Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 13

Thread: "marginal notes have been partially cut off by the ancient binder."

  1. Default "marginal notes have been partially cut off by the ancient binder."

    A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Textament (1864)

    "marginal notes have sometimes been partially cut off by the ancient binder."
    This Scrivener report almost surely came from Tischendorf (although Tregelles is a remote possibility.).

    There are no such partial notes visible, so what happened?

    Was Tischendorf playing around to take out notes? Or was he planning such actions?

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-07-2016 at 05:59 AM.

  2. Default trimmed edges - "mutilated appearance of certain notes"

    Here is another similar reference.


    The Eclectic Magazine (1863)
    "Originally it was larger than at present; for the upper and side margins have been trimmed, as the mutilated appearance of certain notes and letter numbers belonging to them shows." p. 480
    No examples given.

    London Quarterly (original source and the last paragraph of 255 to 270 is not in Eclectic Magazine)


    The quires have two numbering schemes. In many quires, a number is visible on the top left corner of the first page. Milne and Skeat take this numbering to be the original numbering and assume that in many places it has been oil off during a rebinding of the manuscript. Jongkind p. 32,
    The original size of the vellum sheets is unknown, as the edges have been much reduced in binding; it is certain that at least 1/2 in. has been cropped off the fore-edge, and probably as much from the head and tail as well. Since in the latest binding the fore-edge was hacked roughly square after the spine had been crudely rounded, the leaves near the centre are now broader than those at the beginning and end; the breadth in fact varies from 13 1/4 to nearly 14 in., the height being fairly constant at about 15 in. p. 71

    The prickings for the bounding-lines placed in the upper and lower margins are often so near the edge that they have been cut off in binding; they are fairly regularly spaced throughout the book, but there is not enough evidence to show how they were set out. Scribes and Correctors - Skeat & Milne p. 74
    - Nothing found in Parker
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-11-2016 at 03:47 PM.

  3. Default checking the ms from the CSP

    Search Notes

    not back to the Gospel of John...
    the Tops are all a rather uniform distance above the top writing.

    Luke 5b-6, Q78 f1r BL sA, has a notation with plenty of space.

    Q71 f1r BL sA, Sirach 49b-50 - the marking has room at top

    Wisdom 19:15-22 - Q68 f1r BL sA - same thing

    Psalm 148-151, Q64 f1r BL sA - plenty of room at top -- all uniform from Hermas to the Psalms.

    Psalm 113-117 - Q63 f1r BL sA - same thing

    Zechariah 2:4 - 4:2 - Q58 f1r BL sB2 - same thing

    Jeremiah 40:4 - 41:9 - Q49 f1r LUL sB1 - it's CFA, but still has plenty of room

    Jeremiah 27:9-33, Q48 f1r LUL sB1 cd - CFA, same thing

    Jeremiah 10:25-11:23, Q47 f1r LUL sB1 cd - is weird enough-looking, but the notation still has plenty of room at top.

    Look at Isaiah 27:5 - 28:15, Q44 f3r BL sB - it looks like something was written and rubbed out!!!!
    check it out! You can see it on both sides.but only on that page.

    Isaiah 21:14 - 22:23 - Q44 f1r BL sB cd - same as the others. Plenty of room above

    Isaiah 1 - Q43 f1r BL sB cd and f1v - look almost at the top - another erased word, it seems, right in the middle top. Again, still room in top margins

    4 Maccabees 1, Q42 f1r BL sA - same

    1 Maccabees 12:28-13:3, Q41 f1r BL sA - is interesting. The section marker is fine, and so are the corrections, but there is a tiny word or something at the top left - still with room, but near the top.

    1 maccabees 5:65-6:20, Q40 f1r BL sA - plenty of room. Perfectly normal.

    Judith 13:9 - 14:5, Q39 f1r BL sD - same thing.

    Now Q38 f8 is a tiny rectangle, that is almost invisible in text.

    Tobit 13:2 - 14:4, Q38 f1r BL sD, is normal, though a bit light.

    f1v - f2r has a line of drawing on it for some reason, close to the gutter. But the text placement doesn't look unusual.

    Esther 6:11 -8:8, Q37 f1r LUL sA, CFA, has writing ALL OVER - and close to the margins - but the other CFA pages here also have writing clear out to both inner and outer margins. So that isn't saying much

    2 Esdras 21:15-22:37, Q36 f4r LUL sA - is all over the map, including the top. But I think that is because the "correctors" went nuts over this sample Bible copying. I rather think that they started their copying extravaganza with this section - simply because they were so bad at it. Typically people get better over time.

    Still no evidence of a "cut top"

    2 Esdras 17:14-67, Q36 f1r LUL sA - totally normal-looking

    1 Chronicles 11:22-12:18, Q35 f1r LUL sA -does have writing at the top, but it's "Codex Friderico-Augustanus 1845"

    Not even Leviticuus 20:27-22:4, Q10 f1r SCM sA - has any trimming on top.


  4. Default Simonides mentions margin notes .. are these the "gone notes" ?

    Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)

    Of the internal evidence of the MS. I shall not now speak. Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present age. But I may just note that my uncte Benedict corrected the MS. in many places,, and as jt was intended to be re-copied, he marked manylejters which he purposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle I can, of course, point out as also those of Dionysius the calligrjphist. In various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different MSS from which I had taken certain passages and readings. These initials appear to have greatly bewildered Professor Tischendorf, who has invented several highly ingenious methods of accounting for them.
    Tischendorf response:

    Equally unfortunate with this assertion about the source is his fable of the initials,which he says he painted on the margin, and of which there is not the slightest trace in the manuscript. A clumsy misconception of my words only has given rise to this fable.

  5. Default

    Christian Remembrancer, 1863

    Professor Tischendorf slates that there are many letters in the marginal notes which have been lost, from their having been written close up to the edge, and from the further circumstance of the edges having suffered injury. Now this is a thing which is extremely likely to happen with a MS. some centuries old, but is it likely to be the case with a MS. written on parchment (or vellum), and not much more than twenty years old? We assume that Professor Tischendorf's statement is correct, for the point is one upon which he could hardly be deceived; if his statement be not correct, then, indeed, his authority can go for very little.

  6. Default trying to find possible examples

    Q65 f1r -
    The quire number appears to be cut off on the left side of the top.

    CSP website says:
    The Greek number for start of quire appears twice. Image shows original fasciculation mark that appears at head in e. This has been re-written in f in non-original ink, suggesting that quire has been separated from the text block (for re-binding perhaps).
    A related puzzle is on another thread, where Bradshaw said the ms. was not together in quires when he saw it in 1862.

  7. Default David Remington -"faint notations along the borders, between passages and in the gutter"

    "The material is challenging and the project calls for the highest-quality reproduction. We are consulting with conservators and curators on issues specific to this manuscript, for instance a lot of the text is faded and there are faint notations along the borders, between passages and in the gutter. Some of the pages have been mended or have tiny punctures used for aligning the columns. All of this detail is relevant to scholarly study and must be available in the reproduction. These considerations inform our choices for capture resolution, lens, necessary depth of field, style of lighting, and type of backing material," said Remington. "It is important that all technical aspects of the digital capture and image processing be given careful consideration. We are employing a color-managed work flow - a process that is used to maintain exacting color reproduction from capture, to print, to distribution on the Web.

    David Remington
    Harvard Library
    Manager, Digital Imaging and Photography Services

    Frome Vellum to Pixels

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-18-2018 at 08:06 AM.

  8. Default

    A lot was cut off, and, per above, apparently in the Times of Tischendorf.

    For a larger manuscript (Codex Sinaiticus was originally at least 43 x38 cm. in size) ...

    The text of the New Testament (1995)
    Kurt Aland, Barbara Aland
    And we have the fuller description:

    א 01 Codex Sinaiticus. eapr 11 fourth century. 148 ff.. 4 cols.. 48 II.. 43 x 38 cm. London: British Library. Add. 43725. Complete Bible (parts of the Old Testament lost. 1 Iff. of the Pentateuch and If. of the Shepherd of Hermas discovered in 1975 in St. Catherine's Monastery), with the letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, the only four-column manuscript of the New Testament. The romance of its discovery was recounted by Constantin von Tischcndorf himself (43 Old Testament folios first discovered in 1844. followed in 1853 by an abortive attempt and in 1859 by successful access to the rest of the manuscript, which was eventually "presented" to the Tsar by a complicated arrangement); bought from the Soviet government by England in 1933 for £100,000. Facsimile edition by Kirsopp Lake (Oxford: 1911). The text with numerous singular readings (and careless errors) was highly overrated by Tischendorf, and is distinctly inferior to B. together with which (and p75) it represents the Alexandrian text...p. 107
    An astute comment from Uwe Topper
    today they measure less: 38,1 x 34,5 cm. Who cut them so lavishly? (I would not dare to cut a millimeter!)
    Sinaiticus – 38 x 34 cm (15 x 13.4 inches; written ca. 330–360) - Wikipedia
    That is more than 10% snipped off, approximately 2" top bottom and 1.5" sides. Plenty of room for those margin note initials mentioned by Simonides.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-15-2016 at 01:23 PM.

  9. Default

    Elijah Hixson offered a couple of number trimmings missed above.

    Our thanks to Elijah.


    Now for the key issue, margin notes:

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
    A lot was cut off, and, per above, apparently in the Times of Tischendorf.
    As we see here:

    “measuring when found, according to Gregory, 16 7/8 X 14 7/8 inches (43 X 37.8 cm.), but now, according to Milne and Skeat 15 x 13 1/2 inches (38.1 x 34.5 cm).”

    Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography (1981)
    Bruce M. Metzger
    So we have double evidence that Tischendorf mangled the ms. by cutting off notes, unrecorded, by trimming. Tischendorf wrote of margin notes that are no longer visible, and appear to be unrecorded. And the discovery size was bigger.

    (And, if Gregory is right, that also means that the New Finds, with the smaller dimensions is after the Tischendorf trimming.)

    Novum Testamentum Graece: Prolegomena (1884)
    Caspar René. Gregory
    "primo maiora erant folia, sed decurtata sunt"

    "The earliest ancestors of the leaves, but they are mutilated"

    Clearly, at the very least, the sources of the Gregory information, and anything written by Tischendorf, should be closely examined.

    Since in the latest binding the tore-edge was hacked roughly square after the spine had been crudely rounded, the leaves near the centre are now broader than those at the beginning and end; the breadth in fact varies from 13 1/4 to nearly 14 in., the height being fairly constant at about 15 in. - Skeat and Milne p. 72
    Notice that what is said by Gregory, recorded by Metzger, is missing today in the history of the ms. E.g. Alan Millard simply says:

    "The pages are large, now 38.1 x 34.5 cm (15 x 13.5-14 in.), having been trimmed from about 45 x 37.8 cm (16.85 x 14.85 in)"

    did Tischendorf trim away Sinaiticus notes?

  10. Default

    From the 2015 New Perspectives book:

    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 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 F2) 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). p. 224-225
    They seem to be quite unaware of the history given by Gregory, that the manuscript was discovered as a larger sheet than what Tischendorf presented in 1862.

    This is Q69 folio 4r which has an extra edge on the top right: "Untrimmed corner"

    And Q77 folio 6r -
    "Untrimmed corner"

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts