CHAPTER 3

Nestle-Aland 28 and the Revision of the

Apocalypse's Textual History

juan Hernandez Jr.

1 Introduction

Revisions to the Greek NT in NA28 are restricted to the Catholic Epistles-the product of the MUnster Institute's ongoing work on the Editio critica maior.1

The text of the rest of the NT remains unaltered. The updated manuscript data, however, spans the apparatus of the entire NT and signals a new day for its textual history.2 The revised correctors of the Apocalypse in Codex Sinaiticus make the point. The proposed revisions have direct and far-reaching impli­cations for the book's textual history. Corrections once placed in the fourth

1 Thirty-three changes are made to the text of the Catholic Epistles, all of which are listed

in the introduction. The variants appear in two columns, respectively labeled: ECM/NA28

and NA27. But for orthographic and typographical alterations, the text of the rest of the NT

remains the same (see Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. INTF under the direction of Holger

Strutwolf [28th rev. 2nd ed.: Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellchaft, 2013]: so* -51*, 54*). The text­

critical theories, methods, and textual changes represented by the ECM (with its implications

for future editions of Nestle-Aland) are explored in Juan Hernandez, Jr., "Modern Critical

Editions and Apparatuses of the Greek New Testament" in The Text of the New Testament in

Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (2nd ed.; eds. Bart D. Ehrman and

Michael W. Holmes; NTTSD 42; Leiden: Brill, 2013), 68g-7o8.

2 Apart from changes introduced to increase the clarity and accuracy of the apparatus, perhaps

the most consequential shift is the altered disposition toward the Byzantine tradition. The

textual decisions and arrangement of witnesses reflect a greater deference to the formerly

neglected tradition than in prior editions. The change will likely have important implications

for the tracking of the Apocalypse's textual history, whose tradition is currently split between

the Byzantine and Andreas textual streams. The new edition also features a more judicious

use of the versional evidence, the near elimination of conjectures, the introduction of new

and additional witnesses (and the jettisoning of 2427!), as well as the decommissioning of

pc and al. The consistency of every textual decision is also tested against the Coherence­

Based Genealogical Method. A thorough appraisal ofthe numerous changes to NA28-both

major and minor-can be found in J.K. Elliott, "A New Edition of Nestle-Aland, Greek New

Testament,"]TS 64/1 (2013): 47-65.

© KONINKLIJKE BRILL NV, LEIDEN, 2015 I DOl 10.1163/9789004300026-;005

71-81_Gurtner et ai_F4_Chap 3.indd 71 7/I0/2015 11:04:40 AM

72 HERNANDEZ

through sixth centuries now occupy the seventh. 3 The changes appear slight, even inconsequential-"touch ups" in support of the task of reconstruction. The clarification and re-dating of the correctors, though, represent a mate­rial shift with instant repercussions. The inclusion of new and additional wit­nesses-alongside of and in juxtaposition to the corrections-further portend altered textual alignments and disclose forgotten chapters in the history of textual criticism. The clarity of the new data also facilitates an examination of their limitations and unclutters the landscape for renewed textual research. The stage is set for a reappraisal of the Apocalypse's textual history.

2 Transfer from t(1 to t(2

Corrections dated to the seventh-century are identified with the siglum N2•

These surface 83 times in the apparatus of NA28.4 N2a or N2b emerge another 7 times, underscoring a more complex process.5 Together the corrections rep­resent a little over a quarter of the post-scriptorium changes to the text of the

3 The reassigned corrections of the Apocalypse are not identified in the introduction. Only a

comparison of the two editions discloses it. It is nonetheless clear that the corrections and

correctors of Codex Sinaiticus are cited with greater precision in the new edition. Added to

the citations N1 (4th-6th cent.), N2 (ca. 7th cent.), and Nc (12th cent.) are Nl•fNib (for differ­

ences within the N1 group) and N2"/N2h (for differences within the N2 group) in NA28• Further,

the 12th century corrections represented by Nc in NA27 are now labeled N3 in NA28. The siglum

Nc in NA28 refers to corrections not assigned to a particular group. The reassignment of Nc­

laudable and necessary as it is-may lead to confusion as some users may assume the siglum

refers to the same set of corrections in both editions. See NA28, introduction, 59*; cf. Novum

Testamentum Graece, eds. B. Aland, K. Aland, J. Karavidopoulos, C.M. Martini, and B.M.

Metzger (27th rev. ed.; Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, 2001), introduction, 48*.

4 The N2 corrections appear in the following verses of the Apocalypse: 1:6, 9 (2x), 11, 17, 18, 19,

20; 2:2, 7, 10, 20 (2x ), 22; 3:5, 12; 4:1, 3; 5:1, 13; 6:4 (2x ), 15; 7:9; 8:6, 11; 9:12/13 (3x ), 14, 19; 10:1, 10; 11:1,

4, 8 (2x); 9, 12, 16, 17, 18; 12:6, 8, 13, 14; 13:6,8 (2x), 16; 14:6, 8; 16:3,10,17, 18; 17:3,6, 8, 15, 17; 18:7,

8, 13; 19:5, 6, 7 (2x ), 9, 13; 20:1, 8, 9; 21:14, 16, 18, 20, 23, 27; 22:20. The corrections in 6:4 and 21:16

are documented in greater detail in the Variae Lectiones Minores. See NA28, 835.

5 These include: 1:8; 10:2 (2x); 15:3 (2x); 21:6 (2x). Additional information for the correc­

tion in 10:2 is found in the Variae Lectiones Minores. See NA28, 835. The split designation

N2•/N2h appears to reflect the nuanced judgments of Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiti­

cus Project (csP). See A.F.C. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum cum Epistula

Bamabae et Fragementis Pastoris (2 vols.; Leipzig: F.A. Brockhaus, 1863), !.LXXIII-LXXVI and

www.codexsinaiticus.org.

71-81_Gurtner et al_F4_Chap 3.indd 72 7110/2015 11:04:40 AM I

NESTLE-ALAND 28 73

Apocalypse. 6 The two editions differ little in this regard. The dating of the cor­rections is another matter. Twenty-two of the ~2 corrections in NA28 were origi­nally ~1 in NA 27 -a designation that placed the corrections within the fourth to sixth centuries.7 The difference represents a chasm-or a crevasse-depend­ing on the limits set by the interpreter. The imprecision of the broad and early date span, however, has now been replaced by a comparatively narrow and late one: ca. 7th cent. The deliberations that prompted the revision-apart from the expectation that collations were reexamined-are unknown. It is none­theless clear that NA28 is now more closely aligned with Tischendorf's original paleographical judgments. 8

The impact appears minimal without a broader historical perspective. Most of the corrections-whether ~1 or ~2-serve to support readings already known. None is a sole and independent witness to the reconstructed text. The corrections have never been restricted to this purpose, however. Their major use has been in the tracking of textual alignments. 9 For over a hundred years the Apocalypse's later corrections-a select number at least-have served as

6 An appraisal of Tischendorf's analysis of the corrections to the Apocalypse in Codex

Sinaiticus discloses about 330 post-scriptorium corrections, most of which (about zgo) are

assigned to C•. The rest are credited to cc or cc*. The CSP has largely confirmed Tischendorf's

judgments about the "hands" of the correctors (though not necessarily their putative

7th century date) with only a few departures.

7 The N1 corrections of NA27 are also potentially "post-scriptorium," as they were assigned to

the 4th-6th centuries. The designation, however, does not identifY which corrections were

believed to originate in the scriptorium and which do not, making it impossible to ascertain

their place in the Apocalypse's textual history. Nonetheless, for Tischendorf, this particular

batch of corrections was never dated to the scriptorium. Nestle-Aland28 now appears to fol­

low suit. The corrections in question occur in: 1:18; z:zo (zx); 3:5; 4:1; 5:1, 13; 6:4 (zx); 6:15; 7:9;

8:6, n; 9:12/13 (3x), 14; 10:1, 2, 10; n:S; 21:4. As noted, the reader is not alerted to the altered

status of the corrections in these verses in the introduction; neither is there any discus­

sion of their implications for the Apocalypse's textual history. As for the fate of W (in the

Apocalypse), currently, only 2 corrections are listed as N1 in NA 28 (the Inscriptio and a correc­

tion in 21:4). Both are credited to the prima manu in the csP. (See www.codexsinaiticus.org;

cf. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, !.LXXVI). Future editions of Nestle-Aland

will have to clarifY where the N1 siglum (assuming it is retained) stands vis-a-vis the observa­

tions ofTischendorf and the CSP.

8 The corrections under consideration belong to Tischendorf's "C" group, whose members are

dated to the seventh century. See Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece (3 vols.; 8th ed.;

Leipzig: Giesecke and Devrient, 1869-1894), 3:346.

9 That is to say that they are cited alongside the papyri, majuscules, and minuscules as an

independent witness to select readings in the Apocalypse's transmission history.

71-81_Gurtner et al_F4_Chap 3.indd 73 7/10/2015 11:04:40 AM

74 HERNANDEZ

evidence that the codex was corrected toward the Andreas tradition.10 The corrections were originally thought to reflect the text of an early recension by Pamphilus, the fourth century martyr. The link to Pamphilus was severed in the mid-zoth century, but the same corrections were re-dated and advanced in support of a fourth-century Andreas text-type.11 The corrections then-far from attesting a late and derivative text-type-placed the Andreas tradition on par with the Apocalypse's remaining textual forms, each of which was dated to the fourth-century.l2 NA28's replacement of ~1 (4th-6th cent.) with ~2

(ca. 7th cent.) is thus no small matter. The corrections have never featured prominently in Nestle-Aland. The ~1

and ~2 sigla make their first appearance in the apparatus of NA27 (1993), nearly a century after the first edition was published (1898). Their connection to the Andreas tradition, however, goes unmentioned; the Andreas text is not called a "recension"; nor is the fourth-century origin for the text-type repeated-each of which was argued, rudimentarily, by Wilhelm Bousset and comprehen­sively by Josef Schmid.l3 The degree to which the editors of NA27 understood or endorsed claims about the use of the post-scriptorium corrections for the Andreas tradition is unclear. And yet, since the publication of NA26 (1979), readers have been directed to Schmid's multi-volume monograph for details about the Apocalypse's textual history and assured that further collations were unnecessary.14 The statement was unequivocal: the basic questions of the Apocalypse's textual history have been settled.

1 o The claim is original to Wilhelm Bousset. See W. Bousset, "Der Kodex Pamphili," in

Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament (TU 11/4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894), 45-73; idem,

Die Offenbarungjohannis (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1896), 152-154. See also

Hernandez, "The Legacy of Wilhelm Bousset for the Apocalypse's Textual History: The

Identification of the Andreas Text," in Studien zum Text der Apokalypse ( eds. Marcus

Sigismund, Martin Karrer, and Ulrich Schmid; ANTF; Berlin: de Gruyter, 2015), 19-32.

11 See Hernandez, "Legacy of Wilhelm Bousset," 26-28; idem, "The Creation of a Fourth­

Century Witness to the Andreas Text Type: A Misreading in the Apocalypse's Textual

History," NTS, 60/1 (2014): 106-120.

12 ]. Schmid, Studien zur Geschichte des griechischen Apokalypse-Textes, 2. Teil: Die Alten

Sttimme (Munich: Zink, 1956), 127-129, 146-151.

13 Bousset, "Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse," Textkritische Studien zum Neuen Testament (TU

11/4; Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1894), 1-44; idem, "Der Kodex Pamphili," 45-n; Schmid, Studien

zur Geschichte, 2:53, 53n3, 127-129.

14 The introduction alludes to the idiosyncrasies of the Apocalypse's textual tradition

and refers readers to Schmid for additional information. The text-critical handbook

that followed the publication of NA26, however, discloses that"[ n ]o test collations were

made of Revelation in view of the magnum opus by Josef Schmid." The publication of

NA28 continues to reflect this state of affairs, though efforts are currently underway to

I 71-81_Gurtneret al_F4_Chap 3.indd 74 7110/2015 11:04:41 AM I

NESTLE-ALAND 28 75

3 Implications of the Transfer

The transfer from N1 to N2 presages otherwise. The revision reflects an increased awareness that the data merit a second look and suggest-inadvertently­that the standard account of the Apocalypse's textual history may be flawed. The unsettled data corroborate the disclosure, elsewhere, of difficulties with Schmid's use of the corrections.I5 In fact, detailed scrutiny of Schmid's study uncovers a presentation uneven and beset with inaccuracies.I6 Far from cor­roborating a fourth-century origin for the Andreas text-type, the corrections dismantle it. Their incorporation by Schmid further appears piecemeal and

address the dated assessment. See K. Aland and B. Aland, The Text of the New Testament:

An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modem Textual

Criticism (2nd ed.; trans. E.F. Rhodes; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989), 107; cf. M. Karrer

and U. Schmid, "Report on the Apocalypse Project" (paper presented at the SBL Annual

Meeting in Chicago, 19 November 2012).

15 See Hernandez, "The Creation of a Fourth-Century Witness," 106-120.

16 The errata range from the trivial to the egregious. The greatest problem-and the one

that would shape the discipline's understanding of the Apocalypse's textual history for

over half a century-involves the equation of the post-scriptorium corrections (the

C group) of Codex Sinaiticus with the correcting activity of the manuscript's original

scribes (A, D). The problems that remain in Schmid's work pale in comparison but none­

theless manage to obscure the picture of the Apocalypse's textual history. Corrections

in 12:6 (E~YJXOVTct), 16:10 (EcrxoTWf.tEVYJ), 16:18 (xctt ~povmt), and 18:7 (ctu1'l']v), for example,

are attributed to sa ( = ca) when they are actually from cc* (for 12:6 see Studien, 2:128n2;

for 16:10 see Studien, 2:180; for 16:18 see Studien, 2:227; for 18:7 see Studien, 2:49, 175).

Corrections in 6:4 ( C(U1'W) and 21:27 ( rrotwv) are attributed to sc ( = cc), though they should

be credited to ca (for 6:4 see Studien, 2:241; cf. 2:99, 128n2; for 21:27 see Studien, 2:70; cf.

2:128n3). A correction in 22:20 is listed as XptCTTOU when it should be XptCTTE (Studien, 2:226;

cf. 2:51). The adverb EU9Ew~ in 4:2 should be followed by a postpositive OE rather than pre­

ceded by a xa:t ( Studien, 2:172 ). The recorded correction to ctqJY]CTOUCTt in n:9 was actually

never completed so all references to it as a completed correction are incorrect (Studien,

2:57, 128n2, 18o ). The article in na6 is not omitted by ca but rather added (Studien, 2:196).

And finally, there are numerous places where the siglum for a correction will appear in

support of a reading but be missing elsewhere in the monograph for the same reading.

The unevenness of presentation thus undermines Schmid's claim about the importance

of the corrections. Of course, there are also the expected typos that plague all undertak­

ings of this type: rrpcrE~UTOl > rrpECT~UTEpot (Studien, 2:102); ~cr~UAWV > ~ct~UAWV (Studien,

2:143); (4) > (44) (Studien, 2:128-129); xa:TcrtxouvTct~ xa:TotxouvTct~ (Studien, 2:48). No doubt

there are others. Many of the errata might have been detected earlier had Schmid's indis­

pensable work been translated into English; a broader readership would have insured

greater scrutiny.

71-SI_Gurtner et al_F4_Chap 3.indd 75 7/10/2015 11:04:41 AM

76 HERNANDEZ

incomplete. The impression is of a partial, late stage introduction of these into hisworkP

The reassignment to N2 discloses a critical error in Schmid's work: the origi­nal scribes were mistaken for the post-scriptorium correctors. The misiden­tification sits at the heart of Schmid's fourth-century argument: corrections executed in the fourth-century presuppose an existing exemplar; an exemplar contemporary with N that preserves Andreas readings is evidence of an early text-type. The fourth-century data, however, do not exist. The identified cor­rections-even as a collective witness to the Andreas text-did not occur in the scriptorium or in the fourth-century. The oft-repeated claim of a fourth­century Andreas text-type is therefore misguided.l8 The relocation of correc­tions from N1 to N2 in NA28, recent and selective as it is, signals a break from one of the dominant textual reconstructions of the twentieth-century, whether or not the editors realized it.

4 Further Difficulties

The transfer to N2 in NA28 highlights a problem but does not solve it: the select number of corrections is insufficient to track a complex textual history. The fraudulent date is only one of several difficulties. The quantity, distribution, and use of the corrections by Schmid are another. Twenty-eight corrections were said to have a near exclusive agreement with the Andreas text.l9 Others gravitate toward the Andreas tradition with various alignments.20 The 28 cor­rections, however, are not represented evenly or completely in Schmid's work The dearth of corroborative detail is striking in light of the outsized claim for them. 21 Of the 28, only 7 surface among Schmid's tally of readings character-

17 This is certainly the impression one gains by noting the comparative flurry of activity

over the corrections in one section of the monograph (including a very lengthy footnote

in Studien, 2:128n2) against their uneven distribution and representation elsewhere. The

corrections are not fully integrated into the work.

18 Hernandez, "The Creation of a Fourth-Century Witness," 112n23.

19 Bousset was the first to identify these corrections. Schmid would subsequently adopt

Bousset's list of corrections without replicating it in his own work. See Bousset, "Zur

Textkritik der Apokalypse," 42~44; Schmid, Studien, 2:127~129.

20 See Bousset. "Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse," 42~44.

21 "Bousset hat die wichtigsten Korrekturen von S• und sc zusammengestellt und ist dabei

zu dem klaren und sicheren Ergebnis gelangt, dass wenigstens der uberwiegende Teil

der aus dem 4.]h. stammenden Korrekturen ( = S•) einer zu gehiirenden Hs entnommen

wurde" (Schmid, Studien, 2:127; italics mine).

I 71-81_Gurtner et al_F4_Chap 3.indd 76 7/10/2015 11:04:41 AM I

NESTLE-ALAND 28 77

istic of the text-type-the Andreas Sonderlesarten. 22 Of the 7, however, one comes from a separate group of correctors; a different exemplar is naturally suspected. 23 Three additional corrections are missing from the Sonderlesarten,

an inexplicable omi~sion given their import for the Andreas text. 24 Only 10

of the original 28, then, are represented among readings of the text-type, one of which is from another source.25 Their ad hoc presentation obscures what is otherwise clear: the post-scriptorium corrections offer a diffuse and mixed witness to the Andreas text.

5 New and Additional Witnesses

The inclusion of new and additional witnesses represents yet another advance: once important and forgotten witnesses reemerge in NA28 and reclaim their place in the Apocalypse's textual history. The reappearance of Codex Porphyrianus (P [ ozs]) is the most conspicuous. Formerly regarded as a chief representative of the Andreas text-type, P justified the creation of the MA class of manuscripts; its particular readings and textual alignments alleged to offer a witness distinct from the Byzantine class of manuscripts.26 P's criti­cal role in the development -overplayed as it was-was soon forgotten and its

22 These include: 4:1; 7:9; 9:12; 13:6; 16:17; 18:7; 22:20. See Schmid, Studien, 2:44-52.

23 The correction in 18:7 stems from cc not c• in Tischendorf (Novum Testamentum

Sinaiticum, nxxv). Milne and Skeat would reassign this to cc*. Irrespective, Schmid's

C• designation is mistaken. H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the

Codex Sinaiticus (London: British Museum, 1938), so.

24 These include: 2:2o; 6:15; 10:1. See Schmid, Studien, 2:44-53.

25 Further, textual variation only increases with the remaining 18 corrections. Six preserve

readings that resemble the Andreas text but are not identical with it (1:6; 1:20; 2:13; 9:14;

21:9; 22:2), four of which are listed among the Sonderlesarten (1:6; 1:2o; 2:13; 22:2). The 12

that remain vary in their textual alignments and fail to secure representation among the

Sonderlesarten (3:5; 4:5; 6:9; 7:10; 8:n; 10:2; n:8; 17:8; 18:8; 20:9; 21:2o; 21:23). See Schmid,

Studien, 2:44-53.

26 Credit goes to Bousset for the development. Prior to the publication of his "Zur Textkritik

der Apokalypse," the Apocalypse was thought to exist in two main forms: an early text

(represented by K AC) and a later, emended one (represented by PQ). Bousset's reexami­

nation of Pled him to argue for two later recensions, represented respectively by P and Q.

The observation created the initial framework for the designations that would come to be

known as MA and MK. See Bousset, "Zur Textkritik der Apokalypse," 1-44; cf. B. Weiss, Die

johannes-Apokafypse: Textkritische Untersuchungen und Textherstellung (Tv 7/1; Leipzig:

Hinrichs, 1891); Hernandez, "The Legacy of Bousset," 21-25.

71-81_Gurtneret al_F4_Chap 3.indd 77 7110/2015 11:04:41 AM I

78 HERNANDEZ

independence lost under a morass of Andreas manuscripts (MA).27 Its reemer­gence restores its standing as a distinct witness to the text of the Apocalypse, whether or not it agrees with MA.

The reintroduction of P seldom alters known textual alignments, however. P surfaces where it was assumed among the 28 corrections with two excep­tions.28 The witness of P in another 3 locations remains undeclared.29 The impact of new and additional witnesses on the alignments of N2 and Andreas also appears negligible. Two alone, of the 28, are supported by a collection of new manuscripts.3° Further (new) support for the rest occurs in the single dig­its.31 The clarified and updated data set-apart from there-dating of N2-fail to disrupt prior textual alliances, at least among the corrections.

6 Old and Intractable Problems

The improvements nonetheless chronicle the Apocalypse's transmission his­tory with greater precision; the revisions broaden the database for textual reconstruction. The apparatus of the current edition is a more reliable resource for textual judgments. And yet, the systematic modifications-rigorous and meticulous as they are-continue to be freighted with limitations. The impact of the new data on textual alignments, as noted, appears marginal. The failure of the new data to illuminate (or solve) well-known cruxes is another restric­tion. The consensus regarding the later corrections, for one, remains at an impasse. The transfer of corrections to N2 illustrates it. Despite the advance,

27 PQ would tum out not to be as representative of the Andreas and Kaine textual streams

as Bousset had initially thought. See Schmid, Studien, 2:64-66.

28 Of the 28 readings, n now have P listed independently (1:6; 1:20; 2:13; 2:20; 3:5; 4:1; 6:15; 7:9;

9:12; 10:1; 13:6). It is further noteworthy that in NA28 P bears witness to 2 readings that differ

from what was assumed in NA 27 : 1:20 (ext AU)(Vlcxt CH E7tTCX a~ EloE~) and 9:12 ( Epxov-rat ETl ).

29 It is unclear why P is not listed in 17:8, 18:7, and 22:2, since, according to the appendix in

NA28, these portions of the manuscript are extant. See NA28, 802.

30 These include: 3:5 (N2 P 046.1611.1841. 1854.2053 [the citation of 2050 in support of ou-ro~

is an error in NA28]) and 21:20 (N2 wo6. 1841. 1854. 2050. 2344 M). The correction in 21:20

is also supported by 2846c, which is not yet listed in the apparatus. See M. Lembke, "Die

Apokalypse-Handschrift 2846: Beschreibung, Kollation und Textwertbestimmung eines

wichtigen neuen Zeugen," NovT 54 ( 2012 ): 369-395.

31 Newly cited support for particular corrections include: 046 (2:13, 20; 9:14; 21:9; 21:23); 2329

(7:9; 9:12) and 2846 ( 4:1; 18:7; 20:9 ). For the latter see Lembke, "Die Apokalypse-Handschrift

2846," 369-395·

71-SI_Gurtner et al_F4_Chap 3.indd 78 7110/2015 11:04:41 AM I

NESTLE-ALAND 28 79

the reassignment masks what is unresolved: the precise dates and groups denoted by the later corrections are debated.

The dating of the post-scriptorium corrections is a matter of dispute; opin­ions have differed about the exact date(s) for over a hundred years. Kirsopp Lake placed them in the fifth-seventh centuries;32 Tischendorf opted for the seventh;33 and Milne and Skeat declined to arbitrate between the two (though Skeat would later settle on a sixth-century date). 34 The transfer of the correc­tions from ~1 to ~2 in NA28 precludes, correctly, Schmid's equation of the fourth­century scribes with the later correctors; the suggestion was an aberration. The circa seventh-century designation of ~2, however, defaults to Tischendorf's date without new argument or justification, a reminder that our texts-and in this case our dates-are only as good as our text-critics. 35 Further paleographi­cal analyses are required to remove the stalemate. Paleographers, however, tend to date materials within a century or two of transcription. 36

The segregation of the Apocalypse's later corrections into groups is less contested. The identification of 3 post-scriptorium hands by Milne and Skeat appears to have been adopted widely and without challenge. 37 The Codex Sinaiticus Project itself operates within the parameters established by the two paleographers. It is unclear, however, whether ~2 assumes or disclaims Milne and Skeat's more precise delineations. The siglum, sufficient for most of the NT, appears too generalized for the Apocalypse.38 The contribution of the individual correctors (and their exemplars) is therefore obscured by the broad category.

32 "Paleographical and historical grounds agree to fix this time as not later than the begin­

ning of the seventh or earlier than that of the fifth century." K. Lake, Codex Sinaiticus

Facsimile Ed. NT Vol. (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1911), vii.

33 Tishcendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, 3:346.

34 Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, 6s; cf. T.C. Skeat, "Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, and

Constantine,"JTS so (1999): s83-62s.

3S To echo Georg Luck's verdict: "our critical texts are no better than our textual critics." See

Georg Luck, "Textual Criticism Today," AJP 102 (1981): 166.

36 Hernandez, "Legacy of Wilhelm Boussett," 3onso.

37 c• makes corrections throughout the Apocalypse. cc•s corrections are restricted to the

book's first two pages (Rev 1:1-3:s up to ou) and cc" picks up where cc leaves off; cc"'s

first correction is OXYJVWO'El in 7:1s. The assignment of cc* represents a slight revision to

Tischendorf's original assessment of the three hands. See Milne and Skeat, Scribes and

Correctors, so; Hernandez, "Creation of a Fourth-Century Witness," ng-120.

38 The post-scriptorium corrections-assigned separately to C•, cc, and cc* by Milne and

Skeat and the csr-are represented without distinction under the single siglum N2

in NA28.

I 71-81_Gurtner et al_F4_Chap 3.indd 79 7110/2015 11:04:41 AM I

80 HERNANDEZ

7 Conclusion

The upgrades to the apparatus ofNA28 augur more than they can deliver at the present; the way forward is clear but remains to be traversed. The saga of the Apocalypse's post-scriptorium correctors serves as a bellwether: revered and established boundaries are likely to be redrawn. The Andreas text, for one, is late. The unique readings of its medieval manuscripts evince a clear and dis­tinct type of text.39 The clarity and coherence of that text during an earlier

period vanish upon closer inspection.40 The Kaine text is likewise slated for repatriation. Its fourth-century date was established on the basis of an analogy with Andreas.41 The Kaine text will likely share its fate. The textual affinities of Origen and Codex Sinaiticus are also overdue for reassessment. The number of their shared readings-as represented in the revised apparatus-appears to fall short of evidence that the text of the Apocalypse is identical in the two.42

The apparatus of the new edition nonetheless reflects the state of textual research with accuracy; the current period is one of transition. The edition, thus, sits uneasily with the past as it lurches forward. The tensions that punc­tuate NA28 are symptomatic of a changeover: Schmid's Studien zur Geschichte

des Apokalypse-Textes is accorded deference in the introduction, while its data

39 This is evident from the list of 243 Andreas Sonderlesarten. See Schmid, Studien, 2:44-53.

40 This is true whether the post-scriptorium corrections are dated to the fifth, sixth, or sev­

enth centuries.

41 The transmission of the Andreas text served as a model for understanding the transmis­

sion of the Kaine. The presence of Andreas readings in earlier witnesses meant that the

Andreas text-type existed as early as the fourth-century. The same dynamic was observed

in the Kaine and the same conclusion drawn. Colwell rejected that assertion, however.

The presence of Kaine readings in early witnesses did not move the Kaine text (as an

entity and as it exists in the ninth-century) to the fourth-century. Colwell was unequivo­

cal in his objection but cautious (though no less skeptical) about the date of the Andreas

tradition due to its putative link to the "fourth-century" corrections of Codex Sinaiticus.

Those "fourth-century corrections," however, have now been exposed as fraudulent. See

Schmid, Studien, 2:126-129; cf. E. C. Colwell, "Method in Establishing the Nature of Text­

Types in New Testament Manuscripts," in Studies in Methodology (NTTS 9; Leiden: Brill,

1969 ), 45-55; Hernandez, "Creation of a Fourth-Century Witness," 107-108.

42 Origen is cited as a witness for only 21 readings in the Apocalypse in NA28 (3:7 [3x ]; 5:1

[ 2x]; 7:2; 14:1, 3, 5, 6 [3x ], 7 [ 2x ]; 19:n, 12, 13, 14 [ 2x ], 15). Of the 21, only n are aligned with

N (3:7 [3x ]; 5:1; 14:5, 6 [3x ]; 19:14 [ 2x ], 15)! The distance between the data for Origen in

the apparatus and the claims of Bousset (that the immediate textual basis of Origen was

identical toN) and Schmid (that the text used by Origen is on the whole identical with

that of 'P47 and N) require explanation. See Bousset, Offenbarung]ohannis, 157-158, 157n2;

Schmid, Studien, 2:48; cf., Hernandez, "Legacy of Wilhelm Bousset," 29-30.

71-8 !_Gurtner et al_F4_Chap 3.indd 80 7!10/2015 I 1:04:41 AM

NESTLE-ALAND 28 81

are undermined in the apparatus. The inconsistency has persisted for over thirty years; NA26 was already at odds with the monograph in 1979.43 The edi­tion thus embodies a cautionary tale: suspect claims thrive without historical review. And yet, the obsolescence of the traditional reconstruction is expertly (if unwittingly) documented in the new edition; the clarity of the revised appa­ratus paves the way for judicious textual research. The gains-even if spas­modic-represent a critical advance in the history of textual analysis with new outposts secured in key locations. A fresh chronicling of the Apocalypse's textual history lies on the horizon.

43 That is insofar as the majority of the N2 corrections of NA26 were already at variance with

their fourth-century assignment by Schmid.

I 71-81_Gurtneretal_F4_Chap3.indd 81 7/10/2015 11:04:41 AM I