Nongbri Article on the Date of Sinaiticus

Brent Nongbri is back with another article redating a New Testament manuscript. This time, it’s Codex Sinaiticus and he suggests pushing the date range into the early fifth century. The article is in JTS and the pre-print version is open access here.

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

10th anniversary of the Electronic Edition of Codex Sinaiticus

This month marks the tenth anniversary of the release of the electronic edition of Codex Sinaiticus!

Here is the press release from ITSEE, University of Birmingham (by Hugh Houghton): 

Ten years ago this month, in July 2009, the complete digital edition of Codex Sinaiticus was released online at www.codexsinaiticus.org. This remarkable collaboration between the four different institutions which possess parts of the manuscript (the British Library, Leipzig University Library, the National Library of Russia and St Catherine’s Monastery Mount Sinai), along with the Institute for Textual Scholarship and Electronic Editing at the University of Birmingham (ITSEE), has been acclaimed as an epoch-making event in the development of online resources for the study of ancient manuscripts. For the first time, it was possible to compare all surviving parts of the manuscript with each other in high-resolution colour digital images, while an electronic transcription of the complete text, with each word hyperlinked to its location on the corresponding image, offered an authoritative reading of the manuscript’s evidence for the text of the Bible in Greek and an innovative teaching resource to introduce students to engaging with New Testament manuscripts.

The impact of the edition has been extraordinary. In the first 48 hours after the launch of the edition, the server received 96.4 million hits, with over 1 million unique visitors to the website in the first month online. A global array of news articles celebrated the achievement, with mentions on the BBC’s Today programme, TIME magazine, USA National Public Radio and many leading newspapers. Alongside a full-colour facsimile of the manuscript, the research project funded by the UK Arts and Humanities Research Council also produced two scholarly books on the manuscript and the new discoveries made during the creation of the edition. Conferences about the manuscript and its edition were held in London and St Petersburg, as well as a special event at the annual meeting of the Society of Biblical Literature in Boston, Massachusetts.

Back in 2009, an article in The Guardian newspaper proclaimed that “The online Codex Sinaiticus changes book scholarship for good”. Over the last decade, complete sets of digital images of hundreds – if not thousands – of manuscripts have been made freely available online, while the electronic transcription has led to the development of standards and software used in a variety of digital editing projects. Ten years on, we are seeking to learn more about the effect this electronic edition has had both on individuals and on biblical studies more broadly. What are the stories associated with this online edition? Who has been using the website? How has it changed their attitudes to the Bible? Has the digital edition encouraged people to learn Greek or undertake further studies? What other developments have been inspired by the online presentation of this manuscript?

To this end, a short survey of Ten Questions on Codex Sinaiticus has been set up to gather information. Alternatively, users of the electronic edition may send their comments directly to a dedicated email address (codex@contacts.bham.ac.uk). The feedback will be shared among the partners in the project in order to assist with understanding the impact of the edition and the further development of the website and other resources.

Any of the following three links will take you to the survey:
www.tinyurl.com/codex10
www.bit.ly/codex10
https://birminghamcoaal.eu.qualtrics.com/jfe/form/SV_6QLNSuIVJDWaMER
 
Please help publicising the survey. It will help to show the effect which this digital edition has had over the last ten years.

Is Codex Sinaiticus a Fake? New Evidence

Just to be clear, no. It’s not a 19th-century fake.

With that out of the way, I decided to take another look at a couple of things, and I noticed what some might consider to be new evidence in the question of whether or not the manuscript is a modern fake.

One of the biggest ‘selling points’ for people who claim that it’s a fake is the difference in colour between the Leipzig leaves and the British Library leaves, according to the images at the Codex Sinaiticus Project website. Despite at least one professional manuscript photographer taking the time to explain why it is problematic to make arguments based on the colour of those images, the colour is still a point of emphasis from people who maintain that Codex Sinaiticus is a fake.

David Daniels, author of the book Is the “World’s Oldest Bible” a Fake? (Ontario, CA: Chick Publications, 2017), recently posted a video (link and info in my longer note linked below) in which he again emphasised the colour of the leaves as part of his ‘evidence’.

So what about this new evidence I claim to have? Well, it’s not really new as much as it is a repackaging of old evidence into a way that more clearly shows why determining colour from images is a bad idea.

I’ve put a file online that goes into more detail, but I’ll give you the spoilers here.

When you compare the colour charts in the Leipzig images and the British Library images, it becomes clear that there is no way that these two sets of images were taken to the exact same standards. However, the clearest way to demonstrate this conclusion is to take a single colour from each of the colour charts, lay the two samples out in a mosaic like Daniels does, and then see how they look.

Obviously, the two sets of images were not taken to the level of precision that Daniels’ theory needs. If they were, we would see no difference in colour at all, because those two versions of yellow that you see in this image are the exact same colour in real life.

For the full description (as well as a couple of other samples like this one using other colours from the colour charts, and an argument based on raking light images), see my note here: “Unpublished Paper: ‘New’ Evidence on “Is Codex Sinaiticus a Fake?”

Review of David Daniels, Is the ‘World’s Oldest Bible’ a Fake?

A couple of weeks ago during my trip to Denver for ETS/SBL, I read David W. Daniels’ book, Is the “World’s Oldest Bible” a Fake? I decided to write a review of it that I posted as an ‘unpublished’ review on academia.edu.

In the book, Daniels attempts to argue that Codex Sinaiticus is a modern production (c. 1840s). This bizarre position has been a trend in recent years among KJV-only circles and even taken up by people I’ve known and respected for decades.

I honestly cannot stress enough how much I do not recommend this book to anyone. I quote from my conclusion:

In summary, David Daniels demonstrates over and over again that he is agenda-driven by a desire to undermine any opposition to the KJV, he cherry-picks references that he can twist in his favour without giving the full context (or without reporting information from the same works that he cites elsewhere that could undermine his point), and he has effectively zero experience with real manuscripts. I cannot recommend this book to anyone.

One of the most striking things to me is how much Daniels doesn’t say. If you are on the fence about this issue, that should concern you—what Daniels is not telling you.

To be clear, I don’t harbour any ill-will toward Daniels. In fact, I wrote a positive review of one of his other books, a biography of Jack Chick.

That being said, I cannot recommend his book on Codex Sinaiticus to anyone. That is not because I’m opposed to finding out manuscripts are fakes. The Museum of the Bible is to be commended for removing some of its Dead Sea Scrolls after getting further tests done (let’s not forget that they were the ones who paid for these extra tests and have supported Kipp Davis’ investigations on their authenticity this whole time). Also, there was that other manuscript that caused a big stir and turned out to be a fake a few years ago. No, the problem with Daniels’ book is that it is built on one-sided reporting, conspiracy theories and a desire to defend the King James Version at all costs rather than the careful analysis, experience with manuscripts and expertise that normally leads to the identification of forgeries.

Read my full review here.

Paragraph Break at Greek Esther 2:5?

In a comment to a previous post, Peter Head noted the presence of reading aids on a page of the Esther part of Ra 967. I have now looked at the available digital images for Esther, and it is clear that these marks do break the text into various sense units. Sometimes they mark what might be equivalent to a comma (e.g. see image below after βενεαμιν) or period (e.g. see image below after αστιν) and at other times, perhaps, they mark a break between paragraphs. It's the latter issue I want to present here and ask for your input.

Sinaiticus at Esther 2:5

This appears to be a standard example of ΚΑΙ in ekthesis to indicate a paragraph break between verse 4 and verse 5. The previous line is left half empty with punctuation indicating a break. The same ekthesis is in B at the same place.

Rahlfs's Text at Esther 2:5

Rahlfs's Edition followed suit by creating a paragraph break between verse 4 and verse 5

Ra 967 f. 40r at Esther 2:5

Here we see the reading aid marking a sense division between verse 4 and verse 5 in the 2/3C papyrus MS, albeit lacking the οὕτως. 

Gӧttingen Esther at 2:5

Ra 967 exercised some influence on the editor of Esther in terms of the layout for the text, for now there is no paragraph break between verse 4 and verse 5, only a period dividing them. But, if I'm reading matters correctly, the reading aid in Ra 967 could have provided a clue to the editor that there may have been a larger sense division in Ra 967, since the scribe of that MS did not use ekthesis or other means for marking paragraphs. Rather he used the same reading aid that he used for all other sense divisions in the text.

It does appear that the 4C scribe of S followed his exemplar by indicating a paragraph break in the text between verse 4 and 5. Did he interpret a reading aid as in 967 as marking a paragraph break here? Or did he invent the paragraph break? Can we know one way or the other? What do you think?

John DelHousaye: Ephesians 1:1 and the Most Elegant Readings

It’s my pleasure to introduce a guest post from my New Testament colleague, John DelHousaye. John is Associate Professor of New Testament at Phoenix Seminary where he has taught for over 15 years. Many of those included Greek exegesis courses based on Ephesians. Now, he has distilled the fruit of that labor into a new guidebook for students. Since John took special note of textual variants in his book, I asked if he would share some of that with us. (By the way, you can enter to win a copy of the book here.)

---

In Engaging Ephesians: An Intermediate Reader and Exegetical Guide (GlossaHouse, 2018), I had the opportunity to review many of the recorded variants from our witnesses to the letter. Educated with a bias against the Byzantine tradition, I wanted to be more sympathetic, especially because of the softening to the readings in the Nestle-Aland 28th edition, but concluded they comprised glosses and expansions. In the end, I did not adopt a single uniquely Byzantine reading. Ephesians is also attested in the papyri:

Text	Witness
Eph 1:1–23	P46
Eph 1:11–13, 19–21	P92
Eph 2:1–7, 10–22	P46
Eph 3:1–21	P46
Eph 4:1–32	P46
Eph 4:16–29, 31–32	P49
Eph 5:1–6, 8–33	P46
Eph 5:1–13	P49
Eph 6:1–6, 8–18, 20–24	P46

I was not especially impressed by these witnesses: the transcription is often sloppy (see, for example, the P46 reading at 4:30). Also problematic were the variants in Codex Claromontanus (see 3:1). Variants in Claromontanus were also derivative (see 3:1). In my opinion, Codex Sinaiticus, our oldest complete copy of the New Testament, is the least derivative. I may be wrong, but I do not judge that the evidence is on the side of those seeking another point of departure. Of course, Sinaiticus seems to be filled with derivative readings and transcription errors.

My bias was confirmed, but then immediately challenged in the opening line. Sinaiticus reads:

Παῦλος ἀπόστολος ΙΥ ΧΥ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

The Nestle-Aland 28 reads:

Παῦλος ἀπόστολος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ διὰ θελήματος θεοῦ τοῖς ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ] καὶ πιστοῖς ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ·

The edited text dispenses with the nomina sacra and places Χριστοῦ before Ἰησοῦ; the preposition phrase ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is included with brackets.

Concerning the first variant, variation in the order of Jesus’s name and primary epithet, the Christ (Messiah), is very common in the manuscripts. We also find both orders in the immediate context without variants. On the one hand, Sinaiticus and most of the Byzantine tradition read Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ. On the other, most printed editions (Nestle-Aland, SBLGNT) follow the earlier reading in P46 (c. 175–225), which is also reflected in Vaticanus, Claromontanus, and other witnesses. I favor this reading because it is earlier and (slightly) more difficult—“Jesus Christ” being the default. The order also fits a couplet pattern:

• Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ (1:1)
  Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ (1:1)
• Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ (1:2)
  Ἰησοῦ χριστοῦ (1:3)

We also find the inverse order without recorded variants in the final greeting (Ἰησοῦν Χριστὸν, 6:24), which is significant because Ephesians appears to be structured as a chiasm.

A         Opening Greeting (1:1–2)

            1) The faithful (1:1)

            2) Prayer for “grace” and “peace”

            3) Directed to “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (1:2)

            B         Prayer on “mystery” of God’s will and spiritual warfare (1:3–23)

                        C         Christ’s Family: Gentiles and Jews (2:1–3:21)

                                    D         Walking with God (4:1–5:21)

                                                            1. “Walk” (4:1, 17; 5:2, 8, 15)

                                                            2. Trinity (4:1–6 // 5:18–20)

                        C'        Christ’s Family: Spouses, Children, Slaves (5:21–6:9)

            B'        Spiritual warfare and prayer on “mystery” of the gospel (6:10–20)

A'        6:21–23:          Closing Greeting

            1') The faithful Tychicus (6:21)

            2') Prayer for “peace” and “grace” (6:23–24, inverse order)

            3') Directed to “God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ” (6:23)

Therefore, I judge the reading in Sinaiticus to be derivative and not a contender for the earliest reading in our manuscript tradition. In any case, the sense is little affected.

But the second variant, [ἐν Ἐφέσῳ], is more meaningful and difficult to resolve. Our earliest manuscripts (P46, the original hand of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus, Origen) do not mention the city. ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is written by a different hand in a different color of ink in the margin of Sinaiticus; the words are also in the margin of Vaticanus.[2] We may interpret these facts at least two ways. The scribes noted an omission or made an emendation.

On the one hand, some argue the letter was intended to be an encyclical.[3] The content of the letter is more general, suggesting a broader application, perhaps with Tychicus serving as its carrier and reader throughout Asia Minor (6:21–22). Perhaps a scribe (or pseudonymous author) wanted to harmonize the letter with Colossians, which is closely related in style and substance and reads ἐν Κολοσσαῖς (1:1). If we omit τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ἐφέσῳ, we have a seemingly more harmonious τοῖς ἁγίοις καὶ πιστοῖς (see Col 1:2).

On the other, the first copyist of Sinaiticus, or more likely because of the absence of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ in the earlier P46 someone else, might have omitted the phrase by accident or in order to generalize the letter. A clearer example of this pattern is the omission of τοῖς ἐν Ῥώμῃ at Rom 1:14 in some later witnesses. Do these readings presuppose an early catholicity to the Pauline letters?

The use of οὖσιν without a predicate is anomalous (see Rom 1:7; Phil 1:1; 1 Cor 1:2; 2 Cor 1:1). Origen, a native speaker, struggled to make sense of it.[4] Also, as William Larkin notes, all extant manuscripts have the superscript or heading ПРОΣΕΠΕΣΙΟΥΣ.[5] The association with the city is not arbitrary. Our witnesses do not provide an alternative location.[6]

The wording and arrangement also suggest a parallelism, conveying a dual citizenship:

τοῖς     ἁγίοις τοῖς οὖσιν      ἐν Ἐφέσῳ
καὶ      πιστοῖς                       ἐν Χριστῷ Ἰησοῦ

Although the reading ἐν Ἐφέσῳ is uncertain, I find no compelling reason to drop it.

My study of Ephesians led to a deeper appreciation of the letter’s elegance. Overall, Codex Sinaiticus is the best witness to this rhetorical beauty. In some cases, along with other considerations, the more elegant reading should be preferred. Of course, the original copyist of Sinaiticus inherited a flawed text and added further infelicities. Nevertheless, in my opinion, this codex remains the best point of departure. 

---

Notes

1. Adapted from see John Paul Heil, Ephesians: Empowerment to Walk in Love for the Unity of All in Christ (Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature, 2007), 38-42.
2. Eadie, Ephesians, xviii.
3. John Eadie attributes the theory to Usher (A Commentary on the Greek Text of The Epistle of Paul to The Ephesians, 2nd ed. [New York: Robert Carter and Brothers, 1861], xxiv).
4. Eadie, Commentary, xix.
5. William J. Larkin, Ephesians: A Handbook on The Greek Text (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press, 2009), 2.
6. Marcion may have claimed the letter was intended for the Laodiceans, but no extant witness supports this.

The problem with digitizing our discipline

There is much rejoicing about the benefits of computer technology for the humanities in general and for New Testament textual criticism in particular. I too rejoice as I suspect you do. Who among us is not thrilled, for example,  by the ease of access to so many manuscript images or by the wonderful NTVMR or by the fact that the texts of our modern Greek New Testaments are all freely available online?

But here I want to sound a warning about computer technology. We all know how fast technology changes. Probably none of you have a flip phone any more or use floppy disks to save your work (although I know Maurice has some truly old school tech he still works with still). Technology changes rapidly, usually for the better. But therein lies the problem. Technology changes rapidly. That means that tools that were great five or ten years ago may be difficult or even impossible to use now.

This is one of my fears about digital critical editions. The new digital ECM may be great now, but will it be great in ten years? Maybe, but how do we know? We can’t, because we don’t know the future. There is always talk of future-proofing our digital work. But let us be honest: that is a myth. When I worked on the CBGM, there were parts of the software for the Catholic Letters that only ran  on Mac OS 9. What happens when the computer running that defunct operating system dies?

Nor is the internet the solution. Look, for example, at the genuinely wonderful Codex Sinaiticus website. When it came out in 2008, it was the baddest manuscript viewer in town. You could zoom in and out, switch to raking lighting, and even select words from the transcription and watch them be highlighted right there in the image—it was great. And most of it still is great.

But when I use the site in Chrome now, look at what happens.

The zoom disappears in Chrome

The zoom function does not even show up. I have to move my mouse around until it turns into a hand and then I have to guess how far I am zooming in because there is no visual measurement.

Things are better in Microsoft’s Edge browser, but still a little off.

The zoom is not quite right in Edge, but it is usable

Compare this to Tischendorf’s facsimile of 01 which, as a technology, works just as well today as it did on the day it came off the press in 1863. Obviously, the website for 01 has major advantages over Tischendorf’s facsimile. There is no question about that. But that is not my point. My point is that the usability of Tischendorf’s edition has aged less in 150 years than the Sinaiticus website has in 15! Will the Sinaiticus website work at all in 30 years? 50? 100? Who knows.

What I do know from designing websites for the last 17 years is that there is no way to guarantee that a site built today will still be usable in 10 or 15 years. And usually, the more bells and whistles a site has when it’s built, the worse it ages. Part of this is a matter of funding. It is easier to fund an exciting new digital project than to maintain or update an old, flagging one. But I do not see that changing any time soon.

So the problem remains and it is serious one we all need to think more about in our mad dash to digitally revolutionize our discipline. Are there still things that are better in analog than digital? If so, what are they? Are there things that can be done digitally but shouldn’t be? How can we ensure that our best digital work is still accessible in 100 years time? These are just some of the questions we need to ask ourselves.

Batovici: Two B Scribes in Codex Sinaiticus?

In the Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists, Dan Batovici has a new article arguing against splitting the “B” scribe into two.

Abstract: The history of scribal hand identification in Codex Sinaiticus is a fairly complicated one. The most recent identification, splitting the work of Tischendorf’s scribe B in B1 and B2, was attempted by Amy Myshrall in a 2015 contribution, as a result of the work on the Codex Sinaiticus digitizing project completed in 2009. This article will assess the argument proposed by Amy Myshrall for distinguishing the two new scribes, and it argues that there is not enough reason to adopt the newly proposed distinction.

The article is on his Academia page.

Look twice, Read, and look again

I came across the textual variant at the end of Lk 12:38, 'Blessed are these'. The issue here is the presence / absence of οι δουλοι in μακαριοι εισιν οι δουλοι εκεινοι (I think οι δουλοι shouldn't be there, yet modern translations, ESV and NIV, put it in anyway). Sinaiticus has its own version and leaves out εκεινοι too, which was later added, as we can see on the second and third line:

The ink and lettering of the correction stands out as that of one of the later correctors, attractively named Cb2. Colour and style matches the interlinear addition αν a few lines further down (on top of an interlinear correction by an early corrector).
But there is something slightly off here, there seems some noise underneath. And indeed, NA27 has this down as Alef¹, and so does NA28, which is more reliable when it comes to the corrections of Sinaiticus and, according to Tischendorf himself, "εκεινοι addidit A, item C". Suspicion was justified, εκεινοι of an earlier corrector was overwritten by a later corrector.

Look twice, read what others say about it, and look again.

Isaiah 66 and Jeremiah 1 in Sinaiticus, on Display at the British Library

As noted in the British Library blog, the British Library has lent the NT of Codex Sinaiticus to the British Museum for a special display down the road (in its old home). This means that when you go to the British Library you can see some of the Greek Old Testament on display. This page from Isaiah 66 and Jeremiah 1.

 

I was down there today and it was wonderful to behold. It is an interesting couple of passages which were both very familiar to Paul: Isaiah 66.18-21: sending saved ones to the nations, declaring God’s glory among the nations, the list of nations and Paul’s mission etc. (check Romans 15). And Jeremiah 1.5: ‘before you were born I consecrated you, I appointed you a prophet to the nations’ (check Galatians 1). So we may be lacking the New Testament, but in reading these passages one is looking forward to the New Testament.

Recent Journal Articles on Textual Criticism

While looking at the new journals shelf last week I noticed a number of text critical articles have come out recently.

Novum Testamentum  57.5

Ronald H. van der Bergh, “Old Testament Awareness” and the Textual Tradition of the Explicit Quotations of Isaiah in Codex Bezae’s Acts, pp. 360–378

This article investigates the textual history of the explicit quotations of Isaiah in the Acts of the Apostles of Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis (Acts 7:49–50; 13:34; 13:47) by introducing the concept of “Old Testament awareness.” This concept can be defined as the degree to which a NT tradition, at any stage of its transmission history, is aware of a quotation stemming from the OT. OT awareness can be identified in the layout of Codex Bezae (e.g., the indentation of text in the manuscript to indicate OT quotations), the text of quotations (e.g., readings that can be shown to be a subsequent change towards an OT tradition) and the context of the quoted text (e.g., the quotations’ introductory formulae). Through assessing the OT awareness of Codex Bezae’s explicit quotations of Isaiah, different stages in the transmission history of the text of these quotations in Codex Bezae’s Acts can be identified.

Laurent Pinchard, Des traces vétérotestamentaires dans deux variantes du Codex de Bèze (Mt 26,55 et 28,8) jugées harmonisantes, pp. 418–430

Codex Bezae is traditionally famous for its harmonising tendency compared to other early majuscule manuscripts of the Gospels. In this article we suggest that, based on two examples drawn from Matthew, some of its variant readings have striking lexical correspondence with passages from the Old Testament. As a result, it is more likely that they probably transmit an original reading as opposed to being the result of a less capable scribe, who would have corrected an earlier text to make it closer to the parallel passages from the Synoptics. The passages examined are Jesus’ arrest on the Mount of Olives (Mt 26.55) and the women’s encounter at the tomb on Easter day (Mt 28.8).

Also in NovT, Simon Crisp and J. K. Elliott review vols. 1–2 of the New Cambridge History of the Bible  and Hugh Houghton reviews Die Vetus Latina-Fragmente aus dem Kloster St. Gallen.

New Testament Studies 61.4

Joel D. Estes, Reading for the Spirit of the Text: nomina sacra and πνεῦμα Language in P46, pp. 566–594

This study examines every reference to πνεῦμα in NT Papyrus 46 (P. Chester Beatty ii / P. Mich. Inv. 6238) and whether or not it is contracted as a nomen sacrum. Against expectations, the scribe does not always use nomina sacra to designate the divine Spirit, nor are other kinds of spirits always written out in full. This discovery destabilises the assumption that we can access the scribe’s understanding of πνεῦμα simply by identifying where nomina sacra do and do not occur. At the same time, such scribal irregularity itself may illustrate wider theological ambiguities among some early Christian communities concerning the status and role of the Holy Spirit.

Peter Malik, The Corrections of Codex Sinaiticus and the Textual Transmission of Revelation: Josef Schmid Revisited, pp. 595–614

The role of manuscript corrections in studying textual transmission of the New Testament has been long recognised by textual critics. And yet, the actual witness of corrections may at times be difficult to interpret. A case in point is Josef Schmid’s seminal work on the text of Revelation. Following Wilhelm Bousset, Schmid argued that a particular group of corrections in Codex Sinaiticus reflected a Vorlage with a text akin to that of the Andreas text-type. By dating these corrections – unlike Bousset – to the scriptorium, Schmid utilised their witness to trace the text of Andreas back to the fourth century. Recently, Juan Hernández has shown that the corrections cited by Schmid were significantly later, hence calling his fourth-century dating of Andreas (among other things) into question. Through an analysis of the corrections cited by Schmid, supplemented by a fuller data-set of Sinaiticus’ corrections in Revelation, this study seeks to reappraise Schmid’s claims concerning the textual relations of these corrections, and identify their role in the later transmission of the text of Revelation.

Tyndale Bulletin 66.1

Lincoln Blumell, A New LXX Fragment Containing Job 7:3–4 and 7:9, pp. 95–101

This article presents an edition of a papyrus fragment from LXX Job that is housed in the Hatcher Graduate Library at the University of Michigan. The fragment likely dates to the sixth century A.D. and comes from a codex. On the recto the fragment contains Job 7:3–4 and on the verso Job 7:9. [Includes two black and white photos.]

New Article in the TC Journal on "The Earliest Corrections in Codex Sinaiticus"

As one of the editors, I am delighted to announce that a new fine article has been published in the current volume of TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism.

Peter Malik, The Earliest Corrections in Codex Sinaiticus: Further Evidence from the Apocalypse

Abstract: Previous research into the scribal corrections of Codex Sinaiticus—also labelled as “S1”—has yielded fruitful results, especially regarding distribution of the scribal correcting activity and the textual affinities of corrections. The present article extends our knowledge of this aspect of Sinaiticus by examining scribal corrections in the book of Revelation, especially with regard to their nature, authorship, and textual affinities. It is argued that the palaeographical and textual evidence suggests that, unlike other previously studied portions of Sinaiticus, the text of Revelation was most likely never subjected to a secondary review in the scriptorium.

New Book on Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript 
The volume arising from the major conference on Codex Sinaiticus in the summer of 2009 (see blogs here for the programme and here and here for “highlights”), is advertised in the most recent British Library catalogue for publication in June 2015, as follows:

There is an interesting mix of papers and contributions on both LXX and NT (including two papers on Hermas), with four papers on the modern history of the various portions, including archival work in Sinai and in the British Library and a first-hand report on the New Finds, and five papers on various aspects of the Codex Sinaiticus Project: conservation, photography, transcription etc.

Up-date: My copy arrived today, so the book is now available. Here is a table of contents:

Section 1: Historical Setting 1

1 Codex Sinaiticus in Its Fourth Century Setting

Harry Gamble

Section 2: The Septuagint

2 The Septuagint in Codex Sinaiticus Compared with Other Sources

Emanuel Tov

3 Reconstructing Quire 17 Folio 1: Joshua 12:2–14:4

Rachel Kevern

4 Codex Sinaiticus and the Book of Psalms

Albert Pietersma

Section 3: Early Christian Writings

5 Codex Sinaiticus: Its Entrance into the Mid-Nineteenth Century Text-Critical Environment and Its Impact on the New Testament Text

Eldon Jay Epp

6 Codex Sinaiticus and the Formation of the Christian Bible

David Trobisch

7 The Corrected New Testament Text of Codex Sinaiticus

Klaus Wachtel

8 Codex Sinaiticus: An Early Christian Commentary on the Apocalypse?

Juan Hernández Jr

9 Some Observations on Various Features of Scribe D in the New Testament of Codex Sinaiticus

Peter M. Head

10 The Presence of a Fourth Scribe?

Amy Myshrall

11 The Appearance of Hermas’s Text in Codex Sinaiticus

Dan Batovici

12 The Shepherd of Hermas and Its Inclusion in Codex Sinaiticus: Almost Scripture

Archbishop Damianos of Sinai

Translated by George S. M. Foskolos

Section 4: Modern Histories of Codex Sinaiticus

13 One Story – Different Perspectives: The Discovery of Codex Sinaiticus

Christfried Böttrich

14 The Recent History of Codex Sinaiticus: Insights from the Sinai Archives

Nicholas Fyssas

15 The British Museum Purchase of the Codex Sinaiticus

William Frame

16 The Recovery of the New Finds at Sinai: A First-hand Report

Panayotis G. Nikolopoulos

Translation from the Greek original by George S. M. Foskolos

Section 5: Codex Sinaiticus Today

17 A Physical Perspective of Codex Sinaiticus: An overview from British Library Folios

Gavin Moorhead, Sara Mazzarino,

Flavio Marzo, Barry Knight

18 The Conservation and Photography of the Codex Sinaiticus at Saint Catherine’s Monastery: Not Quite Finished

Hieromonk Justin of Sinai and Nikolas Sarris

19 The Digital Sinaiticus Transcription: Process and Discovery

T. A. E. Brown

20 The Making of the Codex Sinaiticus Electronic Book

Peter Robinson

21 The Transcription and Reconstruction of Codex Sinaiticus

David Parker

22 Codex Sinaiticus and its Importance for Contemporary Christianity

Steve Walton

 

New Article: Batovici on Hermas in Sinaiticus

Dan Batovici, ‘Textual Revisions of the Shepherd of Hermas in Codex Sinaiticus’ ZAC 18 (2014), 443-470. [academia.edu]

Abstract: The last two books in what has survived of the fourth century biblical manuscript Codex Sinaiticus are the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. This article is an investigation of the correctors’ treatment of the text of the Shepherd of Hermas in this codex, and advances our knowledge at various points of both Codex Sinaiticus and its textual revisions of the Shepherd of Hermas. Furthermore, it attempts to assess the relevance of the corrections for the reception history of the Shepherd of Hermas.

This is an interesting article, taking account of the two (fragmentary) leaves of Hermas among the New Finds, and investigating the four strata of corrections to the text of Hermas in Sinaiticus (S1, ca & cc, d, corr). Well done Dan!

Scratching the plural out of prayer - Mt 6:5

This is a story about how difficult it can be to get the data right even before starting to ponder the original wording of a text.

These are the opening words of Mt 6:5 as in Tregelles and NA28:

Καὶ ὅταν προσεύχησθε, οὐκ ἔσεσθε ὡς οἱ ὑποκριταί,
And when you pray, you must not be as the hypocrites

The majority reading is as follows:

Καὶ ὅταν προσεύχῃ, οὐκ ἔσῃ ὥσπερ οἱ ὑποκριταί,
And when you (singular) pray, you (singular) must not be as the hypocrites

I am only interested in the two verbs, whether they are singular or plural.
In the apparatus of NA28 we learn that, among others, Codex Sinaiticus (א*) supports the singular verb, though with a minor variation, as indicated by the round brackets. In Appendix II we learn that א* actually reads προσευχη ουκ εσεσθε. That is, a singular verb προσευχη followed by the plural εσεσθε. The second corrector supports the text.

There are sorts of things wrong here. First of all, why is א* given as support for the double singular reading as, arguably (having one of each), it can be forwarded as support for the double plural reading?
Moreover, I don't think the reading of א* is accessible. Have a look at the images:

Normal light:


Striking light:



The transcribers of Sinaiticus on the Codex Sinaiticus website get it right, as usual. Here corrector Ca is made responsible for the intralinear correction of προσευχη to προσευχησθαι (itacism for προσευχησθε), the remainder of the text as visible on that line is the work of the first corrector (א^{a [or 1]}), while the erased text of א* is unreadable. As you can see on the image, a rewriting starts from the third letter onwards, where we have indications of something being scratched off the parchment before the current writing. The parchment is rough till the end of the line and even torn at the final epsilon of εσεσθε.
What can we say about the erased text of א*, except that it was erased quite efficiently? The original version had something that started with προσευχησ-. It seems clear to me (and Tischendorf) that the omicron of ουκ is created out of a lunar sigma Ϲ. But is there space on the line to have the version with the two plural verbs? I don't think so, since it would require an extra two letters to be accommodated on the line which is already wider than average. That means that if the first version had two plural verbs, the first of these (and only the first) was already corrected in scribendo, that is before the next line was written.
For once, Tischendorf is not much of a help in suggesting that perhaps the original error was made from -σθε to -σθε. Though this is possible, it means, again, that the error was caught and mended before the writing of the next line, and only after almost the whole line had been filled up. His scenario requires that in addition to messing up the original line, the scribe also messed up the correction, by forcing the first verb into a singular (even though originally he had it right).

Whatever the underlying error we should represent the testimony of Sinaiticus as follows:
א*: προσευχησ[illegible] ...
א^a: προσευχη ουκ εσεσθε ως οι
א^ca: προσευχησθαι (read προσευχησθε; remainder of the line untouched).
Interestingly, this suggest that א* may have intended to write the double plural before messing up, and that (I am slightly increasing the speculation value), whilst clearing the mess, the same scribe but now in the guise of the first corrector, messed up again.
Anyway א* is closer to the text of NA28 than to the variant in the apparatus, despite what the apparatus tells you, א^a can be read as supporting either wording but should probably figure as a separate reading, and א^{ca [or] 2]} supports indeed the reading as given in the text.

Article: Crawford on Ammonius and Eusebius

Interesting new article in NTS: Matthew R. Crawford, ‘Ammonius of Alexandria,Eusebius of Caesarea and the Origins of Gospels Scholarship’ New Testament Studies 61 (2014), 1-29.

Abstract: In the early third and fourth centuries respectively, Ammonius of Alexandria and Eusebius of Caesarea engaged in cutting-edge research on the relationships among the four canonical gospels. Indeed, these two figures stand at the head of the entire tradition of comparative literary analysis of the gospels. This article provides a more precise account of their contributions, as well as the relationship between the two figures. It argues that Ammonius, who was likely the teacher of Origen, composed the first gospel synopsis by placing similar passages in parallel columns. He gave this work the title Diatessaron-Gospel, referring thereby to the four columns in which his text was laid out. This pioneering piece of scholarship drew upon a long tradition of Alexandrian textual scholarship and likely served as the inspiration for Origen’s more famous Hexapla. A little over a century later, Eusebius of Caesarea picked up where Ammonius left off and attempted to accomplish the same goal, albeit using a different and improved method. Using the textual parallels presented in the Diatessaron-Gospel as his ‘raw data’, Eusebius converted these textual units into numbers which he then collated in ten tables, or ‘canons’, standing at the beginning of a gospel book. The resulting cross-reference system, consisting of the Canon Tables as well as sectional enumeration throughout each gospel, allowed the user to find parallels between the gospels, but in such a way that the literary integrity of each of the four was preserved. Moreover, Eusebius also exploited the potential of his invention by including theologically suggestive cross-references, thereby subtly guiding the reader of the fourfold gospel to what might be called a canonical reading of the four.

PMH Notes:

The main purpose of the article is to remind NT scholars about the importance of Ammonius and Eusebius and outline their work which resulted in the Eusebian canon system of tracing parallel passages in the four canonical gospels - a system which succeeded in enabling cross-referencing across the four gospels while maintaining their individual integrity. The article is generally helpful, and well worth a read; although on a range of issues I found it a little speculative (especially on the proposed title of Ammonius’ work and its supposed relation to Origen’s hexapla, even on the question of whether the material without Matthean parallel had any part in Ammonius’ work). Reflection on the actual use of the Eusebian system is limited to two or three admittedly interesting examples at the end of the article. One still doesn’t get a full picture of the use of the system, its assumptions and implications. Students would still be well advised to read Eusebius’ letter to Carpianus (in the NA, or in H. H. Oliver, ‘The Epistle of Eusebius to Carpianus: Textual Tradition and Translation’, Novum Testamentum 3 (1959), 138-145) and explore the system themselves for a day or two.

[One should also remember that the system in NA is an ideal system, and the actual system as deployed in a manuscript may have numerous errors, e.g. in Sinaiticus, see D.J. Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (T&S III.5; Piscataway, NJ: Gorgias, 2007), 109-120 (in general), and with specific reference to Mark: P.M. Head, ‘The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations’ TC: A Journal of Biblical Textual Criticism  13 (2008), 20-22]

Ephesians 6.21 in Sinaiticus and NA28

Eph 6.21 in the NA28 has probably one of the most complex things ever seen in an apparatus. Whereas NA27 simply cited Sinaiticus in support of the txt at the word order variant: PANTA GNWRISEI UMIN TUXIKOS; NA28 now has: ALEPH in support of the same reading, but qualified with: ‘(*.2a).1.2b’. This, while entirely accurate, is possibly over-kill - offering four different slices of the history of the manuscript all ostensibly in support of the same variant; but the situation is interesting.

It is pretty clear that the original of Sinaiticus [labelled * in NA28] had PANTA U (which was caught as a mistake in the act of writing and dotted or crossed through [labelled 1 in NA28; S1 in SinProj]) then GNWRISEI UMIN. A subsequent corrector [labelled 2a in NA28; Ca in SinProj] added MIN between the lines (correcting the text towards the Maj. text, but leaving the following UMIN in place, resulting in PANTA UMIN GNWRISEI UMIN TUXIKOS). A further corrector [labelled 2b in NA28; CA in SinProj] rubbed out the MIN, and either dotted or crossed through the U.

It seems to me likely that the exemplar of Sinaiticus had the word order GNWRISEI UMIN, if it was otherwise there would have been no reason to stop and self-correct. Thus Sinaiticus shows the type of word order variation originating independently. So Sin* is rightly cited in support of the NA28 reading. Possibly Sin2a really meant to correct the text towards the Maj. reading, and could possibly have been cited on the other side (but within brackets). But probably the simplest solution would have been to leave it as it was in NA27! It is certainly one that will now take a bit of explaining to students.

Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible

Jim Spinti tells me that today, Eisenbrauns' "Deal of the Day" is

Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible
by David C. Parker

Publisher: Hendrickson Publishers Publication date: 2010 Bibliographic info: 195 pages Language(s): English

Cover: Cloth with Dustjacket ISBN: 1-59856-576-1 ISBN13: 978-1-59856-576-8

List Price: $34.95
Your Price: $17.48

Get the book here.

Publisher's description

Despite its rather austere appearance, the Codex Sinaiticus is a treasure beyond price. Produced in the middle of the fourth century, its bound parchment pages hold the full canon of the Christian Bible and more—the handwritten Greek text of the earliest surviving copy of the complete koine New Testament; the earliest and best copies of some Septuagint texts, the Old Testament Scriptures as they were adopted by the first-century church; and two late first-century Christian texts, the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas. The sections are heavily marked by early correctors. Told here is the compelling story of how the Codex Sinaiticus was created and used in the ancient church; how it was preserved for centuries at the monastery of St. Catherine’s, Mount Sinai; its subsequent history and how its pages came to be divided and dispersed; and how it has been compiled again and made accessible to a worldwide audience for the first time. Publication in June 2009 coincides with the launch of the Codex Sinaiticus Project website, which includes a digitized “virtual edition” of one of the most famous and remarkable manuscripts in the history of the church, the Bible, and book production in general.

D. C. Parker’s outstanding research and excellent storytelling skills simultaneously illuminate the chronology of bookmaking in Western culture and the effects of that technology on the presentation of the biblical canon. Offering a fascinating look at the task of making a Bible in the year 350, he discusses how included books were chosen—or not; physical elements of production—layout, ink, parchment, binding, and budget; the jobs of scribes and correctors; and the role of annotators. As readers follow the travels of the pieces of the Codex Sinaiticus through the twentieth century, they’ll discover key personalities and places, and absorb the details of the current production of the Internet electronic edition of this singular document. 

I can tell you that I picked up my own signed copy in conjunction with this event.

For a review see here.