Josef Schmid and the theorized text-line connection of Sinaiticus and P47 in Revelation

[Steven Avery]

Also A C connection,

The Text of Galatians and Its History

Stephen C. Carlson investigates the text of Paul's Epistle to the Galatians and analyses how that text changed over the course of its transmission in manuscript copies over several centuries. For this study, he collated ninety-two textual witnesses of Galatians and arranged them into a...

books.google.com

 

[Steven Avery]

CARM

Revelation textual features that are difficult for the common Sinaiticus early dating

Where have you seen a palaeographic analysis of this corrector to try to establish his date? Or do you use circular reasoning? British Library ca, cb etc: "This consists principally of the ‘c’ group, correctors who revised the manuscript rather extensively between the fifth and seventh...

forums.carm.org

Von Josef Schmid, "Der Apokalypsetext des Chester Beatty Papyrus P47," pp.65-108 Byzantinisch-neugriechische Jahrbücher 1934/5 (1935) "The main result of the following presentation is this: P 47 is by far the most closely related to S and the two Coptic translations. If one leaves aside the special readings and the readings of P 47 that only appear in a few minuscules or minuscule groups and the many special readings or readings of S[1], that are only represented by individual later witnesses, then a relatively small number of places remain in which P 47 and S diverge, P47,S therefore form a pair just like A,C; and their relationship is even closer than that between A and C, which only share a few errors." p.88 [1] As is well known, the Apocalypse text of S is particularly rich in errors and arbitrarinesses of all kinds. Cf. the apt characterization in H. v. Soden I 2067. R. H. Charles, The Revelation of St. John I, Edinburgh 1920, CLXIV counts 425 special readings in S and 47 more purely orthographic ones, in A only 229+27. If one calculates the original total number from the special readings of the surviving sheets, P47 occupies approximately the middle between the two.

 

[Steven Avery]

Studies in the History of the Greek Text of the Apocalypse: The Ancient Stems
By Josef Schmid
https://books.google.com/books?id=o-tmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA117

p. 117

2. The Major Stems of the Greek Text of the Apocalypse
117
Although a secondary set of readings in A (even more than in C) mars the AC archetype, none of As readings are an obvious correction arising from the influence of another text.154 For this reason, A must be considered the more valuable of the witnesses of the AC type. What is striking, however, is that A shares repeated errors with other text forms. S, in particular, agrees with A against C in obvious secondary readings.155 The same is true of Av, about which more will be said below

=======================================
2.4.2. The Text of P47 S and Origen

Alongside the “neutral” text of AC, another “old text” is found in P47 S, which differs from AC (Oec) with a considerable number of corrections.
For the evidence that P47 S constitute a separate stem of the Apocalypses textual tradition, it would be necessary, once again, to place all the
passages where Av and K share the same corrections with each other (that are not in AC P47 S) beside the list of unique readings of AC and its textual allies. The text of P47 S is initially defined negatively by the other stems in these two lists. This is because the two lists show that P47 S do not have many corrections that are in Av and K and that they have corrections in many places where AC likely bear witness to the Urtext [lio] and usually agree with the later text forms Av K. The following list of unique readings that P47 S share positively describes and discloses the P47 S stem in its distinctive features. Bousset was the first to recognize that Sinaiticus’s text is closely related to Origens.156 It is possible for him “to almost say that the immediate textual foundation of S was identical to the Vorlage of Origen.” As long as Codex Sinaiticus (a manuscript that was copied very carelessly and contains a plethora of unique readings,157 as well as obvious

154. By the way, it is repeatedly observable in the list above that WHort and
Charles explain, or at least take into account, readings that A almost alone provides
against C rel. as the Urtext (see in 2:10 [e^re]; 2:22; 3:7, 17; 6:4, 16; 11:3; 12:8; 13:5;
14:18; 16:4, 12; 18:4, 6, 8, 9, 10, 16). They not only regard AC as the authoritative text
form, almost never to be betrayed, but they also consider A the authoritative witness
of this text.

155. As a further, albeit insignificant example of this, 11:11 yjfxicru] ypioov A S*
(likewise 12:14 P47 S) should be mentioned.

156. Bousset, Die Offenbarung Johannis, 157-58.

157. Ss text is teeming not only with harmless orthographic violations but also
with all kinds of other careless errors. Weiss (Die Johannes-Apokalypsey 90) counts 515
(in 405 verses for the entire Apocalypse); Charles only counts 472. I do not give the

p. 118 - we had this because it ended with ONE variant in chapter 9.
p. 119 missing

p. 120
https://books.google.com/books?id=o-tmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA120

Thirty-six times P47 S agree with one another against AC, Av, and K. The number of places would increase to around 110 if P47 were preserved completely. The number is much smaller than that of the unique readings of Av and K but (importantly) surpasses the number of readings in AC. With this, the text of P47 S emerges as a separate stem within the Apocalypses textual tradition. In only one place (9:20 ou£e) does the P47 S stem preserve the Urtext. The majority of the readings presented above do not consist of errors but of conscious corrections. This text thus differs significantly from the mainly “neutral” text of AC Oec. On the other hand, this text does not display the same deliberate linguistic improvements we find in Av and K. The P47 S text form can only be established with precision for that part of the Apocalypses text that is extant in P47. For the rest (about two-thirds of the whole text), we only have S as a witness—a witness whose unreliability is evident compared to P47. Origen’s citations from the missing chapters in P47 only allow for comparison with some verses. But it is clear from the data above (113) that P47 S is accompanied by a group of minuscules (which fluctuates minimally, namely, f1006, 2344, often also f1678, 1611, and 1854), as well as by the two Coptic versions. These second- and third-tier witnesses appear to offer the possibility of establishing the “Origen text” in those parts of the text that are lost in P47. This promising path, at least as it initially seems, becomes problematic because the aforementioned minuscules and versions also often agree with S when it provides a revised text and departs from the text of P47.161 In these cases, it is always important to observe that those minuscules partly agree with P47 and partly with S. In such instances, the common readings between the

161. See the collection of readings in Schmid, “Der Apokalypsetext des Chester
Beatty f47,” 94-97.

 

[Steven Avery]

p. 121

162. See pp. 89-101.

162. See pp. 89-101.

123. missing
124 missing

 

[Steven Avery]

p. 125 missing
p. 126

=======================================================

 

[Steven Avery]

p. 128

When we survey the facts stated in their details regarding the P47 S
type, we come to the following results:
(1) A sufficient number of unique readings demonstrate the existence
of this text type.
(2) Although the two witnesses of this text are older than the rest of
the Apocalypse’s extant Greek manuscripts, the text itself, quite obviously,

 

[Steven Avery]

skip to p. 134

The list includes forty-five readings,182 of which only 2:15; 3:7; 5:10;
7:1; 19:20 represent the Urtext. The vast majority are obvious corrections
and as such prove that S has a closer relationship to Av, since it is clear
that most of these agreements could not occur by chance. Bousset defines
the relationship between S and Av as one in which S was dependent upon
Av.183 Only 4:11, where S preserves one of its frequent mixed readings,184
actually confirms Boussets thesis. But it is methodologically inadmissible
to conclude from this one reading that [127] S takes over all the readings
from Av that they share against any other old text forms. On the contrary,
in the extant portions of P47, P47 S agree with Av against AC K eight times;
P47 S and C agree with Av against K two times;185 and P47 agrees with Av
against S AC K fifteen times. If we consider the relative quantity of text
preserved in P47, these figures correspond to the relative number of S-Av
readings. It appears then that at least some of these readings—indeed most
of them—go back to the archetype of the P47 S text form. Furthermore, Av
probably influences S in some places. However, separating this secondary

 

[Steven Avery]

Results on p. 154-158

Then moves to ECW

==============================

Find any discussion of 4:8

=========================

Schmid dances around Av and Sinaiticus agreements, they are key since Sinaiticus takes it from the Andreas commentary

=========================

Find 4:11 in this paper, especially between 45-158 confirms Bousset thesis on p. 134

The list includes forty-five readings,182 of which only 2:15; 3:7; 5:10;
7:1; 19:20 represent the Urtext. The vast majority are obvious corrections
and as such prove that S has a closer relationship to Av, since it is clear
that most of these agreements could not occur by chance. Bousset defines
the relationship between S and Av as one in which S was dependent upon
Av.183 Only 4:11, where S preserves one of its frequent mixed readings,184
actually confirms Boussets thesis. But it is methodologically inadmissible

P47 S and C agree with Av against K two times;185 and P47 agrees with Av
against S AC K fifteen times. If we consider the relative quantity of text

 

[Steven Avery]

Revelation 4:11 - Bousset

We probably need NA27 or 28 or Tischendorf

LaParola

ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν] A pc WH NR CEI Riv (TILC) (Nv) (NM)
ὁ κύριος καὶ ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν ὁ ἅγιος] Byz
κύριε ὁ θεὸς ἡμῶν] al
κύριε] 141 ς ND Dio

τὰ] ‭א A Byzpt ς WH
omit] Byzpt Byz2005

ἦσαν] ‭א A 205 209 1006 1611 1841 2053 2351 Byz2005 itar itgig itt vg Apringius Beatus mssaccording to Primasius WH Riv NM
οὐκ ἦσαν] 046 pc Nv
εἰσιν] P 1854 2050 2344 Byz copsa eth Andrew ς NR CEI ND Dio (TILC)
ἐγένοντο] 2329 arm
omit ἦσαν καὶ] Varimadum Fulgentius Primasius

 

[Steven Avery]

Special readings
“Special readings” “Josef Schmid”

Oxford Handbook
Tischendorf, however, deferred to Codex Sinaiticus for a number of unique (and suspect) readings for Revelation. Sinaiticus certainly preserved an “old text” but, as textual critics would later recognize, it was a secondary witness relative to Alexandrinus and Ephraemi for the book of Revelation. Tischendorf’s selection of “special” readings would be ignored (Schmid, 2018).

Studies in the History of the Greek Text of the Apocalypse: The Ancient Stems
By Josef Schmid
https://books.google.com/books?id=o-tmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA45

Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments
VL Die Apokalypse
Teststellenkollation und Auswertungen In Verbindung mit
Martin Karrer
Herausgcgeben von
Markus Lembke
Darius Muller
Ulrich B. Schmid
https://books.google.com/books?id=NXkqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA137
https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/236555/1/236555.pdf
p. 110

p. 136

86 Schmid, Studien II, 109-127.

p. 137

Due to the minimal level of agreement, J. Schmid's characterization of 01 and P47 as two representatives of the same text-type (so-called S-text) is brought into question.86 The evidence here seems to speak against Schmid's conclusion and requires further investigation. 04 agrees with 01 in the U.o.rM column (58%) at a similar level to s^7(61%). According to Schmid 04 and 02 constitute their own opposing text-type to P47-01. In fact, against J. Schmid, the data suggests that, even though 01 and P47 are the closest relatives to each other, they do not constitute an independent text-type.

=============================================

The Future of New Testament Textual Scholarship (2019)
From H. C. Hoskier to the Editio Critica Maior and Beyond
Edited by
Garrick V. Allen, born 1988; 2015 PhD; Lecturer in New Testament Studies at Dublin City University, Republic of Ireland.



The Patient Collator and the Philology of the Beyond:
H. C. Hoskier and the New Testament
Garrick V. Allen - he might sense Sinaiticus as later, look at the Hoskier notes, look at the TOC of the book
https://eprints.gla.ac.uk/236515/2/236515.pdf
p. 20

p. 26-27
“Manuscripts of the Apocalypse - Recent Investigations, part III.” Bulletin of
the John Rylands Library 7/3 (1923): 507-25.
This article examines manuscript 143 (GA 2050), dated to 1107. This piece
reads very much like an entry in volume 1 of Concerning the Text, containing
brief material descriptions, palaeographic comments, and information on its
familial relations. This particular witness, for Iloskicr, “stands quite apart from
any traditional family groups” (p. 508), an observation that is supported by
recent Text und Textwert data that shows 2050 agreeing with LA 2/ in 51% of
readings.57 Iloskicr uses this textual data to argue that the manuscript is the
progeny of an ancient Grcco-Coptic manuscript produced and used in North
Africa (p. 508). Because he perceives the peculiarities of the text to be ancient,
Iloskicr carefully catalogues its significant readings, drawing deep connections
to the Coptic tradition. The text of this manuscript, for Iloskicr, touches “the
faint spots” of the tradition and gets behind the text of Codex Sinaiticus.
Rouse Wieland Hernandez
Ehrman Parker

The Text of The NTestament - Critical Editions and Modern Textual Criticism | PDF
S: independent or distinctive readings (i.e., special readings, "Sonderlesarten")

A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament Contents
Sep 30, 1993 — ... special readings and renderings would be

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is where cjab tried to find a couple of P47 and Sinaiticus variants for the Schmid idea
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...edict-identity-fraud-theft.15475/post-1332839

Rev 9:12-13,
12: Ἡ Οὐαὶ ἡ μία ἀπῆλθεν· ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται ἔτι δύο Οὐαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα.
13: Καὶ ὁ ἕκτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν· καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν μίαν ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων κεράτων τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ χρυσοῦ τοῦ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ,
Variants here concern punctuation as well as the author’s usage:

• μετα δε ταυτα και 0207
• μετα ταυτα. Και A.02 P.025 1611 1841 MajA
• και 2053
• και μετα ταυτα 046
• Μετα ταυτα και 1006 1854 2329 2351 MajK
• μετα δε ταυτα και 0207
• μετα ταυτα P47 א 2344
• om. μετα ταυτα 2053

The initial και of v.13 was moved to precede μετα ταυτα by 046 or omitted
by P47 א 2344. Elsewhere in Revelation μετα ταυτα (or μετα τουτο)
begins a sentence or clause and therefore these words could stand first
here as being consistent with this book. The only exceptions to this practice
are 1:19; 4:1(sec.) which are different as in those contexts the phrase
refers to specific items. But the text in Nestle28 is that of A.02, a reading
which is also in accord with the author’s way of introducing angels previously
mentioned, see 8: 8, 10, 12; 9:1 i.e. with simple και at the beginning.
We are thus left with a dilemma!
Eg. p.79
Rev: 14:3
Nestle
καὶ ᾄδουσιν ᾠδὴν καινὴν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων· καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο μαθεῖν τὴν ᾠδὴν εἰ μὴ αἱ ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες, οἱ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.
Majority Greek Text
καὶ ᾄδουσιν ὡς ᾠδὴν καινὴν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο μαθεῖν τὴν ᾠδὴν εἰ μὴ αἱ ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες οἱ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς
ως A.01 C.04 1006 1841 2042 MajA
omitted. P47 א P.025 (= TR) (as in Nestle25) (P.025 = Codex Porphyrianus, an uncial manuscript dated to 9th century).

=======================================

CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/rev...iticus-early-dating.16816/page-2#post-1342759

Looking at Elliott I can see a number of places where P47 & Sinaiticus agree with themselves, with very few other manuscripts in agreement. It seems none of the other manuscripts, 2344, Codex Porphyrianus or 046 Maj mentioned here would have been available to the residents of Athos. It is this kind of thing that totally discredits your project, as also the fact that re-writing Revelation was never part of the original project. You've completely lost the plot.
14:3
ως A.01 C.04 1006 1841 2042 MajA
om. P47 01 .א P.025 (Codex Porphyrianus) (= TR) (as in Nestle25)
10:4
οτε A.02 C.04 P.025 (Codex Porphyrianus)
οσα P47 01 .א may be an exegetical modification. P47 rewrote the sentence,
including the addition of ηκουσα before οσα.
14:6
ειδον αγγελον P47 01 .*א
046 Maj (Chester Beatty)
ειδον αλλον αγγελον P115vid 2.01 א A.02 C.04 P.025 051. This reading is
deemed by many commentators to be the more difficult reading. The longer
reading is likely to be original. No other individual angel has been
mentioned since 11:15, so αλλον may have been omitted as not being relevant
or the shortening of the text was possibly due to accidental omission
through hom: ειδONAλλONΑγγελον.


9:12-13
Variants here concern punctuation as well as the author’s usage:
μετα δε ταυτα και 0207
μετα ταυτα. Και A.02 P.025 1611 1841 MajA
και 2053
και μετα ταυτα 046
Μετα ταυτα και 1006 1854 2329 2351 MajK
μετα δε ταυτα και 0207
μετα ταυτα P47 "01.א" &
2344 (France)
om. μετα ταυτα 2053
The initial και of v.13 was moved to precede μετα ταυτα by 046 or omitted
by P47 01 .*א 2344. Elsewhere in Revelation μετα ταυτα (or μετα τουτο)
begins a sentence or clause and therefore these words could stand first
here as being consistent with this book. The only exceptions to this practice
are 1:19; 4:1(sec.) which are different as in those contexts the phrase
refers to specific items. But the text in Nestle28 is that of A.02, a reading
which is also in accord with the author’s way of introducing angels previously
mentioned, see 8: 8, 10, 12; 9:1 i.e. with simple και at the beginning.
We are thus left with a dilemma!

 

[Steven Avery]

Revelation 9:12 and 9:13
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=73&rif2=9:12
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=73&rif2=9:13

Revelation 14:3

http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=73&rif2=14:3

Revelation 14 - Parallel Greek New Testament - HTML Bible by johnhurt.com

Revelation 14 - Parallel Greek New Testament - Bible Software by johnhurt.com

www.greeknewtestament.com

And they sung as it were a new song before the throne, and before the four beasts, and the elders: and no man could learn that song but the hundred and forty and four thousand, which were redeemed from the earth.

14:3 καὶ ᾄδουσιν ὡς ᾠδὴν καινὴν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἠδύνατο μαθεῖν τὴν ᾠδὴν εἰ μὴ αἱ ἑκατὸν τεσσαράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες οἱ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς




Interlinear Bibles Cross-Refs Commentaries Dictionaries Misc

14:3 καὶ ᾄδουσιν ὡς ᾠδὴν καινὴν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν

Also Hoskier

 

[Steven Avery]

X-REF XREF CROSS REFERENCE Hoskier with Gregory-Aland - van Soden
Schmid made his own numbers?
"although Hoskier in his second volume (pp. 11–21) provided a con- version table from his numeration to that of Scrivener, Tischendorf. (= 'Gregory old ....."

James Keith Elliott - 2010

Daum
http://cfile217.uf.daum.net/attach/154CE00F4987C5F6BA24AB
Internet Archive - DOWNLOAD
https://ia803000.us.archive.org/0/i...says on Manuscripts and Textual Variation.pdf
JStor
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23963766
Google Books
https://books.google.com/books?id=hOF5DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA133
Epbf
https://epdf.pub/new-testament-text...ication-of-thoroughgoing-principles-essa.html
Scribd
https://www.scribd.com/document/351...-Thoroughgoing-Principles-Essays-on-Manuscrip

cjab
Try this variant in 14:6

εὐαγγελίσασθαι]
https://forums.carm.org/threads/rev...iticus-early-dating.16816/page-2#post-1343000

eu is there squeezed on end of line

LaParola
Revelation 14:6 evangelize preach
εὐαγγελίσαι] Byz ς WH
εὐαγγελίσασθαι] p47 (‭א) al

Compare neighboring variants

Hoskier 113 is Greece ms 792

 

[Steven Avery]

CARM

Revelation textual features that are difficult for the common Sinaiticus early dating

Siniaticus has εὐαγγελισασθε, instead of εὐαγγελίσασθαι (P47), but it is still very different from εὐαγγελίσαι (the rest). Yes, it is almost a singular reading, although Hoskier references a manuscript 113, which cross-references to 792 in Greece in the Gregory-Aland numbers (James Keith...

forums.carm.org

SCHMID EVALUATION FROM TuT - Text und Textwerk

His theory is not defunct and you're looking at one of the reasons why it isn't defunct. Just because someone criticizes it from some aspect doesn't mean its defunct. It's still a highly creditable theory, although not as unqualified as its used to be. The synopsis is that it requires more work.

Its over.

The text-type theory of Josef Schmid never made sense, and it is already in the dust-bin of history, it lost the test of time.

Text und Textwert der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments (2017)
VL Die Apokalypse
Teststellenkollation und Auswertungen In Verbindung
https://books.google.com/books?id=NXkqDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA137
Due to the minimal level of agreement, J. Schmid's characterization of 01 and P47 as two representatives of the same text-type (so-called S-text) is brought into question.86 The evidence here seems to speak against Schmid's conclusion and requires further investigation. .... 86 Schmid, Studien II, 109-127.

p. 141-142

8. Concluding Comments

The introduction to this volume has shown the difficulties involved in collecting and evaluating the textual data from the manuscripts of Rev due to the peculiarities of its textual transmission. Because of this, the presentation of collation results and the evaluation of the manuscripts from multiple angles must be modified compared to previous TuT volumes.

Nonetheless, this material represents groundbreaking progress for further research of the Apocalypse textual tradition. The work was successful because the mass of data allows for a re-examination of previous judgments and also offers a number of new insights. Perhaps the most key observation thus far is the questionable relationship between 01 and P47, which was forcefully posited by J. Schmid.

In light of these results, these two manuscripts can no longer be considered the main witnesses of a shared text type. Their differences are so pronounced that their text-critical value and text historical location requires a completely new assessment. This calls into question the broader picture of the tradition of Rev offered by J. Schmid, in which 01 and P47 constituted a key text-type. A similar observation is also true for 02 04 Oecumenius, whose relationships are also questionable.

And I doubt if you can find one scholar who is aware of the TuT evaluation who will try to go back to the Josef Schmid error.

 

[Steven Avery]

Revelation textual features that are difficult for the common Sinaiticus early dating

Siniaticus has εὐαγγελισασθε, instead of εὐαγγελίσασθαι (P47), but it is still very different from εὐαγγελίσαι (the rest). Yes, it is almost a singular reading, although Hoskier references a manuscript 113, which cross-references to 792 in Greece in the Gregory-Aland numbers (James Keith...

forums.carm.org

"The Work's undeniable need for revision, however is not a warrant for its wholesale dismissal. A dismissal would overlook what is irreplaceable about Schmid's magnum opus."

Correct. There is a lot of good stuff in the Schmid work.
Look at the TOC and then the list of pubs on p. xvii to get the wide range.

Here are eight problems.

One thing that is defunct is his text-line claims, especially P47-Sinaiticus, also as shown in TuT. (p. 20, footnote xx) Also 02 04 Oecumenius.

Also his idea about the Andreas Sinaiticus Ca correctors needs more work, it tends to cast doubt on the Sinaiticus early date. footnote 5, p. xviii, Hernandez. Also p. 21-22, footnote 12.

There may be more from Martin Karrer. p. xix, footnote 6, 3 publications.

And Colwell p. xviii helped lead to the text-line correction.

A major factual error about Andreas commentaries with other NT sections other than Revelation. footnote xii, p. 22.

p. xxxiv-xxxv are especially interesting on questionable methodological assumptions.

Schmid’s unclear terms are itemized below with respect to his use of labels. Chief among Schmid’s questionable assumptions and judgments, according to Colwell, is his treatment of the “old text types” as frozen block p. 22 footnote xii

TuT analyzes many manuscripts unavailable to Schmid and also corrects some problems in what he did analyze.

And this is helpful.

p. 21-22
It could be argued, of course, that Schmids Die alten Stamme is condemned to obsolescence. Advances in the field have only served to cast
the works shortcomings into bold relief. Misread data, paleographical and codicological inadequacies, the lack of terminological clarity, questionable assumptions and judgments, and other errata threaten to hamper the work’s usefulness.12 ... Die alten Stemme could justifiably be dismissed as an unreliable exemplar of old research.

"The Work's undeniable need for revision, however is not a warrant for its wholesale dismissal. A dismissal would overlook what is irreplaceable about Schmid's magnum opus."

Correct. There is a lot of good stuff in the Schmid work.
Look at the TOC and then the list of pubs on p. xvii to get the wide range.

Here are eight problems.

One thing that is defunct is his text-line claims, especially P47-Sinaiticus, also as shown in TuT. (p. 20, footnote xx) Also 02 04 Oecumenius.

Also his idea about the Andreas Sinaiticus Ca correctors needs more work, it tends to cast doubt on the Sinaiticus early date. footnote 5, p. xviii, Hernandez. Also p. 21-22, footnote 12.

There may be more from Martin Karrer. p. xix, footnote 6, 3 publications.

And Colwell p. xviii helped lead to the text-line correction.

A major factual error about Andreas commentaries with other NT sections other than Revelation. footnote xii, p. 22.

p. xxxiv-xxxv are especially interesting on questionable methodological assumptions.

Schmid’s unclear terms are itemized below with respect to his use of labels. Chief among Schmid’s questionable assumptions and judgments, according to Colwell, is his treatment of the “old text types” as frozen block p. 22 footnote xii

TuT analyzes many manuscripts unavailable to Schmid and also corrects some problems in what he did analyze.

And this is helpful.

p. 21-22
It could be argued, of course, that Schmids Die alten Stamme is condemned to obsolescence. Advances in the field have only served to cast
the works shortcomings into bold relief. Misread data, paleographical and codicological inadequacies, the lack of terminological clarity, questionable assumptions and judgments, and other errata threaten to hamper the work’s usefulness.12 ... Die alten Stemme could justifiably be dismissed as an unreliable exemplar of old research.

 

[Steven Avery]

https://forums.carm.org/threads/rev...on-sinaiticus-early-dating.16816/post-1348321

Also his idea about the Andreas Sinaiticus Ca correctors needs more work, it tends to cast doubt on the Sinaiticus early date. footnote 5, p. xviii, Hernandez. Also p. 21-22, footnote 12.

=====================

This summary from Hernandez and friends of the Andreas Sinaiticus Ca dating correction controversy
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=o-tmDwAAQBAJ&pg=PR21

goes with the
Peter Malik summary of the controversy, including from Bousset through to Amy Myshrall palaeography
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...bLJz5UxYUMRAj5YOL1EDPgZDobND4T-c_w#post-11697

And we want to have a page with the pics of the Ca-Andreas corrections to Sinaiticus.

12. Chief among the misread data is perhaps Schmid mistaking the Apocalypse's postscriptorium corrections in Codex Sinaiticus for corrections contemporaneous with the books fourth-century transcription.

See Hernandez, “Creation of a Fourth-Century Text Type,” 106-20;

Juan Hernandez Jr., “The Legacy of Wilhelm Bousset for the Apocalypses Textual History: The Identification of the Andreas Text,” in Sigismund, Karrer, and Schmid, Studien zum Text der Apokalypse, 19-32;

Hernandez, “Nestle-Aland 28 and the Revision of the Apocalypses Textual History,” in Studies on the Text of the New Testament and Early Christianity: Essays in Honour of Michael W. Holmes, ed. Daniel M. Gurtner, Juan Hernandez Jr., and Paul Foster, NTTSD 50 (Leiden: Brill, 2015), 71-81.

See also Peter Malik, “The Earliest Corrections in Codex Sinaiticus: Further Evidence from the Apocalypse,” TC 20 (2015): 1-12;

Malik, “Corrections of Codex Sinaiticus and the Textual Transmission of Revelation: Josef Schmid Revisited,” NTS 61 (2015): 595-614.

.... ======

In addition, Schmid's claim that

“of the correctors who reviewed the Apocalypses text, Ca corrects the first two leaves” and that
“Cc begins with his corrections at 7:16 (Greek)" is incorrect.
Ca (Nc) made corrections throughout the Apocalypse; Cc (Ncc) corrects the first two pages, and Cc* (thus Ncc*) begins at 7:16, per Tischendorf and Milne and Skeat.

(See Schmid, Die alten Stamme, 14;
see also
Constantin von Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum cum Epistula Barnabae et Fragmentis Pastoris, 2 vols. [Leipzig: Brockhaus, 1863];

Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, 3 vols. [Leipzig: Kohler, 1841 ], 3:346;

H. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus [London: British Museum, 1938], 50).

=============================================================