HOSKIER’S CONTRIBUTIO N TO THE APOCALYPSE’S TEXTUAL HISTORY:

COLLATION S , POLYGLOTS, GROUPI NG S

Hoski er Conf er e n c e , Dublin, Irelan d , 28 Augu s t , 20 1 7

Juan Her n á n d e z Jr.

j-her n a n d e z @ b e t h e l . e d u
Depa r t m e n t of Biblical and Theologic al Studi e s
Beth el Univer sity, St. Paul, MN 5511 2- 6999

INTROD UCTION
It is easy—pe r h a p s too easy —to dismis s the work of H. C. Hoskie r as
that of a mad m a n —as that of some o n e so boun d by his idiosync r a ti c
opinions—a n d his peculia r theori e s—th a t one imme di a t e ly begins to
conjur e up justificatio n s (mayb e even legiti m a t e ones ) to overlook his
work. To not look at it too closely . To tre a t it at arm’s lengt h . After all,
wha t—if any —of his unus u al idea s have survive d to this day? It’s a
feeling that only incre a s e s expon e n tially —the furth e r one wade s into
page after inte r mi n a b l e pag e of soul- dea d e ni n g data. Wors e n e d , no
doubt—by the tape s t r y of ecce n t ri citie s tha t holds it all toge t h e r .
Pulling at the conce p t u a l thre a d s of his many works—a s if sep a r a ti n g
the whe a t from the chaff—we face the law of diminis hin g retu r n s . The
cost of unde r s t a n d i n g him app e a r s to be too high—es p e ci ally, if one is
alre a dy convinc e d that he is wrong.

That this app e a r s to have bee n the cas e is born e out by the review s of
his work (and I refe r her e to his text- critical studie s, some of which
are now about a hun d r e d yea rs old). One is har d- pre s s e d to find any
detaile d—a n d lengt hy—tr e a t m e n t of (or respo n s e to) Hoskie r’s
theo r e ti c a l musin g s . The enga g e m e n t— a v aila bl e in a handf ul of
journ als—a p p e a r s to have bee n brief and piec e m e a l. Spor a di c.

Appre cia tive of Hoskie r’s indus t ry.

Dismissive of his idea s.

Exte n d e d tre a t m e n t was unn e c e s s a r y .

Hos ki e r’ s Colla t i o n s
The judg m e n t of Hoskie r’s pee r s , of cours e , will prob a bly go
unre v e r s e d . The objec tion s have their plac e—eve n if unsa tisf a c t o r ily
short. But the very ecce n t r icitie s that are on full display in his text-
critic al works are also what assu r e the m a nea rly end less shelf- life.
The unm a t c h e d indus t ry and nea rly impos sible sta n d a r d s of exactin g

1
detail are par t- and- parc el of being an ecc e n t r ic—a n d ultim a t e ly what
keep Hoskie r’s works from obsoles c e n c e .

His theo rie s of textu al tra n s mi s sio n, of cours e—w e r e “de a d on

arrival.” But his collation s—p a r tic ul a rly thos e of the Apocalyps e’s
man u s c ri p t s—w e r e immu n e to such a fate. Precision assu r e d their
longevity. No w h e r e is this clear e r tha n in the data collect e d in
Conce r ni n g the Text of the Apocaly p s e . The work trans c e n d s its
theo r e ti c a l tra p pi n g s—dis c r e d i t e d as they are.

Criti c i s m s of von Sod e n

The kind of indus t r y Hoskie r would bring to the task was on display
early. This is manifes t prim arily in his dissa tisfa c tio n with the stat u s
quo. A num b e r of stat e m e n t s signal the direc tio n of Hoskie r’s thinking
well in adva n c e of the publica tio n of his mag n u m opus .

The most unfor g e t t a b l e—p e r h a p s — a r e the criticis m s levele d at von

Sode n’s edition of the New Testa m e n t . Hoskie r stan d s indigna n t
again s t the public a tion of an app a r a t u s , which—in his words—is
“positiv ely hone y comb e d with erro r s.” He indicts von Sode n on
seve r al count s, includin g “inven ti n g script u r e , ” “the faulty use of
quot a tio n s ,” the work’s “complic a t e d syste m ,” and “grav e erro r s .”
Added to thes e are, “unn e c e s s a r y difficulties,” “erro r s of omission,”
and “car el e s s n e s s .” The list—of cours e—go e s on. Only von Sode n’s
collations of the codice s at Sinai, Jerus al e m , and Athos esca p e
cond e m n a t i o n.

The proble m—a s Hoskie r saw it—was that von Sode n tried to collect
the mate ri al throu g h others —rath e r tha n doing it hims elf. Diges tin g
the mate ri al thro u g h the eyes of his assist a n t s—w h e n docu m e n t s wer e
unexa mi n e d or wron gly collate d—only serve d to dow n g r a d e the
relia bility of the app a r a t u s .

It is a mista k e— Hos kier —was det e r mi n e d to avoid.

The most seriou s cha r g e—t h a t von Sode n had “inven t e d Script u r e ”—
is also the most revealin g for Hoskie r’s app r o a c h to man u s c ri p t
rea di n g s . He rails again s t a form of eclec ticis m that conflat e s two or
more varia n t s to offer rea din g s una tt e s t e d else w h e r e in the
man u s c ri p t tra dition. Von Sode n—a c c o r di n g to Hoskie r—h a d
increas e d the num b e r of textu al varia n t s rath e r tha n red u c e d the m.
Hort at least—ha d the dec e n c y to stick with his codex Vatica n u s . Von

2
Sode n, on the othe r han d, “print s the docu m e n t a r y evide n c e from his
head .”

Cons i d e r i n g All the Evid e n c e

Hoskie r’s commit m e n t to the evide n c e of rea di n g s runs throu g h o u t
his text- critic al works. Even Gwynn’s study of the Syriac—to which
Hoskie r is inde b t e d—co m e s und e r fire for har m o nizin g its Syriac
rea di n g s to the Gree k witho u t man u s c ri p t suppo r t . The move was
consid e r e d unne c e s s a r y. Hoskie r was able to find Greek suppo r t eve n
for the una t t e s t e d rea di n g s . It is a scen a ri o that plays itself out
repea t e dl y in his text- critical works.

Equally impor t a n t to Hoskie r was the notion that all of the ma n u s c ri p t

data should be consid e r e d—ir r e s p e c tiv e of age , script , mat erial , or
langua g e . No short c u t s were allowe d. The reas o n is simple. So muc h
mixtu r e and so much variatio n exist e d amon g the rea di n g s of even the
oldes t codice s that addition al evide n c e was absolut ely nece s s a r y—
eve n from later sourc e s —to sep a r a t e unwo r t hy rea din g s from worthy
ones.

Hoskie r’s comp r e h e n s iv e app ro a c h to the acc u m ul a tio n of dat a puts

him in no rush to recon s t r u c t the text of the Apocalyps e—or that of
any othe r book. Purs uin g his collations and the study of individu al
man u s c ri p t s was a critical first step—no matt e r how time- consu mi n g
or taxing— befor e the task of recon s t r u c t io n could begin. Textual
recon s t r u c t io n—a s far as he was conce r n e d— w a s for later
gen e r a t i o n s .

As he put it,

“Let us publish our rese a r c h e s and our dedu c tio n s if we will, but
leave [the] authoritativ e revision of the text for the futur e . Ther e
is plenty of time. The whole que s tion is mor e or less acad e m i c ,
and the study of minutia e first is the only key which will unlock
the rem ai ni n g myste ri e s… Exhaus ti v e me t h o d s are the only ones
worth using, and accurat e trans crip tio n s or photo gr a p hic copies
the only ways of pres e n ti n g the prim ary evide n c e of importa n t
docu m e n t s .”

It is a sentim e n t—t h a t is in lockst e p with curr e n t thinkin g—wit h the

exce p tio n, of cour s e , of delaying textu al recon s t r u c ti o n. In that case,
the futur e is now . But in Hoskie r’s day—as he saw it—he was me r ely

3
providing futur e revise r s with the mate ri al “they the m s e lv e s [had]
despis e d to accu m u la t e and diges t .”

Hos ki e r’ s Poly g l o t The o r y

The purs uit of exactin g detail, how eve r, is not the entire story.
Hoskie r’s metic ulou s catalog ui n g of minutia e clearly serve s a large r
purpo s e . Not only was Hoskie r inter e s t e d in laying the grou n d w o r k
for a new text (some w h e r e in the futur e), but he also soug h t to
illuminat e the tra n s mi s s io n history of the New Testa m e n t . It is a
history far more complex tha n his pee r s or his pre d e c e s s o r s were
willing to admit. But it is the data —accor di n g to Hoskie r—t h a t tells
the story.

At the cent e r of it all lies Hoskie r’s polyglot theory. Accordin g to

Hoskie r, ther e were early polyglots in circul a tion well befor e the rise
of the gre a t fourt h and fifth cent u r y uncials. More ov e r , many of their
“textu al erro r s” can be trac e d to the influe n c e of thes e bi lingu al,
tri lingu al—a n d yes—eve n quadri lingu al man u s c r i p t s . The theo ry
surfac e s more fully in Conc er nin g the Gene sis of the Version s in the
NT (which is prim a rily about the four Gospels)—an d subs e q u e n t ly in
Conce r ni n g the Date of the Bohairic Version (which is entir ely about
the Apocalyps e). The latte r respo n d s to the claims of Guidi and
Leipoldt (both of whom date the Bohairic Version late). The book also
forms the basis for the Apocalyps e’s textu al grou pin g s—g r o u p i n g s
which are laid out mor e fully in Conc er nin g the Text of the
Apocaly p s e .

The develop m e n t of Hoskie r’s polyglot theo ry is bas e d— in part —on a

series of casc a di n g analogi e s. Hoskie r obse rv e s that codex Beza e—a
Greco- Latin ma n u s c r i p t—p r e s e r v e s Greek rea din g s that appear to be
influe n c e d by the Latin. These Latin rea din g s , in turn, app e a r to be as
old as— if not older than —the Greek. Hoskie r then finds that the Latin,
Gree k, and Syriac version s toget h e r app e a r to shed light on the origin
of the old Latin—at the very thre s h ol d of the secon d cent u r y. The
Coptic also —he arg u e s—a p p e a r s to betr a y the influe n c e of the Syriac
and the Latin.

All told, Hoskie r believe s that the idea of copying a bilingual

man u s c ri p t—like Codex Beza e—could not have develop e d from a
single man u s c ri p t: bilingu a l or othe r wi s e . Rath e r, sev eral man u s c ri p t s
wer e being copie d in nea r proximity of eac h othe r—a “school of
man u s c ri p t s ,” as he imagin e d . The juxta po sitio n of suc h man u s c r i p t s

4
in seve r al lang u a g e s was akin to the multiling u al inscrip tion on the
cross—in Greek, Aramaic, and Latin. It was far more likely— Hoskie r
thoug h t —that Codex Beza e aros e in this kind of environ m e n t tha n
othe r wi s e .

It was not enou g h, howeve r , to simply arg u e that the r e wer e othe r
bilingu al s—w h e t h e r Syriac- Gree k , Syriac- Latin , or Coptic- Latin —
alongsi d e the Greco- Latin and Greco- Coptic codic e s. As note d ,
Hoskie r thoug h t it mor e prob a bl e that the r e were tri lingu al
man u s c ri p t s in Syriac, Gree k, and Latin —and possibly even a gre a t
quadri lingu al ma n u s c ri p t (!) in Syriac, Coptic, Gree k, and Latin . Thes e
man u s c ri p t s , of cours e, would have bee n olde r tha n codex Sinaitic u s
or codex Beza e and set the stag e for an alterna tiv e fram e w o r k for
unde r s t a n d i n g the New Testa m e n t’ s tra n s mi s sio n history.

The ups hot of all of this was that we could no longe r give the uncials
un due weight as sepa r a t e witne s s e s to textu al erro r. The use of multi-
colum n e d polyglots would now have to be take n into accou n t.

Ara m i c Origi n al s
Hoskie r’s theory also serve s to bring us close r to the origin al. That is
to say, to the original lang u a g e—o r langua g e s —of the New Testa m e n t .
Hoskie r thoug h t it probable that books like Matt h e w , the Apocalyps e ,
Mark, and even Luke wer e origin ally writt e n in Aram aic. In fact—
accor di n g to Hoskie r—th e endle s s Syriac forms in one of the Latin
version s sho w that it is a polyglot and bolste r the case for an Aram aic
origin al—or originals. The idea of Aram aic originals, of cour s e , was
not distinc tive to Hoskie r. But the notion of polyglots as evide n c e of
that—a p p e a r s to have bee n his innova tio n.

Probl e m s wit h Hos ki e r’ s Poly g l o t The o r y

Hoskie r’s polyglot theory, of cours e , is fraug h t with difficulties— if not
impos si bilities. The impla u si bility of it all is manifes t in its details. It
was not plausible in Hoskie r’s day. It is less so in ours. The rea so n s
are fairly clea r.

It is note w o r t h y—first of all—tha t none of thes e “early polyglots” has

survive d. Not the bilingu als— let alone the triling u al s or even the
lege n d a r y quadri lingu al. Furt h e r , the fact that skins have bee n found
that wer e large enou g h for polyglot s—or that man u s c ri p t s with thre e

5
or four colu m n s have bee n discove r e d—d o e s not chan g e the fact that
no pre- fourt h cent u ry, multi- colum n e d polyglots are exta n t. Hoskie r—
of cours e—k no w s this. Which is why he argu e s on inter nal grou n d s
rath e r tha n exte r n a l ones.

We also note tha t Hoskie r spe n d s little -to- no time thinking throu g h
the hurdle s of polyglot const r u c tio n. What socio- econo mic or cultu r al
condition s have to be in plac e for ther e to have bee n “a flurry ” of
polyglots? And—for the s e to have bee n circulatin g in the third,
secon d, or even first cent u ri e s ? What about the later diglots and
triglots? What condition s facilitat e d their prod u c tio n ? At the very
least, the analogie s could have prove d useful—altho u g h in all
likelihood—th e y would have bee n upe n d e d his theory.

It is the internal evide n c e , howev e r, that fails so spec t a c ul a rly.

The study of the versions was still in its infancy and highly unrelia bl e
in Hoskie r’s day. This rem ai n e d the cas e a qua r t e r of a cent u r y later
whe n Schmid would publish his Stu di e s in the History of the Gree k
Text of the Apocalyp s e . In fact, this is precis ely why Sch mid chose to
focus on the Gree k tra dition alone . “The time for a syste m a t i c study of
the version s ha[d] not yet arrive d” he felt . “Only exper t s could use the
version s witho u t risk.” Furt h e r , ther e wer e no “relia ble critic al
edition s or specialize d studie s to exa mi n e the que s tio n of tra n sl a tio n
tech ni q u e or Gre ek Vorlage n .” If this was the case in Schmid’s day,
how much mor e so in Hoskie r’s?

A Reifi e d Poly g l o t The o r y

But perh a p s the great e s t proble m with Hoskie r’s polyglot theo ry is
that it does not functio n as a theo ry. Hoskie r’s theory has beco m e a
concr e t e and esta blis h e d fact. The stability of this fact is what allows
him to accou n t for textu al variation in see mi n gly endle s s ways. Thes e
always man a g e to suppor t —rath e r tha n upe n d—his theo ry.

The rea di n g s of codex Sinaitic u s—for exa m pl e—m a y ste m eithe r from
carele s s n e s s or from a delibera t e clarifica tio n—b u t in both instanc e s
the scrib e may have dra w n from the polyglot exem pl a r . Its various
colum n s—w h e t h e r in Syriac, Latin, or Coptic—provid e the scribe—
and Hoskie r (!)—with a rich reso u r c e for spec ula tio n. Whet h e r the

6
cha n g e s are consid e r e d accid e n t a l or delibe r a t e , the polyglot theory
rem ai n s a comm o n deno mi n a t o r .

Not surp risin gly, Hoskie r’s polyglot theo ry elides into a theo ry of
polyglot minds . The scribe’s thinkin g beco m e s yet anoth e r sourc e for
spec ul a tio n. Scrib al thoug h t proc e s s e s , for exa m pl e, reflect an
inte r e s ti n g “polyglot mind .” Gre ek choice s are mad e that bring out
the best Coptic ! Textu al error s—eve n the sam e textu al erro r—c a n
arise from a glanc e at the Syriac or from the scrib e’s “ Coptic me n t al
proce s s e s .” Rando m agr e e m e n t s with the Coptic mer ely show that
the scrib e mad e occasional rath e r tha n syst e m a ti c use of the version s.
The stability of the theory thus rem ai n s intact. The expla n a t o r y
options, how eve r, multiply.

HOSKIER’S TEXTUAL GROUPI NG S FOR THE APOCALYPSE

With the polyglot theo ry firmly in place (and collations comple t e d ),
Hoskie r is the n able to separat e the man u s c ri p t tra dition into grou p s .
For the Apocalyps e , the r e are sev e n such major grou pi n g s— four of
which app e a r to have subg r o u p s . The polyglot conn e c tio n s run
throu g h o u t .

The FIRST is not a “family grou p” per se but thr e e sets of uncials
followe d by cursive s. (And her e I use Hoskie r’s ter mi nolo gy). The
codice s Sinaitic u s, Alexand ri n u s , Ephr a e m i, 025 and 046—(whic h
Hoskie r mista k e nly dubs B)—plus a grou p of eighty cursive s mak e up
the first set. The secon d and third sets includ e 051 and 052
resp e c tively, each of which is acco m p a n i e d by a han dful of cursive s.
The inclusion of the s e ma n u s c r i p t s into the first grou pi n g appe a r s to
have bee n dicta t e d by their stat u s as uncials —a relatively usele s s
crite rio n today.

The Era s mi a n Family is the SECOND grou pi n g and has thr e e

subg r o u p s . One of thes e is its most ancie n t ste m, whos e arche t y p e is
believe d to have bee n a Greco- Syriac bilingual . 1 The THIRD is the
Complu t e n si a n— also with thr e e subg r o u p s , one of which has a Coptic
backg r o u n d . 2 The FOURTH is the (mist a k e nly dubb e d ) B family—
again —046 plus a serie s of cursive s. The FIFTH is Areth a s . The SIXTH
is the Greco- Latin with two subg r o u p s . And the SEVENTH is the

1 2067- 743 + 2 4 1 9- 2051- 2055- 2064.

2 42- 367- 468- 757 sup (21:9- fin .)-(1626).

7
Egyptia n, which bet r a y s a “syriacizing” cha r a c t e r— also with a couple
of subg r o u p s .

The seve n grou p s initially surfa c e in Conce r ni n g the Date of the

Bohairic Version —and are expa n d e d in Conce r ni n g the Text of the
Apocaly p s e .

Hoskie r’s man u s c ri p t grou pi n g s— predic ta bly —do not stan d the test of
time. The families are disban d e d once his polyglot theory is
discou n t e d . The arr a n g e m e n t s are alte r e d—if not dissolv e d —withou t
the thread s of his multip u r p o s e theory or his use of the versions .
Non e of the grou p s re m ai n entirely intac t in Schmid’s land m a r k study
on the Greek text of the Apocalyps e. In fact, Hoskie r’s theo ry is not
even enga g e d by Schmid, who consid e r s his textu al grou pi n g s— a
“fant a s y.”

Alt e r e d Grou p i n g s
The Era s mi a n Family, for exa m pl e, finds tw e n t y - one 3 of its tw e n t y -
nine man u s c ri p t s 4 reloc a t e d to the Andre a s Text. And one 5 is plac e d
within the Koine tra dition. And that most ancien t ste m whos e
arche t y p e was purpor t e dl y a Greco- Syriac bilingual? —it consists
almost entirely of ma n u s c r i p t s linke d to the Andre a s tra dition. The
Eras mi a n Fa mily thus no longe r exists as an entity in Schmid’s work,
exce p t—for the most par t—a s mem b e r s of the Andre a s subg r o u p s .

The Egyptia n Fa mily, similarly , finds eig h t 6 of its ten man u s c ri p t s

reloca t e d amon g the Andre a s subg r o u p s . And the so- called
“syriacizin g” char a c t e r of its Egyptia n man u s c r i p t s or their Coptic
tra c e s 7 prove to be of no cons e q u e n c e for their textu al grou pi n g s or
tra n s mi s sio n history.

3 205 2026 2028 2029 2031 2033 2043 2056 2057 2044 2045 2054 2059 2065 2068 2069
2081 2083 2091 (2595) 2186.

4 1 209 2026 2028 2029 2031 2033 (2038) 205 205 abs 2043 2056 2057 2044 2045 2049
2054 2059 2065 2068 2069 2081 2083 1894 2091 (2595) 2186 1668 1903.
5 2078.
6 2014 2015 2034 2036 2042 2043 2082 2037.
7 2014 and 2030 resp e c t iv ely.

8
The Areth a s Family, on the othe r han d, fare s a little bett e r . Fiv e
man u s c ri p t s 8 are initially identified by Hoskie r as belon gin g to this
grou p—with eig h t 9 forming a subg r o u p . Sch mid expa n d s the origin al
fiv e 10 into se v e n 11 and red u c e s the eigh t of the subg r o u p 12 into six 13 —
with tw o man u s c ri p t s lost to the O Fa mily. 14 The num b e r of
man u s c ri p t s in Schmid’s origin al subg r o u p , how eve r, rem ai n s at
eig h t —since two man u s c r i p t s are add e d to the Areth a s Text 15

The Com pl u t e n s ia n Family perh a p s wea t h e r s the tra n sitio n from

Hoskie r to Schmid best. There are thir t y - thr e e such ma n u s c ri p t s
liste d und e r the Complut e n s i a n Family in Hoskie r’s work 16 —just thr e e
shy of the thir t y - six in Schmid. 17 Tw o of Hoskie r’s Complu t e n s i a n
man u s c ri p t s are dropp e d by Schmid—with one place d in an Andre a s
subg r o u p 18 and the othe r elimin a t e d altog e t h e r . 19 Schmid none t h el e s s
adds fiv e addition al Complut e n s i a n man u s c ri p t s , 20 the r e b y retu r ni n g
to a total of thir t y - six . As for the subg r o u p with a suppo s e d Coptic
backg r o u n d , most of its ma n u s c ri p t s app e a r to belong to the Koine
text.

With res p e c t to Hoskie r’s Greco- Latin grou p, its nine me m b e r s 21 are
expa n d e d into ten by Schmid and are divide d almos t eve nly betw e e n

8 91 175 242 1934 617.

9 314 2016 664 (2070, 2305) 2075 2077 (1094).
10 91 175 242 1934 617.
11 91 175 242 256 617 1934 2017.
12 314 2016 664 (2070, 2305) 2075 2077 (1094).
13 314 664 2075 2077 (1094).
14 2070 2305.
15 39 A 2419.
16 60 35 2014 432 2023 2035 1957 2041 824 757 2061 986 1072 1075 1894 1328 1503
2352 1551 1733 1617 1771 1745 1746 1740 1637 1652 1774 2196 1864 1903 1865 1248.
17 60 35 2014 432 2023 2035 1957 2041 824 757 2061 986 1072 1075 1328 1503 2352
1551 1733 1617 1771 1745 1746 1740 1637 1652 1774 2196 1864 1903 1865 1248.
18 2014.
19 1894.
20 1384 1732 2926 2431 2434.
21 104 336 1918 459 628 582 680 922 620.

9
two distinc t families: Family 104 22 and Family 336. 23 Thes e two
families are mad e up of mixed- texts tha t form their own subg r o u p .
Ther e are actu ally four such mixed texts in the Apocalyps e accor di n g
to Schmid. Thes e includ e : 1) the Areth a s Text; 2) the Complut e n s i a n
Text; 3) Familie s 104/33 6; and 4) the O Family. Each of the s e is a
mixtu r e of the Andr e a s and Koine textu al tra dition s.

Thus, the four families review e d so far—th e Eras mi a n , the

Complu t e n si a n , the Areth a s , and the Greco- Latin, turn out to eithe r
reflec t the Andre a s tra dition, the Koine tra dition, or are a mixtur e of
both. The sam e applie s to the B family—it is mostly Koine. And the
uncials that were lum p e d toge t h e r by their status as such are now
divide d into two grou p s—t h e first consistin g of Alexand ri n u s and
Ephr a e m i (the closes t thing to the “neut r a l” text); and the secon d
consis tin g of Sinaitic u s, which toge t h e r with P 47 , forms a very old text.
The rem ai nin g uncials—for their part—a r e repa t ri a t e d to the Koine,
Andre a s , or the mixed- text tra dition s.

Thus , unmoo r e d from their polyglot conn e c tio n s and conn e c t e d only
by their affinities with the Gree k textu al tra dition—a n entirely new
fram e w o r k of textu al relation s hi p s eme r g e s and Hoskie r’s knotty
grou pin g s disint e g r a t e .

MYSTICAL TEXTS
One more obse rv a tio n is note w o r t h y. It is well know n that a num b e r
of ma n u s c r i p t s pre s e r v e the Apocalyps e witho u t othe r New Testa m e n t
books. This widely recog niz e d phe n o m e n o n is distinc tive to the
Apocalyps e’s tra n s m i s sio n history. Accordin g to Hoskie r, such
man u s c ri p t s me rit special atte n tio n bec a u s e they are inde p e n d e n t of
the churc h’s use and thus free of “eccle sia s tic al stan d a r d iz a tio n.”
Exactly what is mea n t by this kind of “stan d a r d i z a ti o n” is not
altog e t h e r clea r. But the pres u m p t i o n that a book’s plac e m e n t in a
given man u s c ri p t some h o w free s it from its textu al history is
proble m a t i c. In fact, of the eight e e n ma n u s c ri p t s single d out by
Hoskie r 24 nea rly all of the m were found to fit within know n textu al

22 104 459 680 922 2493.

23 336 582 620 628 1918.
24 2018 2019 2020 2025 2038 2058 2048 2050 2055 2059 2074 2077 2080 2329 1732
2196 1678 254.

10
families. Thirte e n , for exa m pl e, belong to the Andre a s sub grou p s , 25
and thre e to the Koine . 26 Anoth e r thre e belon g to the O Family, 27 the
Areth a s text, 28 and Complut e n s i a n Family resp e c tiv e ly . Only two are
identified as “sta n d alone” man u s c ri p t s 29 by Sch mid. But nothin g is
mad e of it.

In shor t, the pre s e r v a tio n of the Apocalyps e in man u s c r i p t s witho u t

othe r biblical books, does not app e a r to preclud e its fit within well-
esta blis h e d cate g o ri e s .

CONCLU SIO N
Despit e que s tion s abou t Hoskie r’s polyglot theori e s and textu al
grou pin g s , it is und e ni a bl e that Conce r ni n g the Text of the
Apocaly p s e is one of the most valua bl e resou r c e s for the study of the
book. The collection of dat a surp a s s e s that of Tische n d o rf and von
Sode n—a n d laid the found a tio n for Schmid’s own land m a r k study.

No work, howev e r , is perfe c t—a n d this is espe cially true of the first
volu m e of Conce r ni n g the Text of the Apocaly p s e . Laying it aside
will not caus e too muc h har m. But the secon d volum e is esse n ti al.
The bre a d t h , scope, and detail of its collations are unlikely to be
surp a s s e d . Schola r s— m u s t build upon it.

Ther e is one nuisa n c e , howev e r—H a vin g to wres tl e with Hoskie r’s
idiosync r a tic labels , groupin g s , and nu m b e ri n g syste m— all of which
only serve to add tediu m to an alre a dy laborious and error- prone task.
Despit e this— no schola r will fail to mee t Hoskie r on his own ter m s.
The risk is too gre a t.

Ironi e s
The ironies that fill the pag e s of Conc er nin g the Text of the
Apocaly p s e —appe a r to reflect a broad e r set of ironie s in Hoskie r’s life
and work. Anyone who explor e s his othe r writing s soon discove r s tha t
25 1678 2020 2059 2080 2074 and 2019 2038 2055 1732 2038 2074 2050 254.
26 2025 2058 2048.
27 2018.
28 2077.
29 2050 2329.

11
Hoskie r is an invariably complex figure . At time s he rea d s like an
Ortho dox Christia n with a high view of Script u r e and a narro w view of
trut h. At othe r s, he appe a r s to be a sync r e tis t, who draw s from
multiple religious tra dition s in a que s t for unive r s al trut h s. But the
most striking irony is Hoskie r’s devotion to Spiritis m . Inde e d , it is a
bit unse t tlin g to find that the very individu al who deride d von Sode n
for “inve ntin g script u r e ”—e n g a g e s in Spiritis m in orde r to deter m i n e
the wordin g of script u r e ! Ther e is an exa m pl e right in the prefa c e to
Conce r ni n g the Text of the Apocaly p s e !

A Mo d e l
Despit e all of that, Hoskie r’s schola r s hi p rem ai n s a model for all to
follow—a model in ter m s of produ c tivit y , precision , clarity , tenacity ,
and com p r e h e n s i v e n e s s . Ironically, the pass a g e of time may end up
vindicatin g him afte r all— at least in part . For exa m pl e , we might
disa g r e e with his handling of Westco t t and Hort, but today we would
side with him on the insufficien cy of their text type theo rie s. We may
rejec t the way he deploys the versions, but today we are on a path to
inte gra ti n g the m more fully in textu al res e a r c h . In fact, the notion of a
version al rea din g rep r e s e n ti n g a text earlier than one exta n t in Greek
is no longer a novelty . The exe c u tio n may have bee n impe rfe c t but
the instinc t was right. And if this is a bypro d u c t of being an ecce n t r ic
—then that’s not suc h a bad thing.

Thank You.

12