Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: three crosses note - 7th century? - scribal mess noticed 300 years after production?

  1. Default three crosses note - 7th century? - scribal mess noticed 300 years after production?

    This will be the central spot for three crosses info.

    Michael Swift on the:


    Facebook PureBibleForum
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/pure...9545468804002/

    Question: Has anyone here done a review of the three crosses note in the Sinaiticus? If so, what are your findings as to the scribal hand? Is the hand linked to any other hand in Aleph? The marginal note contains information about an insertion of Chronicles into 2 Esdras by mistake. What kind of sloppy scribe would not only miss a verse here and there in 2 Esdras, but get the entire book copy wrong? Maybe a bored 19 year old kid?

    It reads

    μεχρι του ϲημειου τω
    τριων ϲταυρων εϲτι
    το τελοϲ των επτα
    φυλλων τω
    περιϲϲων κ(αι)
    μη οντω
    του εϲ
    δρα

    SA: ‘at the sign of the three crosses is the end of the seven leaves which are superfluous and not part of Esdras’.

    Q35-4r - LUL - 1 Chronicles 17:16-18:15 (duplicate) Scribe A "a large intrusion from 1 Chronicles into 2 Esdras "
    (7th 8th century "at the sign of the three crosses
    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manusc...r&zoomSlider=0

    ... This
    note is a key. This note is truly bizarre. This does not appear to be anything but a practice and correction copy. I suppose a professional scribe could accidentally begin copying the wrong book into 2 Esdras, but that doesn't sound too likely to me. If this is the best commissioned scribe they could find, they had problems indeed.

    ... the hand of this corrector's note I have learned is c. 7th century. So, what they expect me to believe is that a corrector did not catch this error till the 7th century? Really? That's what I'm supposed to believe? This went on happily for 300 years until one keen scribe in the 7th century noticed that Chronicles had been inserted into 2 Esdras? They didn't read it much apparently. There's a lot of funny business about this manuscript. Too many things don't add up.

    ... here's the rub: this note actually makes no logical sense. It certainly looks to be a 7th century script. I can't argue with that. And our Sinaiticus script appears to be from the 5th century according to the Handbook of Greek and Latin Paleography. So, we have an 'apparent' spread of 200 years presumably. Except this is not the kind of note that would have been spread over 200 years. This copy of this Bible would not have even made it out of the scriptorium in such shoddy state. So, there is no sense in this at all. This one note is a time bomb.

    ... I sure can't make any kind of sense out of it if this Sinaiticus is supposed to be an ancient document. I mean here is one real example of something that simply would never have happened. Word corrections, maybe. Entire sections of books inserted into the wrong book not caught for 200 years? Uh, no.
    noticed the strangeness of the claim that this note was only put in approximately 300 years after the production of the manuscript!


    For dating theories that involve this three crosses note, e.g. from Elijah Hixson

    the hand of the three crosses note is—and I believe this strongly enough that I am tempted to write a short note on the date of the cpamph corrections and try to publish it in a journal—upright ogival majuscule that is completely consistent with a 6th century date, I might allow something into the early 7th, but most likely 6th century.
    or Michael Swift, this is one resource, especially the section p. 149-158. (As we know, Tischendorf did not give reasons for his dates.)

    A handbook of Greek and Latin palaeography (1893)
    Edward Maunde Thompson
    https://archive.org/stream/handbookg...n176/mode/2up/
    1912 edition begins here
    https://books.google.com/books?id=wYjgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA198

    Is there anything especially unique in the note that would not show up in the everyday writing of a Simonides or a Tischendorf?

    ================

    PureBibleForum Info Collation


    three crosses note - 7th century? - scribal mess noticed 300 years after production ?
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...hlight=crosses

    the script of Simonides - the 'three crosses' note
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...hlight=crosses

    twofold signification of the three crosses note
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...hlight=crosses

    CPamph corrector - only on the Leipzig section - 2nd quire numbers - knows ancient style - Tischendorf?
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...le-Tischendorf


    two copies of Chronicles is evidence that work was done on the manuscript in Sinai
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...hlight=crosses

    navigating the Codex Sinaiticus Project (CSP) pictures and data - where is the CFA
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...ere-is-the-CFA


    ================

    Smaller Refs

    why the James Keith Elliott book tells you very little about Sinaiticus authenticity
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...hlight=crosses
    p. 50 - Elliott mixes up the Esdras note with the three crosses note

  2. Default the duplicate section - Wright conjectures about Zosimas and the scribal blunder

    The Reader (1863)
    Genuineness of the "Codex Sinaiticus"
    William Aldis Wright
    https://books.google.com/books?id=fX1NAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA69

    I will add one note from the "Codex Friderico-Augustanus." In the fourth column of the reverse of the fourth folio, the scribe, without even beginning a fresh line, breaks off from 1 Chr. xix. 17 to 2 Esdr. ix. 11. At the bottom of the column are three crosses, and a note to the effect that up to the sign of the three crosses extend the seven superfluous leaves, which do not belong to Esdras. This mistake might have been made by an ancient copyist, but not by one who had before him the Moscow edition of tho Old and New Testaments.
    Actually the spacing in Zosimas should be checked, since it might match up well with the blunder. Plus, Zosimas was a starting point, but there were likely intervening steps. The text of Zosimas here would be interesting to check with the duplicates.

  3. Default Henry Barclay Swete on the duplicate and the three crosses

    An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek: The history of the Greek Old Testament and of its transmission (1900)
    Henry Barclay Swete
    https://books.google.com/books?id=U9Y8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131
    http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/greekot.iii.v.html
    http://biblehub.com/library/swete/an_introduction_to_the_old_testament_in_greek_addi tional_notes/chapter_v_manuscripts_of_the.htm


    After 1 Chron. xix. 17 cod. א (FA) passes without break to 2 Esdr. ix. 9, but the place is marked by the corrector אc.a with three crosses and the note μέχρι τούτου [τοῦ] σημείου τῶν τριῶν σταυρῶν ἐστιν τὸ τέλος τῶν ἑπτὰ φύλλων τῶν περισσῶν καὶ μὴ ὄντων τοῦ Ἔσδρα. Five of these leaves remain, and the two which preceded them probably contained 1 Chron. vi. 50—ix. 27a (H. St J. Thackeray in Hastings' D.B., i. p. 762). Westcott (Bible in the Church, p. 307) supposes that the insertion of this fragment of 1 Chron. in the heart of 2 Esdras is due to a mistake in the binding of the copy from which the MS. was transcribed; comp. the similar error in the archetype of all our Greek copies of Sirach353. Whether 1 Esdras formed a part of cod. א is uncertain, the heading Ἔσδρας βʹ does not prove this, since cod. א contains 4 Maccabees under the heading Μακκαβαίων δʹ although it certainly did not give the second and third books (Thackeray, 1.c.).
    [353] Another explanation (suggested by Dr Gwynn) is given by Dr Lupton in Wace's Apocrypha, i., p. 2.
    mechri toutou [tou] semeiou ton trion stauron estin to telos ton hepta phullon ton perisson kai me onton tou Esdra.

    The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches (1864)
    Brooke Foss Westcott
    https://archive.org/stream/thebiblei...rch/sinaiticus
    https://books.google.com/books?id=npsNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA307
    1896 reprint
    1 Chronicles fragments inserted in 1 Esdras from a mistake in binding in the copy from which the MS. was transcribed), [part in Cod. Frid.-Aug.]
    Fine section in Wace includes the Gwynn reference above.

    The Holy Bible: According to the Authorized Version (A. D. 1611 ..., Volume 1)
    edited by Henry Wace
    https://books.google.com/books?id=WQs4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1

    this leaf 4 verso, calls attention to the error of
    “the seven leaves which are redundant and are not of Esdras."
    Last edited by Steven Avery; Yesterday at 12:46 PM.

  4. Default Dirk Jongkind

    Studies of the Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (2005)
    Dirk Jongkind
    http://www.tyndalehouse.com/tynbul/l...ibalhabits.pdf


    Sinaiticus shows a few interesting features that help us test the method of singular readings and getting to know the scribal habits. Firstly, in the Old Testament part of the manuscript we find five leaves containing text from 1 Chronicles. This section ends with 1 Chronicles 19:17 and finishes within the 26th line of the fourth column of a leaf. The same line continues with text from 2 Esdras 9:9 and the following leaves complete this book. Two of the running titles placed above the section from Chronicles read εϲδραϲ; β and it seems clear that the scribe was not aware that he was dealing with a large intrusion from 1 Chronicles into 2 Esdras. There is a note in Sinaiticus telling us that ‘at the sign of the three crosses is the end of the seven leaves which are superfluous and not part of Esdras’. This note is in a later hand from the seventh or eight century and informs us that the original intruded text from 1 Chronicles contained two more leaves. These two leaves are now lost, together with most of the Old Testament before this point. Tischendorf had already suggested that it was likely that a gathering of leaves, a quire, was misplaced in the exemplar from which the scribe was copying and that neither he nor his colleagues noticed this. Indeed, we find corrections on the text by the scribes both before and after the transition from 1 Chronicles to 2 Esdras without any indication that something had gone fundamentally wrong. This unique situation provides us with an opportunity to learn something more about the copying errors which the scribes made. On the five extant leaves of 1 Chronicles, two of the scribes made 90 corrections in total. It is highly unlikely that they used any other manuscript for these corrections than the one that was used for the copying of the text in the first place. This means that every correction is a correction of a real copying error and that the correction is the true text of the exemplar. Using the corrections, we were able to create a catalogue of scribal errors. Interestingly, not all the 90 readings that were corrected are singular readings. Thirteen out of 90 readings also occur in other manuscripts and, consequently, would not have been detected using just the method of singular readings. These thirteen readings consist mainly of the addition and omission of small words such as articles, some orthographic variants, and harmonisations to the immediate context.

    Scribal habits of Codex Sinaiticus (2007)
    Dirk Jongkind
    Singular Readings and Corrections in 1 Chronicles p. 144-164 (includes detailed singular analysis)

    Introduction
    Sinaiticus preserves approximately 10 chapters of 1 Chronicles. These chapters precede, without any clear break, the text of 2 Esd 9:9 and it seems clear that the text of 1 Chronicles is a large intrusion into 2 Esdras. Though the beginning of this intruded section is lost, we may assume that it was regarded by the scribes as a genuine part of the text of 2 Esdras. This misplaced section of 1 Chronicles was, like the rest of 2 Esdras, corrected by the earliest scribes, and as the correctors did not note the intrusion of 1 Chronicles in 2 Esdras, it follows that they compared Sinaiticus against a codex with exactly the same intrusion. As it is unlikely that such an error would go unnoticed for long, we may assume therefore that the manuscript with which Sinaiticus was compared for the corrections was the same manuscript from which Sinaiticus was copied in the first place.32 If this is true, it means that each correction is a correction of an error the scribe created whilst copying his text. ...
    32 Milne-Skeat,2.
    This Jongkind full singulars section can be made available for Zosima studies.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; Yesterday at 12:57 PM.

  5. Default note sense is that it was written by original scribes

    ‘at the sign of the three crosses is the end of the seven leaves which are superfluous and not part of Esdras’.

    "superfluous" - that looks like a scribal note, ignore what we did there ... not what someone puzzling it out 300 years later would say

  6. Default three crosses in - "World's Oldest Bible" A Fake?


Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •