Codex Sinaiticus On-line!
The famous codex from St. Catherine’s Monastery, Mt. Sinai, Egypt has begun to show up on the Internet. A joint project between the British Library, the University of Leipzig, the National Library in St. Petersburg, and St. Catherine’s Monastery at the base of Mt. Sinai, Egypt, has been underway for some time now. All four institutes own portions of this manuscript (with the BL owning the largest section, the complete New Testament—which, incidentally, is the oldest complete New Testament by half a millennium!). The project to post these images on-line has involved new digital photography and some slick search-capable tools.
One can see the images already posted by going to this site: http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/
Unfortunately, only selections from the codex are on-line currently. The entire codex should be up by July 2009.
CSNTM has the complete NT on its site, but our images are digital photographs from the 1911 black-and-white folio photographs (http://www.csntm.org/Manuscripts/GA%2001/).
In order to obtain permission from each institute to post their collective images of Sinaiticus, an agreement had to be made first. It was simply that the story of this manuscript’s modern history would be told and that the story would be something that all parties could agree to. That all parties could agree on the contents of the narrative is a grade B miracle! The reason is quite simple: Ever since the German scholar, Constantine von Tischendorf, took the manuscript from St. Catherine’s in 1859, there has been a dispute between St. Catherine’s and the new keepers of the MS as to who owned it.
Too much to go into now, suffice it to say that the story that most have heard is that Tischendorf saw the monks ripping out leaves of this codex and using them as kindling. Thus, most in the western world who know anything about Sinaiticus have assumed that the removal of the MS from Mt. Sinai was the act of a rescue mission rather than a theft. Although this has been strongly denied by St. Catherine’s, few in the western world knew much of the story—e.g., that Tischendorf had left a note telling the monks that he would return the MS when they asked for it. But with the discovery of the ‘New Finds’ (over 1000 MSS and 50,000 fragments found in 1975 in a hidden compartment at the monastery), the story may need some serious revision. What is most notable is that as many as 26 leaves or leaf-fragments of Codex Sinaiticus were found in the store-room or geniza. And the geniza was most likely used until the mid-19th century (judging by the latest MSS found in it). As well, the fact that the leaves of Sinaiticus that were found there were from the front (Pentateuch) and back of the book (apostolic fathers) seems to suggest that the geniza was used for manuscript leaves that had fallen off of the documents, most likely when the library was moved from one side of the compound to the other. Both the date when the geniza was in use and the leaves of Sinaiticus that were found there suggest that during the era when Tischendorf visited the monastery the monks’ modus operandi in disposing of old manuscripts was not to destroy them. In the least, this new evidence and its potential implications need to be given more serious consideration as the modern story of this remarkable manuscript is told.
If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!- Codex Sinaiticus Completely On-Line Now
- Historical Renewal Friday: Lobegott Tischendorf
- CSNTM, Text Criticism, and Patmos
- Photographing the Wee Beastie
- Own a Piece of History
Print This Post

historic salve on 08 Sep 2008 at 3:46 pm #
Interesting post and back-story into the manuscript, Dr. Wallace.
Jason Dulle on 16 Sep 2008 at 1:53 pm #
Mr. Wallace,
I’ve done a lot of reading on textual criticism, but there are some questions I have not been able to get answered. I’m teaching on textual criticism for the next two weeks, so it would help me immensely if you could answer them for me.
1. How are variants counted? For example, is every word in the periscope of the woman caught in adultery considered a separate variant? If two words are transposed in a manuscript, is that counted as one or two variants?
2. How many places in the NT do variants appear? I’ve always heard it was 10K. But if there are 400K variants, that would mean there are, on average, 40 different textual variants for each location in the text in which variants appear. This sounds unbelievable. 3. I have always heard it said that “no two manuscripts are exactly alike,” but is this an overstatement? Given the number of fragments we have, it would seem that at least two would agree. For example, doesn’t P52 agree 100% with other manuscripts containing that same portion of John? I’m inclined to think this claim only pertains to larger manuscripts and manuscript fragments?
4. I have seen so many lists regarding the textual evidence for classical authors (# of manuscripts, and earliest extant copy), and few of them match up. The truncated list you provided in Dethroning Jesus differs significantly from the others. I have searched in vain to find a reliable source that shows the current state of these texts. Do you know of a book, journal article, or website that keeps up-to-date information on this?
Thanks!
Dan Wallace on 16 Sep 2008 at 3:39 pm #
Jason, you ask some excellent questions. Unfortunately, there are way too many of them for me to respond adequately here. But I’ll try to give you something at least. 1. Variant counts: a variant is any place in which at least one manuscript deviates in wording, word order, or spelling from other manuscripts. A variant is not counted if all the MSS have the same wording. (BTW, it’s ‘pericope’ not ‘periscope’ and it’s pronounced pair-ICK-uh-pee.)
2. 10k is definitely incorrect. It’s probably based on the erroneous assumption that since the Nestle-Aland text (the standard Greek NT used today) has about 10,000 textual problems, that’s all there are. I’ve heard NT scholars (including Robert Funk!) make that assumption explicit before. But by ‘place’ what do you mean? Generally speaking, a variation unit is the smallest possible grammatical unit. This may be one word or a few words. There are approximately 140,000 words in the Greek NT. On average, each word has two or three variants (if you could count them at the word-level in each instance).
3. Your instincts are correct here. For convenience’ sake, many scholars say that no two MSS are exactly alike.
4. The list in DJ is based on the latest critical editions of the various classical authors. Many lists (especially when citing Homer) are based on a book that came out in 1951. Even in Metzger-Ehrman, The Text of the New Testament, 4th edition (2005), the information was more than 50 years old.
Jason Dulle on 17 Sep 2008 at 1:02 pm #
Mr. Wallace,
Thank you.
1. Given what you said, would the pericope of the woman caught in adultery be counted as one variant, or 100 (assuming there are 100 words in the pericope)? And what about things like inverted word order? If two words are transposed in a text, does that count as one or two variants?
2. By place, I mean instances. There are 138,162 words in the NT. If every one of those words had a variant somewhere in at least one manuscript, then there would be 138,162 instances/places in which variants occur (even though the number of variants could be higher, because each place may have multiple variants).
But let’s say of the 138,162 words, 100K are the same in every manuscript (same spelling, same order, same everything). That would mean there are 38,162 places in which variants occur. So how many places are there in which variants occur? Or to ask it in reverse, how many places/words are there in which there are no variants in any manuscript? I know that on average, there are 2-3 variants per word, but this is just an average. Some words have no variants, while others may have six.
4. Is there an online source that keeps this information up-to-date?
Thanks!
Dan Wallace on 17 Sep 2008 at 4:04 pm #
1. The pericope adulterae (or PA for short) counts as a single variant from a base text that does not have it. But if the base text has it, then any variations from that base text—including absence of the story, word changes, spelling differences, etc.—each count as individual variants.
2. Not every word in the NT has variants. Some places have, as you surmised, a good half dozen or more (sometimes many more) variants. Others, none. Altogether, the total comes to about 400,000. My best guess would be that about half of the words have variants, but that’s only a guess. That’s incorporating all spelling changes, word flips, omissions, additions, etc.
4. Not yet because we haven’t even digitized all the data yet, let alone organized it.