Alan Taylor Farnes on "surviving exemplars" - includes section on Claromontanus and Sangermanensis (0319) and Waldeccensis (0320)

Steven Avery


matthew Burks
Last edited:

Steven Avery

"including those with surviving exemplars" "farnes"


parker ref on Schmid, Revelation, family 1’
martin Karrer
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Chapters Four through Six present the scribal habits of selected proposed manuscript pairs: 0319 and 0320 as direct copies of 06 (with their Latin counterparts VL76 and VL83 as direct copies of VL75), 205

Steven Avery


Ulrich Schmid vehemently argues against the Ehrmanian view that scribes were authors and editors arguing directly against Ehrman and Kannaday (the very authors to whom Kim Haines-Eitzen appealed):

In the work of Ehrman, and even more so in the work of Kannaday, scribes are
effectively portrayed as performing the roles of authors or editors. It is
important to note that they arrive at this result by looking only at variants.
They do not try to back up this new and rather eccentric perception of scribes
by seeking for supporting evidence either from New Testament manuscripts
themselves (scribal hands, layout, corrections, marginalia etc.) or from other
ancient sources. In other words, the concept of scribes as authors is entirely
built on the interpretation of variants in almost complete isolation from their
physical containers (the manuscripts) and their sociological environment (the
professional setting of those who produced them).24

24 Ulrich Schmid, “Scribes and Variants—Sociology and Typology,” in Textual Variation: Theological and Social Tendencies? Papers from the Fifth Birmingham

Steven Avery

Of these I have chosen to analyze by test passage the two Abschriften of
Codex Claromontanus (06), 205 as a copy of 2886, and 821 as a copy of 0141. I chose the
Abschriften of 06, which are 0319 and 0320, because 0319 is the earliest supposed Abschrift
being a ninth-century majuscule copying the fifth-century 06.


p. 51

[Claromontanus] renders attention to the copy [Sangermanensis] superfluous.”180 The
previous habit of ignoring a manuscript because it is thought to be a copy of another
manuscript has led to some difficulties. Because 0319 and 0320 have long been considered
copies of 06 they have often been ignored. This is, in fact, a larger problem that faces all
Abschriften: they have been ignored from text critical consideration.

As we will discuss at length in Chapter Four concerning the Abschriften of Codex
Claromontanus, there are many instances in that manuscript where a correction mark was
passed on completely into the Abschrift. There is an instance at Titus 3:5 where the first hand
wrote δια. This word was corrected to be omitted by placing small slashes through the letters.
When 0319 came to this word the scribe wrote δια with small slashes through the letters just
as found graphically in its Vorlage. The scribe of 0319 made many of these same blunders
and passed on intended corrections often. Such instances are clear evidence of direct copying.

p. 80
Chapter Four: Codex Claromontanus and the Scribal Habits of its Abschriften