Jump to content

Talk:Codex Sinaiticus/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Falsification

'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)

Written in modern Greek! No wonder Constantin von Tischendorf would not debate Simonides openly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:380:14D0:BCB6:771E:11C:56F8 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

How would you explain the use of "the Codex contains a text of the Epistle of Barnabas which is written in essentially modern Greek and contains many grammatical and vocabularic evidences of having been translated into Greek from a late Latin (medieval) recension...We see that column 1 of page Q91-f.2r of the codex contains the explicitus or ending of John’s Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation. Yet, written in the same hand and in the same ink as John’s Apocalypse, the Epistle of Barnabas begins in the very next column of that page (see attached image) in other words, whenever John’s Apocalypse was written into the codex. it was written at the same time and by the same person as its Epistle of Barnabas. (https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/deceit-the-jesuits-and-an-ancient-codex.393/) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:3D09:380:14D0:BCB6:771E:11C:56F8 (talk) 01:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)

Use of Vaticanus?

If there was use of Vaticanus in the Sinaiticus NT (remember this NT is said to have only appeared in 1859) the source of the information would likely be Tischendorf. In his 1871 book in German Tischendorf says that he had a Vaticanus facsimile in the 1840s, contra the normal event history. (You can see this mentioned in English in the The Bible Hunter extract on the net by Jürgen Gottschlich, although Jürgen ironically says that Tischendorf was "mistaken".) At any rate, Tischendorf had spent time with the Angelo Mai edition in 1843 in his quiet trip to Rome.

One of the interesting arguments looks at the famous Mark 4:21 "under a lampstand" blunder that is shared in both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. And uncorrected over the supposed many centuries and correctors. Whether in 350-375 AD or 1840, this argues for a type of direct dependency or connection. Yet if in 350 AD, the lack of correction over the centuries is glaring and surprising. Granted, that is only one verse, however it is easy to use to start to understand the issues. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 11:41, 30 December 2013 (UTC)


theology

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 24.208.188.84 (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? --62.178.66.234 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. 68.190.119.253 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.


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. 86.148.49.117 (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.

There is a correspondency between Tischendorf and monastery after 1859, and it is enough for any speculation in this matter. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:09, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

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 82.196.212.245 (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)

Theology

The absence of Mark 16:9-20 from the Gospel of Mark in the codex has been a matter of theological discussion.

I removed this section because it is not only one manuscript with that lack. The place for this kind of discussion in Mark 16. The scribe used mss. with that omission, and it is not problem only one manuscript. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 12:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Good?

I think this important article should be improved to Good articles. --Witr (talk) 22:31, 28 November 2008 (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)
The more neutral, less subjective term used by non-Protestant Christian Churches is deuterocanonical. Should be changed. ፈቃደ (ውይይት) 13:41, 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”.[27]

I can sort of understand it, but that's because I speak Spanish, and it seems unreasonable to leave foreign quotes untranslated. Rhinocerous Ranger (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)

Omissions

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

What does this mean/refer to? --86.151.48.145 (talk) 14:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Iotacisms

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)

Corrections

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 24.217.225.136 (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.110.174.166.224 (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. 110.174.166.224 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
Yes, you are right, ii is confirmed by printed sources. I will correct section "Lascunae" on the basis Würthwein Ernst (1987). Der Text des Alten Testaments, Stuttgart: Deutsche Bibelgesellschaft. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 15:35, 14 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)

A third of Tischendorf's discovery Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:09, 10 February 2011 (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."

This is of course common to the Alexandrine tradition; but of no little interest, I should think. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 01:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

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 :-) 84.223.132.160 (talk) 12:40, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

1969

"1969" appears at four points. This might be a mistake for "1869". This is the date of a publication. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.181.11.197 (talk) 13:20, 4 August 2011 (UTC)

Hebrew

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 [1]. Some of its content also backs up Tischendorf’s story of finding the fragments in a basket. Meowy 19:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Bradshaw

This statement is not true - "Henry Bradshaw, a scholar, contributed to exposing the frauds of Constantine Simonides, and exposed the absurdity of his claims in a letter to the Guardian (26 January 1863)."

Bradshaw simply said something like, I've never been fooled so this can't be a fraud because then I'd be fooled. He didn't "expose" Simonides in any way, just his opinion without any evidence. TO make it short, it was Bradshaw's circular logic and pride vs. Simonides' expertise and witness testimonies — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.149.198.207 (talk) 03:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Wettstein and Kenyon

Wettstein I simply removed from the quote, he was included with Kenyon, yet he predated the Sinaiticus discovery by many years.

"scholars such as Kenyon, initially in favor of the Codex, turned later to a modified position.[99] ^ Letters of Constantine Simonides, Grolier Library, NY"

Kenyon wrote contra the Simonides claims in Our Bible and the ancient manuscripts, 1897 p. 123 and in The Story of the Bible: A Popular Account of How It Came to Us, Ch. 7, The Revision of the Text. If there is something in the Grolier material it needs better documentation. This might also be a "modified position" in terms of the textual significance of the ms. in which case it should not be in the Simonides/authenticity section. So I am going to remove this from the Simonides section. Any idea of Kenyon being negative on the significance ad authority of the ms. can be placed in another section, if it can be given reasonable documentation. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 12:16, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

Elizabeth Kirkley Best

Some of the material here was clearly using Elizabeth Kirkley Best, e.g. the description of Tischendorf as an antiquites dealer, the palimpsest reference, the part about Kenyon modifying his position, other parts that need work, all seem to be based on Best, who may have used Grolier Club info. Her writing on this topic is interesting but uneven, and each sentence has to be looked at individually. I am removing or modifying those claims that look to be problematic at best, or simply wrong. Note that the Wettstein error does not seem to be hers, it looks like it came from the earlier writer here, who afaik is anonymous. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 12:17, 30 December 2013 (UTC)

I am Elizabeth Kirkley Best and my work is substantive and can be found by any knowledgeable scholar. The Grolier club houses Simonides's collection of letters and other documents: it is not just an encyclopedia, but a library with substantial archive. Best to provide topical evidence not attacks on personalities or competency. I am finding this too often among scholars on the topic who often end up being employed or affiliated with Modern Versions or their official commentaries. Also, my hard copy data and analysis on Jewish terms change is replicable and accessible to any person with as much as a B.S. in Statistics. The notion that you have to examine every sentence I write or any other scholar writes is demeaning and offensive. Bottom line is this: the quotes from Kenyon, the info on Wettstein is footnoted and documented. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.103.229.49 (talk) 07:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Here is the original quote, taken from Jan, 2014

Since Bradshaw was a social 'hub' among many diverse scholars of the day, his aiding of Tischendorf was given much weight. Simonides died shortly after, and the issue lay dormant for many years, though scholars such as Wettstein and Kenyon, initially in favor of the Codex, turned later to a modified position.[101]

The concern here is only the reference to Wettstein and Kenyon. Note 101 referred to the Grolier Club material, which I have read, and saw nothing about Kenyon and Wettstein. It would be especially difficult for Wettstein to change positions, perhaps you are thinking of Codex Vaticanus, since Wettstein lived in the 1700s. This is all minor, and the more important questions, e.g. about hieroglyphics, remain, there I am interested in any sources available. In general, I would agree that standard scholarship has missed much relating to the possible production of Sinaiticus c. 1840. StevenAvery.ny (talk) 15:58, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Greetings, Elizabeth. I have tried to contact you for verification and discussion on various parts of the Sinaiticus question, including asking a mutual friend (of friend) to try to contact you. Also I went over all your pages on Sinaiticus very carefully.

And I definitely agree that the Grolier Club material is very important, as is the UK archive material. It is primary source material, not encyclopedia, and much is unpublished. However, a reference to that material to support a statement on Wikipedia should best reference that Grolier Club source and, most properly for Wikipedia methods, the specific document involved.

Note that the key issue of the hieroglyphics is maintained in the Wiki. George Webber Young, PhD. gave a few instances of what are likely hieroglyphics in posting on the textual forums. His pictures are not available today, they were on geocities. However Young gave some verse references and those specific markings, that appear to be pics-glyphs, can be seen easily on the CSP site. And I am in the process of asking scholars to review the material. Thus I felt it proper to maintain what can be verified with a little searching. Even if afaik the issue has never been placed in a scholarly paper. (Tischendorf, of course, was selective in what he discussed and in what he put in his facsimile edition. Also later writers, who often are in the employ or consultancy of the British Library, omit some issues and have to be read carefully. What is between the lines often being more substantive than the lines!)

My apologies if what I wrote was perceived as an attack. My goal was only to be sure that the Wiki article is proper per Wiki guidelines. A couple of the issues I mentioned above were rather minor, the major ones were the hieroglyphics (above) and the palimpsest.

On the palimpsest question -- I did check with various sources as to Sinaiticus having any pages that are palimpsest and have not come up with anything. Including going over some of the Tischendorf correspondence and an email conversation with Dirk Jongkind and some examining of the CSP pictures. And reading what is available from Simonides, who said that he removed the pages that were not blank. So please understand that just placing that in Wikipedia sans documentation is questionable from the Wikipedia approach. It may be true, even one page would be sufficient for the claim, however Wikipedia needs something specific.

If you are available for more discussion, it would be greatly appreciated. My email is stevenavery@verizon.net. We could continue here or better on a fine low-noise Facebook forum, or privately. I can assure you that your contributions will be respected, your having examined the Grolier Club material is very helpful and significant.

StevenAvery.ny (talk) 12:39, 5 February 2014 (UTC)

Tattam and Bankes did not report seeing Sinaiticus

The reference to William John Bankes and Henry Tattam seeing the ms. is hopeless. David Charles Parker does not say that for either one, and the primary sources are even more definitive. e.g. Tattam describes seeing the Golden ms (omitted by Parker). If anything those two would be evidence against Sinaiticus provenance and authenticity. I'm simply removing the two sentences. If you need the actual refs, I put them up on a CARM thread you can find them there or contact me and I'll put them here. . StevenAvery.ny (talk) 01:17, 28 December 2013 (UTC)

How it ended up in the 'British' Library

Since MOST of the codex seems to be in the British Library in London, England, it would be at least considerate to mention how such a big portion of the codex ended up in the British island, particularly since so much emphasis has been put in the article to clarify how three leaves (one hundredth of the one in England) ended up in Russia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.244.8.207 (talk) 21:06, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

It's all there: "For many decades, the Codex was preserved in the Russian National Library. In 1933, the Soviet Union sold the codex to the British Museum (after 1973 British Library) for £100 000 raised by public subscription. After coming to Britain it was examined by T. C. Skeat and H.J.M. Milne using an ultra-violet lamp..." Johnbod (talk) 18:11, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Some greek not yet translated

In the box, it says Additional phrase to John 21:7 on the margin – οι δε ειπον δι οληϲ τηϲ νυκτοϲ εκοπιαϲαμεν και ουδεν ελαβομεν επι δε τω ϲω ρηματι βαλουμεν I think this says "And they said we are tired having been (fishing) thoughout the whole night and we have caught nothing, but we will cast (our nets) according to your word". But do we have a source for that? A1jrj (talk) 16:06, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Matthew, not Luke

The small image of the codex under Description was captioned Luke 11:2. This cannot be right. The image shows the text "γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς", which indicates that the text is taken from Matthew 6:9-10. I have changed the caption accordingly.--Oz1cz (talk) 12:34, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I stand corrected. Apparently the text "γενηθήτω τὸ θέλημά σου, ὡς ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ γῆς" does occur in some versions of Luke's Gospel. I have changed the caption back to the original Luke 11:2.--Oz1cz (talk) 16:48, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Codex Sinaiticus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:20, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Codex_Sinaiticus/Archive_1&oldid=1119228924"