Codex Sinaiticus

Nomina sacra with overlines are employed throughout. Some words usually abbreviated in other manuscripts (such as πατηρ and δαυειδ), are written in both full and abbreviated forms. The following nomina sacra are written in abbreviated forms (nominative forms shown): ΘΣ (θεος / god), ΚΣ (κυριος / lord), ΙΣ (Ιησους / Jesus), ΧΣ (χριστος / Christ), ΠΝΑ (πνευμα / spirit), ΠΝΙΚΟΣ (πνευματικος / spiritual), ΥΣ (υιος / son), ΑΝΟΣ (ανθρωπος / man), ΟΥΟΣ (ουρανος / heaven), ΔΑΔ (Δαυιδ / David), ΙΛΗΜ (Ιερουσαλημ / Jerusalem), ΙΣΡΛ (Ισραηλ / Israel), ΜΗΡ (μητηρ / mother), ΠΗΡ (πατηρ / father), ΣΩΡ (σωτηρ / saviour).^{[14]: 22–50, 67–68}

The portion of the codex held by the British Library consists of 346½

While large portions of the Old Testament are missing, it is assumed the codex originally contained the whole of both Testaments.[17] About half of the Greek Old Testament (or Septuagint) survived, along with a complete New Testament, the entire Deuterocanonical books, the Epistle of Barnabas and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas.^[2]: 107

The text of the Old Testament contains the following passages in order:^[19][20][21]

The text of the New Testament is arranged in the following order:^[21]

The codex includes two other books as part of the New Testament:

• Epistle of Barnabas
• Shepherd of Hermas

For most of the New Testament, Codex Sinaiticus is in general agreement with

In

Matt: 656

Mark: 567

Luke: 791

John: 1022

Total — 3036.^[25]

According to textual critic

Between the 4th and 12th centuries, seven or more correctors worked on this codex, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence.[28] During his investigation in Petersburg, Tischendorf enumerated 14,800 corrections in the portion which was only held in Petersburg (2/3 of the codex).^[5] According to textual critic David C. Parker, the full codex has about 23,000 corrections.^[29]: 3 In addition to these corrections some letters were marked by dots as doubtful (e.g. ṪḢ).

The New Testament portion lacks the following passages:

Omitted verses

• sa^[31]
  ^: 32

Matthew 16

bo^[33]

^: 33

Matthew 17

bo^pt[31]

^: 48

Matthew 18

bo^pt[31]

^: 49

Matthew 23

bo^pt[31]

^: 65

• B L Δ*^[33]
  ^: 81

Mark 9:44

sa^[33]

^: 86

Mark 9:46

sa^[33]

^: 87

Mark 11:25

bo^pt[31]

^: 128

Mark 15:28

bo^pt[31]

^: 144

B k sy^s arm^[33]

^{: 102–106}

• Gospel of Luke Luke 10:32^[42] - א‎* (Likely omitted due to haplography resulting from homeoteleuton; the verse was added by a later corrector in lower margin)^[33]: 128

Luke 17:36

B L W Δ Θ Ψ ƒ¹ 28 33 565^[33]

^{: 142–143}

• bo^mss[33]
  ^: 179

John 7:53-8:11

B L N T W X Y Δ Θ Ψ 0141 0211 22 33 124 157 209 788 828 1230 1241 1253 2193 (see Image "John 7:53–8:11");^[33]

^{: 187–189}

• bo eth^[33]
  ^: 315

Acts 15:34

B E L Ψ 81 1241 1505 Byz^[31]

^: 387

Acts 24:7

co^[31]

^: 395

Acts 28:29

co^[31]

^: 408

• co^[31]
  ^: 440

Omitted phrases

• bo^pt[50]
  ^: 16
• Matthew 6:13:
  bo^pt diat^syr[50]
  ^: 18
• Matthew 10:39:[52] ο ευρων την ψυχην αυτου απολεσει αυτην, και (Ηe who finds his life will lose it, and) - א‎* (singular reading)^[31]: 26
• Matthew 15:6:
  sa ^[31]
  ^: 41
• Matthew 20:23:
  bo^pt[31]
  ^: 56
• Matthew 23:35:[55] υιου βαραχιου (son of Barachi'ah) - א‎ 59* ℓ 6 ℓ 13 ℓ 185, Eus^[56]

  ^[57] υιου θεου (the Son of God) - א‎ Θ 28^c ℓ 2211 sy^p sa^ms arm geo^1[50]: 118

• Mark 10:7:
  B Ψ 892 ℓ 48 sy^s goth^[50]
  ^: 164
• Luke 9:55-56:
  bo^[31]
  ^: 190
• John 4:9:
  fay (א‎^c includes the phrase)^{[50]: 333  [31]}
  ^: 256

• Matthew 24:36:
  vg^mss sy^p arm eth geo¹ Diat), marked by the first corrector (a) as doubtful (omitted also in L W Δ ƒ¹ 33 157 579 700 892 1424 and majority of manuscripts), but the second corrector (b) removed the mark.^[50]
  ^: 95
• Mark 10:40:
  B C D L W Δ Ψ ƒ¹³ 157 and majority of manuscripts), but the second corrector removed the mark.^[50]
  ^: 163
• Luke 11:4:
  bo^pt arm geo), but the third corrector (c) removed the mark.^[50]
  ^: 248
• Luke 22:43-44:
  bo^pt arm geo), but the third corrector removed the mark.^[50]
  ^: 305
• bo^pt), but a third corrector removed the mark.^[31]
  ^: 239

Matthew 8:13:^[65]

καὶ ὑποστρέψας ὁ ἑκατόνταρχος εἰς τὸν οἶκον αὐτοῦ ἐν αὐτῇ τῇ ὦρᾳ εὗρεν τὸν παῖδα ὑγιαίνοντα (and when the centurion returned to the house in that hour, he found the slave well) - א‎

0250) ƒ¹ (33 1241) g¹ sy^h[31]

^: 18

λέγοντες εἰρήνη τῷ οἴκῳ τούτῳ (say peace to be this house - the reading was deleted by the first corrector, but the second corrector restored it) - א‎¹ D L W Θ ƒ¹ 22 1010 (1424) it vg^cl.^{[67][31]: 24}

ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὕδορ καὶ αἷμα (the other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately came out water and blood) - א‎ B C L.^[33]: 59

Matthew 7:22

πολλα (numerous - "and cast out numerous demons in your name?") - א‎ (singular reading)^[31]: 17

Matthew 8:12

ἐξελεύσονται (will go out) - א‎

0250 k sy arm Diatessaron.^[50]

^: 26

εις την αντιπατριδα αυτου (to his own Antipatris) - א‎ (singular reading)

Acts 8:5^[69]

εις την πολιν της Καισαριας (to the city of Caesarea) - א‎ (singular reading).

της ζυμης των αρτων των Φαρισαιων και Σαδδουκαιων (leaven of bread of the Pharisees and Sadducees) - א‎ ff¹ sy^c

Luke 1:26^[70]

Ιουδαιας (Judaea) – א‎ (singular reading)

Luke 2:37^[71]

εβδομηκοντα (seventy) - א‎ (singular reading)^[31]: 158

John 1:28^[72]

Βηθαραβα (Betharaba - a correction by the second corrector; originally reads Βηθανια (Bethany) ) - א‎ 892 sy^h(mg)[73]

John 1:34^[74]

ὁ ἐκλεκτός (chosen one) - א‎

𝔓⁵ 𝔓¹⁰⁶ b e ff² sy^{c, s}

John 2:3[75]

οινον ουκ ειχον οτι συνετελεσθη ο οινος του γαμου (they had no wine, because the wine of the marriage feast was finished) - א‎ a j

John 6:10^[76]

τρισχιλιοι (three thousands) - א‎* (singular reading). Amended to πεντακισχιλιοι (five thousand) by the second corrector.^[31]: 264

Acts 11:20^[77]

εὐαγγελιστας (Evangelists) - א‎ (singular reading)^[6]: 47

Acts 14:9^[78]

ουκ ηκουσεν (not heard) - א‎ (singular reading)^[6]: 47

Hebrews 2:4^[79]

θερισμοις (harvests) - א‎ (singular reading)^[6]: 47

1 Peter 5:13^[80]

εκκλησια (Church) - א‎ vg^mss sy^p[6]: 47

2 Timothy 4:10^[81]

Γαλλιαν (Gaul) - א‎ C 81 104 326 436^[50]: 737

Mark 10:19^[82]

μη αποστερησης (do not defraud)

incl. - א‎ B^(c2) Majority of manuscripts

omit -

ℓ 950 ℓ 1642 ℓ 1761 sy^s arm geo.^[50]

^: 165

Mark 13:33[83]

και προσευχεσθε (and pray)

incl. - א‎ Majority of manuscripts

omit - B D.^[31]: 136

Luke 8:48^[84]

θυγατερ (daughter) - א‎ Majority of manuscripts

θυγατηρ (daughter) - B K L W Θ.^[31]: 184

1 John 5:6^[85]

δι' ὕδατος καὶ αἵματος καὶ πνεύματος (through water and blood and spirit) - also in

bo Origen.^{[50]: 823  [n 4]} Bart D. Ehrman says this was a corrupt reading from a proto-orthodox scribe,^[86] although this conclusion has not gained wide support.^[87]

The codex can be dated with a reasonable degree of confidence between the early fourth century and the early fifth century.[91] It could not have been written before about 325 because it contains the Eusebian Canons, which is a terminus post quem. The terminus ante quem is less certain. Milne and Skeat relied on small cursive notes to assert that the date of the production of the codex was not likely to be much later than about 360.^[5] More recent research suggests that these cursive notes could be as late as the early fifth century.^[91]

Tischendorf theorized that Codex Sinaiticus was one of the

Biblical scholar 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".^[94]

Tischendorf believed four separate scribes copied the work (whom he named A, B, C and D), and five correctors amended portions (whom he designated a, b, c, d and e). He posited one of the correctors was contemporaneous with the original scribes, and the others worked during the sixth and seventh centuries. After Milne and Skeat's reinvestigation, it is now agreed Tischendorf was incorrect, as scribe C never existed.^{[28]: 22–50} According to Tischendorf, scribe C wrote the poetic books of the Old Testament. These are written in a different format from the rest of the manuscript – they appear in two columns (the rest of books is in four columns), written stichometrically. Tischendorf probably interpreted the different formatting as indicating the existence of another scribe.^{[14]: 22–50, 12–13} The three remaining scribes are still identified by the letters Tischendorf gave them: A, B, and D.^{[14]: 22–50, 12–13} There were in fact more correctors, with at least seven (a, b, c, ca, cb, cc, e).^[2]

Modern analysis identifies three scribes:

• Scribe A wrote most of the historical and poetical books of the Old Testament; almost the whole of the New Testament; and the Epistle of Barnabas
• Scribe B was responsible for the Prophets and for the Shepherd of Hermas
• Scribe D wrote the whole of Tobit and Judith; the first half of 4 Maccabees; the first two-thirds of the Psalms; and the first five verses of Revelation

Scribe B was a poor speller, and scribe A was not much better; the best scribe was D.^[14]: 90 Metzger states: "scribe A had made some unusually serious mistakes".^[5] Scribes A and B used nomina sacra in contracted forms most often (ΠΝΕΥΜΑ contracted in all occurrences, ΚΥΡΙΟΣ contracted except in two occurrences), whereas scribe D mostly used the uncontracted forms.^{[14]: 77–78} Scribe D distinguished between sacral and nonsacral uses of ΚΥΡΙΟΣ.^{[14]: 80–81} His spelling errors are the substitution of ΕΙ for Ι, and Ι for ΕΙ in medial positions, both equally common. Otherwise substitution of Ι for initial ΕΙ is unknown, and final ΕΙ is only replaced in the word ΙΣΧΥΕΙ. The confusion of Ε and ΑΙ is very rare.^[14]: 90 In the Book of Psalms, this scribe has ΔΑΥΕΙΔ instead of ΔΑΥΙΔ 35 times, while scribe A normally uses an abbreviated form ΔΑΔ.^[28]: 94 Scribe A made the most phonetic errors: confusion of Ε and ΑΙ occurs in all contexts.^[14]: 90 Milne and Skeat characterised scribe B as "careless and illiterate".^{[28]: 53–55}

A

The Codex may have been seen in 1761 by the Italian traveller Vitaliano Donati, when he visited the Saint Catherine's Monastery at Sinai in Egypt. 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 bellissimo; conservano poi in chiesa un Evangelistario greco in caractere d'oro rotondo, che dovrebbe pur essere assai antico.^[97]

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 vellum, 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" may be Codex Sinaiticus, and the gold evangelistarium is likely Lectionary 300 on the Gregory-Aland list.^[10]: V

German Biblical scholar Constantin von Tischendorf wrote about his visit to the monastery in Reise in den Orient in 1846 (translated as Travels in the East in 1847), without mentioning the manuscript. Later, in 1860, in his writings about the Sinaiticus discovery, Tischendorf wrote a narrative about the monastery and the manuscript that spanned from 1844 to 1859. He wrote that in 1844, during his first visit to the Saint Catherine's Monastery, he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. They were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery",^[16]: 313 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 the Leipzig University Library, where they remain. In 1846 Tischendorf published their contents, naming them the 'Codex Friderico-Augustanus' (in honor of Frederick Augustus and keeping secret the source of the leaves).^[98] Other portions of the same codex remained in the monastery, containing all of Isaiah and 1 and 4 Maccabees.^[99]

In 1845,

In 1853, Tischendorf revisited the Saint Catherine's Monastery to get the remaining 86 folios, but without success. Returning in 1859, this time under the

This work has been digitised in full and all four volumes may be consulted online.[100] It was reprinted in four volumes in 1869:

• Konstantin von Tischendorf, G. Olms (Hrsg.): Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. 1. Prolegomena. G. Olms, Hildesheim 1869 (Repr.).
• Konstantin von Tischendorf, G. Olms (Hrsg.): Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. 2. Veteris Testamenti pars prior. G. Olms, Hildesheim 1869 (Repr.).
• Konstantin von Tischendorf, G. Olms (Hrsg.): Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. 3. Veteris Testamenti pars posterior. G. Olms, Hildesheim 1869 (Repr.).
• Konstantin von Tischendorf, G. Olms (Hrsg.): Bibliorum codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. 4. Novum Testamentum cum Barnaba et Pastore. G. Olms, Hildesheim 1869 (Repr.).

The complete publication of the codex was made by Kirsopp Lake in 1911 (New Testament), and in 1922 (Old Testament). It was the full-sized black and white facsimile of the manuscript, "made from negatives taken from St. Petersburg by my wife and myself in the summer of 1908".^[10]

The story of how Tischendorf found the manuscript, which contained most of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament, has all the interest of a romance. 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.[101]

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."

The codex is regarded by the monastery as having been stolen, which is proven by a receipt given by Tischendorf to the authorities at the monastery promising to return the manuscript from St. Petersburg 'to the Holy Confraternity of Sinai at its earliest request', a copy of which is on display in the publicly-accessible area of the monastery.[104] This view of Tischendorf's role in the transfer to Saint Petersburg has been contested by several scholars in Europe. New Testament scholar

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 Saint Catherine's Monastery. For an 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), pp.15-24; for an account that includes a hitherto [i.e., before 1964] unknown receipt given by Tischendorf to the authorities at the monastery promising to return the manuscript from Saint Petersburg 'to the Holy Confraternity of Sinai at its earliest request,' see Ihor Ševčenko, "New Documents on Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus", published in the journal Scriptorium, xviii (1964), pp. 55–80.^[95]: 64

On 13 September 1862

In answer to Simonides in Allgemeine Zeitung (December 1862), Tischendorf noted only in the New Testament were there many differences between it and all other manuscripts. Henry Bradshaw, a bibliographer, combatted the claims of Constantine Simonides in a letter to The Manchester Guardian (26 January 1863). Bradshaw argued that Codex Sinaiticus brought by Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai was not a modern forgery or written by Simonides.^[108] 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 find.

However, independent discoveries of other fragments of the codex in recent history (see below) prove its authenticity, and disprove all theories of it being a forgery.[111]^[112][113]

In the early 20th century Vladimir Beneshevich (1874–1938) 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 these were recovered. These leaves were also acquired for St. Petersburg, where they remain.^[114][115]

For many decades, the Codex was preserved in the

In June 2005, a team of experts from the United Kingdom, Europe, Egypt, Russia and United States undertook a joint project to produce a new digital edition of the manuscript (involving all four holding libraries), and a series of other studies was announced.[119]^[120][121] This will include the use of hyperspectral imaging to photograph the manuscripts to look for hidden information such as erased or faded text.^[122] This was done in cooperation with the British Library.^[123]

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,^[124] although the entire text was intended to be shown by that date.^[125]

The complete document is now available online in digital form and available for scholarly study. The online version has a fully transcribed set of

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 Saint Catherine's Monastery. It contains the text of Book of Joshua 1:10.^[127][113]

The codex is now split into four unequal portions: 347 leaves in the

Saint Catherine's Monastery still maintains the importance of a letter, handwritten in 1844 with an original signature of Tischendorf confirming that he borrowed those leaves and that they would be returned from Russia if requested.[128] However, Russian scholars contend that recently published documents, including a deed of gift dated 11 September 1868 (four years after the removal of the manuscript from the monastery) and signed by Archbishop Kallistratos and the monks of the monastery, amount to a proof that the manuscript was obtained legally.^[129] This deed, which agrees with a report by Kurt Aland on the matter, has now been published. 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 Saint Catherine's Monastery 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). 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 then 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.^[16]: 315

Along with Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus is considered one of the most valuable manuscripts available, as it is one of the oldest and likely closer to the original text of the Greek New Testament. 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.^[2] With only 300 years separating Codex Sinaiticus and the lifetime of Jesus, it is considered by some to be more accurate than most New Testament copies in preserving readings where almost all manuscripts are assumed by them to be in error.^[11]: 191

For the