"marginal notes have been partially cut off by the ancient binder."

[Steven Avery]

A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Textament (1864)
https://books.google.com/books?id=v-JUmBD5zIcC&pg=PP21

"marginal notes have sometimes been partially cut off by the ancient binder."

This Scrivener report almost surely came from Tischendorf (although Tregelles is a remote possibility.).

There are no such partial notes visible, so what happened?

Was Tischendorf playing around to take out notes? Or was he planning such actions?

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

PBF
current post on textualcritcism forum
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/current-post-on-textualcritcism-forum.256/

Full Collation - Scrivener

A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament

books.google.com

"marginal notes have sometimes been partially cut off by the ancient binder."

The Sinai Bible - 1864 -
London Quarterly Review

The London Quarterly Review

books.google.com

"the mutilated appearance of certain notes and letter numbers belonging to them shows."

Christian Remembrancer (1862)

The Christian remembrancer; or, The Churchman's Biblical, ecclesiastical & literary miscellany

books.google.com

Elliott p. 62
"Professor Tischendorf states that there are many letters in the marginal notes which have been lost, from their having been written close up to the edge, and from the further circumstance of the edges having suffered injury"

Half Full, Half Empty: The Peculiar Medieval Page

Margins are both a universal and remarkable feature of books. From the very earliest specimens produced two millennia ago, to the e-readers we use today, books contain pages that hold both text and…

medievalbooks.nl

These are key quotes we have on the margin notes:

"marginal notes have sometimes been partially cut off by the ancient binder."

"the mutilated appearance of certain notes and letter numbers belonging to them shows."

"Professor Tischendorf states that there are many letters in the marginal notes which have been lost, from their having been written close up to the edge, and from the further circumstance of the edges having suffered injury"

So how did Tischendorf known this? He would have to see some partial notes, that he eliminated. Was he mangling the ms. for his own purposes? Did he record the notes before they were "gone notes"? What type of ms. science would cut off notes from a supposedly 4th century ms. ?

And notice that marginal notes were a specific point of contention between Simonides and Tischendorf. The Tischendorf berating of Simonides, claiming that there were no marginal notes, now sounds hollow.

More on this question at:

PBF - did Tischendorf trim away Sinaiticus notes?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/did-tischendorf-trim-away-sinaiticus-notes.249/

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

"marginal notes have sometimes been partially cut off by the ancient binder."
A full collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Testament (1864)
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=v-JUmBD5zIcC&pg=PP21

https://archive.org/details/fullcollationofc00scri/page/n19/mode/2up
Johnson's Cyclopaedia
https://books.google.com/books?id=FqorAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA136
Scrivener review in Evangelical Repository (minor)
https://books.google.com/books?id=AMQnAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA309
Also repeated to textcrits
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...e-involved-in-textual-criticism.239/#post-574

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

"Originally it was larger than at present: for the upper and side margins have been trimmed, as the mutilated appearance of certain notes and letter numbers belonging to them shows."
London Quarterly and Holborn Review
"The Sinai Bible" p. 238-270 - review 4 books by Tischendorf "Dr. Tischendorf's Researches"
https://books.google.com/books?id=7A4aAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA245

The Wellesley Index to Victorian Periodicals, 1824-1900, Volume 5
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ff_MQ_jaR54C&pg=PA293

Eclectic Magazine (1863) (from London Quarterly)
The Sinai Bible
https://books.google.com/books?id=AxNLAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA480
p. 477-487

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

"Professor Tischendorf states that there are many letters in the marginal notes which have been lost, from their having been written close up to the edge, and from the further circumstance of the edges having suffered injury"
The Christian remembrancer; or, The Churchman's Biblical, ecclesiastical & literary miscellany, Volume 45 (1863)
Imperial Edition of the Codex Sinaiticus
https://books.google.com/books?id=rPQDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA398

my notes: not Scrivener maybe Cowper

https://books.google.com/books?id=Ap83EAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA98

p. 402

P.379 - Christian Remembrancer 1863 - see below
The original size of the leaves was rather larger than at present. This is proved by the loss of letters from notes added in the right-hand margin, and of the old quaternions, which were written in red at the top of the page. The present numbering of the quaternions was added previously to the binding of the Codex. The actual measurement of the leaves, as we now have them, is given in Plate XIX. of the photo-lithographs, from which it appears that a leaf measures 13 3/8 inches longitudinally, by 14 5/8 inches vertically.

 

[Steven Avery]

trimmed edges - "mutilated appearance of certain notes"

Here is another similar reference.

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

The Eclectic Magazine (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=AxNLAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA481

"Originally it was larger than at present; for the upper and side margins have been trimmed, as the mutilated appearance of certain notes and letter numbers belonging to them shows." p. 480

No examples given.

London Quarterly (original source and the last paragraph of 255 to 270 is not in Eclectic Magazine)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ZPY7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA238

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

The quires have two numbering schemes. In many quires, a number is visible on the top left corner of the first page. Milne and Skeat take this numbering to be the original numbering and assume that in many places it has been oil off during a rebinding of the manuscript. Jongkind p. 32,

The original size of the vellum sheets is unknown, as the edges have been much reduced in binding; it is certain that at least 1/2 in. has been cropped off the fore-edge, and probably as much from the head and tail as well. Since in the latest binding the fore-edge was hacked roughly square after the spine had been crudely rounded, the leaves near the centre are now broader than those at the beginning and end; the breadth in fact varies from 13 1/4 to nearly 14 in., the height being fairly constant at about 15 in. p. 71

The prickings for the bounding-lines placed in the upper and lower margins are often so near the edge that they have been cut off in binding; they are fairly regularly spaced throughout the book, but there is not enough evidence to show how they were set out. Scribes and Correctors - Skeat & Milne p. 74

- Nothing found in Parker

 

[Steven Avery]

checking the ms from the CSP


Search Notes

not back to the Gospel of John...
the Tops are all a rather uniform distance above the top writing.

Luke 5b-6, Q78 f1r BL sA, has a notation with plenty of space.

Q71 f1r BL sA, Sirach 49b-50 - the marking has room at top

Wisdom 19:15-22 - Q68 f1r BL sA - same thing

Psalm 148-151, Q64 f1r BL sA - plenty of room at top -- all uniform from Hermas to the Psalms.

Psalm 113-117 - Q63 f1r BL sA - same thing

Zechariah 2:4 - 4:2 - Q58 f1r BL sB2 - same thing

Jeremiah 40:4 - 41:9 - Q49 f1r LUL sB1 - it's CFA, but still has plenty of room

Jeremiah 27:9-33, Q48 f1r LUL sB1 cd - CFA, same thing

Jeremiah 10:25-11:23, Q47 f1r LUL sB1 cd - is weird enough-looking, but the notation still has plenty of room at top.

Look at Isaiah 27:5 - 28:15, Q44 f3r BL sB - it looks like something was written and rubbed out!!!!
check it out! You can see it on both sides.but only on that page.
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manus...lioNo=2&lid=en&quireNo=44&side=v&zoomSlider=0

Isaiah 21:14 - 22:23 - Q44 f1r BL sB cd - same as the others. Plenty of room above

Isaiah 1 - Q43 f1r BL sB cd and f1v - look almost at the top - another erased word, it seems, right in the middle top. Again, still room in top margins

4 Maccabees 1, Q42 f1r BL sA - same

1 Maccabees 12:28-13:3, Q41 f1r BL sA - is interesting. The section marker is fine, and so are the corrections, but there is a tiny word or something at the top left - still with room, but near the top.

1 maccabees 5:65-6:20, Q40 f1r BL sA - plenty of room. Perfectly normal.

Judith 13:9 - 14:5, Q39 f1r BL sD - same thing.

Now Q38 f8 is a tiny rectangle, that is almost invisible in text.

Tobit 13:2 - 14:4, Q38 f1r BL sD, is normal, though a bit light.

f1v - f2r has a line of drawing on it for some reason, close to the gutter. But the text placement doesn't look unusual.

Esther 6:11 -8:8, Q37 f1r LUL sA, CFA, has writing ALL OVER - and close to the margins - but the other CFA pages here also have writing clear out to both inner and outer margins. So that isn't saying much

2 Esdras 21:15-22:37, Q36 f4r LUL sA - is all over the map, including the top. But I think that is because the "correctors" went nuts over this sample Bible copying. I rather think that they started their copying extravaganza with this section - simply because they were so bad at it. Typically people get better over time.

Still no evidence of a "cut top"

2 Esdras 17:14-67, Q36 f1r LUL sA - totally normal-looking

1 Chronicles 11:22-12:18, Q35 f1r LUL sA -does have writing at the top, but it's "Codex Friderico-Augustanus 1845"

Not even Leviticuus 20:27-22:4, Q10 f1r SCM sA - has any trimming on top.

DONE

 

[Steven Avery]

Simonides mentions margin notes .. are these the "gone notes" ?

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA217

Of the internal evidence of the MS. I shall not now speak. Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present age. But I may just note that my uncte Benedict corrected the MS. in many places,, and as jt was intended to be re-copied, he marked manylejters which he purposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle I can, of course, point out as also those of Dionysius the calligrjphist. In various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different MSS from which I had taken certain passages and readings. These initials appear to have greatly bewildered Professor Tischendorf, who has invented several highly ingenious methods of accounting for them.

Tischendorf response:

Equally unfortunate with this assertion about the source is his fable of the initials,which he says he painted on the margin, and of which there is not the slightest trace in the manuscript. A clumsy misconception of my words only has given rise to this fable.

 

[Steven Avery]

Christian Remembrancer, 1863

Professor Tischendorf slates that there are many letters in the marginal notes which have been lost, from their having been written close up to the edge, and from the further circumstance of the edges having suffered injury. Now this is a thing which is extremely likely to happen with a MS. some centuries old, but is it likely to be the case with a MS. written on parchment (or vellum), and not much more than twenty years old? We assume that Professor Tischendorf's statement is correct, for the point is one upon which he could hardly be deceived; if his statement be not correct, then, indeed, his authority can go for very little.

 

[Steven Avery]

trying to find possible examples

Q65 f1r -
The quire number appears to be cut off on the left side of the top.

CSP website says:

The Greek number for start of quire appears twice. Image shows original fasciculation mark that appears at head in e. This has been re-written in f in non-original ink, suggesting that quire has been separated from the text block (for re-binding perhaps).

A related puzzle is on another thread, where Bradshaw said the ms. was not together in quires when he saw it in 1862.

 

[Steven Avery]

David Remington -"faint notations along the borders, between passages and in the gutter"

"The material is challenging and the project calls for the highest-quality reproduction. We are consulting with conservators and curators on issues specific to this manuscript, for instance a lot of the text is faded and there are faint notations along the borders, between passages and in the gutter. Some of the pages have been mended or have tiny punctures used for aligning the columns. All of this detail is relevant to scholarly study and must be available in the reproduction. These considerations inform our choices for capture resolution, lens, necessary depth of field, style of lighting, and type of backing material," said Remington. "It is important that all technical aspects of the digital capture and image processing be given careful consideration. We are employing a color-managed work flow - a process that is used to maintain exacting color reproduction from capture, to print, to distribution on the Web.

David Remington
Harvard Library
Manager, Digital Imaging and Photography Services

From Vellum to Pixels

http://hcl.harvard.edu/news/articles/2004/codex_pr.cfm

David Remington

http://library.harvard.edu/users/davidremington

.

 

[Steven Avery]

A lot was cut off, and, per above, apparently in the Times of Tischendorf.

For a larger manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus was originally at least 43 x38 cm. in size) ...

The text of the New Testament (1995)
Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland
https://books.google.com/books?id=2pYDsAhUOxAC&pg=PA77

And we have the fuller description:

א 01 Codex Sinaiticus. eapr 11 fourth century. 148 ff.. 4 cols.. 48 II.. 43 x 38 cm. London: British Library. Add. 43725. Complete Bible (parts of the Old Testament lost. 1 Iff. of the Pentateuch and If. of the Shepherd of Hermas discovered in 1975 in St. Catherine's Monastery), with the letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, the only four-column manuscript of the New Testament. The romance of its discovery was recounted by Constantin von Tischcndorf himself (43 Old Testament folios first discovered in 1844. followed in 1853 by an abortive attempt and in 1859 by successful access to the rest of the manuscript, which was eventually "presented" to the Tsar by a complicated arrangement); bought from the Soviet government by England in 1933 for ?100,000. Facsimile edition by Kirsopp Lake (Oxford: 1911). The text with numerous singular readings (and careless errors) was highly overrated by Tischendorf, and is distinctly inferior to B. together with which (and p75) it represents the Alexandrian text...p. 107

An astute comment from Uwe Topper

today they measure less: 38,1 x 34,5 cm. Who cut them so lavishly? (I would not dare to cut a millimeter!)

Sinaiticus – 38 x 34 cm (15 x 13.4 inches; written ca. 330–360) - Wikipedia

That is more than 10% snipped off, approximately 2" top bottom and 1.5" sides. Plenty of room for those margin note initials mentioned by Simonides.

 

[Steven Avery]

Elijah Hixson offered a couple of number trimmings missed above.
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8600

Our thanks to Elijah.

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

Now for the key issue, margin notes:

A lot was cut off, and, per above, apparently in the Times of Tischendorf.

As we see here:

“measuring when found, according to Gregory, 16 7/8 X 14 7/8 inches (43 X 37.8 cm.), but now, according to Milne and Skeat 15 x 13 1/2 inches (38.1 x 34.5 cm).”

Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography (1981)
Bruce M. Metzger
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z35H7PQDQ1oC&pg=PA76

So we have double evidence that Tischendorf mangled the ms. by cutting off notes, unrecorded, by trimming. Tischendorf wrote of margin notes that are no longer visible, and appear to be unrecorded. And the discovery size was bigger.

(And, if Gregory is right, that also means that the New Finds, with the smaller dimensions is after the Tischendorf trimming.)

Novum Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (1884)
Caspar Rene Gregory
https://books.google.com/books?id=mfIoAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA345
(1894)
https://books.google.com/books?id=4SJVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA345
"primo maiora erant folia, sed decurtata sunt"

"The earliest ancestors of the leaves, but they are mutilated"

Clearly, at the very least, the sources of the Gregory information, and anything written by Tischendorf, should be closely examined.

Since in the latest binding the tore-edge was hacked roughly square after the spine had been crudely rounded, the leaves near the centre are now broader than those at the beginning and end; the breadth in fact varies from 13 1/4 to nearly 14 in., the height being fairly constant at about 15 in. - Skeat and Milne p. 72

Notice that what is said by Gregory, recorded by Metzger, is missing today in the history of the ms. E.g. Alan Millard simply says:

"The pages are large, now 38.1 x 34.5 cm (15 x 13.5-14 in.), having been trimmed from about 45 x 37.8 cm (16.85 x 14.85 in)"
https://books.google.com/books?id=5UGRW4UvfYwC&pg=PA44
did Tischendorf trim away Sinaiticus notes?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/b.249

 

[Steven Avery]

From the 2015 New Perspectives book:

Dimensions and scale

There is no economy in the layout of Codex Sinaiticus. The current dimensions of the bifolios are roughly 380 mm (15 inches) in height and 680 mm (27 inches) wide. The restoration work done by Cockerell did not, even after the use of a stretching table to flatten the sheets, change the dimensions of the leaves of the Codex. This can be evinced by the comparison of the dimensions in the sheets conserved at Saint Catherine's and the other fragments. However, there is evidence that the folios were once even larger due to untrimmed corners which remain in situ. Whilst we can determine the amount of edge removed, we cannot be sure this was the only reduction in size, so the original dimensions remain unknown.

The width of the folios varies from a maximum of 386 mm (Q62 F2) to a minimum of 374 mm (Q37 F4) and it is likely that this variance was caused by the subsequent trimming. The Codex still retains two untrimmed corners, one at Q69 F4 of the Old Testament and another at Q77 F6 in the New Testament, which demonstrate that the book was trimmed at the head edge and on the fore-edge by about 6 mm. (Figures 17.7 and 17.8). p. 224-225

They seem to be quite unaware of the history given by Gregory, that the manuscript was discovered as a larger sheet than what Tischendorf presented in 1862.

This is Q69 folio 4r which has an extra edge on the top right: "Untrimmed corner"
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?folioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=69&side=r&zoomSlider=0

And Q77 folio 6r - "Untrimmed corner"
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?folioNo=6&lid=en&quireNo=77&side=r&zoomSlider=0

 

[Steven Avery]

Christian Remembrancer - 1863
https://books.google.com/books?id=rPQDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA379

The original size of the leaves was rather larger than at present. This is proved by the loss of letters from notes added in the right-hand margin, and of the old quaternions, which were written in red at the top of the page. The present numbering of the quaternions was added previously to the binding of the Codex. The actual measurement of the leaves, as we now have them, is given in Plate XIX. of the photo-lithographs, from which it appears that a leaf measures 13 3/8 inches longitudinally, by 14 5/8 inches vertically.

 

[Steven Avery]

Note: See David Daniel's book p. 329

With the Genesis fragment, we can see that at least a couple of extra lines were there before the Tischendorf mangling.

Correction: 37 cm of parchment. That is the post-trim amount.

Let's stop for a second and look at a fragment in Genesis that was published in 1857.

Genesis 23:19-24:20
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manus...olioNo=3&lid=en&quireNo=3&side=v&zoomSlider=0

Fragment of a sheet of the Codex Sinaiticus from the Tischendorf collection
http://nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSinaiticus/cs1.html#1
2 — The fragment was reproduced as illustration in the following publications:
1) C. Tischendorf Monumenta sacra inedita. Nova collection II. Leipzig, 1857. S. XXXXVI, 321-322, Table 6;
2) C. Tischendorf Appendix codicum celeberrimorum Sinaitici Vaticani Alexandrini. Lipsiae, 1867. S. XVI, 3-7;
3) J.-B. Thibeaut. Monuments de la notation ekphonétique et hagiopolite de l'église grecque. St.-Petersburg, 1913. 2. Ill. no 2;
4) H. Lake, K. Lake. Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (et Friderico-Augustanus Lipsiensis). The New Testament… preserved in the Imperial Library of St.-Petersburg (The Old Testament etc.) now reproduced in facsimile from photographs… with a description and introduction. I-II. London, 1911-1922. (back to the text)

Here is the 1857 page from Tischendorf
https://archive.org/stream/Tischend...v1.Tischendorf.Subsc.1857.#page/n399/mode/2up

Now go back to this page
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manus...olioNo=3&lid=en&quireNo=3&side=v&zoomSlider=0

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

 

[Steven Avery]

Eric Kwakkel discusses the amount of blank space.

Half Full, Half Empty: The Peculiar Medieval Page (June 5, 2015)
https://medievalbooks.nl/2015/06/05/half-full-half-empty-the-peculiar-medieval-page/

The pages of the famous Codex Sinaiticus, a Greek New Testament copied around the middle of the fourth century, measures 381 x 345 mm (height x width), while the text itself only takes up 250×310 mm (height x width). A simple calculation reveals that the text takes up 58% of the page, while 42% is reserved for the outer margins. In other words, a little under half of this magnificent book is empty.

My correction post is as follows:

Nice discussion!
One note, sort of a tweak.

The original Sinaiticus, before the trimming (surely by Tischendorf) was quite a bit bigger. Using Metzger's numbers for the original size, the text is only 45.5% of the page, not 58%. However, Gregory's number would make it close to 50%.

Details here:

"marginal notes have been partially cut off by the ancient binder."
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.224

Notice the Genesis fragment with large margins.

And I can think of two reasons for the Tischendorf trimming.
(1) Notes on the edges that could hurt the 4th century claims.
(2) Ease of transport for heists.

(1) is more likely since it matches claims that were made at the time that there were margin notes that were discomfiting to Tischendorf.

And it is highly unlikely that Sinaiticus is more than 180 years old. So it does not make a good ancient or medieval example. However, there are other examples of low text to parchment ratios, like Codex Claromontanus.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY

Also from the blog post.

Despite these add-ons, the schoolbook from c. 1100 is not really prepared to hold extensive notes. Baldwinus could have crammed more text in the margins, had he copied in a smaller script or increased the number of lines for the marginal text passages (presently, their number corresponds to the main text). However, this was not yet common practice in his day and age. In the scholastic age, by contrast, when university students needed to add a lot of extra information in the margin, these two tricks were applied, as seen in Fig. 3 – note the tiny script of the marginal notes, as well as the increased number of lines compared to the main text.

Yet Sinaiticus has tinier script in spots.

 

[Steven Avery]

Note the goal in first post of finding Tischendorf Latin

This first Biblia is not a Prolegomena - may not be relevant
https://books.google.com/books?id=4Ac4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA6#v=snippet&q=margine&f=false
p. 59

also 58

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

Prolegomena

Maybe

Notitia editionis codicis bibliorum sinaitici: Auspiciis imp. Alexandri II. susceptae. Accedit catalogus cod. nuper ex oriente Petropolin perlatorum item Origenes Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis
1860
https://books.google.com/books?id=DpI4EOWye7MC&pg=RA3-PT1
IX-XLI 9-41
margine 32 search hits

https://books.google.com/books?id=f...NQ4ChDoAXoECAgQAg#v=onepage&q=margine&f=false

Novum testamentum sinaiticum: sive, Novum testamentum cum epistala Barnabae et fragmentis Pastoris. Ex Codice sinaitico auspiciis Alexandri II. omnium Russiarum imperatoris (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=7odU1Rf97VwC&pg=PP13

Two margine look the same as 1860
XVIII and XXIV
Different is XXIII

Codex Sinaiticus 1863
https://books.google.com/books?id=HRU_AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA5

1870
https://books.google.com/books?id=nd5UAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR27

1873
https://books.google.com/books?id=WTazAZ86YrQC&pg=PT4

 

[Steven Avery]

The Sinai Bible Or Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus: Read Before the Albany Institute, December 15, 1863
Howard Townsend
https://books.google.com/books?id=e09OAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA6

 

[Steven Avery]

A sample of 1860

Notitia editionis codicis bibliorum sinaitici: Auspiciis imp. Alexandri II. susceptae. Accedit catalogus cod. nuper ex oriente Petropolin perlatorum item Origenes Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis (1860)
https://books.google.com/books?id=DpI4EOWye7MC&pg=RA3-PT1#v=onepage&q=margine&f=false

PAGE XVIII

2. Constat inter eos qui codicum veterum usum habent, librarios lineas stilo ducere consuevisse, quarum
ad normam scripturam conformarent. Hoc etiam in codice Sinaitko factum est, in quo lineae eiusmodi quum ad
colunttuts tum ad versus constituendos pertinent. Singulae enim columnae ad utrumque latus singulis lineis tam-
quam limitibus circumscriptae sunt; versus vero lineis ita significantur ut singulae lineae modo singulos modo binos
modo ternos versus separent. Quae versuum lineae a punctis exeunt acu in extremo plerumque foliorum margine
factis. Fit vero etiam ut a solis his punctis ordo versuum pendeat. Fecit autem membranae subtilitas ut lineae
in atteru cuiusvis folii pagina ductae textui utriusque paginae inservirent.

2. Constat inter eos qui codicum veterum usum habent, librarios lineas stilo ducere consuevisse, quarum ad normam scripturam conformarent. Hoc etiam in codice Sinaitko factum est, in quo lineae eiusmodi quum ad colunttuts tum ad versus constituendos pertinent. Singulae enim columnae ad utrumque latus singulis lineis tamquam limitibus circumscriptae sunt; versus vero lineis ita significantur ut singulae lineae modo singulos modo binos modo ternos versus separent. Quae versuum lineae a punctis exeunt acu in extremo plerumque foliorum margine factis. Fit vero etiam ut a solis his punctis ordo versuum pendeat. Fecit autem membranae subtilitas ut lineae in atteru cuiusvis folii pagina ductae textui utriusque paginae inservirent.

2. It is certain that among those who have the use of ancient codes, the librarians were accustomed to draw lines in style, to which they conformed the standard writing. This is also done in Sinaitko's codex, in which such lines refer to the colunttuts as well as to the establishment of verses. For each column is bounded on both sides by individual lines as boundaries; Verses are signified by lines in such a way that each line separates individual, two, or three verses. The lines of the verses proceed from the points made by the needle, usually at the extreme edge of the leaves. It also happens that the order of the verses depends on these points alone. And the fineness of the membrane made it so that the lines drawn on the bottom of each leaf served for the text of both pages.

( And he made the fineness of the membrane so that the lines drawn on the bottom of each page of the leaf served as the text of both pages.)

p. XXIV

Excepit autem illos is quem c* diximus, quo siglo et ipsuui arctiore cum iis vinculo coniunximus. In
utroque Testamento sunt quibus operam navavit, textum non modo corrigendo sed etiam variis notis adornando,
quemadmodum libro Esaiae numeros sectionum addidit ac saepe per totum codicem in margine adpinxit capo*?,
eo quidem compendio quod tabula XVIII col 3. sub finem redditum est. 3 Ductibus utebatur plerumque rudibus,
cuiusmodi sunt numerorum tabula II. expressorum, sed passim etiam paullo comptius scripsit atque ad scripturam
c-b correctoris propius accessit eo quod similiter atque ille infimis quarumdam litterarum partibus caudas breves
ferit. Atramento utebatur plerumque pullo ac sordido, passim fusco. Qua scripturae atque atramenti varietate
non est quod offendamus: quum enim ille sine dubio longiore tempore possideret codicem atque ad pias adbiberet

Excepit autem illos is quem c* diximus, quo siglo et ipsuui arctiore cum iis vinculo coniunximus. In utroque Testamento sunt quibus operam navavit, textum non modo corrigendo sed etiam variis notis adornando, quemadmodum libro Esaiae numeros sectionum addidit ac saepe per totum codicem in margine adpinxit capo*?, eo quidem compendio quod tabula XVIII col 3. sub finem redditum est. 3 Ductibus utebatur plerumque rudibus, cuiusmodi sunt numerorum tabula II. expressorum, sed passim etiam paullo comptius scripsit atque ad scripturam c*' correctoris propius accessit eo quod similiter atque ille infimis quarumdam litterarum partibus caudas breves ferit. Atramento utebatur plerumque pullo ac sordido, passim fusco. Qua scripturae atque atramenti varietate non est quod offendamus: quum enim ille sine dubio longiore tempore possideret codicem atque ad pias adbiberet

And he received them whom we have spoken of, and with whom we connected him with a closer bond with him. They are in both Testaments on which he worked, not only correcting the text but also embellishing it with various notes, just as he added the numbers of the sections to the book of Isaiah and often painted a capo in the margin throughout the entire codex, in that summary which is given at the end of table 18, col. 3. 3 He used mostly crude lines, such as the numbers in table II. expressed, but here and there he also wrote a little more carefully and came closer to the writing of the corrector in that he likewise struck short tails at the lowest parts of certain letters. The ink he used was mostly chicken and dirty, occasionally brown.

 

[Steven Avery]

partiales notas, marginem incisae

Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum 1863
https://books.google.com/books?id=HRU_AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA13
notas in Codex Sinaiticus

 

[Steven Avery]

Was the CFA actually pretending to be a separate ms?

https://books.google.com/books?id=HRU_AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA13

Friderico-Augustano

1860
https://books.google.com/books?id=DpI4EOWye7MC&pg=RA4-PA7-IA1

1863
https://books.google.com/books?id=HRU_AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA10

describcudum mllCRac prnposjlmn craL
Sed id ipsum recognitioni, quam Graeci (Greek) vocabant. peculiare
suisse ex ca nota discitur quam ad finem librorum (Greek) in codice Friderico-Augustano edidunus Ibi enim quum inter collationcem distinguatur et recognitionem — (Greek) — indieatur
illud. recognoscenti nequaquam conferendia recems scnptis cum excemplo unde descripta essent acquiescenduni suisse. Ad recognoscendum autnn Siiiaiticum codicem revera allud exemplar adhibitum esse iis locis evincitur uhi

Sed id ipsum recognitioni, quam Graeci (Greek) vocabant. peculiare suisse ex ca nota discitur quam ad finem librorum (Greek) in codice Friderico-Augustano edidimus Ibi enim quum inter collationcem distinguatur et recognitionem — (Greek) — indieatur illud. recognoscenti nequaquam conferendia recems scnptis cum excemplo unde descripta essent acquiescenduni suisse. Ad recognoscendum autnn Siiiaiticum codicem revera allud exemplar adhibitum esse iis locis evincitur uhi

Sed id ipsum recognitioni, quam Graeci (Greek) vocabant. peculiare fuisse ex ea nota discitur quam ad finem librorum (Greek) in codice Friderico-Augustano edidimus Ibi enim quum inter collationcem distinguatur et recognitionem — (Greek) — indieatur illud. recognoscenti nequa quam conferendia recems scnptis cum excemplo unde descripta essent acquiescenduni fuisse. Ad recognoscendum autnn Sinaiticum codicem revera allud exemplar adhibitum esse iis locis evincitur uhi utraque scriptura, et quam scriptor eq quam primus ille corrector secutus est, aliorum veterrimorum codicum auctoritate confirmatur.

1863
https://books.google.com/books?id=LBqHZmhzLgwC&pg=PA12-IA1
1864
https://books.google.com/books?id=MEkUIdz4IMIC&pg=PR19

 

[Steven Avery]

Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum 1863
https://books.google.com/books?id=HRU_AQAAMAAJ&pg=RA1-PA13
big poobah dedication

The Codex Sinaiticus book has nota eight times
1844 a bunch of times
here is
Friderici Augusti
Friderico-Augustano

Dionysium Hilarionem Theophylactum
Porphyrius
p. XXIX = IIII

 

[Steven Avery]

Elliott - a bit more context.
p. 62

(j) Appearance of Sinaiticus
Continuing the objections raised about the actual appearance of the manuscript, the following appeared in The Christian Remembrancer, April 1863:

Professor Tischendorf states that there are many letters in the marginal notes which have been lost, from their having been written close up to the edge, and from the further circumstance of the edges having suffered injury. Now this is a thing which is extremely likely to happen with a MS. some centuries old, but is it likely to be the case with a MS. written on parchment (or vellum), and not much more than twenty years old? We assume that Professor Tischendorf's statement is correct, for the point is one upon which he could hardly be deceived; if his statement be not correct, then, indeed, his authority can go for very little.