Codex Sinaiticus

Column 1

THE technical description of a manuscript ought logically to begin with the binding—the first thing to catch the eye of the observer—and thence to work through the various questions concerned with the vellum High-quality parchment made from animal skin., the ‘make-up’ of the leaves, and the ink, to the more complicated problems of the differentiation of scribes and correctors. The Codex Sinaiticus, however, had lost its binding before Tischendorf Constantine von Tischendorf, the 19th-century scholar who recovered the manuscript from St. Catherine's Monastery. discovered it, and therefore the only points to be discussed are those concerned with the vellum and ink, and the differentiation of the scribes and correctors.

The MS. Manuscript is written on fine parchment made from the skin of some rather large animal—Tischendorf suggested an antelope, but in view of the manner in which this guess has been copied by successive writers on the text of the New Testament, and the certainty with which much repetition seems to have invested it in their eyes, it is perhaps not unnecessary to point out that there is nothing in the vellum to indicate an antelope rather than any other animal of the requisite size. It varies considerably in thickness: and the thicker leaves, which have generally preserved the writing better than the thin ones, are inclined to a yellowish tint. Many of the leaves are so thin that the writing from the other side is sometimes so plainly visible as to become confusing, and in a few cases the ink has eaten through the vellum so as to leave holes. As a rule, however, the vellum struck me as not quite so thin as that of the Codex Alexandrinus Another 5th-century Greek Bible, now in the British Library., and to have consequently suffered somewhat less from erosion.
The edges of the leaves have been slightly trimmed since the time of the C correctors A group of correctors who worked on the text, likely in the 7th century.; this can be seen, for instance, on folio 49 recto The front side of the 49th leaf.. So far as it is now possible to discover, there is no writing on the edges of the closed MS.

xvi

Column 2

The Codex was prepared for writing in the usual way by rulings to regulate the lines and columns. There are, apparently always, 48 lines, and each of the four columns is regulated by a vertical line on each side. The prickings Small holes made with a tool to guide the ruling of lines. which were always made at the edge of the leaves as a guide for the preparer of the vellum have been cut away, but in a few places a mistake seems to have been made by the preparer of the vellum, and a line of prickings can still be seen in the middle of the first column of writing.
The gatherings Also called quires; groups of folded sheets sewn together. into which the sheets of vellum were made up are as a rule quaternions of four conjugate leaves A gathering of eight pages total., but 78 original: "oη" (in Luke) has only seven leaves, 80 original: "π" (the end of the Gospels) and 100 original: "$\overline{ρ}'$" (in Barnabas) have six each, and 101 original: "ρα" (the end of Barnabas) has only two.² Each gathering appears to have been signed in a dull red ink at the top left-hand corner of the first recto by a hand which was probably contemporary with the MS. It is therefore likely that these signatures Numbered marks used to keep the gatherings in the correct order. ought to be reckoned among the work of the scribes who were employed in the original scriptorium A room in a monastery or library set aside for writing., though there is no proof that this was the case. Most of these signatures have been cut off, but traces of them can be seen in the Epistles and later books. The best specimen will be found on folio 86 verso The back side of the 86th leaf.. A later scribe, perhaps as recent as the eighth century (it is impossible to fix the period of isolated figures with even approximate certainty), has added fresh signatures in the right-hand top corner of the first recto of each gathering. It will, however, be noted that his numbers are less by a single unit than those of the original numerator, and in the older signatures the right-hand figure has consistently been erased; it can, however, still be read on folio 78 recto. Either the original numerator made a mistake—a supposition which is by no means difficult—or a gathering has been lost at

¹ These numbers are those of the recent signatures.
² Nothing is missing from this gathering: therefore the suggestion that the Codex contained something between Barnabas and Hermas falls to the ground.