Here’s something I never noticed before. The order of books in Nestle’s 1st ed. (1898) follows Luther’s 1522 NT. Here you can see the two side-by-side. What makes the Nestle odd in a way even Luther’s is not is the headings. I may be wrong, but I can’t remember Hebrews ever being included with the Catholic Letters in any manuscript.
 |
 |
| Luther Bible (1522) | Nestle 1 (1898) |
By the third edition (1901) the books were back in their Erasmian order, although Hebrews was still set off just slightly from the other Pauline letters. You can see it here in my copy of the 13th edition which is the same.
 |
| Nestle 13 reflecting the changed book order |
It’s worth mentioning this because my understanding is that the NA29 will switch the order of books, placing the Catholic Epistles immediately after Acts. As a result, the NA will match one of its original three sources and the one that Nestle himself called “the one constituent factor” in his edition (=WH).
Minor update: I notice the Nestle 13th ed. (1927) has the following note at the bottom of the page of Rom 1: “HTWS [=WH, Tischendorf, Weiss, and von Soden] Epistolas Catholicas (Jc, 1.2 P, 1-3 J, Jd) Paulinis anteponunt; epistolam ad Hebraeos datam epistolis pastoralibus praemittunt.”
P.S. Did you know you can look at scans of all the Nestle/Nestle-Aland editions in the VMR? In the Manuscript Workspace, search for N1, N2, etc. in the Manuscripts tab search box. From the 22nd ed. on, search for NA22, etc.
Was this order of books standard in all editions of the Luther Bible up through Nestle's day? If so, then he was probably following the precedent of what he, being German, knew as the standard order of books.
ReplyDeleteIt is an interesting, and unfortunate, decision on both Luther's and Nestle's parts though, regardless of their reasons.
I also had this question but I don’t know the answer.
DeleteWhat is wrong with putting the books in their normal order, and including a chronological page or whatever? Must we always be innovating Athenians?
ReplyDeleteWhat would be the "normal order"?
DeleteThe order in our printed Bibles.
DeleteThe 'normal order' in your printed bible is an innovation.
DeleteIt’s been an innovstion for a considerablly long time, and it is well-known!
DeleteThe Lutheran tradition often takes into account the distinction between homologoumena and antilegomena in the NT. So, it's not entirely surprising that Luther himself would have this list of several disputed books set off from the rest at the end. Especially as he himself disputed their canonicity at one time or another. I don't know that that's the reason, but I think it's plausible.
ReplyDeleteYes, that’s the reason Luther did. He had questions about all 4 of those books. But I’m surprised to see a Greek New Testament c. 375 years later follow his example.
DeleteYeah, that's really interesting.
Delete