how did Tischendorf date correctors - including three crosses note

Steven Avery


Tischendorf thought that seven several correctors had put their pens to this book. The one he named with the letter a seemed to be of the same date as the original scribe, and at any rate of the fourth century. The corrector b was of about the sixth century, and only corrected a few passages, aside from the first pages of Matthew. The corrector c was probably of the beginning of the seventh century, and is often not clearly to be separated from the next corrector, who is of the same century. When the two can be distinguished from
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Correctors in 1884

Gregory - 1884



1 Tischendorf, N. T. Vaticanum, p. xxii; ibi 1. 11 ab ima pagina legendum est sexies pro septies; 1. 10 undecies pro duodecies et novies pro septies; 1. 8 quater pro ter. Videtur D in codice Sinaitico lineas triginta duas primae columnae apocalypsis scripsisse. Cf de codice Sinaitico v. cl. Iohannem Gwynnium, apud Scrivenerum, Introd. cd. 3, a. 1883, p. xii.xiii.

1 Tischendorf, N. T. Vaticanum, p. 22; there 1.11 should be read from the bottom of the page six times instead of seven; 1. 10 eleven for twelve and nine for seven; 1. 8 four times instead of three. It seems that D wrote the thirty-two lines of the first column of the apocalypse in the Sinaitic codex. Cf the Sinaitic code v. cl. John Gwynnius, among the Scriveners, Introd. cd. 3, a. 1883, p. xiii. xiii.


Novum Testamentum graece: praesertim in usum studiosorum recognovit et brevibus annotationibus (1897)
Johannes Marinus Simon Baljon (1861-1908)



Last edited:

Steven Avery

Last edited:

Steven Avery


"41 Or more precisely: “ineuntis fere saeculi septimi esse.” Constantine von Tischendorf,
Novum Testamentum Graece (3 vols.; 8th ed.; Leipzig, 1869-94), 3:346."

Scribal Habits, p. 58

And I only find this careful list of correctors, specifying dates, and the Latin phrase above in Gregory's 1884 edition, the page you referenced.

However it is not in the earlier editions from Tischendorf like 1869.

And I understand that Gregory is sort of considered Tischendorf, but if the material is not in actual Tischendorf, even indirectly, (e.g. giving the centuries for the correctors) then I think scholarship should change to say this is from Gregory.

And it becomes extremely important on spots like the Three Crosses note and the colophons. I think this mix-up has been passed down to later writers, like Skeat and maybe Jongkind.

And I plan, with a techie, a short paper on the Three Crosses note, and would like to offer you a preview for comments, in a few days.

Your thoughts welcome !

Last edited: