Last Updated:

Jan 23, 2011

Lake on Aleph

Excerpt for Review: Kirsopp Lake, Codex Sinaiticus, introduction, (London, 1911)

Page Index

Lake on Aleph: - Introduction

History of Codex Sinaiticus:
    The Codex at Caesarea - 5th - 7th century evidence
    The Codex After Caesarea - St Catherines Monastery

Description of Codex Sinaiticus:
    The Vellum & Ink
    Scribes and Correctors
      (1) The Latest Correctors:
      (2) The Intermediate Correctors
      (3) The Early Correctors & Original Scribes
        (a) The Original Scribes
           Scribe D - distinct features
        (b) The 'Apparatus'
          (1) The Superscriptions
          (2) The Subscriptions
          (3) The Eusebian Canons
          (4) Paragraph Marks (in the Gospels)
          (5)(6) Chapter Divisions (in Acts)
          (7) The stichoi (in Epistles)

Lake on Codex Sinaiticus

The Correction of the Codex at Caesarea

The only point on which practical certainty can be arrived at with regard to the history of the MS before it was discovered by Tischendorf, is that at the time when one of the correctors belonging to the group C was working it was in the famous library at Caesarea. Palaeographical and historical grounds agree to fix this thime as not later than the beginning of the 7th or earlier than that of the 5th century.

The library at Caesarea is one of the three great Christian libraries 1 known to have existed in the 3rd century. It is perhaps correct to speak of Pamphilus as the founder of this library, 2 but the nucleus of his collection was the MSS of Origen, who in turn probably inherited the library of Juliana which is mentioned by Eusebius (Hist. Eccl. 6:17), who says,

Ταυτα δε ο Ωριγεινης μετα και αλλων εις τας γραφας ερμηνευων του Συμμαχου σημαινει παρα Ιουλιανης τινος ειληφεναι, ην και φησι παρ' αυτου Συμμαχου τας βιβλους διαδεξασθαι.

The actual words of Origen's statement are given by Palladius (Hist. Laus, lxiv, ed. Butler), who says,

ευρον δε ταυτα εγω γεγραμμενα εν τω παλαιοιατω βιβλιω στιχηρω, εγεγραπτο χειρι Ωριγενους. Τουτο το βιβλιον ευρον εγω παρα Ιουλιανη τη παρθενω εν Καισαρεια, κρυπτομενος παρ' αυτη, ητις ελεγε παρ' αυτου Συμμαχου του ερμηνεως των Ιουδαιων αυτο ειληφεναι.

Unfortunately the copyist of this note was apparently not very accurate, and thought that Caesarea in Cappadocia was indicated, but it is probable that this is merely a mistake and that Caesarea in Palestine was really intended. In any case there is little reason to doubt that the library of Caesarea when it was organized by Pamphilus contained many MSS of the 3rd and 2nd centuries, and it was certainly one of the main sources 3 of Eusebius' knowledge of Christian literature, though unfortunately the catalogue which he published in his Life of Pamphilus is no longer extant.

According to Jerome (de vir. inl. 3.113) the library began to show signs of decay at the end of the 4th century, and Euzoius 4 'eiusdem postea urbis (Caesarea) episcopus, plurimo labore corruptam iam bibliothecam Origenis et pamphili in membranis instaurare conatus...", &c. This statement may fairly be interpreted to mean that the Papyri on which the earlier MSS were written were wearing out, and had to be copied on parchment.

Of this second foundation by Euzoius there is at least one certain trace in a MS of the 11th century at Vienna (MS. Theol.Gr.29) which contains (f. 146v)the cruciform note, copied no doubt from its archetype, 5 It was much used by Jerome, who frequently refers to it, and at the beginning of the 7th century the copy of the Hexapla of Origen in the library at Caesarea was used by Paul of Tella for the Syriac Hexapla, as is stated in the subscriptions to the various books of the O.T.; 6 but after this there is no proof of the continued existence of the library. Its fate is unknown; but Caesarea was taken by the Arabs in 638 A.D., and we may guess with much probability that the library was dispersed or destroyed.

The evidence that the Codex Sinaiticus was once in this library is given by the notes added by one of the C correctors at the ends of Ezra and Esther, in the fragment at Leipzig (Codex Friderico-Augustanus). It has often been stated that these notes are by the corrector Ca, but this is not the case, as will be seen when the fascimile of the OT is published. There is a certain family resemblance between Ca and the scribe of the notes at the end of Ezra and Esther, but they are not identical, and there is perhaps a difference of ink - Ca used a redder, and the scribe of the note at the end of Esther a yellower colour, - although I am inclined to doubt this, strikingly evident though it seems at first. The two notes happen to have been written on bad patches of vellum, which have not taken the ink well, so that the writing has faded, but at the end of the note to Ezra, where the parchment improves, the ink has the same reddish ting as Ca. Further discussion of this point belongs to the introduction to the OT: it is sufficient here to say that the probable solution of th equestion is that several scribes (of which Ca was certainly one) were engaged in correctingn the text according to that of the Codex Pamphili, and one of them (not Ca) wrote the notes at the end of Esther and Ezra to explain what had been done.

That the writer of the notes belongs to the C group of scribes is tolerably certain, and his statements make it almost equally plain that this group was formed by the monks in the scriptorium at Caesarea.

The text of the notes is as follows:

From the addition of the word to the name of Antoninus it is clear that the writer identified him with the Antoninus who was martyred on Nov. 13, 309, shortly before Pamphilus, who was put to death on Feb 16, 310 A.D. (see Eus. de martyr. Palest. 9.5 and 11.1). The reference to the prison also enables us to date the MS used by the corrector as almost exactly in the year 309. Moreover, as the original Hexapla of Origen was at Caesarea, and Pamphilus claims to have corrected his MS by it, there is really only one step - the MS of Pamphilus - between the corrector and the original Hexapla.

it will be seen that the evidence connecting the Codex Sinaiticus, at the time of the C correctors, with the library of Caesarea is not absolutely demonstrative: it is possible that the MS of Pamphilus had been taken to some other place, and of course the view that all the C correctors belong to much the same place and time is a point on which it is possible that other opinions will be held when the facsimile of the OT completes the presentation of the evidence. It is therefore all the more satisfactory that there is some indirect evidence for connecting another of the C group -Ca with the use of a MS of Pamphilus in the Pauline epistles.

It will be noted that the colophons at the ends of Ezra and Esther only refer to MSS of a comparatively small part of the OT, and there are no other notes elsewhere. It is, however, well known that in the Pauline epistles critics 7 have long been struck by the resemblance between the text of corrector Ca and that of Codex Hpaul. Now Codex Hpaul has at the end of the Pauline epistles a long colophon, beginning with the name Evagrios 2, and ending with the statement,

Considering the close textual relationship between Codex Hpaul and the corrector Ca of Codex Sinai., it is legitimate to regard this evidence as increasing the probability that during the time that the corrector Ca was working, the Codex Sinaiticus was in the library at Caesarea, in which there were certainly many MSS of Pamphilus, rather than in some other library to which a MS of Pamphilus might have been brought.

The date which must be assigned to the time when the Codex was in Caesarea depends entirely on that which palaeography gives to the writing of the C correctors, and especially of course to that of the scribe who wrote the notes at the end of Ezra and Esther. On this point opinions are likely to differ. The latest date suggested is the 7th century; the earliest is the 5th. Dr. F. G. Kenyon and Dr. A. S. Hunt agree in regarding the 6th century as possible, but the former is inclined to accept the 7th as equally possible, while the latter is more disposed to prefer an earlier date.

History of the MS after Caesarea

How or when the MS passed from Caesarea to Sinai is absolutely unknown. There is not a trace of evidence. The monastery of St. Catherine's on Mt. Sinai was one of the foundations of Justinian, and from the 6th century it became one of the strongholds of th Greek Church and the Malkite Syrians. Caesarea, on the other hand, was taken by the Arabs in 638. It is therefore a plausible guess that the MS was taken to Sinai by refugees from Caesarea. But this is merely a guess: it may have been taken to many places after leaving Ceasarea and have reached Sinai many years or centuries later.

1. The other two libraries are Jerusalem and Alexandria. The history of the library at Jerusalem is given in Eus. H.E. 6:20.1; cf. Ehrhardt, Rom. Quartalshrit 1891, 217 ff. There can be little doubt that the Catechetical School at Alexandria had a library, though it is difficult to distinguish it from the private collections of Clement and Origen.

2. Cf. Eus. H.E. 6:32.

3. The full list of references to Pamphilus and his work is given in Harnack's Gesch.der alt. Litt. vol. i., pp 543 ff.

4. In ep. 34.1, Jerome says that Acacius also helped.

5. See Cohn, Philo de opif. mundi, p ii (Berslauer philolog. Abh., iv.4, 1889).

6. See Field, Hexapla, i. pp. xcix-c.

7. See especially W. Bousset, Text. Stud. sum Neuen Test., (Texte und Unter., xi.4), pp. 45-73.

8. The word is erased. It is possible, perhaps even probable, that it is really Εγαγριου rather than Εγαγριος.

9. αυτου is not now legible in the MS, but in the time of Montfaucon the final u was still visible.

Description of the Codex

Binding Missing

Codex Sinaiticus had lost its binding before Tischendorf discovered it, and therefore the only points to be discussed are those concerned with the vellum and ink, and the differentiation of the scribes and correctors.

The Vellum and Ink

The MS is written on fine parchment made from the skin of some rather large animal - Tisch. suggested an antelope, but in view of the manner in which this guess has been copied by successive writers..., it is perhaps not unnecessary to point out that there is nothing in the vellum to indicate an antelope rather than any other animal of the requisite size. It varies considerably in thickness: and the thicker leaves, which have generally preserved the writing better than the thin ones, are inclined to a yellowish tint.

Many of the leaves are so thin that the writing from the other side is sometimes so plainly visible as to become confusing, and in a few cases the ink has eaten throught the vellum so as to leave holes.

As a rule, however, the vellum struck me as not quite so thin as that ove Alexandrinus, and to have consequently suffered somewhat less from erosion.

The edges of the leaves have been slightly trimmed since the time of the C Correctors; this can be seen, for instance, on folio 49, Recto. So far as it is now possible to discover, there is no writing on the edges of the closed MS.

The codex was prepared for writing in the usual way by rulings to regulate the lines and columns. There are, apparently always, 48 lines, and each of the four columns is regulated by a vertical line on each side. The prickings which were always made at the edge of the leaves as a guide for the preparer of the vellum have been cut away, but in a few places a mistake seems to have been made by the preparer, and a line of prickings can be seen in the middle of the first column of writing.

The gatherings into which the sheets of vellum were made up are as a rule quaternions of four conjugate leaves, but ση (in Luke) has only seven folia, π (the end of the Gospels) and ς 1 (in Barnabas) have six each, and ςα (the end of Barnabas) has only two. 2

Each gathering appears to have been signed in a dull red ink at the top left-hand corner of the first recto by a hand which was probably contemporary with the MS. It is therefore likely that these signatures ought to be reckoned among the work of the scribes who were employed in the original scriptorium, though there is no proof that this was the case. Most of these signatures have been cut off, but traces of them can be seen in the Epistles and later books. The best specimen will be found on folio 86 recto.

A later scribe, perhaps as recent as the 8th century (it is impossible to fix the period of isolated figures with even approximate certainty), has added fresh signatures in the right-hand top corner of the first recto of each gathering. It will however, be noted that his numbers are less by a single unit than those of the original numerator, and in the older signatures the right-hand figure has consistently been erased; it can, however, still be read on folio 78 recto. Either the original numberator made a mistake, a supposition by no means difficult, or a gathering has been lost at the end of the O.T.

It is worth noticing in this connexion that the larger divisions in the O.T. in Aleph wer always made to coincide with the end of a quire. That is why the lacunae generally include whole books, e.g. Ezekiel, Hosea-Amos-Micah, Daniel. It does not appear possible that anything has been lost earlier in the MS, as the traces of the original signatures agree in the O.T. with the recent ones. Tischendorf also suggested that there may have been some additional matter between the Gospels and Epistles; but this is improbable, for such an addition would be unique, and the verso of the last leaf of the Gospels is blank.

The ink which the original scribes used is the usual sepia colour commonly found in ancient MSS. As Tisch. says, it varys from an ashy but yellowish grey to a somewhat red tint. It presents no unusual features: the facsimile [Lake's B&W photos] makes it appear too much of a genuine black. The ink used by the correctors A is the same as that of the original - doubtless it was the ink which was always used in the scriptorium.

The ink used by B is a trifle darker than the original ink. Ca and Cb used a reddish-yellow ink, which has usually remained very bright and clear. Cc and Cc* used a greyer colour, and the later correctors used black. Red (vermillion) was used for the Eusebian Apparatus, the earlier signatures to the gatherings, and in some of the 'Arabesques', for instance, at the end of Mark. All these are printed in red in Tisch.'s edition.

Scribes and Correctors

Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition, and to distinguish the different scribes who have contributed to its development. The task really consists in identifying the separate writers, beginning with the latest, and ending with those who seem to have been employed in the original scriptorium, and to have been engaged on the preparation of the MS before (if the anchronism may be permitted) it was actually published.

The correctors may best be divided into three groups:

(1) the Late Correctors, probably belonging to the post-Caesarean history of the MS, and possibly to the monastery of St. Catherine's on Mt. Sinai.

(2) the Intermediate Correctors, of which certainly the earliest, and probably all, belong to Caesarea. They are probably not earlier than the 5th nor later than the 7th century.

(3) the Early Correctors, all probably belonging to the 4th, and certainly no later than the 5th century.

The earliest of them was engaged on the MS before it left the scriptorium, so that at this point the question of the correctors passes into that of the original scribes, and the amount of work which they bestowed on embellishing the text with superscriptions, tituli [titles], and similar additions.

1. The Latest Correctors: To these Tisch., whose notation it is convenient to preserve, gave the names of E and D.

E is a quite unimportant scribe who made a very few corrections in the text, perhaps in the 12th century, and it is possible that the same writer added the notes in Greek and Arabic, on folios 128V and 130R. If E be taken to mean not so much a single scribe as the latest stage of correction, it may also be used to designate the writers of a few names scribbled in the O.T., - Hilarion, Dionysius, & Theophylact. Tisch. thought that E might be regarded as representing medieval monks at St Catherines. This is a probable guess, but, as stated above, there is no evidence as to the date when it was brought to Sinai.

D is a scribe of the 8th century or later, who restored the writing in the prophetic books (OT), but does not appear to have touched the NT. In Hermas, however, another scribe (DHermas) of much the same date and character added breathings and accents, and made a few unimportant orthographical changes. Specimens of DHermas and E are found at the foot of the 3rd column on plate II.

2. The Intermediate Correctors: To these Tisch. has given the name "C". Taken together they have done far more work on the MS than any others, and afford extremely important material for textual criticism; as was shown on pp. vii fwd, they represent a Caesarean scriptorium, for one of them who does not, however, seem to have touched the N.T. states that he corrected part of the O.T. according to the copy of the Hexapla made by Pamphilus during his imprisonment, and preserved in the library at Caesarea.

Corrector (scribe) Ca: In the NT the earliest of these hands, who also made the most corrections, is Ca. This scribe wrote a clear but not beautiful hand resembling, but certainly distinct from that of the scribe who wrote the colophons to Ezra and Esther. Whether he used the same ink as this scribe is perhaps doubtful. At first sight it seems clear that the colophons in question are in a different colour, as they are faint and scarcely legible, but it is possible that this is due to some accidental circumstance, and in other places it is not easy to see much difference between the inks of the two scripts. In any case the ink is brighter and redder than that of the original MS. Ca has been assigned to dates varying from the end of the 5th century to the beginning of the 7th century. Dr. Kenyon inclines to the latter, and Dr. Hunt to the former view. He corrected the whole of the NT, as well as much of the OT, and Hermas, but omitted Barnaba.; examples of his script will be seen in the last column of Plate II.

Scribe Cb: might be judged from the style of his writing and the colour of his ink to have been a contemporary of Ca, to whose script, though easily distinguishable in passage of more than a few words, his own has a general resemblance. The most characteristic feature is 'feathers' attached to the end of letters containing a vertical line. In the OT he has, it seems, occasionally altered a correction of Ca, and is therefore actually later, but it may have been only a very short time, and the probability is rather that Cb, like Ca, belonged to the scriptorium at Caesarea. His corrections in the NT are confined to the Gospels; specimens will be found in the last column of Plate II.

Besides Ca and Cb, who are the chief of the intermediate correctors, two other hands of the same or almost the same period can be discerned, - Cc and Cc*, to use Tischendorf's rather cumbrous notation. Cc has taken the place of Ca in Barnabas, and freely corrected the text. Specimens are given in the last column of Plate II, from which it will be seen that it is similar to the scripts of Ca and Cb, though probably somewhat later.

Cc* is a somewhat similar hand which corrected the Apocalypse; it also belongs to much the same type as the other C hands, but is probably a little later. Specimens are given in the last column of Plate II.

On the whole the C hands so closely resemble each other, and can with such little confidence be much separated in date, that there is considerable force in the suggestion that they all comefrom the scriptorium at Caesarea, and represent a thoroughgoing attempt to accommodate the Codex to a model which in the 5th and 6th century was more fashionable than the original text.

3. The Early Correctors, and Original Scribes: The discrimination of these hands is the most difficult point in the palaeographical treatment of the MS. The clearest and simplest way appears to be to break off from the method, which has hitherto been followed, of starting with the most recent hands, and to begin by trying to establish the condition of the MS when it left the scriptorium.

To the work of the scriptorium, then, obviously belongs the text itself; so that the first question of all is concerned with the scribes of the text. After the text comes the 'apparatus' of the MS - superscriptions, subscriptions, tituli, paragraph marks, Ammonian sections, Eusebian canons, and other chapter divisions. These may or may not belong to the scriptorium. Finally, it is well known that it was the custom to submit MSS to a διορθωσις ("diorthosis"), or correction process: so that the earliest corrections may possibly belong to the work of the scriptorium, and the question is to what extent this can be shown to have been the case with the various hands which seem to have corrected the MS in the earliest period. Thus there are three points to discuss:

(a) The original scribes,

(b) the 'apparatus',

(c) the corrections properly so called.

(a) The original scribes: At first sight the whole Codex seems to have been written by the same hand; but a closer inspection shows that this is erroneous, and according to Tischendorf four scribes, A B C D worked on the text, of whom Scribes A B D worked on the NT.

IN his Nomina Sacra (pp. 67 fwd) Traube goes further, and distinguishes the Scribe A who wrote part of the NT from the 'Scribe A' who wrote the historical books of the OT and Barnabas, and also the Scribe B who wrote Isaiah from the 'Scribe B' who wrote Hermas and the other prophetic books. So far as B is concerned this must remain a question to be discussed in connexion with an edition of the OT part of Sinaiticus. So far as Scribe A is concerned I am unable to see any difference of script, and in the absence of any such difference I should hesitate to accept the very minute differences of treatment of the nomina sacra as sufficient proof of a change of scribe.

Reserving, however, out of respect to the opinion of so distinguished a palaeographer, the possibility that Barnabas is by a different hand, it is tolerably clear that Scribe A originally wrote all the text of the NT except Hermas, which was the work of Scribe B, and that Scribe D wrote the text on the conjugate leaves, ff. of 10, 15, 29 & 30, 88, 91, and possibly on part of folio 126. Specimens of these three scripts, A B D are arranged side by side on Plate III.

There is possibly room for legitimate doubt whether Tischendorf was right in distinguishing Scribe A from Scribe B, but personally I entirely accept his judgement, for after the prolonged acquaintance with the style of Scribe A, necessitated by photographing each page, I felt while watching the script 'come up' on the negative in the developing tray, that the first page of Hermas was different from the others, as it seemed to 'come up' differently, though from the nature of the case I did not know until afterwards which this particular plate was.

The same thing was still more noticeable in the case of the Scribe D plates. It would be too much to claim that this purely personal experience ought to weigh strongly in the judgement of others, and I admit both that I am unable to analyse satisfactorily the difference between Scribe A and B, and that it is not so clear to my own perception now as it was when I was spending the greater part of each day in the company of the MS.

Nevertheless, it seems to me that if anyone will spend some time in turning over a few leaves of Hermas, and then a few of the rest of the NT, he will feel that there is a difference of script, and, if he concentrate his attention on the right-hand ends of the lines, he will receive the superficial impression that more lines end in the horizontal stroke representing final N in Hermas than elsewhere. Analysis will, however, show that this is not the case, or at all events not to any remarkable degree. The impression is solely created by the fact that the strokes in Hermas are longer, somewhat heavier, and instead of being partly over the final vowel, are inclined to begin after it, and to project far into the margin. This is no doubt a small point, but it goes to justify the vew that Hermas was written by a different scribe from the rest of the NT.

Scribe D

The discrimination of Scribe D from Scribes A/B is easier and admits of no reasonable doubt. There is a distinct difference in the script, though it is more easily perceived than described; possibly the letters are somewhat squarer in Scribe D than in A - the height being less in proportion to the breadth - and Scribe D is altogether prettier than A. But the decisive point is that Scribe D constantly fills out the end of a line with the sign >, which is rarely or never used by Scribes A/B. A specimen column of Scribe D is third on Plate III.

Scribe D = Vaticanus?

It was Scribe D whom Tischendorf identified with the scribe of the NT in Codex Vaticanus; (see the 4th column on Plate III), and it will probably be at once conceded by those who compare this with Scribe D that there is no real trace of justification for Tischendorf's theory. The wonder is that the fine eye, which saw the difference between A, B, D, - differences which anyone might be excused for overlooking - could ever think for a moment that the script of Scribe D was identical with Vaticanus.

'Cancel-Sheets' added in the Scriptorium

The conjugate leaves written by Scribe D are clearly 'cancel-leaves'; that is to say, they were written after the MS had been completed, in order to take the place of others, written originally by Scribe A, which were for some reason imperfect or spoiled. Such replacing of rejected leaves would naturally form part of the διορθωσις (correction) of the MS in the scriptorium, and that this was the case is rendered practically certain by the fact that Scribe D actually wrote the whole of Tobit & Judith in the OT, so that he was clearly a member of the scriptorium. The importance of this point is that it shows that any work done on the MS before the 'cancel-leaves' were added must also be regarded as work done in the scriptorium too, and it is convenient at this point to indicate the details of which this can be proved:

(1) The Eusebian Apparatus must have been added before the cancel-leaves in Matthew (folios 10/15), as these leaves, and these only, lack the Sections and Canons. Thus the scribe who added the Eusebian Apparatus belonged to the scriptorium.

(2) The Stixoi: Similar reasoning shows that the scribe who added the στιχοι in the Epistles belonged to the scriptorium, for, after the Epistle to Romans, these are only omitted in 1st Thess., the last page of which is one of the cancel-leaves (folio 88).

(b) The Apparatus: This may be defined as consisting of:

(1) The Superscriptions added at the beginning of each book, and afterwards inserted either on each recto (front, left page), or distributed on the 'open page' between verso and recto, or in the Gospels especially, on alternate 'open pages'.

(2) The Subscriptions at the end of each book.

(3) The Eusebian Apparatus in the Gospels.

(4) The Paragraph Marks in the Gospels.

(5) The 'Euthalean' Chapter Divisions in Acts.

(6) The tituli or chapter headings in Acts.

(7) The reckoning of the stichoi at the end of the Epistles.

The questions in each case are whether the scribe belonged to the scriptorium or not; if he did, whether he can be identified with the scribe of any other part of the MS, and if he did not, to what date he ought to be assigned.

(1) The Superscriptions(p. xx): A full selection of these specimens is given in Plate I. It will be easily seen that there is great variation in the style, and that this variation is not regular. The scribe or scribes seem sometimes to write in small and sometimes in large letters on no fixed plan. This creates at first sight the impression of diversity of hands; but further study dispels this view, and leads rather to the conclusion that Tischendorf was right in assigning all the superscriptions to the Scribe D, except those in Hermas, which seem to be by Scribe B, the scribe of that text.

That the scribe was Scribe D rather than A is shown partly by the fact that the superscriptions are not wanting on the cancel-leaves written by Scribe D, where they are precisely similar to those on the other pages, and partly by their resemblance to the subscriptions written by Scribe D, and their difference from the subscriptions written by Scribe A. The most convincing proof that only one hand has been busy with the superscriptions is seen if instead of looking at the specimens given in the order in which they are arranged,(that of the MS), they are taken in the order of gradation of style.

Take for instance the following series: Luke (29r) Mark (18v) Matt (11v, 12r), Matt (2r) Rom (62r) 1st Cor (69r) 2nd Pet (124r) Eph. (82r), 1st Thess (87v) Col. (85v) Heb (92r). Is it not impossible to say that any one of these is in a hand other than that of the example preceding or following? Is it not rather almost certain that they are all by the same scribe? Nevertheless if we had only the first and last of the series, there would be grave doubt as to the identity of the hands. As it is, the only example which really seems to differ essentially is 2nd Thess (89r); this really causes hesitation, and it is possible that it was omitted by accident by Scribe D and added later by another scribe, who may equally well have been working either inside or outside the scriptorium.

A further conclusion follows from a consideration of the examples given in Plate I. Just as at the top of the series, if it were arranged in order of gradation of style, there would appear specimens in bold uncial, resembling closely the ordinary hand of Scribe D in the text, so the middle and end of the series supply specimens equally closely resembling the Corrector A2. This suggests that the Scribe D is identical with the Corrector A2, and, as will be shown when the correctors are discussed, there is other evidence to corroborate this view.

(2) The Subscriptions: These afford less room for doubt than the superscriptions. All of them were written by A, except those to Mark and 1st Thess., which come on the cancel-leaves written by scribe D.

Tischendorf, it is true, also regarded the subscription to John as written by scribe D, together with the whole of the last verse of the Gospel, but an inspection of the subscription (given in Plate I) will probably suggest to most minds that there is on the contrary a close resemblance to the style of A, but not to that of scribe D. Tischendorf argued that there was a change of ink visible at the beginning of the last verse. This is naturally too small a point to be observable in the photo. My own impression is that the scribe took a fresh dip of ink, and possibly mended his pen, but I can see nothing more, and in general I should have said that A and scribe D used precisely the same ink, and held their pens at precisely the same angle, so that no valid argument can be based on the minute variations of form, which may quite as probably be due to an alteration of posture by the same scribe as to a change of writers.

(3) The Eusebian Canons: This is added in red, by a hand which is shown by the argument given above (p. xix) to be anterior to the cancel-leaves of Scribe D, and therefore to belong to the scriptorium. Whether this scribe can be identified with any of the original scribes or correctors is doubtful: it is impossible to decide definitely as the numerals do not afford sufficient evidence. I suggest that he should be called "Scribe E".

(4) Paragraph Marks in the Gospels: An attempt has been made in the first 7 pages of Matthew to indicate the ends of paragraphs by inserting a short horizontal line, sometimes bifurcated, between the last line of one paragraph and the beginning of another. Either the same or nearly the same system is found in Codex Vaticanus, but with somewhat fewer paragraphs. In the absence of any other clue it is difficult to say whether these lines belong to one date rather than another.

An interesting discussion of their possible meaning in Vaticanus will be found in Dr. Schmidtke's Die Evangelien eines alten Unzialcodex1, and in the correspondence between him and Prof. Eb. Nestle in Theologisches Literaturblatt (1903).

(5),(6) The Chapter Divisions and 'tituli' in Acts:

(7) The 'stichoi' in the Epistles:

Return to Top