Recherche – Detailansicht






Neues Testament


Aland, B, K. Aland (+), G. Mink u. K. Wachtel [Hrsg.]


Novum Testamentum Graecum. Editio Critica Maior. Hrsg. v. Institut f. Neutestamentliche Textforschung. Bd. IV: Die Katholischen Briefe. 3. Lfg.: 1. Johannesbrief.


Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft 2003. Teil 1: Text. VIII, S. 25*-30*, 263-368. Teil 2: Begleitende Materialien. VI, S. B 91-B 126. 4. Kart. Euro 22,00. ISBN 3-438-05602-X.


J. Keith Elliott

The splendidly clear apparatus printed in the Editio Critica Maior (=ECM) has already justifiably been praised in reviews of the fascicules on James and on 1 & 2 Peter (my reviews of the earlier volumes are to be seen in NovT 40 [1998], 195-204; 42 [2000], 328-339; see also ThLZ 127 [2002], 297, and J. K. Elliott, "The Editio Critica Maior: One Reader's Reactions" in: Wim Weren and Dietrich-Alex Koch [Eds.], Recent Developments in Textual Criticism: New Testament, Other Early Christian and Jewish Literature [Assen: Royal van Gorcum, 2003], 129-144 [= Studies in Theology and Religion, 8]), as have its other commendable features. We now welcome the instalment on 1 John. Originally it was intended that the 3rd instalment would contain all four remaining Catholic Epistles. In the event an extra fascicule will contain them as a newly inserted instalment. The clarity of presentation is of course maintained. For instance, as far as the apparatus is concerned, see the way in which the following are exhibited: fifteen choices at 3:21; the nine alternatives at 3:23; the twenty eight (!) readings at 5:13 (including two marked as faulty). All these are crystal clear. Once again, we congratulate the editors at the Institut für Neutestamentliche Textforschung/Münster for their praiseworthy achievement.

The text and apparatus to 1 John have been created using 143 witnesses (including the LXX lectionary, the Prophetologium). As is usual in this series, these are divided into non-Byzantine witnesses (comprising in 1 John: 2 papyri, 9 majuscules, 80 minuscules) and Byzantine manuscripts (4 majuscules, 37 minuscules and all 11 lectionaries). The apparatus also contains versional and Greek patristic evidence. The number of Greek mss. is not dissimilar to that used for the earlier fascicules, although the mss. differ somewhat. Among newly cited witnesses we now meet P9 0245 0296 1836 as well as 1523 1844 (neither of which has appeared in the apparatus to any other critical edition to my knowledge). 1881, introduced in 1 & 2 Peter, reappears here. Descriptions of those mss. appear in the volume on James pp. B5-7, showing that users of the fascicules on the Catholics require the James volume's general introduction. L921S is used in 1 John although we had been informed in vol IV,2 p. B41 that this witness was not to be used beyond James! 025, described as Byzantine in 1 & 2 Peter, is now no longer so. 61 is now not described as Byzantine, contrary to its status in the earlier fascicules. 69 400 1270 1297 1609 1661 1842 1890, now Byzantine in 1 John, were not so in James. 876 996 1175 1751, now Byzantine in 1 John, were not so in James or 1 & 2 Peter. 1832, Byzantine in 1 John and James, was not so in 1 & 2 Peter.

The seven nearly pure Byzantine witnesses in 1 John are 18 35 319 424 468 617 2423. Some of these figured as nearly pure in the earlier fascicules. We are informed (as in 1 & 2 Peter; the rule was different in James) that if more than one of these seven differs from the others then the Byzantine witness is divided and the siglum Byz. jettisoned. In 1 John there are 47 out of 700 + v.ll. in this epistle where the united Byzantine manuscripts have a reading different from the leading text-line (cf. 69/800+ in James, 52/700+ in 1 Peter, and 33/400+ in 2 Peter).

Many readers will be interested in the differences in the lead-text of ECM from the UBS (=NA) text. As usual, there are disappointingly few changes. In 1 John there are only three (on pp. 29* f. is an indication of the manuscripts considered by the editors to be of especial importance. Their influence is seen in the first two v.ll. to follow):

1:7 om. de with 044 6 323 - a change from + de

5:10 en auto (the reading of NA25!) with 03 436 442 468 - a change from en eauto (signalled as category B in UBS4rev; Metzger's Commentary2 stated that at 5:10 a minority of its committee had seen eauto as a secondary development from auto read in a reflexive sense)

5:18 eauton - a change from auton read by B et al. (a reading rated B in UBS4rev). ECM shows A* as reading auton as in NA; it does not specify any difference between B* and Bc. UBS says A* B* have auton "without accents (sic)", thereby implying that it may have been read as if it had a rough breathing to indicate a reflexive. (However, Metzger's Commentary2 says auton is read with a smooth breathing by A *B.) This changed text in ECM now means that o gennetheis is understood as the believer, not as Christ, even though our author prefers o gegennemenos of the believer elsewhere!

Somewhat apologizing for so few changes, the introductory Notes (30*) say that "more use has been made of a bold dot to indicate a possible alternative reading". "More" here must be in relation to the three actual changes to the reconstructed text, rather than in relation to the alternatives signalled with a bold dot in the volume on 1 & 2 Peter, where there are fifty one such places marked. In 1 John there are only thirteen, but at least we are reassured that these are places where a genuine alternative is proposed. (I had been rather disconcerted by the different and nuanced explanation of the presence of the bold dot given in the introduction to the fascicule on 1 & 2 Peter.)

These are the places where the lead text has a bold dot in 1 John and the main manuscripts in support of the reading. Again, one may see how the influence of the editors' favoured manuscripts made clear-cut decisions difficult in the places listed here. (The reading in brackets below shows the editors' suggested alternative and the main mss. in support):

1:4 emon with 01 03 044 (ymon with 02 04 025)

1:7 om. de with 044 6 323 1243 (de with 01 02 03 04 025)

1:8 uk estin en emin with 01 03 044 6 81 (3-4, 1-2 with 02 04 025


2:4 (pr.) oti with 01 02 03 044 6 (om. oti with 04 025 1881)

2:4 (sec.) kai with most mss. (om. kai with 02 025 044 33 323)

2:29 oti kai with 01 02 04 025 (oti with 03 044 6 81)

3:13 kai with 01 04 025 044 323 (om. kai 02 03 81 436)

3:19 peisomen with 01 02 03 04 025 (peisamen with 044 442 1739)

3:23 pistausomen with 03 (pistauomen with 01 02 04 044)

5:5 de estiu with 01 025 6 1739 (estiu with 02 044 5)

5:6 en3 with 03 044 (om. en before aimati with 01 442) - among seven


5:11 emin o theos with 01 02 044 (2,3,1 with 03 1739 1881)

5:21 eauta with 01* 03 6 (eautus with 02 025 5)

(v.l. + aen at 5:21 is now no longer offered as a possible alternative

[cf. 2 Peter in ECM])

Note that in six places above (1:7; 2:4 (pr.); 2:29; 3:13; 5:5; 5:6) the possible alternative has the support of Byz (= Codices Byzantini). Note also that most of the changes above make no material difference to the meaning - five concern the omission or inclusion of a particle.

When we look at the two passages above that appear in the apparatus to UBS we find 1:4 was rated A in UBS4rev (having been upgraded from B in earlier editions). Now that confidence is seen to have been misplaced; another possible reading is now offered in ECM. At 3:13 the D rating in UBS1-3 and C in UBS4rev display a genuine doubt.

The dots at 1:7 mark one of three places where the text was changed from UBS/NA. But it is interesting to see that the other two places where the text was changed from that in UBS/NA (i. e. 5:10; 5:18) have no such dots - the change has therefore been made in ECM with supreme confidence and no doubt about the editors' decisions is raised.

One might have expected to see bold dots at 2:6 [utos]; 3:19 [kai]; 3:21 [emon]; 5:1 [ kai] where the word is bracketed in UBS/NA, indicating that their editors were in a dilemma whether or not to support the long or the short reading and where they hedged their bets by bracketing the disputed word. The UBS Commentary at these places shows what the dilemmas were. That overuse of brackets is a deplorable feature of these editions. ECM uses the bold dot to indicate some disputed readings but at these four places ECM drops the brackets and thus reads the longer text without raising any doubts about its decision.

Readers of this fascicule may well wish to see the evidence for the Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7-8). The Greek apparatus shows the readings of six of the manuscripts that support the longer text (often as a variant reading in their margins): 61 88 429 629 918. The supplementary apparatus (B112) has the reading of 636. (The other manuscripts that support forms of the longer reading, 221 2318 2473, are not used in ECM in 1 John.) For the Latin evidence one needs to turn to Section 5.3 (B124), and for the reading in the Complutensian Polyglot to p. B107.

As is normal in these instalments, there are additional readings in the first part of subsection 5.1 in the volume entitled Supplementary Material. These are mainly drawn from the Text und Textwert volumes that formed the preliminary survey of the manuscripts selected for ECM. In the case of 1 John some 58 occasional mss. are listed on p. B111. These are said to be mss. "not included in this edition". It is therefore somewhat disconcerting for readers to encounter in that list 1735 which is among the mss. cited consistently throughout 1 John (and shown on p. B91). Even more disconcerting is it for readers to meet 490 (a Gospel ms.!) and 1774 (a ms. of Revelation!) in the list on p. B111. And what help does a reader get to explain the appearance of ms. 1743 in support of the additional reading at 1 John 5:8/18-30? That witness is not in the list on p. B111 nor elsewhere in ECM!

Some of the occasional manuscripts shown in v.ll. on pp. B 111 f. were among the main witnesses used in the volume on James but subsequently abandoned: 631 1509 1765 1893 2180 2242 2495 2674 (this one is also a supplementary ms. in 1 & 2 Peter).

Differences in the manuscript attestation between ECM and the appropriate entry in the Teststellen in Text und Textwert are seen in, among other places: 2:10 (1523); 2:14 (2544); 2:19 (621; and added reading by 1799); 2:23 (1837 1838); 3:1 (1845Z added); 3:14 (add 623corr2). At 4:3 (Teststelle 1) 330* previously "unleserlich" now appears as 330*V. At 4:3 (Teststelle 2) there is a different reading for 2344 in ECM. Several of the above concern the first hand and correctors of mss. These refinements found in ECM imply that greater care and investigation has gone into making ECM the more reliable of the two apparatus.

In brief: 1) Among Patristic witnesses there are 48 cited in 1John, mainly Cyril of Alexandria, Didymus and Origen. The original lists of Fathers on pp. B14-20.B50 have now been supplemented on p. B98. 2) In the section on the Latin version the reference to VL p. 240 (on pp. B105 and B106) should be completed as VL vol. 26. 3) A loose page inserted lists the main abbreviations but also contains addenda and corrigenda to the earlier fascicules in the series. 4) The Table of Contents in Part 1 shows the incorrect order of the Vorwort and Preface.