Gathercole on the Motive for Variants in 1 Cor 15.51

Simon Gathercole has a new open access article out in JSNT that questions the dominant view that 1 Cor 15.51–52 shows that Paul expected to survive until the Parousia. It’s worth your time to read for the main point it’s addressing, but being a blog about textual criticism not Pauline theology, I wanted to highlight one outcome of his against-the-grain reading of these verses. There are a number of variants in v. 51 (at least thirteen per TuT). Gathercole gives the main ones as follows:

These are sometimes expained by later readers/scribes wanting to fix Paul’s theology. Here is Metzger:

Because Paul and his correspondents had died, the statement πάντες οὐ κοιμηθησόμεθα seemed to call for correction. The simplest alteration was to transfer the negative to the following clause (א (A*) C 33 1739 it^g arm eth al). That this was an early modification is shown by the artifical conflation of both readings in 𝔓⁴⁶ A^c Origen...

From his own argument, especially regarding the syntax of v. 51, Gathercole says of this suggestion:

This is of course possible, but there is an alternative explanation, namely that ancient scribes were as perplexed as modern scholars by the wording of 1 Cor. 15.51: as [A.T.] Robertson comments, ‘the variations in 1 Cor. xv: 51 may be also due to … failure to understand Paul’s language’. As we have seen, Paul’s language in 1 Cor. 15.51 is far from straightforward. 

I should add that Gathercole sides with the current concensus about the original text of v. 51 and so follows B Maj. I will say I had never noticed the seemingly odd placement of the negative particle in v. 51 before. 

As a side note, there are some interesting things happening in 02. You can see a small ου added before κοιμηθησόμεθα and you can see where an original οι before παντες has been slightly adjusted to turn the iota into an upsilon to make ου. (Unfortunately, the BL still doesn’t have 02 back online after the hack so these images are from a monochrome facsimile courtsey of CSNTM.)

A/02 (CSNTM)

Textual Commentary on Luke 3:33

In recent years, I have worked through the whole New Testament text for a new Swedish translation to come out next year (NT2026), as I am the textcritical consultant on the project. I have now completed all books apart from the Gospels of Luke and Matthew (I saved Matthew since the ECM edition will soon appear). 

This morning I looked into the complicated variation in Luke 3:33. I thought I would give blogreaders a taste so here is an English translation of my treatment:

---

Luke 3:33

TW: reading A

Proposed long footnote:

Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni — The manuscripts show considerable variation here. Many read Aram as the father of Amminadab (cf. Matt 1:3–4) and omit his son Arni, sometimes adding Joram, while others have Adam in place of Amminadab (probably via the spelling Amminadam).

Proposed short footnote:

Amminadab, son of Admin, son of Arni — Some witnesses read Adam instead of Amminadab; others have Amminadab, son of Aram or Amminadab, son of Aram, son of Joram.

---

Text-critical discussion

A. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνί – ℵ² L ƒ¹³ bo
B. τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνί – 𝔓4vid ℵ* 1241 sa
C. τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνί – B
D. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ (Αμιναδαμ 1424) τοῦ Ἀράμ – D 33. 565. 1424. ℓ 2211 pm lat syp.h (et om. τοῦ Φαρές A)
E. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἰωράμ – K Δ Ψ 700. (892). 2542 pm b e
F. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ (Αμιναδαμ 1) τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἀδμὶ (Αλμι 1) τοῦ Ἀρνί – Θ 1
G. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ (Αλμιν Γ) τοῦ Ἀρνί – N Γ
H. τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀράμ – 0102

A large number of variants are listed in NA28 (and many more exist in the broader textual tradition). The Byzantine tradition is divided between readings D (τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀράμ) and E (τοῦ Ἀμιναδὰβ τοῦ Ἀρὰμ τοῦ Ἰωράμ). The former follows the sequence of the Matt 1:3–4 parallel. As Hugh Houghton notes in his Textual Commentary, it may also have developed from reading E through haplography (omission of τοῦ Ἰωράμ). In these readings, τοῦ Ἀρνί is entirely omitted.

In all the earliest witnesses, the sequence τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνί is present (readings A, B, and C), and this can be taken as virtually certain. Reading A also has the name τοῦ Ἀμιναδάβ, which appears in Matt 1:4, while reading B has the unique τοῦ Ἀδάμ, which may have dropped out through haplography in reading C. As Houghton points out, the appearance of another Adam (other than the first man) is problematic and does not match any king in the Septuagint—reading B seems to be the most difficult reading, and no editors (NA/UBS, SBLGNT, THGNT) have adopted it.

On the other hand, the support for Ἀδάμ is slim and incoherent (minuscule 1241 has a mixed text and numerous scribal errors). When we examine the earliest witness, 𝔓4vid, the names τοῦ Ἀδὰμ τοῦ Ἀδμίν are unclear, as the papyrus clearly has more letters and at least one correction appears to have been made on the two lines in question. Interestingly, the other early witness to reading B, Codex Sinaiticus, has a beta–mu confusion in the same name in Matt 1:4, where two of the lines read ΑΜΙΝΑΔΑΒΑΜΙΝΑ // ΔΑΜΔΕΕΓΕΝΝΗCΕΝ. It is evident that Ἀμιναδάμ was also in circulation in the Lukan textual tradition, since the archetype (a majuscule) of Family 1 clearly had Ἀμιναδάμ (as in 1, 118, 131, 209, and 1582), and it is easier to see how the well-known name Ἀδάμ (reading B) could arise from this spelling.

In sum, the sequence τοῦ Ἀδμὶν τοῦ Ἀρνί is virtually certain, while τοῦ Ἀράμ likely entered from the Matthean parallel. The name Ἀδάμ most likely arose from Ἀμιναδάμ at an early stage. Thus, I prefer reading A (=NA28). Finally, I note in Houghton's Textual Commentary that this textual problem has moved from a letter-rating of C in UBS5 to a D-rating in UBS6. For future editions I recommend a B- or C-letter rating.

ECM Revelation intro material coming online

Reading the Preface to the ECM Revelation volume, I would like to note that it says the following (p. xii):

The edition is published both electronically and in print. Both media have their own advantages. The text and its apparatuses are electronically linked to third-party data (relevant to paratexts, etc.), and we encourage discussion online (e.g. in the NTVMR forum).

The cooperation with the publisher, the German Bible Society, went smoothly and shows a way forward: The German Bible Society, represented by Dr. Florian Voss, agreed to comply with the DFG’s request for “open access” of all the project outputs. The edition of the text (part 1 of the edition) will be included into the NTVMR. The publisher plans to make PDFs of the introduction to the text volume, as well as all of the Supplementary Material and Study volumes available online one year after the publication. For this we are very grateful.

ECM Revelation (photo credit)

The part in bold is really significant. Unless I am mistaken, this is the first ECM volume to put this extra material online. To give you a sense of what we’re talking about, the four volumes that make up ECM Revelation amount to some 2000 pages! Granted, some of this is duplicate (German and English), but actually, quite a bit is only in one of those two languages. So this is a LOT of material. For anyone working on the text of Revelation, these materials will be a tremendous resource.

Perhaps most importantly, putting the Introduction online means that, for the first time, the digital ECM is truly usable for someone without the print edition. Why do I say this? Because the introduction explains how the apparatus works. Without it, there really is no way, beyond mere intuition, of knowing some of the key ins-and-outs of the ECM digital apparatus. For those with the print edition, this is no problem. Once you learn to use the print apparatus, the online one makes sense. But I have often wondered how I could recommend the ECM digital edition to someone without the print edition’s introduction. This seems to be my answer and I am very glad to have it.

Exactly when in 2025 and exactly where these PDFs will be online, I don’t know. But I will try to let you know as soon as I know. Or perhaps one of our readers can leave the answer in the comments.

Greek NT Formats

I’ve been meaning to do this for awhile for my students. It’s essentially a list of available formats for the main Greek NTs on the market that I would expect my students to be interested in. 

What did I miss?

	NA	UBS	RP	SBL	TH
Reader’s edition		✔️	✔️		✔️
Journal edition	✔️				✔️
Greek-English edition	✔️	✔️			✔️
Greek-Spanish edition		✔️
Greek-Latin edition	✔️
With dictionary	✔️	✔️		✔️	✔️
Annotated edition					✔️
Large print edition	✔️
Digital edition	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️	✔️
Textual commentary		✔️			✔️*

* = forthcoming

Changes to Expect with UBS6/NA29

While doing some work yesterday on the history of the Nestle-Aland, I decided to take a peek at the upcoming NA29/UBS6 editions. I couldn’t find a page for the NA29 at the Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft website and the UBS6 isn’t set for release until Oct. 19. What is available now is the reader’s edition that shares the same text. I’ve given a screenshot of the page below. Besides the very obvious typographic change (which may be unique to the reader’s edition), the most notable updates are these: 

• The text adopts the ECM text for all available books. That means Mark, Acts, Catholic Letters, and Revelation. (ECM Matthew is not set for release until December, so it does not include that.)
• The order of books does not follow Erasmus any more but reverts to what is found in earlier MSS (and editions like WH). That means Gospels, Acts, Catholic Letters, Paul (with Hebrews before the Pastorals), Revelation.
• Previously “missing verses” are back in the main text with double brackets. This is the most surprising update and one I did not know about until now. Here’s how the intro explains it: “Unlike in earlier editions of the Nestle-Aland and the UBS Greek New Testament, including the Reader’s Edition, all verses assigned a number within the New Testament are now integrated into the text in double brackets. Previously this was only the case for individual passages which traditionally enjoyed an exceptional position in the church (e.g. Mk 16.9–20; Jn 7.53–8.11).”

You can read the introduction here. Also don't forget about the release of the new Textual Commentary that will accompany the UBS6. 2025 is shaping up to be a banner year for NTTC.

The format of the new UBS6 Reader’s Edition

The Order of Books in Nestle 1

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.