Steven Avery
Administrator
Factual correction:
History of Codex Sinaiticus
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/history.aspx
Note: This was sent to the British Library contacts given on the web page, so far no response.
===========================
Factual correction:
The English translation is not anything like a true translation of the Sinaiticus manuscript. After years of people writing to the British Library pointing this out, they put out a easy-to-miss note, so most CSP readers are still deceived on this account. Thus, e.g. many major variants are improperly rendered, and "many obvious blunder" (Tischendorf) are hidden from the reader. The false impression is given that it is a generally sensible, clear text. John William Burgon pointed out these scribal problems long ago, of blundering scribes (in addition to the textual problems pointed out by Burgon, Hoskier and others.)
===========================
Factual correction:
===========================
Misleading:
===========================
Misleading:
===========================
Questionable conclusion:
===========================
Agree and thanks:
The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration to reunite the entire manuscript in digital form and make it accessible to a global audience for the first time. Drawing on the expertise of leading scholars, conservators and curators, the Project gives everyone the opportunity to connect directly with this famous manuscript.
One important goal of the Codex Sinaiticus Project is to provide a better understanding of the text of the Codex and of the subsequent corrections to it. This will not only help us to understand this manuscript better, but will also give us insights into the way the texts of the Bible were copied, read and used.
===========================
The Codex Sinaiticus inks have never been chemically characterized, and the type and proportions of ingredients mixed together have never been determined.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx
There is another quote about encouring further research.
History of Codex Sinaiticus
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/history.aspx
Uspensky said nothing about the number of leaves, and it is very possible that he saw more. Since material ended up in the New Finds, it is very possible that he saw much more than what was taken out in 1859 and almost surely saw a bound codex.
Note: This was sent to the British Library contacts given on the web page, so far no response.
===========================
Factual correction:
The English translation is not anything like a true translation of the Sinaiticus manuscript. After years of people writing to the British Library pointing this out, they put out a easy-to-miss note, so most CSP readers are still deceived on this account. Thus, e.g. many major variants are improperly rendered, and "many obvious blunder" (Tischendorf) are hidden from the reader. The false impression is given that it is a generally sensible, clear text. John William Burgon pointed out these scribal problems long ago, of blundering scribes (in addition to the textual problems pointed out by Burgon, Hoskier and others.)
===========================
Factual correction:
A different written account was given by barrister William George Thorpe, in two books. This was essentially an account of theft, which is also given by the written account of Kallinikos, and is consistent with the wording of Tischendorf in his letter to his brother.
===========================
Misleading:
Trying to make the Codex Sinaiticus into a round script is very difficult. Few would consider this as real evidence. The "may be identifiable" would be better as remotely possible, especially since nothing was said e.g. about the colour or age of the parchment, what books were included, and the library is large. By giving this non-evidence, the reader is not informed of the simple fact that the manuscript has no provenance before c. 1840.
===========================
Misleading:
Most of this has nothing to do with book bindings. And the provenance is not "due..to the New Finds". The provenance is that material was placed in the room, and since some of the material can be connected to material worked by Uspensky and/or Tischendorf, the provenance is likely c. 1850 placement.
===========================
Questionable conclusion:
The huge number of scribal blunders in the original text, and the anomalies like the double section in 1 Chronicles, make this a bit sugar-coated.
===========================
Agree and thanks:
The Codex Sinaiticus Project is an international collaboration to reunite the entire manuscript in digital form and make it accessible to a global audience for the first time. Drawing on the expertise of leading scholars, conservators and curators, the Project gives everyone the opportunity to connect directly with this famous manuscript.
One important goal of the Codex Sinaiticus Project is to provide a better understanding of the text of the Codex and of the subsequent corrections to it. This will not only help us to understand this manuscript better, but will also give us insights into the way the texts of the Bible were copied, read and used.
===========================
The Codex Sinaiticus inks have never been chemically characterized, and the type and proportions of ingredients mixed together have never been determined.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx
There is another quote about encouring further research.