# Sinaiticus is corrupt?



## earl40 (Dec 18, 2013)

Not wanting to hijack the other thread on the debate.

Below Logan stated what I would like to find out. Is there a thread that describes exactly what is "corrupt" in Sinaiticus and are the corrections "similar to an author's corrections on the proofs or a student's notes" as stated below?



Logan said:


> I do not know whether Sinaiticus is corrupt. I do not know whether the "corrections" are similar to an author's corrections on the proofs or a student's notes and highlights in a textbook. I don't know much about it at all and therefore refrain from judgment (though I will comment that I've read your earlier citation regarding Sinaiticus before and still don't find it persuasive.)


----------



## One Little Nail (Dec 24, 2013)

lately those correction have been numbered at 23,000+ & counting, though I don't know if this is referring to the New Testament portion only or the whole work,as it contains the whole New Testament, approx half the Old Testament, the Apocrypha,some Antilegomena like Shepherd of Hermes & Pseudepigrapha.
According to Herman C.Hoskier,there are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone.

Codex Sinaiticus: It Is Old But Is It The Best? by David L. Brown Codex Sinaiticus: It Is Old But Is It The Best?
the 1911 printing of the N.T. Sinaiticus Volume had this to say by Kirsopp Lake in the intro...
"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition...." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction).

What is the writer talking about? Did you note the phrase "to disentangle the various stages?" This indicates that there is a scribal problem with this codex and it is a BIG problem. Tischendorf identified four different scribes who were involved writing the original text. However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." Tischendorf goes on to say,

"...the New Testament...is extremely unreliable...on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped...letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."

even the Alands,believed there were at least 7 correctors in The Text of the New Testament: An Introduction to the Critical Editions and to the Theory and Practice of Modern Textual Criticism, trans. Erroll F. Rhodes. Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. p. 107. & their editors of an eclectic Critical Text.

also this from a post on a previous thread taken down...

Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf, a German evolutionist theologian, at St. Catherine’s Monastery at Mount Sinai. He discovered the first part in 1844 and the second part in 1859.

Following is the story of how Tischendorf found the Codex Sinaiticus:

"In the year 1844, whilst travelling under the patronage of Frederick Augustus King of Saxony, in quest of manuscripts, Tischendorf reached the Convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai. Here, observing some old-looking documents in a basketful of papers ready for lighting the stove, he picked them out, and discovered that they were forty-three vellum leaves of the Septuagint Version. Some enemies of the defense of the King James Bible have claimed that the manuscripts were not found in a "waste basket," but they were. That is exactly how Tischendorf described it. "I perceived a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian told me that two heaps like this had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers..." (Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript, p. 23). John Burgon, who was alive when Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaiticus and also personally visited St. Catherine's to research ancient manuscripts, testified that the manuscripts "got deposited in the waste-paper basket of the Convent." (The Revision Revised, 1883, pp. 319, 342)

So, it certainly appears to me that the Orthodox monks evidently had long since decided that the numerous omissions and alterations in the manuscript had rendered it useless and had stored it away in some closet where it had remained unused for centuries. Yet Tischendorf promoted it widely and vigorously as representing a more accurate text than the thousands of manuscripts supporting the Textus Receptus. Furthermore, he assumed that it came from about the 4th century, but he never found any actual proof that it dated earlier than the 12th century.

Consider these facts and oddities relating to the Codex Sinaiticus:

1.The Sinaiticus was written by three different scribes and was corrected later by several others. (This was the conclusion of an extensive investigation by H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat of the British Museum, which was published in Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus, London, 1938.) Tischendorf counted 14,800 corrections in this manuscript (David Brown, The Great Uncials, 2000). Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, who published A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1864 testified: "The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character—brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century." Thus, it is evident that scribes in bygone centuries did not consider the Sinaiticus to represent a pure text. Why it should be so revered by modern textual critics is a mystery.

2.A great amount of carelessness is exhibited in the copying and correction. "Codex Sinaiticus 'abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.' On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." (John Burgon, The Revision Revised)It is clear that the scribes who copied the Codex Sinaiticus were not faithful men of God who treated the Scriptures with utmost reverence. The total number of words omitted in the Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone is 3,455 compared with the Greek Received Text (Burgon, p. 75).

3.Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it was originally there and has been erased.

4.Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plus two heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

5.Lastly, Codex Sinaiticus (along with Codex Vaticanus), exhibits clear gnostic influence. In John 1:18 "the only begotten Son" is changed to "the only begotten God," thus perpetuating the ancient Arian heresy that disassociates the Son Jesus Christ with God Himself by breaking the clear connection between "God" of John 1:1 with "the Son" of John 1:18. We know that God was not begotten; it was the Son who was begotten in the incarnation.


----------



## Logan (Dec 24, 2013)

Robert, I didn't find that helpful (again). Nearly everything in those things you've pasted are written in a very biased and slanted way. For example, yes manuscripts have corrections. I get that. Sinaiticus has more than most. I get that. But what is the point in saying there were so many "corrections" whey there is absolutely nothing said about who "corrected" it or why or what the corrections were? If I wrote notes in the margin of my Bible would that make it a "corrected" Bible? Why say Tischendorf was a "German evolutionist theologian" at all? To bias the reader? Note that Scrivener, textual scholar and supporter of the traditional text, says that Tischendorf's merits are "beyond all praise". 

Note that Sinaiticus is considered important partially because it is the only complete New Testament that dates before the ninth century. 

I've looked into this very briefly and it appears that textual scholars believe there were originally three scribes. 
Scribe A appears to have done the entirety of the New Testament and he was mediocre (e.g. unintentionally skipping lines with the same ending many times).
Scribe B appears to have done the entirety of the Old Testament and he was a worse scribe, with poor spelling and all.
Scribe D was an excellent scribe but only contributed scattered leaves (presumably when the first leaf had too many typos to be worth inserting corrections).

It is then believed that Scribe A and B corrected their own work or each other's work, checking against what they had copied from and making their corrections in the margins. I do not know how many these number but apparently textual scholars give these about as much weight as the original text in the columns. So far this appears to be an honest effort at reproducing what they were copying from and correcting their own typos. Though one wonders why, if it was such an expensive endeavour (and it is speculated it might have been at the commission of Constantine) they didn't exercise more caution. Government employees? King's nephew get a scribal appointment? 

It gets complicated from there as apparently many scribes later took the manuscripts and started making genuine "corrections" on them using other texts they had hundreds of years later. Note that vellum was very expensive (it is estimated that the Sinaiticus Codex would have cost more than a lifetime of wages for the average worker) so it appears to have been the custom to "correct" the manuscript rather than copy a new one. So later "correctors" had other manuscripts which they used to "correct" the original text of Sinaiticus, but it appears that textual scholars put little weight on these.

So out of the "23,000" corrections (many of which appear to be accent marks and many of which appear to be in the OT), many are confined to apocryphal books or the Septuigint, and a huge number of them are introduced by later scribes, some in the sixth, the _vast majority_ in the seventh, and some in the twelfth century and included those "corrections" which were done to previous "corrections"!

The quote supplied from Scrivener in Robert's post is continued as follows. *Scrivener's comments are very relevant here*


Scrivener said:


> It must be confessed, indeed, that the Codex Sinaiticus abounds with similar errors of the eye and pen, to an extent not unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance; so that Tregelles has freely pronounced that "the state of the text, as proceeding from the first scribe, may be regarded as very rough". Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled: while that gross blunder technically known as Homoeoteleuton, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the N.T., though the defect is often supplied by a more recent hand. We have thought it right to record all such clerical errors in their proper place for the reader's information; but while they must be admitted to deform the face of this exquisite relique of the primitive ages of our faith, they need not be held to detract materially from its intrinsic value, much less ought they to militate against our conviction of its very high antiquity.





> Nearly all Biblical manuscripts abound in changes brought by more recent critics into the texts, varying widely in age and value, all which an editor is bound to record and discriminate with his utmost care. Speaking generally, the most venerable documents, as having passed through many hands during a long course of ages, may be expected to cost the greatest labour in this particular: Codd. Bezae and Claromontanus, for example (in the latter Tischendorf detects nine different emendators), are full of corrections, which again will often be withdrawn by yet later scribes; so that much patience and fixed attention are needed to discover the original reading, and to trace the successive changes the text has undergone. It is no slight proof of the early date of Codex Sinaiticus, that it is covered with such alterations, brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of them being contemporaneous with the first writer, far the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century, a few being as recent as the twelfth. A glance at our collation will show both the extent and character of these emendations, and that the reader may the more easily judge of their relative weight and importance, we shall give some account of each class separately, illustrating our description by the annexed Facsimiles
> 
> 1. Corrections by the original scribe can hardly be deemed various readings. The penman, proceeding with his monotonous task rapidly and perhaps a little heedlessly, falls into come clerical error, which he immediately discovers and proceeds to set right; in a few manuscripts (e.g. Codex Bezae) by washing out the writing fluid, which was rather a kind of paint than ink, so that what he first copied can only just be perceived under his amended reading: in others, as in Codex Sinaiticus, by placing points or some such marks over the letters or words he wishes to revoke.To give one instance out of thousands...[example given] We have expressly recorded all these lapses, trifling as they are.
> 
> ...



So for the original Sinaiticus, pretty much ignore every corrector after the third point. Scrivener's continued comments on Sinaiticus and its relation to Vaticanus are well-worth reading in my opinion.


----------



## Logan (Dec 24, 2013)

Interestingly, Scrivener has a lengthy chapter on the claims of Simonides, in which he satisfactorily (to my mind) debunks Simonides' claims. Simonides apparently claimed he made no attempt to deceive anyone or create a forgery, this was supposed to be a gift and it ended up looking much older than it ought to have. Scrivener concludes that if Simonides did in actuality create a manuscript, Sinaiticus was not it.


----------



## Fogetaboutit (Dec 24, 2013)

Logan said:


> Interestingly, Scrivener has a lengthy chapter on the claims of Simonides, in which he satisfactorily (to my mind) debunks Simonides' claims. Simonides apparently claimed he made no attempt to deceive anyone or create a forgery, this was supposed to be a gift and it ended up looking much older than it ought to have. Scrivener concludes that if Simonides did in actuality create a manuscript, Sinaiticus was not it.



If you are truly open about this I would suggest you listen to Chris Pinto's audio CD about codex sinaiticus. He covers the issue in details and might bring up some interesting information about the issue. I find it strange that Tischendorf refused to debate him when Simonides ask him to bring the original copy of Sinaiticus and debate him. There is much more to this issue than a few quotes from Scrivener. Simonides did give detail information about how he created the codex and how it got to the St Cathrine's monastary, why nobody called him on those claims and investigated further and seek to questioned the witnesses at the time seem strange to me. I'm not sure if Simonides claims are true or not, but with the information Pinto has provided I would not be so quick to dismiss it.


----------



## MW (Dec 24, 2013)

As usual, Scrivener adds much needed balance to the discussion. It has been a while since I read him on Sinaiticus but I recall he gave credit to the codex without falling into an unhealthy veneration of it. It is a shame he has not received a wider hearing on text-critical issues.


----------



## Logan (Dec 24, 2013)

Right, I agree. I disagree with those who seem to despise Sinaiticus and wish it had been relegated to the flames, I also disagree with those (if they exist) who would take it's readings blindly without any other evidence, as though it by default must be closest to the autographs. 

It makes me want to read more of Scrivener. I appreciate his seemingly fair treatment of the subject.


----------

