have a yellow background. Those in dark yellow are omitted from the two critical apparatus; those in brighter yellow are in at least one apparatus. A variant in white means that the four uncials do not disagree but the variant is cited in an apparatus. The readings are determined based on Swanson and Legg, with occasional reference to other sources when those apparatus disagree or are unclear. This will show how Vogels cites fewer variants and witnesses than Nestle -- and that neither one is really adequate.

Mark 12

VariantVogels apparatusNA15 apparatusfuller witness list
12:1 παραβολαις λαλειν N Vπ. λαλειν ℵ B G L W Δ Ψ f1 f13 892 1342; π. λεγειν A C D E H M N X Θ Σ Π Φ 22 28 33 157 565 579 700 1071
12:1 αμπελωνα ανθρωπος εφυτευσεν N; αμπελωνα εφυτευσεν ανθρωπος Vαμπελωνα ανθρωπος εφυτευσεν ℵ B C (L 893 εποισεν for εφυτευσεν) Δ Φ Ψ 33 579 1071 1342; αμπελωνα εφυτευσεν ανθρωπος A D E G H M (Γ αμπελον) Π f1 28 157 700; ανθρωπος εφυτευσεν αμπελωνα N Σ; ανθρωπος τις εφυτευσεν αμπελωνα W Θ f13 565
12:2 παρα των γεωργουν λαβη N Vδωσωσιν αυτω D OL syδωσωσιν αυτω D OL syδωσωσιν αυτω D a b c ff2; παρα αυτων Θ 33 565 (~ 579 700); λαβη Ψ 1342 pesh; txt (ℵ 579 λαβοι; 28 λαβει) rell
12:2 απο των καρπων N V(D ...ινα απο του καρπου του αμπελωνος αυτω...)απο του καρπου A (D ...ινα απο του καρπου του αμπελωνος αυτω...) E G H M W X Π Σ Φ f1 f13 28 157 565 700 1342; τους καρπους Θ 579 geo?; omit Γ; απο των καρπων ℵ B C L N Δ Ψ 33 892 1071
12:3 και λαβοντες N; οι δε λαβοντες Vοι δε λαβοντες A C E G H M N W X (Γ ελαβον) Θ Π Σ Φ f1 f13 28 157 565 700 1071 pm; και λαβοντες ℵ B D L Δ Ψ33 579 892 1342
12:3 κενον N Vκενον προς αυτον D a b ff2κενον προς αυτον D a b ff2κενον προς αυτον D a b ff2; κενον (καινον ℵ A C K M X Π* 28 al) rell
12:4 δουλον N Vomit δουλον ℵ* 59
12:4 κακεινον N Vκακεινον λιθοβοησαντεω A C N X Γ Π alκακεινον λιθοβοησαντεω C 𝔎 pmκακεινον (και εκεινον D Δ Ψ 28) ℵ B D L W Δ Ψ f1 28 33 33 656 579 700 OL vg sa bo arm al; κακεινον λιθοβοησαντεω A C E G H M N X (Γ) Π Σ Φ (f13) 157 (και εκεινον 892) 1071 pm
12:4 ητιμασαν N Vαπεστειλαν ητιμωμενον A C N X Γ Π alαπεστειλαν ητιμωμενον C 𝔎 pm; txt ℌ (D)απεστειλαν ητιμωμενον A C E G H M N (W f1 28 565 700 ητιμασμενον) Γ Θ Π Σ Φ 157 1071 pm OL vg geo; ητιμασαν ℵ B L (Δ) Ψ 33 579 892 1342
12:5 και αλλον N Vκαι παλιν αλλον A E G H M N W X Γ Θ Π Σ Φ f1 f13 28 157 565 700 892c f l q r2 pm syr geo arm; και αλλον &alefysm; B C D L Δ Ψ 33 579 892* 1342 a b c ff2 i k sa bo
12:5 ους μεν δεροντες ους δε N Vτους μεν δεροντες τους δε A C E G H M N X Γ Π Σ f13 28 157 1071 pm (Φ ους ... τους); ους μεν δεροντες αλλους δε D; ους μεν δεροντες ους δε ℵ B L Δ Θ Ψ f1 33 565 579 700 892 1342 al
12:6 ετι (ενα) N; ετι ουν (ενα) Vετι ουν ενα A C D E G H M N X Γ Π Σ Φ 157 892c pm (a) (ff2) l q vg hark; υστερον δε ετι ενα f13 28 700 pc; υστερον δε ενα W Θ 565 pesh; ετι ενα ℵ B L Δ Ψ f1 33 579 892* 1342 b i r2; ενα sin
12:6 ενα ειχον υιον N; ενα υιον ειχον Vενα ειχον υιον ℵ B Cc L Δ Ψ 33 579 892 (1071) 1342; ενα υιον ειχον E G H M N W X Γ Π Σ Φ f1 22 28 157 565 700 pm; omit A C* D Θ 118 330 pc
12:6 αγαπητον N; αγαπητον αυτου Vαγαπητον ℵ B C D L Δ Θ Ψ 565 700 892 1342 OL vg sin pesh cop arm geo; αγαπητον αυτου A E G H M N (τον αγαπητον αυτου W f1 f13 28) X Γ Π Σ Φ 33 157 579 1071 pm
12:6 απεστειλεν αυτον N; απεστειλεν και αυτον Vαπεστειλεν αυτον ℵ B L Xc Δ Θ f1 700 892* 1071 cop arm; απεστειλεν και αυτον A E G H M N X* Γ Π Σ Φ 33 157 892c pm; κακεινον απεστειλεν D a? ff2 i k? l vg pesh; απεστειλεν W 28 565 579 q? sin geo al; και απεστειλεν Ψ 1342
12:6 εσχατον προς αυτος N; προς αυτος εσχατον Vomit προς αυτος D ff2 i k rεσχατον D it; προς αυτος εσχατον 𝔎 pm; προς αυτος 788 sin pcεσχατον προς αυτος ℵ B C L Y Δ Θ Ψ f13 33 579 892 1071 1342 al; προς αυτος εσχατον A E G H N X Γ Π Σ Φ f1 28 157 565 700 r2 vg pm; omit προς αυτος D ff2 i k r geo1
12:6 εντραπησονται τον υιον μου N Vτον υιον μου εντραπησονται D 565 700 a b ff2 i q r1; txt rell
12:7 εκεινοι ο δε γεωργοι N Vοι δε γεωργοι D a b ff2 k vg arm; εκεινοι ο δε γεωργοι ιδοντες αυτον N Σ 330 pc
12:7 γεωργοι N Vγεωργοι θεασαμενοι αυτον ερχομενον Θ 13 28 69 124 al hark armγεωργοι θεασαμενοι αυτον ερχομενον Θ f13 28 565 700 1071 hark** arm geo
12:7 προς εαυτους ειπαν N ειπον προς εαυτους Vπρος εαυτους ειπαν/ειπον ℵ B C L W (Δ αυτους) Ψ f1 33 579 892 1071 1342 al; ειπαν/ειπον προς εαυτους A D E G H M N X Γ Θ Π Σ Φ 157 565 700 pm; omit προς εαυτους f13 28 geo1 pc
12:7 (ειπαν/ειπον) οτι N Vomit οτι D N Θ Σ 1 28 209 565 vg pc
12:8 απεκτειναν αυτον N; αυτον απεκτειναν Vαπεκτειναν αυτον ℵ B C L Δ Ψ 892 pc; αυτον απεκτειναν A D E G H M N (X) Γ Θ Π Σ Φ f1 28 33 157 565 579 700 1071 pm
12:8 εξβαλον αυτον N; εξβαλον Vεξβαλον αυτον A B C D M N Γ Θ Π Σ Φ Ψ 157 565 1071 1342 a c ff2 q pc; omit αυτον ℵ E G H L W X Δ f1 f13 28 33 579 700 892 i k l r1 vg pm
12:9 τι ποιησει N; τι ουν ποιησει Vomit ουν B L sin Tatianadd ουν ℵ C D 𝔎 pm; txt B pcτι ουν ποιησει ℵ A D E G H L M N W X Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ψ f1 f13 28 33 157 565 579 700 892c 1071 a b ff2 i q r2 vg pesh hark arm geo; omit ουν B L 892* 1342 g2 sin sa bo
12:9 αμπελωνος N Vαμπελωνος τοις γεωργοις εκεινος λεγουσιν αυτς 472 Tatianαμπελωνος ℵ A B C D E G H L M N W X Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ψ f1 f13 28 33 157 565 579 700 892 1071 1342 pm
12:9 αλλοις N Vαλλοις γεωργοις b c ff2 i Tatianαλλοις γεωργοις b c ff2 i sams; txt ℵ A B C D rell
12:10 ουδε N Vκαι λεγει αυτοις ο Ιησους ουδε 472 Tatianκαι λεγει αυτοις ο Ιησους ουδε 472 sin pesh; txt ℵ A B C D rell
12:13 προς αυτον N Vomit προς αυτον D OLomit προς αυτον D a c ff2 i k q r1 sa
12:14 και (ελθοντες) N Vοι δε (ελθοντες) 𝔎 pmκαι (ελθοντες) ℵ B C D L Δ Ψ 33 579 892 1071 1342 OL vg sin sa bo arm pc; οι δε (ελθοντες) A E G H M N W X Γ Θ Π Ζ Φ f1 f13 28 565 700 pesh hark geo pm
12:14 ελθοντες Ν Vomit ελθοντες D k sinomit ελθοντες D k sinomit ελθοντες D (c ff2 ?) k sin; txt ℵ A B C rell (but with many minor variations)
12:14 λεγουσιν αυτω διδασκαλε (αυτω) N Vερξαντω ερωταν αυτον εν δολω λεγοντες διδασκαλε (αυτον) G W 1 13 28 69 (b ff2 i q sin) alεπηρωτων αυτον οι Φαρισαιοι διδασκαλε D OL pc; ερξαντω ερωταν αυτον εν δολω λεγοντες διδασκαλε G (W) f1 f13 OL (sin)λεγουσιν αυτω διδασκαλε ℵ A B C E H L M N X (Γ αυτον) Δ Π Σ Φ Ψ f13 33 157 579 892 g2 l r2 vg hark pm; ερξαντω ερωταν αυτον εν δολω λεγοντες διδασκαλε G (W 22 pc omit λεγοντες) (Θ 565 pc επηρωτων) f1 (f13) 22 28 700 al; επηρωτων αυτον οι Φαρισαιοι διδασκαλε D (c f) k
12:14 εξεστιν N Vειπε ουν ημιν ει εξεστιν ημας (C) D (OL) alεξεστιν 𝔓45-vid ℵ A B E G H L N X Γ Δ Π Ψ f1 f13 28 157 579 579 892 pm l r2 sin sa geo; ειπε/ειπον ουν ημιν εξεστιν ημας Cc (C* D ειπε ουν ημιν ει εξεστιν ημας) M N W Θ Σ Φ 28 565 700 1071 (aur b c d ff2 i q r1) (k) hark** (geo)
12:14 δουναι κηνσον Καισαρι N Vδουναι επικεφαλαιον Καισαρι D Θ 565 k alδουναι επικεφαλαιον Καισαρι D Θ 565 k; επικεφαλαιον Καισαρι δουναι 𝔎 pmδουναι κηνσον Καισαρι ℵ B C L Wc Δ Ψ 33 579 1342 1424; ημας δουναι επικεφαλαιον Καισαρι D; δουναι επικεφαλαιον Καισαρι Θ 565; κνησον Καισαρι δουναι A E G H K M N U X Γ Π f1 f13 157 700 pm; Καισαρι δουναι S*; δουναι Καισαρι W*; κνησον δουναι Καισαρι 28
12:14 δωμεν η μη δωμεν N Vomit D OLpl (vg) (sin)omit δωμεν η μη δωμεν D (Σ) 346 (517) OLpl (vg) (sin) (geo); txt (𝔓45-vid) ℵ A B E F H (L) rell
12:15 ο δε ειδως N Vο δε ιησους ιδων D 13 28 69 346 b c ff2 i qο δε ιδων ℵ* D OL pcο δε ιησους ιδων D (G Θ f1 700 ειδως) f13 28 565; txt (ℵ* 1342 ιδων) A B C (579 ιδως) pm
12:15 πειραζετε N Vπειραζετε υποκριται 𝔓45-vid F Γ N W Θ Σ f1 f13 28 33 565 579 q hark** sa arm geo pc; πειραζετε ℵ A B C D E L M X Γ Δ Π Φ Ψ 157 700 892 sin pesh bo pm
12:15 δηναριον ινα ιδω N Vomit ινα ιδω k Tatianδηναριον ωδε ινα ειδω ℵ*; δηναριον ινα ιδω A B (ειδω C D W Δ Σ 565 pc) rell
12:16 οι δε ειπον/ειπαν αυτω (N ειπαν; V ειπον)λεγουσιν αυτω A 579 1342; ειπαν αυτω D a geo; οι δε ειπον (omitting αυτω) (𝔓45-vid defective for οι) (W 28 700* ειπαν) f1 f13; οι δε ειπ[x]ν αυτω (ℵ B C L W Δ Ψ 28 33 700c ειπαν; ειπον E G H pm)
12:17 ο δε ιησους ειπεν N; και αποκριθεις ο ιησους ειπεν Vο δε ιησους ειπεν ℵ B C L Δ Ψ 33 579 892 1342; αποκριθεις δε ο ιησους ειπεν D; και αποκριθεις ο ιησους ειπεν A E G H M N Γ Π f1 f13 (28 κ. α. ο ιησους λεγει) 157 700 1071 pm; και αποκριθεις ειπεν W Θ 565; και λεγει 1424
12:17 (ειπεν) αυτοις N Vomit αυτοις B Dαυτοις ℵ A C rell a b c ff2 (k); omit B D r1
12:17 τα καισαρος αποδοτε N Vτα καισαρος αποδοτε ℵ B C L W Δ Ψ (Θ 565 700 τα καισαρος ουν αποδοτε τω) 28 892; αποδοτε τα καισαρος A E G H (M f13 αποδοτε ουν τα καισαρος) N Γ Π Σ Φ f1 33 157 (1071 αποδοτε τα καισαρος το); αποδοτε τα του καισαρος τω D; αποδοτε ουν τα του καισαρος 579
12:17 εξεθαυμαζον επ αυτω N Vεξεθαυμαζον επ αυτω ℵ B Ψ 1342 b; εθαυμαζοντο επ αυτον D*; εθαυμαζον επ αυτω Dc L Δ Θ 565 892 1071; εθαυμασαν επ αυτω A C E G H (K 28 εθαυμασον) M N W Γ Π Σ Φ f1 f13 33 157 579 700
12:18 σαδδουκαιοι προς αυτον N Vπρος αυτον σαδδουκαιοι D (Ψ) 28 b ff2 g2 i l q r2 vg; σαδδουκαιοι προς αυτον ℵ A B C (565 οι σαδδουκαιοι) rell
12:18 αναστασιν μη ειναι N Vαναστασις ουκ εστιν 1 13 28 69 124 326 Tatianαναστασις ουκ εστιν 1 13 28 69 124 131 209 346 543 1582; txt ℵ A B C D rell
12:18 επηρωτων N Vεπηρωτων ℵ B (C επηρωτουν) D L Δ Θ Ψ 33 565 579 700 892 1071 1342 a b ff2 k vg pc; επηρωτησαν A E G H M N W X Γ Π Σ Φ f1 f13 28 157 aur c l hark pm
12:19 ηγραψεν ημιν N Vημιν ηγραψεν D b g2 a l r2 vg; txt ℵ A B C (69 υμιν) rell
12:19 και καταλιπη N Vκαι εχη D W 28 OL sinκαι εχη D OL sin pcεχη D W (και σχη (!) Θ) (και εχει 28) (εχει, omitting και 700) a b c d ff2 i k sin geo; και καταλιπη/καταλιψει/καταλειπη/καταλιπει ℵ A B C E G H L M pm g2 l r2 vg
12:19 γυναικα και μη αφη τεκνον N; γυναικα και τεκνα μη αφη Vγυναικα και τεκνα μη αφη A D E G H M W X Γ Θ Π Σ Φ f1 f13 28 157 565 700 1071 pm; γυναικα και μη αφη τεκνον (ℵ* 33 τεκνα) ℵc B C L Δ Ψ 579; γυναικα και τεκνα μη εχων F
12:19 αυτου την γυναικα και N; αυτου την γυναικα αυτου και Vαυτου την γυναικα και ℵ B C L Δ Θ Ψ f1 565 700 892 1342 k; αυτου την γυναικα αυτου και A D E G H M X Γ Π Σ Φ f13 28 33 157 579 1071 pm vg; την γυναικα και W
12:19 εξαναστηση N Vεξαναστησει C H alεξαναστησει A C H f13 28 565 579 700 pc; αναστησει Γ; εχαναστη F; txt ℵ B D rell
12:20 επτα αδελφοι ησαν N Vησαν ουν παρ ημιν επτα αδελφοι D a b c ff2 i q r Tatianησαν ουν παρ ημιν επτα αδελφοι D OLεπτα αδελφοι ησαν παρ ημιν &alefsym:c Θ f13 28 565 700 (1071 επτα ουν...); ησαν ουν παρ ημιν επτα αδελφοι ; επτα αδελφοι ησαν D a b f ff2 i q r1; επτα δε αδελφοι ησαν 892 hark; επτα αδελφοι ησαν ℵ* A B C* E G H L W X Γ Δ Π Φ Ψ f1 157 579 1071 pm k sin pesh
12:20 και ο πρωτος ελαβεν N Vκαι ο εις ελαβεν ℵ* C*apud Swanson 1342; txt rell
12:20 αποθνησκων ουκ αφηκεν N Vαπεθανεν και ουκ αφηκεν D W Θ f1 28 565 700 (1071 απεθανεν και αποθνισκων ουκ αφηκεν) pc OL vg sin pesh hark arm geo; txt ℵ A B rell
12:21 και απεθανεν N; και απεθανεν και Vκαι απεθανεν και A D E G H M Γ Δ Θ Π f1 f13 28 157 565 700 pm; και W; και απεθανεν ℵ B C L Ψ 33 579 892 1071 1342; omit sa; omit verse i
12:21 μη καταλιπων σπερμα N; και ουδε αυτος αφηκεν σπερμα Vκαι ουδε αυτος (+ ουκ) αφηκεν σπερμα (D) 𝔎 pmκαι ουδε αυτος αφηκεν σπερμα A E G H M (W) Γ (Δ 700) Π Σ Φ f1 f13 157 565 pm (Θ 28 ουτος for αυτος) vg; και ουδε αυτος ουκ αφηκεν σπερμα D; μη καταλιπων σπερμα ℵ B C L Ψ 33 579 892 1071 1342 c
12:21-22 και ο τριτος ωσαυτως (22) και οι επτα ουκ N; και ο τριτος ωσαυτως (22) και ελαβον αυτην ο επτα και ουκ Vκαι ο τριτος ωσαυτος (22) και (+παντες c k) οι επτα και ελαβον αυτην ο επτα και ουκ A (D) (vg) Tatian alκαι ωσαυτως ελαβον αυτην οι επτα και ουκ D (pc) και ωσαυτως (22) ελαβον αυτην ο επτα και D; και ο τριτος ωσαυτως (22) και ελαβον αυτην ο επτα και ουκ E G H Mc Γ (Θ omit και3) Π pm; και ο τριτος ωσαυτως (22) και ελαβον αυτην ωσαυτως ο επτα και ουκ A; και ο τριτος ωσαυτως (22) και ο επτα και ουκ M* (W omit και1,2; 28 omit και2) f13; και ο τριτος ελαβον αυτην ωσαυτως (22) ο επτα και ουκ f1 (1582c add και before ο επτα); ωσαυτως και ο τριτος (22) ελαβον αυτην και ο επτα και ουκ 565; και ο τριτος ελαβον αυτην ωσαυτως (22) και ο επτα και ουκ 700; και ο τριτος ωσαυτως (22) και οι επτα ουκ ℵ B C L Δ Ψ 33 579 892
12:22 σπερμα εσχατον N; σπερμα εσχατη Vσπερμα εσχατη A E Γ Φ 157 pm l vg sin pesh hark geo; σπερμα εσχατον ℵ B C G H L W (Δ ελαβη σπερμα εσχατον) Θ Π Σ Ψ f1 f13 28 33 565 579 700 892 1071 al; σπερμα (omitting εσχατ...; see next variant) D
12:22 παντων N Vomit D a ff2 i k romit παντων D (n.b. Vogels mischaracterizes the variant; D omits εσχατ... παντων, not just παντων); include παντων ℵ A B C rell
12:22 και η γυνη απεθανεν N; απεθανεν και η γυνη Vαπεθανεν και η γυνη A E H M X Γ Π Σ Φ 157 700 pm l q r1 vgpm; η γυνη απεθανεν W 579 vgam,durmach,medio; και η γυνη απεθανεν ℵ B C D G L Δ Θ Ψ f1 f13 28 33 565 892 1071 1342 a b ff2 i r2
12:23 εν τη αναστασει N Vεν τη ουν αναστασει A Cc M Π 33 579 al; εν τη αναστασει ουν D G Θ Σ f1 28 565 700 892 1071 pc a b ff2 g1 i l r1 r2 vg; εν τη αναστασει ουν αυτων W; ~ οταν ουν αναστωσιν εν τη αναστασει f13 (see next item); εν τη αναστασει ℵ B C* E H L X Γ Δ Φ Ψ 157 1342 al k q
12:23 (αναστασει) οταν αναστωσιν N Vomit οταν αναστωσιν ℵ B C D L Δ 28 33 c k romit οταν αναστωσιν ℌ D pc k r pesh; txt 𝔎 pl OL vg sininclude οταν αναστωσιν A E G H M X Γ Θ Π Σ Φ f1 (~ οταν ουν αναστωσιν εν τη αναστασει f13; see preceding item) 28 (157 οτε ανατωσι) 565 700 1071 vg sin hark arm geo; omit οταν αναστωσιν ℵ B C D L W Δ Ψ 33 579 892 c k r1 pesh sa bo
12:23 οι γαρ επτα N Vπαντες γαρ 1 91 299 472 k Tatianτων επτα εσται γυνη παντες γαρ for (αυτων) εσ... γυνη οι γαρ επτα f1 299 472 sin; txt ℵ A B C D rell
12:24 εφη αυτοις Ν; και αποκριθεις Vαποκριθεις δε D W Θ f1 f13 28 565 700 a d l q r2; και αποκριθεις A E G H M X Γ Π 157 1071 i hark; εφη αυτοι ℵ B C L Δ Ψ 33 579 892 1342
12:24 ου δια τουτο N Vomit ου Δ a i k r1 sin; omit ου δια τουτο 544 comit ου Δ (544apud Legg) 1342 a i k r1 sin arm; ου δια τουτο c; txt ℵ A B C D rell
12:24 μη ειδοτες N Vμη γινωσκοντες D b c ff2 i rμη γινωσκοντες D OL Origenμη γινωσκοντες (D γεινωσκοντες); txt ℵ A B C rell
12:24 δυναμιν του θεου N Vδυναμιν του θεου οιδατε Dδυναμιν του θεου οιδατε Dδυναμιν του θεου οιδατε D d; txt ℵ A B C rell (579 omit του θεου)
12:25 εκ νεκρων αναστωσιν N Vαναστωσιν εκ νεκρων f1 28 1342 pc g2 k; εκ νεκρων αναστησουσιν D*; αναστωσιν (omitting εκ νεκρων) 579 pc; εκ νεκρων αναστωσιν ℵ A B C Dc rell
12:25 ουτε γαμιζονται N Vουτε γαμιζουσιν Dουδε γαμιζουσιν D; ουτε εκγαμισκονται A F H; ουτε γαμισκονται E M W Γ Π (f13 579 ουτε γαμισκωνται) 28 33 157 700; ουτε γαμιζουσιν 565; ουτε γαμιζονται ℵ B C G L Δ Θ Φ Ψ f1 892 1342
12:25 αγγελοι N Vαγγελοι θεου 33 61 69 472 544 lοι αγγελοι B W pcοι αγγελοι B W Θ 892; αγγελοι θεου f13 (33 αγγελοι του θεου) 1071 pc; αγγελοι ℵ A C D E G H L Γ Δ Π Σ Φ Ψ f1 28 565 579 1242
12:25 εν τοις ουρανοις N Vοι εν τοις ουρανοις B 𝔎 alοι εν τοις ουρανοις A B E G H X Γ Θ Φ Ψ f13 565 892 1342 al; εν τοις ουρανοις ℵ C D F L M W Δ Π f1 28 33 157 579 700 1071 pm
12:26 των νεκρων N Vτης αναστασεως των νεκρων 13 33 69 al Tatianτης αναστασεως των νεκρων f13 33 arm Origenpart; txt ℵ A B C D rell
12:26 βιβλω N Vβυβλω D; βιβλω ℵ A B C rell
12:26 επι του βατου N Vεπι της βατου D W Θ Σ 33 (157 επι τη βατου) 565 579 700 1424 al; επι του βατου ℵ A B C pm (Ψ unclear)
πως ειπεν N Vως ειπεν A D E G H pm; πως ειπεν ℵ B C L U Δ Ψ 892 1342 pc
ο θεος Αβρααμ N Vθεος Αβρααμ D W 157 482 579; ο θεος Αβρααμ ℵ A B C rell (ειμι ο θεος M U Δ 28 1071 1342 pc vg arm)
12:26 θεος Ισαακ και θεος Ιακωβ N Vο θεος Ισαακ και ο θεος Ιακωβ ℌ 𝔎 pl; txt B Dο θεος Ισαακ και ο θεος Ιακωβ (𝔓45-vid has one instance of και ο, although it's not clear which one) ℵ A C E G H rell; θεος Ισαακ και θεος Ιακωβ B D W
12:27 εστιν θεος N Vεστιν ο θεος ℵ C 𝔎 pm; txt B D alεστιν ο θεος ℵ A C E G H Γ Ψ f1 157 565 700 pm; εστιν ο θεος θεος M* Θ f13 33 1342 1582c; εστιν θεος B D L Mmarg W X Δ Π Φ 28 579 1071 al
12:27 αλλα ζωντων N; αλλα [θεος] ζωντων Vadd θεος 𝔎 alαλλα θεος ζωντων E G H M* Γ Φ 157c 1582c pm q hark; αλλα ζωντων ℵ A B C D L K Mc W X Δ Θ Π Σ Ψ f1 f13 28 33 157* 565 579 700 892 1071 1342 pm a b ff2 vg sin pesh sa bo arm geo
12:27 πολυ N; υμεις ουν πολυ Vomit υμεις ουν ℵ B C L W Δ kadd υμεις ουν 𝔎 D plυμεις ουν πολυ A D E (F H 579 υμεις ουν πολλοι) (G f1 565 700 υμεις δε) M Θ Π f13 28 33 157 892marg 1071 a b i q l vg pesh hark rm geo1; πολυ ℵ C B L W Δ Ψ 892* k sa bo
12:28 αυτων συνζητουντων ειδως N Vαυτω(ν) συ(ν)ζητουντων ιδων ℵ* C D L 1 13 28 OL vg al; omit k sinαυτω(ν) συ(ν)ζητουντων ιδων ℵ* C D pmαυτω συνζητουντων και ιδων D [Swanson reads ειδως for ιδων] vg; αυτων συ(ν)ζητουντων ιδων ℵ* C L W Θ Σ Φ Ψ f1 f13 28 565 700 1071 1342 al a c ff2; συνζητουντων ειδως k; αυτων συνζητουντων ειδως ℵc A B C M (Δ αυτων συνζητουντων προς αλληλλους ειδως) pm
12:28 απεκριθη αυτοις N; αυτοις απεκριθη Vαυτοις απεκριθη A D E G H M Γ Δ Π Σ Φ 157 565 700 1071 pm a b d ff2 2; απεκριθη αυτοις ℵ B C L W X Δ Θ Ψ f1 f13 (28) 33 579 892 1342 pc
12:28 αυτον N Vαυτον λεγων διδασκαλε D b c ff2 i kαυτον λεγων διδασκαλε D OLαυτον λεγων διδασκαλε D b c ff2 i k; αυτον ℵ A B C rell a l q vg
12:28 εντολη πρωτη παντων N Vomit παντων D OL sin Tatian Irenaeus alεντολη πρωτη (omitting παντων) D (πρωτη εντολη W f1 f13 28 geo) Θ 565 a b ff2 k sin arm; εντολη εστιν πρωτη 700 1424; πρωτη παντων εντολη A E G H K (πρωτη πασων εντολη M*) Mc Γ Π Σ Φ 157 1071 pm vg; εντολη πρωτη παντων ℵ B C L Δ Ψ 33 579 892 1342
12:29 αποκριθη ο Ιησους N; ο δε Ιησους αποκριθη Vο δε Ιησους αποκριθη A C E G H K M X Γ Π Σ Φ 157 1071 pm g2 l r2 vg hark; αποκριθεις δε ο Ιησους ειπεν D b ff2 i q r1; ο δε ειπεν W f1; ο δε Ιησους ειπεν Θ f13 28 565 pc k; ο δε Ιησους αποκριθεις ειπεν 700; αποκριθη ο Ιησους και ειπεν 579; αποκριθη ο Ιησους ℵ B L Δ (Ψ 1342 αποκριθη Ιησους) 33 892
12:29 αποκριθη/ειπεν αυτω: αποκριθη (omitting αυτω) N; αποκριθη αυτω (including αυτω) Vinclude αυτω A C D rell; omit αυτω ℵ B L Δ Ψ 33 (579) 892 1342
12:29 πρωτη εστιν ακουε N; πρωτη παντων των εντωλων ακουε Vπρωτη παντων εντωλη ακουε A K Mc Π Σ Φ 33 1071 pm (C πρωτη παντων εντωλη αυτη ακουε) (M* πρωτη πασων εντωλη ακουε); παντων πρωτη ακουε D W Θ 565 a b i (28 700 παντων πρωτων ακουε); ακουε k; πρωτη παντων των εντωλων ακουε E G H Γ (157) pm (f13 πρωτη παντων των εντωλων ακουε εστιν); προτον παντων ακουη f1; πρωτη εστιν ακουε ℵ B L Δ Ψ 579 892* 1342
12:30 ολης της καρδιας N Vomit της B D* pcomit της B D* X 346 543 788 1346; include της ℵ A Dc E 13 69 rell
12:30 και εξ ολης της ψυχης σου N Vκαι εξ ολης ψυχης σου B 1346; και εξ ολης της διανοιας σου A (transposing clauses); omit K Π* 157 pc k; και εξ ολης της ψυχης σου ℵ D E G H L M W Γ Δ Θ Πc Σ Φ Ψ f1 f13 28 33 565 579 700 892 1071 1342 (1424 και εξ ολης της ισχυος σου)
12:30 και εξ ολης της διανοιας σου N Vomit D c k Irenaeus alomit D OL pcκαι εξ ολης διανοιας σου B; omit D H 157 c g2 k r2; και εξ ολης της ψυχης σου A 1424 (transposing clauses); και εξ ολης της διανοιας σου ℵ E G L rell
12:30 ισχυος σου N; ισχυος σου αυτη πρωτη εντολη Vadd αυτη πρωτη εντολη 𝔎 D plισχυος σου αυτη πρωτη εντολη A D G H pm b c ff2 k l sin pesh hark pal arm geo; ισχυος σου αυτη εστιν η πρωτη εντολη 1071; ισχυος σου αυτη πρωτη παντων εντολη K Π Φ 33 579 al; ισχυος σου ℵ B E L W Δ Θ Ψ 28 565 1342 a sa bo
12:31 δευτερα αυτη N; και δευτερα ομοια αυτη Vδευτερα δε ομοια ταυτη D al (𝔎 pm)και δευτερα ομοια αυτη (A* 1071 και δευτερα ομοια αυτης) Ac E G H K M (W και δευτερα ομοιως αυτης) X (Γ και δευτερα δε ομοια αυτη) Θ Π Σ Φ f1 f13-part (69 788 και δευτερα ομοια ταυτη) 28 157 565 892 pm; omit δευτερα αυτη αγαπησεις a; δευτερα δε ομοια ταυτη D; δευτερα δε ομοια αυτη 33 579 700; η δευτερα αυτη Ψ; και δευτερα αυτη Δ; δευτερα αυτη εστιν ℵ 1342; δευτερα αυτη B L
12:31 μειζων N Vμειζων δε ℵ L b i Hilaryμειζων δε ℵ L 892 b i Hilary; μειζων A B D E G H rell
12:31 αλλη εντολη N Vεντολη αλλη D; αλλη U 13; omit 1342; αλλη εντολη ℵ A B E G H rell
12:32 και ειπεν αυτω N Vomit και B syειπεν αυτω B sin pesh sa bo geo2; και ειπεν αυτω ℵ A D E G H rell
12:32 διδασκαλε επ αληθειας ειπες N; διδασκαλε επ αληθειας ειπας Vειπες διδασκαλε επ αληθειας D a b c ff2 i q r1; διδασκαλε επ αληθειας ειπες ℵ* E H L X Δ Π Σ pm; διδασκαλε επ αληθειας ειπας ℵc A B G M W Γ Θ Π*vid Φ Ψ f1 f13 28 33 157 565 (579 αληθει (!)) 700 1071 pm
12:32 εις εστιν N Vεις εστιν ο θεος D pm OL sinεις εστιν ο θεος D G Θ f13 28 565 700 1582c (E H 1071 εις εστιν θεος) (W εις ο θεος εστιν) (579 hark** ο θεος εις εστιν) pm (εις εστιν ο κυριος k) a b c ff2 vgsanger,CL sin pal geo2; εις εστιν ℵ A B L M X Γ Δ Π Σ Φ Ψ f1 33 157 892 1342 pm l r2 vgpm pesh geo1
12:32 εστιν αλλος πλην N Vεστιν πλην D a; εστιν αλλος πλην ℵ A B E G H rell
12:33 ολης της καρδιας N Vomit της B pcολης καρδιας B X Ψ pc; ολης της καρδιας σου ℵ L 1071 pc sin pal; omit g2; ολης της καρδιας A D E G H pm
12:33 συνεσεως και εξ ολης της ισχυος N Vδυναμεως for συνεσεως D Θ 565 a b i q r Hilary (no other variant noted)δυναμεως...ψυχης D pc; δυναμεως... ισχυος 565 OL; συνεσεως...ψυχης (𝔎 pm)δυναμεως και εξ ολης της ψυχης αυτου D; δυναμεως και εξ ολης της ισχυος Θ 565; ισχυος και εξ ολης της συνεσεως f1; ισχυος και εξ ολης της διανοιας και εξ ολης της ψυχης 33; ισχυος 579; συνεσεως και εξ ολης της ψυχης A E G H M X Γ Π Σ Φ f13 157 700 1071 pm pesh hark; συνεσεως και εξ ολης της ισχυος (ℵ* omit της) ℵc B L W Δ Ψ 28 892 1342 sa [note incidentally how badly both the Nestle and Vogels apparatus mis-characterize this variant]
12:33 τον πλησιον N Vτον πλησιον σου ℵ* W Δ 827 sa? bo?; τον πλησιον ℵc A B D E G H rell
12:33 ως εαυτον N Vως σεαυτον ℵ A D L S W Γ Δ* 1342 al ff2 i r2 sa bo; ως εαυτον B E G H K M Δc-vid Θ Π Σ Φ Ψ 092 f1 f13 28 33 157 565 579 700 892 1071 pm a b c g2 l q vg sin pesh hark arm geo
12:33 περισσοτερον N Vπλειον D 𝔎 plπλειον A D E G H M W X Γ Θ Π Σ Φ 092 f1 f13 28 157 565 700 1071 pm; περισσοτερον ℵ B L Δ (περισσοτερα Ψ) 33 (579 omits the following εστιν) 892 1342
12:33 θυσιων N Vτων θυσιων ℌ 565 pm; θυσιων B D 𝔎 alτων θυσιων ℵ L M Δ f1 f13 33 565 579 892 1071 al; θυσιων A B D E G H W X Γ Θ Π Π Σ 092 28 157 700 pm
12:34 ο Ιησους ιδων αυτον N Vomit αυτον ℌ D al; txt B 𝔎 pmο Ιησους ιδων ℵ D L W Δ Θ f1 (28 ιδως) 33 565 (579 ειδως) 892 1342 al vg; ο Ιησους ιδων αυτον A B E G (H*vid 700 pc ειδως) M X Γ Π Σ Φ (Ψ ιδως) 092 (f13 ιδων ο Ιησους αυτον) 157 1071 pm
12:34 ει απο της βασιλειας N V omit ει ℵ* pcαπο της βασιλειας (omitting ει) ℵ* L k; απο της βασιλειας ει &alefsym2 Δ Ψ 892; ει απο ℵ2 A B D E G H rell
12:34 ουκετι ετολμα αυτον N Vετολμα αυτον D (579 ~ ετολμα επερωτησαι αυτον) pc; ετολμα ουκετι αυτον f13; ετολμα αυτον ουκετι W a; ουκετι ετολμα αυτον (ℵ 1424 ~ επερωτησαι αυτον) ℵc A B E G H M Γ Δ Θ Π Ψ f1 (28 ουκετι ετολμα αυτον τι) 33 157 (565 ουκετι ετολμα αυτω) 700 (1071 ουκ ετολμα αυτον)
12:35 ο Ιησους ελεγεν διδασκων εν τω ιερω N Vο Ιησους διδασκων εν τω ιερω ειπεν D b i k q r1; λεγει διδασκων εν τω ιερω W; ελεγεν διδασκων εν τω ιερω 700; ο Ιησους ελεγεν διδασκων εν τω ιερω ℵ A B E G H rell
12:35 υιος Δαυιδ εστιν N; υιος εστιν Δαυιδ V υιος εστιν Δαυ(ε)ιδ A E G H M* W Γ Π (Σ pc του δαυιδ) Φ 28 33 700 1071 pm a b c ff2 vg; υιος Δαυ(ε)ιδ εστιν ℵ B D L Mc Δ Θ Ψ 092 f1 f13 33 565 579 892 1071 al k
12:36 αυτος δαυιδ N; αυτος γαρ δαυιδ Vκαι ουτος δαυιδ D armαυτος γαρ δαυ(ε)ιδ A E G H M X Γ Θ Π Σ Φ 092 f1 33 157 700 892 1071 pm b i l q r1 vg hark; και ουτος δαυειδ D; και αυτος δαυιδ 579; αυτος δαυ(ε)ιδ ℵ B L W Δ Ψ f13 28 565 1342 pc a k
12:36 ειπεν εν τω πνευματι N Vειπεν εν τω πνευματι ℵ D L Δ Υ Φ Ψ 33 565 579 892 al; ειπεν εν πνευματι A E G H M W Γ Π Σ 092 f1 f13 28 157 700 1071 pm; ειπεν πνευματι 1342; ειπεν τω πνευματι B
12:36 (πνευματι) τω αγιω N V(πνευματι) αγιω A E G H M W Γ Π Φ f1 f13 28 157 700 1071 1342 pm; (πνευματι) τω αγιω ℵ B D L Δ Θ Ψ 33 565 579 892 pc
12:36 ειπεν κυριος N; ειπεν ο κυριος Vειπεν ο κυριος ℌ 𝔎 pl; ειπεν κυριος B Dλεγει κυριος D; λεγει ο κυριος A E G H M* Π Φ 157 pm (a2 aur ff2 k q have λεγει; indeterminate for add/omit ο); ειπεν ο κυριος ℵ L Mc W X Γ Δ Θ Σ 092 f1 f13 28 33 565 700 892 1071 al; ειπεν κυριος B (b c vg have ειπεν; indeterminate for add/omit ο)
12:36 καθου εκ δεξιων N Vκαθισον εκ δεξιων Bκαθισον (or καθισο) εκ δεξιων B; καθου εκ δεξιων ℵ A D E G H rell
12:36 εως αν Θω N Vεως θωσω D* (εως θησω Dc); εως αν Θω ℵ A B E G H rell
12:36 υποποδιον των ποδων N Vυποκατω των ποδω B D W 28 sinυποκατω των ποδω B D pc; υποποδιον των ποδων ℵ 𝔎 plυποποδιον των ποδων ℵ A E G H L M X Γ Δ Θ Π Ζ Φ Ψ f1 f13 33 565 579 700 892 1071 1342 pm; υποκατω των ποδων B D W 28 pc sin sa bo geo
12:37 αυτος δαυιδ N; αυτος ουν δαυιδ Vει ουν δαυιδ b c (ff2) sinαυτος ουν δαυιδ A E G H M X Γ Π Φ 092 f1 f13 33 157 579 700 892 1071 pm l r1 vg; ει ουν δαυιδ (b) (c) (ff2) (sin) (bo)?; αυτος δαυιδ ℵ B D L Δ Θ (Ψ αυτος δαυιδ εν πνευματι) W 28 565 1342 pc a k q r1
12:37 και ποθεν N Vκαι πως ℵ* M* W Θ Σ Ψ f1 f13 28 33 565 579 1071 pc b; και ποθεν ℵc A B D E G H L Mc Γ Δ Π Φ 157 700 892 pm a ff2 k vg
12:37 αυτου εστιν υιος N Vυιος αυτου εστιν ℵ A E G H M W X Γ Π Σ Φ Ψ f1 f13 28 33 157 579 700 1071 pm b hark; εστιν υιος αυτου D a c ff2 i l q r1 r2 vg; εστιν αυτου υιος Δ k; αυτου εστιν υιος B L Θ 565 892 1342
12:37 ο πολυς οχλος N Vπολυς οχλος ℵ D W Θ 28 565 700; ο πολυς οχλος A B E G H rell
12:37 ηκουεν αυτου ηδεως N Vκαι ηδεως αυτο ηκουεν D b ff2 i l q r1; ηκουεν ιδεως αυτου 28; ηκουεν αυτου ηδεως (ℵ M Γ ηκουσεν αυτου ηδεως) A B E G H rell
12:38 και εν τη διδαχη αυτου ελεγεν N Vο δε διδασκων αμα ελεγων αυτοις Dgr (Θ 565) a b i rελεγεν: ελεγεν αυτοις 𝔎 D pm and ο δε διδασκων αμα ελεγων αυτοις D OL pcο δε διδασκων αμα ελεγων αυτοις D a b ff1 i r1; ο δε διδασκων ελεγων αυτοις Θ 565; και ελεγεν αυτοις εν τη διδαχη αυτου A E G H M Γ Π Σ Φ f13 157 700 1071 pm l q vg hark; και ελεγεν αυτους εν τη διδαχη αυτου F pc; και ελεγεν εν τη διδαχη αυτου W f1 28 geo2; και εν τη διδαχη αυτου ελεγεν ℵ B L Δ Ψ 1342 e? k? (33 579 892 pesh? και εν τη διδαχη αυτου ελεγεν αυτοις)
12:38 των θελοντων εν N Vκαι των τελοντων εν D (c); των θελοντων εν ℵ A B D E G rell
12:38 εν στολαις N Vστοιας sin palεν στοιας sin pal ex err?; εντολαις (!); στολαις ℵ A B D E G H (W εν ταις στολαις) (69 εντολαις 69)rell
12:38 αγοραις N Vαγοραις ποιεισθαι D Θ Φ 565; αγοραις ℵ A B E G H rell
12:40 κατεσθοντες N; κατεσθιοντες Vκατεσθιουσιν D (f1 κατεσθιουσι) pc OL vg; κατεσθιοντες ℵ A E G H (Δ κατασθιοντες) (1424 εσθιοντες) rell; κατεσθοντες B
12:40 τας οικας N Vοικας D W 229; τας οικας ℵ A B E G H rell
12:40 χηρων N Vχηρων και οφθαλων D W 13 28 69 a b c ff2 i alχηρων και οφθαλων D OL alχηρων και οφθαλων D W f13 28 565 χηρων και οφθαλων a b ff2 pal; χηρων ℵ A B E G H rell e k l r2 vg
12:40 και προφασει N Vomit και D OL vg syπροφασει D a b c ff2 k vg sin pesh arm; και προφασει ℵ A B E G H rell e
12:40 λημψονται N; ληψονται Vληψονται E G H M Γ Πc Ψ f1 f 13 28 (565 και ληψονται) 579 700 1071 rell; λημψονται ℵ A B(c?) D L W X Δ Θ Π* Σ 33?
12:41 και καθισας N Vκαι εστως W f1 f13 sin pcκαι κατεναντι του γαζοφυλακιου καθομενος ο Ιησους for και καθ... (απ)εναντι το γαζουφυλακιου D q; και εστως ; και καθισας ο Ιησους A E G H M X Γ Π Σ Φ 33 157 579 700 1071 pm b ff2 vg pesh harktxt sa; και εστως W Θ f1 f13 28 565 pc harkmarg pal arm geo; και καθισας ℵ B L Δ Ψ 892 1342 a k r1 bo
12:41 κατεναντι N Vαπεναντι B alκαι κατεναντι του γαζοφυλακιου καθομενος ο Ιησους for και καθ... (απ)εναντι το γαζουφυλακιου D q; κατεναντι ℵ A E G H L M W Γ Δ Π Σ Φ f1 28 565 700 892 1071 1342 pm; κατενωπιον f13; απεναντι B U Ψ 33 579 1424 pc
12:41 εθεωρει N Vθεωρει ℵ* Δ? Ψ?; ; omit g1; εθεωρει ℵc A BD E G H L M (W εθεορει παντας) Γ Θ Π f1 f13 28 33 157 565 579 700 892 1071 1342 rell
12:41 βαλλει χαλκον εις το γαζοφυλακιον και πολλοι πλουσιοι N Vomit Domit Domit D; βαλλει τον χαλκον κ. τ. λ. ℵ Θ (W το χαλκον) f1 (f13 εβαλλεν) 28 565 700; βαλλει χαλκον κ. τ. λ. A B E G H L M Γ Δ Π Ψ 33 157 579 892 1071 pm
12:41 εβαλλον πολλα N Vεξεβαλλον πολλα ℵ*; εβαλλον πολλα ℵc A B E G H rell (F M? U V Π*? 28? 892 1342 al εβαλον πολλα)
12:42 και ελθουσα μια N Vελθουσα δε αμα Dελθουσα δε αμα D*; ελθουσα δε μια Dc Θ 565 700 vg; και ελθουσα μια (ℵ 1342 και ελθουσα μια γυνη) A B E G H (Δ και προσελθουσα μια) rell sin pesh hark**
12:42 χηρα πτωχη N Vomit πτωχη D 565 OL armomit πτωχη D OL pcomit πτωχη D Θ 565 a b c ff2 k q arm; include πτωχη ℵ A B E G H pm l r2 vg
12:43 ειπεν αυτοις Ν; λεγει αυτοις Vλεγει αυτοις E G H M W X Γ Φ f1 f13 28 157 1071 pm b c ff2 vg arm; ειπεν αυτοις ℵ A B D K L U Δ Θ Π Σ Ψ 33 565 579 700 892 1342 (1424 ο Ιησους ειπεν αυτοις) al a k sin pesh hark pal sa bo geo
12:43 η χηρα αυτη η πτωχη N Vomit η πτωχη 21 kη χηρα η πτωχη αυτη D Θ 565 700 1424 pc a b i q; αυτη η χηρα η πτωχη 28; η χηρα πτωχη 1342 k; η χηρα αυτη η πτωχη ℵ A B E G H L M W Γ Δ Π Ψ f1 f13 33 157 579 1071 pm c ff2 g2 l vg
12:43 πλειον παντων εβαλεν N; πλειον παντων βεβληκεν Vπλειον παντων βεβληκεν 𝔎 pmπλειον παντων βεβληκεν E G H K Mc W X Γ Π Φ f1 28 157 700 1071 pm; πλειον παντων M*; πλειον εβαλεν 565; πλειον παντων εβαλεν (ℵ 892 πλεον; Δ πλιον; 33 579 1424 pc πλειω) (ℵ* εβαλλεν) A B D L Θ Σ Ψ f13 1342 al
12:44 παντες γαρπαντες γαρ ουτοι D f1 33 579 pc sa geo1; παντες γαρ ℵ A B E G H L M W X Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ψ f13 28 157 565 (700 τα δωρα παντες γαρ) 892 1071 1342 rell

That's 140 total variants, of which (if I counted right) all but seven involve variations between the Big Four manuscripts ℵ A B D. 74 of these variants were noted either by Vogels or NA15: Vogels has 45 of the 140 (i.e. less than a third), Nestle has 56 (40% of the total. For comparison, the 28th Nestle edition has 68, and even that is arguably an undercount since its apparatus is more comprehensive; one of its variants may include several of those cited here). There are only 27 variants found in both Vogels and NA15, so if we summarize our 140 variants:
* Vogels has 27 variants in common with Nestle, has 18 variants not in Nestle, and lacks 95 variants where ℵ A B D differ
* Nestle has 27 variants in common with Vogels, has 29 variants not in Vogels, and lacks 84 variants where ℵ A B D differ

But it's not just that Vogels omits a lot of variants; it's the variants it includes! Even though it has only 38 of the 133 variants where ℵ A B D differ (29%), it lists seven variants where the four agree. Of these:
* 1 is supported by Θ, minuscules, and versions
* 1 is supported by Δ, minuscules, and versions
* 2 are supported by a single minuscule and Tatian
* 1 is supported by minuscules and Tatian
* 1 is supported by a few versions and Tatian
* 1 is supported by a few versions
To include these, Vogels omitted 95 variants involving ℵ A B D? (At least he didn't adopt any of these readings!) It's hard to say which is worse, Vogels's text or his apparatus.

There is another interesting note here: the Alands accused Vogels of having a Byzantine text, and this is mostly true, although the real explanation is that Vogels is conforming heavily to the Vulgate, and often the Clementine Vulgate, which is mostly Byzantine in the Gospels. But what I found interesting was how often, at points of variation which weren't noted in the other apparatus, he went with the Alexandrian readings of Tischendorf/Westcott and Hort/Nestle. In other words, he often did not examine the variants to see which text to prefer; he just took the text that was before him.

Galatians 1

For this, we'll do all places where ℵ B D K 1739 disagree. The source for this information are Swanson and Das Neue Testament auf Papyrus

VariantVogels apparatusNA15 apparatusfuller witness list
1:1 εγ(ε)ιραντος αυτον N Vεγ(ε)ιραντος αυτων ℵ*apud Swanson 2125; εγ(ε)ιραντος αυτον ℵc A B D F G K rell
1:3 ημων και κυριου N Vκαι κυριου ημων 𝔓46 B D G K L al. vg syκαι κυριου ημων B 𝔎 D G al; txt ℌ 1912και κυριου ημων 𝔓46 B D F G H K L 223 330 1175 1505 1739 1881 1960 pm vg; ημων και κυριου ℵ A P Ψ 056 0142 33 81 365 a b; και κυριου 0150 0278 1319
1:4 υπερ N Vπερι 𝔓46 ℵ A D G K L P al.περι ℵ* A 𝔎 D G al; txt B H 3 1611 pmυπερ 𝔓51c B H 056 0142 0150 0278 6 33 81 330 365 1175 1505 1960 al; περι 𝔓46 ℵ* A D F G K L P Ψ 223 1739 1881 pm
1:4 αιωνος του ενεστωτος N Vενεστωτος αιωνος H 𝔎 D G plενεστωτος αιωνος ℵc D F G Hvid K L P Ψ 056 0142 0278 (69 αυτου αιωνος for του αιωνος) 223 330 365 (489 927 ενεστωτος πονηρου αιωνος for ενεστωτος αιωνος πονηρου) 1175 1505 1960 pm; αιωνος του ενεστωτος 𝔓46 ℵ* A B 0150 33 81 1739 1881 pc
1:4 το θελημα N Vθελημα ℵ*; θελησιν H 0278; το θελημα (𝔓46 το θελ̣...) ℵc A B D F G K rell
1:6 θαυμαζω N Vθαυμαζω δε Gμαζω (sic.) δε F G; txt 𝔓46 (𝔓51 αμην ....... οτι) rell
1:6 ουτως N Vomit Ggromit G 1 alomit ουτως F G; include ουτως (𝔓46 K 056 6 81 104 323 330 365 945 1319 al ουτω) ℵ A B D L rell
1:6 χριστου N Vιησου χριστου D al hark; omit 𝔓46 G Marcion Tert Cypr alιησου χριστου D 326 hark; θεου 7 327; omit G Marcion Tert Ephrχριστου 𝔓51 ℵ A B Fc K L P Ψ 056 0152 0150 33 81 365 1175 1505 1739 1881 pm f vg pesh bo; ιησου χριστου D 61 326 1241 1837 hark** (1424 του χριστου for ι̅υ̅ χριστου); omit (𝔓46 defective but certainly does not have space for ιησου and probably not for χριστου) F* G Hvid a b
1:7 και θελοντες N Vomit και θελοντες ℵ* 2464*; include και θελοντες 𝔓46-vid 𝔓51-vidc A B D F G K (927 και θελοντες του) 2464c rell
1:8 και εαν N Vκαν Bκαν B (𝔓46 defective); εαν 1874* 2400; και εαν ℵ A D F G K rell
1:8 ευαγγελισηται [υμιν] N; ευαγγελισηται υμιν Vomit υμιν ℵ G Marcion? Tert Cyprευαγγελισηται ℵ; αλλος ευαγγελισηται Marcion Cypr; ευαγγελιζηται G; ευαγγελιζηται υμιν 𝔎 pm (K P ευαγγελιζεται); υμιν ευαγγελιζηται B H pc; ευαγγελιζηται υμας D; txt A latευαγγελιζηται υμιν D1 L 056 6 33 69 945 1319 1611 vg; ευαγγελιζηται υμας (D* ευαγγελιζητε) D,2 330 1424 2400; ευαγγελιζεται υμιν K P 049 0142 0151 88 365 614 1505 1573 1881 2464 pm; ευαγγελισηται υμιν ℵc A 81 104 326 1241 d; υμιν ευαγγελιζηται 𝔓51-vid B H 630 1175 1739* (1739c ημιν); υμιν ευαγγελιζεται 0278; ημιν ευαγγελιζηται 1241 1352 1836; ευαγγελιζηται F G Ψ a; ευαγγελιζεται 0150; ευαγγελισηται ℵ* b g
1:8 ο ευηγγελισαμεθα υμιν N Vο ευαγγελισαμεθα υμιν D G H 0278; ο ευηγγελισαμεθα ημιν F(*) 1241supp; ω παρελαβεται 2464; ο ευηγγελισαμεν ημιν 056 0142 1739; ο ευηγγελισαμεθα υμιν (𝔓51-vid ...ισαμεθα υμ..) ℵ A B K L (P pc ευηγγελησαμεθα υμιν) 049 rell
1:9 προειρηκαμεν N Vπροειρηκα ℵ* 3 al peshπροειρηκα ℵ* pc peshomit verse (h.t.?) 056 0142 1846*; προειρηκα ℵ* 323 489 630 796 927 945 1646c a pesh; txt (𝔓46 προειρηκ̣... but seems to have at least three or four letters here) A B D (F G προιρηκαμεν) K (460 618 1738 pc προειρηκαμεν υμιν) rell
1:10 ει N Vει γαρ E K L P al syrει γαρ 𝔎 pm syrει γαρ Dc K L Papud AufP 049 056 075 0142 0151 69 88 104 323 614 945 1243 1505 1611 pm; ει 𝔓46 ℵ A B D* (F G) Ψ 075 0150 0278 6 33 81 330 365 630 1175 1241supp 1319 1573 1739 1881 2464 a b d f vg
1:11 γνωριζω γαρ N Vγνωριζω δε 𝔓46 ℵ* A Egr K L P al syγνωριζω δε ℵ* A 𝔎 pl syr; txt B D* G pc lattγνωριζω γαρ ℵ1 B D*,2 F G 0150 33 a d f vg; γνωριζω δε 𝔓46 ℵ*,2 A D1K L Ψ 049 056 075 0142 0151 6 81 1175 1241supp 1319 1505 1611 1739 2464 rell; γνωριζω ουν 0278; γνωριζω (without a conjunction) 1735 (P?)
1:12 ουτε N Vουδε ℵ A D* G P alουδε ℌ D G 69 al; txt B 𝔎 pmουτε 𝔓46 B D1 K L 049 056 075 0142 0151 6 323 330 614 945 1505 1611 2412 2495 pm; ουδε ℵ A D*,2 F G P Ψ 0150 0278 33 (69 1175 ουδ) 81 88 104 365 436 630 1241 1319 1739 1881 2464 pc
1:13 επορθουν N Vεπολεμουν Gεπολεμουν G (ex latt?)επολεμουν F G; txt 𝔓46 ℵ A B D K rell
1:14 εν τω γενει N Vεν τω γενη 330 1243 2464 pc; εν τω γενι ℵ D*; εν τω γενει 𝔓46 A B Dc F G K L pm; omit 0151
1:15 οτε δε N Vomit οτε Avid; include οτε 𝔓46 ℵ B D F G K rell
1:15 ευδοκησεν N; ευδοκησεν ο θεος Vom ο θεος 𝔓46 B G al Ir1/2 vg syadd ο θεος ℌ 𝔎 D pl; txt B G pc lat syευδοκησεν ο θεος ℵ (A 075 104 330 1175 pc ηυδοκησεν ο θεος) D K L pm; ευδοκησεν 𝔓46 B F G 0150 (1505 1611 2495 ηυδοκησεν)
1:16 ευαγγελιζωμαι N Vευαγγελισωμαι 𝔓46 D* 330 pc; ευαγγελιζομαι L P 0278 6 88 104 1319 pm; ευαγγελιζωμαι ℵ A B Dc (F G ευαγγελειζωμαι) K Ψ 049 056 075 0142 33 1175 1241s 1505 1611 1739 pm
1:17 ανηλθον N Vαπηλθον B D G al peshαπηλθον B D G al η̣λθον 𝔓46-vid; απηλθον 𝔓51 B D F G 88* 462 2344 2464 pc; ανηλθον ℵ A K L P Ψ 049 056 075 0142 0150 0278 33 81 88c (330 ανηλθον επι for ανηλθον εις) 1175 1739 1881 pm hark
1:18 τρια ετη N Vετη τρια 𝔓46 B D G K L al latpmετη τρια B 𝔎 D G pmετη τρια (𝔓46 ετη ...α) B D (F G αιτη γ̅) K L Ψ 049 056 075 0142 0151 0278 104 365 1175 1505 pm; τρια ετη ℵ A P 0150 (33 τρια ετη παλιν) 81 326 440 630 1241 1315 1739 1837 1881 2464 pc
1:18 κηφαν N Vπετρον D G K L P al lat peshπετρον 𝔎 D G pl latt peshπετρον ℵc D F G K L P Ψ 056 0142 0150 0278 81 1175 1739marg 1881 rell; κηφαν 𝔓46-vid 𝔓51-vid ℵ* A B 33 1241 1739txt harkmarg sa bo
1:19 ουκ ειδον N Vουχ ειδον 𝔓46-vid B*; ειδον ουδινα D* F G; ουκ ειδον (ℵ Ψ 1175 pc ουκ ιδον) A Bc Dc K L (P 1611 ουκ οιδον) (33 ουκ ιδεν) rell
1:22 εκκλησιαις N Vεκκλησιας B* 1243; εκκλησιαις ℵ A Bc D F G K L rell
1:22 ταις εν χριστω N Vτης εν χριστω D* K 049 330 1241supp 1243 1505 1611 2344 2495 al; ταις εν χριστω ℵ A B Dc L P Ψ 056 075 0142 6 33 104 1175 1319 1739 pm
1:23 επορθει N Vεπολεμει Gεπολεμει G (ex latt?)επολεμει F G lat; κατεσκαπτε 1739marg; επορθει 𝔓46 ℵ A B D K (L P 075 6 330 1175 1735 al επορθη) rell
1:24 εδοξαζον εν εμοι N Vεν εμοι εδοξαζον D F(*) G; εδοξαζον εν εμοι 𝔓46 ℵ A B C K L (2464 εδοξαζων) rell

It will be evident that Vogels (and Nestle) both do a much better job of citing the major variants in Paul. On the other hand, note that Vogels only once cites a minuscule witness, and that one witness one of no value. 33, 81, 1175, 1739 -- never cited at all. Even for 1920, it's a very weak list, and by 1949, it should have been completely unacceptable. On the other hand, the text is much better; Vogels clearly edited less -- and so was closer to the texts of the better editors who preceded him.

Westcott & Hort

Editors. Brooke Foss Westcott (1825-1901) and Fenton John Anthony Hort (1828-1892)

Date of Publication. The text was published in 1881 (under the title The New Testament in the Original Greek; an Introduction [and] Appendix, authored by Hort, appeared in 1882 (revised edition by F. C. Burkitt in 1892).

The Text. The WH text is a very strongly Alexandrian text -- so much so that Hort has been accused of constructing his text simply by looking for the reading of Codex Vaticanus. The situation is not that simple; a better statement would be to say that the edition used B as a copy text. Hort (who was the chief architect of the textual theory of the book) would follow other witnesses if the internal evidence was sufficiently strong. The most noticeable instance of this is the famous Western Non-Interpolations. Still, it is fair to say that Hort's text falls closer to B than does any other critical edition -- and that Westcott & Hort is the only New Testament edition which approaches the method, used in some forms of non-Biblical criticism, of editing from a proof text.

The Apparatus. The WH edition has no true critical apparatus; not one manuscript is cited in the main body of the edition. There are a few variant readings in the margin; these are readings where the two editors disagreed on the text or were very uncertain of the original readings. They also have a list of "interesting" variants. In neither apparatus do they supply a list of witnesses. The only textual evidence they give is in the discussion of readings in their Introduction [and] Appendix, and even these are difficult to use as manuscripts are (inevitably) cited using Tischendorf numbers.

The lack of an apparatus in WH has been criticised by some. This is rather unfair in context. They worked very shortly after Tischendorf published his eighth edition; they had nothing to add to it. (As both men were caught up in academic and pastoral duties, they did not have the leisure to go and examine manuscripts in odd places. In any case, all manuscripts known to be valuable, save B itself, had been studied by Tischendorf.) The problem with the WH edition is not its lack of an apparatus, but the fact that the coordinated apparatus (Tischendorf's) is now hard to find and hard to read.

The WH edition has another interesting feature: Some dozens of readings are obelized as "primitive errors" -- i.e. passages where the original reading is no longer preserved in the extant manuscripts. Westcott and Hort did not see fit, in these cases, to print conjectural emendations (they printed what they regarded as the oldest surviving reading), but the presentation of their data makes it clear that they felt it to be needed in these passages.

Summary: A Comparison of the Various Editions

This section offers various comparisons of the materials in the sundry editions, to show the qualities of each edition. (Note: Some editions, such as Swanson, are not included in certain of the comparisons, because they count variants in different ways.)

For a truly detailed comparison of the major editions for the book of Colossians, see the Sample Apparatus of Colossians.

Statistic 1: Variants Per Chapter

Let's take a few selected chapters, and count how many variants are cited in each chapter by the various editions (note: variants are usually but not quite always counted based on the way the editor of the edition divides them; the fact that SQE13 and Huck/Greeven both show 76 variants in Matthew 10, for instance, does not mean that they have the same variants or even include similar classes of variants, just that they have about as many separate citations in the apparatus):

Sample 1: Matthew 10

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Aland: SQE ed. 1376 (using the version of the apparatus on pp. 138-149)
Bover21 showing ms. support; 2 more where only editors cited
Hodges & Farstad10 MT variants; 19 MT vs. UBS variants
Huck/Greeven76 (using the version of the apparatus on pp. 57-60)*
Merk55 (+27 variants in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1343
Nestle-Aland ed. 2550
Nestle-Aland ed. 2758
UBS Ed. 35
UBS Ed. 42
Westcott & Hort4 with marginal variants, 3 "noteworthy rejected"

* For comparison, the equivalent sections in Huck/Lietzmann show 5 variants

Sample 2: Mark 2

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Aland: SQE ed. 13109 (as shown on pp. 60-66)
Bover36 showing ms. support; 3 more where only editors cited
Hodges & Farstad11 MT variants; 46 MT vs. UBS variants
Huck/Greeven102 (as shown on pp. 49-66)*
Merk70 (+27 variants in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1347
Nestle-Aland ed. 2550
Nestle-Aland ed. 2748
UBS Ed. 310
UBS Ed. 48
Westcott & Hort13 with marginal variants, 1 "noteworthy rejected"

* For comparison, the equivalent sections in Huck/Lietzmann show 12 variants

Sample 3: John 18

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Aland: SQE ed. 1396 (as shown on pp. 455-475)
Bover36 showing MS support; 1 more where only editors listed
Hodges & Farstad13 MT variants; 40 MT vs. UBS variants
Merk65 (+32 variants in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1342
Nestle-Aland ed. 2549
Nestle-Aland ed. 2772
UBS Ed. 34
UBS Ed. 43
Westcott & Hort7 with marginal variants, 1 "noteworthy rejected"

Sample 4: Acts 6

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Hodges & Farstad3 MT variants; 5 MT vs. UBS variants
Merk37 (+11 variants in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1324
Nestle-Aland ed. 2527
Nestle-Aland ed. 2726
UBS Ed. 33
UBS Ed. 42
Westcott & Hort3 with marginal variants; 0 "noteworthy rejected"

Sample 5: Acts 18

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Bover15 showing MS support; 1 more where only editors listed
Hodges & Farstad8 MT variants; 26 MT vs. UBS variants
Merk53 (+22 variants in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1356
Nestle-Aland ed. 2560
Nestle-Aland ed. 2759
UBS Ed. 311
UBS Ed. 410
Westcott & Hort4 with marginal variants; 2 "noteworthy rejected"

Sample 6: 1 Corinthians 13

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Bover8 showing MS support; 6 more where only editors listed
Hodges & Farstad2 MT variants; 10 MT vs. UBS variants
Merk26 (+11 variants in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1316
Nestle-Aland ed. 2517
Nestle-Aland ed. 2713
UBS Ed. 31
UBS Ed. 43
Westcott & Hort2 with marginal variants; 1 "noteworthy rejected"

Sample 7: Colossians 2

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Bover14 showing MS support; 2 more where only editors cited
Hodges & Farstad8 MT variants; 14 MT vs. UBS variants
Merk37 (+36 in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1331
Nestle-Aland ed. 2531
Nestle-Aland ed. 2731
UBS Ed. 36
UBS Ed. 47
Westcott & Hort9 with marginal variants (3 being primitive errors), 0 "noteworthy rejected"

Sample 8: James 2

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Bover10 showing MS support; 2 more where only editors cited
Hodges & Farstad5 MT variants; 19 MT vs. UBS variants
Merk41 (+24 in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1336
Nestle-Aland ed. 2539
Nestle-Aland ed. 2749
UBS Ed. 33
UBS Ed. 44
Westcott & Hort6 with marginal variants (one being a punctuation variant), 0 "noteworthy rejected"

Sample 9: 1 John 4

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Bover7 showing MS support; 1 more where only editors cited
Hodges & Farstad4 MT variants; 7 MT vs. UBS variants
Merk39 (+24 in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1328
Nestle-Aland ed. 2529
Nestle-Aland ed. 2735
UBS Ed. 34
UBS Ed. 45
Westcott & Hort5 with marginal variants, 1 "noteworthy rejected"

Sample 10: Revelation 8

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Bover7 showing MS support; 1 more where only editors cited
Hodges & Farstad17
Merk29 (+30 in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1319
Nestle-Aland ed. 2519
Nestle-Aland ed. 2729
UBS Ed. 31
UBS Ed. 4None
Westcott & Hort4 with marginal variants, 1 "noteworthy rejected"

Sample 11: Revelation 15

EditionVariants in Apparatus
Bover4 showing MS support; 2 more where only editors cited
Hodges & Farstad20
Merk19 (+23 in the Latin parallel)
Nestle ed. 1313
Nestle-Aland ed. 2514
Nestle-Aland ed. 2724
UBS Ed. 33
UBS Ed. 42
Westcott & Hort2 with marginal variants, 0 "noteworthy rejected"

Possibly this is worth graphing, to give a comparison. I will offer only two graphs, one for the Gospels only (so that we can include the synopses) and one for the New Testament as a whole.

Variants in the Gospels, total for Matthew 10, Mark 2, John 18:

Gospels Variant Count

Here are the totals for the entire New Testament based on the chapters above:

New Testament Variant Count

Appendix: The Variorum Bible

This nineteenth century English Bible is never included among the list of critical editions, but arguably it should be. Certainly it would be a wonderful thing for students if such an edition were prepared based on modern materials (the original Variorum Bible dates to 1880).

The basic idea is this: The Variorum Bible is an edition of the English-language King James Version -- a true King James rendering, not one of these modern reprints which cut out the notes to the reader and the prefaces and the like. To this are added a series of reader helps such as an extensive set of cross-references and clarifying glosses. Most important from our standpoint, it has a series of textual footnotes listing variant readings and citing the supporting manuscripts and editions.

A few examples may be the best way to explain how the edition works.

Matthew 1:10
m 2 Kings 20.
1 Chron. 3.
10 And m Ezekias begat Manasses; and Manasses begat βAmonβ; and Amon begat Josias;
VAR. READ. --V. 10. β So L, Mcl. We.; Amos ℵ B C Δ, Al. La. Ti. Tr. WH
John 21:15-16
  15 ¶ So when they had 5dined5, Jesus saith to Simon Peter, Simon, son of βJonasβ, 6lovest6 thou me more 7than these7? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I 8love8 three. He saith unto him, Feed my lambs.
i Acts 20.28.
Hebr. 13.20
1 Pet. 2.25
& 5.2, 4.
16 He saith to him again the second time, Simon, son of βJonasβ, lovest thou me? He saith unto him, Yea, Lord; thou knowest that I love thee. i He saith unto him, 9Feed9 my γsheepγ.
VAR. REND. -- 5 Vs. 12, 15. Rather breakfast (an early meal). -- 6 V. 15. i.e. love with respect Me. &c.; so lovest in v. 16 -- 7 i.e. than these love me -- 8 i.e. love with affection Me. &c.; so love in v. 16, and both love and lovest in v. 17 -- 9 V. 16. shepherd.
VAR. READ. -- Vs. 15-17 β So A C2, Mcl.; John ℵa B C* D, La. Tr. Al. Ti. WH.; and so in vs. 16 and 17.-- Vs. 16, 17 γ So ℵ A D, Al. La. Tr.1; little sheep B C, Ti. WH.
1 Corinthians 13:3
c Matt. 6.1,2 3 And c though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body βto be burnedβ; and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
VAR. READ. --V. 3. β So C D, La. Ti. Tr. Al. Scr.; that I may glory ℵ A B, WH1 (difference of one letter in Greek)

In Matthew 1:10, we have three parts: The list of parallels, the text with annotations, and the list of variant reading(s). So the note m means that the statement that (H)ezekia(h) begot Manasse(h), and Manasseh begot Amos/Amon, and Amos/Amon begot Josia(h) is paralleled in 2 Kings 20:21 (which is the account of Hezekiah's death and Manasseh's succession) and in the genealogy in 1 Chronicles 3:13.

Below the text we see the VAR. READ or variant reading(s). In this case, the variant concerns the text "Amos," which is marked in the text by β. The apparatus
       β So L, Mcl. We.; Amos ℵ B C Δ, Al. La. Ti. Tr. WH
means that "Amon," the reading found in the King James Version text and marked by the symbol β, is read by the manuscript L and the edition of J. B. McClellan (1875) plus the (then-incomplete) text of We(iss). The alternate reading is "Amos," which is found in ℵ B C Δ and the editions of Al(ford), La(chmann), Ti(schendorf), Tr(egelles), and W(estcott-)H(ort). It is also, of course, the reading of the UBS text.

The section on John 21:15-16 is the most complex, because it shows not only cross-references and textual variants but also "variant renderings" -- in effect, linguistic notes. So there are, e.g., no parallels cited to John 21:15, but to the section about feeding the sheep in verse 16, note i cites parallels to Acts 20:28, Hebrews 13:20, and 1 Peter 2:25, 5:2, 5:4.

The VAR. REND. or Variant Rendering in the first case (note 5, Rather breakfast) is simply a clarification that the Greek refers to a morning meal. Similarly, notes 7 and 9 are simply explanatory glosses, the second perhaps otiose. But notes 6 and 8 are significant, because they show (as few English versions do) that Peter and Jesus are using different verbs, αγαπαω and φιλεω. How significant this is remains the subject of debate (I personally would maintain that the distinction is deliberate and that Jesus is manipulating Peter to confess that he has gone beyond φιλια to feeling αγαπη toward Jesus), but the Variorum Bible version allows the reader to see that there is a distinction.

We have two variant readings in this section, one of which (β) applies in both verses 15 and 16; γ applies only to verse 16. Variant β concerns the name of Peter's father. "John" is read by A and C2 plus the edition of McClellan (which, as you may be gathering, is very close to the Textus Receptus); all the more valuable editions (Lachman, Tregelles, Alford, Tischendorf, and Westcott-Hort) read "John" with ℵa B C* D. In variant γ, "sheep" (i.e. προβατα) is the reading of ℵ A D, the editions of Alford and Lachmann, and is the primary reading of Tregelles (hence TR1); προβατια, "little sheep," is found in B C and read by Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort.

In the Corinthians verse, the note c tells us that the verse has a (claimed) parallel in Matthew 6:1-2; the note β tells use that the reading "to be burned" is supported by C D and is read by Lachmann, Tischendorf, Tregelles, Alford, and Scrivener; the alternative, "that I may glory" is that of ℵ A B and is the reading of Westcott and Hort's text. The note also states, somewhat misleadingly, that this is a difference of one letter in the Greek. It thus implies that the only readings are the καυθησωμαι of K Ψ and the King James version and the καυχησωμαι of ℵ A B and the Westcott-Hort and UBS texts, ignoring the fact that C D in fact read καυθησομαι, which differs by two letters from the other variant. Nonetheless the apparatus makes clear the translatable part of the difference.

The Variorum Bible cites only uncials (no minuscules and, for the most part, no versions or Fathers), and only those known as of about 1880, and mostly confines its attention to the most famous uncials, but as far as Greek evidence is concerned, this is almost as much data as Westcott & Hort had in assembling their text.

One curiosity of the Variorum Bible is that it lists the older editions in almost random order -- notice the various places where Alford is cited above. And, of course, it includes Scrivener as an "edition" as if his text were a critical text, and similarly the Gospels text of McClellan, which has little genuine value. Other editions (e.g. Ellicott) are also incomplete, and Lachmann's edition, although the first to break with the TR, was based on too few manuscripts; the only editions cited which have real value are Tregelles, Tischendorf, and Westcott-Hort. There would be great value in a new Variorum Bible based on the New Revised Standard Version, but the demand may not be there to support it.

Appendix: Latin Editions

In addition to a full set of Greek editions, a thorough student of the New Testament text should have access to a variety of Latin editions. We will not dwell at length on the various Latin editions, but the following section supplies brief notes.

Observe that only editions with an apparatus are listed. So, for example, the Latin text of Bover, which is the Vulgate without apparatus, is ignored. Similarly the widely available Neo-Vulgate, published by the Catholic Church in 1979, is not listed; although it is a modern edition with a modern text, it is not something one can use for text-critical work, having been conformed largely to the Greek and usually published without manuscript variants.

Merk. (For publication data, see the entry on Greek Merk). This is in many ways the handiest of the Latin editions, as it combines Greek and Latin editions side by side, with a critical apparatus of each. The Latin text is the Clementine Vulgate, but the apparatus (quite full for a manual edition) makes it easy to ascertain which variants are older. More than three dozen Vulgate witnesses are cited in total, with usually several dozen in each book; in addition, the Old Latin codices are cited heavily.

Unfortunately, the result is not as accurate as might be hoped. Tests against Tischendorf and the smaller WW edition seem to indicate a high rate of errors, at least for am and ful. If exact knowledge of the readings of these manuscripts is for some reason essential, the student is advised to rely on other sources if possible.

Nestle. This exists both as a standalone edition and as a Greek/Latin diglot; I've used the diglot. The scope of the edition is extremely limited: The text is the Clementine Vulgate, and the only variants noted are those in Amiatinus (A), Fuldensis (F), and editions such as the Sixtine and Wordsworth-White editions. In addition, the presentation is such that it is often nearly impossible to determine which just which manuscripts support which readings. As a parallel to Greek Nestle, Latin Nestle has some slight value (mostly because the parallels line up nicely). It is not, in itself, a particularly useful edition, either in text or apparatus.

Note that this should not be confused with the more recent Nestle-Aland Greek-Latin diglot, which uses the Neo Vulgate; this is of no use for textual critics although it might be a nice crib for Catholics. For the limitations of the Neo Vulgate as a critical tool, see the entry on the Vulgate.

Tischendorf. Tischendorf published Latin editions (what didn't he publish?), but this is a reference to the eighth edition of his Greek New Testament. This, of course, lacks a Latin text, but if you are using the Latin solely for purposes of examining the Greek, Tischendorf's edition is more useful than several of the other editions here. Tischendorf cites the Clementine Vulgate (vgcle) and four manuscripts consistently: am(iatinus), demid(ovianus), fu(ldensis) and tol(etanus), with their consensus being noted simply as vg. He also cites others, such as harl(eianus), occasionally. It's only a handful of manuscripts, but at least you know exactly what you are getting.

The Vetus Latina. An immensely valuable, immensely complicated, immensely immense edition which is still ongoing. To explain it really requires reproducing several pages; it's too complicated to simply describe. It reproduces the text in a parallel-lines format somewhat like Swanson, except that the lines are textual groups, not individual manuscripts. At the top of each page is the presumed Greek original, then the various Latin text-types (typically five or so, although not all of these types represent actual manuscripts; some are reconstructed from fathers such as Tertullian or Cyprian). Then comes the apparatus, which takes an even higher fraction of the page than Tischendorf and makes every other critical apparatus I've seen seem straightforward. The amount of patristic information is very high. Sadly, instead of using straightforward sigla, it uses sigla of its own devising (Beuron numbers, an elaborate set of abbreviations for the Fathers). And, because it's so big, it's not very portable. If you need to know everything about the Old Latin (at least for the books which have been published so far), this is a terrific resource. But you'll have to use it in a library that can afford to stock it....

Weber or Gryson/Weber (the Stuttgart Vulgate). The vgst of the Nestle editions. In some ways, the best of the hand editions; it is the only edition other than Wordsworth and White (on which it is significantly dependent) to have a critical text, and the only one other than Merk to have a real apparatus with a significant selection of witnesses. Plus, it notes the exact extent of all the manuscripts cited. And, unlike Merk, the apparatus is generally regarded as accurate. Sadly, it has two drawbacks: Not enough variants, and not enough range of witnesses. To demonstrate the point about variants, we look at 1 Thessalonians. The Stuttgart edition has, by my casual count, 88 variants, often of very slight scope. This is twice the count of the lesser Wordsworth-White -- but Merk has 104 variants, often covering more text, in this book.
As far as the list of witnesses is concerned, the biggest problem is arguably that Weber's list is concerned solely with the reconstruction of the original text. There is no "majority text" of the Vulgate as there is of New Testament Greek manuscripts, but the single largest family of manuscripts is unquestionably the Paris text (Wordsworth and White's Ω); if you find a recent Vulgate text, odds are very good that it is this. But Weber does not cite a single Ω manuscript, meaning that it is simply not possible to determine, from Weber, whether a manuscript is Ω or not.
Thus, as with the Greek, one really should have two hand editions. For the Greek, it's Nestle for accuracy and Merk for a full list of variants; on the Latin side, one should have vgst for accuracy and Merk for range.
In terms of the text, the Stuttgart and Wordsworth/White Vulgates are very similar -- much closer than even the most similar editions of the Greek New Testament; based on the figures compiled by Bonifatius Fischer, the first edition of the Stuttgart Vulgate has only 772 differences from Wordsworth-White.

Wordsworth-White Editio Minor. This is probably the sort of edition that should have been used in the Nestle diglot. It is a critical text (identical in some parts to the larger Wordsworth-White edition, though distinct in certain books where the larger edition was unfinished at that time). The critical apparatus cites enough good manuscripts to be useful, as well as the readings of the Sixtine and Clementine editions. That's the good news. The bad news is, the manuscripts are not cited with any regularity. All variants in the editions are noted, but readings of the manuscripts only rarely. Taking as a random example the book of 1 Thessalonians, the edition cites a total of 45 variants. Only five of these cite the manuscripts; the rest cite only editions. Thus the apparatus, while generally accurate, is quite limited. It differs from the larger edition in Corinthians, Galatians, and Ephesians, since this edition was compiled before those books were published. For the remaining books (later Pauline epistles, Catholics, Revelation), the Editio Maior used the test of the Editio Minor, even though it was edited in haste; it is said that the text shows more differences from the Stuttgart Vulgate in these books.

Wordsworth-White Editio Maior. Also known as the Oxford Vulgate. Although now out of date (since much of it is a century old), this remains the most complete critical edition. The problem is that it's big and expensive; even if you can find a copy (which you probably can't), and can afford the expense, you aren't going to carry it around with you.... For the most part the text is the same as the Editio Minor.

Appendix: LXX (Septuagint, Greek Old Testament) Editions

Although a textual critic may not consider the Septuagint (Greek Old Testament, LXX) to be canonical, the critic nonetheless really should have a copy of the LXX at hand, simply because the New Testament quotes the Old, and the reading of the LXX may often have influenced the reading of the New Testament.

This section will not consider the problems of Old Testament Textual Criticism, which are much too large for a subsection of an article, but we can at least take a look at the materials available to a student who needs to look at the LXX text.


Even today, there is only one complete critical edition of LXX: that of Alfred Rahlfs, Septuaginta, completed in 1935. In 2006, Robert Hanhart published a revised edition. This did not, however, significantly revise the text; the main effort went into the apparatus. And even that is changed very little. How little? The table below compares through the two editions, checking every hundredth page and marking the changes (shown in red).

PageChangesVariants on this page
Vol. 1, p. 1No changes2
Vol. 1, p. 100No changes18
Vol. 1, p. 200No changes10
Vol. 1, p. 300Changes: 1
13 ης ] ως B
Vol. 1, p. 400No changes24
Vol. 1, p. 500No changes11
Vol. 1, p. 600Changes: 1
10 υιοι δυναμεως ] pr. οι A†; οι μαχηται L
Vol. 1, p. 700Changes: 1
16 κυριε μου ] κυριε ※ανθρωπε του θεου OL, μου > V mu.
Vol. 1, p. 800No changes37
Vol. 1, p. 900No changes34
Vol. 1, p. 1000No changes15
Vol. 1, p. 1100No changes14
Vol. 2, p. 1No changes6
Vol. 2, p. 100No changes8
Vol. 2, p. 200No changes13
Vol. 2, p. 300Changes: 1
14¹ επεκαλεσαμην ] προσεκ. S (S*† om. μην) A Bc†, προσκ. C†
Vol. 2, p. 400Changes: 1
11¹ σ(ε)αυτον BSA /pau ] > V†, -τω rel; cf. 13 12 2.5
Vol. 2, p. 500No changes14
Vol. 2, p. 600No changes28
Vol. 2, p. 700Changes: 2
add 17 ουτος > S*† | υστερον ] -ος S*
Vol. 2, p. 800Changes: 1
8 συνελημφυη ] pr. και A
Vol. 2, p. 900No changes9

In all, that's 22 pages tested, and 405 variants. There were only 8 changes, mostly quite minor. The new revision changed only 2% of variants tested.

The style of the apparatus did not change at all with the new edition. For the most part, the apparatus consists of a lemma, a bracket ], and then the variants. So, for instance, the first variant in chapter 2 of Genesis (2:4) reads:

24 ο θεος M ] pr. κυριος A (in O sub ※)

So in verse four of chapter two, the text printed by Rahlfs (ο θεος) is found in the uncial M. A precedes this with κυριος (i.e. κυριος ο θεος), which is also found in the Origenic text but with κυριος in ※ (i.e. ※κυριος※ ο θεος) to indicate that it is not in the Hebrew.

This is much the most common form of variant (that is, lemma ] variant), but we also find cases where only the variant reading is given (generally when the variant is a different form of the same root as in the text). So, for instance, in Genesis 3:24 the apparatus reads

24 χερουβιν A†

That is, for the reading χερουβιμ of Rahlfs's text, A (and only A) reads χερουβιν (-ν for -μ).

There are a number of special symbols in the text. One is seen in the preceding note: the dagger †. This indicates that the witness shown is the only one known to have the reading cited (so in this case, A is the only manuscript known to read χερουβιν rather than χερουβιμ).

Also very common is the > symbol, which means "omit." So in Genesis 3:20, for instance, the text reads του ονομα της γυναικος αυτου Ζωη, and in the apparatus we find
20 αυτου > A†
That means that A (and only A, given presence of the symbol †) omits the word αυτου, meaning that A's text reads του ονομα της γυναικος Ζωη.

Also common is the symbol + for an addition, after the lemma (for an addition before the lemma, the text uses "pr."), e.g. in Genesis 7:15 the Rahfls text reads δυο δυο απο πασης σαρκος, with the apparatus reading
δυο δυο ] + αρσεν και θηλυ A†
That means that A (alone) reads δυο δυο αρσεν και θηλυ απο πασης σαρκος

As in many other editions, the "leap" symbol ⌒ is used to indicate a haplography caused by repeated letters. However, ~ does not indicate transposition; instead, "tr." is used.

Unique to LXX editions, of course, are the Origenic symbols ※ and ÷ -- the former for words that were lacking in LXX but found in the Hebrew and moved to the Greek text from Theodotian (or somewhere); the latter for words in the LXX not in the Hebrew.

The Origenic text is designated O, that of Lucian L, and the other Greek editions are α' (Aquila), σ' (Symmachus), θ' (Theodotian). There are also a few uses of ε' for the Quinta column of the Hexapla. In Rahlfs, the symbol 𝔐 does not mean the Majority Text (of either the Old or New Testament) but the Massoretic Text of the Hebrew. In the Prophets, there is also a "Catena" text, C, the nature of which Rahlfs does not really identify, although it contains in one place or another the manuscripts 87 91 97 490.

The Göttingen Edition

Since this is a series of volumes, by multiple editors, the style of the various apparatus varies somewhat. But for the most part the format is similar to that of Rahlfs. For instance, it uses the same lemma ] variant format. And it uses many of the same symbols, e.g. + for add, > for omit, ⌒ for haplography. But there are many additional symbols, e.g. "La" for the Latin -- and LaM for a particular manuscript (in this case, the Speculum).

The fact that many more witnesses are cited also forces a change. Rahlfs rarely cites more than four witnesses, most of them uncials. So the symbol "BA" of Rahlfs is unambiguous. But Göttingen often links manuscripts in groups. So, e.g., the first verse of 1 Maccabees (Volume IX, fascicle 1, edited by Werner Kappler, 1967) begins

Καὶ ἐγένετο μετὰ τὸ πατάξαι ’Αλέξανδρον τὸν Φιλίππου

The first variant reads

1 om. τὸν 10 L-19-93 311

This means that the reading without τὸν is supported by the Lucianic witnesses 64, 236, 381, 534, 728 (the pure Lucian group L) plus the weaker Lucianic witnesses 19 and 93, plus the non-Lucianic witness 311. Most books in the Göttingen series will have similar groups of related witnesses. E.g. the first line of the Theodotian text of Daniel is

’Εν ἔτει τρίτῳ τῆς βασιλείας Ιωακιμ βασιλέως Ιουδα ἦλθε

And the second variant is

(11) om. τῆς C 534

So the "Catena" manuscripts, 87 91 490, omit τῆς, as does 534. The Catena group is a complex group, the core manuscripts being 87 91 490, with a weaker group, c, including 49 90 405 764. The combined group, C', is C + c, i.e. 49 87 90 91 405 490 764.

Citations of groups can be quite intricate, because groups can have subgroups, and members can defect. For example, in verse 6 of the story of Susanna there is a variant

κρινόμενοι ] συναγομενοι L' -36

This means that the reading συναγομενοι is that of all members of the Lucianic recension L' (22-36-48-51-96-231-763) except 36.

Ezekiel gives an even more complicated example. One of the most interesting aspects of the text of Ezekiel is the rendering of the divine name and title. The Hebrew text is very fond of "the Lord God;" instead of adonai YHWH the Greek texts often prefer a single title, with 967 almost never having having two words, and B and the Coptic versions having two only rarely, but all other texts frequently having two words -- but varying between reading κυριος κυριος and αδωναι κυριος. So here is a variant from Ezekiel 7:9:

κύριος B A' 87-534-710 Co Arab] + κυριος O-Q C ' -87-130-233-86-403' 106 Arm; pr. αδωναι rel. = 𝔐↓

Note in particular the symbol ', which generally refers to a group. (To add to the fun, there are actually two sigla for groups, both the straight mark ' and the curled quote ’; for the Lucianic group, for instance, one may have L, L', L’, and L'’).

So the apparatus above is to be understood that the reading of the text, τάδε λέγε κύριος, is read by B, by the A' group (A and 26), 87, 534, 710, the Coptic versions (bo and sa), and the Arabic version.

The first alternative reading, τάδε λέγε κύριος κύριος, is found in the Origenic group less Q (O usually consists of Q, 88, and the Harklean Syriac, so O-Q means 88 syhark), the larger Catena group C' less 87 (C is 87, 91, 490, and the expanded group C' includes also 49 90 764, so C ' -87 consists of 49 90 91 490 764), the individual manuscripts 130 and 233 (both associated with C’), the manuscript 86, the two manuscripts in group 403 (i.e. 403 613), the manuscript 106, and the Armenian version. So the full list of manuscripts represented by O-Q C ' -87-130-233-86-403' 106 Arm are:
49 86 88 90 91 106 130 233 403 490 613 764 syhark arm.

The second alternative, pr. αδωναι rel. = 𝔐↓, means that the reading αδωναι κύριος, which agrees with the Hebrew text (𝔐), is supported by the remaining witnesses (rel.). This includes the one remaining uncited uncial, V, and the sundry other minuscules, 22 36 46 48 51 62 96 147 198 231 239 306 311 380 407 410 449 544 611 770.

Newer volumes of the Göttingen series, and revised editions, have become increasingly complex. Increasingly they contain not one apparatus but two, the second being devoted to Hexaplairic variants. Confining Hexaplairic variants to this second apparatus makes sense in a way, since they generally aren't in the LXX Greek texts, but of course it also means the user is forced to consult two apparatus. So, for example, in Isaiah 53:1 the last two words are τίνι ἀπεκαλύφθη. The main apparatus has a variant here,

53 1 τίνι] pr. (※) επι 88=𝔐↓

while the second apparatus reads

53 1 τίνι] θ' επι (α'θ' ※ επι Q, Syh sub α'σ') τινα 86

Thus both apparatus refer to the same variant, although the former refers more to manuscripts and the latter to translations. To be sure, this seemingly inconvenient arrangement makes little difference to the textual critic, who isn't much concerned with α' θ' σ' -- we know that they almost always agree with the extant Hebrew text.

In addition to the actual volumes of criticism, many of the Göttingen volumes come with associated studies of the actual text of LXX -- e.g. for Jeremiah Joseph Ziegler not only prepared the critical text and apparatus but also published Beiträge zur Ieremias-Septuaginta discussing a number of practical problems in the text. There are two, perhaps three, drawbacks. One is that most of the volumes are in German -- obviously a language that any good textual critic should know, but perhaps English-speaking readers will miss some of the subtleties. Second is that it's not actually a textual commentary; it's a discussion of the tendencies of the translation, e.g. how it handles articles and such. And third, and perhaps worst, there is no index of passages discussed. There is an index of words and names (surprisingly short), but that isn't the same thing.

It will be evident that, although the Göttingen edition is a major work that is incredibly useful for critics of both the Hebrew Bible and the New Testament, there is still a great deal that could be done in editing the LXX. And, of course, until that is done, we can't really edit the Hebrew either....

Brooke and McLean / Brooke, McLean, and Thackeray (The Larger Cambridge Septuagint)

Like the Göttingen edition, this was released in multiple volumes, with multiple fascicles per volume, but was never completed. It is now out of copyright, and the volumes are being scanned and re-released by the sundry so-called publishers which produce such books. A great deal of caution is urged if you are considering buying such editions; even if they are scanned from a good copy (many are not), the scans are usually done very quickly and the printing is sloppy. I often find myself having to turn to Rahlfs to try to understand what my cheap reprints actually say.

There is, however, also a four-volume reprint by Cambridge University Press, and this is properly printed and entirely legible. It is also well worth having. The completed volumes as reprinted include 1: Genesis-Leviticus, 2: Numbers-Deuteronomy-Joshua-Judges-Ruth, 3: Samuel-Kings-Chronicles-1 Esdras-2 Esdras (Ezra/Nehemiah), 4: Esther, Judith, Tobit.

It should perhaps be noted that the Cambridge LXX does not do as Rahlfs does and sometimes print parallel texts of Joshua from A and B. The main text is always the leading uncial.

The Cambridge edition is constructed in a very different manner from Göttingen. Göttingen is a critical edition; Cambridge is a diplomatic edition, with a text essentially that of Vaticanus as far as that manuscript is extant.

This results in a strange multi-part apparatus in which the first part is the detailed variants in the most important texts, then a second, much fuller, apparatus, where all the variants are listed. For example, the first line of the text in ΕΣΔΡΑΣ Β (Ezra/Nehemiah) reads (omitting accents and breathings)

B    ΚΑΙ εν τω πρωτω ετει Κυρου του βασιλεως Περσων, του τελεσθηναι απο στοματος

And the apparatus for this text runs

11 τελεσθηναι]+λογον Bab
I 1 πρωτω ετει ] ετει τω πρωτω be2 | τοι 1° BAbke2 ] om rell Eus | τελεσθηναι B* ] τελεσθηναι ρημα κυ be2 + λογον Babhk + λογον κυ A rell 𝔈 Eus | απο ] δια be2

It is a strange apparatus, because the first part offers very little that is not available in the third part as well. The "B" at the beginning of the text says that the running text here is taken from B (Vaticanus); to repeat, it is not a critical text. (B is the main text for most parts of the edition, but where it does not exist, another manuscript is used, e.g. A for most of Genesis and some other manuscript where both A and B are defective.) So we see that the apparatus here shows a correction found in B.

But the first apparatus isn't just B; it also includes the major uncials, A and (where extant) א (cited as S); also occasional others such as F. So the first apparatus of Brooke and McLean is almost the same as the apparatus of Rahlfs (except that Rahlfs published a critical text).

The second line is simply a list of additional witnesses. Thus, for this passage, in addition to B, the witnesses cited are the uncial A and a selection of minuscules, cited as b, c, d, e, h, j, k, l, n, p, q, t, w, y, and e2, plus the Ethiopic version 𝔈.

The third apparatus is the real one, and it's pretty standard: printed text as a lemma, then a bracket ], then the variants. Note that, in some cases, the same variants occur in the first and last apparatus -- in this case, τελεσθηναι]+λογον Bab in the first apparatus and τελεσθηναι B* ] τελεσθηναι ρημα κυ be2 + λογον Babhk + λογον κυ A rell 𝔈 Eus in the second. This is redundant, but it isn't really a difficulty; you can get all the information you need from the second apparatus.

The real complication lies in the symbols used for the manuscripts. The use of letters makes for a very compact apparatus -- the symbols are mostly one letter, and no space is needed between them. So the "Lucianic" group boc2e2 can be written out in 6 characters. This compares to 13 for the Rahlfs numbers 108-19-127-93. But it means that you need a conversion tool between Brooke/McLean letters and the official manuscript list (there is such a tool in the introduction to the various volumes, but not in some of the individual fascicles). The words "a pain" spring to mind. Plus the edition typically cites only about half as many manuscripts as Göttingen. Thus, as Göttingen volumes appear, they will surely supplant Brooke and McLean. Or would, if Göttingen would get reasonable and charge something semi-affordable for the volumes, anyway. In the meantime, perhaps the best thing to do is to make up a translation card to equate Brooke/McLean letters with Rahlfs numbers.

It should be noted that, again unlike Göttingen, Brooke/McLean make no attempt at all to classify their witnesses. Thus, in the above list, be2 are the Lucianic text. It was my strong feeling that there was also a group containing dpqt (i.e. 106 107 120 134) and perhaps one or two others such as z, which I now know is Hanhart's a in 1 Esdras etc., but which has no name that I know of (it's close to the Complutensian Polyglot). In any case, these witnesses are not cited as a group in Brooke/McLean; all witnesses are cited in alphabetical order. So you have to sort through the apparatus first to seek groups (as I did with dpqt) and then to determine the group reading.

A Comparison of the LXX Editions

In light of what was said above, it is perhaps interesting to compare the three LXX editions in detail. This is particularly true since Brooke and McLean is now once again available in a proper edition -- and the cost for the entire thing is roughly the same as two fascicles of the Göttingen edition. (If you think I'm saying Göttingen is overpriced -- well, I'd love to be buying the thing, but I can't afford it! I have half a dozen volumes, but often they are first editions of volumes for which a second edition is available.) So what extras do you get with the Göttingen edition?

As a reasonably fair standard of comparison, let's take the book of 1 Esdras -- a book where Hebrew influence is remote. The table below shows the witnesses cited by the two major editions. (Rahlfs, of course, cites only B, A, and ℵ consistently; it is a critical text but not a true reference edition.)

MS.Cited in BM asCited in Hanhart as part of
AANot cited with a group.
BBB' [with 55]
N/VNCited as V. Included in V' [with 245]
58k58' [with 340]
71ma; 71' [with 106 107]
106pa; 71'
107da; 71'
119n119' [with 745]
841--Not cited with a group (fragment, from a talisman)

Hanhart's list of manuscripts also includes 52 68 122 125 610, but these are not regularly cited.

Thus, as well as the manuscripts cited by Brooke and McLean, Hanhart adds as regular witnesses 46, 74, 98, 130, 236, 314, 340, 381, 728, 731, 745, 762, and 841; he drops 52 and 93. This sounds like a major addition, but let's break this down by groups (excluding the fragment 841).
Of the pair 58', B&M have just 58, Hanhart has 58 340
Of the pair 119', B&M have just 119, Hanhart has 119 745
Of the group a, B&M have 106 107 120 121 134 370, to which Hanhart adds 74 130 236 314 762
Of the group b, B&M have 64 243 248, to which Hanhart adds 46 98 381 728 731
Every one of Hanhart's additions, except 841, belongs to 58', 119', a, or b. Hanhart has dramatically expanded the groups, especially b, but he has not found any new groups. The only major additions to his apparatus are 340 (to supplement 58) and 745 (to supplement 119), since they give us two witnesses to these types; in exchange, he has dropped 93 entirely, and 52 is not cited regularly. Thus there is still some slight use for B&M, and although Hanhart has dramatically increased the number of witnesses, he has increased the number of groups not at all.

Let's do an even more detailed comparison of the book of Esther. This was one of the last volumes prepared by Brooke and McLean, and Hanhart's Göttingen edition was published after the series was well established, so both series had had the bugs worked out by then.

Both editions have both texts of Esther -- the primary LXX edition, but also the much different rendering found in 19 93 108 319 392, which Brooke and McLean label the "A" text and Hanhart refers to as L because the witnesses to it are all Lucianic (although there is no reason to think that the A/L text is actually derived from Lucian). In Brooke and McLean, the two texts are printed as separate books; Göttingen conveniently prints them in parallel, facilitating direct comparison.

What is really interesting, to me, is that every witness cited by Brooke and McLean is also cited by Göttingen. And Göttingen adds more witnesses, and classifies them, so you get more information in less space. But is it a lot more information? The table below summarizes the manuscripts cited by each, with Hanhart's classification.

MS.Cited in BM asCited in Hanhart as part of
967P(sometimes it's hard to know whether 967 is extant for a reading or not; BM are clearer about this)
SCited as S. S* not cited with a group; Sc with O
BBNot cited with a group.
N/VNCited as V. Not cited with a group.
19b'L; also 19'
52--(not a regular witness)
55hNot cited with a group.
58kO; 58'
71--a; 71'
74--a; 74'
76ga; 74'
93z, e2O; L; 93'
106pa; 71', 106'
107da; 71', 106'
108a; bL; 19'
318--Not cited with a group.
319yL; 93'
542uNot cited with a group.
583fO; 58'
670--(not a regular witness)
731--(not a regular witness)
822--(not a regular witness)

Thus it will be seen that while Göttingen regularly cites eleven witnesses not cited in BM (specifically 71 74 98 236 314 318 370 381 392 728 762), all of these except 318 belong with Hanhart's groups a, b, or L, all of which are adequately represented in the BM apparatus (a by 76 106 107 120 130, b by 46 64 243 248, L by 19 93 108 319). Göttingen is better than BM in terms of witnesses, but only very slightly so.

To put it another way, let's this time list the witnesses cited by Hanhart, in their groups, and list the ones cited by B&M as well. A witness cited by both is shown in bold, with its B&M symbol for the minuscules.

Thus, here again, B&M have representatives of every type identified by Hanhart, and the only mixed manuscripts they lack are 318 and 392. The one major absence from B&M is, of course, 967, the vital and early papyrus copy. For Esther, as for Ezekiel and Daniel, the Göttingen edition is probably mandatory just for 967. But the general picture is clear: unless there is an important discovery since the time of B&M, the Cambridge edition is sufficient if all you need is a critical apparatus. If you need a critical text, of course, Göttingen is your only choice.

Of course, it is not just the list of witnesses that is different; the text differs also, and the organization of the apparatus. BM simply print the text of B; Göttingen has a critical text. The table below compares the two (minus accents, which are too hard in HTML), with the differences between the two texts shown in bold:

Hanhart/Göttingen, Esther A:1Brooke & McLean, Esther A:1
Ετους δευτερου βασιλευοντος Αρταξερξου του μεγαλου τη μια του Νισα ενυπνιον ειδεν Μαρδοχαιος ο του Ιαιρου του Σεμειου του Κισαιου εκ φυλης Βενιαμιν, Ετους δευτερου βασιλευοντος Αρταξερξου του μεγαλου βασιλεως τη μια του Νεισα ενυπνιον ιδεν Μαρδοχαιος ο του Ιαειρου του Σεμεειου του Κεισαιου εκ φυλης Βενιαμειν,
δευτ. βασ. Αρτ. ] αρταξερξου βασιλευοντος 71 | αρταξερξου A 583 LaJKV Aeth; cf praef p 103 | μεγαλου 967 ] + βασιλεως B La-V Arm | τη μια ] om. τη 392 = L; > 311*; τη πρωτη O-93 | Νισα B (νεισα) S* A V 55 108 318 (νησα) LaK (nisi) Aeth: cf. 89 ] νισαν O-Sc a-71' b 249' 311 392 542 LaL Sa = L; μηνος 967 71' LaJM; pr. μηνος 392 LaLK Sa; + ο εστι ξανθικος 392 LaJKMc=L; mensis adar quod est armeniace areg Arm: cf L; + primi mensis LaX | ειδον 967 | μαρδουχαιος 74: sic et in 16 47 | ο του — Κισαιου] qui fuit filius cesyr fili semey Lax: cf 25 | ιαειρου B 967 O-58 a-74 120 46c 311; ιαηρου 58 318; ιαρου 98-243-248-731 LaL (iari) LaJKM (iarim: mend ex iarī): ιαιρου 46* 108*; αειρου 122 249: cf 25 | σεμεειου B 967 93 311; σεμει 58 381 Sa (vid) = Compl; σεμεει 583 248 249: cf 25 | om του Κισαιου 106' | Κεισαιου B S A' V* 93 55 318; Κισσαιου 392: 25 | φυλης ] pr της 967 O-Sc-A = L | Βενιαμειν B S V 967 O-583-A' 392 542; Βενιαμην 728 108: 25 <om. δευτερου 71> | βασιλευοντος αρταξερξου] regnante Assuero 𝔏c | αρταρξερξου Af | του μεγαλου βασιλεως] rege maiore 𝔏cm | βασιλεως B] om ANS omn ℭ𝔈 | τη μια] τιμια z: τη πρωτη fk : principio mensis 𝔏c: primo mense 𝔏mo: om r* | του νεισα BANaS*ah𝔈] του νισα N*: του μηνος dp: του νισαν S? rell: Nisi qui est Andicus 𝔏c: qui est Xandici 𝔏mo | ενυπνιον] iusum 𝔏m | ιαειρου] ιαηρου k : ιαριου a*e* : ιαρου jw : αειρου v : Iarim 𝔏 | σεμεειου Brza? : σεμειειου z* : σεμειιου pa? : σαιμιου u : σεμεει fvw : σεμει k: Semei 𝔏 | σεμειου ANSp* rell | om του Κισαιου dp | φυλης] της ASc.afkz | βενιαμην a
Since the two apparatus use different symbols for their sources, let's translate this into common notation (basically Hanhart's, but with each manuscript cited explicitly). I will, as far as possible, line up variations in each apparatus, to allow the best "apples to apples" comparison possible. Note: The manuscript Hanhart calls V and BM N I'm going to call N+V. Where there are differences between the Greek witnesses cited, I will show them in red; I won't try to show the differences between versions (and have frankly given up on trying to incorporate some of the versions into the apparatus where I can't make them match a Greek reading). Places where the two editions disagree on the reading of a manuscript are shown in bold.
αρταξερξου βασιλευοντος 71βασιλευοντος αρταξερξου 71based on Holmes & Parsons; regnante Assuero LaSabatier
αρταρξερξου A 583 LaJKV Ethαρταρξερξου A 583
του μεγαλου 967 ℵ A N+V rell; LaV rell; του μεγαλου βασιλεως B LaJKMXτου μεγαλου ℵ A N+V rell; του μεγαλου βασιλεως B; rege maiore LaM,Sabatier
τη μια ] omit 311*; τη πρωτη 58 583; omit τη 392 τη μια] omit 311*; τη πρωτη 58 583; τιμια 93; principio mensis LaSabatier; primo mense LaM,γ
του νισα ℵ* A N+V 55 108 Eth; του νεισα B; του νησα 318; του νισαν ℵc 46 58 64 74 76 93 98 120 130 236 243 248 249 311 314 370 381 542 583 670 728 731 762 LaL; του μηνος 967 71 106 107 LaJM; μηνος του νισα 392 LaL sa; μηνος του νισα ο εστι ξανθικος 392 LaK; mensis adar quod est armeniace areg Arm του νισα N+V*; του νεισα ℵ* A B N+Va 55 108 Eth; του νισαν ℵc 46 58 64 76 93 120 130 243 248 249 311 542 583; του μηνος 106 107; Nisi qui est Andicus LaSabatier: qui est Xandici LaM,γ
ενυπνιον] iusum LaM
ο του — Κισαιου ] qui fuit filius cesyr fili semey Lax
ιαειρου 967 ℵ A B N+V 46c 55 64 71 76 93 106 107 108c 130 236 311 314 370 381 542 583 670 728 762; ιαηρου 58 318; ιαρου 98 243 248 731 (LaL iari); LaJKM iarim); ιαιρου 46* 108*; αειρου 122 249 (N.B. Hanhart does not cite 120 but states that it does not read ιαειρου) ιαειρου ℵ A B N+V 46c 55 64 76 93 106 107 108c 120 130 311 542 583 ] ιαηρου 58; ιαρου 243 248; ιαριου 46* 108*; αειρου 249; Iarim La
σεμειου ℵ A N+V rell ] σεμεειου 967 B 93 311; σεμει 58 381 Savid; σεμεει 248 249 583 σεμειου ℵ A N+V 106* rell ] σεμεειου B 93c 311; σεμειειου 93*; σεμει 58; σεμεει 248 249 583; σεμειιου 106c; σαιμιου 542; Semei La
omit του Κισαιου 106 107omit του Κισαιου 106 107
Κισαιου ] Κεισαιου ℵ B A N+V* 55 93 311 318; Κισσαιου 392
φυλης ] της φυλης 967c A 58 93 583 της φυλης ℵc A 58 93 583
Βενιαμιν ] Βενιαμειν 967 ℵ A B N+V 58 93 311 92 542; Βενιαμην 108 728 Βενιαμειν ] βενιαμην 108

In essence, there are three differences between content (as opposed to the form) of the two apparatus:

  1. Hanhart cites 967 more completely (BM has some readings of 967, but not a full set)
  2. Hanhart cites a number of additional minuscules, but mostly close relatives of manuscripts cited also by BM
  3. They differ in their handling of itacisms: BM use the reading of B as given; Hanhart standardizes the orthography

Hanhart also groups manuscripts and gives more explanations for why particular readings arose. These are real advantages. But we see that BM actually offers some data not in Hanhart, and other than 967, its selection of witnesses is not materially inferior to Hanhart's. For books where there have been no major recent discoveries, the Göttingen edition's main advantage is that it has a critical text. Whether this justifies the additional cost is, again, something the reader must decide.

The situation is somewhat different in other books -- the Göttingen apparatus for the Pentateuch is rather fuller than in the later historical books. Here again we can do a comparison. Let's take Leviticus as a sample, since it's in the middle of the Pentateuch (sparing us the defects that we often find at the beginning or end of manuscripts):

MS.Cited in BM asCited in Wevers asCited in Wevers as part of
MMM(with 416 in M')
1616C (and with 46 in 16')
19b'19b (and with 108 in 19')
3030s (and with 730 in 30')
44d44d (and with 106 in 44')
4646C (and with 16 in 16')
52e52cII (and with 615 in 52')
53f53f (and with 664 in 53')
54g54n (and with 127 in 54') (also said to have a few hexaplairic readings)
56i56f (and with 246 in 56')
57j57cI (and with 413 in 57')
6464oI (and with 708 in 64')
6868z (and with 122 in 68')
7171x (and with 619 in 71')
72m72oII (and with 707 in 72')
7373cI (and with 320 in 73')
7474t (and with 134 in 74')
75n75n (and with 458 in 75')
7676t (and with 370 in 76')
7777C (and with 131 in 77')
85z85s (and with 130 in 85')
106p106d (and with 44 in 44')
107107d (and with 610 in 107' as well as with 125 in 125')
108b108b (and with 19 in 19')
118118b (and with 314 in 118')
120q120z (and with 407 in 120')
122122z (and with 68 in 68')
125125d (and with 107 in 125')
126126z (and with 128 in 126')
127127n (and with 54 in 54')
128128z (and with 126 in 126')
129r129f (weak member)
130130s (and with 850 in 130')
131s131C (and with 77 in 77')
134t134t (and with 74 in 74')
246246f (and with 56 in 56')
314w314b (and with 119 in 118')
320320cI (and with 73 in 73')
321321s (and with 346 in 321')
343343s (and with 344 in 343')
344v344s (and with 343 in 343')
346346s (and with 321 in 321')
370370t (and with 76 in 76')
376c {equated with 38, not 376}376O (and with 426 in 376')
381381oI (and with 618 in 381')
407u407z (and with 120 in 120')
413413cI (and with 57 in 57')
414414cII (and with 551 in 414')
416416(mixed, and with M in M')
426x426O [in part] (and with 376 in 376')
458 458n (and with 75 in 75')
500500C (and with 739 in 500')
528528cI (and with 761 in 528')
550550cI (and with 552 in 550')
551551cII (and with 414 in 414')
552552cI (and with 550 in 550')
610610d (and with 107 in 107')
615615cII (and with 52 in 52')
618618oI (and with 381 in 381')
619619x (and with 71 in 71')
628628z (and with 630 in 628')
630630z (and with 628 in 628')
664664f (and with 53 in 53')
707707oII (and with 72 in 72')
708708oI (and with 64 in 64')
730730s (and with 30 in 30')
739739C (and with 500 in 500')
761761cI (and with 528 in 528')

So if we take the various groups cited by Wevers, we find that Brooke & McLean cite the following:

C52[e] (cII), 57[j] (cI), 131[s]
O15[a] (oI), 29[b2] (oII), 58[k], 72[m] (oII), 82[o] (oII), 376[c], 426[x]
b19[b'], 108[b], 314[w]
d44[d], 106[p]
f53[f], 56[i], 129[r]
n54[g], 75[n]
s85[z], 344[v]
z120[q], 407[u]
mixed  55[h], 59[l]

Mixed manuscripts cited by Wevers but not by B&M are: 18, 319, 416, 424, 642, 646, 799

Cited by B&M but not Wevers: 61[d2]

Thus, as in 1 Maccabees, B&M have at least one member of every group identified by Wevers, although they lack the recent papyri and frequently have only one manuscript of each type. The Wevers apparatus has more information, but not tremendously more.