when were the last corrections or notations made on Sinaiticus? 1200? 1844? 1859? 1862?

[Steven Avery]

when were the last corrections or notations made on Sinaiticus? 1200? 1844? 1859? 1862?

This is a hard question to answer, in one spot I questioned how Tischendorf worked the 1860 facsimile edition on 1 Timothy 3:16. And we know very little about how the manuscript was handled, or mangled, up to the time of printing in Leipzig in 1862.

For right now I will just include a post from George Webber Young (Mark Thunderson):

[textualcriticism] Cancel-Sheets in Aleph (Short Note)
George Webber Young - May 1, 2006
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/1988

... the scribal note at 15:47, which is evident in Lake's facsimile but absent in Tischendorf's, is open to question. Why did Tischendorf omit it? Was it even there when Tischendorf hand the codex? Or was it a latter addition? Obviously there are many questions.

Mk 15:47 in Lake's facsimile as an *omission* of scribe B (i.e., the one with the arrow pointing to the bottom of the column), I seriously question if this can be dated to the 4th century. Tischendorf's ommission of this editorial note is worth considering. (post 1986)

===================

CSP - Mark 15:47
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34&chapter=15&lid=en&side=r&verse=47&zoomSlider=0

The Tischendorf facsimile is given as 1860.
The Lake facsimile is 1911. Tischendorf had de facto control over the ms even after 1860. Lake had some unusual theories.

> James Snapp speculated in post 1989
> My offhand guess is that Tischendorf discerned (correctly or incorrectly) that this note was added after the MS left its scriptorium, and his intention was to display the state of the text as it existed upon, but not after, its departure

However, afaik, the purpose of the facsimile was to represent the state of the manuscript, not to textually decide what was placed when and engage in subjective retrofitting.

===================

The big issue here is that text was in the 1911 edition that was not in the earlier editions. Why?

Another point is simple. Nobody really knows what tweaks in the manuscript may have been made, at least up to 1862.

Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=77&side=r&zoomSlider=0


η δε μαρια η μαγδαληνη και μαρια η ϊωϲη
τοϲ εθεωρουν που τεθιται και διαγενομε
νου του ϲαββατου
Mark 16:1

and Mary Magdalene and Mary Joseph
they consider it to be established and intergenerational
mind of ϲabbatos