This is definitely a case of trying too hard.

The synopsis of the first three gospels by Albert Huck was, for many decades, the best way to compare the contents of the Greek texts of Matthew, Mark, and Luke. It passed through many editions, with various new features, as the basic text became more and more out of date.

So it was quite reasonable that a new editor would be chosen who, while maintaining the basic format of "Huck," would try to bring the text up to date. And, of course, add in a few more parallel passages while he was at it.

It's truly sad that the result was such a strange text. Heinrich Greeven touts the differences between his edition and the standard Nestle text. And, of course, it is good that Nestle have some competition! But Greeven's text is, at best, strange -- a rather von Soden-ish mixture of Alexandrian readings with far too many Byzantine readings for its own good but too few to satisfy a pro-Byzantine scholar. I can't imagine anyone publishing this text if it weren't touted as "the new Huck."

The critical apparatus is confusing as well. Greeven has chosen to include a substantial list of useful witnesses -- a much greater variety of manuscripts than we find in the Nestle-Aland text. But the citations are very hard to decipher (Greeven could perhaps figure it out, but it's not easy for a casual reader). And if I'm reading the apparatus right, the error rate seems rather high (not surprising for a book that involves incredibly complex typesetting; Kurt Aland's synopsis also had a very high rate of errors in its early editions).

The result is sort of half-and-half: A Huck that has been modernized, but not really brought into conformity with modern thoughts about the text. And it still doesn't include a continuous text of the Gospel of John. If you're going to have only one synopsis, at this point, I think the Aland synopsis is better: It uses the UBS text, it's more complete, it's easier to read and understand. Of course, if you really want to study gospel parallels, the ideal is to have both Huck-Greeven and Aland, and then to form your own conclusions. ( )