Codex Sinaiticus (1860) - Page 18

DESCRIPTION OF THE CODEX

Column 1

the Romans, these are only omitted in 1 Thessalonians, the last page of which is one of the cancel-leaves A "cancel-leaf" is a replacement page inserted by the scribes to correct errors in the original sheet. (folio 88).
The apparatus. This may be defined as consisting of: (1) Superscriptions Titles written at the top of the page. added at the beginning of each book, and afterwards inserted either on each recto The front side of a leaf., or distributed on the ‘open page’ between verso The back side of a leaf. and recto, or, in the Gospels especially, on alternate ‘open pages’. (2) The subscriptions Concluding titles or notes at the end of a book. at the end of each book. (3) The Eusebian apparatus A system of cross-references for the Gospels developed by Eusebius of Caesarea. in the Gospels. (4) The Paragraph marks in the Gospels. (5) The ‘Euthalian’ chapter divisions in Acts. (6) The tituli Latin: "titles" or chapter headings in Acts. (7) The reckoning of lines original: "στίχοι" (stichoi); a count of standard line lengths used to measure the size of a text. at the end of the Epistles.
The questions in each case are whether the scribe belonged to the scriptorium The professional writing room where the manuscript was produced. or not; if he did, whether he can be identified with the scribe of any other part of the manuscript, and if he did not, to what date he ought to be assigned.
(1) The superscriptions. A full selection of these specimens is given in Plate I. It will be easily seen that there is great variation in the style, and that this variation is not regular. The scribe or scribes seem sometimes to write in small and sometimes in large letters on no fixed plan. This creates at first sight the impression of diversity of hands; but further study dispels this view, and leads rather to the conclusion that Tischendorf Constantine von Tischendorf, the 19th-century scholar who discovered the Codex. was right in assigning all the superscriptions to the original scribe D, except those in Hermas, which seem to be by B, the scribe of the text. That the scribe was D rather than A is shown partly by the general impression made on the eye, partly by the fact that the superscriptions are not wanting on the cancel-leaves written by D, where they are precisely similar to those on the other pages, and partly by their resemblance to the subscriptions written by D, and their difference from the subscriptions written by A. The most convincing proof that only one hand has been busy with the superscriptions is seen if instead of looking at the specimens given in the order in which they are arranged (that in which they come in the manuscript), they are taken in the order of gradation of change of style. Take for instance the following series:—Luke (29 recto), Mark (18 verso), Matthew (11 verso, 12 verso), Matthew (2 recto), Romans (62 recto), 1 Corinthians (69 recto), 2 Peter (124 verso), Ephesians (82 recto), 1 Thessalonians (87 verso), Colossians (85 verso), Hebrews (92 recto). Is it not impossible to say that any one of these is in a hand other than that of the example preceding or following? Is it
xx

Column 2

not rather almost certain that they are all by the same scribe? Nevertheless if we had only the first and the last of the series, there would be grave doubt as to the identity of the hands. As it is, the only example which really seems to differ essentially is 2 Thessalonians (89 recto); this really causes hesitation, and it is possible that it was omitted by accident by D and added later by another scribe, who may equally well have been working either inside or outside of the scriptorium.
A further conclusion follows from a consideration of the examples given in Plate I. Just as at the top of the series, if it were arranged in order of gradation of style, there would appear specimens in bold uncial A style of writing using large, rounded capital letters common in early manuscripts., resembling closely the ordinary hand of D in the text, so the middle and end of the series supply specimens equally closely resembling the corrector A². This suggests that the scribe D is identical with the corrector A², and, as will be shown when the correctors are discussed, there is other evidence to corroborate this view.
(2) The subscriptions. These afford less room for doubt than the superscriptions. All of them were written by A except those to Mark and 1 Thessalonians, which come on the cancel-leaves written by D. Tischendorf, it is true, also regarded the subscription to John as written by D, together with the whole of the last verse of the Gospel, but an inspection of the subscription (given in Plate I) will probably suggest to most minds that there is on the contrary a close resemblance to the style of A, but not to that of D. Tischendorf argued that there was a change of ink visible at the beginning of the last verse. This is naturally too small a point to be observable in a photograph. My own impression is that the scribe took a fresh dip of ink, and possibly mended his pen, but I can see nothing more, and in general I should have said that A and D used precisely the same ink, and held their pens at precisely the same angle, so that no valid argument can be based on the minute variations of form, which may quite as probably be due to an alteration of posture by the same scribe as to a change of writers.
(3) The Eusebian apparatus. This is added in red, by a hand which is shown by the argument given above (p. xix) to be anterior to the cancel-leaves of D, and therefore to belong to the scriptorium. Whether this scribe can be identified with any of the original scribes or correctors is doubtful: it is impossible to decide definitely as the numerals do not afford