Codex Sinaiticus Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.Anti-spam check. Do not fill this in! === Early history === ==== Provenance ==== Little is known of the manuscript's early history. According to Hort, it was written in the West, probably in Rome, as suggested by the fact that the chapter division in the Acts of the Apostles common to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus occurs in no other Greek manuscript, but is found in several manuscripts of the Latin [[Vulgate]].<ref>Brook F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort, ''Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek'' (New York: Harper & Bros., 1882; reprint, Peabody, Mass.: Hendrickson, 1988), pp. 264–267.</ref> [[Armitage Robinson|Robinson]] countered this argument, suggesting that this system of chapter divisions was introduced into the Vulgate by [[Jerome]] himself, as a result of his studies at [[Early centers of Christianity#Caesarea|Caesarea]].<ref>Robinson, A., ''Euthaliana'', pp. 42, 101.</ref> According to [[Frederic G. Kenyon|Kenyon]] the forms of the letters are Egyptian and they were found in Egyptian papyri of earlier date.{{r|Kenyon|p=128}} [[Victor Gardthausen|Gardthausen]],<ref>{{Cite book | first=Victor | last=Gardthausen | author-link=Victor Gardthausen | title=Griechische paleographie | volume=2 | pages=124–125 | year=1913 | publisher=Verlag von Veit & Co. | location=Leipzig | language=de | url=https://archive.org/details/griechischepaleo02gard }}</ref> Ropes and [[Sidney Jellicoe|Jellicoe]] thought it was written in [[Egypt]]. Biblical scholar [[J. Rendel Harris]] believed that the manuscript came from the [[Theological Library of Caesarea Maritima|library of Pamphilus]] at Caesarea Maritima.{{r|Kenyon|p=128}} [[Burnett Hillman Streeter|Streeter]],{{r|Streeter}} Skeat, and Milne also believed that it was produced in Caesarea.{{r|Skeat-lastchap}} ==== Date ==== The codex can be dated with a reasonable degree of confidence between the early fourth century and the early fifth century.<ref name="nongbri">{{Cite journal | first=Brent | last=Nongbri | title=The Date of Codex Sinaiticus | journal=Journal of Theological Studies | volume=73 | year=2022 | issue=2 | pages=516–534 | doi=10.1093/jts/flac083 | doi-access=free}}</ref> It could not have been written before about 325 because it contains the [[Eusebian Canons]], which is a ''[[terminus post quem]]''. The ''terminus ante quem'' is less certain. Milne and Skeat relied on small cursive notes to assert that the date of the production of the codex was not likely to be much later than about 360.{{r|Metzger-Palaeo}} More recent research suggests that these cursive notes could be as late as the early fifth century.{{r|nongbri}} Tischendorf theorized that Codex Sinaiticus was one of the [[Fifty Bibles of Constantine|fifty copies of the Bible]] commissioned from [[Eusebius of Caesarea|Eusebius]] by [[Roman emperor]] [[Constantine I (emperor)|Constantine]] after his conversion to Christianity (''De vita Constantini'', IV, 37).<ref>{{Cite book | first=Ira Maurice | last=Price | title=The Ancestry of Our English Bible an Account of Manuscripts, Texts and Versions of the Bible | page=146 | year=1923 | publisher=Sunday School Times Co. | location=Philadelphia | url=https://archive.org/details/cu31924029271595/page/n9/mode/2up}}</ref> This hypothesis was supported by [[Pierre Batiffol]].<ref>Pierre Batiffol, ''Codex Sinaiticus'', in DB. 1, 1883–1886.</ref> Gregory and Skeat believed that it was already in production when Constantine placed his order, but had to be suspended in order to accommodate different page dimensions.{{r|Skeat-lastchap}} [[Frederic G. Kenyon]] argued: "There is not the least sign of either of them ever having been at Constantinople. The fact that Sinaiticus was collated with the manuscript of Pamphilus so late as the sixth century seems to show that it was not originally written at Caesarea".<ref>{{Cite book | first=Frederic G. | last=Kenyon | title=Handbook to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament | page=83 | year=1912 | publisher=Macmillan & Co. | location=London | url=https://archive.org/details/handbooktotextua00keny/page/n7/mode/2up}}</ref> ==== Scribes and correctors ==== Tischendorf believed four separate scribes copied the work (whom he named A, B, C and D), and five correctors amended portions (whom he designated a, b, c, d and e). He posited one of the correctors was contemporaneous with the original scribes, and the others worked during the sixth and seventh centuries. After Milne and Skeat's reinvestigation, it is now agreed Tischendorf was incorrect, as scribe C never existed.{{r|scribes-corr|p=22–50}} According to Tischendorf, scribe C wrote the poetic books of the Old Testament. These are written in a different format from the rest of the manuscript – they appear in two columns (the rest of books is in four columns), written stichometrically. Tischendorf probably interpreted the different formatting as indicating the existence of another scribe.{{r|Jongkind|p=22–50, 12–13}} The three remaining scribes are still identified by the letters Tischendorf gave them: A, B, and D.{{r|Jongkind|pp=22–50, 12–13}} There were in fact more correctors, with at least seven (a, b, c, ca, cb, cc, e).{{r|Aland}} Modern analysis identifies three scribes: * Scribe A wrote most of the historical and poetical books of the Old Testament; almost the whole of the New Testament; and the Epistle of Barnabas * Scribe B was responsible for the Prophets and for the Shepherd of Hermas * Scribe D wrote the whole of Tobit and Judith; the first half of 4 Maccabees; the first two-thirds of the Psalms; and the first five verses of Revelation Scribe B was a poor speller, and scribe A was not much better; the best scribe was D.{{r|Jongkind|p=90}} Metzger states: "scribe A had made some unusually serious mistakes".{{r|Metzger-Palaeo}} Scribes A and B used ''nomina sacra'' in contracted forms most often (ΠΝΕΥΜΑ contracted in all occurrences, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ contracted except in 2 occurrences), whereas scribe D mostly used the uncontracted forms.{{r|Jongkind|pp=77–78}} Scribe D distinguished between sacral and nonsacral uses of ΚΥΡΙΟΣ.{{r|Jongkind|pp=80–81}} His spelling errors are the substitution of ΕΙ for Ι, and Ι for ΕΙ in medial positions, both equally common. Otherwise substitution of Ι for initial ΕΙ is unknown, and final ΕΙ is only replaced in the word ΙΣΧΥΕΙ. The confusion of Ε and ΑΙ is very rare.{{r|Jongkind|p=90}} In the Book of Psalms, this scribe has ΔΑΥΕΙΔ instead of ΔΑΥΙΔ 35 times, while scribe A normally uses an abbreviated form {{overline|ΔΑΔ}}.{{r|scribes-corr|p=94}} Scribe A made the most phonetic errors: confusion of Ε and ΑΙ occurs in all contexts.{{r|Jongkind|p=90}} Milne and Skeat characterised scribe B as "careless and illiterate".{{r|scribes-corr|pp=53–55}} The work of the original scribe is designated by the [[siglum]] {{larger|{{script|Hebr|[[א]]}}}}*.{{r|Aland}} [[File:Caesarea Maritima BW 2010-09-23 09-26-26 stitch.jpg|thumb|In the sixth or seventh century, the codex may have been housed at Caesarea]] A [[Palaeography|paleographical]] study at the [[British Museum]] in 1938 found the text had undergone several corrections. The first corrections were done by several scribes before the manuscript left the scriptorium.{{r|metz-ehrman|pp=65–68}} Readings which they introduced are designated by the siglum {{larger|{{script|Hebr|א}}}}<sup>a</sup>.{{r|metz-ehrman|pp=66–67}} Milne and Skeat have observed the superscription to 1 Maccabees was made by scribe D, while the text was written by scribe A.{{r|scribes-corr|p=33}} Scribe D corrects his own work and that of scribe A, but scribe A limits himself to correcting his own work.{{r|Jongkind|p=44}} In the sixth or seventh century, many alterations were made ({{larger|{{script|Hebr|א}}}}<sup>b</sup>) – according to a [[colophon (book)|colophon]] at the end of the book of [[Esdras]] and [[Book of Esther|Esther]], the source of these alterations was "a very ancient manuscript that had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr [[Pamphilus of Caesarea|Pamphylus]]" ([[martyr]]ed in 309). If this is so, material beginning with [[1 Samuel]] to the end of Esther is Origen's copy of the [[Hexapla]]. From this colophon, the corrections are concluded to have been made in [[Caesarea Maritima]] in the sixth or seventh centuries.{{r|metz-ehrman|pp=66–67}} The pervasive [[iotacism]], especially of the {{lang|grc|ει}} diphthong, remains uncorrected.<ref name="Gregory">{{Cite book | last=Gregory | first=Caspar René | author-link=Caspar René Gregory | title=Textkritik des Neuen Testaments | volume=1 | publisher=J.C. Hinrichs | year=1900 | location=Leipzig | url=https://archive.org/stream/textkritikdesne00greggoog#page/n31/mode/2up|access-date=18 March 2010 |language=de }}</ref>{{rp|19}} Summary: Please note that all contributions to Christianpedia may be edited, altered, or removed by other contributors. If you do not want your writing to be edited mercilessly, then do not submit it here. You are also promising us that you wrote this yourself, or copied it from a public domain or similar free resource (see Christianpedia:Copyrights for details). Do not submit copyrighted work without permission! Cancel Editing help (opens in new window) Discuss this page