THE

JOURNAL

OF

SACRED LITERATURE

AND

BIBLICAL RECORD.

No. V. APRIL, 1863.

THE CODEX SINAITICUS.<

THE Codex Sinaiticus is a great fact. It has fairly emerged from its obscurity of ages, and the appearance of a new island would scarcely have been regarded with more interest, than its advent before the eyes of the critical world. A new claimant to the presidency in the republic of Biblical MSS. was of course a very possible occurrence, but it was not generally expected. All at once, however, a celebrated letter from Tischendorf to the minister Von Falkenstein, announced the coming of a candidate for that presidency, and of one whose rights might perhaps easily be determined. Codex A, which tradition ascribed to the time of the Nicene Council, and which for a long time was allowed to stand first, as its very name indicates, had been condemned to retire before at least one of its rivals, and to strike off a century or more from its assumed age. The Codex C, or the Ephræm rescript, had won a high position-Tischendorf, for example, puts it before the middle of the fifth century—as early if not earlier than Codex A. The Cambridge manuscript, Codex D, or Beza, has raised a good deal of discussion, but never held its ground as a candidate for the seniority. Of the rest we need not speak, excepting to name the one which had

a Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus. Auspiciis Augustissimis Imperatoris Alexandri II., ex tenebris protraxit, in Europam transtulit, ad iuvandas atque illustrandas Sacras Litteras edidit, Constantinus Tischendorf. Petropoli 1862. [Leipzig, Carl Fr. Fleischer.]

NEW SERIES.-VOL. III., NO. V.

B

won its way to the headship-Codex B, or the Vatican MS. This last seemed to be settling down into quiet possession of its honours ; and such is the exclusive veneration in which it is held, that it has for a long period been almost as difficult of access as the Grand Lama of Tibet, or his holiness the Pope. It remains to be seen whether the rival dignity of the Sinaitic Codex, which courts publicity, will have any effect in relaxing or removing the restrictions of which we speak. This is not all, it remains to be seen whether by coming into the broad daylight the Vatican Codex may not even yet vindicate its superior claims, It remains to be seen whether the Sinaitic Codex, Aleph, or . may not be compelled to retire into the same rank as its brother Alpha of Alexandria. But whatever may be the ultimate decision of those who are able to investigate and pronounce judgment in the matter, the Codex Sinaiticus is, we repeat, a fact and not a myth, and it will always occupy a very high and powerful position among the uncial manuscripts of the Greek Scriptures.

The whole history of this Codex is as romantic as can well be imagined. Sixteen or eighteen years ago it seems to have been seen in the Convent of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, by a Russian Archimandrite, one Porphyrius. This was in 1846, but as he published his book as much as ten years later, attention was not awakened to the subject. Not long after Porphyrius, Major Macdonald mentions a very ancient MS. which he saw at Sinai, and which was most likely this. But in this matter Dr. Tischendorf was to be first and last. In 1844, he found among some fragments destined for the fire, portions of a venerable uncial Greek Bible. He published these in 1846 as the CodexFriderico-Augustanus,' and he declared that he had seen much more of the same document. All these facts are of public notoriety, and the wonder is that the MS. eluded the hunters till early in 1859, when Tischendorf was again at Sinai, and in the steward's dormitory stumbled upon this splendid and precious volume, which was wrapped up in a cloth. A good deal has been made of this cloth, but needlessly so. The Jews cover

their most precious rolls with cloths, or mantles, as they are termed, and some of our readers may recollect specimens of magnificent mantles of this sort, which appeared in the London Exhibition of 1862. The practice of covering books with a cloth is very common in the East; and probably Martial refers to something of the sort in his tenth book, where he speaks of the purpurea toga of a volume. In any case there is not a country village in our own land, perhaps, where the rustic women and

It contained portions of 1 Chronicles and Ezra, the Books of Nehemiah and Esther, and part of Tobit.

children do not often carry their Prayer Books wrapped up in a handkerchief. Of course the Sinai book had been neglected and shamefully used, but the mere fact that it was found wrapped in cloth indicates nothing save that at length it was set some store by. Dr. Tischendorf's own account of the discovery is to be found not only in various journals here and in Germany, but specially in his Notitia editionis Codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici; in his lately published records of eastern travel, and in the Prolegomena to the magnificent book before us. We do not mean to tell the whole story over again. Let it suffice to say that, first of all, Tischendorf got permission to copy the book at Cairo, and that afterwards things were so managed that the original work was handed over to the Russian Emperor, Alexander. The Russian government very readily entered into the schemes of the discoverer, and acceded to the wish of the learned world for a printed edition in the highest style of typographic art. This edition was, however, meant as an imperial present to such as the Emperor might deign to give it as a memorial of the millenium of the foundation of the Russian empire in 1862. A minor edition (of the New Testament) in ordinary type was to come out in favour of the general public somewhat later, and will, we understand, very shortly appear. So far all was well; expectant critics stood on the tip-toe of joyous anticipation, and every effort was made by some to procure beforehand additional and unpublished details. Before the appointed time had come for its appearance, a dark insinuation was made by Constantine Simonides,—a man of real ability, but of dubious reputation in the learned world,-that the Sinaitic Codex was not fifteen centuries old, but a new book. A little later, when the new edition had lingered at the printer's beyond its time, greater definiteness and precision were given to the rumour, and at last, early in September, 1862, Mr. Simonides boldly avowed that the Sinaitic MS. had been written by himself about twenty years ago, or in 1840-41. The narrative in the letter referred to was very cumstantial, and, as usual with the writer of it, was fortified by documents and references. The letter was severely animadverted upon in some of the papers, as in the Clerical Journal, and its improbabilities exposed. The subject was also discussed elsewhere. To some minds Mr. Simonides carried conviction, but no scholar or palæographer seems to have been led astray. Simonides himself avowed his intention of only answering the defence of Dr. Tischendorf, who on his part treated the affair with ridicule and contempt, as it merited. However, the matter

• Guardian of September 3, copied in J. S. L., October, 1862, p. 248.

cir

was seriously taken up in this country, and discussed in sundry journals, and elsewhere. Nor is there any knowing how long it might have gone on but for the manifest prevarications and misstatements of Simonides himself. Little by little he altered and added to his original story till it remained no longer the same, except in this, that he wrote the Codex Sinaiticus at Mount Athos. Among other mistakes which he made, he procured a letter to some of the papers, avowedly written by Callinicus Hieramonachos of Alexandria, endorsing and attesting his statements. It so happened that at a crowded and most influential meeting of the Royal Society of Literature, on February 11th, learned gentlemen were enabled to compare an acknowledged letter of Simonides with that of the supposed Callinicus. These letters were found to be written on paper of a peculiar character precisely the same in all respects in both. Not only so; the handwriting was palpably from one and the same pen. The inference will be anticipated: it was that Simonides had invented the mythical personage Callinicus, and had written the letter bearing his name. This letter he had sent to some confederate at Alexandria, by whom perhaps he has been supplied with fragments of papyrus for his operations, and by whom it had been returned to England through the post. Here we presume ended the serious discussion of the claims of Mr. Simonides. We will only add a fact or two. Simonides had asserted in a letter to the Guardian, and in a similar letter to the Literary Churchman, that he wrote the Sinaitic Codex on 1206 pages in eight months. But at the close of the meeting in question, he affirmed, through his interpreter and to the writer of this paper, that he had nowhere published any such statement, but that he had stated twenty months. This is what we call prevarication, to use the mildest term. If he had written the 1206 pages in the eight months as he said, and we allow him two hundred working days in that time, he must have written six pages daily. Some of the pages have two columns, and others four, but altogether there would be about 4,500 columns of forty-eight lines each. The number of lines would be about 216,000, or more than one thousand lines of uncial writing per day. The total number of letters would be considerably over 3,000,000, reckoning the lines as all of fourteeen letters each, which is the case with the short lines only of four columns to the page. We may safely say that in reality there must be 4,000,000 of letters-all uncials-for the 200 days, or 20,000 a day. If six hours a day are given for work, we have 3333 for

d See the extracts at the end of the present number of J. S. L.

As every

every hour, and about fifty-five for every minute. letter is separately formed, and, except I, requires two, three, and four movements or strokes of the pen, it will be seen that not less than 120 strokes must have been made every minute. Finally, we have compared the avowed uncials of Simonides with some of the fac-similes in Dr. Tischendorf's edition, and we venture to say very decidedly that the letters are not all formed by the same kind of stroke or movement of the hand. We hope these minutia will not weary the reader, but it seemed as well to put them on record. There are many other things connected with this question which have interested us apart from the claims of Simonides. Upon one page of the fac-similes we find a copy of an inscription by one Dionysius,-no doubt the Dionysius to whom we owe the one of the same name, whom Mr. Simonides calls the "professional caligrapher" of Panteleemon, at Mount Athos. This Dionysius wrote a wretched, crabbed, cursive hand, and was undoubtedly among the living many centuries back. There is another autograph of one Hilarion, and to this we trace the "Deacon Hilarion" of Simonides. But Hilarion also has unquestionably been among the blessed for several hundred years. There are also other autographs which we pass over at present. While we are alluding to the writing of the Codex we may observe, that not only is the text itself apparently written by different persons (Dr. Tischendorf says four) but it has been corrected and written upon by several others. The correctors belong to ages widely apart, some of them being comparatively recent. The marginal annotations, or inscriptions, also belong to different periods, and among them we find not only Greek uncials and cursives, but Arabic sentences of considerable antiquity. That all these corrections and additions, bearing the marks of so many different ages, have been introduced within the last twenty years or so,— rather, were all introduced between 1841 and 1844,-no man who knows anything of palæography will believe. If they are forgeries they wear a very honest face, and surpass in extent and variety all other recorded forgeries. In the portions of the work recovered by Tischendorf, there are notes of fifteen thousand or more of these things. To fancy that the monks of Mount Athos were in collusive league with those of Mount Sinai to produce the most extraordinary specimen of literary forgery the world ever saw, is to ascribe to them an amount of skill and want of honesty which they have not yet had credit for; though this is what Simonides does not now blush to insinuate rather than assert. That this extraordinary feat to produce and half destroy such a work was a net spread for a man who was all but