Barnabas - G has the same text as the 7th century corrector of S - CSP urls

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
11th-century Codex Vaticanus graecus 859 (G) is the archetype of a group of manuscripts.

G has the same text as the 7th century corrector of S.

Does Sinaiticus 7th century corrector that matches G begin at the first chapter or the fifth?

Codex Ottobonianus 348, one of the G manuscripts, was used for Barnabas editions, and the corrections could come from a printed edition!

The Apostolic Fathers: Epistle of Barnabas
https://libraryguides.helsinki.fi/c.php?g=665842&p=4716531

Codex Ottobonianus 348

DigiVatLib

digi.vatlib.it digi.vatlib.it

Backhouse, The Editio Princeps of the Epistle of Barnabas
By Archbishop Ussher, as Printed at Oxford, A.D. 1642, and Preserved in an Imperfect Form in the Bodleian Library; with a Dissertation on the Literary History of that Edition, by the Late Rev. J. H. Backhouse. M.A. Brasenose College. Oxford: The Clarendon press 1883.
Manuscripts of the "Letter of Barnabas"


Voss, [...] S. Barnabæ epistola
Epistolæ genvinæ S. Ignatii martyris; quæ nunc primum lucem vident ex bibliotheca Florentina addunctur S. Ignatii epistolæ, quales vulgo circumferuntur.-adhæc S. Barnabæ epistola. accessit universis translatio vetus ed., & notas addidit, Isaacvs Vossivs

Menard, Sancti Barnabae Apostoli (ut fertur) epistola
Sancti Barnabae Apostoli (ut fertur) epistola catholica. Ab antiquis olim Ecclesiae Patribus, sub eiusdem nomine laudata & usurpata. Hanc primum e tenebris eruit, notisque & observationibus illustravit R. P. Hugo Menardus. Opus posthumum. Paris 1645.

Mader, S. Barnabae apostoli (ut fertur) epistola catholica
S. Barnabae apostoli (ut fertur) epistola catholica : a primitivae ecclesiae patribus nonnullis sub eius nomine citata & laudata. Helmestadii: Mullerii 1655.

===========

Roger Pearse
https://www.tertullian.org/rpearse/manuscripts/barnabas_letter.htm

Pinakes
https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/oeuvre/5454/
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
L. J. Lietaert Peerbolte
Wengst
https://books.google.com/books?id=EEHY6a0NokQC&pg=PA184

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

1889
Lightfoot
https://books.google.com/books?id=oZgwAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA111
1671497375574.png

.....

1671497447957.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Robert Kraft
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/barn/barndiss01.htm

Barn\G/. -- The family of MSS in which Barn 5:7 (TO\N LAO\N TO\N KAINO/N/KENO/N) follows without a break after Polycarp Phil 9:2 (KAI\ DI) H(MA=S U(PO/) is designated as "G" by Gebhardt (Funk and Heer use only "V" [Vaticanus Gr. 859] as the apparent archetype of the family and includes the following codices: {@@RAK note: 13th (Diekamp) }

(1) v = codex Vaticanus Gr. 859 from the @@11th c., used by early eds and re-collated by Dressel; contains the long recension of Ign (11 epistles, mutilated at the beginning), then Polycarp-Barn. {@@RAK addition: plus many other writings}
Vatican
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule_859

(2) o = codex Ottobonianus 348 from the 14th (Dressel) or early 16th (Funk {@@RAK addition: \1-2/} {@@RAK addition: + Lightfoot\1+2/}) c., used by early eds and recollated by Dressel; same contents as v, also has many marginal notes, corrections, and conjectures.
348 - Milan
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule_348

(3) f = codex Florentinus {@@RAK addition: Lauren} Mediceus plut. VII N.2 {@@RAK addition: Cod. 21} from the 15th (Dressel, Bandini) or 16th (Funk {@@RAK addition: \1-2/ + Lightfoot\1-2/}) c., used by Voss; contains Ign and Polycarp-Barn (as in v), plus some writing of Hipp (and Ps-Hipp). {@@RAK note in margin: Lightfoot (II. 1\2/ 113f) thinks it is a direct copy of @@D} {@@RAK note on facing page: Diekamp (1913), XXXVIIf has v (13\th/c) {@@RAK addition: = Jacobsen }same XXXVIIIf. has o (early 16\th/ c) - copy of v (p XLII) }archetype XXXIXf. has f (early 16\th/ c; older dating = 15) }@@XIII So @@Gebl\2/ @@, @@Dress XL has p (16\th/ c) XL also speaks of Paris Suppl gr. 341 (@@med 16\th/c ? various hands) with same contents as ofp XLIII claims it + f. are copies of o XLIV sees p as copy of f. XLIV has c (16\th/ c; prev. 15\th/) XLVf has b (17\th/ c) -- not sure of its @@bkgrnd } [[30]]

(4) p = codex Parisinus (or Colbertinus 4443) N. 937 from the late 16th c. and collated by Harnack (possibly used by Cotelier under the name codex Thuaneus); same contents as f.
937?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule_937
The codex 937 was seen by Gregory at the Dionysiou monastery (29), in Mount Athos.[5]

(5) b = MS Barberinus 7 is a transcript made by Holsten (died 1661) of the mysterious "Theatine" codex (used by Voss) from the library of S. Silvestri in Quirinali, collated with MS v; according to Funk (1880) + Lightfoot (I, 549), the @@original Theatine codex still exists, but others say it has disappeared or was destroyed (Cunningham). {@@RAK note in margin: [t] } {@@RAK-- There is an arrow drawn next to "original." }

(6) c = codes Casanatensis G.V. 14 from the 15th c., possibly used by Voss and re-collated by Dressel; contains 8 epistles of Ign in the middle recension, along with Polycarp-Barn; has some marginal notations. {@@RAK notes in margin of text: 1. Lib. of Minerva at Rome. 2. Funk\2/ says 16th c 3. in different hands (Lightf.) es}

(7) n = codex Borbonicus (or Neapolitanus) II.A.17 from the 15th c., collated for Gebhardt by Martini; contains works of Athanasius, Anastasius, and Methodius, as well as Polycarp-Barn. To these should be added

(8) a= codex Andrius, which contains several patristic works including the Hodegus of Anastasius and (Polycarp- ?) Barn 5:7b-19:2, and first was published by C. @@Pleziotes in 1883,\5/ {@@RAK addition: and

(9) S = codex } {@@RAK note in margin: Salamanierais } {@@RAK-- 1. You have inserted a page of notes. 2. Do you want "C. Pleziotes" or C. Plegiotes?" es} {@@RAK notes on the facing page: 1. Funk\2/ (1901), under Polycarp pp XCVIIf. says the Theatine codex is now "Alexandrino - Vaticano 11" - he had not seen it himself. cf Lightfoot II.1 (1889\2/), 549 Cod MSS Grace Pii II in Bibl. Alex - vab (Duchesne, 1880), p. 10 2. (9) Lightfoot II.2 (1885) mentions in connection with Polycarp, p 900 F, the existence of S = Salmasianus check II.1 (Intro.) (1889\2/), p 549 II.3 (1889\2/), 319f - S = MS used indirectly by Ussher ({@@ arrow facing down}) 3. Summary of Lightfoot 1889\2/ ed. II.1 p. 548 ofp descend from v [also II.3 (1889\2/), 320] p 549 cb descriptions t = Cod MSS Graec Pii II in Bibl. Alex-Vab. p 10 (Duchesne p 880) n = 15\th/ c s = Salmasianus (see II.3, 319 = ms known to Ussher via Voss who got it from Cl. Salmasius who got it from A. Schott a = same type as cbns III.1 pp. iii-114 (Ignatius) 111f. v = 11\th/ c not 13 apud Dressel 112f o = 16\th/ c (so Funk) - possibly copy of v; clearly lineal desc. fr. it my notes in diff hand. 113f f = 16\th/ c, probably {@@symbol?} @@: direct copy of o? (cf Polge. 9.2 HWS note) 114 p = 16\th/ c -- {@@a} facsimile of f directly, or copy of its protype. } ---

\5/See Veldhuizen, p. 7; Muilenburg, p. 12; Andry, p. 286. {@@RAK addition: J.B. Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers II:1 (1885), p. 533. (1889\2/ 549. According to the colophon, it was purchased in 1656 by a certain Athenian Monk named Nathaniel. Pleziotes' publication appeared in DELTI/ON TH=S I(STORIKH=S KAI\ E)QNOLOGIKH=S E(TAURI/AS TH=S H(LLADOS I (1883), 209 ff (the editor thought he had found the remainder of Polycarp in Greek!). The MS is paper, and the last page is lacking (Barn 19:2 ff). See also ZWT (1886), 183 and Funk\2/, XCVIII (Funk had not seen the actual ms). } ===
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

The suggestion of Funk (1880), that Vaticanus gr. 859 is the common archetype for Barn\G/, has gained general acceptance. The family certainly is in close harmony, and significant variants rarely occur within the MSS. Nevertheless, as Funk recognized, there are some variants in Barn\G/ which cannot be explained as direct developments on the basis of the reading in MS v; if MS v is the archetype, other MSS of Barn also may have been consulted occasionally by later copyists. MSS o-f-p seem to stand closest to MS v, while b-c-n have a [[31]] more divergent form of the text.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Robert Kraft
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/barn/Barn-Papyrus.html

According to the standard reference works and the most recent monographs dealing with the Epistle of Barnabas,\1/ the only direct witnesses for the Greek text of the Epistle are Tischendorf's Codex Sinaiticus (S and S\2), Bryennios' Codex Hierosolymitanus (H),\2/ and a family of MSS (G)\3/ descended from a common archetype in which Barn 5.7b-21.9 was welded onto Polycarp, Philippians 1.1-9.2 without any indication, with the resulting hybrid circulating under the name of Polycarp. To these are added such indirect witnesses as the quotations made by Clement of Alexandria (Cl.A) and an old Latin version (L), now preserved [[151]] only in a 9th century copy, which may have originated as early as the year 200 (see below, n. 12).
\1/E.g. J. Quasten, Patrology 1 (1950) p. 91; W. Schneemelcher, supplemented reedition of Funk-Bihlmeyer, Die apostolischen Väter (1956) pp. XXIII and LII; P. Prigent, L'epître de Barnabé I-XVI et ses sources (1961) p. 10; and this writer's translation and commentary to Barnabas and the Didache (The Apostolic Fathers, ed. R. M. Grant, vol. 3, 1965), pp. 17f.

\2/ Because this 11th century MS was discovered at Constantinople by Bryennios, in the library of the patriarchal monastery of Jerusalem, it received the designation "C" in some older treatments such as the standard critical edition of Barnabas by O. de Gebhardt and A. Harnack in Patrum apostolicorum opera 1.2 (1878\2). Both Bryennios and A. Hilgenfeld, for whom Bryennios provided a collation, used the symbol "I" (τὸ ἱεροσολυμιτικὸν χειρόγραφον). The MS has subsequently been relocated in Jerusalem. In the introduction to his editio princeps of the Didache in 1883, Bryennios included five pages of corrections to Hilgenfeld's 1877 edition of the Epistle, which first used the readings of H. These corrections have not been noted in subsequent editions of Barnabas in the Western world. The readings for H given below have been confirmed on the basis of a microfilm of the MS.


\3/ Since the oldest member of this family is the 11th[-13th] century MS Vaticanus gr. 859, which seems to most closely represent the lost archetype (so Funk), some editors list only the evidence of "V" (e.g. Funk's 1901 edition and Funk-Bihlmeyer in 1956). Actually, however, at least two [probably three] sub-groupings of MSS within the family seem to be present: G/1 (v o [f p]) and G/2, (b c n t). Other MSS from the same mutilated archetype are known to exist (a s), but their affinities are undetermined. A recollation of all the members of the family is needed to determine more precisely how they are related and whether, in fact, all except "V" can be ignored in the attempt to recover the readings of the archetype. Gebhardt-Harnack describe MSS [b] c f n o p v. The present writer has examined thsee texts by microfilm.

....

1) The type of text that developed into family G is at least as old as the H-S text, despite its present preservation in MSS dating from the 11th to the 17th centuries, all of which derive from a single, mutilated archetype. The sporadic support given G by the 7th century corrector of Sinaiticus already pointed in this direction,

...

The mere age of Sinaiticus (c. 350 C.E.) does not in itself make the text of S more original or more valuable than the other witnesses. (In fact, the text of S is probably the most carelessly transcribed and least reliable in itself of any of the Greek witnesses.

Also

From the viewpoint of textual criticism, the papyrus fragment (P) is of great interest. The textual witnesses for Barn 9.1-6 are MSS H [[154]] and S, which represent the same type of text throughout the Epistle; family G, with which the 7th century corrector of S (S\2) usually is allied; and the ancient Latin version (L), which shows some tendency to side with G (S\2) where the Latin is not hopelessly corrupt or idiosyncratic. Unfortunately, no quotations from Clement of Alexandria (or other ancient sources) exist for this portion of the Epistle. [check TLG??]
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Looking for early Greek editions, connected to G

Either an Athos G ms. Or a printed edition was used for the Sinaiticus S2 corrections.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/publics/barn/barndidintro.htm#barnint

(3) G is a convenient designation for the family of nine Greek manuscripts in which Barnabas 5.7 ff. is welded on to Polycarp, Philippians 9.2 without any indication, thus forming a hybrid document which is half Polycarp, half Barnabas. The oldest of these manuscripts dates from the eleventh century, and they are all obviously derived from a common mutilated ancestor which is at least that old. That the type of text preserved in G is often even older may be seen by its frequent support from the corrections in S\2/. Sometimes G and L show a tendency to agree against H and S*.

(2) S designates the Codex Sinaiticus (often called "Aleph"), which C. Tischendorf discovered in 1859. This manuscript dates from the late fourth or early fifth century, and contains biblical books (OT-NT) plus Barnabas (right after Revelation) and the Shepherd of Hermas. The original text of S (S*) and its contemporary corrections (S\1/) are closely related to H. But several later corrections (seventh [[18]] century?) have also been made from a text which is very similar to family G. We will refer to these as S\2/. It is sometimes difficult to distinguish S\1/ from S\2/.

(1) H (Codex Hierosolymitanus) is the manuscript discovered by P. Bryennios in 1873. It dates from the year 1056 and is most famous for containing the Didache (see @7.1). Because it was discovered in Constantinople, some earlier editors refer to it as "C." In addition to Barnabas and the Didache, H includes Chrysostom's "Synopsis of the Old Testament," 1-2 Clement, the Epistles of Ignatius ("long" recension), and two shorter, hitherto unknown documents. Its text of Barnabas is most closely related to the first hand of S and to Cl.A.


It was discovered in 1873 by Philotheos Bryennios, the metropolitan of Nicomedia, in the collection of the Jerusalem Monastery of the Most Holy Sepulchre in Constantinople.

Corrections to Sinaiticus were made in Constantinople, this is talking of the first hand.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
There are surprising connection of the Sinaiticus text with specific manuscripts, and also of Sinaiticus correctors with specific manuscripts. In this post I will give an example of one we just noted recently and hope to give more attention by February.

The text of the Epistle of Barnabas has three correctors in Sinaiticus,

Here are the Barnabas pages, all correction numbers are subject to tweaks:

Quire 91 Folio 2r (recto)
Revelation 22:19 - 22:21 / Barnabas, 1:1 - 2:6 library: BL folio: 334 scribe:A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=60&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

2nd page - Barnabas 2:6-4:5
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?folioNo=2&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=v&zoomSlider=0
13 corrections

3rd page - Barnabas 4:5-5:5
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=2&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=v&zoomSlider=0
8 corrections

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

G text begins on this page at 5:7

4th page - Barnabas 5:5-6:9
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=3&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=r&zoomSlider=0
14 corrections, 3 doubles (last one large)

5th page - Barnabas 6:9 - 7:5
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=3&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=v&zoomSlider=0
12 corrections

6th page - Barnabas 7:5 - 9:2
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=r&zoomSlider=0
23 corrections

7th page - Barnabas 9:2 - 10:6
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=v&zoomSlider=0
12 corrections

8th page - Barnabas 10:6 - 11:7
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=5&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=r&zoomSlider=0
9 corrections

Quire 91 - Folio 6r
9th page - Barnabas 11:7 - 12:8
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=5&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=v&zoomSlider=0
7 corrections

10th page - Barnabas 12:8 -14:4
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=6&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=r&zoomSlider=0
18 corrections

11th page - Barnabas 14:4 - 16:1
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=6&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=v&zoomSlider=0
21 corrections (2 biggies)

12th page - Barnabas 16:1 - 19:1
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=1&lid=en&quireNo=92&side=r&zoomSlider=0
17 corrections (1 or 2 biggies)

two seem to be orphan notes, not in transcription
1673266978457.png
1673267024493.png


13th page - Barnabas 19:1-20:1
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=1&lid=en&quireNo=92&side=v&zoomSlider=0
13 corrections (4 biggies)

14th page - Barnabas 20:2-21:9 (the end of Barnabas)
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=2&lid=en&quireNo=92&side=r&zoomSlider=0
5 corrections

You can find corrections on the transcription part and it will help connect the correction to the spot in the manuscript.

The 1st page has two corrections, one at 1:4 in the second column (one word) and one at 2:1 in the 4th column (two words).

The third page has a larger correction in the third column right at the top, which goes into 4:11.
There probably are 100+ overall corrections, marked

*
S1
corr
cc (more common)
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator


Barnabas, 19:1 - 20:1
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=1&lid=en&quireNo=92&side=v&zoomSlider=0
Tails on tau(t) upsilon(y)
Note : show Kirk Isaiah scribbles - aleph slanted to left
It seems wild that they would define centuries by a tail
cc
Barn 19:11
γογγυϲειϲ
παντι τω αι
τουντι ϲε διδου
1673266597738.png


Barnabas, 12:8 - 14:4
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=1&lid=en&quireNo=92&side=r&zoomSlider=0
corr (inline)
χειραν
ξιαν χειραν του
1673267462727.png


Barnabas, 10:6 - 11:7
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=6&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=r&zoomSlider=0
S1
λαογωοϲ
τοιϲ οτι λαογωοϲ
1673267760604.png


Barnabas, 10:6 - 11:7
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=6&lid=en&quireNo=91&side=r&zoomSlider=0
S1
εκεινοϲ ταυτα νο
1673267969398.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Will add more planned, including Myshrall and Jongkind, see Batovici paper

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

PBF
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/tischendorf-palaeography-attempts.195/#post-1101

"The account of the hands given by Tischendorf, Prolegomena, pp. 8-8*, is repeated almost verbatim in two later publications, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, 1863, p. xxi, and Novum Testamentum Graece ex Sinaitico Codice, 1865, p. xxx. In no case does he give any details of the characteristics of the various hands he professed to identify, and we must assume that, in the main, he was guided solely by the general appearance of the script” (Milne and Skeat 1938:18).

Joseph Verheyden calls it a "fairly disturbing comment"

"They had the summary preceded by the fairly disturbing comment"

Lire demain - Reading Tomorrow (2013)
Read, Write and Correct: the Scribe and the Perfect Text
3. Of Scribes and Correctors
https://books.google.com/books?id=EbtYKIc0_Q4C&pg=PA460

Here is one of the comments from Milne & Skeat dealing with the lack of any real palaeography:

The C correctors have been assigned by some to the fifth, by others to the seventh century, and lack of comparative material enforces caution upon whoever would decide between the two dates
Click to expand...

Or the 19th century.
And is there any significant difference between fifth century and fourth century?

Who said fifth century?

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

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/transcription_detailed.aspx
It may be helpful to know that there are four types of correction:
  • addition of text
  • deletion of text
  • substitution of one wording for another (changes in spelling technically belong here, although they may also be taken as a separate class of generally less significant readings)
  • changing the order of two or more words

More than one of these types can occur at any one place, and sometimes two or more correctors have made one or more types of change. The great majority of corrections in Codex Sinaiticus are changes to the spelling.

The correctors are given the following indicators.

Production of the manuscript

This consists of copying by one of the scribes, and revision, by the scribe or by someone else.

*the text first written by the scribe (information about the scribe of any particular page is provided in the pop-up box at the bottom of the window)
S1a correction made in the production process, as part of the revision of the text after it had been copied, or a correction by the scribe in the copying process. These cannot always be distinguished
AScribe A
BScribe B. As a result of this transcription evidence has emerged that this scribe’s pages may be the work of two scribes:
B1responsible for all the other work attributed to B
B2copied the Minor Prophets and Hermas
DScribe D


It is sometimes possible confidently to attribute an S1 correction to one of the scribes, and thus A, B and D appear as correctors. There are good arguments in favour of presenting the corrected text as the text viewed on screen, with the first hand reading placed in the pop-up box. However, there are some serious presentational difficulties with this in many places, particularly when this ‘final text’ is written between columns or in the top or bottom margin. Our approach has been to prefer * as the main text, and then S1 as part of the correction process, apart from some very exceptional places where the * reading is erased to such an extent that it is no longer legible. In these places the main text presents the text of S1. These are for the most part places where the scribe altered the main text as he went along.

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

Revisions

This consists principally of the ‘c’ group, correctors who revised the manuscript rather extensively between the fifth and seventh centuries. They are grouped into four sub-series, namely
  • ca
  • cb, which is further divided between
    • cb1
    • cb2
    • cb3
    • cb is used when the correction cannot be more accurately assigned
  • cc
  • cc*, works only in Revelation
  • cpamph
  • c indicates a change which can be attributed to the ‘c group of correctors, but not to one of the separate hands within it
  • d, a hand who rewrote faded portions of text, occasionally providing corrections (many examples in Isaiah)
  • e, a hand which made a few corrections in Proverbs, Matthew, 1 Timothy and Acts
  • corr indicates a change which cannot be attributed to a particular corrector (in principal it might include corrections made in the production of the manuscript as well as later changes)
  • corr indicates a change which cannot be attributed to a particular corrector (in principal it might include corrections made in the production of the manuscript as well as later changes)
Where more than one corrector has worked on a correction, the correctors are listed within the app tags in order in which they are listed above.

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

Kirk: this may have the best explanation of markings used in corrections

Dan Batovici
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2015/05/new-article-batovici-on-hermas-in.html
the text of Hermas in Sinaiticus (S1, ca & cc, d, corr).

1673269422742.png


1673270526778.png


Textual Revisions of the Shepherd in Codex Sinaiticus (2015)
https://www.academia.edu/7980907/Textual_Revisions_of_the_Shepherd_in_Codex_Sinaiticus

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

https://www.quora.com/Is-it-true-that-the-Bible-has-been-modified?no_redirect=1

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

David L. Brown

Codex Sinaiticus: It Is Old But Is It The Best?

These pages of the Dean Burgon Society WebSite defend the Traditional English Translation of the Bible - the King James Version (or Authorized Version) as a true, faithful, and accurate translation from the underlying original texts.
deanburgonsociety.org

I turn your attention once again to the introductory material in the Sinaiticus facsimile in my library. Kirsopp Lake says there were three groups and even a four groups of correctors that altered the codex. First, there were the "post Caesarean" possibly even those "at the monastery of St. Catherine's on Mt. Sinai." Second, there were "the intermediate correctors, of which certainly the earliest, and possibly all belonged to Caesarea. They are probably no earlier than the fifth nor later than the seventh century." Third, there are the early correctors, all probably "belonging to the forth and certainly no later than the fifth century." Finally, the latest correctors altered the manuscript probably in the twelfth century.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top