three crosses note - 7th century? - scribal mess noticed 300 years after production?

[Steven Avery]

This will be the central spot for three crosses note info.

Michael Swift on the:

Facebook PureBibleForum
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1679545468804002/

μεχρι του ϲημειου τω
τριων ϲταυρων εϲτι
το τελοϲ των επτα
φυλλων τω
περιϲϲων κ(αι)
μη οντω
του εϲ
δρα §

Question: Has anyone here done a review of the three crosses note in the Sinaiticus? If so, what are your findings as to the scribal hand? Is the hand linked to any other hand in Aleph? The marginal note contains information about an insertion of Chronicles into 2 Esdras by mistake. What kind of sloppy scribe would not only miss a verse here and there in 2 Esdras, but get the entire book copy wrong? Maybe a bored 19 year old kid?

It reads

μεχρι του ϲημειου τω
τριων ϲταυρων εϲτι
το τελοϲ των επτα
φυλλων τω
περιϲϲων κ(αι)
μη οντω
του εϲ
δρα

SA: ‘at the sign of the three crosses is the end of the seven leaves which are superfluous and not part of Esdras’.

μεχρι του ϲημειου τω τριων ϲταυρων εϲτι
το τελοϲ των επτα φυλλων τω περιϲϲων κ(αι) μη οντω του εϲδρα

Q35-4r "a large intrusion from 1 Chronicles into 2 Esdras "
(7th 8th century "at the sign of the three crosses

Three Crosses
1 Chronicles (duplicate), 18:15 - 19:17 / 2 Esdras, 9:9 - 9:11 library: LUL folio: iv_v scribe: A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=35&side=r&zoomSlider=0

... This note is a key. This note is truly bizarre. This does not appear to be anything but a practice and correction copy. I suppose a professional scribe could accidentally begin copying the wrong book into 2 Esdras, but that doesn't sound too likely to me. If this is the best commissioned scribe they could find, they had problems indeed.

... the hand of this corrector's note I have learned is c. 7th century. So, what they expect me to believe is that a corrector did not catch this error till the 7th century? Really? That's what I'm supposed to believe? This went on happily for 300 years until one keen scribe in the 7th century noticed that Chronicles had been inserted into 2 Esdras? They didn't read it much apparently. There's a lot of funny business about this manuscript. Too many things don't add up.

... here's the rub: this note actually makes no logical sense. It certainly looks to be a 7th century script. I can't argue with that. And our Sinaiticus script appears to be from the 5th century according to the Handbook of Greek and Latin Paleography. So, we have an 'apparent' spread of 200 years presumably. Except this is not the kind of note that would have been spread over 200 years. This copy of this Bible would not have even made it out of the scriptorium in such shoddy state. So, there is no sense in this at all. This one note is a time bomb.

... I sure can't make any kind of sense out of it if this Sinaiticus is supposed to be an ancient document. I mean here is one real example of something that simply would never have happened. Word corrections, maybe. Entire sections of books inserted into the wrong book not caught for 200 years? Uh, no.

noticed the strangeness of the claim that this note was only put in approximately 300 years after the production of the manuscript!

compare 1846 book

For dating theories that involve this three crosses note, e.g. from Elijah Hixson

the hand of the three crosses note is—and I believe this strongly enough that I am tempted to write a short note on the date of the cpamph corrections and try to publish it in a journal—upright ogival majuscule that is completely consistent with a 6th century date, I might allow something into the early 7th, but most likely 6th century.

or Michael Swift, this is one resource, especially the section p. 149-158. (As we know, Tischendorf did not give reasons for his dates.)

A handbook of Greek and Latin palaeography (1893)
Edward Maunde Thompson
https://archive.org/stream/handbookgreekan00thomgoog#page/n176/mode/2up/
1912 edition begins here
https://books.google.com/books?id=wYjgAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA198

Is there anything especially unique in the note that would not show up in the everyday writing of a Simonides or a Tischendorf?

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

PureBibleForum Info Collation

three crosses note - 7th century? - scribal mess noticed 300 years after production ?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.563

the script of Simonides - the 'three crosses' note
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.169

twofold signification of the three crosses note
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.167

CPamph corrector - only on the Leipzig section - 2nd quire numbers - knows ancient style - Tischendorf?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.549

two copies of Chronicles is evidence that work was done on the manuscript in Sinai
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.233

navigating the Codex Sinaiticus Project (CSP) pictures and data - where is the CFA
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.95

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

Smaller Refs

why the James Keith Elliott book tells you very little about Sinaiticus authenticity
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.240
p. 50 - Elliott mixes up the Esdras note with the three crosses note

 

[Steven Avery]

the duplicate section - Wright conjectures about Zosimas and the scribal blunder

The Reader (1863)
Genuineness of the "Codex Sinaiticus"
William Aldis Wright
https://books.google.com/books?id=fX1NAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA69

I will add one note from the "Codex Friderico-Augustanus." In the fourth column of the reverse of the fourth folio, the scribe, without even beginning a fresh line, breaks off from 1 Chr. xix. 17 to 2 Esdr. ix. 11. At the bottom of the column are three crosses, and a note to the effect that up to the sign of the three crosses extend the seven superfluous leaves, which do not belong to Esdras. This mistake might have been made by an ancient copyist, but not by one who had before him the Moscow edition of the Old and New Testaments.

Actually the spacing in Zosimas should be checked, since it might match up well with the blunder. Plus, Zosimas was a starting point, but there were likely intervening steps. The text of Zosimas here would be interesting to check with the duplicates.

 

[Steven Avery]

Henry Barclay Swete on the duplicate and the three crosses

An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek: The history of the Greek Old Testament and of its transmission (1900)
Henry Barclay Swete
https://books.google.com/books?id=U9Y8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA131
http://www.ccel.org/ccel/swete/greekot.iii.v.html

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/s/swete/greekot/cache/greekot.pdf

http://biblehub.com/library/swete/an_introduction_to_the_old_testament_in_greek_additional_notes/chapter_v_manuscripts_of_the.htm

After 1 Chron. xix. 17 cod. א (FA) passes without break to 2 Esdr. ix. 9, but the place is marked by the corrector אc.a with three crosses and the note μέχρι τούτου [τοῦ] σημείου τῶν τριῶν σταυρῶν ἐστιν τὸ τέλος τῶν ἑπτὰ φύλλων τῶν περισσῶν καὶ μὴ ὄντων τοῦ Ἔσδρα. Five of these leaves remain, and the two which preceded them probably contained 1 Chron. vi. 50—ix. 27a (H. St J. Thackeray in Hastings' D.B., i. p. 762). Westcott (Bible in the Church, p. 307) supposes that the insertion of this fragment of 1 Chron. in the heart of 2 Esdras is due to a mistake in the binding of the copy from which the MS. was transcribed; comp. the similar error in the archetype of all our Greek copies of Sirach 353. Whether 1 Esdras formed a part of cod. א is uncertain, the heading Ἔσδρας βʹ does not prove this, since cod. א contains 4 Maccabees under the heading Μακκαβαίων δʹ although it certainly did not give the second and third books (Thackeray, 1.c.).

[353] Another explanation (suggested by Dr Gwynn) is given by Dr Lupton in Wace's Apocrypha, i., p. 2.

mechri toutou [tou] semeiou ton trion stauron estin to telos ton hepta phullon ton perisson kai me onton tou Esdra.

The Bible in the Church: A Popular Account of the Collection and Reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches (1864)
Brooke Foss Westcott
https://archive.org/stream/thebibleinthechu00westuoft#page/306/mode/2up/
https://books.google.com/books?id=npsNAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA307 1896 reprint

1 Chronicles fragments inserted in 1 Esdras from a mistake in binding in the copy from which the MS. was transcribed), [part in Cod. Frid.-Aug.]

Fine section in the

Henry Wace (1836-1924)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_Wace_(priest)

Apocrypa

includes the

John Gwynn (1827-1917)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gwynn_(professor)

reference above.

The Holy Bible: According to the Authorized Version (A. D. 1611 ... Volume 1) (1888)
edited by Henry Wace

The Holy Bible, According to the Authorized Version (A. D. 1611), with an Explanatory and Critical Commentary and a Revision of the Translation

books.google.com

A note in a later hand, at the foot of the fourth column of this leaf 4 verso, calls attention to the error of
“the seven leaves which are redundant and are not of Esdras."

The next is pretty much the same.

Hastings Dictionary of the Bible (1905)
section by Henry St. John Thackeray

https://books.google.com/books?id=5Z80AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA762

A note at the bottom of that leaf in a later hand calls attention to the seven superfluous leaves that are 'not of Esdra'

 

[Steven Avery]

Dirk Jongkind

Studies of the Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus (2005)
Dirk Jongkind

https://tyndalebulletin.org/article/29188-studies-in-the-scribal-habits-of-codex-sinaiticus.pdf

Sinaiticus shows a few interesting features that help us test the method of singular readings and getting to know the scribal habits. Firstly, in the Old Testament part of the manuscript we find five leaves containing text from 1 Chronicles. This section ends with 1 Chronicles 19:17 and finishes within the 26th line of the fourth column of a leaf. The same line continues with text from 2 Esdras 9:9 and the following leaves complete this book. Two of the running titles placed above the section from Chronicles read εϲδραϲ; β and it seems clear that the scribe was not aware that he was dealing with a large intrusion from 1 Chronicles into 2 Esdras. There is a note in Sinaiticus telling us that ‘at the sign of the three crosses is the end of the seven leaves which are superfluous and not part of Esdras’. This note is in a later hand from the seventh or eight century and informs us that the original intruded text from 1 Chronicles contained two more leaves. These two leaves are now lost, together with most of the Old Testament before this point. Tischendorf had already suggested that it was likely that a gathering of leaves, a quire, was misplaced in the exemplar from which the scribe was copying and that neither he nor his colleagues noticed this. Indeed, we find corrections on the text by the scribes both before and after the transition from 1 Chronicles to 2 Esdras without any indication that something had gone fundamentally wrong. This unique situation provides us with an opportunity to learn something more about the copying errors which the scribes made. On the five extant leaves of 1 Chronicles, two of the scribes made 90 corrections in total. It is highly unlikely that they used any other manuscript for these corrections than the one that was used for the copying of the text in the first place. This means that every correction is a correction of a real copying error and that the correction is the true text of the exemplar. Using the corrections, we were able to create a catalogue of scribal errors. Interestingly, not all the 90 readings that were corrected are singular readings. Thirteen out of 90 readings also occur in other manuscripts and, consequently, would not have been detected using just the method of singular readings. These thirteen readings consist mainly of the addition and omission of small words such as articles, some orthographic variants, and harmonisations to the immediate context.

Scribal habits of Codex Sinaiticus (2007)
Dirk Jongkind
Singular Readings and Corrections in 1 Chronicles p. 144-164 (includes detailed singular analysis)

Introduction
Sinaiticus preserves approximately 10 chapters of 1 Chronicles. These chapters precede, without any clear break, the text of 2 Esd 9:9 and it seems clear that the text of 1 Chronicles is a large intrusion into 2 Esdras. Though the beginning of this intruded section is lost, we may assume that it was regarded by the scribes as a genuine part of the text of 2 Esdras. This misplaced section of 1 Chronicles was, like the rest of 2 Esdras, corrected by the earliest scribes, and as the correctors did not note the intrusion of 1 Chronicles in 2 Esdras, it follows that they compared Sinaiticus against a codex with exactly the same intrusion. As it is unlikely that such an error would go unnoticed for long, we may assume therefore that the manuscript with which Sinaiticus was compared for the corrections was the same manuscript from which Sinaiticus was copied in the first place.32 If this is true, it means that each correction is a correction of an error the scribe created whilst copying his text. ...
32 Milne-Skeat,2.

This Jongkind full singulars section can be made available for Zosima studies.

 

[Steven Avery]

note sense is that it was written by original scribes in monastery or scriptorium

‘at the sign of the three crosses is the end of the seven leaves which are superfluous and not part of Esdras’.

"superfluous" - that looks like a scribal note, ignore what we did there ... not what someone puzzling it out 300 years later would say

 

[Steven Avery]

three crosses in - "World's Oldest Bible" A Fake?

Is The "World's Oldest Bible" A Fake? (2018)
David W. Daniels
https://books.google.com/books?id=bXJGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA126
https://books.google.com/books?id=bXJGDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA127

 

[Steven Avery]

History of Three Crosses Note scholarship

Mountfaucon - Tischendorf uses once, and brags over?

Tischendorf
1860 - CFA book above

1863 - William Aldis Wright - " This mistake might have been made by an ancient copyist, but not by one who had before him the Moscow edition of the Old and New Testaments."

1863 - Simonides

1864 - Westcott - mistake in binding of exemplar ?
https://archive.org/details/thebibleinthechu00westuoft/page/306/mode/2up
Does he mention Three Crosses Note? Give Date?
mistake in the binding

The Bible in the Church, a popular account of the collection and reception of the Holy Scriptures in the Christian Churches : Westcott, Brooke Foss, 1825-1901 : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xxiii, 316 p

archive.org

1888 - Wace uses Gwynn - nice section
https://books.google.com/books?id=WQs4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA1
"a note in a later hand"

1893 - Edward Maunde Thompson
A handbook of Greek and Latin palaeography (1893)
https://archive.org/stream/handbookgreekan00thomgoog#page/n176/mode/2up/
Is three crosses mentioned?

1900-1914 - Swete
Swete - 1900 1902 1914 nothing about scribes, only duplicate text

1905-1911 Henry St. John Thackery in Hastings Dictionary of the Bible

1911 - Joseph Hirst Lupton
"Another explanation (suggested by Dr Gwynn) is given by Dr Lupton in Wace's Apocrypha, i., p. 2." - see above

Kirsopp Lake (nothing in 1911 which does have colophons, checking 1922)

Milne & Skeat
- margin "When and by whom noticed"
Exactly when the fault was discovered it is difficult to say. Certainly neither the original scribe A, in revising the manuscript, nor his colleague, scribe D, who again checked the text, noticed anything amiss, for not only did they both introduce a number of corrections, but the latter also placed the superscription ‘2 Esdras’ over the text of what is really by 1 Chronicles. This, however, as Tischendorf acutely observed,3 merely proves that both revisers were collating the newly written manuscript with the exemplar. .... Thus by the seventh century at latest the dislocation had been observed, and from that time or shortly afterwards we have the note which states the fact explicitly.
3 Codex Friderico-Augustanus, p. 10.

1982 - Elliott p. 50 mixup

2004 - Rahlfs and Fraenkel, Verzeichttis (2004), p. 204; J (given by Hanhart)

2005 - Jongkind

(2009) CSP - find urls and corrector

(2010) David Parker

(2015) Perspectives

Elijah Hixson
Michael Swift
Cooper and Sorenson and Moorman
McGrane

(2018) David Daniels
(2021) David Daniels

Pure Bible forum

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

Establishment biggies

Tischendorf - sounds like scriptorium note, more checking
Swete - 1900 1902 1914 nothing about scribes, only duplicate text
Kirsopp Lake
Milne & Skeat
CSP
Dirk Jongkind - follows Milne Skeat, sounds like Scriptorium
David Parker
Perspectives

 

[Steven Avery]

CSP
1 Chronicles (duplicate), 18:15 - 19:17 / 2 Esdras, 9:9 - 9:11 library: LUL folio: iv_v scribe: A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=35&side=r&zoomSlider=0
Column 4, bottom

"Written by corrector pamph"

From the 1846 Tischendorf CFA book

NEED GOOD LATIN FOR TRANSLATION

Codex Friderico-Augustanus sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti e codice Graeco omnium qui in Europa supersunt facile antiquissimo in Oriente detexit in patriam attulit ad modum codicis edidit Constantinus Tischendorf. [With Prolegomena.]

BEST FOR PAGE AFTER PAGE... LOOK FOR P.10 Skeat and look for PIC
https://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/206928/18

PDF - BEST FOR PICS
https://digital.slub-dresden.de/dat...f_492370761_tif/jpegs/CodeFrsif_492370761.pdf

FOLIO IV

https://digital.slub-dresden.de/data/kitodo/CodeFrsif_492370761/CodeFrsif_492370761_tif/jpegs/CodeFrsif_492370761.pdf

Codex Friderico-Augustanus sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti

Codex Friderico-Augustanus sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti, Lipsiae 1846

digital.slub-dresden.de

Fol. IV.
.... (down to line 4, 4th word)
Col. 4.
... is ...... correctoris esse, forma ae spatium docent (to be a corrector, they teach form and space); unaque ration spatii seadet, ejus loco (and one arrangement of space, in its place) .. falsse (false).

Ceteram .... illed prima tertiae manus correctio est (said? is the third correction of the first hand) ; quam sequitur (which follows) ... erasum (erased).

Fortasse etiam (Maybe even) .. in (in).... erasum est. (it was erased.)

.. correctum ex (corrected from) ..., ipsias primae manus est.

... (linea super .. penitas erasa) jam primum recognoscenti improbatum atque a tertia manu denso (denuo) improbationis sials (signis) notatum esse videtur.
... (line above .. penitence erased) seems to have already been disapproved by the first reviewer and marked by a third hand (again) with the sials (marks) of disapproval.


.... secundae, ... (per compendium scriptum) ... tertiae manus est.
... of the second, ... (written by a compendium) ... is of the third hand.

Nota cum signis correctorem secundum auctorem habet.
A note with standards has a corrector according to the author



Tischendorf places the THREE CROSSES NOTE
https://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/206928/36

COMPARE TO SINAITICUS

Milne and Skeat
This, however, as Tischendorf acutely observed,3 merely proves that both revisers were collating the newly written manuscript with the exemplar.

This might be p. 10 -
Skeat & Milne p. 2 says that Tischendorf explains about both revisors
https://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/206928/14

Before confirmateur - is it three crosses? colophon?
Do we need the context of the end of (3.) ... probably not.

Jam vero de iis ipsia qui codicem correxuruni vel certe altigerunt paullo fusias disseradum est. Ister quos quia primum locum tencat, dubium non est.

It has already been said about those who corrected the codex, or at least raised it a little. There is no doubt that he holds the first place.

Sast enim in aliquot folierum marginibus notae eadem prorsus cum ipso texta scripturae elegantia, quas codem atque textum tempore exaratas esse probabile fit.

Indeed, on the margins of some of the leaves, the writing is exactly the same as the text itself, and it is probable that the codex and the text were drawn up at the same time.

Quem enim in conficicadia novis operum exemplaribus usem obtiuuiabe quam scriptores veteres testantur tum codex, Friderico-Augustanus ea confirmat nota qua duo exemplaria hexaplorum Origenis, alterum ab Origene alterum a Pamphilo, recogaita perhibentar, ab eo ipse codex noster hand alienus putanduas est.

For the fact that in the making of the new copies of the works, which the ancient writers attest, as well as the codex, Frederick-Augustanus confirms with the note that two copies of the hexaples of Origen, one from Origen and the other from Pamphilus, were re-thought, and our codex itself is supposed to be from him is a foreign hand.

Ut igitur dicam quod volo, antiquissimae illae notae, et ai quae alla ejusdem manus sunt, hominis docti scripta libararii recognoscentis sive, ut Graeci dicunt, rev .....(Grk) esse videntar.

So that I may say what I want, those very ancient notes, and those which are all in the same hand, should be seen to be the writings of a learned librarian, or, as the Greeks say, rev... (Grk).
του διορθουντος tou diorthountos of the corrector

Quae scalcatia co quoque commendater quod in illis notis litterarum ductas quamvis elegantes tamen manum prodest ab omai artificio allenam

These shoes are also commendable because, although they are elegant, they are drawn from the characters of the letters, yet they benefit from the hand of Omai's craftsmanship

Last paragraph is different topic, correctors not three crosses note.
Primum aitem correctorem excepted duo alii, quorum alterum distinguere perquam difficult est.
The first corrector excepted two others, the second of which is extremely difficult to distinguish.
======

#4 Line 7-12
Confirmatur etiam eo quad corrector ille nihil offendit in contextu, ex quo. praetur communem ut videtur conenetudinem. primus Chronicorum liber cum libra Esdrae in unum conlait.

Exemplar enim, in quo et ipso com textum confusionem fuisse consentancum est idem librarias, idem qui recognoscebat ante oculos habebant,

Quae autem secunda manus codici iatulit, ea ejusmodi sunt ut quae aperte per errorem scripta essent rel addende vel nuferendo vel matando corrigerenier.

Exempla non est quod afferum; in quatuor enim primis foliis, excepta ultima folii quarti columna, quicquid correctum legitur, id a secunda manu profectum est, nisi forte aliquoties, eo quod litteram vel adjiceret vel puncio aut obelo improbaret, ipse se prima manus emenadavit.

In iis codicis fotids quae ad Jeremiae textum spectant secundae manus vestigia longe rarissima sunt.

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

It is also confirmed by the fact that the corrector finds nothing in the context from which it seems to be a common connexion.

The first book of Chronicles merges with the balance of Ezra.

For the model, in which it is agreed that the text itself was a confusion, the same librarians, the same person who recognized it, had before their eyes,

But what the second hand of the codex brought forth, those are such that those which were clearly written by error I corrected by adding, or removing, or killing.

Examples are not what I will give; for in the first four leaves, with the exception of the last column of the fourth leaf, whatever is read as corrected was done by a second hand, unless perhaps a few times, by adding a letter or disproving it with a punch or an obel, he himself emended the first hand.

Second-hand traces are very rare in those ancient codices which refer to the text of Jeremiah.

Is there any more?

The sentences before and after have to be checked.
Two sentences before
New paragraph after.




















NO - TITLE WRONG - Different book
Google to the page
https://books.google.com/books?id=aBFfAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA14

 

[Steven Avery]

BCHF

Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus - Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Advanced class: David Charles Parker on the 1 Chronicles duplication.

Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible David Charles Parker, 2020

The text (of Sinaiticus as a whole) proper begins in the middle of 1 Chronicles, and here immediately we notice an anomaly. The careful reader of the list of contents in Chapter I (Codex Sinaiticus in outline, p. 7-9) will have noticed that 1 Chronicles 17:14-17, 21-25; 18.1-4, 7-10, 12 appears twice. The explanation lies on Q35-F4V ... The note reads:

The sign of the three crosses marks the end of the seven redundant folios and is not part of Esdras.

The text changes from 1 Chronicles to 2 Esdras in the middle of line 26, so that the first two words are from I Chronicles 19.17 and last is from 2 Esdras 9.9 ... (gives English text to focus on duplication)

The note tells us that the seven folios (i.e. fourteen pages, of which five are extant) are a repetition of text that had already been copied. ... How did they miss this nonsense? And how did the scribe copy fourteen pages twice without noticing? ...

We now have a better insight into what happened, because of the first copy of the text (also by Scribe A) is among the New Finds.(continues with more conjectures and more anomalous aspects) p. 65-67

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

For the yellow duplicate of Chronicles, in the British Library (white parchment is in Leipzig)

1 Chronicles (duplicate), 9:27 - 10:11 library: BL folio: 1 scribe: A Quire 34, Folio 8r
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0

1 Chronicles (duplicate), 10:11 - 11:22 library: BL folio: 1b scribe: A - Quire 34, Folio 8v
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0

Although the Sinaiticus website calls the above two urls "duplicate", it is not a section given by Parker, who only gives parts of ch. 17 and 18 as extant duplicates, ie. the following from the New Finds (allowing a distinction between 18:11 and 18:12) :

1 Chronicles, 17:14 - 18:1 library: SC folio: scribe: A - Quire 29, Folio 7r
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0

1 Chronicles, 18:1 - 18:11 library: SC folio: scribe: A - Quire 29, Folio 7v
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0

So far, it seems like Parker is right, and the British Library erred on that "duplicate" indication above. However, that is tentative.

Note that most of the duplication is not continuous extant text, it is extrapolating from the New Finds fragments, which gives the appearance of bookmarks or discards (this is not referenced by Parker.)

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

This explanation above includes elements of the very unusual duplication, our white parchment anomaly, and the 1975 New Finds all in one. Rather a handful. And I include it so we have at least some perspective on the issues involved with the duplication.

My tentative conclusion: It does not appear that the duplication difficulty affects the white parchment anomaly in a direct way. The white part of the duplication went to Leipzig, the yellow part was "left behind".

The fact that duplicate pages and pages contiguous to those taken early by Tischendorf and Uspensky are in the hidden-till-1975 New Finds, can be considered as a bit of an additional smoking pistol.

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

 

[Steven Avery]

The Three Crosses Note of Codex Sinaiticus - Chronological Dissonance with 4th century theories
(see letter prepared for Brent Nongbri on Scrivener page.)

There is a

 

[Steven Avery]

Milne & Skeat

PICTURE

των περισσων και μη οντων του Εσάρα ! ( “ At the sign of the three crosses is the end of the seven leaves which are superfluous and not part of Esdras ” ) . Actually , however , these crosses should have been set against line 26 , where where indeed there can be seen traces of an earlier but obliterated cross . The reason for the transference of the sign to the end of the page is obscure , unless it was a desire to give a literal interpretation to the round expression 'seven leaves ' . How to be Such an extraordinary intrusion of 1 Chronicles i Chronicles into 2 Esdras explained is probably to be explained , as Westcott was the first to suggest , by the transposition of two quires in the exemplar from which this portion of the ...

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

Taken from

codicology - bindings - two quire number systems - when placed? - Flavio Marzo

Note that in discussing the quire numbers, the 2nd quire numbering is given as later, with one factor being the difference in ink. Very little information is given about the first set of quire numbers, two immediate questions would be: a) are they uniform ink (also type, nature, etc) b) are...

purebibleforum.com

Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus (1938)
Herbert John Mansfield Milne, Theodore Cressy Skeat, Douglas Cockerell


ORIGINAL CONTENTS OF THE OLD TESTAMENT

The portions or the Old Testament covered by the Codex in its present condition are specified in the table printed on pp. 94-112 below: here an attempt will be made to determine the probable

==

I . THE LOST INITIAL QUIRES - The intrusive section of 1 Chronicles

Before we consider the contents of the lost beginning it is necessary to explain the anomaly with which the extant portion of the manuscript opens. The first five consecutive leaves contain I Chronicles ix. 117—xix. 17, but at the end of this passnge, in line 36 of the last column on the verso of the fifth leaf, the text skips without warning into the midst of 2 Esdras ix. 9, and continues normally from that point onwards of the page in which the change-over occurs (see Fig. 2), a scribe of perhaps the seventh or eighth century (certainly not the corrector Ca as is generally stated) has written three crosses and, in the vacant space below the text, the following note: (pic of 3 crosses with Greek)

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

More from Skeat on the SUPERFLUOUS leaves

 

[Steven Avery]

Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible (2010)
David Parker

illustration

Chapter 5 - page 65

 

[Steven Avery]

CSP URL
TWO CORRECTORS INVOLVED

Three Crosses
1 Chronicles (duplicate), 18:15 - 19:17 / 2 Esdras, 9:9 - 9:11 library: LUL folio: iv_v scribe: A
http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manuscript.aspx?foliono=4&quireno=35&side=v
or
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=35&side=r&zoomSlider=0
No Corrector named
Colophons
Cpamph

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

2 Esdras
Colophon
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=36&side=v&zoomSlider=0
Scribe Called Pamphilus!

Esther - translation by Karen Jobes
Colophon
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=2&lid=en&quireNo=37&side=v&zoomSlider=0
https://codexsinaiticus.org/ru/manuscript.aspx?book=9&lid=en&side=r&zoomslider=1
Scribe Called Pamphilus!
αντεβληθη προϲ παλαιω
τατον λιαν αντιγραφον

Timothy Mitchell
http://thetextualmechanic.blogspot.com/2015/03/the-church-fathers-and-useful-life-of.html
The Colophon of Pamphilus in Sinaiticus

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

CSP
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/transcription_reconstructing.aspx

Calculating backwards to confirm this
The first large block of text in the manuscript begins at Quire 34, Folio 8r, which starts in 1 Chronicles 9.27. This is in fact within a block of text which had been copied by mistake, as the ‘Three crosses’ note on Quire 35, Folio 4v makes clear. [8]
[8] μεχρι του ϲημειου τω(ν) τριων ϲταυρων εϲτι(ν) το τελοϲ των επτα φυλλων τω(ν) περιϲϲων κ(αι) μη οντω(ν) του εϲδρα.
The repeat section of 1 Chronicles must have begun on Quire 34, Folio 6. Since the text on Quire 34, Folio 8r after the 1 Chronicles intrusion is the middle of 2 Esdras 9.9, the text before the 1 Chronicles intrusion was 2 Esdras 1.1-9.9.

 

[Steven Avery]

Codex Sinaiticus
New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript - 2015
Chapter 21
The Transcription and Reconstruction of Codex Sinaiticus
David Parker
p. 289

p. 293

David Parker
Calculating backwards - CSP note - p. 189
Milne and Skeat in bibliography

 

[Steven Avery]

Tov

http://www.emanueltov.info/docs/varia/272.sinaiticus.pdf?v=1.0

R. Hanhart, Esdrae liber II, Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum, VIII, 2 (Gottingen, 1993), p. 8;

Rahlfs and Fraenkel, Verzeichnis (2004), p. 204;


text p. 22

footnote p. 27-28

 

[Steven Avery]

1888 - Wace uses Gwynn

The Holy Bible

books.google.com

§ III. COMPOSITION AND DESIGN § IV. AGE AND AUTHORSHIP

It is not found, but apparently so only through the fault of a transcriber. The error is so singular a one as to deserve noticing in some detail. The part of the MS. known as the Friderico-Augustanus begins with the quire numbered Xe (35), and bears at the top of the first page the heading ecapac &, or 'Second Book of Esdras.' But, instead of condown to line 26 of the fourth column taining this book, the first four leaves, tion of the First Book of Chronicles, on leaf 4 verso, are filled with a porxi. 22—xix. 17. In the middle of that line, without any break or division whatand is continued to the end of the canoever, the text passes on to Ezra ix. 9, nical Ezra. The book we call Nehemiah then succeeds, with no more break than lished in facsimile in 1846. The rest of the MS., not obtained till 1859, was called Sinaiticus. The peculiar defect, referred to in the text, is noticed in the Prolegomena to the Cod., Frid.-Aug., p. 14; and also in Westcott's 'Bible in the Church,' App. B, p. 307.


1 How abrupt and unexpected the transition is, can hardly be understood, except by a transcript of the actual lines :—
επολε

that of a single line. A note in a later hand, at the foot of the fourth column of this leaf 4 verso, calls attention to the error of "the seven leaves which are redundant and are not of Esdras." Of these seven, five can now be accounted for, by the first four of the Codex Frid.Aug. itself, and one leaf of Codex Sinait., containing Chr. ix. 27-xi. 22, which must have stood next before it; and further, by counting the lines requisite to fill the given space, it may be inferred that the first leaf must have begun at some point in 1 Chron. vi. Had the seven leaves, on the other hand, been filled with their proper matter, reckoning back from Ezra (2 Esdras') ix. 9 at line 26 of leaf 4 verso, and assuming 1 Esdras to precede, the first of those leaves would have begun about 1 Esdras viii. By observing that each of these passages, Esdras viii. 1 and 1 Chron. vi. 4, begins a genealogical list, it has been ingeniously conjectured that the scribe who made the mistake "had been led, on reaching the pedigree of Ezra in Esdras viii. 1, to refer back to the genealogy of the High Priests down to the Captivity given in 1 Chron. vi. 415, and then inadvertently proceeded to transcribe that passage and what followed;" thus filling the seven leaves after 1 Esdras vii. with a repetition of part of Chronicles. It may thus be fairly presumed that in the archetype from which Cod. Sinait. was immediately derived there was a quire or roll containing 1 Esdras viii. 1-Ezra ix. 9; instead of which portion the transcriber inserted the passage of 1 Chron. equivalent in amount; and then, taking up the section he would have come to, if right, went on so blindly as to make the transition from Chron. xix. 17 to Ezra ix. 9 in the same line, and without the least hint of any dislocation. In any case, the presence of the title "Esdras B' may be taken as indicating the existence of an Esdras A.'

For the conclusion thus drawn I am indebted to the Rev. John Gwynn, D.D., Archbishop King's Lecturer in Divinity in the University of Dublin, who has also most courteously allowed me to enrich this first section of the Introduction with several other notes prepared by him

1

 

[Steven Avery]

Chronicles - two separate readings could cause the doubling.

Logos export shows doubles - do they show alternate Sinaiticus readings

Zosima- Alexandrinus — match either one.

Kirk looks at the page.

 

[Steven Avery]

Show duplicate pages

beginning of one

1 Chronicles, 17:14 - 18:1 library: SC folio: scribe: A
Q29 f7r & f7v.
How many verses in 17?
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...R=01FB804F&book=70&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0
scrap

Flip
Chronicles, 18:1 - 18:11 library: SC folio: scribe: A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=7&lid=en&quireNo=29&side=r&zoomSlider=0

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

10 pages ends with the one that goes into Esdrae

#1
1 Chronicles (duplicate), 9:27 - 10:11 library: BL folio: 1 scribe: A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=7&lid=en&quireNo=29&side=v&zoomSlider=0

#9 is the duplicate
Q35 f4r
1 Chronicles (duplicate), 17:16 - 18:15 library: LUL folio: iv scribe: A
How many verses in 17?
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=35&side=v&zoomSlider=0

#10
1 Chronicles (duplicate), 18:15 - 19:17 / 2 Esdras, 9:9 - 9:11 library: LUL folio: iv_v scribe: A
Q35 f4v
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=35&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Q29 f7r duplicate
Q35 f4r duplicate
===========

Are all the actual duplicates New Finds? - yes
Did Tisch dump some or all? We only found the one fragment.

 

[Steven Avery]

How did they know for sure it was a duplicate before finding New Find scrap?

Was it deduced from the Three Ctosses Note?