Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: two copies of Chronicles is evidence that work was done on the manuscript in Sinai

  1. Default two copies of Chronicles is evidence that work was done on the manuscript in Sinai

    Sister thread:

    where are the supposed distinctive 700 AD corrections in 1 Chronicles 2 Esdras and Esther?


    We will take some of the quotes from 2013 from rejoice44

    "1 Chronicles he does not write it the same the second time as he did the first time" has not been confirmed, study in process.

    That seven leafs, or 36,000 letters were duplicated in the manuscript is not a conspiracy, but a fact, and they were not even identical.

    We don't know how a scribe could repeat 7 leafs, 14 pages, 36,000 letters without realizing what he was doing. How can he be copying exactly from another manuscript when the text he was writing does not line up with the other text? When he repeats the text in error in 1 Chronicles he does not write it the same the second time as he did the first time. In the one page that he duplicated he compressed the writing so that it eliminated 8 lines in the space of four columns. He didn't make the same errors, but new ones, and it appears that the text isn't identical.

    This is a scribe who had no trouble switching from 1 Chronicles to Ezra right in the middle of a line. It is bad enough to have no break between words in a line, but when you have no break between the words or the books you have to question who is doing this?

    How did they not know that they were jumping from 1 Chronicles chapter 19 to Ezra chapter 9 right in the middle of a line? What kinds of correctors did they have. Yes the parchment was expensive, and that makes you wonder who would give expensive calf-skins to scribes who had trouble spelling.

    How could two pages of the same chapter and verse end up at Mt. Sinai if the manuscript was not produced there?

    New Finds
    1 Chronicles, 17:14 - 18:1 library: SC folio: scribe: A

    1 Chronicles, 17:14 - 18:1 library: SC folio: scribe: A

    CFA - Leipzig 1844

    3 pages from 1844 LUL
    These first two pages are in the area that overlaps what was actually found in New Finds. The third page is where the blunder occurred and you have the three crosses note, which Simonides said has a "dual signification".

    1 Chronicles (duplicate), 16:33 - 17:16 library: LUL folio: iii_v scribe: A
    Quire 35 3v

    1 Chronicles (duplicate), 17:16 - 18:15 library: LUL folio: iv scribe: A
    Quire 35 4r
    Super Ink on Recto

    1 Chronicles (duplicate), 18:15 - 19:17 / 2 Esdras, 9:9 - 9:11 library: LUL folio: iv_v scribe: A
    Quire 35 4v
    Three Crosses Note

    More details planned here on the pages.

    It is amazing that the duplicate are is spread over:

    1844 Leipzig - 8 pages total
    1859 British Library - 2 pages
    1975 New Finds - fragments from 2 pages

    This is extremely strong evidence that at least prep-and-discard work occurred in Sinai.

    This mishmosh should be correlated with the fact that Tischendorf took mostly full quires in 1844, based on the numbering system.

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 05-09-2018 at 01:35 PM.

  2. Default more resources



    Skeat & Milne



    others +additional from search)

  3. Default Codex Sinaiticus Project explanation

    Reconstructing Codex Sinaiticus

    locating the New Finds and St Petersburg fragments of the Heptateuch and 1 Chronicles and reconstructing the structure of the first 34 folios

    1. Locating the New Finds and St Petersburg fragments of the Heptateuch and 1 Chronicles and reconstructing the structure of the first 34 folios


    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] 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.
    2 Esdras 1.1-9.9 has 23,326 characters. This divided by 5376 is 4.3 folios. 1 Esdras is 46495 characters, which divided by 5376 gives 8.65 folios. Thus 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras 1.1-9.9 together contain 69,821 characters, amounting to 12.99 folios. It is therefore reasonable to argue that 1 Esdras began on Quire 33 Folio 1r. The precise division point between the two books is somewhat uncertain, but might have been between the third and fourth columns on Quire 34, Folio 1r.
    2 Chronicles contains 104,889 characters. This divided by 5376 amounts to 19.5 folios. If 2 Chronicles went on 20 folios, it began on Quire 30, Folio 5r.
    The end of 1 Chronicles was therefore on Quire 30, Folio 4v.
    1 Chronicles has 78,412 characters divided by 5376 (characters per folio at 14 characters per line), amounting to 14.6 folios which can be rounded down to 14.5 folios. This means that 1 Chronicles begins on Quire 28, Folio 6v.
    The fragment that begins at 17.14 must be placed within these 14.5 folios.
    The verso side of the fragment begins at Line 1, Column 1 at Ch.18.1. 18.1 to the end of 1 Chronicles is 30,501 characters. 30,501 characters divided by 5376 = 5.67 folios, rounded down to 5.5 folios, means that 1 Chronicles 18.1 begins Quire 29, Folio 7v. This means that the flesh recto of the 1 Chronicles fragment is Quire 29, Folio 7r.
    From 1 Chronicles 1.1–18.1 is 47,911 characters, which divided by 5376 gives 8.9 folios, that is 9 folios. Counting backwards, this indicates that 1 Chronicles began on Quire 28, Folio 6v.
    1-4 Kingdoms has 373,210 characters. This divided by 5376 gives 69.4 folios; 69.5 folios indicates that 1 Kingdoms 1.1 began on Quire 20, Folio 1r. Within these four books:

    • 1 Kingdoms has 95,893 characters, which divided by 5376 gives 17.4 folios. This indicates that 1 Kingdoms ended on Quire 22, Folio 1v.
    • 2 Kingdoms has 85,164 characters, which divided by 5376 gives 15.84 folios. This indicates that 2 Kingdoms began on Quire 22, Folio 2r ended on Quire 24, Folio 1v.
    • 3 Kingdoms has 100,432 characters, which divided by 5376 gives 18.68 folios. This indicates that 3 Kingdoms began on Quire 24, Folio 2r ended on Quire 26, Folio 4v.
    • 4 Kingdoms has 91,762 characters, which divided by 5376 gives 17.07 folios. . This indicates that 4 Kingdoms began on Quire 26, Folio 5r ended on Quire 28, Folio 5v.

    Judges 11.2 -end of the book is 36612 characters, which divided by 5376 gives 6.8 folios, i.e. 7 folios.

    Ruth contains 9,735 characters. This, added to Judges 11.2-end amounts to 36,612 + 9,735, which is 46,347 characters, or 8.62 folios. Ruth occupied just under 15 columns, so there will have been a blank column on Quire 19, Folio 8v.

    Working back from Quire 20, Folio 1r as the beginning of 1 Kingdoms gives 9 folios, confirming that the last of the whole folios in Judges is Quire 18, Folio 7.

    [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.

  4. Default

    The Septuagint in Codex SinaiticusCompared with Other Sources
    Emanuel Tov ith_Other_Sources_in_Codex_Sinaiticus_New_Perspect ives_on_the_Ancient_Biblical_Manuscript_eds._Scott _McKendrick_et_al._London_The_British_Library_2015 _21_29

    13 While the text of 1 Chronicles 9:27 19:17 has been preserved, the circumstances surrounding its preservation in the midst of a sea of missing chapters is peculiar. Actually, all of 1 2 Chronicles (except one fragment from St Catherine s Monastery) as well as 1 Esdras and 2 Esdras 1:1 9:7 is missing, and this segment of 1 Chronicles is incorrectly copied into the middle of 2 Esdras (the running title 2 Esdras appears on two of the five folios containing 1 Chronicles 9:27 19:17). A 2710 Emanuel Tov marginal note in the manuscript by one of the correctors of Codex Sinaiticus clarifies that these pages are an intrusion in the text of Esdras. The mistake must have been made in the Vorlage of א and may have been connected with the binding of a manuscript. On the unusual sequence, see

    Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors, pp. 1 6;
    R. Hanhart, Esdrae liber II, Vetus Testamentum Graecum Auctoritate Academiae Litterarum Gottingensis editum, VIII, 2 (Göttingen, 1993), p. 8;
    Rahlfs and Fraenkel, Verzeichnis (2004), p. 204;
    Jongkind, Scribal Habits, pp 14

  5. Default CSP mangles the Chronicles sections - calls original dupicate and vica versa

    Information from David Daniels and Kevin McGrane

    The CSP mangles the data, has the original as duplication and vica versa (Kevin first)


    Important thoughts shared by David.

    It treats the monastery pages as original, and the BL/Liepzig pages as duplicate.

    Simonides even marked the pages as ESDRAS. They were labeled correctly, but the first 7 leaves are all 1 Chronicles - after which it switches in the latter part of a line right onto Ezra 9, as if nothing happened --- a really DUMB mistake that if they were doing a group project over time, would have been caught and NOT bound together.

    Unless, of course, someone were writing in an ALREADY BOUND BOOK ... it resembles a project that was NOT overseen until LATER other words, someone did the work, and later, someone checked the work.
    At least at this point in the manuscript

Posting Permissions

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