Constantine Simonides and Codex Siniaticus - details of the lengthy process and protocols Tischendorf followed to acquire the Codex Siniaticus

[cjab]

Looks like Schneller writes whatever is convenient.
The “generally recognized” I’ll plan on its own post.

The “no question of a chapter division …. not a single paragraph” is total nonsense, for both manuscripts.

WIkipedia begs to disagree with you. You need to note the meaning of the word "division" by Schneller. That's not to say there aren't sundry division marks or paragraphos in both manuscripts, but these bear little relation to anything in later manuscripts.

Codex Vaticanus. "The Greek lettering in the Codex is written continuously in small and neat letters.[11] All the letters are equidistant from each other; no word is separated from the other, with each line appearing to be one long word.[12]: 262–263  Punctuation is rare (accents and breathings have been added by a later hand) except for some blank spaces, diaeresis on initial iotas and upsilons, abbreviations of the nomina sacra and markings of OT citations.[11] The first letter of a new chapter sometimes protrudes a little from the column.[11] The OT citations were marked by an inverted comma or diplai (>).[11] There are no enlarged initials; no stops or accents; no divisions into chapters or sections such as are found in later manuscripts.[13]"

Codex Sinaiticus: Throughout the New Testament portion, the words are written in scriptio continua (words without any spaces in between them) in the hand-writing style that came to be called "biblical uncial" or "biblical majuscule". The parchment was ruled with a sharp point to prepare for writing lines. The letters are written along these lines, with neither breathings nor polytonic accents (markings utilised to indicate changes of pitch or emphasis).[12] A variety of types of punctuation are used: high and middle points; colon; diaeresis on initial iota and upsilon; a few ligatures are used, along with the paragraphos: initial letter into margin (extent of this varies considerably).

 

[Steven Avery]

WIkipedia begs to disagree with you. You need to note the meaning of the word "division" by Schneller. That's not to say there aren't sundry division marks or paragraphos in bo

Your Sinaiticus section does not touch on the issue.

Schneller compared Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to "all the other earliest manuscripts, those in Paris, Rome, London, Dublin, Wolfenbüttel," so he was not talking about later things like the Stephen Langton chapters or the Stephanus chapters and verses, which none of those earliest manuscript could have.

If you can explain what was in "all the other earliest manuscripts" that was not in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, I will listen intently.

Keep in mind that a person could claim that divisions in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were not in the original hand. This is covering, however, many different divisions and you would also have to show that they were post-scriptorium/monastery to have any impact. And no such distinction was made by Schneller.

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

And I would not trust that Gregory reference to be accurate.

Codex Vaticanus. "There are no enlarged initials; no stops or accents; no divisions into chapters or sections such as are found in later manuscripts.[13]"

Gregory, Caspar René (1907). Canon and Text of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's sons. p. 343.
http://books.google.com/books?id=guU2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA343

Here is what Gregory actually says:



So the Wikipedia text you are using to try to "explain" Schneller is junque.

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

 

[cjab]

Your Sinaiticus section does not touch on the issue.

Schneller compared Sinaiticus and Vaticanus to "all the other earliest manuscripts, those in Paris, Rome, London, Dublin, Wolfenbüttel," so he was not talking about later things like the Stephen Langton chapters or the Stephanus chapters and verses, which none of those earliest manuscript could have.

If you can explain what was in "all the other earliest manuscripts" that was not in Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, I will listen intently.

Keep in mind that a person could claim that divisions in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were not in the original hand. This is covering, however, many different divisions and you would also have to show that they were post-scriptorium/monastery to have any impact. And no such distinction was made by Schneller.

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

And I would not trust that Gregory reference to be accurate.



Gregory, Caspar René (1907). Canon and Text of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's sons. p. 343.
http://books.google.com/books?id=guU2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA343

Here is what Gregory actually says:

View attachment 4267

So the Wikipedia text you are using to try to "explain" Schneller is junque.

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

It is true there are "shortened lines" common to all the ancient codices, which serve as markers.

And I said above, there are sundry margin markers (letters which extend over the margin), i.e. paragraphos, and in Vaticanus especially for Acts which, by such margin marks, is divided into "chapters."

As you have pointed out the Pauline epistles "that do not begin afresh with each epistle" and are delineated by "chapter nos" in Vaticanus.

See here: Catholic Enclycopedia - Vaticanus.

"In the Vatican Codex we find neither the Ammonian Sections nor the Eusebian Canons. It is, however, divided into sections, after a manner that is common to it with the Codex Zacynthius (Cod. "Zeta"), an eighth-century Scriptural manuscript of St. Luke. The Acts of the Apostles exhibits a special division into thirty-six chapters. The Catholic Epistles bear traces of a double division, in the first and earlier of which some believe that the Second Epistle of Peter was wanting. The division of the Pauline Epistles is quite peculiar: they are treated as one book, and numbered continuously. It is clear from this enumeration that in the copy of the Scriptures reproduced by the Vatican Codex the Epistle to the Hebrews was placed between the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Ephesians."

______________

But I think you're digressing wide of the mark. Schneller's book wasn't written for academics, and he wasn't interested in such minutae. It is clear there was nothing comparable to the modern chapter & paragraph divisions of modern bibles in these ancient codices. Tischendorf's own prolegomena to Vaticanus (& Sinaiticus) gives this subject, and punctuation in general, an academic treatment. And it is, for the most part, sporadic and inconsistent, and made more complex by the fact that Vaticanus and Sinaiticus have been subjected to numerous later corrections.

 

[Steven Avery]

See here: Catholic Enclycopedia - Vaticanus. .... The Catholic Epistles bear traces of a double division, in the first and earlier of which some believe that the Second Epistle of Peter was wanting. The division of the Pauline Epistles is quite peculiar: they are treated as one book, and numbered continuously. It is clear from this enumeration that in the copy of the Scriptures reproduced by the Vatican Codex the Epistle to the Hebrews was placed between the Epistle to the Galatians and the Epistle to the Ephesians."

So if that is a sign of an early manuscript, then Sinaiticus is not an early manuscript.

 

[Steven Avery]

But I think you're digressing wide of the mark. Schneller's book wasn't written for academics, and he wasn't interested in such minutae. It is clear there was nothing comparable to the modern chapter & paragraph divisions of modern bibles in these ancient codices.

However, that would be true for every manuscript of the first millennium, and into the second. And Schneller specifically said he was contrasting Sinaiticus and Vaticanus with early manuscripts.

"all the other earliest manuscripts, those in Paris, Rome, London, Dublin, Wolfenbüttel,"

He was either ignorant on the topic or an incompetent thinker and writer.

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

You are welcome to include whatever Tischendorf wrote, that Schneller did not understand. You might find an emphasis on the first hand (prima manu or manus) for the Eusebian sections. That would allow the comparison, possibly, of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus to other early manuscripts.

 

[Steven Avery]

On the comparative antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts of the Greek Bible (1888, originally 1872)
Ezra Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=MZcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA142

The Eusebian sections are not in the Sinaitic MS. a prima manu, though they may, as Tischendorf supposes, have been added by a contemporary scribe. In that case, the MS. may still be older than the middle of the fourth century; for Eusebius died about A.D. 340. It is curious to see how Scrivener contradicts himself on this matter in a single page (Collation, etc., p. xxxvii).

So this does not really help, in terms of antiquity, as a contemporary scribe is the same time as the original scribes.

On p. 141, Abbot refers to a chapter section system shared between Vaticanus and Zacynthius. This is not the only connection of Vaticanus and Zacynthius and would support a much later terminus ante quem for Vaticanus of c. AD 800 or later.

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

Scrivener's page is here:

A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Testament: to which is prefixed a critical introduction by F. H. Scrivener (1864)
https://books.google.com/books?id=AuBUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA7

Not sure what is the contradiction, but he does mention rubrics, which are part of the sophisticated formatting of the Song of Songs that really is not sensible with an early 4th or 5th century date.

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

 

[cjab]

On p. 141, Abbot refers to a chapter section system shared between Vaticanus and Zacynthius. This is not the only connection of Vaticanus and Zacynthius and would support a much later terminus ante quem for Vaticanus of c. AD 800 or later.

I am not familiar with this, but I see from Wiki that Codex Zacynthius has been redated to the 6th century. "This date is accepted by the majority of scholars."

I note Abbott says on p.141 "But the Sinaitic has no division into chapters at all , a prima manu."

This suggests that Sinaiticus may be older.

 

[Steven Avery]

I am not familiar with this, but I see from Wiki that Codex Zacynthius has been redated to the 6th century. "This date is accepted by the majority of scholars."
I note Abbott says on p.141 "But the Sinaitic has no division into chapters at all , a prima manu."
This suggests that Sinaiticus may be older.

The divisions and accents in the first seven pages of Matthew have been subject to changing theories as to date and first hand.

If in fact none of the chapter divisions are first hand, that basically eliminates their common use as an argument against the Mt. Athos production. They, and the Arabic notes, were not mentioned by Uspensky (who noticed cola et commata as a dating argument) and were likely added after 1850, before the staining. That would fit the manuscript history to a “T”.

Remember, even Stanley Porter discussed Tischendorf helping along the manuscript features.

==========

Would Tischendorf have had the colophons strategically placed onot the CFA? They certainly added cachet to the manuscript and he was quite familiar with their influence on manuscript studies.

If they were already there in 1844, his theft was incredibly strategic to get the twocolophons at rage end of the supposedly random leaves.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The divisions and accents in the first seven pages of Matthew have been subject to changing theories as to date and first hand.

If in fact none of the chapter divisions are first hand, that basically eliminates their common use as an argument against the Mt. Athos production. They, and the Arabic notes, were not mentioned by Uspensky (who noticed cola et commata as a dating argument) and were likely added after 1850, before the staining. That would fit the manuscript history to a “T”.

Remember, even Stanley Porter discussed Tischendorf helping along the manuscript features.

==========

Would Tischendorf have had the colophons strategically placed onot the CFA? They certainly added cachet to the manuscript and he was quite familiar with their influence on manuscript studies.

If they were already there in 1844, his theft was incredibly strategic to get the twocolophons at rage end of the supposedly random leaves.

Uspensky had enough insight to say (in effect - not his exact words) that scholar's should come and study the Arabic manuscripts at Mt Sinai, being the largest collection he knew of, to get a better understanding of (get this!) Arabic paleography...

Something I suggested you do to prove the late date of the Arabic Notes...and yet what do we see from you? Any serious attempts? In depth studies? Peer reviewed papers?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Here's the Google Translate of what he said exactly:

"The existence of Arabic, Syrian and Georgian manuscripts in the Sinai monastery, written in different places and in different centuries, from the ninth to the seventeenth, proves that Orthodox monks and Christians came to worship and lived in this monastery, speaking Arabic, Syrian and Georgian. So, not only Athos, but also Sinai is a place of the whole people. Orientalists should go here to study the centuries-old Arabic writing and to compile Arabic paleography, which has not yet appeared anywhere else."​

Interesting comment, isn't it.

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes, it is interesting, especially when you see how hesitant the scholars are to try to give insightful comments on the Arabic notes.

I mean, the first one I clicked on randomly looked almost identical to the Arabic notes in the Sinaiticus in Revelation...

Still waiting.

The look very similar to the Arabic Notes on the Vienna Dioscurides.

This claim you abandoned, quite understandably.