New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript (2015)
Chapter 17
A Physical Perspective of Codex Sinaiticus:
An Overview from British Library Folios
GAVIN MOORHEAD, SARA MAZZARINO, FLAVIO MARZO, BARRY KNIGHT
p .220
p. 223
Skin quality/preparation
Considering its date and its current condition, the parchment used to make Codex
Sinaiticus may be considered fine quality. For the most part, it is still relatively supple and
uniformly thin. It is also characterized by relatively few visual imperfections such as holes
and scar tissue, with the imperfections it does have usually located away from the text.
This could suggest that the animals were carefully bred and reared to avoid illness and
injury-caused blemishes, but it is equally possible that skins with unacceptable blemishes
were simply rejected. Similarly, these attributes may have stemmed from particular
manufacturing methods or the abilities of the most highly skilled makers. Flaws in the
parchment, such as that in Q93 F51; near the end of the New Testament volume, are rare
(Figure 17.4). The repair to this flaw predates scribal activity, as a preparatory bounding
line, or blind line made by scribes to mark out the width of the column, passes vertically
through it and may even have caused the damage to the membrane. In this instance,
despite the mid-margin location, the scribe has chosen not to avoid the repair and written
some of his letters on top of it.
The prevalence of unblemished folios is exceptional and strongly suggests that there
must have been some sort of selection or discarding process based on skin quality, or
that the Codex’s parchment makers were indeed highly skilled, rarely damaging the skins
during preparation.
Further testament to the skill the parchment makers applied to their task can be found
not only in an absence of discolouration or veining, caused by blood residues left in the
skin during processing (Figure 17.5), but also in the scant evidence of striation marks
caused by the parchment maker’s blade (Figure 17.6) and in the uniform thinness of the
folios.
p. 224
3 PICTURES
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
224
2 PICTURES
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 Fz) 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).
Other evidence, such as the presence of ink marks or ‘binding marks’ in the centre of
fore-edge margins in the middle of each gathering and the remains of fore-edge book-
marks, suggest that the fore-edges of the folios have not been altered significantly.
These binding marks were made by tracing with a pen (possibly made from a pointed
reed or calamus, which is the hollow part of a feather shaft) in ink on the recto of the
right part of each central bifolio of the gatherings, which is offset on the facing verso
(Figures 17.9 and 17.10). The consistent location of these marks in the middle of quires
means that they have no correlation with the text. Therefore, it is possible that these
marks were made in order to locate the exact centre of a quire easily and accurately as
part of the binding process. If so, it may have been anticipated that they would have
been trimmed after the book was bound. The bookmarks were used to highlight special
and important parts of the text and either are made of loops of thread (Figure 17.11) or
appear as the remains of leather tags.
Observed together, the production features of the parchment for Codex Sinaiticus and
its formatting to receive and display the written word, particularly the size of the sheets
used and the ratio of text to marginal space, suggests that the production of the Codex
was intended as a lavish or grand proclamation and a well-funded undertaking.
p.225
p. 226 - 3 PICS
A Physical Perspective of Codex Sinaiticus
SCRIBAL ACTIVITY
The different scribes who wrote the text of Codex Sinaiticus were required to produce
matching work in terms of preparation, format, ink consistency and style. In order to
achieve this it is certain that some of their methodology was standardized. However,
there is also considerable subtle variance in the way some of the scribal activity occurred.
Text line pricking and ruling
The gatherings in Codex Sinaiticus are typically of four bifolios, arranged so that the
hair and flesh sides faced each other.
Milne and Skeat claimed that the sheets were
fastened together for pricking and ruling.’ Due to the extensive repairs effected in 1935
by Douglas Cockerell described in ‘The Binding’, it is now difficult to assess whether this
was the case.4
So that each folio had the same appearance, scribes would prick and rule the folios
with marks and lines as guides for the text. The column boundaries were marked in
the head and tail margins while the text line marks were made in a vertical line usually
within the right-hand column area to set the positions of the ruled text lines. Sometimes
every line was marked, but often the markings were made for every second, third or
fourth line.
As part of the Project, the conservation team traced the pricking positions of each folio
onto polyester sheets to enable comparisons to be made. This examination revealed that
the scribes (or those who prepared the folios for writing) worked with different types
of tools, and used slightly different ruling patterns. For example, the folios of Quire 44
were pierced with a round point, marked in the margin between the third and fourth
columns, and ruled for every text line (Figure 17.11). In contrast, throughout Quire 41,
holes were made with a flattened tip and only every second line is ruled (Figure 17.13).
There are numerous examples of a lack in convention such as in Quire 61, where the text
line prickings were made outside the fourth column close to the fore-edge. However, in
all cases a pair of holes at line 48 always marks the last line of text.
The reasons for these variations in text line pricking and rulings from single to double
(and on occasion to triple spacing) is unclear, as they do not correspond to a change in
scribe. Indeed, often the markings change in the middle of a sequence by the same scribe.
Perhaps quires were prepared separately, using whatever implements were to hand.
2 PICTURES
p. 227
Alternatively, the pricking preparation may have been performed by assistants rather
than by the scribes responsible for the texts.
Nikolas Sarris, the Supervisor of the Book Conservation Studio at the Monastery
of St John the Theologian, Patmos, highlighted another aspect of the pricking for the
bounding marks. Sarris
observed that the bounding marks in the head and tail margins
showed no variation of their spacing or alignment from quire to quire, indicating that a
template, such as a block of wood with a measured set of sharp points protruding, was
used. Moreover, it would appear that the text line marks were made with quires folded
and assembled so that the pricking instrument poked through the entire quire with each
thrust. This was determined by the fact the each line of holes on different folios in a quire
align perfectly with each other throughout that quire. This is further reinforced by the
fact that the indentation and size of the holes gradually diminishes through the quires
where the point of the tool has not fully penetrated.
INK
In Codex Sinaiticus three colours of ink are used — red, black, and brown, each of various
shades. In the introduction to the 1911 facsimile, Lake noted that the inks were of the
usual ‘sepia colour’ commonly found in ancient manuscripts. Brown ink was used for the
main text and amendments to it, as well as the quire numbers and the mid-quire ‘binding
mark’ marks. Red was used for superscriptions and numbering of individual Psalms,
for the Eusebian apparatus, and for the primary numbering of the New Testament’s
quires. Tischendorf referred to the red inks as minium (red lead)5 probably meaning
‘red pigment’ rather than a specific chemical compound. K. Lake and Milne and Skeaf6
also mention the red ink used, and characterized it as vermilion.7 Analysis completed as
part of the Project has confirmed that the red is indeed vermilion, or
mercury sulphide
(HgS).* These red inks, as opposed to the browns, are generally stable, regardless of the
side of the parchment on which they appear, and show very little damage, although some
of them have thicker deposits on the parchment and are darker than others. Black ink
was only occasionally used for retouching faded text and for some annotations. Like the
parchment,
all the inks generally appear to be of very high quality. Overall, the stability
of all the inks on the parchment is remarkable considering the Codex’s age, with very
little degradation detectable. As observed by Tischendorf and Lake,’ the colour, or more
properly, the shade, of the ink is specific to each scribe. The colour differences between
the inks that do occur may be attributable to the dilution, provenance, or proportions of
the ingredients, or the interpretation of the ink recipe.
Degradation, corrosion and damage
If we look more closely at the degradation of the various inks, a picture begins to emerge
of the relationship of the inks to the scribes. The differences in degradation expressed in
Table 17.1 suggest that each of the scribes was responsible for making his own ink; or at
least obtaining his own supply of it.
The ink used by Scribe A appears to be the most vulnerable and degraded, in compari-
son with that used by the other three scribes. 33% of the leaves written by Scribe A show
major ink corrosion and 44% have major ink loss. This could be the result of a lack of
sufficient binding agent in the original recipe, which would cause flaking and loss of the
ink layer. Similarly, a high metal sulphate content in the ink could cause corrosion and a
228
