Codex Sinaiticus and the Book of Psalms - Albert Pietersma - close to Hebrew Masoretic Text - resurrection in Psalm 66:1 (MT) 65:1 (LXX) title

Steven Avery

Codex Sinaiticus and the Book of Psalms - Albert Pietersma

Avoid https

9 pages to read

rule 2: when the three older groups disagree among themselves, the reading which equals the Masoretic Text is deemed to be OG



Psalm 13:3
(pic on special page with Vaticanus et al)

Psalm 17:20

Psalm 24:14

Psalm 65:1 (Christian addition)


¶ To the chief Musician, A Song or Psalm. Make a joyful noise unto God, all ye lands:
A Psalm of Resurrection

εις το τελος ωδη ψαλμου αναστασεως αλαλαξατε τω θεω πασα η γη'

Resurrection is OMITTED!

ειϲ το τελοϲ ωδη ψαλμου
αλαλαξατε τω θω παϲα η γη


Psalm 70:21

Psalm 118:104

Psalm 134:17

Psalm 146:8

Interestingly, no manuscript makes its appearance more often than does S in the eight instances Rahlfs brackets. As a result, one might conclude on that basis that S is a very good witness to the Old Greek text of Psalms. 22

The reason for Rahlfs’ judgment is not difficult to find. All eight items are, on the one hand, lacking in MT, and, on the other hand, the intra-textual origin of most of them is patently obvious. In that light, it is not surprising that, in Rahlfs’ apparatus criticus, one frequently encounters the notation “ex” followed, typically, by a Psalms reference suggesting the possible origin of a given variant. What is surprising—to echo P. L. Hedley—is that Rahlfs did not take his own notation more seriously, at least to the point of placing more square brackets to signal many more items are of doubtful originality.


Most of Rahlfs’ evidence for Hebraizing in MS S, as already noted, consists of “omissions” that correspond to MT. But “omissions” that equal the Hebrew cannot help but bring into view a central issue in the evaluation of a translated text: when does such correspondence reflect the original text and when is it indicative of Hebraizing corrective activity? Or might it indicate neither and simply be a careless mistake by a scribe? An example may help illustrate:
Last edited:

Steven Avery

This is more easily explained by the late Sinaiticus, where the Hebrew text was known, directly or indirectly.

Also that is a fine explanation of the brackets in Psalm 14 with the text from Romans 3.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Psalm 65:1

Are you saying that S lacking the resurrection would be later because the scribe knew it was not in the hebrew?

What Rahlf says about it

Psalmi cum Odis




a Christian addition teaching this Ps. already 2 or 1st century that it was sung on the feast of the resurrection, in whose mass even now its four stanzas ( up to soi 1) are sung in Rome, 1883, published p. 18); - Rahlfs p. 185

Your argument would be (and i concur) that the Sinaiticus should have followed Christian usage in the 4th century if it truly dates there. SINCE it follows a Hebrew Text which did not come into existence until the 6th century at the earliest Sinaiticus PROBABLY was not produced until after that. There is the slim possibility that the scribe knew the proto-maoretic texts but it is not probable.

Believers Church Bible
Commentary: Psalms
James H. Waltner Church Bible Commentary (Herald Press).pdf

Last edited: