Steven Avery
Administrator
Amy Myshrall
Amy Myshrall
Amy Myshrall
John J. Brogan on Sinaiticus corrections and Athanasius
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
John Brogan is intrigued with the presence in Sinaiticus of what is called 1
block mixture 1 in the text of John's Gospel. Instead of Hort's view that the text
of Sinaiticus in the Fourth Gospel is primarily Alexandrian with Western ...
Steven Avery
Administrator
The Bible as Book
This volume covers a wide range of topics that bear on the textual criticism of the Greek Bible, including: the relationship between Jewish scribal culture and early Christian literary practices; Greek biblical texts uncovered in the Judaean Desert; the New Testament miniscule tradition; and New...
books.google.com
Steven Avery
Administrator
The Mission of the Jerusalem Apostles: An Authorial, Historical and Canonical Reconstruction
hky hu
https://independent.academia.edu/hkyhui
https://www.academia.edu/74553756/T...orial_Historical_and_Canonical_Reconstruction
Scholars believe that there is a close connection between the canonical list of Athanasius and the formation of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 51
51 For example, Birdsall, “The Codex Vaticanus: Its History and Significance,” 33, believes that the date of the Festal Letter gives us a marker for the period within which Codex Vaticanus might have been produced; and Brogan, “Another Look at Codex Sinaiticus,” 20-25, speculates that Origen and Didymus the Blind had access to, and even made corrections to, the proto-Sinaiticus text. It is also suggested that Athanasius had connection to Codex Sinaiticus because of his close textual affinity to the correction of Sinaiticus. During Athanasius’ lifetime, Codex Sinaiticus was most likely transcribed. Athanasius is the earliest witness of a reading that appears in later biblical manuscripts and/or the corrections of Sinaiticus.
hky hu
https://independent.academia.edu/hkyhui
https://www.academia.edu/74553756/T...orial_Historical_and_Canonical_Reconstruction
Scholars believe that there is a close connection between the canonical list of Athanasius and the formation of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. 51
51 For example, Birdsall, “The Codex Vaticanus: Its History and Significance,” 33, believes that the date of the Festal Letter gives us a marker for the period within which Codex Vaticanus might have been produced; and Brogan, “Another Look at Codex Sinaiticus,” 20-25, speculates that Origen and Didymus the Blind had access to, and even made corrections to, the proto-Sinaiticus text. It is also suggested that Athanasius had connection to Codex Sinaiticus because of his close textual affinity to the correction of Sinaiticus. During Athanasius’ lifetime, Codex Sinaiticus was most likely transcribed. Athanasius is the earliest witness of a reading that appears in later biblical manuscripts and/or the corrections of Sinaiticus.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Worldcat
Pace - (914) 773-3380 NYU or other interlibrary loan - Jenna - 6 pages
Grolier Club and more
Queens COllege
NYPL
NYU
Adelphi
Smithfield RI
Providence
Worcestor MA
Pace - (914) 773-3380 NYU or other interlibrary loan - Jenna - 6 pages
Grolier Club and more
Queens COllege
NYPL
NYU
Adelphi
Smithfield RI
Providence
Worcestor MA
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
The Bible as book : the transmission of the Greek text (2003)
Another Look at Codex Sinaiticus
John J. Brogan
https://archive.org/details/bibleasbooktrans0000unse/page/17/mode/1up
p. x
John Brogan is intrigued with the presence in Sinaiticus of what is called ‘block mixture’ in the text of John’s Gospel. Instead of Hort’s view that the text of Sinaiticus in the Fourth Gospel is primarily Alexandrian with Western corruptions scattered throughout, it now appears that the textual character of the Codex dramatically changes, with John 1.18.38 containing a Western form of text whereas in John 9-21 there is an Alexandrian form of text. The presence of block mixture in Sinaiticus raises questions about the source text(s). Did the scribes who produced Sinaiticus use several exemplars that contained different text-types? Or did they use a single exemplar that already contained a mixed text? Brogan concludes that no matter what angle of investigation is taken, the presence of block mixture tells us something about the history of the transmission of the text of the New Testament. Furthermore, Brogan is struck by the ‘uniquely high level of textual affinity between Athanasius’s text of the Gospels and scribal corrections in Sinaiticus’.
Another Look at Codex Sinaiticus
John J. Brogan
https://archive.org/details/bibleasbooktrans0000unse/page/17/mode/1up
p. x
John Brogan is intrigued with the presence in Sinaiticus of what is called ‘block mixture’ in the text of John’s Gospel. Instead of Hort’s view that the text of Sinaiticus in the Fourth Gospel is primarily Alexandrian with Western corruptions scattered throughout, it now appears that the textual character of the Codex dramatically changes, with John 1.18.38 containing a Western form of text whereas in John 9-21 there is an Alexandrian form of text. The presence of block mixture in Sinaiticus raises questions about the source text(s). Did the scribes who produced Sinaiticus use several exemplars that contained different text-types? Or did they use a single exemplar that already contained a mixed text? Brogan concludes that no matter what angle of investigation is taken, the presence of block mixture tells us something about the history of the transmission of the text of the New Testament. Furthermore, Brogan is struck by the ‘uniquely high level of textual affinity between Athanasius’s text of the Gospels and scribal corrections in Sinaiticus’.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Foreword
Bruce M. Metzger
The Codex Alexandrinus, or the Dangers of being a Named Manuscript
Scot McKendrick
Another Look at Codex Sinaiticus
John J. Brogan
The Codex Vaticanus: Its History and Significance
J. Neville Birdsall
Codex Bezae: The Manuscript as Past, Present and Future
David Parker
The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments
Robert A. Kraft
Quantitative Methods for Exploring the Relationship between
Books of the Septuagint
Karen H. Jobes
The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert
Emanuel Tov
From Nestle to the Editio Critica Maior: A Century’s Perspective on the
New Testament Minuscule Tradition
Michael W. Holmes
Thoroughgoing Eclecticism
]. K. Elliott
The Majority Text: Why Not Reconsider its Exile?
Jakob van Bruggen
The Use of the Church Fathers in New Testament Textual Criticism
Bart D. Ehrman
Why so Many Holes in the Papyrological Evidence for the Greek
New Testament?
Stanley E. Porter
The Life and Work of Eberhard Nestle x 187
Warren A. Kay
The Future of New Testament Textual Studies 201
Bruce M. Metzger
'
The Future of Septuagint Textual Studies 209
John William Wevers
Abbreviations ' 221
Bibliography 223
Index of Biblical and Early Christian Texts
Index of Manuscripts
General Index
Bruce M. Metzger
The Codex Alexandrinus, or the Dangers of being a Named Manuscript
Scot McKendrick
Another Look at Codex Sinaiticus
John J. Brogan
The Codex Vaticanus: Its History and Significance
J. Neville Birdsall
Codex Bezae: The Manuscript as Past, Present and Future
David Parker
The ‘Textual Mechanics’ of Early Jewish LXX/OG Papyri and Fragments
Robert A. Kraft
Quantitative Methods for Exploring the Relationship between
Books of the Septuagint
Karen H. Jobes
The Greek Biblical Texts from the Judean Desert
Emanuel Tov
From Nestle to the Editio Critica Maior: A Century’s Perspective on the
New Testament Minuscule Tradition
Michael W. Holmes
Thoroughgoing Eclecticism
]. K. Elliott
The Majority Text: Why Not Reconsider its Exile?
Jakob van Bruggen
The Use of the Church Fathers in New Testament Textual Criticism
Bart D. Ehrman
Why so Many Holes in the Papyrological Evidence for the Greek
New Testament?
Stanley E. Porter
The Life and Work of Eberhard Nestle x 187
Warren A. Kay
The Future of New Testament Textual Studies 201
Bruce M. Metzger
'
The Future of Septuagint Textual Studies 209
John William Wevers
Abbreviations ' 221
Bibliography 223
Index of Biblical and Early Christian Texts
Index of Manuscripts
General Index
Steven Avery
Administrator
Brogan
p. 17 to .32
If there is any biblical manuscript that is known outside of the guild of textual
critics among the general public, it is Codex Sinaiticus (Fig. 6). Several events have
contributed to Sinaiticus’ fame and fortune: the romantic tale of Constantine Tischen-
dorf’s initial discovery in 1844 of a portion of the codex at St Catherine’s monastery
(supposedly saving the leaves from a fiery demise);1 the suspect circumstances sur-
rounding Tischendorf’s removal of the rest of the codex from St Catherine’s fifteen years
later (1859) and its subsequent ‘gifting’ to the Czar of Russia;2 the scandal created by
the notorious forger, Constantine Simonides, who claimed that he had written the
codex himself;3 the rallying of the English public in 1933-4 to purchase the codex from
the Russian Government for £100,000; the endless parade of visitors over the years to
the British Museum and British Library who come to gaze upon the famous codex. All
of these things combine to make Codex Sinaiticus larger than life.
This article will begin with a few general remarks about some past studies of the
illustrious codex. I will then discuss some of my own observations concerning the
corrections of Sinaiticus and their importance for studying the history of the trans-
mission of the New Testament text. Throughout the article, I will suggest further
investigations of Sinaiticus that might prove valuable in the future.
PAST STUDIES OF CODEX SINAITICUS
The initial discovery of the manuscript generated a flurry of studies. After removing the
codex from St Catherine’s monastery in 1859, Tischendorf published a quasi-facsimile
edition of the entire text of Sinaiticus three years later (1862),4 and a critical edition of
the New Testament portion of the manuscript the following year (1863 ).5 E. H. Hansell
(1864) published a full collation of Sinaiticus,6 and in the same year, F. H. Scrivener
also published a collation of the text with a scholarly introduction in English.7 Helen
and Kirsopp Lake produced a photographic facsimile along with a critical introduction
(1911-22) shortly before Sinaiticus was relocated to the British Museum.8 Various
articles analyzing the manuscript’s antiquity or some of its important/peculiar readings
appeared sporadically in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries.9 The stan-
dard text-critical handbooks of the period soon included discussions concerning the
text and importance of Sinaiticus.10
The British Museum’s acquisition of Sinaiticus in 1933 revitalized interest in the
codex. Milne and Skeat published their monumental study of the manuscript, entitled
Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, in 1938.11 This remains the standard
17
work covering the contents, scribes, correctors, paleography, date, and provenance
of the manuscript. They provide a detailed description of the manuscript’s physical
attributes. Their keen paleographic insight greatly simplified the overwhelming number
of scribes and correctors proposed by both Tischendorf and Lake. In short, their work
epitomizes the attention to detail needed in'a study of a text such as Sinaiticus. The
identity of a particular scribe or corrector might be disputed in a few places, but overall
there appears to be little reason to revisit the major topics of their study.12
THE TEXTUAL CHARACTER OF SINAITICUS
In contrast to the advancements made in the study o£the physical attributes of Codex
Sinaiticus, there have been only modest advancements in understanding the textual
character of Sinaiticus since it was first published.15 According to Westcott and Hort,
Sinaiticus was a primary witness to their misnomered ‘Neutral’ text. As such, Sinaiticus
(X) was second in importance only to the much-revered Codex Vaticanus (B). In
describing the text of Sinaiticus, Hort observed:
As in its contemporary B, the text [of X] seems to be entirely, or all but entirely, Pre-Syrian
[i.e. Pre-Byzantine]: and further, a very large part of the text is in like manner free from Western
or Alexandrian elements. On the other hand, this fundamental text has undergone extensive
mixture either with another text itself already mixed, or more probably, with two separate texts,
one Western, one Alexandrian (...) The Western readings are specially numerous in
Gospel and parts of Luke ...l4
Studies by von Soden and Hoskier also noted the Western elements found in
Sinaiticus.15 A scholarly consensus developed (which continues today) that Sinaiticus
contains primarily an Alexandrian text with a mixture of Western readings. This view
can be seen in the descriptions of Sinaiticus found in most of the standard handbooks
of New Testament textual criticism.16
Gordon Fee presented a modification to the prevailing understanding of Sinaiticus’
textual character in his study of the Fourth Gospel in Sinaiticus.17 Intrigued by
Boismard’s proposal that Sinaiticus had closer affinities to D than B in John i-8,,s Fee
completed his own statistical analysis of Sinaiticus’ text in the Gospel of John and
concluded, ‘Codex Sinaiticus is a leading Greek representative of the Western textual
tradition in John 1.1-8.38’.19 According to Fee, the text of Sinaiticus in the Fourth
Gospel was not primarily Alexandrian with Western corruptions scattered throughout
the Gospel as Hort had suggested. Instead the textual character of Sinaiticus actually
changed dramatically at John 8. John 1-8 contained a Western form of the text, whereas
John 9-21 contained an Alexandrian text - a striking example of what textual critics
describe as ‘block mixture’.
Other than Boismard’s and Fee’s examinations, few scholars have attempted to
classify Sinaiticus’ textual character with greater precision than the general charac-
terization found in the handbooks. Most textual critics simply accept the descriptions
of the text of Sinaiticus ‘just as they were handed on to us by those who were eye-
witnesses’ (to borrow a phrase from Luke). Given the tremendous advancements that
have been made in analyzing, classifying, and grouping manuscripts in the last fifty
years/0 especially Colwell’s and Tune’s quantitative analysis21 and the various profile
18
analyses developed in more recent years, new textual studies of Sinaiticus are now
called for. The type of careful analysis performed by Fee on the Fourth Gospel must be
extended to the rest of the codex in order to determine whether there are other places
of block mixture and also to develop a clearer understanding of Sinaiticus’ overall
textual character.
THE IMPORTANCE OF ‘BLOCK MIXTURE’ IN SINAITICUS
The importance of a fresh analysis of the textual character of Sinaiticus should not be
underestimated. Important information about the history of the Alexandrian text and
the transmission of the New Testament text in general can be found within the pages
of the codex itself. Two features of Sinaiticus’ text in particular provide valuable
information about the history of the New Testament text: (i) the existence of block
mixture, and (2) the large quantity and diversity of corrections of the manuscript.
The existence of block mixture in any manuscript should cause the textual critic to
pause. Textual criticism has not yet developed a theory of the transmission of the text
that can adequately explain such mixture. The existence of a block of ‘Western’ text
in a manuscript that is otherwise primarily ‘Alexandrian’ in character raises all sorts
of questions that require explanations. For example, the question of place of oginin
is intriguing. Was the manuscript produced in Alexandria? Caesarea? Elsewhere? If
Alexandria, what does the presence of a Western text in Alexandria reveal about the
history of the Alexandrian text or the relationship between the Alexandrian and
Western textual families? If Caesarea (as some scholars such as Skeat have suggested),
what does this tell us about the geographic distribution of the various text-types in the
Early Church? What does the existence of block mixture indicate about the concern
(or lack thereof) for maintaining a ‘pure’ or ‘correct’ text within the early stages of
transmission? A careful study of the textual character of Sinaiticus could provide some
valuable information for answering these types of questions.
The existence of block mixture in Sinaiticus also raises questions about the source
text(s) used by the scribes. Did the scribes of Sinaiticus use multiple exemplars that
contained different text-types of the New Testament text? Or did the scribes use a single
exemplar that already contained a mixed text? If a scribe used separate texts, as Hort
suggested/1 are there theological, polemical, or stylistic reasons which would have
motivated him to use one text over the other? In other words, Sinaiticus should be
examined to determine whether it displays the theological tendencies of its scribes and
correctors.13 No matter what angle of investigation is taken, the existence of block
mixture in Sinaiticus tells us something about the history of the transmission of the New
Testament.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CORRECTIONS OF SINAITICUS
In addition to the existence of block mixture, the corrections of Codex Sinaiticus also
provide valuable information concerning the history of the New Testament. I developed
an interest in the corrections of Sinaiticus in my study of Athanasius’ text of the
four Gospels.24 In this study, I gathered all of Athanasius’ citations, adaptations, and
allusions to the four Gospels that are found in his undisputed writings that are available
19
p. 17 to .32
If there is any biblical manuscript that is known outside of the guild of textual
critics among the general public, it is Codex Sinaiticus (Fig. 6). Several events have
contributed to Sinaiticus’ fame and fortune: the romantic tale of Constantine Tischen-
dorf’s initial discovery in 1844 of a portion of the codex at St Catherine’s monastery
(supposedly saving the leaves from a fiery demise);1 the suspect circumstances sur-
rounding Tischendorf’s removal of the rest of the codex from St Catherine’s fifteen years
later (1859) and its subsequent ‘gifting’ to the Czar of Russia;2 the scandal created by
the notorious forger, Constantine Simonides, who claimed that he had written the
codex himself;3 the rallying of the English public in 1933-4 to purchase the codex from
the Russian Government for £100,000; the endless parade of visitors over the years to
the British Museum and British Library who come to gaze upon the famous codex. All
of these things combine to make Codex Sinaiticus larger than life.
This article will begin with a few general remarks about some past studies of the
illustrious codex. I will then discuss some of my own observations concerning the
corrections of Sinaiticus and their importance for studying the history of the trans-
mission of the New Testament text. Throughout the article, I will suggest further
investigations of Sinaiticus that might prove valuable in the future.
PAST STUDIES OF CODEX SINAITICUS
The initial discovery of the manuscript generated a flurry of studies. After removing the
codex from St Catherine’s monastery in 1859, Tischendorf published a quasi-facsimile
edition of the entire text of Sinaiticus three years later (1862),4 and a critical edition of
the New Testament portion of the manuscript the following year (1863 ).5 E. H. Hansell
(1864) published a full collation of Sinaiticus,6 and in the same year, F. H. Scrivener
also published a collation of the text with a scholarly introduction in English.7 Helen
and Kirsopp Lake produced a photographic facsimile along with a critical introduction
(1911-22) shortly before Sinaiticus was relocated to the British Museum.8 Various
articles analyzing the manuscript’s antiquity or some of its important/peculiar readings
appeared sporadically in the late-nineteenth and early-twentieth centuries.9 The stan-
dard text-critical handbooks of the period soon included discussions concerning the
text and importance of Sinaiticus.10
The British Museum’s acquisition of Sinaiticus in 1933 revitalized interest in the
codex. Milne and Skeat published their monumental study of the manuscript, entitled
Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, in 1938.11 This remains the standard
17
work covering the contents, scribes, correctors, paleography, date, and provenance
of the manuscript. They provide a detailed description of the manuscript’s physical
attributes. Their keen paleographic insight greatly simplified the overwhelming number
of scribes and correctors proposed by both Tischendorf and Lake. In short, their work
epitomizes the attention to detail needed in'a study of a text such as Sinaiticus. The
identity of a particular scribe or corrector might be disputed in a few places, but overall
there appears to be little reason to revisit the major topics of their study.12
THE TEXTUAL CHARACTER OF SINAITICUS
In contrast to the advancements made in the study o£the physical attributes of Codex
Sinaiticus, there have been only modest advancements in understanding the textual
character of Sinaiticus since it was first published.15 According to Westcott and Hort,
Sinaiticus was a primary witness to their misnomered ‘Neutral’ text. As such, Sinaiticus
(X) was second in importance only to the much-revered Codex Vaticanus (B). In
describing the text of Sinaiticus, Hort observed:
As in its contemporary B, the text [of X] seems to be entirely, or all but entirely, Pre-Syrian
[i.e. Pre-Byzantine]: and further, a very large part of the text is in like manner free from Western
or Alexandrian elements. On the other hand, this fundamental text has undergone extensive
mixture either with another text itself already mixed, or more probably, with two separate texts,
one Western, one Alexandrian (...) The Western readings are specially numerous in
Gospel and parts of Luke ...l4
Studies by von Soden and Hoskier also noted the Western elements found in
Sinaiticus.15 A scholarly consensus developed (which continues today) that Sinaiticus
contains primarily an Alexandrian text with a mixture of Western readings. This view
can be seen in the descriptions of Sinaiticus found in most of the standard handbooks
of New Testament textual criticism.16
Gordon Fee presented a modification to the prevailing understanding of Sinaiticus’
textual character in his study of the Fourth Gospel in Sinaiticus.17 Intrigued by
Boismard’s proposal that Sinaiticus had closer affinities to D than B in John i-8,,s Fee
completed his own statistical analysis of Sinaiticus’ text in the Gospel of John and
concluded, ‘Codex Sinaiticus is a leading Greek representative of the Western textual
tradition in John 1.1-8.38’.19 According to Fee, the text of Sinaiticus in the Fourth
Gospel was not primarily Alexandrian with Western corruptions scattered throughout
the Gospel as Hort had suggested. Instead the textual character of Sinaiticus actually
changed dramatically at John 8. John 1-8 contained a Western form of the text, whereas
John 9-21 contained an Alexandrian text - a striking example of what textual critics
describe as ‘block mixture’.
Other than Boismard’s and Fee’s examinations, few scholars have attempted to
classify Sinaiticus’ textual character with greater precision than the general charac-
terization found in the handbooks. Most textual critics simply accept the descriptions
of the text of Sinaiticus ‘just as they were handed on to us by those who were eye-
witnesses’ (to borrow a phrase from Luke). Given the tremendous advancements that
have been made in analyzing, classifying, and grouping manuscripts in the last fifty
years/0 especially Colwell’s and Tune’s quantitative analysis21 and the various profile
18
analyses developed in more recent years, new textual studies of Sinaiticus are now
called for. The type of careful analysis performed by Fee on the Fourth Gospel must be
extended to the rest of the codex in order to determine whether there are other places
of block mixture and also to develop a clearer understanding of Sinaiticus’ overall
textual character.
THE IMPORTANCE OF ‘BLOCK MIXTURE’ IN SINAITICUS
The importance of a fresh analysis of the textual character of Sinaiticus should not be
underestimated. Important information about the history of the Alexandrian text and
the transmission of the New Testament text in general can be found within the pages
of the codex itself. Two features of Sinaiticus’ text in particular provide valuable
information about the history of the New Testament text: (i) the existence of block
mixture, and (2) the large quantity and diversity of corrections of the manuscript.
The existence of block mixture in any manuscript should cause the textual critic to
pause. Textual criticism has not yet developed a theory of the transmission of the text
that can adequately explain such mixture. The existence of a block of ‘Western’ text
in a manuscript that is otherwise primarily ‘Alexandrian’ in character raises all sorts
of questions that require explanations. For example, the question of place of oginin
is intriguing. Was the manuscript produced in Alexandria? Caesarea? Elsewhere? If
Alexandria, what does the presence of a Western text in Alexandria reveal about the
history of the Alexandrian text or the relationship between the Alexandrian and
Western textual families? If Caesarea (as some scholars such as Skeat have suggested),
what does this tell us about the geographic distribution of the various text-types in the
Early Church? What does the existence of block mixture indicate about the concern
(or lack thereof) for maintaining a ‘pure’ or ‘correct’ text within the early stages of
transmission? A careful study of the textual character of Sinaiticus could provide some
valuable information for answering these types of questions.
The existence of block mixture in Sinaiticus also raises questions about the source
text(s) used by the scribes. Did the scribes of Sinaiticus use multiple exemplars that
contained different text-types of the New Testament text? Or did the scribes use a single
exemplar that already contained a mixed text? If a scribe used separate texts, as Hort
suggested/1 are there theological, polemical, or stylistic reasons which would have
motivated him to use one text over the other? In other words, Sinaiticus should be
examined to determine whether it displays the theological tendencies of its scribes and
correctors.13 No matter what angle of investigation is taken, the existence of block
mixture in Sinaiticus tells us something about the history of the transmission of the New
Testament.
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE CORRECTIONS OF SINAITICUS
In addition to the existence of block mixture, the corrections of Codex Sinaiticus also
provide valuable information concerning the history of the New Testament. I developed
an interest in the corrections of Sinaiticus in my study of Athanasius’ text of the
four Gospels.24 In this study, I gathered all of Athanasius’ citations, adaptations, and
allusions to the four Gospels that are found in his undisputed writings that are available
19
Last edited: