Steven Avery
Administrator
In the late manuscript theory, Simonides would almost have to be one of the scribes. Clearly, he did not do all the text. Scribe A did the New Testament and Barnabas. Thus you would expect Simonides to be scribe A, he actually published a "Sinaitic" Barnabas in 1843. Also the hieroglyphics pointed out by George Webber Young (Mark Thunderson) are in the New Testament sections of scribe A and hieroglyphics was a Simonides specialty.
The makers of Codex Sinaiticus - Dec 17, 2015
Cillian O’Hogan, Research Fellow, University of Waterloo, formerly Curator of Classical and Byzantine Studies, British Library
http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2015/12/17/the-makers-of-codex-sinaiticus/
Now at:
https://web.archive.org/web/2016091...rg/2015/12/17/the-makers-of-codex-sinaiticus/
Based on the surviving leaves, it has been suggested that Scribe A copied the bulk of the manuscript (some 995 out of 1,486 pages); while the other three scribes shared the remaining pages roughly equally (scribe B1 copying slightly more than the other two). The scribes also corrected their own work (some also correcting the work of others), and some books within the Codex were clearly worked on by more than one scribe. Based on the patterns of correction, it has been suggested that Scribe D, though he copied relatively few pages himself, was the head scribe, directing the work of the others and correcting it as needed – he appears to have been the most competent of the four scribes.
Thus, on this theory, or suggestion, based on some extrapolations and the modern scribal analysis, Simonides did do more than 2/3 of the manuscript. With the rest of the manuscript split among three other scribes. One of the three may have had the oversight of the project, since we now know that Benedict was in fact alive at the time of our c. 1840 production, he may have been the scribe D.
With Simonides having done far more of the manuscript than any other scribe, and all the New Testament, and the bulk of the manuscript, the statements from Simonides and Kallinikos that place him as the manuscript scribe are thus sensible representations.
The theory of Ludwig Traube has scribe A doing only the NT, nothing in the OT. This would reduce the percent.
Steven Avery
The makers of Codex Sinaiticus - Dec 17, 2015
Cillian O’Hogan, Research Fellow, University of Waterloo, formerly Curator of Classical and Byzantine Studies, British Library
http://blog.britishmuseum.org/2015/12/17/the-makers-of-codex-sinaiticus/
Now at:
https://web.archive.org/web/2016091...rg/2015/12/17/the-makers-of-codex-sinaiticus/
Based on the surviving leaves, it has been suggested that Scribe A copied the bulk of the manuscript (some 995 out of 1,486 pages); while the other three scribes shared the remaining pages roughly equally (scribe B1 copying slightly more than the other two). The scribes also corrected their own work (some also correcting the work of others), and some books within the Codex were clearly worked on by more than one scribe. Based on the patterns of correction, it has been suggested that Scribe D, though he copied relatively few pages himself, was the head scribe, directing the work of the others and correcting it as needed – he appears to have been the most competent of the four scribes.
Thus, on this theory, or suggestion, based on some extrapolations and the modern scribal analysis, Simonides did do more than 2/3 of the manuscript. With the rest of the manuscript split among three other scribes. One of the three may have had the oversight of the project, since we now know that Benedict was in fact alive at the time of our c. 1840 production, he may have been the scribe D.
With Simonides having done far more of the manuscript than any other scribe, and all the New Testament, and the bulk of the manuscript, the statements from Simonides and Kallinikos that place him as the manuscript scribe are thus sensible representations.
The theory of Ludwig Traube has scribe A doing only the NT, nothing in the OT. This would reduce the percent.
Steven Avery
Last edited: