Codex Sinaiticus: Old Testament (Facsimile)

Column 1

...as early as any that can be cited in Latin. Even if it is ultimately a Latin-influenced term, it provides no argument against the Egyptian origin original: provenance of any individual manuscript.

Thus, the argument from spelling original: orthography does nothing to challenge the likelihood of the Egyptian origin of the Codex Sinaiticus. In the case of the word for "bed" original: κράβακτος, it even gives that theory somewhat strong support. However, it is well to remember that spelling and the study of ancient handwriting original: palaeography can only define the nationality of the scribe, not the physical location of the writing room scriptorium: a room in a monastery or library set aside for writing and copying manuscripts. While there is always a probability that an Egyptian was writing in Egypt, he may have been living in a foreign land.

Partly, but not mainly, based on the study of handwriting is a further argument that seeks to link the Codex Sinaiticus with the Codex Vaticanus, and thus to establish their common origin. This argument is somewhat complicated and may best be divided into three stages. First, there is the question of the physical relationship between the two books codices: early manuscript books with pages, rather than scrolls. The most famous point here is the attempt made by the scholar Tischendorf to identify the scribe of Codex Vaticanus as the same person as "Scribe D" (who is also "Corrector A¹") of the Codex Sinaiticus. Secondly, there is the treatise of Dr. Rahlfs connecting Codex Vaticanus with Athanasius Athanasius was a powerful 4th-century Bishop of Alexandria. Thirdly, there is an attempt first made by Dr. Rendel Harris, and later more completely by Dr. Armitage Robinson, to connect both manuscripts with "Euthalius" and probably with the city of Caesarea.

Tischendorf’s view—that the main body of the text of Codex Vaticanus was written by Scribe D of the Codex Sinaiticus—is unfortunately impossible to defend.¹ A comparison of the two handwriting styles, which can easily be made on Plate III in the facsimile of the New Testament, will convince anyone of this fact. It would be absurd to argue that the hand which wrote column 3 on that plate is different from the one that wrote column 2, but nevertheless identical to the one that wrote column 1. This is the argument that Tischendorf’s theory requires. If one argues that there is an even greater difference between column 3 (the writing of Scribe D) and the script of Corrector A¹, who are nevertheless regarded as the same person, the answer is that these cases are not of the same kind. Corrector A¹ and Scribe D may be the same person

---

¹ This is, I may add, the opinion of every expert in ancient handwriting original: palaeographer who has seen the drafts of the facsimile. I have found no one who is inclined to agree with Tischendorf, or even to hesitate on the subject.

---

Column 2

despite a surface-level difference in handwriting. This is because two different styles of writing were used for the main text and for the corrections. The same scribe may write in many distinct styles, but the point is that he will not write the same style in two different ways. The script of Corrector A¹ is a distinct style from that of Scribe D, while the handwriting of Codex Vaticanus is the same style as Scribe D’s, but written in a different way. It is therefore necessary to abandon Tischendorf’s view that part of the text of Codex Sinaiticus was written by the scribe of the Codex Vaticanus.

Nevertheless, if the main body of the text is put aside, there is a high probability that the two books came from the same writing room. This view is based on the remarkable similarity between the scribes who added the titles original: superscriptions to the Book of Acts original: πράξεις in both manuscripts. Typical examples of these are placed together in the fourth column of Plate III in the New Testament facsimile. It will be seen that the resemblance is so great that it is impossible to say with complete confidence that they are not by the same scribe. Especially noticeable is the appearance of a cursive version of the letter 'xi' original: ξ in the middle of an otherwise formal capital-letter script uncial: a style of writing using large, rounded capital letters.

However, I am convinced that it is more likely that we are dealing with two different people working in the same writing room. The tail of the letter 'xi' original: ξ is more carefully rounded in Codex Vaticanus, and the letter 'iota' original: ι in the second syllable of the word "Acts" original: πράξεις is exaggeratedly long in Codex Sinaiticus. These differences are consistent and seem sufficient to distinguish the two writers. Nevertheless, the similarity is extremely great and is hard to explain unless we assume that both writers come from the same school. The differences might conceivably mean that there is a difference in time between the two samples—that is to say, the "Acts" title of Codex Vaticanus was written by a scribe in his youth, and the "Acts" of Codex Sinaiticus was written by the same man in his old age.

But whether this is true or not is not really of great importance. The serious point is that there is, in any case, good evidence for thinking that the two great manuscripts come from the same writing room, even though Tischendorf was wrong to think they were written by the same individual scribe. The only possibilities that could weaken this evidence are: (1) it may be that these significant titles for "Acts" were written by two scribes who had simply learned in the same school...