Codex Sinaiticus: Old Testament (Facsimile)

Column 1

The Old Testament provides a remarkable contrast to the New Testament. In the New Testament, there are signs of a careful revision by at least two groups of correctors who may be called A and B. Regarding group B, I have not found any signs of their work here. Although there are a few corrections which may be assigned to group A, they are few and far between. I have not been able to find sufficient evidence to justify the distinction between sub-groups $A^1$, $A^2$, $A^3$, $A^4$, and $A^5$, a theory which was at least plausible regarding the New Testament. It would seem that while many scribes busied themselves with revising the New Testament, none occupied themselves seriously with the text of the Old Testament until the codexAn early form of a book made of bound sheets of parchment or papyrus reached Caesarea. At that point, the whole resources of the scriptoriumA room in a monastery or library set aside for writing and copying manuscripts were employed in an effort to correct it—at least in part—according to the standard set by Pamphilus A 3rd-century scholar and martyr who maintained the great library at Caesarea.

Similarly, the apparatus of subscriptions and superscriptionsThe formal titles and closing statements found at the beginning and end of biblical books is less elaborate in the Old Testament than in the New. At the beginning and end of each book, these were generally added by the scribe who wrote the main text, but the running headlines Titles at the top of the pages appear more often to be the work of scribe D. Such, at least, was Tischendorf’s judgment, and at the time when I was working on the manuscript itself, I thought that he was right.

The original scribes. At first sight, the whole Codex seems to have been written by the same hand; but a closer inspection shows that this is incorrect. According to Tischendorf, four scribes—labeled A, B, C, and D—were engaged in writing the text.

Scribe A wrote the book of Chronicles and 1 Maccabees, as well as the entire New Testament, with the exception of seven leaves for which others, written by scribe D, were substituted.

Scribe B wrote the prophetic books, 4 Maccabees (except for the first three and one-half leaves), and the Shepherd of Hermas.

Scribe C wrote Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, Ecclesiasticus, and Job.

Scribe D wrote the books of Tobit and Judith, the first three and one-half leaves of 4 Maccabees, and at least six leaves in the New Testament.

So far, we have the guidance of Tischendorf’s judgment. Probably there is no one now living who has quite the same intimate acquaintance with early uncialA script written entirely in large, rounded capital letters, common from the 4th to 8th centuries Greek handwriting as he did. It is therefore unfortunate that he never expressed any opinion regarding the scribe who wrote the fragments of the Pentateuch The first five books of the Bible (Genesis through Deuteronomy) found by Uspensky and published as folios 1 and 2 of the facsimile. Nor is it easy to form a clear judgment. My first impression—

Column 2

—was that these fragments were by the same hand as the Shepherd of Hermas and the Prophets; that is, by scribe B. But closer inspection revealed the use of the little sign ">" at the end of several lines, which is characteristic of scribe D. Repeated comparison has not resolved this doubt: the first sight of folio 1 always suggests scribe B, but closer scrutiny points to scribe D. On the whole, I think scribe D is probably the writer; his hand seems to have varied a little, as may be seen by turning over the pages of Tobit and Judith, and I can find no evidence of more than the rarest use of the sign ">" by scribe B.

In his Sacred Names original: Nomina Sacra; a study of the abbreviated titles for deity in early manuscripts (pages 67–68), Ludwig Traube goes further in the distinction of hands. He distinguishes the scribe A who wrote part of the New Testament from the scribe A who wrote the historical books of the Old Testament and the Epistle of Barnabas. He also distinguishes the scribe B who wrote Isaiah from the scribe B who wrote Hermas and the other prophetic books.

Traube appears never to have seen the codex in person and, of course, had no complete facsimile; he himself admits that this difference of usage might be due to a change in the archetypeThe original manuscript from which a copy is made rather than a change of scribes. I think that this is the more probable view. I can see absolutely no difference between the two "A" scribes whom he proposes, and though I have sometimes thought that there was a difference between the two "B" scribes, I believe that this is an illusion.

At the same time, the difference between the four undoubted scribes is so small and so hard to detect—unless one has the familiarity of almost daily use—that overconfidence is misplaced. The scribes of the ancient writing room which produced this codex (and probably also the Codex Vaticanus) were taught to write in the same style. Therefore, at least four scribes were available for the Sinaiticus, and at least three for the Vaticanus, between whom no untrained eye can see any difference. The way in which this was done is one of the most remarkable feats in the history of calligraphyThe art of producing decorative or formal handwriting.

There is possibly room for legitimate doubt whether Tischendorf was right in distinguishing scribe A from scribe B. Personally, however, I entirely accept his judgment. After the prolonged acquaintance with the style of scribe A—necessitated by photographing each page of the New Testament—I felt while watching the handwriting "appear" on the negative in the developing dish that the first page of Hermas was different from the others. It seemed to "emerge" differently, though by the nature of the process, I did not know until afterward which page it was.