Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

C

cjab

Well-known member
This precis from Christfried Böttrich's article (Greifswald University):

Codex Sinaiticus and the use of manuscripts in the Early Church (2017)

Abstract

Codex Sinaiticus, the world’s oldest and most complete manuscript of a Greek Bible (4th century)
has a complicated and exciting history. Re-discovered by the German Theologian Constantin von
Tischendorf (1844/1859), the already split codex was transferred to Europe (Leipzig, St. Petersburg,
London). The donation of its major part to Tsar Alexander II in 1869 caused controversies about
ownership during the 20th century. Some years ago, the four different parts were, virtually, united
again. This was the starting point for a new and intensive examination of this precious manuscript.

The present article discusses some old issues in the light of new insights.
.
.
.
For the origin of Codex Sinaitcus, there always have been two alternatives: Caesarea or Alexandria. These two places had famous
libraries and efficient scriptoria. And both places played an important role during the 4th century.

The balance of arguments inclines a little more to Caesarea.

First: there are some lexical indications regarding geographical substitutes.
Second: Codex Sinaiticus adopts the Eusebian system in the gospels, and offers a special text division in Acts following a model that can be traced back to Pamphilus.
Third: there are two famous colophons after the text of 2 Esdras and Esther claiming a correction of the text in Caesarea at least in the 6th century; such colophons should be viewed with caution because they became inflationary in later times, being copied from one codex to the other, but these two predate such secondary usurpation.
.
.
.
The supposed origin of Codex Sinaiticus in Caesarea does not automatically make it a part of Constanine’s ‘Bible commission’. It merely places the codex in the immediate context of this project. Usually the Codex is dated to the middle of the 4th century.*

[*Milne / Skeat, Scribes and Correctors (1938), 64, say
around 360 (despite a supposed link to Constantine’s ‘Bible
commission’); G. Zuntz, Lukian von Antiochien und der
Text der Evangelien, ed. B. Aland and K. Wachtel, AHAW.
PH 1995/2 (Heidelberg: Winter, 1995), 40–6, on 43, taking
the ‘commission’ in VitConst seriously, is more precise with
a date about 320–40.]
.
.
.
Theodore Skeat re Constantine's bible commission : Codex Sinaiticus was something like Eusebius’ first attempt or test case. But quickly the bishop realised that he had miscalculated the project. He abandoned the work and Codex Sinaiticus remained unfinished. For a second attempt, Eusebius reduced the size, the number of columns, the content and weight—and Codex Vaticanus was born. Codex Sinaiticus was laid aside (“perhaps as unsaleable”), stayed in Caesarea and never left the scriptorium until it was brought to Sinai.

Such a precise reconstruction says more than we can really know. But Skeat’s main idea could indeed be the key to a reliable answer: the codex never went to Constantinople; the codex was never used for liturgical reading; the codex was never written to be carried around. So what was its function? In all probability,
Codex Sinaiticus was the master copy in the scriptorium of Caesarea. For liturgical reading, it would be very disturbing and a hindrance to have marginals, asterisks, and crosses, supra- and sublinear additions in different hands. Here the eye even of a trained reader is in danger of straying from the main line. But, for a skilled scribe, it is essential to have all these corrections. Codex Sinaiticus is a prominent example of how textual work was done, comparing the manuscript again and again, eradicating mistakes and improving doubtful readings.
.
.
.
 
[Here is another article as to dating raising additional points.]

The Journal of Theological Studies, NS, 2022
BRENT NONGBRI
MF Norwegian School of Theology, Religion and Society, Oslo, Norway

Abstract
"Codex Sinaiticus is generally described as one of ‘the great fourth century
majuscule Bibles’, and its construction is often assigned to a more precise
date in the middle of the fourth century. This essay surveys the evidence
for the date of production of the codex and concludes that it could have
been produced at any point from the early fourth century to the early
fifth century. This time span may seem uncomfortably wide, but this par-
ticular range of dates makes Codex Sinaiticus an ideal candidate for AMS
radiocarbon analysis. The shape of the radiocarbon calibration curve dur-
ing this period means that a well-executed radiocarbon analysis of the
codex should have the potential to shed further light on the date the
codex was produced."

Precis
Tischendorf .... maintained a date for the production of the codex in the fourth century while allowing some leeway on whether it should be assigned to the first or second half of the century.

Some prominent authorities at the time assented to Tischendorf’s date (including the British New Testament textual critic Samuel Tregelles). Yet, the view was not immediately embraced by all. We may set aside as unfounded the claims of modern forgery made by Tischendorf’s contemporary and nemesis, Constantine Simonides, and turn to the noted palaeographers who expressed opinions in the coming years and decades. In 1893, Edward Maunde Thompson, principal librarian of the British Museum, pronounced that the copying of Sinaiticus ‘may be placed early in the fifth century’. By 1912, he had revised his opinion: ‘The period of the manuscript may be the latter part of the fourth century’. There is a record of Harold Idris Bell offhandedly referring to Sinaiticus as ‘early fifth century’ in 1909. At about the same time, the papyrologist Arthur S. Hunt inclined toward an earlier date. Kirsopp Lake cited him in the introduction to his photographic facsimile of Sinaiticus: ‘Dr. Hunt, indeed, expressed the view that if it had not been for the evidence of the Eusebian apparatus he should have not regarded the third century as an impossible date’. The most thorough students of the codex, H. J. M. Milne and Theodore C. Skeat, concluded that the codex was produced after the development of the Eusebian canon numbers but ‘before the middle of the [fourth] century.’

This dating of the codex near the middle of the fourth century is now customary. In fact, the writing of Codex Sinaiticus is now usually regarded as a relatively fixed point in the chronological development of the ‘Biblical Majuscule’ script. Colin H. Roberts included it in his list of securely datable samples of Greek handwriting in his Greek Literary Hands (1956) with a suitably broad date of ‘fourth century’ on the basis of three relatively objective criteria, which will be outlined in detail below. In 1967, Guglielmo Cavallo argued for a much more precise date ‘of about
360, or just a few years later’ on the basis of his view of the position of the handwriting of Sinaiticus in the evolution of the Biblical Majuscule script. Theodore Skeat, on the other hand, has argued more recently that Codex Sinaiticus (and Codex Vaticanus) can be dated just as precisely, but to a period some thirty years earlier (just after 330) because he regarded these codices as examples of the books that the emperor Constantine ordered Eusebius of Caesarea to produce (Eusebius, Life of Constantine 4.36).

The arguments of Roberts, Cavallo, and Skeat represent three distinct methods for assigning a date to Codex Sinaiticus—the use of relatively objective criteria presented by Roberts (to be discussed in detail below), the use of a framework of palaeographic development argued by Cavallo, and Skeat’s proposed matching of surviving ancient artifacts with objects mentioned in a literary account. Of these three, the approach of Roberts is far and away the least problematic.

Strong reasons exist for being skeptical of using a framework of linear palaeographic development to provide precise dates for Greek manuscripts of the Roman era in general and for the ‘Biblical Majuscule’ specifically. As Timothy Janz has pointed out, ‘It is notable that Cavallo’s entire reconstruction of the “formation” of the canon [of the Biblical Majuscule] is not, and cannot be, corroborated by any objective evidence, due to the lack of dated exemplars’. The particular case of Codex Sinaiticus with its multiple copyists highlights the problem with attributing
too much chronological value to minute graphic differences in scripts, as Milne and Skeat remark: ‘The dangers of judging age on grounds of style are nowhere better illustrated than in the Sinaiticus itself, where the hands of scribes A and B present a markedly more archaic appearance than that of scribe D; did we not know that all three were contemporary, D might well have been judged half a century later than A and B’.18 This striking observation is a reminder that we should be suspicious when high-precision dates for this type of writing are proposed based only on
palaeography.

Skeat’s more recent historical arguments that Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus were among the books produced in response to Constantine’s order to Eusebius have been cautiously accepted in some quarters (Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge, Mass.; Belknap, 2006), pp. 215–21.)

Yet, his case is far from compelling and is open to question from many angles. To name just one especially salient objection, Harry Gamble (Gamble, ‘Codex Sinaiticus in its Fourth Century Setting’ in "Codex sinaiticus : new perspectives on the ancient Biblical manuscript," 2015) has pointed out that the contents of neither Sinaiticus nor Vaticanus match the list of acknowledged ‘New Testament’ writings outlined by Eusebius.

This point alone casts doubt upon the cogency of Skeat’s historical argument, and D. C. Parker has raised several additional objections to Skeat’s reasoning (Parker, "Codex Sinaiticus," pp. 19–24).

Only the methodology of Roberts can provide firmer ground for establishing a range of possible dates for the codex. Even here, however, we encounter some difficulties. This essay evaluates the ‘objective’ evidence for assigning a date to Codex Sinaiticus and suggests one possible way forward in the form of radiocarbon dating.

The terminus post quem mentioned by Roberts (the presence of the Eusebian canon and section numbers) is not controversial. The Eusebian apparatus as it appears in Sinaiticus has some anomalous features, but it seems almost certain that the Eusebian numbers were a part of the original production of the codex and not a later addition. The surviving evidence suggests that the Eusebian numbers were added after an early correction of the manuscript by scribe D but before the insertion of a replacement bifolium (again by scribe D) in the second quire of Matthew.

The use of the canon and section numbers cannot predate their creation by Eusebius. The exact date that Eusebius developed and disseminated the system of canon and section numbers is not precisely known, but the terminus post quem of 300–340 offered by Roberts is reasonable (affirmed by Kirsopp Lake, "Codex Sinaiticus," pp. ix–x).

[To be continued]
 
Maestroh said:
@cjab

I don't know if you saw this but I'll caution you - you are dealing with a man who thinks ALL THOSE MOON LANDINGS were faked.

The moon landing being fake is close to a slam dunk.
Click to expand...

Steven Aver​

says

Bill Brown
“As a reminder, it's pretty easy to be dumb enough to believe in a Simondes/Tischendorf (who hated each other) working together conspiracy if you're dumb enough to believe the moon landing was fake.”

The moon landing being fake is close to a slam dunk.

With Simonides and Tischendorf you have to follow the evidence. Simonides, considered a forger, ends up working in the Russian Historical Archives in St. Petersburg after the faked death (and after no confrontation in the Tischendorf belated 1865 London trip.)

Sounds like a quid pro quo.

People make deals with people they don’t like every day.
=====================================================

steve; did I read that correct ?????
 
Last edited:
@Buzzard

Yes, you did.



Steven Avery said:
I’ve been anti-vax and jab at least since the 1980s. (I ran a natural food biz in the 70s.) At that time there was one gal in NYC speaking clearly, Sharon Kimmelman of Vaccination Alternatives. Even earlier, 1976 swine flu, no jab, even my pop knew better. And I do not mind at all being called anti-vax, although the mRNA jabs (e.g. Moderna and Pfizer in the USA) are not vaccinations and are far more dangerous. Even in my local diner, the hubby of a waitress passed 3 days after Moderna-2, planning a trip to Greece (the jab was not necessary afaik.)

On the atomic bombs, I do not have a position. The case against them is interesting, that is as far as I can go,

Definitely do not believe there was a manned moon landing. Some of the neatest material has been posted By TXPatriot on Twitter. Similar with the supposed recent Chinese landing (A news blip - then silence.)

if you want one that was really difficult for me, here is one. Now I believe there is very decent evidence that Jackie was directly involved in the 63 events in Dallas.

Here is another you might appreciate. As far as I can tell, the “life-cycle of the virus” is a sham. The idea that these inactive/dead viruses come alive when pulled into a cell (spikes! yikes!) and hijack cell replication is a joke. Think about it, and try to find any hard evidence that this actually occurs.

Grace and peace in Jesus name!

=============
Click to expand...
 
[Nongbri - precis continued from above]

Nongbri recounts an error made by Tischendorf, as identified by Milne and Skeat (in 'Scribes and Correctors'), relating to ‘certain cursive notes’, and another made by Milne and Skeat, relating to whether the Sinaiticus Codex was copied by dictation, which both concern their dating analysis of the Codex.

(a) Tischendorf (Prolegomena, p. 9) was alleged by Milne and Skeat to have made a mistake in attributing seven instances of these 'cursive notes' to a later Corrector B(a), but "identity of ink and the fact that they accompany only corrections by Scribe D make it certain that they are from his hand." This renders the cursive notes contemporaneous with the original date of the Codex.

The question, then, is: can these notes be assigned with confidence to the fourth century or even more narrowly to the first half of the fourth century? According to Milne and Skeat they can, but Nongbri says, "it is not so much the case that we are cdealing with ‘a few isolated words’ as with a few, often barely legible, letters. In fact, the sweeping judgment of Milne and Skeat is based on a sample containing just five different letters (alpha, kappa, nu, tau, and omega). Milne and Skeat were respected scholars, but I wonder at how they were able, using only these five letters, to say that the notes ‘certainly belong to the fourth century, and probably the first half of it’? ....[by comparison with other datable papyri] our terminus ante quem, the small group of ‘cursive’ words, allows for a date as extending into the first part of the fifth century [although a fourth century date is not ruled out]."

(b) Milne and Skeat are alleged to have made a further wrong deduction as to the implications deriving from the presence of an older numbering system using numerals with curls, and present only in 1 Maccabees. Apart from 1 Maccabees, thousands of numbers are spelled out as words within the rest of Codex Sinaiticus, and so the issue only pertains to 1 Maccabees. According to Nongbri "The fact that this older system using numerals with curls is present only in 1 Maccabees suggests that a copyist simply carried them over from an exemplar. Although Milne and Skeat mentioned this seemingly reasonable explanation, they rejected it because they believed that Codex Sinaiticus had been copied by dictation rather than sight."

According to Nongbri, "For the logic of Milne and Skeat’s argument about numerals to be convincing, it is necessary to assent that Sinaiticus was copied by dictation. But the argument of Milne and Skeat in favor of dictation has proven persuasive to almost nobody. A recent article in the Journal of Biblical Literature (Zachary J. Cole, ‘An Unseen Paleographical Problem with Milne and Skeat’s Dictation Theory of Codex Sinaiticus’, JBL 135 (2016), pp. 103–7) has demonstrated that what Skeat regarded as ‘positive proof of dictation’ (the nonsense sequence of characters in 1 Macc. 5:20) was in fact based on a mistaken reading by Milne and Skeat. Barring some new and compelling evidence that Sinaiticus was copied by dictation, the argument about the orthography of numbers can carry no weight at all in the question of the date of the copying of the codex."

[This argument is overdone. If in fact the older numbering system using numerals with curls was obsolete at the date of transcription, there was no reason for it to be retained. Roberts ('Greek Literary Hands') notes that over the course of the fourth century, one system of representing multiples of 1,000 with a curl (A ͗ ) was replaced by a new system using a stroke (/A). Roberts concluded that ‘as the codex was written to dictation and as it is certain that in some places in the exemplar the numerals were written out in full, the use of the old system is evidence of fourth-century date’. In fact it is evidence of a 4th century date in any event.]



Terminus post quem: Nongbri regards The terminus post quem as indicated by the presence of the Eusebian canon and section numbers as not controversial. "The Eusebian apparatus as it appears in Sinaiticus has some anomalous features, but it seems almost certain that the Eusebian numbers were a part of the original production of the codex and not a later addition. The surviving evidence suggests that the Eusebian numbers were added after an early correction of the manuscript by scribe D but before the insertion of a replacement bifolium (again by scribe D) in the second quire of Matthew. The use of the canon and section numbers cannot predate their creation by Eusebius. The exact date that Eusebius developed and disseminated the system of canon and section numbers is not recisely known, but the terminus post quem of 300–340 offered by Roberts is reasonable."

Hence Nongbri advocates Radio Carbon dating, to ascertain a more precise date in the anticipated range between the early 4th century and early 5th century, whilst acknowledging that such would only be able to give an approximate result. [Yet this might not solve anything, given that radio carbon dating is not always as accurate as hoped, and given that the date of the Codex is already reasonably narrowly defined.]
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
Third: there are two famous colophons after the text of 2 Esdras and Esther claiming a correction of the text in Caesarea at least in the 6th century; such colophons should be viewed with caution because they became inflationary in later times, being copied from one codex to the other, but these two predate such secondary usurpation.
Click to expand...

This is far too vague. Even accepting the ultra-dubious Sinaiticus dating, when does Christfried Bottrich think these colophons were placed on the manuscript? Even limiting to extant, studied manuscripts, a similar colophon is on Coislinianus, which is considered to be 6th century, and has special affinity to Sinaiticus. What scholar places these Sinaiticus colophons as earlier than Coislinianus? (Maybe Christfried Bottrich is in over his head in discussing textual elements?)

David Parker says .. caution about:
"the frequency with which a colophon making similar claims appears in very different texts and manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments."
The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible, p. 83

btw, quite a coincidence that the supposedly random pages taken by Tischendorf just happen to include the two colophons right towards the end. (sarcasm alert!)
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
Theodore Skeat re Constantine's bible commission : Codex Sinaiticus was something like Eusebius’ first attempt or test case. But quickly the bishop realised that he had miscalculated the project. He abandoned the work and Codex Sinaiticus remained unfinished. For a second attempt, Eusebius reduced the size, the number of columns, the content and weight—and Codex Vaticanus was born. Codex Sinaiticus was laid aside (“perhaps as unsaleable”), stayed in Caesarea and never left the scriptorium until it was brought to Sinai.

In all probability, Codex Sinaiticus was the master copy in the scriptorium of Caesarea.
Click to expand...

Wild speculation. Wacky evenn.
Especially the blunderama "master copy" idea.

Still, interesting to see a bit of honesty about "abandoned the work ... unfinished ... unsaleable".

That fits more an abandoned monastery project in 1840 than an ancient scriptorium.
 
Steven Avery said:
That fits more an abandoned monastery project in 1840 than an ancient scriptorium.
Click to expand...
We've still to see the source papyri from which the Sinaiticus was originally copied, and only when we do will we credit your fancied "monastery project." You're not speaking from any position of strength and you must realize it. Anyone who credits Simonides with writing Sinaiticus is inviting ridicule in this day. May be you should not purport to live in the 19th century. BTW the Greek Hermas of SInaiticus is now generally credited with being original, i.e. "Behold you will say to Maximus".
 
cjab said:
BTW the Greek Hermas of SInaiticus is now generally credited with being original, i.e. "Behold you will say to Maximus".
Click to expand...

Circular reasoning.
It is falsely presumed that Sinaiticus must be 4th century.

Plus we do have the actual original Greek.

Tischendorf was righ in his 1856 analysis.
 
Steven Avery said:
This is far too vague. Even accepting the ultra-dubious Sinaiticus dating,
Click to expand...
Actually it's difficult to place the dating of Sinaiticus outside the Constantine order - see "The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine" in the Collected Writings of T.C. Skeat - Elliott.

Steven Avery said:
when does Christfried Bottrich think these colophons were placed on the manuscript? Even limiting to extant, studied manuscripts, a similar colophon is on Coislinianus, which is considered to be 6th century, and has special affinity to Sinaiticus. What scholar places these Sinaiticus colophons as earlier than Coislinianus? (Maybe Christfried Bottrich is in over his head in discussing textual elements?)
Click to expand...
The short answer is, you'll need to consult Bottrich directly. I tend to agree that his summary is short on detail. He defers to Parker.
 
Steven Avery said:
(Maybe Christfried Bottrich is in over his head in discussing textual elements?)
Click to expand...
Oh, that's rich coming from you.....lol.

You can't read Greek, Latin, German, Russian or French.

You don't understand the grammar of any of the above languages.

You can't read any manuscript.

You have no experience in paleography.

You have no experience in the analysis of the numerous scribal hands, colophons, corinis (pl. coroni?), nomina sacra, etc.

You have no experience in textual criticism.

At all.

You have no published, peer reviewed works on any of those above named disciplines.

So when you daily inundate the internet with pretended refutations, declarations, insulting statements and/or theories of that with which you are entirely unqualified and untrained, you're musings are nothing but a clanging symbol.

You convince no one.

In over his head, indeed.
Comparatively, you're at the bottom of the ocean.
 
Steven Avery said:
Plus we do have the actual original Greek.
Click to expand...

Typo - do not have

- thus it would be considered difficult to take the Latin Vulgata reading as original, even though it is well supported and considered as an AD 200 textline and fits the text perfectly, while Maximo is essentially nonsensical in the context of Hermas
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
The short answer is, you'll need to consult Bottrich directly. I tend to agree that his summary is short on detail. He defers to Parker.
Click to expand...

However, Parker is quite skeptical of the colophons being truthful.

David Parker says .. caution about:
"the frequency with which a colophon making similar claims appears in very different texts and manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments."
The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible, p. 83

The problem was that Bottrich made an erroneous claim.
"these two predate such secondary usurpation"
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Typo - do not have

- thus it would be considered difficult to take the Latin Vulgate reading as original, even though it is well supported and considered as AD 200 and fits the text perfectly, while Maximo is essentially nonsensical in the context of Hermas
Click to expand...
It's not nonsensical - Maximus is likely a member of Hermas's family who had apostatized. The context fits an address to a single person, because the context is an address to Hermas and his family.

"But do thou, O Hermas, no longer bear malice
against thy children , neither neglect thy sister, so
shall they be cleansed from their former sins ; for
they shall be taught with the instruction of right
eousness, if thou bear no malice against them ; for
malice worketh death. But thou , Hermas, hast
had great afflictions in thy family because of the
transgressions of thy house ; for thou tookest no
care for them , but wert careless, and wert mixed
up in evil deeds. But that which saveth thee is thy
simplicity and thy great continence, and that thou
didst not depart from the living God . These
things shall save thee if thou continue steadfast,
and they shall save all who do such things , even
they who walk in innocence and simplicity. These
shall prevail over all wickedness, and shall abide
unto everlasting life. Blessed are all they who
work righteousness, for they shall never be de
stroyed. Say unto Maximus, Behold affliction
cometh ; if it seem good unto thee , deny me again .
The Lord is nigh unto all them that turn unto Him ;
even as it is written in the book of Eldad and
Modad , who prophesied unto the people in the
wilderness. ' ”

The phrase would make slightly more sense if it had said: Say unto Maximus, "Behold affliction cometh if it seem good unto thee to deny me again ."

Hoole notes "Maximus is an unknown person. The name had disappeared from the Latin versions . “ But thou shalt say, Behold à great tribulation cometh , ” Vat. “ But thou sayest, Behold a great tribulation cometh ,” Pal . The name Maximus is found in the Codex Sinaiticus, in the Codex Lipsiensis, and in the Æthiopic version."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top