how did Tischendorf date the 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

Hansell in 1864 gives a summary of Tischendorf in English, after his Latin

Novum Testamentum Graece: antiquissimorum codicum textus in ordine parallelo dispositi, accedit collatio codicis sinaitici. (1864)
Edward H. Hansell


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

Hernandez on Tischendorf centuries




41 is it Gregory or Tischendorf who gives Ca the 7th century
And what is Three Crosses note corrector number

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

This seems to start in 1884 so is not really Tisch - not in 1869 Tisch


The Creation of a Fourth-Century Witness to the AndreasText Type: A Misreading in the Apocalypse's Textual History (2014)



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:

Steven Avery

Peter Daniel (Pete) Myers discusses the Tischendorf complications.

The Textual Affinities of Sinaiticus' Correctors in 2 Esdras: An Analysis of Proper Nouns (2018)
Pete Myers University of Cambridge

p. 160
Tischendorf concluded that Sinaiticus was the work of four scribes,
which he labelled A, B, C, and D.19 Traube split Old Testament A from
New Testament A,20 and Isaiah B from Prophets/Hermas B.21 Milne and
Skeat’s simplification to three scribes, A, B, and D, won broad accept-
ance,22 although more recently there has been renewed support for the
view of two B scribes.23 Tischendorf never stated an explicit opinion on
the scribe responsible for 2 Esdras. Yet, because he assigned the first
part of 1 Chronicles to scribe A, Milne and Skeat infer that this is the
scribe he believed wrote this portion of the codex.24 This is now the
received view and both the Codex Sinaiticus Website and Jongkind
assign 2 Esdras to scribe A.25


Tischendorf concluded that Sinaiticus was the work of four scribes, which he labelled A, B, C, and D.19

19 A.F.C. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum sive Novum Testamentum cum Epistula Barnabae et fragmentis Pastoris ex codice Sinaitico (Leipzig 1863) xxi.

Tischendorf classified five chronological groups of correctors A, B, C, D, E, within which individual scribes are distinguished using super-script letters. His system is not comprehensively laid out in any one place,26

but helpfully described by Scrivener and summarised by Milne and Skeat.27 Lake further categorised the groups of correctors as early (A, B), middle (C) and late (D, E) and identified the C correctors as “a Caesarean scriptorium” on the basis of the subscriptions mentioning Pamphilus.28 Since Parker believes that the colophons likely predate Sinaiticus, he considers this direct link between the correctors and Caesarea an unsafe conclusion.29 Myshrall suggests that if Sinaiticus were used as an exemplar, then the large number of corrections were made to ensure that the codex reflected the text of the local area.30 If so, even if the colophons are not original to Sinaiticus, they still may be evidence of an association between the codex and Caesarea.

Using the same series of letters to denote the scribes and correctors lends itself to confusion. Therefore the convention of the Codex Sinaiticus Website to use capital letters for the scribes and lower case letters for the correctors will be adopted from here on.


The first to work on the manuscript was ca.35 Tischendorf did not distinguish this corrector from cpamph, but Lake’s distinction of them was accepted by Milne and Skeat, who furthermore identified that cpamph worked later than ca on the grounds that some corrections by cpamph rely on previous work undertaken by ca.36

36 Lake and Lake (n. 9) xxi; Milne and Skeat (n. 3) 46-47.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Peter Malik gives his own summary of how Kirsopp Lake "fleshed out" the Tischendorf correctors. Lake was probably using Gregory or Hansell.

For a Lake quote

p. 208-210

1.1. Historical retrospect
The first scholar to study the manuscript’s many corrections was Constantin von Tischendorf. In the Prolegomena to the editio princeps,4 Tischendorf briefly depicts individual correctors and provides a concise commentary on all the corrections. Tischendorf recognized groups of correctors that worked in the scriptorium. The first correction phase was carried out by the original scribe (prima manus), when he realized his error in the course of copying.5 The second line of corrections comes from the (Greek), the full-scale revision of the manuscript performed by Scribe D, who was in Tischendorf’s view also responsible for adding the majority of running titles, superscriptions, etc.6 Tischendorf’s third group of scriptorium corrections were “equal in elegance

4 For our purposes, I refer to the edition of the New Testament portion: C. Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum sive Novum Testamentum cum epistula Barnabas et fragment is Pastoris (Leipzig 1863).

5 Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, xxii.

6 Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, xxi-xxii.






At the acquisition of Codex Sinaiticus by the British Library, H.J.M. Milne
and T.C. Skeat executed a complete reinvestigation of the manuscript, the
results of which were published in their 1938 monograph. Dissatisfied with
Lake’s excessive number of early correctors, Milne and Skeat’s efforts “have
been principally directed to reducing them to a more reasonable number.”14
Based on their analysis of scribal activity (both textual and paratextual), Milne
and Skeat conclude that all Lake’s (and Tischendorf’s) A and B corrections
must be assigned to the original scribes,
whose peculiarities such as the shape
of the Kai-compendium, orthography, or use of ligatures are evident therein;
general appearance, though occasionally mentioned, is not given pride of
place.15 Milne and Skeat further conclude that Scribe D also corrected Scribe
As work, but was the only one to correct his own work. Scribe B was left alone
to correct his work “by his more literate colleagues.”16 Importantly, Milne and
Skeat interpret Tischendorf’s B corrections as a token of Scribe A’s ambitious
attempt at revision of the manuscript. Milne and Skeat intimate that most of
the corrections were made against the original exemplar, but that in the New
Testament “there are signs of a further revision, of actual collation with an-
other textual tradition.”17 To be sure, Milne and Skeat’s seminal work has been
generally accepted and has become the Ausgangspunkt for subsequent studies
on the manuscript;18 a disadvantage of Milne and Skeat’s enterprise, however,
is that they only give a general overview of the correctors and not a systematic
account such as Tischendorf’s commentary.
In 2009, the Codex Sinaiticus Project launched its website containing an
electronic edition of the manuscript.19 This instalment marks an important
paradigm shift in textual studies, as it not only provides a complete transcrip-
tion including identification of scribes and correctors, but it also links this data
to the digital images. As for the earliest corrections, the Sinaiticus Project uses
a corporate SI label (first used in the handwritten notebook ofT.C. Skeat20), yet
occasionally also assigns a more specific hand. Unfortunately, no publication
has yet appeared that would set out systematically the Project’s methods, apart
from David Parker’s popular-level book. Regardless, the system of identifica-
tion of these corrections is not entirely consistent: there are occasional attempts
at specific identification, but many corrections, even where Milne and Skeat’s
basic criteria could be applied straightforwardly, are assigned the generic SI
label. Although one cannot always assign a correction with absolute certainty,
the approach taken by the Sinaiticus Project seems overly minimahstic. Even
so, the Codex Sinaiticus website provides a hitherto unparalleled platform
for studying the manuscript afresh and for taking the groundwork laid by the
Sinaiticus Project still further.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Ken Penner is similar

The correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus have been underappreciated, and
understandably so because so little foundational work has been done on them
since they were first identified until very recently. The work most relevant for
evaluating the work of the correctors of Sinaiticus is of course that of Milne
and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus.n Although no Septu-
agint text critics have made much of the correctors’ work, a few New Testa-
ment text critics have done so. For example, Amy Myshrall examined the
corrections to Sinaiticus in the Gospels in her 2005 dissertation,13 as did Dirk
Jongkind in his 2007 monograph, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus.14 The
correctors were first identified by the discoverer of the manuscript himself in
1863.15 Tischendorf identified eight correctors A,16 B,17 Ba, Ca, Cb, Cc*,18 D,
and E.19 Then in 1922, Kirsopp Lake divided A into seven separate correc-
tors.20 Finally, in 1938, the year before Ziegler’s critical edition, Milne and
Skeat21 consolidated some of Tischendorf s correctors and subdivided others.
They took A, B, and Ba to be the two original scribes A and D, not later cor-
rectors at all.22 This left only the C group as the correctors of importance.
Milne and Skeat retained Tischendorf s distinctions between the C correctors,
and further subdivided Cb into three separate correctors: Cbl, Cb2, and Cb3.



Steven Avery

Notes for Juan Hernandez and others on claims of Tischendorf date

Searching EARLY Tischendorf

saeculi septimi

"His system is not comprehensively laid out in any one place"