tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post6591676627183037502..comments2024-03-20T12:35:12.828-04:00Comments on The Text of the Gospels: John 1:18 - Sinaiticus: The Devil in the DetailsJames Snapp Jrhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-48522281522935566052019-02-05T14:22:45.724-05:002019-02-05T14:22:45.724-05:00You are right to include the Codex Alexandrinus as...You are right to include the Codex Alexandrinus as a complete Bible. My mistake. <br /><br />I have Skeat’s book and you can refer to whatever page in the book you need in order to continue this discussion. <br /><br />Skeat says that Siniaticus was on the verge of completion but was never completed. You mention that the scribes did not add Eusebius' Canon-numbers to the Gospels because they did not grasp their meaning. I find it hard to believe that experienced scribes who had the leisure and expertise to write millions of characters in neatly defined columns, collate pages into quires, and paginate them accordingly (a very tedious and complicated task!) could make such a simple blunder when it was almost done. If they had an Eusebian exemplar to work with, there should have been no problem in adding the Eusebian canon numbers. The lack of canon numbers seems to support Skeat’s idea that the manuscript was abandoned on the verge of completion, in order to go with the more economical Vaticanus. They might also have recognized that the Sinaiticus, upon proofreading, was flawed with so many errors that it would be unacceptable as an official Bible. How do you explain the Siniaticus, from the point of view that Acacius did it, was flawed with so many errors?<br /><br />You cite a tradition that Lucian of Antioch wrote a complete New Testament in his own hand. Of course this would be an unprecedented achievement for the time. The Siniaticus and Vaticanus were far more ambitious undertakings with Old and New Testaments plus the Apocrypha. According to Skeat, the Siniaticus was a prototype. Even with experienced scribes, it would be hard to conceive of what exactly is involved in regard to resources and time, when undertaking a never-before-seen complete Bible. It was only in the final stages of making Siniaticus, that they realized the enormous magnitude of the manuscript and became daunted by the idea that they had to make 49 more.<br /><br />Since you disagree with Skeat that they were Constantine bibles, what are your thoughts on the timeline of the making of the two codices. Which came first, Siniaticus or Vaticanus? Furthermore, do you think that Acacius had a Constantine Bible as exemplar to work from? Or did the Constantine Bibles never became reality?William Westonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569199741225116792noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-13791352965655686092019-02-01T12:25:12.616-05:002019-02-01T12:25:12.616-05:00William Weston,
<< Your assumption that Ac...William Weston, <br /><br /><< Your assumption that Acacius’ scribes were writing large characters on enormous quantities of expensive parchment for the giant format of Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus?) solely for the benefit of their one-eyed supervisor strikes me as unconvincing. >><br /><br />It wasn't just for Acacius' benefit; it was part of a larger project to preserve the texts at Caesarea that were written on papyrus. The papyrus was decaying, so everything had to be transferred to parchment.<br /><br /><< According to Skeat, the giant format of both manuscripts was to please the extravagance of Emperor Constantine, >> -- <br /><br />But if you look at the dimensions provided by Skeat, it's clear that Vaticanus, while thicker, is not remarkably taller or wider than a typical MS. Sinaiticus is enormous in comparison. Skeat proposed that the format of Aleph was Eusebius' Plan A but that he abandoned such a large size because he realized it would be a drain on resources and time.<br /><br />However, any experienced scribe or diorthotes would come to that realization within moments or minutes of considering it; nobody would make a complete Bible and then think, "It would take a lot of time and resources to make another 50 of these." The scale of the project would be obvious before one was done ruling the parchment.<br /><br /><< It is also noteworthy that such a project envisioned the production of manuscripts including the Old and New Testaments plus the Apocrypha in a single codex, never seen before or since. >><br /><br />Well there is also Codex A to consider. And there's a tradition that Lucian of Antioch wrote a complete New Testament in his own hand (in three columns per page, like Vaticanus!). But to say that the codices that Eusebius produced were "never seen before or since" is to answer the question being asked. It would be entirely within the means of Acacius to preserve texts of Scripture at Caesarea adapting a format similar to one his predecessor (Eusebius) had used -- attempting, in the process, to add Eusebius' Canon-numbers to the Gospels, but the scribe who added them did not have a strong grasp of their purpose. <br /> <br /><< I do not think the honor of making such manuscripts should go to an obscure supervisor in the Ceasarea scriptorium. >><br /><br />That doesn't seem like a strong argument; first, Acacius was not obscure in his own time. Second, we know (because Jerome tells us) that Acacius and Euzoius made manuscripts to replace the papyrus copies in the library at Caesarea that were wearing out. The only question is whether Sinaiticus was among those MSS. I think there is a very strong likelihood that it was. But before proceeding further: do you have Skeat's articles on this on hand? They can be found in his "Collected Essays."<br /><br />James Snapp Jrhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09493891380752272603noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6346409181794331060.post-30626537758830367682019-01-26T13:56:37.787-05:002019-01-26T13:56:37.787-05:00I would like to see more of what you think about S...I would like to see more of what you think about Skeat’s “complicated” theory. Your assumption that Acacius’ scribes were writing large characters on enormous quantities of expensive parchment for the giant format of Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus?) solely for the benefit of their one-eyed supervisor strikes me as unconvincing. According to Skeat, the giant format of both manuscripts was to please the extravagance of Emperor Constantine, who had the ambition and bountiful resources from the Imperial Treasury to produce 50 Bibles for churches in Constantinople. He commissioned Eusebius to undertake the project. It is also noteworthy that such a project envisioned the production of manuscripts including the Old and New Testaments plus the Apocrypha in a single codex, never seen before or since. The magnitude of such an undertaking can be understood from the fact that the Greeks never again attempted to produce a single-volume Bible in the next 1100 years of manuscript making. Thus the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus are unique in the history of manuscripts. I do not think the honor of making such manuscripts should go to an obscure supervisor in the Ceasarea scriptorium.William Westonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10569199741225116792noreply@blogger.com