the Sinaiticus Revelation as Commentary? - redating Andreas to match Aleph

Steven Avery · Dec 16, 2015

Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse? (2015)
Juan Hernandez
https://www.academia.edu/13710418/Codex_Sinaiticus_An_Early_Christian_Commentary_on_the_Apocalypse

disclosing its fourth-century milieu and anticipating the later concerns of Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea.

Published in:

Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript (2015)
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/04/new-book-on-codex-sinaiticus.html

A much simpler scenario is a Revelation that developed out of the Andreas commentary.

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

An interesting Sinaiticus quirk is in Revelation, where it is in essence an early commentary pre-figuring later commentaries. Properly considered, this is just one more of numerous philological evidences against Sinaiticus authenticity. (This one is only modest, so far. Hermas is super-alarm bells. Others vary, discoveries are made now that we know about the issues. With Revelation, it is worthwhile to point elements like this out in our desire to understand the textual history.)

Scribal habits and theological influences in the Apocalypse: the singular readings of Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, and Ephraemi (2006)
Juan Hernandez
http://books.google.com/books?id=8C1YlHaGpooC&pg=PA196

The Apocalypse in codex Sinaiticus is a striking example of a fourth-century text that differs substantially from modern critical editions. It exhibits dozens of differences at key points, reflecting the concerns, interests, and idiosyncrasies of its earliest copyists and readers. Taken as a whole, Sinaiticus’s text of Revelation may constitute one of our earliest Christian commentaries on the book, disclosing its fourth-century milieu and anticipating the later concerns of Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea. This is no commentary in the contemporary sense, however. Sinaiticus’s readings range from the spectacular to the mundane and include the theological, the liturgical, the commonplace and even the infelicitous. It is a text ever in tension with itself, effective both in its capacity to obscure as well as in its regulation of meaning. Clarity and confusion co-reign and compete for our attention. Despite that, we can discern a concerted effort to elucidate the Apocalypse’s message by scores of changes throughout. Some of these are inherited. Others created. All affected the reading of the text.

Andreas is about 600 AD, Oecumenius is now considered only a bit later. Likely, there was no "anticipation" here. A much simpler explanation, the Sinaiticus Revelation was written by some one familiar with the commentaries. A good study and check would be word matches of the Sinaiticus text with the later commentaries.

Once you get past Sinaiticus circularity, you start to look at the evidences afresh.

[TC-Alternate-list] Codex Simoneidos / Sinaiticus - Acts marginalia, Falconer Madan, Tischendorf Vaticanus facsimile, New Finds & more
Steven Avery - Feb 1, 2014
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/messages/5920

Steven Avery · Dec 25, 2020

REDATING ANDREAS

CODEX SINAITICUS’S FOURTH CENTURY CORRECTIONS AND THE ANDREAS “TEXT-TYPE”
https://www.academia.edu/14522995/C...Century_Corrections_and_the_Andreas_Text_Type

Early in 2012, I wrote:
“The corrections of an ancient manuscript offer an unparalleled opportunity to evaluate the judgments of early scribes and the state of their exemplars. Moreover, one can also revisit the assessments of textual critics who conscript scribal corrections for the reconstruction of the NT’s transmission history. Codex Sinaiticus’s fourth-century corrections offer an opportunity to do both. Over a half-century ago, Josef Schmid claimed that the Apocalypse's Andreas ‘text-type’ went back to the fourth-century on the basis of its relationship to Codex Sinaiticus's fourth-century corrections. This judgment, however, gave Colwell pause, noting that Schmid was relying on an earlier study by Boussett that had not been assessed in light of recent developments regarding the history of ‘text-types.’”

"Perhaps one of the most important claims to have been made in the last century—most notably and definitively by Josef Schmid—was that a significant number of these corrections offered evidence of an Andreas “Text-Type” that goes back to the fourth-century. The Andreas “Text-Type” refers to the kind of text that Andrew of Caesarea reproduces in his seventh-century commentary on the Apocalypse. The distinctive features of his text—so the argument goes—were already present in the fourth-century corrections of Sinaiticus. In other words, the Andreas “Text-Type” is not a seventh-century product but a fourth-century text—and Sinaiticus’s corrections—prove it.

“...before Schmid’s argument for a fourth-century date for Andreas is rejected, the evidence (which Schmid refers to) of the agreement of Aleph-a (the fourth century corrector of Sinaiticus) with Andreas must be explained.”

Bousset
(continues)

And more.

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

—and even created charts to compare the data mined from the apparatuses of von Soden, Schmid and Nestle-Aland—with those of Tischendorf and Hoskier.

Steven Avery · Nov 9, 2022

See also
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...iticus-and-p47-in-revelation.3529/#post-14839

And
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...andreas-revelation-correction.3558/post-14840

And this is
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...bLJz5UxYUMRAj5YOL1EDPgZDobND4T-c_w#post-11697

Make Master Bibliography

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

The Corrections of Codex Sinaiticus and the Textual Transmission of Revelation: Josef Schmid Revisited*
Peter Malik
University of Cambridge
Faculty of Divinity
West Road, Cambridge CB3 9BS
United Kingdom
pm486@cam.ac.uk
https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/42338536.pdf

Following Wilhelm Bousset, Schmid argued that a particular group of corrections in Codex Sinaiticus reflected a Vorlage with a text akin to that of the Andreas texttype. By dating these corrections – unlike Bousset – to the scriptorium, Schmid utilised their witness to trace the text of Andreas back to the fourth century. Recently, Juan Hernández has shown that the corrections cited by Schmid were significantly later, hence calling his fourth-century dating of Andreas (among other things) into question. Through an analysis of the corrections cited by Schmid, supplemented by a fuller data-set of Sinaiticus’ corrections in Revelation, this study seeks to reappraise Schmid’s claims concerning the textual relations of these corrections, and identify their role in the later transmission of the text of Revelation.

1. Introductory Remarks: Schmid, Hernández, and Beyond

In Josef Schmid’s influential study of the textual history of Revelation, Codex Sinaiticus figures prominently as the main (and the only complete) representative of one of the two early text-forms. Unlike the superior text-form attested by the codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi, as well as the text of Oecumenius’ commentary, the one attested by Sinaiticus, 𝔓47 and Origen already contains a fair number of improvements (“Korrekturen”) to the “original text.”1 Sinaiticus was probably produced around the middle of the fourth century (or possibly earlier), 2 so Schmid’s claim that, already in the fourth century, the text of Revelation in Sinaiticus was corrected towards another textform, known from the later commentary of Andreas, is remarkable. Now, the fact that a number of Sinaiticus’ corrections reflect a Vorlage akin to the Andreas text was not Schmid’s discovery. Rather, Schmid builds on an earlier work of W. Bousset, who had identified a number of corrections related to what is now referred to as the Andreas tradition.3 Significantly, Schmid reinterprets Bousset’s conclusions in light of H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat’s investigation of scribes and correctors in Sinaiticus, 4 identifying Bousset’s (and Tischendorf’s) seventh-century אc corrections with scribal corrections made in the scriptorium, some three centuries earlier. Thus, Schmid concluded that

“Bousset 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.”5

But Bousset never reached such a conclusion. In fact, Juan Hernández has recently shown6 that, unlike Schmid, Bousset never makes fourth-century claims with respect to these corrections, but simply follows Tischendorf, who dated the C-class corrections to the seventh century.7 Schmid’s fourth-century dating, argues Hernández, seems to stem from his misreading of Milne and Skeat – precisely the authority to which Schmid appeals in re-dating the corrections.8

(continues)

Such a confusion has, naturally, some implications, and Hernandez spells out the following:

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 ... 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 ... will fluctuate on a case-by-case basis. The textual history of select readings will also appear in a new light... The current investigation will also inform contemporary discussions over text types.

Hernández is correct in identifying a serious dating error in Schmid’s argument, and Sinaiticus’ many corrections to the text of Revelation definitely warrant reinvestigation.9 However, his claim of a seventh-century date for Schmid’s Sa corrections may appear, in this article at least, overconfident. Indeed, Milne and Skeat were themselves hesitant to ascribe a definitive date to the C-class corrections, allowing for some leeway anywhere between the fifth- and seventh-century dates. 10 Later on, Skeat would give a more specific judgement concerning the Ca corrector in particular, dating him to the sixth century.11 More recently still, Amy C. Myshrall’s palaeographical analysis led her to similar conclusions. 12 And even in his latest article, Hernández has invoked Milne and Skeat’s more cautious stance, calling for fresh palaeographical investigations. 13 If indeed C a worked in (roughly) sixth century, then his corrections still predate, by almost a century, the composition of Andreas’ commentary, not to mention later minuscules with the Andreas-type text. Since the text of Ca’s exemplar must have predated his correcting activity, it could theoretically still be viewed as a sixth-century – and possibly even earlier – witness to the Andreas text. The dating of these corrections, however, cannot, as such, settle the matter. Indeed, as will be seen, further complexities are involved in this line of enquiry, complexities which must be dealt with on a case-by-case basis.

JUMP TO P. 6

JUMP to P. 10

20 Schmid, Studien, 2.45-9; 51.

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

046 Vatican
2053 Oecumenius
2329 Greek monastery - Great Meteoran Monastery
2344 France

Most subsequent Eastern Christian commentators of the Book of Revelation have drawn heavily upon Andrew and his commentary, which was preserved in nearly 100 complete Greek manuscripts, as well as translation in Armenian, Georgian, and Slavonic manuscripts.

Andreas of Caesarea - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Barry Baldwin
Dr. Eugenia Constantinou jconstantinou@fst.edu

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

p. 25
... This argument gains in plausibility when we take into account the fact that C a corrections may well have predated the composition of Andrew’s commentary by almost a century, at which time the Andreas text-form was most likely still evolving. If this suspicion proves to be correct – and only further study can determine that – even Schmid’s notion of the recensional nature of the Andreas text may be called to question. For Schmid construed the Andreas text as “eine Rezension im eigentlichen Sinne, das Werk eines Mannes ... der den Text durch alle Kapitel durchkorrigiert hat.”93 Nevertheless, we posses no documentary evidence for such a thoroughgoing recension that would predate the composition of Andreas’ commentary – and nor did Schmid, as he did not base his recensional theories on a purely documentary basis, but rather on a large number of “Korrekturen” that were peculiar to the Andreas text.94 Thus, we may be on firmer ground in invoking E.C. Colwell’s dictum that “[a] text- type is a process, not the work of one hand.”95 Rather than an incomplete witness to an already completed recension, then, these Ca corrections could possibly be a witness to such a process with respect to the text of Andreas. The notion of a lengthier, slower process of correction and revision, whereby older readings are mixed with the secondary readings, could thus account for the presence of older readings in later text-forms. 96 One may well wonder whether these “Korrekturen” could not have, in some cases at least, originated as manuscript corrections proper. 97 An inevitable conclusion of the present discussion is that Ca corrections, when properly identified and understood, are not what either Schmid or Bousset held them to be. For one thing, as Hernández has demonstrated, they significantly postdate Sinaiticus’ production, and thus cannot be used as the fourth-century evidence for the Andreas text. Secondly, given the textual affinities of Ca corrections outlined above, Bousset’s claim that the corrector used a Vorlage with his K text – akin to that of the text of Revelation in Andreas’ commentary – seems problematic as well. What seems more likely is that our corrections may rather prove to be an important, if indirect, witness to the development of the later forms of the text of Revelation.

Steven Avery · Jan 22, 2023

Colwell (1969)
https://books.google.com/books?id=4pI3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA53

Colwell gives Schmid bibliography
https://books.google.com/books?id=4pI3AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA49

Schmid final volume

p. 50

Is Av clearly defined? Seems to be Andreas.

Schmid (1955)

Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes : Schmid, Josef, 1893-1975 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

2 volumes in 3. 24 cm

archive.org

Steven Avery · Jan 22, 2023

Pics of the Schmid Andreas corrections.

Revelation 4:1
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=59&chapter=4&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Revelation 7:9
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=59&chapter=7&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Revelation 9:12
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=59&chapter=9&lid=en&side=r&verse=6&zoomSlider=0

Revelation 13:6
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=59&chapter=13&lid=en&side=r&verse=6&zoomSlider=0

Revelation 16:17
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...hapter=16&lid=en&side=r&verse=18&zoomSlider=0

Revelation 18:7
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=59&chapter=18&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Revelation 22:20
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...hapter=22&lid=en&side=r&verse=20&zoomSlider=0

Steven Avery · Apr 6, 2023

Academia.edu

Codex Sinaiticus' Fourth Century Corrections and the Andreas 'Text Type', Royse Festschrift
Boris Borislav
https://www.academia.edu/62983853/C...s_and_the_Andreas_Text_Type_Royse_Festschrift

Megan Garedakis

Pete Myers

Emanuel Tov

Michael Featherstone

Ken M. Penner

Dan Batovici

Peter Malik -

Robert ? Andrist or Patrick

Brent Nongbri

Tobias Nicklas - Tobit

Mark James - Rubrication of Psalms

Nicholas de Lange

Gregory S. Paulson

Nikolas Sarris

Kevin McGrane

Elijah Hixson

Alexander Schick

Paolo Cecconi

Zachary Cole

Robert Turnbull - Arabic

Timothy Mitchell

Peter Head

Steven Avery · Oct 24, 2023

Show the TEXTUAL connections of Sinaiticus and the two commentaries, CORRECTION connections are elsewhere

Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?
Juan Hernandez
https://www.academia.edu/13710418/Codex_Sinaiticus_An_Early_Christian_Commentary_on_the_Apocalypse

p. 105
disclosing its fourth-century milieu and anticipating the later concerns of Oecumenius and Andrew of Caesarea.

p. 107
Most omissions in Codex Sinaiticus consist of one to three words and - with a few
exceptions - have little or no impact on the reading of the text. Articles, conjunctions and
short phrases routinely drop out. Once we move to omissions of four or five words at a
time then our capacity to make sense of the text begins to he hampered. With omissions
of six or more words, we find ourselves in hostile territory, facing a text disinterested in
our comprehension.

p. 108-109
Nomina Sacra - interesting move elsewhere

p. 109-110
Substitutions
Scores of other substitutions arc to be found throughout the text of Codex Sinaiticus.
Most are unremarkable. Some, like the aforementioned, can be quite interesting. Others
make an unmistakable theological contribution to the text.

p. 110
Liturgical

p. 111
Theological

Revelation 10:1

Revelation 3:14 - Christological
Remarkably, two centuries later Occumcnius would use Revelation 3:14 to weigh in
on the Arian controversy of his day. Occumcnius’s text of Revelation 3:14 is identical
to the ‘earliest attainable text’, and he displays no knowledge of the singular reading
in Codex Sinaiticus. Yet, Occumcnius also reads Revelation 3:14 in light of Colossians
1:18 as he attempts to refute the idea that the Son was created. The singular reading of
Codex Sinaiticus may therefore represent the earliest use of the Apocalypse (on record)
to thwart an ‘Arian’ threat by reading it in light of Colossians.32

Revelation 3:16

Revelation 5:13

Additional Variants
Revelation 2:22
Revelation 3:20
Revelation 5:3 5:13
Revelation 9:15

Conclusion

New Testament Greek

The main variant readings of the manuscripts of the New Testament, for textual criticism; there are various fully searchable Greek texts

www.laparola.net

New Testament Greek

The main variant readings of the manuscripts of the New Testament, for textual criticism; there are various fully searchable Greek texts

www.laparola.net

Steven Avery · Oct 24, 2023