Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Codex Sinaiticus-See the Manuscript

Collapse
X
Collapse
 
  • Page of 1
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
Previous template Next
  • #1

    Codex Sinaiticus-See the Manuscript

    Here are some questions to be answered. In looking at this manuscript online I was puzzled to find two different 1 Chronicles listed.

    How can this be possible? They state that the one is a duplicate of the other, but it is not an exact duplicate.

    They say both are written by the same scribe some 1,700 years ago. How did both copies manage to survive all those years, while at the same time many of the Old Testament books are completely missing?

    They were both assigned folio numbers which would have placed them some 96 pages apart in their respective manuscripts.

    The one is found in the Leipzig Library in Germany under the title the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, and its clarity is amazing though it is not complete.

    The other one is in the hands of St. Catherine’s Monastery, and is a mere strip that looks like it was used as a book marker.

    Can anyone explain how this is possible, have I missed something?
    Tags: None
  • #2
    Re: Codex Sinaiticus-See the Manuscript

    This is interesting. I had never heard of this Codex until a couple of days ago, when it was featured on the UK TV programme 'The Beauty of Books' on the BBC.

    I believe the codex was found in various places around the monastery of St Catherine's so perhaps two different scribes wrote out 1 Chronicles? I looked up this codex after it had been on TV because I was amazed at how well preserved it was (and I didn't know a Bible had existed compiled like this for so long) and unless I am confusing it with another codex I also read about, I think the Codex was written by several authors who varied in quality. I believe the one named 'B' by scholars was supposed to have been sloppy and a bad speller while 'D' was supposed to be the best. I suppose it is possible that more than one scribe could have written out 1 Chronicles and made mistakes as he wrote. Hope this helps some.

    By the way I read that the Codex Sinaiticus is held in several libraries. I think some is held by Russia where it was originally held until bought by the British Library. Most of the manuscript is held in the British Library and some of it is stored in St Catherine's. I don't remember any mention that any of the Codex was kept in Germany but I may be mistaken.
    What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not hesitate to leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

    And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

    And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbours, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

    (Luke 15:4 - 6 NKJV)

    Comment

    • #3
      Re: Codex Sinaiticus-See the Manuscript

      Originally posted by Camellia View Post
      This is interesting. I had never heard of this Codex until a couple of days ago, when it was featured on the UK TV programme 'The Beauty of Books' on the BBC.

      I believe the codex was found in various places around the monastery of St Catherine's so perhaps two different scribes wrote out 1 Chronicles? I looked up this codex after it had been on TV because I was amazed at how well preserved it was (and I didn't know a Bible had existed compiled like this for so long) and unless I am confusing it with another codex I also read about, I think the Codex was written by several authors who varied in quality. I believe the one named 'B' by scholars was supposed to have been sloppy and a bad speller while 'D' was supposed to be the best. I suppose it is possible that more than one scribe could have written out 1 Chronicles and made mistakes as he wrote. Hope this helps some.

      By the way I read that the Codex Sinaiticus is held in several libraries. I think some is held by Russia where it was originally held until bought by the British Library. Most of the manuscript is held in the British Library and some of it is stored in St Catherine's. I don't remember any mention that any of the Codex was kept in Germany but I may be mistaken.
      The problem is that evidently there is two different manuscripts, both written by the same scribe, 1700 years ago, according to the possessors of the manuscript.

      It seems highly unlikely, and brings into question the reliability of the man who produced them.

      Comment

      • #4
        Re: Codex Sinaiticus-See the Manuscript

        I assume you'll have read tis, but in case you haven't: http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/projec...px#locating_sp

        It sounds like (haven't read it properly) that the duplicate is a reconstructed manuscript which they have figured into a new position by taking into account thhe amount of characters in other books (or something, I'm really sleepy sorry).
        What man of you, having a hundred sheep, if he loses one of them, does not hesitate to leave the ninety-nine in the wilderness, and go after the one which is lost until he finds it?

        And when he has found it, he lays it on his shoulders, rejoicing.

        And when he comes home, he calls together his friends and neighbours, saying to them, 'Rejoice with me, for I have found my sheep which was lost!'

        (Luke 15:4 - 6 NKJV)

        Comment

        • #5
          Re: Codex Sinaiticus-See the Manuscript

          Originally posted by Camellia View Post
          I assume you'll have read tis, but in case you haven't: http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/projec...px#locating_sp

          It sounds like (haven't read it properly) that the duplicate is a reconstructed manuscript which they have figured into a new position by taking into account thhe amount of characters in other books (or something, I'm really sleepy sorry).
          No I had not read it. It would appear that they have made a lot of assumptions.

          They say that the scribe who wrote most of the Sinaiticus transcribed 1 and 2 Chronicles, then transcribed Ezra to chapter 9:9, then got confused and transcribed 1 Chronicles over, or at least 11 chapters or more, and then picked back up with Ezra in the middle of a column of 1 Chronicles, and then went on from there.

          Sounds like that scribe must have been on drugs, or, at the least, unacquainted with scripture.

          Comment

          • #6
            Re: Codex Sinaiticus-See the Manuscript

            The more I examine the Codex Sinaiticus, the more I ask, where are the Bible scholars. I am not a Bible scholar, and yet there is so much in this manuscript that cries out for examination.

            The books that they call 1 and 2 Esdras in this manuscript do not match up with what is supposed to be in the Septuagint according to all the information I can find.

            What is supposed to be in 1 Esdras is the last two chapters of 2 Chronicles, Ezra and part of Nehemiah. While part of Nehemiah is found in Esdras, the name Nehemiah is not found in the Septuagint.

            What is found in the Sinaiticus does not match up at all. The numbering of chapters or verses is of course not found in the Sinaiticus. All numbering has been added by those presenting it to us. What was called 2 Esdras by those presenting the manuscript is actually Ezra starting in Chapter 9:9 to 10:44 which completes the book of Ezra, and then starts in 11:1, which is actually Nehemiah 1:1 and goes through to the end of the book of Nehemiah, which is numbered in this Sinaiticus as 2 Esdras 23:31, and corresponds with the end of Nehemiah 13:31.

            In the Septuagint the name Nehemiah was not to be found, and yet in the Sinaiticus it is right their where it is found in the Masoretic Text, in Nehemiah 1:1, which in the Sinaiticus corresponds to 2 Esdras 11:1.

            There seems to be a dead silence in the Academic world as to all the problems associated with this manuscript. Why?

            Logic would tell you that any scribe that would ruin that much parchment would be dismissed immediately, and yet he was allowed to continue with the valuable parchment. Why?

            Comment

            Previous template Next
            Working...
            X