Steven Avery
Administrator
Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and Constantine
p. 228-229
===============================================
demand that there was for complete bibles. It is also remarkable that,
with its hundreds of enormous pages of high quality parchment, it
escaped the fate of so many disused manuscripts, the attention of
the palimpsester.
What finally happened after the manuscript somehow came to
light is described in detail by Kirsopp Lake in his introductions to
the two volumes of the facsimile and needs only to be summarized
here. First, the manuscript, presumably still unbound, was very care-
fully collated throughout (except for the Epistle of Barnabas) by the
corrector known as Ca, who not only corrected the thousands of
errors made by the original scribes but also made a number of tex-
tual alterations intended to bring the manuscript more into line with
the type of text then currently in use in Caesarea. Ca was followed
by another corrector, known as CPamph, who has inserted two notes,
one at the end of 2 Esdras and the other at the end of Esther, stat-
ing that the books from 1 Kings to Esther (viz. 1-4 Kings, 1 and
2 Chronicles, 1 and 2 Esdras and Esther) had been collated with a
very ancient manuscript which itself had been collated with the orig-
inal Hexapla of Origen by the martyrs Pamphilus (d. 310) and
Antoninus (d. 311) whilst in prison. This revered manuscript may
be assumed to have been preserved in Caesarea, and indicates that
Sinaiticus was still in the scriptorium there.
The corrector Ca provides a further link with Caesarea, for his
text agrees very closely in the Epistles with that of a manuscript
known as HPauI, which at the end of the Pauline Epistles has a long
colophon beginning with the name of Evagrius and ending with a
statement that the manuscript had been collated with a copy in the
library at Caesarea which was in the autograph of Pamphilus. As
Lake says: ‘Considering the close textual relationship between cod.
HPaul and the corrector Ca of the Codex Sinaiticus, it is legitimate
to regard this evidence as increasing the probability that during the
time the corrector Ca was working the Codex Sinaiticus was in the
library at Caesarea, in which there were certainly many MSS of
Pamphilus, rather than some other library to which a MS of Pamphilus
might have been brought.’
Thereafter several other correctors made varying contributions,
though whether in Caesarea or elsewhere we cannot tell. Finally, the
manuscript must at long last have been bound up: this would be
the ‘first binding’ identified by Cockerell (Scribes and Correctors, p. 82).
As regards the date of all this activity, Kirsopp Lake quotes several
230 SINAITICUS, VATICANUS AND CONSTANTINE
opinions: ‘The latest date suggested is the seventh century, the ear-
liest is the fifth. Sir Frederic Kenyon and Professor Hunt agree in
regarding the sixth century as possible, but the former is inclined to
accept the seventh as equallv possible, while the latter is more dis-
posed to prefer an earlier date.’ To this I would only add that the
sixth century seems more probable than the seventh: the Persians
occupied Palestine from 614 to 629, and after they left the Arab
attacks began and they captured Caesarea in 638.
Finally, I do not recollect having seen any discussion of the rea-
son why this impressive programme of restoration was so belatedly
executed. It can hardly have been for the use of the manuscript in
Caesarea, since in that case one might wonder why there was a
delay of 200 years in carrying it out. It therefore seems to me much
more likely that it was to render the manuscript serviceable in some
place other than Caesarea to which it was to be sent; and if so, the
obvious place would be the Sinai monastery which was to be its
eventual home. The monastery was founded by Justinian about the
middle of the sixth century, and if one were to use one’s imagina-
tion one might think of him following in the footsteps of Constantine
and ordering the Bishop of Caesarea to supply a copy of the Bible
for his foundation. But this is only speculation, and, as Kirsopp Lake
says, it may have been years or even centuries before the ill-starred
manuscript was to find what might have been expected to be a safe
haven in Sinai: sadly, the reality was to prove far otherwise (cf. Scribes
and Correctors, ‘Partial destruction of the manuscript’, pp. 81-2).
VI. The Later History of Vaticanus
p. 228-229
The Collected Biblical Writings of T.C. Skeat
This volume consists of a collection of papyrologist T.C. Skeat's articles related to the production of New Testament manuscripts and to textual criticism. J.K. Elliott introduces the essays and assesses Skeat's importance in these fields.
books.google.com
===============================================
demand that there was for complete bibles. It is also remarkable that,
with its hundreds of enormous pages of high quality parchment, it
escaped the fate of so many disused manuscripts, the attention of
the palimpsester.
What finally happened after the manuscript somehow came to
light is described in detail by Kirsopp Lake in his introductions to
the two volumes of the facsimile and needs only to be summarized
here. First, the manuscript, presumably still unbound, was very care-
fully collated throughout (except for the Epistle of Barnabas) by the
corrector known as Ca, who not only corrected the thousands of
errors made by the original scribes but also made a number of tex-
tual alterations intended to bring the manuscript more into line with
the type of text then currently in use in Caesarea. Ca was followed
by another corrector, known as CPamph, who has inserted two notes,
one at the end of 2 Esdras and the other at the end of Esther, stat-
ing that the books from 1 Kings to Esther (viz. 1-4 Kings, 1 and
2 Chronicles, 1 and 2 Esdras and Esther) had been collated with a
very ancient manuscript which itself had been collated with the orig-
inal Hexapla of Origen by the martyrs Pamphilus (d. 310) and
Antoninus (d. 311) whilst in prison. This revered manuscript may
be assumed to have been preserved in Caesarea, and indicates that
Sinaiticus was still in the scriptorium there.
The corrector Ca provides a further link with Caesarea, for his
text agrees very closely in the Epistles with that of a manuscript
known as HPauI, which at the end of the Pauline Epistles has a long
colophon beginning with the name of Evagrius and ending with a
statement that the manuscript had been collated with a copy in the
library at Caesarea which was in the autograph of Pamphilus. As
Lake says: ‘Considering the close textual relationship between cod.
HPaul and the corrector Ca of the Codex Sinaiticus, it is legitimate
to regard this evidence as increasing the probability that during the
time the corrector Ca was working the Codex Sinaiticus was in the
library at Caesarea, in which there were certainly many MSS of
Pamphilus, rather than some other library to which a MS of Pamphilus
might have been brought.’
Thereafter several other correctors made varying contributions,
though whether in Caesarea or elsewhere we cannot tell. Finally, the
manuscript must at long last have been bound up: this would be
the ‘first binding’ identified by Cockerell (Scribes and Correctors, p. 82).
As regards the date of all this activity, Kirsopp Lake quotes several
230 SINAITICUS, VATICANUS AND CONSTANTINE
opinions: ‘The latest date suggested is the seventh century, the ear-
liest is the fifth. Sir Frederic Kenyon and Professor Hunt agree in
regarding the sixth century as possible, but the former is inclined to
accept the seventh as equallv possible, while the latter is more dis-
posed to prefer an earlier date.’ To this I would only add that the
sixth century seems more probable than the seventh: the Persians
occupied Palestine from 614 to 629, and after they left the Arab
attacks began and they captured Caesarea in 638.
Finally, I do not recollect having seen any discussion of the rea-
son why this impressive programme of restoration was so belatedly
executed. It can hardly have been for the use of the manuscript in
Caesarea, since in that case one might wonder why there was a
delay of 200 years in carrying it out. It therefore seems to me much
more likely that it was to render the manuscript serviceable in some
place other than Caesarea to which it was to be sent; and if so, the
obvious place would be the Sinai monastery which was to be its
eventual home. The monastery was founded by Justinian about the
middle of the sixth century, and if one were to use one’s imagina-
tion one might think of him following in the footsteps of Constantine
and ordering the Bishop of Caesarea to supply a copy of the Bible
for his foundation. But this is only speculation, and, as Kirsopp Lake
says, it may have been years or even centuries before the ill-starred
manuscript was to find what might have been expected to be a safe
haven in Sinai: sadly, the reality was to prove far otherwise (cf. Scribes
and Correctors, ‘Partial destruction of the manuscript’, pp. 81-2).
VI. The Later History of Vaticanus
Last edited: