The following are English translations from the German forewords and prefaces of Kurt Aland’s Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum (Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 1963, ’67, ’82, ’85, ’94, ’96):
1st ed. | 4th ed. | 12th ed. | 13th ed. | 14th ed. | 15th ed.
From the Preface to the First Edition
In the summer of 1952, after several other attempts had failed, the Württemberg Bible Institute (Württembergische Bibelanstalt) entrusted the undersigned with the realization of their plan for a Greek synopsis, which had been in existence since 1929. This synopsis was intended to provide both academic instruction and scholarly work with a complete and useful tool for the interpretation of the Gospels.
Now, after many years of strenuous work, the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum has been completed. The editor can only hope that this goal has indeed been achieved. While Schmiedel’s preliminary work has been utilized with gratitude, this is, in fact, an entirely new work that fundamentally differs from Schmiedel’s “Evangeliensymphonie” (Symphony of the Gospels) as well as from other synopses in many respects. The most conspicuous difference is the inclusion of the Gospel of John in its entirety, whereas in other synopses, it appears only in excerpts or in the form of references. Nevertheless, the synopsis can be used independently of all source theories, as each of the four Gospels is printed in its entirety within its context. On the other hand, all relevant sections of the other Gospels are reproduced verbatim for each section of the synopsis, allowing the user to have the complete material at their disposal, hopefully in a clear and comprehensive manner.
The cumbersome task of flipping through pages and looking up references elsewhere in the synopsis is eliminated, as is the need for simultaneous use of the New Testament. Because all the relevant New Testament texts are included in each section, as well as the most important parallels from the New Testament Apocrypha and the Church Fathers. Through the wealth of the material presented, it seems that progress beyond the previous state of scholarship has been achieved. The desired precise parallelization of the texts will make it easier to understand the connections between them, as has often been the case in the past. In the interpretation of the first three Gospels or any of them, the Gospel of John can now be consulted as easily as all the synoptic parallel material, and the inclusion of the apocryphal texts allows for a significant expansion of research. Conversely, it is now possible to consider the Gospel of John while fully considering the synoptic tradition, which opens up new possibilities for the interpretation of the fourth Gospel.
The layout of the synopsis becomes evident in practical use. Therefore, only a few notes are necessary:
The multilingual headings are intended to facilitate use in non-German-speaking areas. The Latin and English texts do not simply represent translations from German but provide the heading for the respective section (though as closely aligned as possible) as it is used in Latin- or English-speaking regions. The references for the main texts (which, when connected, form the continuous text of the Gospels) are printed in bold. References at the beginning and end of these sections (unless they immediately follow one another) clearly emphasize the connection between them. In addition to these main texts, there are main and secondary parallels. The main parallels are given in normal type and can be identified by the absence of bold formatting in the reference. The secondary parallels are immediately recognizable by the smaller font size. For both, there is a reference to where they can be found as the main text, indicated by a number and page. For each section, the critical apparatus is provided not only for the main text but also for the main parallels, as an examination of the connections often requires the consideration of textual variants. The material for each section provides cross-references within the texts, serving to clarify the content, as well as other parallel passages from the Old and New Testaments. This includes a concise commentary, directing the user to additional material and likely saving instructors and students a lot of dictation or note-taking effort during academic lectures.
KURT ALAND
March 28, 1963
Preface to the Fourth Edition
The first edition of the Synopsis, although generously sized, quickly sold out after its release. Subsequently, a second and third edition became necessary in rapid succession. Over this period, as one would expect from such an extensive and complex work, a number of corrections and additions emerged from our own work, as well as from the numerous reviews (almost universally friendly) and user feedback. These corrections and additions have been incorporated into the present 4th edition, both in the textual apparatus and the prolegomena. Simultaneously, the results of new collations have been integrated into the textual apparatus. These primarily involve previously unused majuscule manuscripts, totaling no fewer than 68 (the details can be found in the manuscript list on page XV ff.). In response to some reviewers’ inquiries, it should be noted that these majuscules (with the exception of 055, 0133, 0135, 0211, 0250, where either the preservation condition or the quality of the text imposed limitations) are listed for all the variants encountered in the Synopsis. The resulting changes are visible on every page of this edition. Accordingly, it is labeled as the “Editio quarta revisa.”
KURT ALAND
March 28, 1967
Preface to the Twelfth Edition
In 1967, the critical apparatus of this edition was revised in the fourth edition, and in 1976, the ninth edition saw the alignment of the text with that of the 26th edition of Novum Testamentum Graece by Nestle-Aland and the Third Edition of the Greek New Testament, accompanied by another thorough review of the critical apparatus. For this twelfth edition, the fourth printing of the 26th edition of Nestle-Aland from 1981 was available, offering various improvements over the first three printings. Therefore, it seemed prudent to conduct another review of the textual part to ensure the identity of the texts, down to the punctuation.
After careful consideration, it appeared appropriate to retain the current structure of the critical apparatus rather than adopting that of Nestle-Aland, as is happening in the upcoming 6th edition of the Synopsis of the Four Gospels. This Greek-English edition represents a simplified version (omitting texts from the Apocrypha, additions from the Church Fathers, as well as supplementary materials for the parallel passages, etc.), where this solution is not only appropriate but also helpful. However, the “large edition” should retain its independent apparatus, which can complement that of Nestle-Aland26, not only due to its greater scope but also its distinct layout. In this context, the symbol ℌ will be replaced by indicating the manuscripts, as with the symbol 𝔎 which will be replaced by 𝔐. Furthermore, the readings of several manuscripts recognized as important since 1967 will be newly recorded.
KURT ALAND
March 28, 1982
Foreword to the Thirteenth Edition
Since its first publication in 1963, this synopsis has undergone two significant changes. First, in the 4th edition in 1967, the critical apparatus was modified by significantly increasing the number of majuscules used. The second change occurred in the 9th edition in 1976 when the underlying text was switched to the so-called “Standard Text” jointly provided by the 26th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece by Nestle-Aland and the 3rd edition of the Greek New Testament. In the 13th edition now presented, a new and substantial change has been made in the critical apparatus. This change partly follows what had already happened in Nestle-Aland six years ago. In the 26th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece in 1979, the traditional sigla ℌ (= Hesychian Text) and 𝔎 (= Koine Text) were either removed or rearranged. The use of ℌ carried the risk of misleading the user of the critical apparatus in many cases. It could lead them to assume that this sigil represented the witnesses of the so-called Alexandrian or Egyptian text. In most cases, this assumption was not accurate. Only by completely removing ℌ and individually listing the relevant manuscripts could the user make a reliable judgment.
Simultaneously, the sigla 𝔎 were replaced by 𝔐 (= Majority Text), one might think that one symbol had simply been replaced by another, and that everything else remained the same. It is true that the Koine manuscripts are always in the majority, and therefore, Koine Text and Majority Text are essentially the same. However, the sigla 𝔐 have a broader meaning than 𝔎. With 𝔐, the manuscripts that do not belong to the Koine manuscripts, the Byzantine Majority Text, etc., but still align with it on occasion, are also included. This could be captured as described in the introduction to Nestle-Aland (p. 10*), allowing a significant increase in the number of witnesses constantly recorded in the critical apparatus without overburdening it. Furthermore, the user can now be certain that the reading where 𝔐 is listed as a witness represents the text that ultimately prevailed in the church (though often unjustly so).
In this regard, the critical apparatus of the 13th edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum follows in the footsteps of Nestle-Aland, but it does not become identical to it. The most significant difference still lies in the number of recorded variants. It has always been larger than in the Novum Testamentum Graece. This is because Nestle-Aland, despite its efforts to expand the critical apparatus as much as possible, has certain limitations due to its format and character as a hand edition, whereas the Synopsis has more freedom in this regard. In the 13th edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, the number of included variants has even been expanded. However, this required a complete redesign of the critical apparatus due to the changes in its structure, which will be discussed shortly. The old typeface, which was not available in the necessary quantity, could not accommodate the new apparatus within the given space (the page breaks should not be changed for several reasons). It would have been ideal if the redesign of the critical apparatus had also allowed for the redesign of the apparatus for sections at the bottom of the page, but the associated additional costs would have raised the price of the synopsis too much. So the redesign of the section apparatus (and thus the gain of new space for a possible further expansion of the critical apparatus) remains reserved for a later edition.
The design of the critical apparatus of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum not only follows Nestle-Aland but also serves as a guide for its future development in some respects. The selection of Greek manuscripts used here has been altered, both in terms of the total number and the constant witnesses. Our understanding of the text character of Greek manuscripts has evolved significantly beyond what it was in 1979 when the 26th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece was published (in reality, the gap is even larger because the selection of manuscripts for collating the Gospels took place several years before). This “modernization” on the one hand involved the inclusion of previously unexamined manuscripts and, on the other hand, the removal of previously regularly recorded ones.
Let’s begin with this. It has long been known that a significant number of majuscules contain a pure Byzantine text, just like the late minuscules from the 14th and 15th centuries. While some — quite rightly — are completely set aside by New Testament scholarship when it comes to establishing the original text of the New Testament and its early textual history, others still maintain their status, which majuscules generally enjoy. However, just as the material used for writing does not reveal the value of a manuscript, the style of the letters merely hints at its age. The consensus now is that the age of a manuscript does not automatically determine its textual quality, with the exception of manuscripts dating back to the transition from the 3rd to the 4th century. This includes manuscripts on both papyrus and parchment, as it was during this period that the major text types gradually gained prominence and largely standardized. Despite this understanding, majuscules, as such, still hold a certain prestige. A variant supported by numerous majuscules is credited with special credibility, not only among beginners but also among advanced scholars. When a critical apparatus aims to record all majuscules (as is the case with the Greek New Testament), this risk multiplies.
Now that all majuscules have been examined for their textual character (for details, see K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament, Stuttgart 1982, pp. 113–137, 167–171), it seemed time to attempt a change here. In the critical apparatus of this 13th edition of the Synopsis, majuscules with a pure Byzantine text (and at best occasional inner-Byzantine variations) are no longer listed individually every time but are included under the sigil 𝔐. These majuscules are: K_017 (IX), M 021 (IX), N 022 (VI), O 023 (VI), P 024 (VI), R 027 (VI), S 028 (949), U 030 (IX), V 031 (IX), X 033 (X), Y 034 (IX), Γ 036 (X), Λ 039 (IX), Π 041 (IX), Σ 042 (VI), Φ 043 (VI), Ω 045 (IX), 047 (VIII), 053 (IX), 054 (VIII), 063 (IX), 064 (VI), 065 (VI), 080 (VI), 0103 (VII), 0104 (VII), 0116 (VIII), 0133 (IX), 0134 (VIII), 0135 (IX), 0136 (IX), 0197 (IX), 0211 (VII), 0248 (IX), 0253 (VI), 0255 (IX), 0257 (IX), 0263 (VI), 0264 (V), 0265 (VI), 0267 (V), 0268 (VII), 0272 (IX), 0273 (IX).
Majuscules E 07 (VIII), F 09 (IX), G 011 (IX), H 013 (IX) have been exempted from this change and have even been elevated to the status of so-called constant witnesses (which they are not in the Novum Testamentum Graece). This was done because at least a selected group of old Byzantine majuscules should be detailed, so that the user does not feel overly dependent on the anonymous sigil 𝔐 where the Byzantine text does not offer particularly striking readings. The sigil group E F G H also has the advantage of being easily memorable even for beginners, so it cannot lead them astray. Of course, there are older majuscules of the Gospels than these four manuscripts, but they are all so fragmented that they cannot be considered constant witnesses. Only in the case of Q 026, an exception is made due to its age (V), even though Q contains only fragments from Luke and John. Because it represents the sole example of the pure Byzantine text of the Gospels from the time before Justinian, it remained in the group of constant witnesses. It is only with the 6th century that a broader tradition of the Byzantine text of the Gospels begins. However, Codex Rossanensis Σ 042 (VI) contains only Matthew and Mark, just like Codex Beratinus Φ 043 (VI), both with significant gaps. What else is preserved offers only fragments from a single Gospel (O 023 VI, R 027 VI, 065 VI, 0253 VI, 0265 VI). Therefore, the use of E F G H (in addition to the inclusion of Q) appeared to be the optimal solution.
In the manuscript list on page XVI and following, these majuscules with a Byzantine text are indicated by an added †, and they should be added to the 942 minuscules with a Byzantine text listed on page XXVIII, subsuming them all under the sigil 𝔐. This is because they share the same text character and have the same limited value for establishing the original text or its developmental history until the formation of fixed text types. The Byzantine text, which was already firmly established within itself, became the unified text in the 6th century under the influence of the close alliance between church and state under Justinian. It is not “dead,” but it now leads an independent existence determined by scribe habits and inner-Byzantine developments.
Not only in the USA but also elsewhere, voices have recently emerged that aim to revive the position of the Textus Receptus, which was strongly advocated by Dean Burgon in the 19th century. However, as long as the starting point is the Textus Receptus of the 16th/17th centuries rather than the Byzantine Majority Text of the 6th century, this foundation is quite inadequate. This is especially true when the 1873 Oxford edition of the Textus Receptus is used because it is a reprint of the 1828 edition, which, in turn, goes back to Mill’s edition of 1707. Only Mill’s edition is based on the 1550 edition by Stephanus, which has undergone numerous intermediate stages. It should be noted that even the Textus Receptus of the 16th/17th centuries is the product of medieval development from the original Byzantine (or rather, Antiochian) text. Until a flawless edition of this text is available, which we are far from achieving (even the new English-American collaborative edition of Luke 1–12, Oxford 1984, used the 1873 edition of the Textus Receptus and abandoned the original goal of reconstructing the Byzantine Majority Text), this discussion cannot be taken seriously (not to mention that it is likely to end up as it did in the 19th century).
Of course, the † Majuscules have not completely disappeared from the critical apparatus; they are still listed there, like the minuscules with a Byzantine text, when they offer readings that deviate significantly from the norm. However, the previous risk of unintentional influence on users, who might give undue attention to a reading simply because it is supported by numerous majuscules, has been eliminated (although it was mentioned earlier that E F G H remain as “vestiges”). This has made the critical apparatus more transparent.
Furthermore, the space freed up has been used to list manuscripts as constant witnesses whose significance, whether for the establishment of the original text or for textual history, has only been recognized recently. These include 𝔓90 and, apart from Q and E F G H, the majuscules 0141, 0155, 0233, 0275, 0276, 0277, as well as the minuscules 13, 33, 69, 205, 209, 346, 543, 579, 788, 892, 983, 1006, 1342, 1506, 1582, 2427, 2542. Among them, 205, 1342, 2427, 2542 were previously absent from the Novum Testamentum Graece, as understandably were 𝔓90 and 0275, 0276, 0277 (although 0275 and 0276 have been included since the first edition); 1006 and 1506 have only been considered constant witnesses for other parts of the New Testament and not for the Gospels. Struck from the list of constant witnesses, however, were 28, 1010, 1241 because their text quality was insufficient. While 28 offers an interesting text only in Mark and otherwise essentially belongs to the category of the Byzantine text, 1010 contains hardly any elements of the ancient text. Although this is generally true for 1241 (with a highly distinctive text in the Catholic Epistles and a Byzantine text in the Acts), the contribution of this manuscript in the Gospels is less significant than that of the newly included minuscules.
In the manuscript list for the Synopsis on page XIV and following, each manuscript’s category of constant witnesses is indicated by * and (*), similar to the Novum Testamentum Graece, to show whether a manuscript is explicitly mentioned each time or only when it deviates from 𝔐. Normally, this is not a problem when both variant readings and the text they support are listed. Uncertainty may arise for those who want to follow a specific manuscript’s reading for all components of the apparatus in cases where the textual support is not listed (to save space) because the support for conflicting readings is clear from the beginning. In such cases, the constant witnesses that fall under 𝔐 are listed before 𝔐 in square brackets. These square brackets have been introduced to help users by providing a clearer overview: what is not mentioned here aligns with 𝔐. Additionally, it should be noted that minuscules belonging to Family 1 (f1), 1, 209, and 1582, and those belonging to Family 13 (f13), 13, 69, 346, 543, 788, and 983 are only listed individually in the apparatus when they deviate from 𝔐 and the text of their respective families. When they do so, their testimony becomes particularly significant.
Otherwise, there is likely no need for further explanations, as the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum has already seen 12 high editions and is well-known in terms of its structure and layout. Those who wish to learn more about the symbols, sigla, and abbreviations used here can refer to the detailed introduction in the 26th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece by Nestle-Aland, as well as to the book mentioned earlier by Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament, whose subtitle, “Introduction to Scholarly Editions and Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism,” indicates that it provides the details for using and interpreting the critical apparatus of this Synopsis.
It goes without saying, but it’s worth noting that this 13th edition of the Synopsis, like Nestle26, is based on collations of the originals in all aspects of the critical apparatus, in contrast to other parallel projects. This includes not only the variants that are newly included but also those that come from previous editions of the Synopsis. To understand the scope of the work required for this, it should be pointed out that, for example, in addition to the 318 manuscripts mentioned in the critical apparatus, there are 44 majuscules marked with †, and 942 minuscules combined under the sigil 𝔐. Collations of this magnitude, which also include collations of the old translations, are only feasible when the editor can rely on the assistance and support of a large number of reliable and experienced collaborators. They were available to the undersigned at the Institute for New Testament Textual Research in Münster and through the assistance of the Hermann Kunst Foundation for the Advancement of New Testament Textual Research, and he is deeply grateful to both institutions. Those who contributed to the Greek collations cannot all be individually named, as their number is too large, and their individual contributions cannot be precisely determined due to changes over the years. Responsible for the Syrian collations were A. Juckel/G. Wendt, for the Coptic ones G. Mink/F. J. Schmitz, and for the Latin ones W. Grunewald. K. Witte made significant contributions to assembling the collation masses into a clear apparatus. Prof. Lic. Dr. Barbara Aland, who has succeeded me as director of the Institute for New Testament Textual Research for over a year, played a decisive role in all decisions, large and small. In addition to expressing gratitude to the institution, personal thanks are extended to her with great warmth.
Given the length constraints of this preface, only partial excerpts from the preface to the first edition can be included here, as the expressions of thanks from that edition still apply to this new edition. The Latin and English headings were provided by P. Dr. Bonifatius Fischer OSB, Abtei Mariendonk, and Prof. Dr. B. M. Metzger, Princeton, USA, respectively, and I would like to express my gratitude to both friends for their contributions and fruitful discussions. K. Junack, who played a significant role in shaping the critical apparatus of previous editions, also provided advice and support for this edition, as did the full-time staff at the Institute who were involved in the collations. Appendix I of the Synopsis, with the trilingual presentation of the Gospel of Thomas, is based on the work of Prof. Dr. G. Garitte, Louvain, for the Latin part, Prof. Dr. E. E. Haenchen†, Münster, for the German part, and Prof. Dr. B. M. Metzger, Princeton/USA, for the English part. Their work provided the necessary complement and rounding-off to the extensive additions (to almost every pericope or in Appendix II) from other apocryphal Gospels and the Church Fathers and helped give this Synopsis its distinctive form over more than 20 years. It should be understood that work on the Synopsis is not complete, and efforts to expand it further will continue in future editions.
KURT ALAND
Münster/Westphalia,
March 28, 1985
Foreword to the Fourteenth Edition
In this 14th edition, the index of Greek manuscripts (see Codices Graeci, pp. XVIII–XXXII) has been updated to the latest state and is thus in accordance with the 2nd edition of the Concise List of Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament (Kurzgefaßten Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments). In the few instances where manuscript sigla had to be changed, the new number has been added in parentheses in the index. Therefore, the old designations could be retained in the critical apparatus of the Synopsis. The transition to the new numbers can be easily accomplished with the help of the index.
The papyri and majuscules that have become known since the 13th edition have been incorporated into the existing apparatus positions along with their variants. Additionally, a number of printing errors and oversights have been corrected. For the layout of the apparatus, please refer to the foreword of the 13th edition.
Since the text of the 27th edition of the Novum Testamentum Graece remained unchanged, as it did in the 4th edition of the Greek New Testament, for the reasons indicated there, there was no need for textual changes in the Synopsis.
KURT ALAND
Münster/Westphalia,
March 28, 1994
Foreword to the Fifteenth Edition
The present 15th edition of the Synopsis Quattuor Evangeliorum, with regard to its Greek text, is essentially an unchanged reprint of the 14th edition. However, it distinguishes itself from the previous edition in that the long-awaited revision of the Coptic Gospel of Thomas has finally been undertaken. Unlike previous editions of the synopsis, this edition provides, for the first time, the Coptic text along with a completely reworked German and English translation, both of which are based on the same understanding of the text. Additionally, wherever possible, especially in the case of sayings with close parallels in the Greek text, translations back into Greek have been made (see page 517 for the entire explanation). The entire presentation of the Gospel of Thomas was prepared by members of the Berlin Association for Coptic-Gnostic Literature (Berliner Arbeitskreises für Koptisch-Gnostische Schriften), under the leadership of Hans-Gebhard Bethge. Not only the editors of the Synopsis but also its users are sincerely grateful to them for this effort.
BARBARA ALAND
Münster/Westphalia,
June 5, 1996
Leave a Reply