Editio Critica Maior: changes between the 1st and 2nd editions

The 28^th edition of the Nestle-Aland text presents, for the Catholic Epistles, the text of the 2^nd edition of the Editio Critica Maior (not yet published). A comparison of the text of ECM¹ with the text of NA²⁸ (= ECM²) indicates that there are 13 differences between the first and second editions, as follows:

Reference	NA28 (ECM2)	ECM1
Jas 1:20	οὐ κατεργάζεται	•οὐκ ἐργάζεται•
Jas 1:22	♦μόνον ἀκροατὶ	ἀκροατὶ μόνον
Jas 2:4	καὶ οὐ διεκρίθητε	οὐ διεκρίθητε
Jas 2:15	λειπόμενοι ὦσιν	λειπόμενοι
Jas 4:10	τοῦ κυρίου	κυρίου
1 P 2:5	θεῷ	•τῷ• θεῷ
1 Pet 5:1	τοὺς	οὖν
2 P 2:18	ὄντως	•ὀλίγως•
2 P 2:20	κυρίου	•κυρίου ἡμῶν•
1 J 3:7	Παιδία	τεκνία
2 J 5	γράφων σοι καινὴν	καινὴν γράφων σοι
2 J 12	ᾖ πεπληρωμένη	πεπληρωμένη ᾖ
3 J 4	ἐν ἀληθείᾳ	ἐν τῇ ἀληθείᾳ

It is striking that 8 of the 13 differences between the two editions are not marked by either a diamond (♦)—which “indicates passages where the guiding line is split in the second edition of the ECM, because there are two variants which in the editors’ judgement could equally well be adopted in the reconstructed initial text” (NA²⁸, “Introduction,” 55*)—or  bold dot(s), which sometimes signal alternative readings of equal value to the text and sometimes simply mark passages calling for “special critical consideration” (ECM, 24*). Furthermore, of the 5 readings that are marked by bold dots or the diamond, none are marked by both dots and a diamond.

A comparison of bold dotted and diamond readings throughout the Catholic Epistles produces the following results (all numbers subject to confirmation):

Total # of readings with diamond, dot(s), or both:           107

# of diamond readings with no corresponding dot(s):       19

# of readings with both diamond and dot(s):                      22

# of dotted readings with no corresponding diamond:       66

That is, of the 107 marked variants, only 22 (20.5%) share the diamond and dot(s), while 85 (79.5%) have either one or the other, but not both.

These numbers indicate that the means of signaling uncertainty in the text—dotted readings in ECM¹, and “split guiding line” readings in ECM² (= the diamond readings in NA²⁸) overlap in only about 1 in 5 instances. Of the 88 “dotted” readings marked in ECM¹, only 22 of them (25%) are marked in ECM²—a noticeable reduction. But at the same time, of the 41 diamond readings marked in ECM², nearly half,  19 (= 46%), are new to that edition—a substantial proportion of the whole. Finally, one must keep in view the fact that of the 13 differences between ECM¹ and ECM², 8 (61%) are not marked (with a diamond or dots) in either edition of ECM.

Mike Holmes