Nelson Hsieh
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467...59830973208&reply_comment_id=1434039370775254
Hefin Jones Steven Avery
The issue is too complex and would be too time consuming to study everything in detail, but
dating a manuscript isn't just about the Eusebian apparatus. The study of handwriting is the most important and Sinaiticus's handwriting doesn't fit well with manuscripts of the 6/7/8th centuries.
Hi Nelson,
Interesting discussion.
The key point is this, ANY feature can bump forward the terminus post quem. Bumped for one, bumped for all.
In fact, the discovery that the Eusebian canons were part of the original production eliminated some attempts, apparently coming from Tischendorf around 1861, to make Sinaiticus even earlier than the c,. AD 350 date now popular. When they saw that the Eusebian canons were part of the original writing, they dropped that try.
There are various Sinaiticus features that have not been properly considered. As an example, the sophisticated rubrications and formatting in the Song of Songs represent a medieval lineage. And the three crosses note, which on careful consideration is clearly a note placed in the scriptorium/monastery, is an incredible anomaly that shows that it was not 4th cenury. There are many elements of Sinaiticus that bewray the 4th century date as false.
To say that a later date does not work due to the main script is no answer. If the 4th century date is false, and there is no fallback to a date around 600-700, then you have to allow the unthinkable! The manuscript being written c. AD 1840!
However, this is a hard row to hoe for anyone in the textual criticism community. They risk mockery, ostracism and attacks just to simply bring up the issue, putting aside the very minor tweak paper by Brent Nongbri in 2021, which did not challenge the terminus post quem, only the terminus ante quem.
There is no real complication in the essential analysis from Dirk Jongkind. There was a complex transmission history of the Eusebian canons before Sinaiticus was written. This even included the conflation of two transmission lines. The quotes from Dirk Jongkind are totally persuasive.
I'll plan on going into the specifics of the rest of your post shortly.
Your thoughts appreciated!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
The data Dirk collected is very complex too, so that we can't have simplistic explanations of what happened: (1) We don't even know what the "original" Eusebian apparatus was in its entirety, so all comments about Sinaiticus's "corruption" of the system are based on comparing against the NA27 edition, which was based on Gregory's 19th century edition, which was not a critical edition but based on whatever manuscripts he had access to.
answered easily
(2) Much of the errors or deviations could have come from scribal errors in copying -- both the exemplars making errors, then the Sinaiticus scribes making errors. The system is very intricate and detailed; mistakes would have been easy to make. Furthermore, if you look at any single page of Sinaiticus, you'll realize there are plentiful corrections because the scribes were not great at copying. Dirk has said that Codex Sinaiticus is "a bad copy of a good text." The scribes made many copying errors in the text, so we would expect such error-prone habits to extend to copying the Eusebian apparatus. (3) Dirk didn't do a study of the ink and possible layers of the Eusebian apparatus. There are many places where the text of Sinaiticus is faded, but the ink of the Eusebian apparatus is bright red with no fading. (I can't attach an image for some reason, but fol. 215v, Matt 26:39 would be an example). Probably MOST of the apparatus was added at the time of production of the manuscript, but we can't know for sure that there wasn't any adding later. It's so easy to add something into the margin vs. adjusting the text itself would be obvious to us today. (4) We shouldn't exaggerate the error rate of the scribes. Look at Dirk's charts on pp. 115-16. Matthew has 355 sections, but only 26 displacements and 19 deviating table numbers. For the displacements, the scribe had to copy 355 sections, the error rate is 26/355 = 7.3%. For the deviating table numbers, the scribe had to copy 355 table numbers, so the error rate is 19/355 = 5.3%. You can calculate for Mark, Luke, and John, but the level of corruption is minor when viewed this way. (5) Overall, it's true that Sinaiticus was probably closer to mid-late 4th century because of these problems with the Eusebian apparatus. But it wouldn't require hundreds of years for all these errors to show up; the errors could have been made very early on in transmission history and by the scribes of Sinaiticus themselves.
Nelson Hsieh
==============================================================
Nelson Hsieh
"(4) We shouldn't exaggerate the error rate of the scribes."
That was not really part of the discussion at all, and while your pct numbers are strange, they are not the issue.
e.g. you have a claim that two different transmission lines developed out of the original Eusebian canons. Here is the skillful explanation from Dirk Jongkind..
"An interesting situation arises at Matt 16 with regard to sections 162-164 ... In the
majority of the tradition ... a substantial part of the textual tradition ... this situation gave rise to considerable confusion, and different groups of manuscripts follow different traditions... change of table number seems to reflect a conflation between two traditions of the apparatus. "
p. 117-118
"An interesting situation arises at Matt 16 with regard to sections 162-164 ... In the majority of the tradition, canon 162/5 covers Matt 16:2-3 and 163/6 Matt 16:4. However, a
substantial part of the textual tradition does not read anything after the words
ὁ δε αποκριθειϲ ειπεν αυτοιϲ
in verse 2 and omits verse 3 completely, which leaves only the introductory formula to section 162. As was to be expected,
this situation gave rise to considerable confusion, and
different groups of manuscripts follow different traditions. If we consider sections 163 and 164 together, Sinaiticus is only joined in its version of the placement problem by
Codex Bezae (D) and
Codex Campianus (M), though more manuscripts join in at section 164. Interestingly, the scribe makes a correction to the table number of section 163, which was initially 5 or 6 (probably the latter), but changed to 2. Canon 163/6 is the combination found in most manuscripts that have section 163 at an earlier place. The correction to table 2 is indeed correct for the section where
Sinaiticus places section 163 (164 in most other manuscripts). The change of table number seems to reflect a
conflation between two traditions of the apparatus. The confusion suggests that the Eusebian apparatus of
Sinaiticus is taken from a manuscript that included verses 2b-3.
