Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-b95js Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-02-11T13:10:31.504Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Creation of a Fourth-Century Witness to the Andreas Text Type: A Misreading in the Apocalypse's Textual History

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 December 2013

Juan Hernández Jr
Juan Hernández Jr*
Affiliation:
Bethel University, 3900 Bethel Drive, St. Paul, MN 55112-6999, USA. email: j-hernandez@bethel.edu.
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The publication of Josef Schmid's landmark work on the textual history of the Apocalypse seemingly established the Andreas Text Type as a fourth-century product. The primary evidence for Schmid's claim came from the fourth-century corrections of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus, corrections which bore a close resemblance to the Andreas text of the Apocalypse. Schmid's reconstruction, however, is flawed. The fourth-century corrections he identified are actually from the seventh century. The data supporting a fourth-century Andreas text type does not exist. Schmid's widely influential error appears to have been based on a misreading of Milne and Skeat's Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus.

Keywords

Andreas text typeApocalypseCodex SinaiticusJosef Schmidscribes/correctorstextual history
Type
Articles
Information
New Testament Studies , Volume 60 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 106 - 120
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

1. Introduction

The corrections of an ancient manuscript offer an unparalleled opportunity to evaluate the judgements of early scribes and the state of their exemplars. The assessments of textual critics, who conscript scribal corrections for the reconstruction of the NT's transmission history, are also in need of periodic inspection. The corrections of Codex Sinaiticus offer an opportunity to do both. Six decades ago, Josef Schmid argued that the Apocalypse's Andreas text type reached back into the fourth century on the basis of its relationship to Codex Sinaiticus' fourth-century corrections. This claim, however, gave Ernest C. Colwell pause, noting that Schmid was relying on an earlier study by Wilhelm Bousset that had not been assessed in light of recent developments regarding the history of text types.Footnote 1 Regrettably, Colwell never had the opportunity to revisit Bousset's study, and the developments of which Colwell spoke are no longer recent.Footnote 2 In the meantime, Schmid's claim would take on the status of established orthodoxy. Textual critics would universally repeat Schmid's conclusions without questioning them. Further research was considered unnecessary.Footnote 3

The problem with Schmid's claim, however, is more serious than an unchecked reliance on Bousset. Schmid's data is in need of inspection. And the core issue revolves not around disputes over the nature of text types, but around the dating of Codex Sinaiticus' corrections. The difficulty, it appears, originates in a misreading – a misreading by Schmid that skewed his conception of the textual history of the Apocalypse by creating a fourth-century witness that never existed. The newly minted witness prompted Schmid to reassign the Andreas text type to the fourth century – a full three centuries ahead of its prior dating. The implications, of course, are seismic. And yet, the move is predicated upon a misreading – an error that would not be uncovered until now.

2. Colwell's Early Verdict

Colwell was the lone voice of dissent. Colwell's objections, however, stemmed from his view of text types. Schmid's redating of the corrections had not caught his attention. Even so, Colwell's preliminary verdict offers an inadvertent clue to the error; his appraisal includes a prescient caveat:

Before Schmid's argument for a fourth-century date for Andreas is rejected, the evidence (which Schmid refers to) of the agreement of אa [Sa in Schmid] (the fourth century corrector of Sinaiticus) with Andreas must be explained. Schmid's argument here rests on his acceptance of the conclusions drawn by Bousset. Bousset's work should be reviewed in the light of current understanding of the history of text-types.Footnote 4

The ‘current understanding’ to which Colwell refers is his own. Colwell did not dispute the existence of an Andreas text type; it was the notion of its existence in the fourth century that was suspect.Footnote 5 For Colwell, the key to the dating of a particular text type lay in locating a datable witness to the type as a whole; identifying some of its early readings was insufficient.Footnote 6 It was unclear that Schmid had amply demonstrated the ‘type's’ existence in the fourth century. Even so, Colwell called for further study, suspecting that Schmid's reliance on Bousset had compromised his claim. Colwell took for granted that Schmid's identification of Sa (אa) – as the fourth-century corrector of the Apocalypse – was correct.Footnote 7

3. Tischendorf's Correctors

אa is a well-known designation for corrections contemporaneous with the codex; the siglum is one of a series developed by Tischendorf for correctors occupying the fourth through twelfth century.Footnote 8 Schmid's use of Sa (אa) to discuss fourth-century corrections would thus appear unproblematic. אa, however, never surfaces in Tischendorf's apparatus for the Apocalypse; Tischendorf is consistent in his use of אc, אcc and אcc* for corrections of the Seer's work, each of which is dated to the seventh century.Footnote 9 And the Apocalypse's fourth-century scriptorium corrections are subsumed under א or א*.Footnote 10 Schmid's – and by extension Colwell's – use of Sa (אa) is therefore puzzling.Footnote 11 Colwell may perhaps be forgiven for the oversight; Schmid is without excuse. His mastery of the Apocalypse's textual history demands a better explanation. Colwell's call to re-examine אa, albeit for a different set of reasons, points us in the right direction.

4. Bousset's Study and Schmid's Reappraisal

Bousset's study set the pace for Schmid's investigation.Footnote 12 A number of אc and אcc corrections related to the Andreas tradition were uncovered by Bousset. Twenty-eight אc readings were found to be particular to Andreas; another eight were in agreement with Andreas and Codex Alexandrinus; and an additional twenty-one accorded with Andreas and the rest of the manuscript tradition against the oldest uncials. Bousset further identified another ten readings from אcc that were in agreement with Andreas. On the basis of nearly seventy corrections, then, Bousset concluded that Codex Sinaiticus had been corrected against a manuscript in the Andreas tradition.Footnote 13

Bousset's study remains grounded in the seventh century, however. The fourth-century אa siglum is never deployed by Bousset; neither are any of the אc and אcc corrections released from their seventh-century moorings. Tischendorf's system of correctors is adopted without qualification; Bousset's study is therefore not the source of Schmid's Sa (אa) – nor of any claims of an Andreas text type in the fourth century.

And yet, as Colwell rightly noted, Schmid is indebted to Bousset for identifying the connection between Andreas and Codex Sinaiticus. Schmid even updates and corrects Bousset's study against Hoskier's more recent collations. Even with these improvements, Bousset's central claim about אc–Αν remains intact: the אc corrections appear to gravitate towards the Andreas tradition.Footnote 14

Schmid's study takes an unprecedented turn, however, when he transfers Bousset's seventh-century אc corrections to the fourth century. The reallocation marks a radical departure from Bousset with instant repercussions. Two sets of corrections – each related to Andreas, each dated to a different period – now occupy the text-critical landscape: אc in the fourth century and אcc in the seventh. Readings once considered contemporaneous with each other are now separated by three centuries. The Apocalypse's textual history thus undergoes a consequential overhaul, and the Andreas tradition is suddenly attested much earlier than previously thought.

5. The Role of Milne and Skeat

The idea of transporting אc from the seventh to the fourth century appears to have originated with Schmid's reading of Milne and Skeat's Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus.Footnote 15 Schmid praises their work for its precision, noting how they corrected the studies of Tischendorf and Lake. The observation is without dispute: the conclusions of Tischendorf and Lake were updated on palaeographic grounds and a number of prior text-critical judgements were overturned.Footnote 16 Schmid appears to have gone further, however, by equating the corrections of אc with the work of A and D, the fourth-century scribes of the codex, presumably on the basis of Milne and Skeat's investigation:

Nach den genauen, die Ergebnisse von Tischendorf und K. Lake korrigierenden Untersuchungen von Milne und Skeat stammen die mit Sc bezeichneten von den zwei an der Herstellung der Hs selbst beteiligten Schreibern A und D, die auch den Text der Apk geschrieben haben. Weil diese Korrekturen nachweisbar so alt sind wie der Kodex S selbst, aus dem 4. Jh. stammen, vertreten sie eine eigene, S gleichzeitige Apk-Hs.Footnote 17

The אc corrections (initially labelled Sc by Schmid) are thus considered contemporaneous with the fourth-century codex – and, further, representative of a manuscript equal in antiquity to Sinaiticus. The implications are sweeping. Not only has אc been relocated to the fourth century, but an early copy of the Apocalypse is now presumed to be the basis for אc's corrections. The suggestion is not unexpected; corrections that accord with a particular textual tradition are thought to have been made on a documentary basis.Footnote 18 That was Bousset's contribution.Footnote 19 The identification of a fourth-century manuscript bearing Andreas readings, however, is significant; the uncovering of an early independent witness to Andreas would constitute an extraordinary leap in the Apocalypse's textual history.Footnote 20

The problem with Schmid's reconstruction, however, is that it is unwarranted: nowhere do Milne and Skeat associate the corrections of the A and D scribes with the work of אc. Tischendorf's taxonomy of fourth-century transcribers is adopted with little qualification. Moreover, Tischendorf's identification and dating of the אc corrections – with a few exceptions – remain unaltered throughout their work.Footnote 21 Milne and Skeat's treatment of the scribes and correctors appears to have been misunderstood by Schmid – the possible result of a mistranslation.Footnote 22 That misunderstanding was then applied to the yields of Bousset's study, generating an unjustified revision of the Andreas tradition. Had Schmid's revision been restricted to the date of אc, the misstep would have amounted to a clerical error. By making the corrections of אc the cornerstone of a fourth-century witness to the Andreas text type, however, it led to a massive misrepresentation of part of the Apocalypse's textual history – a misrepresentation that would remain the standard text-critical position throughout the twentieth century.

Despite the impact of Schmid's decisions, his realignment of the data appears to have escaped peer-review. The literature is bereft of any reservations over his redating of אc. Schmid's claims were accepted and repeated – or met with silence – rather than examined.Footnote 23 The deference to his landmark study was automatic. Further study was suspended. The Apocalypse's seventh-century corrections were ferried to the fourth without objection, and the foundation for a fourth-century Andreas text type was laid without impediment.

The ultimate responsibility for these textual decisions lies with Schmid. Milne and Skeat may bear part of the blame, however. The conversational and seemingly ad hoc appraisal of the scribes and correctors of Codex Sinaiticus makes it difficult to align Milne and Skeat's data with that of other major critical editions.Footnote 24 The challenge is increased in the case of the Apocalypse, whose scribes and correctors are conscripted only in the service of larger points.Footnote 25 Barring repeated comparisons across a number of editions, errors of categorisation are easily made. The errors would be compounded by unsuspecting readers of Schmid's work.

6. Escaping Detection: from אc to Sa to אa

Schmid's misstep would escape detection for decades – facilitated, no doubt, by his additional revisions. Once אc had been redated, for example, Schmid relabelled it Sa; אcc then followed with the label Sc.Footnote 26 Two sets of corrections emerged: Sa dated to the fourth century and Sc dated to the seventh. Schmid then returned to Bousset and stated that his study of Sa demonstrates that the majority of the fourth-century corrections were made against an Andreas text:

Bousset hat die wichtigsten Korrekturen von Sa und Sc zusammengestellt und ist dabei zu dem klaren und sicheren Ergebnis gelangt, dass wenigstens der überwiegende Teil der aus dem 4. Jh. stammenden Korrekturen (= Sa) einer zu Αν gehörenden Hs entnommen wurde.Footnote 27

And further:

Die Korrekturen von Sa dagegen beweisen völlig klar, dass der Typ Αν mindestens so alt ist wie der Kodex S, d.h. in das 4. Jh. hinaufreicht.Footnote 28

Bousset's study, of course, deals with the seventh-century אc corrections of the Apocalypse, not the fourth. Bousset's אc had been fully subsumed under Schmid's fourth-century Sa.

Schmid's adoption of Sa also accounts for the perplexing use of אa for the Apocalypse's corrections: Sa was converted into אa by readers of Schmid's work.Footnote 29 The conversion was widespread – and unsurprising; few would ever assume that Sa was once אc. Yet, as noted above, אa was already a well-established siglum for corrections of books other than the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus; Tischendorf's אa is not Schmid's Sa. The false equivalency further reveals why Schmid's redating and relabelling escaped scrutiny for so long: everyone knew אa referred to Sinaiticus's fourth-century corrections. The new label had covered Schmid's tracks.Footnote 30

7. Return to Colwell

Colwell's call for a re-examination of אa proved prophetic; a re-examination of אa would indeed uncover a flaw in Schmid's construal of the Andreas text type (though not in the manner Colwell imagined it). It is further worth noting that – with the disclosure of Schmid's dating error – his claim fails yet another one of Colwell's tests for a fourth-century text type: the existence of a datable manuscript belonging to it.Footnote 31 It is clear now that no such manuscript exists.

The damage was nonetheless done. Despite Colwell's early reservations, his pleas were ignored – if known at all. Schmid's reconstruction held the day, and the fourth-century date for the Andreas text type became the consensus. Schmid's findings were widely disseminated, even celebrated. G. D. Kilpatrick, for one, wrote confidently about how אa is the only independent, fourth-century witness to the Andreas text type.Footnote 32 It would appear now, however, that there is no such witness.

8. Implications

The implications of Schmid's faux pas are many and varied; Sa surfaces throughout Schmid's magnum opus as a witness to the Apocalypse's textual history. Every occurrence of Sa must now be read in light of its re-established seventh-century status. The alignment of Sa to particular witnesses is unlikely to change in most, if not all, cases; the conception of it as a fourth-century witness will change in every case. The most consequential revisions will occur where Sa is marshalled in support of a fourth-century date for the Andreas text type.Footnote 33 That claim has now been discredited.

The impact on other parts of Schmid's work will vary commensurate with the arguments advanced for particular cases. Again, textual realignments are unlikely, but the evidentiary weight of Sa will shift. Its value as a witness for specific textual relationships (beyond Sa–Αν),Footnote 34 morphological and grammatical developments,Footnote 35 and linguistic usage within the Apocalypse's manuscript tradition,Footnote 36 will fluctuate on a case-by-case basis. The textual history of select readings will also appear in a new light – even offering unexpected dividends for certain variants. The later (and correct) seventh-century dating of Sa, for example, will increase its importance as a witness to early readings unattested by other manuscripts.Footnote 37

The current investigation will also inform contemporary discussions over text types. The text type nomenclature is disputed today – with increased dissatisfaction voiced over its adequacy as a characterisation of the NT textual tradition.Footnote 38 To date, however, the Apocalypse has been kept out of such discussions; the final word had been spoken by Schmid.Footnote 39 The issue nonetheless looms in the distance; the production of a new critical edition of the Apocalypse is on the horizon. The data presented here anticipate the inevitable debate over text types and even facilitate it by eliminating a spurious witness from the Apocalypse's ‘established’ textual history. The way forward is now unencumbered by an imaginary and misleading reconstruction.

A final implication pertains to the history of textual research: every study – however sacrosanct – merits repeated scrutiny. The recent publication of NA28 makes the point. Before the new edition surfaced, the apparatus of NA27 presented conflicting data over the corrections of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus. Readings that had been traditionally identified as seventh-century corrections – by Tischendorf, Bousset, Hoskier, and Milne and Skeat – were designated as either א1 (fourth through sixth century) or א2 (seventh century) in NA27. The grounds for differentiating the correctors were never published, but the use of א1 clearly called the judgements of an earlier generation of textual critics into question; the corrections could not be both from the fourth through sixth century and the seventh century. Readers would naturally assume that additional information led to the updated date ranges and that these were, in fact, correct.

The 2012 publication of NA28, however, dispelled that notion; every aforementioned citation of א1 was reverted to the expected seventh-century א2 and realigned with the prior consensus. Schmid was the exception; his identification and dating of Sa conforms neither with the current nor with the previous consensus of textual scholarship. The deliberations that prompted the reversion to א2, however, have not been made public yet; confidence in the editorial judgements of the new edition on this point will await their availability for peer-review. It is nonetheless clear that the data got a second look, and that Sa and א2 were fated for conflict. Schmid's error would eventually have been found out.Footnote 40

9. Conclusion

None of this, of course, negates the enduring value of Schmid's magisterial work on the textual history of the Apocalypse. Even Colwell – certainly Schmid's most vocal critic – lauded the work, believing that Schmid had indeed provided the necessary data for a stemma of text types to be made, at least in large outlines.Footnote 41 The mistaken notion of a fourth-century witness to the Andreas text type alone is insufficient to invalidate the comprehensive network of textual relationships documented in his study of the Apocalypse; the scope of Schmid's investigation exceeds any one set of manuscript corrections. The only casualty is a false idea. The deference of textual critics to Schmid's arresting industry has been far more damaging than his actual error; work on the text of the Apocalypse all but stalled because of it.Footnote 42

Further revisions and corrections to Schmid's original work are nonetheless in the offing. Attention is now being paid to areas originally unattended to by Schmid. The versions, for example, were inexpertly handled by HoskierFootnote 43 and avoided by Schmid.Footnote 44 Work is underway on these and may provide valuable information on their connections to the Greek manuscript tradition. Teststellen have also been selected for analysis in advance of the production of the new Editio critica maior of the Apocalypse, raising the spectre of additional yields for the book's varied and complex textual history.Footnote 45 The Andreas tradition and its possible connection to fourth-century witnesses will no doubt be of particular interest now as well. In a word, Schmid's investigation is finally receiving the close scrutiny it has been denied for six decades and will no doubt prove its mettle as a classic of textual scholarship, not out of deference but out of critical engagement.

Appendix I: Sigla Comparisons: Tischendorf's Editio Princeps, Bousset, Tischendorf's Editio Octava Critica Maior, Schmid, Nestle–Aland 27 and Nestle–Aland 28Footnote 46

Appendix II: The activity of the Scribes and Correctors of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus

  1. 1. Scribes A and D copied the text of the Apocalypse.Footnote 47

    1. a. Scribe D copied the first 34 ½ lines of the Apocalypse.

    2. b. Scribe A copied the rest.

  2. 2. Scribes A or D (or both) corrected the text of the Apocalypse before it left the scriptorium in the fourth century.

  3. 3. Three correctors left their marks on the Apocalypse in the seventh-century: Ca (אc), Cc (אcc), Cc* (אcc*).

  4. 4. Ca (אc) makes corrections throughout the Apocalypse, as well as throughout the entire codex.

  5. 5. Cc (אcc) restricts his activity to the first two pages of the Apocalypse (Rev 1.1–3.5 up to ου),Footnote 48 although he also corrects parts of the LXX and the Epistle of Barnabas.

  6. 6. Cc* (אcc*) picks up where Cc leaves off. His first correction is σκηνώσɛι in 7.15.Footnote 49

Appendix III: Schema of Schmid's Misidentification and Dating Error

  1. 1. אa was used by Tischendorf to designate the fourth-century corrector of Codex Sinaiticus, who did not make any corrections to the text of the Apocalypse.

  2. 2. אc, אcc, אcc* were used by Tischendorf to designate the various seventh-century correctors of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus.

  3. 3. Bousset subsequently argued that the readings of אc and אcc were taken from a documentary source in the Andreas textual tradition. Bousset accepted Tischendorf's dating of אc and אcc to the seventh century.

  4. 4. Milne and Skeat labelled אc and אcc as Ca and Cc respectively (following Tischendorf's designations in his transcription of Codex Sinaiticus). These nonetheless remain in the seventh century and are distinguished from the fourth-century scribes A and D.

  5. 5. On the basis of a misunderstanding of Milne and Skeat, Schmid equated the seventh-century corrections of Ca with the fourth-century correcting activity of scribes A and/or D. Schmid thereby moved the readings of Ca (and the documentary source in the Andreas textual tradition from which they were drawn, according to Bousset) to the fourth century. Schmid left Cc in the seventh century.

  6. 6. Schmid initially labelled Ca and Cc as Sc and Scc (probably due to the influence of Tischendorf's labels, אc and אcc).

  7. 7. Schmid then changed the labels again, this time from Sc and Scc to Sa and Sc (moving closer to Milne and Skeat's Ca and Cc).

  8. 8. Sa, which is in fact Tischendorf's אc, was understood by readers of Schmid's work – e.g. Birdsall, Colwell, Kilpatrick and Metzger – as the equivalent of אa, Tischendorf's label for the fourth-century corrector of Sinaiticus, whose work never extended to the Apocalypse.

  9. 9. No one noticed that Schmid's claims for a fourth-century provenance for Sa stemmed from his erroneous redating of the corrections of אc.

References

1 Colwell, E. C., ‘Method in Establishing the Nature of Text-Types in New Testament Manuscripts’, in Studies in Methodology (NTTS; Leiden: Brill, 1969) 45–55Google Scholar; cf. Bousset, W., ‘Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse’, in Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament (TU 2/4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894) 42–4Google Scholar; Schmid, J., Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, vol. 2: Die Alten Stämme (Münchener theologische Studien 1, Historische Abteilung Ergänzungsband 1; Munich: K. Zink, 1956) 127–9.Google Scholar

2 The discussion about text types has advanced considerably since the publication of Colwell's study on this topic. The most up-to-date treatment of the subject can now be found in Epp's, Eldon Jay essay, ‘Textual Clusters: Their Past and Future in New Testament Textual Criticism’, in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (2nd edn; ed. Ehrman, B. D. and Holmes, M. W.; NTTSD 42; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2013) 519–77Google Scholar. Colwell's discussion, however, is far from passé. His assessment of Schmid's study and, in particular, his discussion of the Andreas text type represent the last serious engagement of the issue. In fact, Colwell raised a number of concerns that are still to be addressed. The central concern of this essay, however, is not the debate over text types but Schmid's claim about the existence of a fourth-century witness to the Andreas text type. By clarifying this matter, it is hoped that the way will be cleared for further study in this area.

3 Aland, K. and Aland, B., The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism (2nd edn; trans. Rhodes, E. F.; Grand Rapids, Mich.: Eerdmans, 1986)Google Scholar 107.

4 Colwell, ‘Method’, 53 n. 1.

5 Colwell also called for further clarification regarding Schmid's claim that the later text types (i.e. Byzantine and Andreas) should not be understood as ‘later, revised forms of their elders’, AC and P47א. The only thing that Schmid had proven was that the later text types are not entirely derived from the older ones. See Colwell, ‘Method’, 52; cf. Schmid, Studien, 2.147–8.

6 Uncovering select readings from the late Byzantine tradition in an earlier manuscript, for example, does not move the Byzantine tradition ‘as an entity’ back to the date of the earlier manuscript according to Colwell. See Colwell, ‘Method’, 52, 55.

7 Schmid himself never actually used אa but, as will become clear, his Sa is the equivalent.

8 Tischendorf lists these as אa (contemporary or nearly contemporary with the fourth-century scribe); אb (probably fifth/sixth century); אc, אca, אcb, אcc and אcc* (seventh century); and אe (twelfth century). See Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (3 vols.; 8th edn;Leipzig, 1869–4) 3.346Google Scholar; and Scrivener, F. H. A., A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1864)Google Scholar xxiii; cf. Jongkind, D., Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (TS 3.5; Piscataway, NJ: Georgias Press, 2007) 10–11Google Scholar.

9 Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, 3.346.

10 The corrections made in the scriptorium are more clearly (and fully) laid out by Tischendorf in his Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum.

11 The use of Sa (אa) for the Apocalypse's fourth-century corrections is unattested prior to Schmid. Hoskier actually deploys אa before Schmid but not for the fourth-century corrections. Hoskier's use of the siglum accords with Tischendorf's seventh-century corrector Ca (in his editio princeps of Codex Sinaiticus) or אc (in the apparatus of his Editio octava critica maior). See Hoskier, H. C., Concerning the Text of the Apocalypse: Collations of All Existing Available Greek Documents with the Standard Text of Stephen's Third Edition, together with the Testimony of the Versions, Commentaries and Fathers. A Complete Conspectus of All Authorities (2 vols.; London: Bernard Quaritch, 1929)Google Scholar; cf. Tischendorf, A. F. C., Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum cum Epistula Barnabae et Fragmentis Pastoris (2 vols.; Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1863)Google Scholar; idem, Novum Testamentum Graece, 3.346.

12 Schmid, Studien, 2.127–9.

13 Bousset, ‘Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse’, 42–4.

14 So Schmid, Studien, 2.127–8 n. 6.

15 Milne, H. J. M. and Skeat, T. C., Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1938)Google Scholar.

16 In particular, Milne and Skeat took note of corrections Tischendorf had missed and examined obscurities under ultraviolet light. For particular improvements, see Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, i–xii, 13, 18, 20, 28, 40 n. 2, 41, 47, 50, 66, 70, 89.

17 Schmid, Studien, 2.127.

18 So Colwell, ‘Method’, 52.

19 Bousset had argued that the large number of אc corrections that accord with K (which is where he places Andreas) demonstrates that the codex was corrected against a manuscript belonging to the Andreas tradition. Corrections that deviate from K do not alter these results; they merely show that one or more additional manuscripts were also used for the corrections. Bousset, ‘Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse’, 44.

20 The claim is so extraordinary that it is clear that most of Schmid's readers have been either unaware of it or unaware of its implications. With the well-known dearth of early manuscript attestation for the Apocalypse (from the fourth century and earlier), Schmid's claim should have been a ‘bombshell moment’ for the study of the book's textual history, garnering widespread attention and generating vigorous debate over its implications.

21 אc is labelled Ca in Milne and Skeat, conforming to Tischendorf's use of the siglum in his editio princeps. This is clear in their chapter ‘The Correctors’, which – ironically – Schmid cites in support of his reconstruction. The chapter is divided into two sections: ‘The A and B Correctors’ and ‘The C Correctors’. The use of A and B in the heading is derived from Tischendorf's classification of correctors, which he dates to the scriptorium. Milne and Skeat accept Tischendorf's judgement on the date but simplify considerably his system (a system which was elaborated by Lake to include A1, A2, A3, A4, A5, Aobliqu, AHerm, B, and Ba!); Milne and Skeat assign the entire batch of A and B corrections to the fourth-century scribes: A and D. Tischendorf's classification was considered too complex, ‘resembling a committee of revisers’ rather than a ‘business establishment’. Milne and Skeat believed that the A and D scribes could write with ‘several different hands’. As for the C corrections, again, Milne and Skeat follow Tischendorf's classification with some refinements. Nowhere, however, are the C corrections assigned a date at variance with Tischendorf (with the exception of Cc*, which they consider possibly eighth-century), nor are any of the C correctors identified with the A and D scribes. See Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, 40–50; cf. Schmid, Studien, 127 n. 2.

22 This appears to be the most plausible explanation. While we can only speculate about the precise origin of Schmid's misunderstanding, it is quite possible that Schmid misread a particular English construction in their discussion. For example, the phrase ‘by the original scribe or Ca – read in isolation – can be understood in two ways: as referring either to two mutually exclusive entities (i.e. ‘the original scribe’ + Ca) or to a single entity (i.e. ‘the original scribe’ = Ca). This is precisely the kind of construction one encounters in Milne and Skeat's treatment of the correctors (Scribes and Correctors, 49). It is therefore possible that Schmid understood a statement of mutual exclusivity as one of inclusivity. The broader context, however, makes it clear that the two are to be understood as distinct entities from different periods. If any doubt remains about Ca's seventh-century provenance, one need only turn to Milne and Skeat's opening discussion of the manuscript's colophons, where Ca is referred to as the ‘near contemporary’ of Cb1 – an undoubtedly seventh-century corrector (see Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, 2). Unless this is explained as a translation error of some sort, it is difficult to see how the seventh-century correctors could have been equated with the fourth-century scribes: the distinction between the two groups is fairly clear.

23 Most textual critics have relayed Schmid's classification of the Apocalypse's four text types or textual streams/forms with the qualifying phrase ‘according to Schmid’ (or its equivalent), creating some distance between themselves and Schmid. Challenges to his use of אa as the basis for a fourth-century Andreas text type, however, are nowhere to be found in the literature: Aland and Aland, Text of the New Testament, 247; Birdsall, J. N., ‘The Text of the Revelation of Saint John: A Review of its Materials and Problems with Especial Reference to the Work of Joseph Schmid’, EvQ 33 (1961) 228–37Google Scholar; Elliott, J. K., ‘The Distinctiveness of the Greek Manuscripts of the Book of Revelation’, in New Testament Textual Criticism: The Application of Thoroughgoing Principles, Essays on Textual Variation (NovT Suppl. 137; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2010), 149–50Google Scholar; Hernández, J. Jr, Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse: The Singular Readings of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi (WUNT 2.218; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2006)Google Scholar 4, 26; Karrer, M., ‘Der Text der Johannesapokalypse’, in Die Johannesapokalypse: Kontexte-Konzepte-Rezeptio /The Revelation of John: Contexts – Concepts – Reception (WUNT 287; Tübingen: Mohr Siebeck, 2012) 43–78Google Scholar; Kilpatrick, G. D., ‘Professor J. Schmid on the Greek Text of the Apocalypse’, VC 13 (1959) 1–3Google Scholar; Nicklas, T., ‘The Early Text of Revelation’, in The Early Text of the New Testament (ed. Hill, C. H. and Kruger, M. J.; Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2012) 228–9Google Scholar; Metzger, B. M. and Ehrman, B. D., The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmision, Corruption, and Restoration (4th edn; New York and Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2005)Google Scholar 79; Parker, D. C., An Introduction to the New Testament Manuscripts and their Texts (Cambridge, 2008) 240–1CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Royse, J. R., Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (NTTSD 36; Leiden and Boston: Brill, 2008) 359–60Google Scholar. The exception appears to be Colwell, but – as already noted – Colwell's reservations stem from his understanding of text types, rather than from questions over Schmid's redating and relabelling of the seventh-century אc to the fourth-century אa. See Colwell, ‘Method’, 53 n. 1; cf. Hernández, J. Jr, ‘The Relevance of Andrew of Caesarea for New Testament Textual Criticism’, JBL 130.1 (2011)Google Scholar 196 n. 66.

24 Actually, this is not unexpected. Milne and Skeat denied that their work was anything close to a ‘collation’. Their task consisted simply of comparing the manuscript against the critical notes of Tischendorf's 1862 editio princeps. See Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, xi.

25 See Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, Figure 15.

26 Note ‘Ich schreibe dafür Sa (und Sc für Scc).’ See Schmid, Studien, 127 n. 3.

27 Schmid, Studien, 2.127.

28 Schmid, Studien, 2.129.

29 As noted above, Schmid himself never actually used אa, but his Sa is the clear equivalent. The conversion of Sa to אa is to be found in Birdsall, ‘The Text of the Revelation’, 235; Colwell, ‘Method’, 53 n. 1; Kilpatrick, ‘Professor J. Schmid’, 3; and Metzger, B. M., A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament (2nd edn; Stuttgart: German Bible Society, 1994)Google Scholar 681, 685. It is worth noting that Schmid – and Hoskier for that matter – might have been more judicious in their selection of sigla had their studies of the codex's corrections included more than just the text of the Apocalypse. They might then have anticipated that the use of אa would conflict with the use of the very same siglum by Tischendorf for other biblical books in the codex. Conversely, if textual critics with a general knowledge of Codex Sinaiticus's correctors had familiarised themselves with the particularities of these in the Apocalypse, they might have spotted Schmid's idiosyncratic (and ultimately discrepant) usage and avoided the perpetuation of an error.

30 See Appendix i for sigla comparisons across critical editions, Appendix ii for the scribes and correctors of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus, and Appendix iii for a schema outlining Schmid's misidentification and dating error.

31 Colwell, ‘Method’, 52.

32 See Kilpatrick, ‘Professor J. Schmid’, 3.

33 Schmid, Studien, 2.127–9.

34 Schmid, Studien, 2.45–9, 51, 57, 60, 72–3, 75, 81, 83, 91, 95, 98–9, 102, 104–5, 114 n. 4, 115–16, 125, 134, 142–3, 154–6, 157, 161, 165, 172.

35 Schmid, Studien, 2.180, 183.

36 Schmid, Studien, 2.196, 199–200, 206, 208, 214, 226–7, 231 n. 3, 246.

37 The omission of the final καί in Rev 11.8 is instructive. The reading is attested (in Schmid's collation) by P47, Sa and Αν. If Sa is dated to the fourth century, then there are two early Greek witnesses that join the later Andreas tradition in support of the omission; but if Sa is dated to the seventh century, there is only one early Greek witness to the reading, joined subsequently by Sa and Andreas. With Schmid's Sa correctly dated to the seventh century, the early attestation of the omission becomes all the more remarkable and increases the value of Sa as a witness to this variant. The up-to-date apparatus of NA28 reinforces this impression, showing the support of tenth-century 1611, as well as a handful of versions (ar* syph and bo) for the omission. See Schmid, Studien, 2.115–16, 125.

38 See Epp, ‘Textual Clusters’, 519–77.

39 No discussions of the Apocalypse's textual history are included in the most recent publications of contemporary text-critical research, accurately reflecting the ‘state of the question’. See Wachtel, K. and Holmes, M. W., eds., The Textual History of the Greek New Testament: Changing Views in Contemporary Research (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2011)Google Scholar; Ehrman and Holmes, The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research.

40 The new edition was unveiled at the Society of Biblical Literature meeting in Chicago in 2012.

41 Colwell, ‘Method’, 53.

42 Indeed, Colwell left us with a list of items that could have been attended to in the intervening years. Issues that Colwell identified as meriting further consideration include the following. First, Schmid did not fully realise the implication of the data for the interrelationship of the major text types; according to Colwell, he overrated agreement in the original reading as evidence of common lineage and underrated the possibility of coincidental agreement of error. Second, Schmid mistakenly thought of text types as frozen blocks rather than as processes. Third, he did not demonstrate that the later text types are not revised forms of their elders; he only demonstrated that they were not entirely derived from the older ones. Colwell also called for clarification on Schmid's use of ‘later, revised forms’. Intriguingly, Colwell also appears to suggest that the Apocalypse may preserve the equivalent of a ‘Western’ text – despite the absence of Latin support – in some of the readings of P47 א, especially if ‘Western’ is understood as ‘non-Neutral’. After all, he adds, ‘Western has long since ceased to be a geographic term’. See Colwell, ‘Method’, 52–4.

43 So Schmid, Studien, 2.7–8, 8 n. 1; cf. Birdsall, ‘The Text of the Revelation’, 229; Hernández, Scribal Habits, 24 n. 63.

44 Schmid, Studien, 2.x; cf. Kilpatrick, ‘Professor J. Schmid’, 8–10, 12; Birdsall, ‘The Text of the Revelation’, 236–7; Hernández, Scribal Habits, 24 with n. 61.

45 M. Karrer and U. Schmid, ‘Report on the Apocalypse Project’, SBL Annual Meeting, Chicago, 19 November 2012.

46 The variants listed are from Bousset's tally of אc corrections that accord with the Andreas tradition (see Bousset, ‘Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse’, 42). The comparison illustrates the departure of Schmid (and in part NA27) from the dating established by Tischendorf and followed by Bousset. Hoskier and Milne and Skeat are not included in the comparison but, as already noted, these also follow Tischendorf in their dating and identification of אc.

47 Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, 18–21.

48 Milne and Skeat regard all subsequent corrections of the Apocalypse assigned to Cc as really belonging to Cc*. See Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, 50.

49 Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, 50.