Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Matthew 2:6 - Sinaiticus scribe bungles Bible Prophecy 101

  1. Default Matthew 2:6 - Sinaiticus scribe bungles Bible Prophecy 101

    Found by David W. Daniels, when we were conferencing about the various accents and marks in early Matthew, that Skeat & Milne say were an embellishment attempt by scribe A.

    Click image for larger version. 

Name:	35239630_10155443455891080_3562994775864901632_n.jpg 
Views:	32 
Size:	90.4 KB 
ID:	225

    Amazingly, the scribe connects Matthew 2:6:

    Matthew 2:6
    And thou Bethlehem, in the land of Juda,
    art not the least among the princes of Juda:
    for out of thee shall come a Governor,
    that shall rule my people Israel.

    with ISAIAH, not Micah! (In the vertical margin note.)

    Micah 5:2
    But thou, Beth-lehem Ephratah,
    thou be little among the thousands of Judah,
    yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel;
    whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

    And we have not seen any comments on this from the Sinaiticus scholars!

    This is definitely not mentioned at all in Scrivener (who relied on Tischendorf) or Jongkind or Skeat.


    This blunder is referenced in a recent (or forthcoming) paper by Charles Evan Hill.

    Irenaeus, the Scribes, and the Scriptures. Papyrological and Theological Observations from P.Oxy. 405 (pre-pub. version)
    Charles Evan Hill

    'This is confirmed by a look at the facsimile edition at, for instance. Matt. 2.6, citing Micah 5.1,3, where portions of the original ink show through in the letters next to the diplai and may be compared with the ink of the diplai. p.8

    Illustration 4. Codex Sinaiticus (q. 74, f. lv), Matt. 2.6 citing Micah 5.2. Note scribal mistake in attribution to HCAIOY. What look like dots following the diplai are actually line pricks. p-10

  2. Default James Snapp documents three blunders on the Old Testament references in early Matthew chapters

    The BVDB crew did help (a rare occurrence, always appreciated when it happens) by showing that James Snapp also has mentioned this bumbling, and some more, in a blog post:

    "Some Manuscripts Say . . ." - The Problem with Footnotes
    James Snapp -
    January 16, 2017

    Changing emphasis and formatting.

    Occasionally, reckless copyists who made such embellishments assigned quotations to the wrong source.

    In Codex Sinaiticus, for example, in the margin alongside Matthew 2:5-6, the name “Isaiah” appears in a vertically-written note to identify the prophet whose work is quoted in the text. The prophet being quoted, however, is Micah, not Isaiah.

    A little further along in
    Codex Sinaiticus, the name “Numbers” appears in a vertically-written note alongside Matthew 2:15, even though the text cited in Matthew 2:15 is Hosea 11:1.

    The same thing has happened in Codex Sinaiticus in Matthew 13:35, except the embellishment has been inserted directly into the text; Codex Sinaiticus is one of the few manuscripts that reads “Isaiah the prophet” in Matthew 13:35. This reading was known in the late 300’s by Jerome, who expressed a belief that the passage had previously referred to “Asaph the prophet” and that copyists who did not recognize Asaph’s name changed it to “Isaiah.”

    The external evidence for the non-inclusion of Isaiah’s name in Matthew 13:35 is enormous and wide-ranging: it is supported by B, D, W, and by every branch of the Byzantine Text, and by all known Syriac, Latin, Sahidic, and Armenian copies.

    The attribution of the quotation to Isaiah is an error, and to some textual critics, this makes it likely to be original, on the grounds that it is thus the more difficult reading. Hort, in 1881, demonstrated his non-belief in inerrancy in his Notes on Select Readings, stating, “It is difficult not to think Ἠσαίου [Isaiah] genuine.” Eberhard Nestle (the originator of the Nestle-Aland compilation) embraced the erroneous reading in his 1901 Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament. On page 251, after acknowledging that this reading was only attested by a smattering of extant manuscripts, but was also mentioned by Eusebius and Jerome (both of whose explicitly rejected it), Nestle wrote, “It was used still earlier by Porphyrius as a proof of Matthew’s ignorance. It is certainly, therefore, genuine.” ... (continues)
    Well done, James. Thanks for doing the legwork. (On the assumption that you ferreted these out.)

    The last one may have been simply taking from a mistaken source manuscript. Sinaiticus has many blunders in the text, like Nazareth in Judea.


    It is rather amazing that, afawk, absolutely nothing has been published about these blunders (at least in English) until 2017. Skeat and Jongkind both missed these Old Testament prophecy reference blunders in talking about Sinaiticus scribal habits.

    If Scrivener did not mention them, then Tischendorf likely left it all out as well.

Posting Permissions

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