Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

One of the most interesting comments from Dirk Jongkind:

Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (2007)
Dirk Jongkind

The frequent occurrence of missing poetic lines indicates that the exemplar, or an ancestor further down if the missing lines are an inherited feature, was written in a format in which each poetic line was attributed its own physical line (as in Sinaiticus) and unlike, for example, the Bodmer papyrus XXIV (Rahlfs 2110), where poetic lines arc only marked off by interpunction. - p. 201

And Dirk Jongkind on the question of missing lines was also referenced by Mark Randall James:

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

The Rubrication of the Psalms in Codex Sinaiticus (2015)
Mark Randall James
https://www.academia.edu/20044552/The_Rubrication_of_the_Psalms_in_Codex_Sinaiticus

Scribe A's occasional tendency to omit entire lines suggests that their exemplar was most likely already formatted in this way.

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

Missing lines, often with corrections inserting the missing text, are very common in Sinaiticus. And this is not limited to the poetic books. They can tell us about theorized and actual exemplars used in the writing of Sinaiticus.

Notice that this connection can be direct, or indirect:
“or an ancestor further down if the missing lines are an inherited feature”.

Also note that there are actually two different textual relationships that need to be properly delineated.

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

1) the exemplar can line up with the original omission, especially if the line length (and possibly textual features such as similar line endings) is a good fit.

Extra Note:
There can be variable sense-lines or a fixed-line-length in the exemplar relationship. E.g. a drop of 42 letters might come from a fixed-length exemplar of approximately 14, 21 or 42 letters per line.

2) the exemplar can be used directly for the corrections.

Extra Note:
In (2) we may find surprising notes about the textual affinity between certain localized Sinaiticus corrections and a specific extant manuscript. Such a note should always pique the special interest of textual studies. And when a manuscript is used for correction, you would not expect the neighboring text verses to be close-to-identical.

Note also that in (2) it is hardly feasible that the Sinaiticus corrections will have a direct affect on the text of a new manuscript. It is very easy for the exemplar manuscript text to be placed into the correction text of Sinaiticus. If this is discovered, it means that the terminus post quem of the Sinaiticus corrections can be no earlier than the terminus post quem of the correction manuscript. We may need to look closely as to the palaeographic dating of the corrections as well (e.g. as they considered to be part of the original production, or hundreds of years later.)

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

Now, for further context, there are various other elements that can help see these connections. Formatting, rubrication, punctuation, spelling, localized textual agreement, etc. all have the capability of helping or hurting a proposed textual connection. Also you may want to check multiple potential sources in determining a potential fit. Plus the number of textual connections will also be a factor.

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

There has been very little study, analysis or discussion about the larger missing text spots in Sinaiticus. And I have never seen a breakdown of the two quite different relationships above, (1) and (2).
 
Last edited:
I'm not KJO, but I'll answer the question very simply: the KJV is not based upon Sinaiticus (or Vaticanus, for that matter), so it's not surprising that there are different readings. Incidentally, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus also differ from each other, in thousands of places.
Not an answer to my question.
 
You should read Tischendorf on Maximo directly, if you want to know how he related the Palatine Latin to the current Greek text.

Plus anything he said after 1859 is of little value, since at that point it became necessary to protect Sinaiticus, and he changed positions. It looks like Sypridon Lambros did not take that into account.



James Donaldson is also excellent on Maximo, bringing Tischendorf’s argument int English.
https://books.google.com/books?id=60gtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA310
“The Palatine accounts well…”

See also Charles Holland Hoole:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...regarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-6#post-912732
Donaldson is disingenuous in saying "The Palantine accounts well for the origin of Maximo in the Sinaitic Greek."

He could equally well have said "The Sinaitic Greek accounts well for the origin of Maximo in the Palantine." Maximo is an accepted Latinism, but where the Shepherd of Hermas orignated in Rome, where Latin was dominant.

And that is your problem, which no amount of inflating the value of Tischendorf's initial argument will ever solve. You refuse to address it. Why? Just stop endlessly repeating yourself and deal with the issue of why modern scholarship has discounted Donaldson's argument as worthless. You can't seem to be able to grasp the wider picture because you're driven by the need to attack Tischendorf. You need to address mordern scholarship if you are to make any valid point. Your argument may satisfy your votaries, but find me any reputable scholar who credits it with value.

You're still living in the 19th century, as is the whole KJVO movement.
 
Last edited:
More info on Hermas (from "The Shepherd of Hermas in Latin, Critical Edition of the Oldest Translation Vulgata", 2014, Edited by Christian Tornau and Paolo Cecconi).

p.8 "The translation "Palatina" is conventionally dated in the 5th century; its terminus ante quem is provided by a quotation of Sim.IX,15 in the Vita Sanctae Genovefae (ca. 520 A.D.). Arguing from linguistic phenomena, such as the occurrence of the preposition inante, the last editor, Anna Vezzoni, suggested Gaul as its place of origin."

p.9 "A. Carlini has argued that the Palatina translator followed a shorter version of the text that was close to the Codex Sinaiticus and the
Papyrus Bodmer 38, whereas the codex Athous Grigoriou 96 and the Vulgata represent a different, longer text of the Visions."

but (p.10) ...... re Vis.II,1,3: λάβε, φησίν, αὐτὸ καὶ ἀποδώσεις μοι A; λάβε, φησίν, καὶ ἀποδώσεις μοι Sc; accipe inquit et restitues mihi eum Vul; om. S Bo Pal : the correction in the Codex Sinaiticus (S) proves that the longer Latin version was also present in the Greek tradition.

p.9 "What seems certain at least to us is that the translator or translators of
the Palatina had a Greek text before him or them throughout
and that they more or
less carefully checked their new Latin text by comparing it with the Greek version
they knew. This, we think, is proven by the simple fact that the Palatina translates
several passages from the Greek that are absent from the Vulgata and that the omissions
in the latter cannot always be explained as textual corruptions.
Hence we must
always reckon with the possibility that differences between the two Latin versions are
caused by a different Greek text
; it would be rash to treat the Palatina as just another
witness of the Vulgata text."

p.10 "The importance of the Vulgata as a witness of the text of the Shepherd is generally acknowledged, although its exact relation to the Greek tradition is not easy to determine. In some cases it confirms the reading of the codex Athous Grigoriou 96 (A) against the other witnesses:"
 
You should read Tischendorf on Maximo directly,
I have a Google translate of the relevant part of:

HERMAE PASTOR
GRAECE
EX
FRAGMENTIS LIPSIENSIBUS
INSTITUTA QUAESTIONE
DE
VERO GRAECI TEXTUS LIPSIENSIS FONTE .
EDIDIT
AENOTH . FRID., CONSTANT . TISCHENDORF
1856

What Tischendorf initially wrote is nigh on unintelligible to the average reader, excepting "there is no room for Maximus". That's not a good argument, as it is now an argument ex silentio. No-one takes any notice of this today, for when Tischendorf made it, it was attended by additional assumptions regarding the nefariousness of Simonides respecting his supposed fabrication of the first three leaves of the Mt. Athos Greek manuscript of Hermas, that proved in the end to be misconceived, when it was realized that they were genuine. So Simonides had not availed himself of the Palatina Latin or some version to fabricate his Greek manuscript, as was first thought,

So why do you persist in this nonsense. If you've got a real argument to make, make it plain English. Stop making spurious references to the validity of Tischendorf's objections.
______________

"It is written in Greek: Ερεϊς όθ Μαξίμω - Ιδού &λίψις ερχεται. But in the end, what does Maximus want for himself, since throughout the whole book there is no room for Maximus? What was the matter, seems to have been concealed by Simonides, or rather by Simonides' learned assistant at Lipsiense: for their work was stored and later also published : knowing that there is no need for Oedipus to explain Maximus. The popular Latin text has: "And you shall say: Behold, great (Vat. cod. Behold, great) tribulation is coming." From this the light that shines on the Greek lesson will be enough for a little more curious inquirer. However, let us not lack anything to explain the matter and to convince the unbelievers themselves, Pal. The codex - that which I already shared with R. Anger, a very learned man, almost two months ago - not only provides "The maxima ecce" , but the very defect of the Greek text, as witnessed by Albert Dressel, very accurately precedes it in this way: "You say to Maximus. Behold, trouble has come."

"If these things are so, no one doubts that we have obtained from the fragments of Simonides a Greek text, with which someone in the Middle Ages, translating Latin, endeavored to compensate for the lost Greek of the same, which is attributed to Hermas."

________________

Graece scriptum est: Ερεϊς όθ Μαξίμω - Ιδού &λίψις ερχεται. At quid tandem Maximus iste sibi vult, quum per totum librum nulli Maximo locus sit? Quid rei esset, latuisse videtur Simonidem, vel potius doctum Simonidis adiutorem Lipsiensem: eorum enim opera repositum atque post etiam editum est: *Ερεϊς δε* ίδον ΰλίψις έρχεται μεγάλη βφόδρα, quo cognito ad „Maximum44 explicandum non opus est Oedipo. Vulgatus textus Latinus habet: „Dices autem: Ecce magna (Vat. cod. Magna ecce) tribulatio venit. Inde quae Graecae lectioni lux affulget, paullo curiosius inquirenti iam satis erit. Ne tamen quicquam ad explanandam rem et ad persuadendum ipsis incredulis nobis desit, Pal. codex — id quod iam ante hos duo fere menses cum R. Anger viro doctissimo communicavi — non modo „Maxima ecce praebet, sed ipsum vitium Graeci textus, teste AJberto Dressel, accuratissime praeit hunc in modum: „Dicis .autem maximo. Ecce tribulatio supervenit.

Quae quum ita sint, nullus dubito quin Simonideis fragmentis Graecum textum nacti simus eum, quo quis aetate media vertens Latina deperditum Graecum ipsius qui fertur Hermae compensare studuerit.
 
Last edited:
Not an answer to my question.
Here is what you had posted.

"We have a Sinaiticus. We have a King James Translation. The two do not reconcile in many places. What do you make of that?

We have a Greek manuscript, Sinaiticus, that was written sometime in the 4th century. We have an English translation, the KJV, written in the early 17th century. The latter does not accurately reflect the former in many places. What do you make of that?

We have Greek manuscript that was written 13 centuries before the KJV. The KJV was translated in ignorance of Sinaiticus' existence. There are scores of differences between the two. What do you make of that?



I did not say the KJV was translated from SC. I simply said there are scores of differences where it does not render the SC accurately. There are scores of places where it doesn't render the TR accurately, either, but all I am currently asking about is the SC. It is NOT a red herring. If you can't/don't/won't answer the question I will take that as an opportunity for you to learn something. Otherwise, just answer the question asked because it's you're arguing the disparity to avoid answering the question that is the red herring."


Here is what I replied, "'I'm not KJO, but I'll answer the question very simply: the KJV is not based upon Sinaiticus (or Vaticanus, for that matter), so it's not surprising that there are different readings. Incidentally, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus also differ from each other, in thousands of places.".

I fail to see how that is, allegedly, not an answer to your question. It's not a detailed answer, to be sure, but it does give the basic reason for the differences.

If the KJV had been translated from Sinaiticus and/or Vaticanus, then the large number of differences between them would have been surprising; but, as it was not translated from them, and since Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are chock full of copyists errors, the discrepancies are completely unsurprising.

I would say that the main reason (although not the only one) for the differences between Sinaiticus and the KJV, is the huge number of errors in Sinaiticus. That is not to say that the KJV is perfect (it certainly isn't), but it is leaps and bounds better than Sinaiticus.

The transmission of the NT text went like this: excellent, earliest copies of the autographs were passed around the congregations, they were heavily used, wore out, and meticulously copied. This resulted in a large body of trustworthy manuscripts, so that aberrant ones would be noticed and left unused. This means that we should not expect very early manuscripts to be reliable, by and large, because, if they had been, they would have worn out and been copied. There is not one known copy that has been made from Sinaiticus; and, it probably owes its survival apart from the fact that it was in an arid atmosphere (Egypt), to not being used much, because it was so unreliable.

Generally speaking, we should expect the majority readings to be the correct ones, not deviant readings found in only a tiny handful of ancient manuscripts, which would have worn out by now, if they been trustworthy. Regarding this, most of the Greek minority readings found in the TR are in the majority of Latin manuscripts (of which there are over 8,000), and are supported by other evidence, which is often not the case with minority readings found in the so-called "Critical Text".
 
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."

Thanks for putting this in context.
 
If he was right, why did he resile from it, and why are you so ready to credit this one thing that Tischendorf did, but not anything else?

Because this is what old men with no education, no intelligence, no hobbies and no
One of the most interesting comments from Dirk Jongkind:

Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (2007)
Dirk Jongkind



And Dirk Jongkind on the question of missing lines was also referenced by Mark Randall James:

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

The Rubrication of the Psalms in Codex Sinaiticus (2015)
Mark Randall James
https://www.academia.edu/20044552/The_Rubrication_of_the_Psalms_in_Codex_Sinaiticus



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

Missing lines, often with corrections inserting the missing text, are very common in Sinaiticus. And this is not limited to the poetic books. They can tell us about theorized and actual exemplars used in the writing of Sinaiticus.

Notice that this connection can be direct, or indirect:
“or an ancestor further down if the missing lines are an inherited feature”.

Also note that there are actually two different textual relationships that need to be properly delineated.

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

1) the exemplar can line up with the original omission, especially if the line length (and possibly textual features such as similar line endings) is a good fit.

Extra Note:
There can be variable sense-lines or a fixed-line-length in the exemplar relationship. E.g. a drop of 42 letters might come from a fixed-length exemplar of approximately 14, 21 or 42 letters per line.

2) the exemplar can be used directly for the corrections.

Extra Note:
In (2) we may find surprising notes about the textual affinity between certain localized Sinaiticus corrections and a specific extant manuscript. Such a note should always pique the special interest of textual studies. And when a manuscript is used for correction, you would not expect the neighboring text verses to be close-to-identical.

Note also that in (2) it is hardly feasible that the Sinaiticus corrections will have a direct affect on the text of a new manuscript. It is very easy for the exemplar manuscript text to be placed into the correction text of Sinaiticus. If this is discovered, it means that the terminus post quem of the Sinaiticus corrections can be no earlier than the terminus post quem of the correction manuscript. We may need to look closely as to the palaeographic dating of the corrections as well (e.g. as they considered to be part of the original production, or hundreds of years later.)

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

Now, for further context, there are various other elements that can help see these connections. Formatting, rubrication, punctuation, spelling, localized textual agreement, etc. all have the capability of helping or hurting a proposed textual connection. Also you may want to check multiple potential sources in determining a potential fit. Plus the number of textual connections will also be a factor.

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

There has been very little study, analysis or discussion about the larger missing text spots in Sinaiticus. And I have never seen a breakdown of the two quite different relationships above, (1) and (2).


All this cutting and pasting and quoting and you don’t bother to mention Jongkind has zero problem with a fourth century date.

It is hilarious to watch you flop around like a fish out of water going to extreme lengths to not mention certain points (which you find significant when it is others) and yet you always avoid the fact these factoids you come up with don’t necessitate to the conclusion you insist.

It’s almost like you don’t know the first thing about methodology at all. What am I saying “almost like”, LOL, you DON’T.
 
However, he gave a chronology defense of that view that is factually incorrect.

Nothing more than your opinion.

And an unqualified opinion (as pointed out by Unbound68)


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.
 
Quite obvious. Sinaiticus posed a problem. Tischendorf's accusations against the 1856 Athous text as earky would be applied to the Sinaiticus manuscripts. (Where Sinaiticus had text, and that text agreed with Athous.)

So Tischendorf gave awkward, clumsy, pseudo-retractions, and never addressed the actual facts that are in his arguments.

Emotive propaganda.
 
As Tischendorf points out, the Palatine retro-version explains the Athous-Sinaiticus Greek text.

So there is no reason to leave the Vulgata for an imaginary person.

In your scenario, with the imaginary person, there is no sensible explanation for the Vulgata text.

It makes sense, when put in context (as Cjab did) which is something you are notorious for not doing, i.e. puting things in context.
 
Last edited:
According to whom? You and your circular "Sinaiticus is 19th century" theory?

According to whom is he wrong?

He's trapped in the Simonides circularity conundrum.

I.e. trying to prove Simonides >>> IS <<< a liar and a forger and parricidal nut job, while simultaneously trying to prove Simonides >>> IS NOT <<< a liar and a forger and parricidal nut job...................
 
Plus anything he said after 1859 is of little value, since at that point it became necessary to protect Sinaiticus, and he changed positions. It looks like Sypridon Lambros did not take that into account.

More/wider context (i.e. manuscript discovery context) is available today to draw conclusions from...if I'm not mistaken is Cjab's point.

Too shay...

You have to ignore the modern research and wider context providing manuscript discoveries in order to hold to your KJVO Athous conspiracy ✌️historical imperative✌️in order to protect the King James Bible ✌️imperative✌️.
 
What does the (alleged) forgery have to do with KJVOism?
From "Is The "World's Oldest Bible" A Fake?" by David W. Daniels -

"So it’s forcing me to think that the Sinaiticus is a sham, a modern counterfeit, and that it is part of an agenda. (pg. 80, Kindle edition)

"Of course, I have no horse in this race. I don’t believe Sinaiticus is God’s words. This discovery [that some pages are darker than others] is simply more evidence that the Alexandrian stream of manuscripts is polluted with fakery as well as the omissions, discrepancies, and doctrinal distortions pointed out in my previous books and videos. I’ve got nothing to lose by finding all this out. But there are people who have a great deal to lose. Modern Bible Societies and publishers translate, produce, and print almost every Bible in the world, and they teach that the Sinaiticus was a real, ancient Bible." (ibid.)


New World Order.
One World Bible.
Jesuits.
Vatican.
Displacement of the TR.

This is why KJVOs like Steven Avery -- who assisted Daniels in "research" for the work cited from above -- push the preposterous theory that one of the two mss that go against various readings of the KJV was a forged manuscript written in the 19th century.

It's all about maintaining his KJVOism and disparaging anyone and anything that might supplant his idol.
 
Last edited:
And that is your problem, which no amount of inflating the value of Tischendorf's initial argument will ever solve. You refuse to address it. Why? Just stop endlessly repeating yourself and deal with the issue of why modern scholarship has discounted Donaldson's argument as worthless. You can't seem to be able to grasp the wider picture because you're driven by the need to attack Tischendorf. You need to address mordern scholarship if you are to make any valid point. Your argument may satisfy your votaries, but find me any reputable scholar who credits it with value.

Exactly.
 
Back
Top