Codex Sinaiticus
Il Codice Sinaitico o Codex Sinaiticus (Londra, Brit. Libr., Add. 43725;
Gregory-Aland no. א o 01) è un manoscritto in grecoonciale (cioè maiuscolo) datato tra il
330-350. Originariamente conteneva l'intero Antico Testamento nella versione greca dellaSettanta, l'intero Nuovo Testamento, e
altri scritti cristiani (Lettera
di Barnaba, Pastore
di Erma). L'onciale è un'antica scrittura maiuscola usata dal III
all'VIII secolo nei manoscritti dagli amanuensi latini e bizantini; in onciale
sono scritti anche gli altri due codici biblici più antichi: il Codex Vaticanus (IV secolo) ed il Codex
Alexandrinus (V secolo).
Descrizione
Nella sua forma attuale, il codice consta di 346½ fogli di pergamena,
scritti su quattro colonne. di questi, 199 appartengono all'Antico Testamento,
147½ al Nuovo Testamento più la Lettera
di Barnaba e il Pastore
di Erma, due antichi scritti cristiani, presenti però in forma
mutila.
Circa l'AT, il manoscritto ha subito varie mutilazioni, specialmente nei
libri da Genesi ad Esdra. Ciò che rimane è costituito da frammenti di Genesi
23-24; Numeri 5-7; 1 Cronache 9, 27-19,17; Esdra 9,9-10,44; Lamentazioni
1,1-2,20. Integri sono invece i libri di Nehemia, Ester, Gioele, Abdia, Giona,
Naum, Abacuc, Sofonia, Aggeo, Zaccaria, Malachia, Isaia, Geremia. Il
manoscritto contiene anche i testi deuterocanonici di Tobia, Giuditta,
1Maccabei e l'apocrifo 4Maccabei (mentre il codice non ha mai contenuto 2 e 3
Maccabei).
L'ordine dei libri del Nuovo Testamento è vangeli, lettere paoline,
Atti, lettere cattoliche, Apocalisse.
Il testo del Codice Sinaitico in generale assomiglia molto a quello del Codex Vaticanus.
Nell'AT il testo del Sinaitico è più simile a quello del Codex
Alexandrinus.
Storia
Le origini del Codex Sinaiticus sono poco conosciute. Si è ipotizzato
che sia stato scritto in Egitto. Qualcuno lo ha associato alle 50 copie della
Bibbia commissionate dall'imperatore romano Costantino I dopo la sua (probabile) conversione
al cristianesimo.
Uno studio paleografico compiuto sul testo nel 1938 al British Museum ha
mostrato che il testo è stato oggetto di molte correzioni. Le prime risalgono a
un periodo immediatamente successivo alla sua stesura, nel IV secolo. Altre
correzioni risalgono al VI-VII secolo, realizzate probabilmente a Cesarea, in
Palestina[1]. Secondo
una nota presente alla fine dei libri di Esdra ed Ester, tali alterazioni sono
state fatte sulla base di un altro antico manoscritto il quale fu corretto
dalla mano del santo martire Panfilo (martirizzato nel 309).
Ritrovamento
Il Codex Sinaiticus fu ritrovato da Konstantin von Tischendorf presso il Monastero di Santa Caterina sul Monte Sinai, in Egitto, tra il 1844 e il 1859.
Durante il primo viaggio presso il monastero, nel 1844, trovò in un
cesto 43 fogli di pergamena contenenti testi di Geremia, Neemia, 1 Cronache ed
Ester. Un monaco gli disse che "erano rifiuti che dovevano essere
distrutti bruciandoli nel forno del monastero".[2] I monaci, diffidenti, pure
conoscendo l'esistenza di altre pagine del Codice, si rifiutarono di fargliele
esaminare. Tischendorf ottenne però in dono i fogli ritrovati che pubblicò in
fac-simile nel 1846. Nel 1853 una seconda spedizione si rivelò infruttuosa,
tranne che per il ritrovamento di due frammenti del Libro della Genesi.
Nel 1859 Tischendorf effettuò una terza visita al convento grazie
all'aiuto dello Zar Alessandro II di Russia, dal quale dipendevano allora
tutti i monasteri greco-ortodossi. Un monaco mostrò allo studioso un
manoscritto che aveva trovato casualmente nella sua cella, nascosto tra vari
oggetti. Si trattava di un'altra parte del Codice, contenente gran parte
dell'AT e tutto il NT con l'Epistola di Barnaba e parte del Pastore d'Erma.
Tischendorf che non era riuscito a convincere i monaci a lasciargli il
manoscritto iniziò a trascriverlo nel Monastero stesso. Successivamente riuscì
a farselo inviare al Cairo in un altro monastero greco-ortodosso per continuare
a copiare il testo. Infine Von Tischendorf riuscì a far 'regalare' il
manoscritto allo Zar, dietro a un compenso di 9000 rubli. [3] Nonostante questo pagamento, il
Codice è attualmente considerato dal monastero come rubato, un punto di vista
contestato da molti studiosi in Europa[4].
Il 13 settembre 1862,
in un articolo apparso su The Guardian, il celebre
falsario Costantino Simonidis affermò di essere il vero autore del "Codex
Sinaiticus" e di averlo scritto sul Monte Athos nel 1839; lo definì
"l'unico povero lavoro della sua giovinezza". Affermò anche di avere
visitato il Sinai nel 1852 e di avere visto qui il suo codice. Simonidis
dichiarò di avere realizzato il Codex Sinaiticus su incarico dello Zar di
Russia (Nicola I, defunto nel 1855). Egli fu incarcerato per questa sua affermazione
e il mondo accademico non gli credette (salvo poche eccezioni). Tuttavia
rimangono dubbi sull'autenticità del "Sinaiticus" (per la spinosa
questione si veda ad esempio il volume di Mark Jones "Fake? The art of
deception", British Museum, 1990).
Nel maggio 1975, durante dei lavori di ristrutturazione nel monastero,
venne scoperta una camera sotto la cappella di san Giorgio, nella quale erano
contenuti molti frammenti pergamenacei tra cui 12 pagine del Codice Sinaitico.
Per diversi decenni il codice è stato conservato presso la Biblioteca
Nazionale Russa di san Pietroburgo. Nel 1933 l 'Unione Sovietica vendette il codice alla British Library per 100,000 sterline.
Il codice è attualmente diviso in 4 porzioni ineguali: 347 fogli sono
presso la British Library a Londra; 12 fogli e 14 frammenti (a
cui bisogna aggiungere un frammento individuato da uno studente greco tra la
rilegatura di un manoscritto del XVIII secolo) [5] sono presso il monastero di Santa Caterina; 43 fogli sono
nella Biblioteca della Università
di Lipsia; frammenti di 3 fogli sono presso la Biblioteca Nazionale Russa di San Pietroburgo.
Critica testuale
Il manoscritto manca della Pericope dell'adultera (Vangelo secondo Giovanni 8,1-11) e di Matteo 16,2b-3.
Originariamente mancava anche dei versetti relativi all'agonia di Gesù al Getsemani (Vangelo secondo Luca 22:43-44), che fu poi
successivamente introdotta da una seconda mano.
Note
1.
^ Bruce Metzger, The Text of the New Testament, its
Transmission, Corruption and Restorationtt, Oxford University Press, 1992, p.
46.
2. ^ Skeat, T. C.,
"The Last Chapter in the History of the Codex Sinaiticus." Novum
Testamentum. Vol. 42, Fasc. 3, Jul., 2000. p. 313
3.
^ Vedi Constantin von Tischendorf,
The Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript, Extract from Constantin von Tischendorf, When Were Our Gospels
Written? An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of the
Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript [New York
4.
^ Vedi
Ihor Ševčenko's article 'New Documents on Tischendorf and the Codex
Sinaiticus', published in the journal Scriptorium, xviii (1964) pp
55-80."
Bruce A. Metzger, The Text
of the New Testament: its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, Oxford University
5. ^ Egitto, scoperto in una biblioteca un frammento della
Bibbia più antica - esteri - Repubblica.it
Codex
Sinaiticus
Codex Sinaiticus (Hebrew: קודקס
סינאיטיקוס, Greek: Σιναϊτικός Κώδικας;
Shelfmarks and references: London, Brit. Libr., Additional Manuscripts 43725; Gregory-Aland nº א [Aleph]
or 01, [Soden δ 2]) is one of the four great uncial codices, an
ancient, handwritten copy of the Greek Bible.[1] The
codex is considered a priceless historical treasure.[2]
The codex is an Alexandrian text-type manuscript written in the 4th century
in uncial letters on
parchment. Current scholarship considers the Codex Sinaiticus to be one of the
best Greek texts of the New Testament,[3] along
with that of the Codex Vaticanus. Until the discovery by Tischendorf of the Sinaiticus text, the Codex
Vaticanus was unrivaled.[4]
The Codex Sinaiticus came to the
attention of scholars in the 19th century at the Greek Orthodox
Monastery of Mount Sinai, with further material discovered in the
20th and 21st centuries. Although parts of the Codex are scattered
across four libraries around the world, most of the manuscript today resides
within the British Library.[3] Since
its discovery, study of the Codex Sinaiticus has proven to be extremely useful
to scholars for the purposes of biblical translation.
Originally, the Codex contained the
whole of both Testaments. Approximately half of the Greek Old Testament (or Septuagint) survived, along with a complete New Testament, plus the Epistle of Barnabas, and
portions of The Shepherd of Hermas.[3]
Description
The codex consists of parchment,
originally in double sheets, which may have measured about 40 by 70 cm . The whole
codex consists, with a few exceptions, of quires of eight
leaves, a format popular throughout the Middle Ages.[5] Each
line of the text has some twelve to fourteen Greek uncial letters, arranged in four columns (48 lines in column)
with carefully chosen line breaks and slightly ragged right edges.[6] When
opened, the eight columns thus presented to the reader have much of the
appearance of the succession of columns in a papyrus roll.[7] The
poetical books of the Old Testament are written stichometrically, in only
two columns per page. The codex has almost 4 000 000 uncial letters.[n 1]
The work was written in scriptio continua with
neither breathings nor polytonic accents.[8] Occasional
points and few ligatures are used, though nomina sacra with overlines are employed throughout. Some words usually abbreviated
in other manuscripts (such as πατηρ and δαυειδ), are in this codex both written
in full and abbreviated forms. The following nomina sacra are written in abbreviated forms: ΘΣ ΚΣ ΙΣΧΣ ΠΝΑ ΠΝΙΚΟΣ ΥΣ ΑΝΟΣ ΟΥΟΣ ΔΑΔ ΙΛΗΜ ΙΣΡΛ ΜΗΡ ΠΗΡ ΣΩΡ.[9]
Almost regularly, a plain iota is replaced by the epsilon-iota
diphthong (commonly if imprecisely known as itacism), e.g. ΔΑΥΕΙΔ instead οf ΔΑΥΙΔ,
ΠΕΙΛΑΤΟΣ instead of ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ, ΦΑΡΕΙΣΑΙΟΙ instead of ΦΑΡΙΣΑΙΟΙ, etc.[10]
Each rectangular page has the
proportions 1.1 to 1, while the block of text has the reciprocal proportions,
0.91 (the same proportions, rotated 90°). If the gutters between the columns
were removed, the text block would mirror the page's proportions. Typographer Robert Bringhurst referred
to the codex as a "subtle piece of craftsmanship".[11]
The folios are made of vellum parchment primarily from calf skins,
secondarily from sheep skins.[12] (Tischendorf
himself thought that the parchment had been made from antelope skins, but
modern microscopic examination has shown otherwise.) Most of the quires or
signatures contain four leaves save two containing five. It is estimated that
about 360 animals were slaughtered for making the folios of this codex,
assuming all animals yielded a good enough skin. As for the cost of the
material, time of scribes and binding, it equals the lifetime wages of one
individual at the time.[13]
The portion of the codex held by the
British Library consists of 346½ folios, 694 pages (38.1 cm x 34.5 cm), constituting
over half of the original work. Of these folios, 199 belong to the Old
Testament, including the apocrypha (deuterocanonical),
and 147½ belong to the New Testament, along with two other books, the Epistle of Barnabas and part of The Shepherd of Hermas.
The apocryphal books present in the surviving part of the Septuagint are 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.[13][14] The
books of the New Testament are arranged in this order: the four Gospels, the epistles of Paul (Hebrews follows 2 Thess.),
the Acts of the Apostles,[n 2] the General Epistles, and the Book of Revelation. The
fact that some parts of the codex are preserved in good condition, while others
are in very poor condition, implies they were separated and stored in several
places.[15]
The codex has been corrected many
thousands of times, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in
existence; see below.
The text of the codex
Contents
The text of the New Testament lacks
several passages:[18]
Omitted verses
§
Gospel of Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9–20 (Long
ending of the Gospel Mark, referring to the appearance of Jesus to many people
following the resurrection)
§
Gospel of John 5:4, Pericope
adulterae (7:53–8:11) (see
Image "John 7:53–8:11"), 16:15, 20:5b-6, 21:25
Omitted phrases
§
Matthew 5:44 εὐλογεῖτε
τοὺς καταρωμὲνους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς (bless those who
curse you, do good to those who hate you);[20]
§
Matthew 6:13 – ὅτι σοῦ ἐστιν ἡ βασιλεία καὶ ἡ δύναμις καὶ ἡ δόξα
εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας. ἀμήν (For thine
is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever. Amen.) omitted.[21]
§
Matthew 10:39a – ο ευρων την ψυχην αυτου απολεσει αυτην, και (Ηe who finds his life will lose it, and);[22]
§
Matthew 20:23 και το βαπτισμα ο εγω βαπτιζομαι βαπτισθησεσθε (and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized
with)[24]
§
Matthew 23:35 – υιου βαραχιου (son of
Barachi'ah) omitted; this omission is supported only by codex 59 (by the first
hand), three Evangelistaria (ℓ 6, ℓ 13, and ℓ 185), and Eusebius.[25]
§
Mark 10:7 –
omitted και προσκολληθησεται προς την
γυναικα αυτου (and be
joined to his wife), as in codices Codex Vaticanus Graecus
1209, Codex Athous Lavrensis, 892, ℓ 48, syrs,
goth.[27]
§
Luke 9:55b-56a – καὶ εἶπεν, Οὐκ οἲδατε ποίου πνεύματος ἐστε ὑμεις; ὁ γὰρ υἱὸς τοῦ ἀνθρώπου
οὐκ ἦηλθεν ψυχὰς ἀνθρώπων ἀπολέσαι ἀλλὰ σῶσαι (and He said: "You do not know what manner of
spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to
save them) omitted as in codices: P45, P75, B, C, L, Θ, Ξ, 33, 700, 892, 1241, syr,
copbo;[28]
§
John 4:9 – ου γαρ συνχρωνται Ιουδαιοι Σαμαριταις (Jews
have no dealings with Samaritans), it is one of so-called Western
non-interpolations; omission is supported by D, a, b, d, e, j, copfay,
it was supplemented by the first corrector (before leaving scriptorium);[29]
Some passages were excluded by the
correctors:
§
Matthew 24:36 – phrase ουδε ο υιος (nor
the Son) the first corrector marked as doubtful, but the second corrector
(b) removed the mark.[30]
§
Mark 10:40 ητοιμασται υπο του πατρος
μου (instead of ητοιμασται) – the first corrector marked "υπο του πατρος
μου" as doubtful, but the second corrector removed the mark.[31]
§
In Luke 11:4 ἀλλὰ ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ (but
deliver us from evil) included by the original scribe, marked by the first
corrector (a) as doubtful, but the third corrector (c) removed the mark.[32]
§
Christ's agony at
Gethsemane (Luke 22:43–44)
– included by the original scribe, marked by the first corrector as doubtful,
but the third corrector (c) removed the mark.[33]
§
Luke 23:34a,
"Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do"
– it was included by the first scribe, marked by the first corrector as
doubtful, but a third corrector removed the mark.[34]
Interpolations
It has additional text: καὶ ὑποστρέψας ὁ ἑκατοντάρχος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ
ἐν αὐτῃ τῇ ὦρᾳ εὗρεν τὸν παῖδα ὑγιαίνοντα (and
when the centurion returned to the house in that hour, he found the slave well)
as well as codices C, (N), Θ, (0250), f1, (33, 1241), g1, syrh.[36]
It reads λέγοντες εἰρήνη τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ (say
peace to be this house) after αυτην. The reading was deleted by the first
corrector, but the second corrector restored it. The reading is used by
manuscripts: Bezae, Regius, Washingtonianus, Koridethi, manuscripts f 1, 22, 1010 (1424), it, vgcl.[37][38]
In Matthew 27:49 the codex contains
added text: ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἒνυξεν
αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὖδορ καὶ αἳμα (the other took a spear and pierced His side, and
immediately came out water and blood). This reading was derived from John
19:34 and occurs in other manuscripts of the Alexandrian text-type.[39]
Unique and other textual variants
Matthew 7:22 – It
has additional word πολλα (numerous): "and cast out numerous demons in your name?". It is not supported by any
other manuscript.[40]
Matthew 8:12 – It
has ἐξελεύσονται (will go out) instead of ἐκβληθήσονται (will be
thrown). This variant is supported only by one Greek manuscript Uncial 0250, and by Codex Bobiensis, syrc, s, p, pal, arm, Diatessaron.[41]
Matthew 13:54 –
Ordinary reading εις την πατριδα αυτου (to his own country) changed into
εις την αντιπατριδα αυτου (to his own Antipatris), and
in Acts 8:5 εις την πολιν της Σαμαρειας replaced
into εις την πολιν της Καισαριας. These two variants do not exist in any other
manuscript, and it seems they were made by a scribe. According to T. C. Skeat they suggest Caesarea
as a place in which the manuscript was made.[42]
Matthew 16:12 – It
has textual variant της ζυμης των αρτων των Φαρισαιων και Σαδδουκαιων (leaven
of bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees) supported only by Codex Corbeiensis I and Curetonian Gospels.
Luke 1:26 – "Nazareth "
is called "a city of Judea
Luke 2:37 – εβδομηκοντα (seventy),
all manuscripts have ογδοηκοντα (eighty);[43]
John 1:28 – The second corrector made
unique textual variant Βηθαραβα. This textual variant has only codex 892, syrh and
several other manuscripts.[44]
John 1:34 – It reads ὁ ἐκλεκτός (chosen
one) together with the manuscripts 
5, 106, b, e, ff2, syrc, and syrs instead
of ordinary word υἱος (son).
5, 106, b, e, ff2, syrc, and syrs instead
of ordinary word υἱος (son).
John 2:3 – Where ordinarily reading
"And when they wanted wine", or "And when wine failed",
Codex Sinaiticus has "And they had no wine, because the wine of the
marriage feast was finished" (supported by a and j);
John 6:10 – It reads τρισχιλιοι (three
thousands) for πεντακισχιλιοι (five thousands); the second corrector
changed into πεντακισχιλιοι.[45]
Acts 11:20 – It reads εὐαγγελιστας (Evangelists)
instead of ἑλληνιστάς (Hellenists);[46]
In Acts 14:9, the word "not"
inserted before "heard"; in Hebr. 2:4 "harvests" instead of
"distributions"; in 1 Peter 5:13 word "Babylon" replaced
into "Church".[46]
2 Timothy 4:10 – it reads Γαλλιαν for
Γαλατιαν, the reading of the codex is supported by along with Ephraemi
Rescriptus, 81, 104, 326, 436.[47]
Witness of some readings of "majority"
It is the oldest witness for the phrase
μη αποστερησης (do not defraud) in Mark 10:19. This phrase was not
included by the manuscripts: Codex Vaticanus (added by second corrector), Codex Cyprius, Codex Washingtonianus, Codex Athous Lavrensis, f1, f13, 28, 700, 1010,
1079, 1242, 1546, 2148, ℓ 10, ℓ 950, ℓ 1642, ℓ 1761, syrs, arm, geo. This is
variant of the majority manuscripts.[48]
In Mark 13:33 it is the oldest witness
of the variant και προσευχεσθε (and pray). Codex B and D do not include
this passage.[49]
In Luke 8:48 it has θυγατερ (daughter)
as in the Byzantine manuscripts, instead of the Alexandrian θυγατηρ (daughter),
supported by the manuscripts: B K L W Θ.[50]
Orthodox reading
In 1 John 5:6 it has textual variant
δι' ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος (through water and blood and spirit)
together with the manuscripts: Codex Alexandrinus, 104, 424c, 614,1739c, 2412,
2495, ℓ 598m, syrh, copsa, copbo, Origen.[51][n 3] Bart D. Ehrman says
this was a corrupt reading from the orthodox party.[52]
Text-type and relationship to other manuscripts
For most of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus is in general agreement with Codex Vaticanus Graecus
1209 and Codex Ephraemi
Rescriptus, attesting the Alexandrian text-type.
A notable example of an agreement between the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus texts is
that they both omit the word εικη ('without cause', 'without reason', 'in
vain') from Matthew5:22 "But I say unto you, That whosoever is
angry with his brother without
a cause shall
be in danger of the judgement".[n 4]
In John 1:1–8:38 Codex
Sinaiticus differs from
Vaticanus and all other Alexandrian manuscripts. It is in closer agreement with Codex Bezae in
support of the Western text-type. For example, in John 1:3 Sinaiticus and
Codex Bezae are the only Greek manuscripts with textual variant ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ
ἐστίν (in him is life) instead of ἐν αὐτῷ ζωὴ ᾓν (in him was life).
This variant is supported by Vetus Latina and some Sahidic manuscripts. This
portion has a large number of corrections.[53] There
are a number of differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus; Hoskier enumerated
3036 differences:
Matt–656
Mark–567
Luke–791
John–1022
Total—3036.[54]
A large number of these differences are
due to iotacisms and
variants in transcribing Hebrew names. These two manuscripts were not written
in the same scriptorium. According to Hort Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were derived from a common original
much older source, "the date of which cannot be later than the early part
of the second century, and may well be yet earlier".[55]
Example of differences between
Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in Matt 1:18–19:
Codex Sinaiticus
|
Codex Vaticanus
|
Του
δε ΙΥ ΧΥ η γενεσις ουτως ην
μνηστευθισης της μητρος αυτου Μαριας τω Ιωσηφ πριν ην συνελθιν αυτους ευρεθη εν γαστρι εχουσα εκ ΠΝΣ αγιου Ιωσηφ δε ο ανηρ αυτης δικαιος ων και μη θελων αυτην παραδιγματισαι εβουληθη λαθρα απολυσαι αυτην |
Του
δε ΧΥ ΙΥ η γενεσις ουτως ην
μνηστευθεισης της μητρος αυτου Μαριας τω Ιωσηφ πριν ην συνελθειν αυτους ευρεθη εν γαστρι εχουσα εκ ΠΝΣ αγιου Ιωσηφ δε ο ανηρ αυτης δικαιος ων και μη θελων αυτην δειγματισαι εβουληθη λαθρα απολυσαι αυτην |
B. H. Streeter remarked a great agreement between the
codex and Vulgate of Jerome.
According to him Origen brought to Caesarea theAlexandrian text-type which was used in this codex, and used
by Jerome.[56]
Between the 4th and 12th centuries,
seven or more correctors worked on this codex, making it one of the most
corrected manuscripts in existence.[57] Tischendorf
during his investigation in Petersburg
enumerated 14 800 corrections only in the portion which was held in Petersburg
History of the codex
Early history of codex
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 common to Sinaiticus and Vaticanus occurs in no
other Greek manuscript, but is found in several manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.[61] 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 Caesarea.[62] According
to Kenyon the forms of letters are Egyptian and
they were found in Egyptian papyri of earlier date.[63] Gardthausen[64] Ropes
and Jellicoe thought it was written in Egypt. Harris believed that
the manuscript came from the library of
Pamphilus at Caesarea .[63] Streeter,[56] Skeat,
and Milne tended to think that it was produced in Caesarea .[42]
Date of the codex
The codex was written in the 4th
century. It could not have been written before 325 because it contains the Eusebian Canons, which is a terminus post quem. It
could not have been written after 360 because of certain references to Church
fathers in the margin. This means that 360 is a terminus ad quem.[13]
According to Tischendorf, Codex
Sinaiticus was one of the fifty copies of the
Bible commissioned
from Eusebius by Roman Emperor Constantine after his conversion to Christianity (De
vita Constantini, IV, 37).[65] This
hypothesis was supported by Pierre Batiffol,[66] Gregory,
and T. C. 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.[42]
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 ".[67]
Scribes and correctors
Tischendorf also believed that four
separate scribes copied the work (whom he named A, B, C and D) and that five
correctors (whom he designated a, b, c, d and e) amended portions. He posited
that one of the correctors was contemporaneous with the original scribes, and
that the others dated to the 6th and 7th centuries. It is now agreed, after Milneand Skeat's reinvestigation,
that Tischendorf was wrong—scribe C never existed.[68] According
to Tischendorf, scribe C wrote poetic books of the Old Testament. These are
written in a different format from the rest of the manuscript – they are in two
columns (the rest of books is in four columns) and written stichometrically.
Tischendorf probably interpreted the different formatting as indicating the
existence of another scribe.[69] The
three remaining scribes are still identified by the letters that Tischendorf
gave them: A, B, and D.[69]Correctors were more, at least seven (a, b, c, ca,
cb, cc, e).[3]
Modern analysis identifies at least
three scribes. Scribe A wrote most of the historical and poetical books of the
Old Testament, almost the whole of the New Testament, and Epistle of Barnabas.
Scribe B was responsible for the Prophets and the Shepherd of Hermas. Scribe D
wrote the whole of Tobit and Judith, the first half of 4 Maccabees, and first
2/3 of the Psalms, and first five verses of Revelation. Scribe B was a poor
speller, and scribe A was not very much better; the best scribe was D.[70] Metzger
states: "scribe A had made some unusually serious mistakes".[58] Scribes
A and B more often used nomina sacra in contracted forms (ΠΝΕΥΜΑ contracted
in all occurrences, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ contracted except 2 occurrences), scribe D more
often used forms uncontracted.[71] D
distinguished between sacral and nonsacral using of ΚΥΡΙΟΣ.[72] His
errors are the substitution of ΕΙ forΙ, 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 word ΙΣΧΥΕΙ, confusing of Ε and ΑΙ is very
rare.[70] In the
Book of Psalms this scribe has 35 times ΔΑΥΕΙΔ instead of ΔΑΥΙΔ, while scribe A
normally uses an abbreviated form ΔΑΔ.[73] Scribe
A's was a "worse type of phonetic error". Confusion of Ε and ΑΙ occurs
in all contexts.[70] Scribe
B was characterised by Milne and Skeat as "careless and illiterate".[74] The
work of the original scribe is designated by the siglum א*.[3]
A paleographical study
at the British Museum in 1938
found that the text had undergone several corrections. The first corrections
were done by several scribes before the manuscript left the scriptorium.[58] Readings
Discovery
The Codex was probably seen in 1761 by
the Italian traveller, Vitaliano Donati, when he visited the Monastery of
Saint Catherine at
Sinai. His diary was
published in 1879, in
which was written:
"In questo monastero ritrovai una quantità grandissima
di codici membranacei... ve ne sono alcuni che mi sembravano anteriori al
settimo secolo, ed in ispecie una Bibbia in membrane bellissime, assai grandi,
sottili, e quadre, scritta in carattere rotondo e belissimo; conservano poi in
chiesa un Evangelistario greco in caractere d'oro rotondo, che dovrebbe pur
essere assai antico".[80]
In this monastery I found a great
number of parchment codices ... there are some which seemed to be written
before the seventh century, and especially a Bible (made) of beautiful, very
large, thin and square parchments, written in round and very beautiful letters;
moreover there are also in the church a Greek Evangelistarium in gold and round
letters, it should be very old.
The "Bible on beautiful
vellum" is probably the Codex Sinaiticus, and the gold evangelistarium is
likely Lectionary 300 on the
Gregory-Aland list.[81]
The codex was seen by WIlliam John
Bankes, collector of Egyptian antiquities, in 1815.[82] In 1839
it was seen by Henry Tattam, Coptologist.[83]
In 1844, during his first visit to the
Monastery of Saint Catherine, Leipzig archaeologist Constantin von
Tischendorf claimed that he
saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. He said they were "rubbish
which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery",[84] although
this is firmly denied by the Monastery. After examination he realized that they
were part of the Septuagint, written in an early Greek uncial script. He
retrieved from the basket 129 leaves in Greek which he identified as coming
from a manuscript of the Septuagint. He asked if he might keep them, but at this point
the attitude of the monks changed. They realized how valuable these old leaves
were, and Tischendorf was permitted to take only one-third of the whole, i.e.
43 leaves. These leaves contained portions of 1 Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah,
and Esther. After his return they were deposited in theLeipzig University
Library, where they still remain. In 1846 Tischendorf published
their contents, naming them the 'Codex Friderico-Augustanus' (in honor of Frederick Augustus).[85] Other
portions of the same codex remained in the monastery, containing all of Isaiah
and 1 and 4 Maccabees.[86]
In 1845 Archimandrite Porfirij Uspenskij (1804–1885), at that time head of the
Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem and subsequently Bishop ofChigirin, visited the monastery and the codex was shown to
him, together with leaves which Tischendorf had not seen.[n 5] In 1846
Captain C. K. MacDonald visited Mount Sinai ,
saw the codex, and bought two codices (495 and 496) from the monastery.[87]
In 1853 Tischendorf revisited the
Monastery of Saint Catherine to get the remaining 86 folios, but without
success. Returning in 1859, this time under the patronage of Tsar Alexander II of Russia,
he was shown theCodex Sinaiticus. He would later claim to have found it
discarded in a rubbish bin. (However, this story may have been a fabrication,
or the manuscripts in question may have been unrelated to Codex Sinaiticus: Rev. J.
Silvester Davies in 1863 quoted "a monk of Sinai who... stated that according
to the librarian of the monastery the whole of Codex Sinaiticus had been in the
library for many years and was marked in the ancient catalogues... Is it
likely... that a manuscript known in the library catalogue would have been
jettisoned in the rubbish basket." Indeed, it has been noted that the
leaves were in "suspiciously good condition" for something found in
the trash.[n 6]) Tischendorf had been sent to search for
manuscripts by Russia's Tsar Alexander II,
who was convinced there were still manuscripts to be found at the Sinai
monastery.[88] The
text of this part of the codex was published by Tischendorf in 1862:
§
Konstantin
von Tischendorf: Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Giesecke
& Devrient, Leipzig
It was reprinted in four volumes in
1869:
§
Konstantin
von Tischendorf, G. Olms (Hrsg.): Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus
Petropolitanus. 1. Prolegomena. G. Olms, Hildesheim
§
Konstantin von Tischendorf, G. Olms
(Hrsg.): Bibliorum codex
Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. 2. Veteris Testamenti pars prior. G. Olms, Hildesheim
§
Konstantin von Tischendorf, G. Olms
(Hrsg.): Bibliorum codex
Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. 3. Veteris Testamenti pars posterior. G. Olms, Hildesheim
§
Konstantin von Tischendorf, G. Olms
(Hrsg.): Bibliorum codex
Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. 4. Novum Testamentum cum Barnaba et Pastore. G. Olms, Hildesheim
The complete publication of the codex
was made by Kirsopp Lake in 1911
(New Testament),[89] and in
1922 (Old Testament). It was the full-sized black and white facsimile of the
manuscript, made by editing two earlier facsimiles. Lake
did not have access to the manuscript.
The story of how von Tischendorf found
the manuscript, which contained most of the Old Testament and all of the New
Testament, has all the interest of a romance. Von Tischendorf reached the
monastery on 31 January; but his inquiries appeared to be fruitless. On 4
February, he had resolved to return home without having gained his object:
On the afternoon of this day I was
taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we
returned, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his
cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our former subject of
conversation, he said: "And I, too, have read a Septuagint" – i.e. a
copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down
from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped up in a red cloth,
and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great
surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had
taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New
Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the
Shepherd of Hermas.[90]
After some negotiations, he obtained
possession of this precious fragment. James Bentley gives an account of how
this came about, prefacing it with the comment, "Tischendorf therefore now
embarked on the remarkable piece of duplicity which was to occupy him for the
next decade, which involved the careful suppression of facts and the systematic
denigration of the monks of Mount Sinai."[91] He
conveyed it to Tsar Alexander II,
who appreciated its importance and had it published as nearly as possible in
facsimile, so as to exhibit correctly the ancient handwriting. In 1869 the Tsar
sent the monastery 7 000 rubles and the monastery of Mount Tabor 2 000
rubles by way of compensation.[92][93] The
document in Russian formalising this was published in 2007 in Russia
Regarding Tischendorf's role in the
transfer to Saint Petersburg Europe . Kirsopp Lake wrote:
Those who have had much to do with
Oriental monks will understand how improbable it is that the terms of the
arrangement, whatever it was, were ever known to any except of the leaders.[95]
Certain aspects of the negotiations
leading to the transfer of the codex to the Tsar's possession are open to an
interpretation that reflects adversely on Tischendorf's candour and good faith
with the monks at St. Catherine's. For a recent account intended to exculpate
him of blame, see Erhard Lauch's article 'Nichts gegen Tischendorf' in Bekenntnis zur Kirche: Festgabe für
Ernst Sommerlath zum 70. Geburtstag (Berlin,
c. 1961); for an account that includes a hitherto unknown receipt given by
Tischendorf to the authorities at the monastery promising to return the
manuscript from Saint Petersburg
Simonides
In 13 September 1862 Constantine Simonides,
a senior textual scholar, made the claim in print in The Guardian that he had written the codex himself
as a young man in 1839 in
the Panteleimonos monastery at Athos.[98][99] Konstantin
Tischendorf, the younger antiquities dealer, was known as somewhat flamboyant,
and had ambitiously sought money from several royal families for his ventures,
who had indeed funded his trips. Simonides, whose name may be a synonym mocking
Tischendorf, had a somewhat obscure history, as he claimed he was at Mt. Athos
in the years preceding Tischendorf's contact, making the claim at least
plausible. Simonides also claimed his father had passed away and the invitation
to Mt. Athos
Tischendorf answered in Allgemeine Zeitung (December), that only in the New
Testament there are many differences between it and all other manuscripts. Henry Bradshaw,
a scholar, contributed to exposing the frauds of Constantine Simonides, and
exposed the absurdity of his claims in a letter to the Guardian (26 January
1863). Bradshaw showed that the Codex Sinaiticus brought by Tischendorf from
the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai was not a
modern forgery or written by Simonides. Simonides' "claim was flawed from
the beginning".[101] The
controversy seems to regard the misplaced use of the word 'fraud' or 'forgery'
since it may have been a repaired text, a copy of the Septuagint based upon
Origen's Hexapla, a text which has been rejected for centuries because of its
lineage from Eusebius who introduced Arian doctrine into the courts of
Constantine I and II.
Not every scholar and Church minister
was delighted about the codex. Burgon, a supporter of the Textus Receptus, suggested that Codex Sinaiticus, as well as
codices Vaticanus and Codex Bezae, were the most corrupt documents extant. Each
of these three codices "clearly exhibits a fabricated text – is the result
of arbitrary and reckless recension."[102]The two most weighty of these three codices, א and
B, he likens to the "two false witnesses" of Matthew 26:60.[103]
Later story of codex
In the early 20th century Vladimir N. Beneshevich (1874–1938) subsequently discovered
parts of three more leaves of the codex in the bindings of other manuscripts in
the library of Mount Sinai . Beneshevich went
on three occasions to the monastery (1907, 1908, 1911) but does not tell when
or from which book he recovered. These leaves were also acquired for St. Petersburg
For many decades, the Codex was
preserved in the Russian National
Library. In 1933, the Soviet Union sold
the codex to the British Museum (after
1973 British Library) for £100,000 raised by public subscription
(worth £5.3 million in 2012).[106] After
coming to Britain
In May 1975, during restoration work,
the monks of St. Catherine's monastery discovered a room beneath the St. George
Chapel which contained many parchment fragments. Among these fragments were
twelve complete leaves from the Sinaiticus, 11
leaves of thePentateuch and 1 leaf of the Shepherd of Hermas.[15] Together
with these leaves 67 Greek Manuscripts of New Testament have been found
(uncials 0278 – 0296 and some
minuscules).[108]
In June 2005, a team of experts
from the UK , Europe, Egypt , Russia
and USA
More than one quarter of the manuscript
was made publicly available at The Codex
Sinaiticus Website on 24
July 2008. On 6 July 2009, 800 more pages of the manuscript were made
available, showing over half of the entire text,[114] although
the entire text was intended to be shown by that date.[115]
The complete document is now available
online in digital form and available for scholarly study. The online version
has a fully transcribed set of digital pages, including amendments to the text,
and two images of each page, with both standard lighting and raked lighting to
highlight the texture of the parchment.[116]
Prior to 1 September 2009, the
University of the Arts London PhD student, Nikolas Sarris, discovered the
previously unseen fragment of the Codex in the library of St. Catherine's
Monastery in Egypt
Present location
The codex is now split into four
unequal portions: 347 leaves in the British Library in
London (199 of the Old Testament, 148 of the New Testament), 12 leaves and 14
fragments in the St. Catherine's
Monastery of Sinai, 43 leaves in the Leipzig University
Library, and fragments of 3 leaves in the Russian National
Library in Saint Petersburg.[3]
St. Catherine's monastery still
maintains the importance of a letter, typewritten in 1844 with an original
signature of Tischendorf confirming that he borrowed those leaves.[119] However,
recently published documents, including a deed of gift dated 11 September 1868
and signed by Archbishop Kallistratos and the monks of the monastery, indicate
that the manuscript was acquired entirely legitimately.[120] This
deed, which agrees with a report by Kurt Aland on the matter, has now been
published. Unfortunately this development is not widely known in the English-speaking
world, as only German- and Russian-language media reported on it in 2009.
Doubts as to the legality of the gift arose because when Tischendorf originally
removed the manuscript from St Catherine's in September 1859, the monastery was
without an archbishop, so that even though the intention to present the
manuscript to the Tsar had been expressed, no legal gift could be made at the
time. Resolution of the matter was delayed through the turbulent reign of
Archbishop Cyril (consecrated 7 December 1859, deposed 24 August 1866), and the
situation only formalised after the restoration of peace.[120]
Skeat in his article "The Last
Chapter in the History of the Codex Sinaiticus" concluded in this way:
This is not the place to pass
judgements, but perhaps I may say that, as it seems to me, both the monks and
Tischendorf deserve our deepest gratitude, Tischendorf for having alerted the
monks to the importance of the manuscript, and the monks for having undertaken
the daunting task of searching through the vast mass of material with such
spectacular results, and them doing everything in their power to safeguard the
manuscript against further loss. If we accept the statement of Uspensky, that
he saw the codex in 1845, the monks must have worked very hard to complete
their search and bind up the results in so short a period.[121]
Impact on biblical scholarship
Along with Codex Vaticanus, the Codex
Sinaiticus has proven to be one of the most valuable manuscripts for
establishing the original text (textual criticism) of the Greek New Testament,
as well as the Septuagint. It is the only uncial manuscript with the complete text of
the New Testament, and the only ancient manuscript of the New Testament written
in four columns per page which has survived to the present day.[3] With
only 300 years separating the Codex Sinaiticus and the original manuscripts of
the New Testament, it is considered to be very highly accurate, as opposed to
most later copies, in preserving obviously superior readings where many later
manuscripts are in error.[7]
For the Gospels, Sinaiticus is generally considered
among scholars as the second most reliable witness of the text (after
Vaticanus); in the Acts of the Apostles, its
text is equal to that of Vaticanus; in the Epistles, Sinaiticus is the most reliable
witness of the text. In the Book of Revelation,
however, its text is corrupted and is considered of poor quality, and inferior
to the texts of Codex Alexandrinus, Papyrus 47, and even some minuscule manuscripts in this place
(for example, Minuscule 2053, 2062).[13]
Notes
1.
^ It was estimated by Tischendorf and used by
Scrivener in his Introduction to the Sinaitic Codex (1867) as
an argument against authorship of Simonides (‘‘Christianity’’, p. 1889.)
2.
^ Also in Minuscule 69, Minuscule 336,
and several other manuscripts Pauline epistles precede Acts.
4.
^ The same variant present manuscripts: P67, 2174,
in manuscripts of Vulgate, and in manuscripts of Ethiopic version.
5.
^ Uspienski described: «Первая рукопись, содержащая
Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием ап. Варнавы и книгой Ермы,
писана на тончайшем белом пергамене. (...) Буквы в ней совершенно похожи на
церковно-славянские. Постановка их прямая и сплошная. Над словами нет
придыханий и ударений, а речения не отделяются никакими знаками правописания
кроме точек. Весь священный текст писан в четыре и два столбца стихомерным
образом и так слитно, как будто одно длинное речение тянется от точки до
точки.» (Порфирий (Успенский), Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь
в 1845 году, Petersburg
6.
^ Davies words are from a letter published in The
Guardian on 27 May 1863, as quoted by Elliott, J.K. (1982) in Codex
Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair, Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute
for Patristic Studies, p. 16; Elliott in turn is quoted by Michael D. Peterson
in his essay "Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus: the Saga
Continues", in The Church and the Library, ed. Papademetriou
and Sopko Boston: Somerset Hall Press (2005), p. 77. See also notes 2 and 3, p.
90, in
Papademetriou.
References
1.
^ Metzger, Bruce; Bart D. Ehrman (2005). The
Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the
Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism. New
York – Oxford : Oxford University Press. p. 62. ISBN 978-0-19-516122-9.
2.
^ Sinai: The Site & the History by
Mursi Saad El Din, Ayman Taher, Luciano Romano 1998 ISBN
0-8147-2203-2 page 101
3.
^ a b c d e f g Aland, Kurt;
Barbara Aland (1995). The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to
the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual
Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand
Rapids , Michigan
4.
^ Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1875). Six Lectures on
the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts. Cambridge
5.
^ T. C. Skeat, Early Christian
book-production, in: Peter R. Ackroyd & Geoffrey William
Hugo Lampe (eds.) The Cambridge history
of the Bible (Cambridge
6.
^ Lake , Kirsopp
(1911). Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus: The New Testament, the Epistle
of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. Oxford
7.
^ a b Kenyon, Frederic (1939). "7". Our
Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (4 ed.). London
8.
^ Scrivener, F. H. A. (1864). A
Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New
Testament. Cambridge
9.
^ Jongkind, Dirk (2007), pp. 22–50. Scribal
Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, Gorgias PressLLC,
pp. 67–68.
10.
^ Jongkind, Dirk (2007). Scribal Habits of
Codex Sinaiticus, Gorgias Press LLC, p. 74 ff, 93–94.
11.
^ Bringhurst, Robert (2004). The Elements of
Typographic Style (version 3.0), pp. 174–75. Vancouver
12.
^ Morehead, Gavin "Parchment Assessment of the
Codex Sinaiticus",http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx,
Retrieved 11 December 2011
13.
^ a b c d Metzger, Bruce
M., (1991). Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction
to Palaeography, Oxford : Oxford University Press, p. 76.
15.
^ a b Skeat,
Theodore Cressy (2000). "The Last Chapter in the History of the Codex
Sinaiticus". Novum Testamentum (BRILL) XLII, 4:
313–315.
16.
^ Würthwein, Ernst (1988). Der Text des Alten
Testaments (2nd ed.). Stuttgart
17.
^ Swete, Henry Barclay (1902). An Introduction
to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge
18.
^ Bruce M. Metzger (2001). "A Textual Commentary
on the Greek New Testament",Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart
19.
^ Bruce M. Metzger, A Textual Commentary on
the Greek New Testament (Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft: Stuttgart 2001),
pp. 315, 388, 434, 444.
20.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren,
in cooperation with INTF, United Bible Societies, 3rd edition,
(Stuttgart 1983), p. 16 [UBS3]
21.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United
Bible Societies, 3rd edition, (United Bible Societies, Stuttgart 1983), p.
18.
25.
^ Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose;
Edward Miller (1894). A Plain
Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. 1 (4
ed.). London
26.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United
Bible Societies, 3rd edition, (United Bible Societies, Stuttgart 1983), p.
118.
27.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United
Bible Societies, 3rd edition, (United Bible Societies, Stuttgart 1983), p.
164.
29.
^ NA26, p. 256; The Greek New Testament,
ed. K. Aland, A. Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in
cooperation with INTF, United Bible Societies, 3rd edition,
(Stuttgart 1983), p. 333
30.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United Bible
Societies, 3rd edition, (Stuttgart 1983), p. 95.
31.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United
Bible Societies, 3rd edition, (Stuttgart 1983), p. 168.
32.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United
Bible Societies, 3rd edition, (Stuttgart 1983), p. 256.
33.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United
Bible Societies, 3rd edition, (Stuttgart 1983), p. 305.
35.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United
Bible Societies, 3rd edition, (Stuttgart 1983), p. 311 [UBS3]
39.
^ Bruce M. Metzger (2001). A Textual
Commentary on the Greek New Testament,Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft, Stuttgart
41.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United
Bible Societies, 3rd edition, (Stuttgart 1983), p. 26
42.
^ a b c Skeat,
T. C. (1999). "The Codex Sinaiticus, The Codex Vaticanus and
Constantine". Journal of Theological Studies 50 (2):
583–625.doi:10.1093/jts/50.2.583.
46.
^ a b Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose (1875). Six
Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts which
contain it. London
48.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United
Bible Societies, 3rd edition, (Stuttgart 1983), p. 165.
51.
^ The Greek New Testament, ed. K. Aland, A.
Black, C. M. Martini, B. M. Metzger, and A. Wikgren, in cooperation with INTF, United
Bible Societies, 3rd edition, (Stuttgart 1983), p. 823.
52.
^ Bart D. Ehrman, The
Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Oxford University Press, Oxford
56.
^ a b Streeter,
B. H. (1924). The Four
Gospels, a Study of Origins treating of the Manuscript Tradition, Sources,
Authorship, & Dates, pp. 590–597.
57.
^ Milne, H. J. M. and Skeat, T.C. (1938). Scribes
and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus. London :
Trustees of the British
Museum
58.
^ a b c Metzger, Bruce
M., (1991). Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction
to Palaeography, Oxford : Oxford University Press, p. 77.
59.
^ Parker D. C., Codex Sinaiticus. The Story
of the World’s Oldest Bible, London
61.
^ 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.
63.
^ a b Frederic
G. Kenyon, Our Bible and
the Ancient Manuscripts, Eyre and Spottiswoode, London
65.
^ Price, I. M.
(1923). The Ancestry of Our English Bible an Account of Manuscripts,
Texts and Versions of the Bible, Sunday School Times Co, p. 146 f .
67.
^ Frederic G. Kenyon, "Handbook to the Textual
Criticism of the New Testament", London2, 1912, p. 83.
68.
^ Milne, H. J. M. and Skeat, T. C., (1938). Scribes
and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, London :
British Museum
69.
^ a b Jongkind,
Dirk (2007), pp. 22–50. Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, Gorgias
Press LLC, pp. 12–13.
73.
^ Milne-Skeat. Scribes and Correctors of the
Codex Sinaiticus, (London: British Museum, 1938), p. 94.
74.
^ Milne-Skeat. Scribes and Correctors of the
Codex Sinaiticus, (London: British Museum, 1938), pp. 53–55.
75.
^ Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart D. (2005), The
Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration. New York , Oxford : Oxford University
76.
^ Milne, H. J. M. and T. C. Skeat, (1938). Scribes
and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, London :
British Museum
78.
^ Metzger, Bruce M., (1992). The Text of
the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, (3rd Ed.),
Oxford : Oxford University
79.
^ Gregory, C. R. (1900) (in de). Textkritik des
Neuen Testaments. 1. Leipzig
81.
^ Kirsopp
Lake Oxford
82.
^ Parker D. C. (2010). Codex Sinaiticus. The
Story of the World’s Oldest Bible. London
83.
^ Parker D. C. (2010). Codex Sinaiticus. The
Story of the World’s Oldest Bible. London
84.
^ Skeat, T. C. (2000). "The Last Chapter in the
History of the Codex Sinaiticus". Novum Testamentum. Vol. 42,
Fasc. 3, Jul., 2000. p. 313.
86.
^ Tischendorf, C. v. (1866). When Were Our
Gospels Written? An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of
the Discovery of the Sinaitic
Manuscript , New
York
87.
^ Gregory, Caspar René (1900). Textkritik des
Neuen Testaments. 1. Leipzig
88.
^ Parker, D. C. (2010). Codex
Sinaiticus. The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible. London
89.
^ Kirsopp
Lake Oxford
90.
^ See Constantin von
Tischendorf, The Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript, Extract from
Constantin von Tischendorf, (1866) When Were Our Gospels Written? An
Argument by Constantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of the Discovery of the
Sinaitic Manuscript New York
92.
^ Kirsopp
Lake Oxford
93.
^ Parker, D. C. (2010). Codex
Sinaiticus. The Story of the World’s Oldest Bible. London
95.
^ Lake, Kirsopp, (1911). Codex Sinaiticus
Petropolitanus: The New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of
Hermas, Oxford
96.
^ See Ihor Ševčenko, "New Documents on
Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus", published in the journal Scriptorium,
xviii (1964), pp. 55–80.
97.
^ Metzger, Bruce A. (1992) The Text of the
New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption and Restoration, (3rd Ed.), Oxford University
98.
^ J. K. Elliott (1982) in Codex Sinaiticus
and the Simonides Affair, Thessaloniki
101.
^ McKitterick, David (1998) A history of Cambridge University
Press, Volume 2:Scholarship and Commerce (1698–1872), Cambridge
104.
^ Бенешевич Владимир Николаевич, "Памятники
Синая археологические и палеографические", Вып. 2, Sankt Petersburg, 1912;
V. N. Beneshevich, "Catalogus Codicum Manuscriptorum Graecorum qui in
Monasterio Sanctae Catherinae in Monte Sina Asservantur" St. Petersburg
106.
^ Metzger, Bruce M.; Ehrman, Bart D. (2005) (in (English)). The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and
Restoration (4th ed.). New York – Oxford : Oxford
University
107.
^ T. C. Skeat, A four years work on the Codex
Sinaiticus: Significant discoveries in reconditioned ms., in: T. C. Skeat
and J. K. Elliott, The collected
biblical writings of T. C. Skeat, Brill 2004, p. 9.
109.
^ World's oldest
Bible goes global: Historic international digitisation project announced,
British Library: Press Room
110.
^ British Library
Heads Project in Digitalising the World’s Oldest Bible Christianity
Today, 15 March 2005
111.
^ Schneider, Ulrich Johannes (ed.) (2007). Codex
Sinaiticus. Geschichte und Erschließung der «Sinai-Bibel». Leipzig
113.
^ Henschke, E. (2007). "Digitizing the
Hand-Written Bible: The Codex Sinaiticus, its History and Modern
Presentation", Libri, vol. 57, pp. 45–51.
115.
^ "The
world's oldest Bible goes online" (Press release). 21 July
2008. Retrieved 24 July 2008.
118.
^ "Fragment from
world's oldest Bible found hidden in Egyptian monastery". The Independent,
2 Sept, 2009.
120.
^ a b "История приобретения Синайской
Библии Россией в свете новых документов из российских архивов",
А.В.Захарова, Монфокон: исследования по палеографии, кодикологии и
дипломатике, Ι, Москва—С.-Петербург, 2007, 209–266
^ Skeat, T. C. (2000). "The Last Chapter in the
History of the Codex Sinaiticus." Novum Testamentum. Vol. 42,
Fasc. 3, Jul., 2000. p.
Nessun commento:
Posta un commento