April 12, 2005

British Library to give up Codex Sinaiticus?

Not an open and shut case, but not unthinkable now, either:

The 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus, arguably the world’s most important Christian manuscript, entered the library’s collection in the 1930s. . .

Greek Orthodox monks of St Catherine’s have long believed that the manuscript was wrongfully taken from them in the 19th century by a German scholar, Constantine Tischendorf, who was apparently acting as an agent for Tsar Aleksandr II of Russia.

He took 43 leaves to Germany, which are in the University of Leipzig, and another 347, which he gave to the Tsar. They remained in the Imperial Library until 1933, when the Soviet Government sold them to raise money. . .

Tischendorf is thought to have convinced the monks that he was borrowing the leaves for copying purposes. He did publish the text.

In an 1859 letter, which was found in the monastery’s archives in 1960, he had promised to “return (the Codex), undamaged and in a good state of preservation, to the Holy Confraternity of Mount Sinai at its first request”. But the ownership question is clouded by another letter, of 1869, in which the monastery’s archbishop seems to have offered the Codex as a gift to the Tsar, after a donation of money and gifts to the monastery.

From the Times of London.

The Codex is in fact split (unevenly) four ways: in addition to the leaves at the British Library and Leipzig, there are others remaining at St. Catherine's and some in Russia's National Library. An initiative to digitize all surviving leaves was recently announced, and can be read about here.

UPDATE: A comprehensive survey of the situation now available from the Art Newspaper; but do note the very misleading:

The Codex Sinaiticus was one of the original 50 Bibles copied in Greek at the order of Emperor Constantine, or . . .
The "or . . . " of course, is the escape hatch for a reporter presenting an unprovable hypothesis as (apparent) fact in the lead. Further comments at Palaeojudaica.

Posted by David on April 12, 2005 9:20 PM

Comments

Arguably the world's oldest bible. I thought that record was held by the Codex Vaticanus.

Posted by: John Hardy on April 13, 2005 3:28 AM

"Arguably", as used by the Times, is an acceptable qualifier in that the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus are by all indications closely contemporary. The BL press release is less defensible, however, in calling the Sinaiticus the "World's oldest Bible".

I have not kept up on the scholarship here, but I believe this is one of those cases where the extreme scarcity of comparanda makes dating very much an exercise in approximation. Proper recognition of this uncertainty would call for referring to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the two oldest surviving reasonably complete Christian bibles, leaving the question of chronological priority aside as not meaningfully answerable.

Posted by: David on April 13, 2005 9:10 AM

The monastery is not a safe place for Codex Sinaiticus. It is not safe from outside assault and not safe from internal tampering. A good example is how Clement's Letter to Theodore was mishandled by the Mar Saba Patriarchate. Ripped from the 1646 Voss book upon which it was copied on the flyleaves, the document has conveniently disappeared. Codex Sinaiticus is safest at the BM. Do NOT give it back.

Posted by: Jack Kilmon on April 30, 2005 5:43 PM
Post a comment




  Remember Me?


(For bold text to display correctly, please use <strong>, not <b>)




Google