|Codex Sinaiticus has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.|
|WikiProject Bible||(Rated GA-class, High-importance)|
|British Library project||(Rated GA-class, Top-importance)|
|A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day... section on February 4, 2005, February 4, 2006, February 4, 2007, February 4, 2008, February 4, 2009, February 4, 2010, February 4, 2011, and February 4, 2013.|
'The Sinaitic Codex ? or full blown production.Made in hands of Constantine Simonides.
- Wow you think so? How interesting!
It is impossible. It has almost 4 000 000 letters, and made by three scribes and seven correctors. It has a lot of margin notes added by later hands, in several styles of correctors, one of them corrected Codex Vaticanus. Do you really think Simonides had Codex Vaticanus in his hands. Codex Sinaiticus has a lot of corrections. They are represent the Byzantine text-type. The same Byzantine corrections were made in codices: L, C and Δ. See: E. A. Button, An Atlas of Textual Criticism, p. 13 (Cambridge, 1911).] Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 00:22, 25 September 2008 (UTC)
Currently there is just one bit in this section which reads, "One theological controversy arising from the content of the Codex Sinaiticus is the addition of extra Resurrection material in the Gospel of Mark." Given that Mark is one of the earliest of the gospels, and we see an incremental increase in the 'supernatural' elements with each successive gospel, the fact that someone went back and added that into Mark is indeed highly interesting. Can someone in the know please provide more information on this? Who added this extra material, when did it get added, and so on? Thanks--Daniel (talk) 13:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
This part really needs improved since traffic will be going through the roof on this article. I'll work on it this weekend if someone else doesn't get to it first... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 22.214.171.124 (talk) 12:10, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
name needed 
What is the mentioned "fragmentary Septuagint of 1844"? Rmhermen 17:40, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Found that. But I don't know why Easton's Bible Dictionary present that part of the story within quotes. Who are they quoting? Rmhermen 17:50, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
how did it get from the monastery 
- This precious fragment, after some negotiations, he obtained possession of,
- It was taken from St. Catherine's monastery to the Russian Tsar by Constantin
- von Tischendorf and never returned. However, the tsar sent 9000 roubles to the monastery as a compensation
- the Codex is currently regarded by the monastery as having been stolen.
Which one now? --126.96.36.199 18:33, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Needs rewrite 
The opening of this article is completely hopeless in explaining anything at all about what this is, why it's important, and so forth. It just uses a bunches of terms most people aren't familiar with and only says anything by comparison to other things the vast majority of people aren't going to know either. 188.8.131.52 10:46, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- I removed the text about it being "one of the most important" and provided some more reasoning in the second paragraph. What I've written is supported by further references in the body of the article itself, as to why it can be considered "important". I hope it helps. --Eddylyons (talk) 19:37, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
I think it would be helpful as an encyclopedia article to translate the Greek throughout. This is an English Wikipedia article, after all. To note the subtle nuances in the written text of the Codex is essentially meaningless to the reader if they have no idea of the implications of the text. --Eddylyons (talk) 19:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Some small corrections 
Ps-Dionysius (talk) 17:40, 5 June 2008 (UTC) I have made a few alterations to the text which I feel improve its readability. If they are inappropriate please feel free to revert to the original text as I am a Wikipedia Novice.
Someone wrote that codex was written between 330–350 in Alexandria "during the peak of Arianism". Perhaps author of this words thoutgh about Docetism, not Arianism, because Arianism was in the North of Byzantium and was connected with the Gothics. It was mistake, but I will answer: In Gospel of Matthew 27:49 was added this text: "The other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately water and blood came out" (see John 19:34). The same textual variant we can find in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Regius, codex 036, 1010 and several other witnesses of the Alesandrian text-type. The peak of Deocetism in Egypt was about A.D. 180, but Codex Sinaiticus was written in 4th century. Of course Docetism influenced into Alexandrian text-type (I gave an example), but Arianism into Byzantine text-type. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Uneven article 
This page is a bit uneven, and the English is clearly by someone who didn't speak it as their first language. I've smoothed a few places, and also removed one or two statements which seem controversial, unreferenced and inappropriate here. But the article is basically sound. I've had a go at the header summary -- so that it answers the question "why is this important". But the article needs more work. However it has lots of good stuff in it. It could use more references, tho. Roger Pearse 15:51, 3 October 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Roger Pearse (talk • contribs)
- Yes! You are absolutely right, it is my third language. Why it is important? It is the oldest manuscript with complete text of the New Testament. It is most expensive book of the world. It contains not only NT but also Septuagint (almost complete). It is very important witness of the New Testament and Septuagint. It is the important witness of the text of New Testament, it was corrected by supporters of other text-type. It has a lot of corrections, a margin notes which are important, and which are witnesses of the epoch. This codex is a resource of the historical knowledge. It contains also some apocryphal books. No manuscript so important as Codex Sinaiticus. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:32, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Radio programme 
Just heard a very interesting programme on BBC Radio 4 about the Codex (The Oldest Bible - available on Listen Again for a week after broadcast at http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/radio/bbc_radio_four/2008-10-06). The monks at the monastery dispute that the parchments were about to be burnt - the baskets the parchments were in were storage baskets. Also, calling the section 'Discovery' is perhaps a little misleading. The monks knew they were there - von Tischendorf didn't discover them, he merely brought them to the wider world. 184.108.40.206 (talk) 10:38, 6 October 2008 (UTC)
- Yes, I heard the same programme -- very interesting. They also said there was no forgiveness from the cross in the CS. Presumably another omitted phrase. --Michael C. Price talk 07:00, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Was it stolen? 
It was mentioned in the article, in section 'Present location'. I gave also link to the website of St. Catherine monastery Ο Σιναϊτικός Κώδικας, where this point of view is explained. Unfortunatelly it is written in Greek. If first part of Codex, discovered in 1844 was loaned, why in 1859 monks gave the another part? First part of codex was not loaned. Please also read:
- T. C. Skeat, The Last Chapter in the History of the Codex Sinaiticus, Novum Testamentum XLII, 4, pp. 313-315.
Also Kirsopp Lake in 1911 gave strong arguments against this point of vieuw. http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2001/GA01_000_03b.jpg Leaves of the codex were scattered in several places of the monastery, and they were discovered several times. Some leaves survived in good condition, some in very poor condition. In 1845 Porphiryj Uspenski viseted the monastery, he discribed his visit in book: Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь в 1845 году, Petersburg 1856. This book is very imoprtant witness in history of the codex. It is sure Uspienski wrote this book to defence monks (they stored the codex with great carefullness). Unfortunatelly some parts of the codex are in very poor condition, and this point of vieuw impossible to defence.
If codex was really stolen, why three more fragments discovered in the monastery in the beginning of the 20th century by Beneshevich were also sended to Petersburg? It means the story of monks is not true.
There is also an interesting discussion in:
- Bentley, James Secrets of Mount Sinai London : Orbis, 1985
Bentley suggests that when Tischendorf brought the codex from Cairo he did not intend to ever give it back. This does not mean that he stole it, but he was determined to getting his way sooner or later. A part of his resolution was to systematically decry the munks at Mt.Sinai, telling the world that they were incapable of preserving the codex. Although he does not state it explicitly, Bentley alludes that the 48 parchments of the first visit to the monastery were never intended to be burnt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 12:27, 14 December 2008 (UTC)
- Sorry but that does not make sense. The fragments discovered later merely show that Tischendorf did not steal it all, not that he didn't steal anything. As for claiming that it was not theft, merely that it was removed with no intention of ever returning it, as promised, well, that is theft. --Michael C. Price talk 09:59, 4 January 2009 (UTC)
- "The apocryphal books present in the surviving part of the Septuagint are 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach" This strikes me as subtly POV. Many/most of these books are not "apocraphyl" to the majority of the world's Christians. (The majority of the world's Christian being non-Protestant)--T. Anthony (talk) 13:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
- Textual criticism it is almost stricte protestant field and sources used in this article were written by protestant scholars. Catholic scholars have different field of interest. It means for the neutral point of view of the articlewe should use original research. The problem is even more complicated. 3-4 Maccabees are not deuterocanonical. Orthodox churches have several different point of view. Russian Orthodox Church officialy do not precise how many books of the Old Testament they have. In some editions of their Bible you can find 39 books of the OT in the other editions more than in Catholic Bible. Every scholar can have different point of view in that case. Not only protestant have 39 books, also some of Russian orthodoxes and Jews. Jewich religion do not have very much members, but their point of view is important. Some Catholic scholars from France, Germany, Belgium, and the Netherlands in case of canon present almost protestant point of view. Many Catholic theologian from the West Europe support protestant point of view. What we will do now. Perhaps the using of brackets is the best choice. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Translation of Italian 
Some one should translate this Italian passage from the article: “In questo monastero ritrovai una quantità grandissima di codici membranacei… ve ne sono alcuni che mi sembravano anteriori al settimo secolo, ed in ispecie una Bibbia in membrane bellissime, assai grandi, sottili, e quadre, scritta in carattere rotondo e belissimo; conservano poi in chiesa un Evangelistario greco in caractere d’oro rotondo, che dovrebbe pur essere assai antico”.
I removed the omission of Luke 23 : 34 in the page. As I was looking in the codex and found that Luke 23 : 34 phrase is already there!.
Here from one of the links provided in the External links in the bottom (Center for the Study of NT Manuscripts. Codex Sinaiticus), http://images.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA_01/GA01_046b.jpg this image show the verse complete in the 3rd column. Please make sure to keep the integrity of the encyclopedia. Solitary Copt (talk) 19:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Yes, it was error. This phrase was written by the original scribe (א*), removed by first corrector (1), and add by second corrector (2). Thanks. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:07, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Not sure what this means 
From the early history section:
- A made unusually serious mistake
Taken from the current article:
Almost regularly, a plain iota is substituted for the epsilon-iota diphthong (error of iotacism), e.g. ΔΑΥΕΙΔ instead οf ΔΑΥΙΔ, ΠΕΙΛΑΤΟΣ instead of ΠΙΛΑΤΟΣ, ΦΑΡΕΙΣΑΙΟΙ instead of ΦΑΡΙΣΑΙΟΙ, ΣΑΔΔΟΥΚΑΙΕΟΙ instead of ΣΑΔΔΟΥΚΑΙΟΙ, etc.
If this is the case, then shouldn't the words in the Greek pairs be switched? For instance, ΔΑΥΙΔ lacks the epsilon-iota diphthong, whereas ΔΑΥΕΙΔ includes it. --Fitzburgh (talk) 15:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
- ΔΑΥΙΔ is correct form, ΔΑΥΕΙΔis uncorrect. Codex has many errors (itacisms, hiatus, palatalisation etc.). Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 16:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I added to the "Description" section the line:
- The codex has been corrected many thousands of times, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence; see below.
This foreshadows a later line in the "history" section and is lacking in detail, and I usually dislike seeing "See below" in a Wikipedia article, but the next section has many references to "correctors", which come out of nowhere and are confusing. The correctors aren't discussed at all until several pages down in the "History of the codex" section, so I thought this lame little line would help, without having to try to move important history data earlier in the article. Tempshill (talk) 02:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)
- I'm not altogether clear on the statement: "The codex has been corrected many thousands of times, making it one of the most corrected manuscripts in existence; see below." What does this mean exactly? Someone has marked out the original text and written in something? Corrected in comparision to what? I think it might make more sense to move the History section before the Text of the Codex section, as the History section desribes the process of correction. --Eddylyons (talk) 19:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Description section 
The first and fifth paragraphs (beginning "The folios are made of vellum parchment made..." seem to contradict each other. What is the folio and how does it differ from the codex itself? --Eddylyons (talk) 19:07, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
- A folio is one piece of paper, parchment, papyrus, or other material on which a book is printed or written. In an ancient manuscript like the Codex Sinaiticus, each folio would have been folded only once, creating two leaves and four pages, each leaf having recto and verso sides. The Codex itself is made up of many folios. The current "Description" section remains inconsistent, in one place saying that the material is sheep and goat skin, in another donkey and antelope skin. According to http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx, a sample of folios was examined microscopically and the parchment was determined to be mostly made from calf skin, with a minority from sheep skin. The statement about antelope skin is from Tischendorf himself and is now completely superseded by modern research - and wrong. I will correct the text.Floozybackloves (talk) 20:17, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
The text of the codex section 
The Lacunae section notes what the codex lacks. Lacks in comparison to what? That should be mentioned. I'm assuming it lacks what is in the standard Roman Catholic edition of the Bible? --Eddylyons (talk) 19:17, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
half of the old testament is missing 
Actually, there is apparently tons of text in the Codex that this article denies it. You can read the entire Codex online (the link for which is even at the bottom of the article page), and immediately you can see that many more books of the OT are in the Codex, yet not reported as present by the article (Proverbs being a prime example). Please update the "contents" part of this article with the actual scanned text record at the Codex Project website. Thanks 18.104.22.168 (talk) 08:53, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
This article claimed that most of the Old Testament survived. This is not the case. www.codex-sinaiticus.net says that half of the Old Testament is missing and it has the scans to prove it. I've edited the opening paragraphs accordingly.22.214.171.124 (talk) 09:07, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sinaiticus lacks only this parts of the Old Testament:
- Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 18:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Do not accuse me of vandalism just because I'm not posting under a username. I'm only trying to correct a mistake in the article. Digitalization was completed on Jul 6 2009.
- From citation 92: "About 800 pages of the Codex Sinaiticus manuscript -- considered by many to be one of the world's greatest written treasures -- were posted online this week, marking the completion of a massive project."
- In 2 September 2009 another fragment was discovered (citation 94), but that only had part of Joshua, so Codex Sinaiticus still has only about half of the Old Testament. If you think I'm wrong, show me some evidence to support your view before reverting me again. 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
picture of Russian library 
I can't see much point in the picture of a Russian library where a fragment temporrily USED TO BE. Would it not make more sense to show the Leipzig library where Tischendorf's discovery has been from Day One, and continues to be today?--dunnhaupt (talk) 21:21, 22 September 2010 (UTC)
I John 
Where's the omission of I John 5:7-8: "For there are three [that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one. 5:8 And there are three that bear witness in earth,] the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
Donati's diary 
The translation is imperfect: "assai grandi, sottili, e quadre" (very large, thin and square) refers to "membrane" (vellum, parchments) and not to "carattere" (letters). So it is "especially a Bible (made) of beautiful, very large, thin and square parchments, written in round and very beautiful letters;". The letters are not square and round at the same time :-) 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)
What's the point of including the "Hebrew name", which is just a transcription of the Greek? This is a Greek manuscript, even if it contains a translation of old testament. Dardasavta (talk) 10:38, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
New source 
Someone who knows more about the subject than me might wish to incorporate some material from this source into the article: THE CONSERVATION OF THE LEAVES AND FRAGMENTS AT ST. CATHERINE’S MONASTERY, MOUNT SINAI by Professor Nicholas Pickwoad . Some of its content also backs up Tischendorf’s story of finding the fragments in a basket. Meowy 19:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)