An academic forum to discuss the Bible's manuscripts and textual history from the perspective of historic evangelical theology.
evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com
Scribal Habits and Theological Influences in the Apocalypse (2006)
Sounds to me like
déjà vu all over again (cf. M. A. Robinson, “Scribal Habits among Manuscripts of the Apocalypse”, PhD diss., 1982). However, it’s always helpful to improve the wheel, even if in some ways reinventing it.
There are differences, of course: my research dealt with the singular readings of
all Apocalypse MSS collated by Hoskier, taken from ten scattered chapters throughout the book (to have considered all singular readings found in
ca. 220 MSS necessarily would have exceeded dissertation limitations). My research thus led to conclusions drawn from a broad range of material as opposed to Hernandez’ more limited analysis of the three leading uncials (pity that he did not include the more extensive papyri — I deliberately chose to add P47 to my study because of its significance, and today would add P115 in particular).
Equally, I certainly discuss the same MSS analyzed by Hernandez:
A/02 (pp. 104-113), characterized as a “less careful editor”; C/04, “a careless scribe / careful editor” (pp. 113-118); and in extenso, Aleph/01 as “an editor to be reckoned with” (pp. 135-182). In general, my conclusions are the same as those of Hernandez: “the scribes of these three manuscripts omitted more often than they added to their texts, [and] were prone to harmonizing.”
I would, however, question one portion of the publisher’s blurb statement:
“His book is the first systematic study of scribal habits on the Apocalypse that takes seriously the claim that some scribes were making changes to the text of the Apocalypse for theological reasons.”
My dissertation in fact did address general intentional theological variation (pp. 53-73).
As for theologically-motivated alteration in regard to these three MSS, this was discussed as follows: A/02 (pp. 109-112); C/04 (p. 117), and Aleph/01 (pp. 169, 175).
As an aside, within the discussion of general intentional theological variation, MS 1248 (Hosk. 250) provides an interesting case: in
Re 12:10 the scribe has turned CRISTOU into ANTICRISTOU !