What are Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus?

Codex Alexandrinus (A). This important manuscript was given by Cyril Lucar, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Charles I. of England. It was placed in the British Museum in 1753, where it is now exhibited, in a glass case, in the Manuscript room. This manuscript also contains the Old Testament. The New Testament is complete, except Matthew 1:1 to 25:6; John 6:50 to 8:52 (two leaves); 2 Corinthians 4:13 to 12:6 (3 leaves). It is in quarto, about 13 inches by 10, having two columns on a page. This differs from א and B in having larger initial letters, and it has, the Ammonian Sections and the Eusebian Canons, complete. Scholars are pretty well agreed in fixing its date in the fifth century. Because of its importance it has been published in full.

Codex Vaticanus (B). This valuable manuscript is in the Vatican Library at Rome (whence its name). It is mentioned in the earliest existing catalogue (1475), but how much sooner it was in the library, or what is its previous history, no one knows. As to age and value, it stands about on a par with Codex Sinaiticus, some giving the Vatican copy the preference, and some the Sinaitic. It is a quarto volume of 146 leaves, ten and a half inches by ten. It has three columns on a page. Its total want of larger initial letters, the fineness of the vellum, and the absence of the Ammonian Sections, point out its antiquity. A later hand (judged to be about the eighth century), has retraced nearly the whole of the manuscript, who, made alterations, adding initial letters, breathings, accents, and points.

The Codex Sinaiticus. As this is the last-discovered Greek manuscript of great value, we give its history. The finding of it is remarkable. Professor Tischendorf was travelling in 1844, under the patronage of the king of Saxony, in search of manuscripts. At the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, he espied in a waste paper basket some odd leaves of vellum, which turned out to be a part of the Old Testament in Greek. The style, etc., convinced him that they were of very early date, and so were of great value, and yet here they were placed in a basket of waste paper, destined to light the fire in the stove. These were readily given to Tischendorf, and consisted of forty-three leaves. He learnt that there were more of these leaves but, on his telling the monks that probably they dated back as far as the fourth century, they were immediately taken away, and he was only allowed to copy one leaf more than he had already.

He carried it to St. Petersburg, and the Emperor of Russia, at a great expense, had an elegant edition printed, in commemoration of the thousandth anniversary of his kingdom. Cheaper editions were also published, that none might be debarred the privilege of knowing its contents. It proved to be one of the oldest, and so one of the most valuable, of all our Greek Testaments. It is called Sinaiticus, because it was found in the convent at Mount Sinai.

The late revisers were in a much better position to construct an accurate Greek text than were those nominated by King James. Valuable MSS. and other sources of information have of late years been at the disposal of our Biblical critics, which have been largely taken advantage of by pious and learned men. The three oldest and most valuable of our Biblical MSS. were unknown to the translators of King James' time. The "Codex A," now in the British Museum, was presented to Charles I. in 1628, about 24 years after the Authorised Version was begun, and 17 years after it was finished. The "Codex B," now in the Vatican at Rome — perhaps the oldest MS. in existence — was only collated early this century, and published in 1858. The jealousy of the Papacy has hitherto practically debarred scholars from access to, and careful collation of, this valuable and venerable document. The "Codex Sinaiticus," discovered in 1859 by Professor Tischendorff, and now deposited in St. Petersburg. The first is supposed to date from the 5th century; the two latter from the 4th century. On the whole, therefore, the high expectations formed by many have not been realised, expectations based upon the rich and accumulated stores which the revision company of 1881 might have used, and which the revision company of 1611, not exceeding half their number, had nothing like in quantity or value.

Century. א <span style="font-size: 14pt; font-family: 'H ebraica'">a</span> Sinaiticus IV. The whole of the New Testament. A Alexandrinus V. The whole, but defective in places. B Vaticanus IV. Matthew to Hebrews 9:14, including the Catholic Epistles, which are inserted, as in other early MSS, after the Acts. Timothy, Titus, Philemon and the Revelation are lacking. B Basilianus VIII. Also called Vaticanus 2066, contains the Revelation. C Ephraemi V. Portions of the whole; about two thirds of N.T. altogether. D Bezae VI. Nearly all the Gospels and Acts. Greek and Latin. D Claromontanus VI. Paul's Epistles. Greek and Latin. E Laudianus VI. Most of the Acts. Greek and Latin. P Porphyrianus IX. The Acts, the Epistles and the Revelation.

The Sinai MS. (Aleph) stands alone in presenting the entire new Testament. All others of nearly equal antiquity are more or less defective. Thus the Alexandrian (A) wants the first twenty-four chapters of Matthew, a portion of John's Gospel, and the central parts of 2 Corinthians: and the Vatican (B) has only to Hebrews. 9:14 (save that the Catholic epistles precede) and hence has neither the four pastoral Epistles nor the Revelation. The Ephraim Palimpsest of Paris (C) is a mere collection of fragments; and the Cambridge MS. of Beza (D of the Gospel and Acts) has only the first half of the New Testament in Greek and Latin. Others are as deficient or more so; many contain only some few leaves.

The faults of the Sinai MS. on the other hand are better known than those of any other MS. For it alone was thoroughly exposed to view as soon as possible after the date of its discovery. All the other great MSS. were renowned for years before they were accurately collated. Indeed it is only since the publication of the Sinai manuscript that we can be said to have a trustworthy knowledge of the Vatican, though its existence has been known since Sepulveda's correspondence with Erasmus. Again, on no MSS. whatever have the same minute pains been bestowed; though the same diligent Editor did beyond all his predecessors for the Codex Ephraem Rescriptus and many other MSS. of very great importance.

The oldest of the MSS. of the LXX go back to the fourth or fifth century, being the 'Sinaitic,' 'Vatican' and 'Alexandrian,' familiar to New Testament students; hence they are older than any Hebrew MSS., nevertheless are, as we have said, all Christian documents. The Sinaitic in the Old Testament is fragmentary; amongst its contents are the whole of Nehemiah and Esther, and most of Jeremiah.

In the papyrus scrolls the lines were very short, so as to be the more easily read as they were unrolled; but, when books instead of scrolls began to be made, the writing gradually took the form of longer lines. The Codex Sinaiticus is the nearest in appearance to the papyrus copies, having four columns on a page; the Codex Vaticanus has three; and the Alexandrinus has two. This however cannot be taken as a sure criterion of age, as manuscripts with three columns have been discovered as late as the eighth and ninth centuries. We believe the Codex Sinaiticus stands alone in having four columns. The length of the lines may be seen in our specimen on page 28. Four columns made a good size quarto page, which was the usual form for the earlier copies, a few being in folio, and some in octavo. The sheets were folded into small sections of a few leaves, each section being numbered on the first or last page.

But these marks varying in character as well as in shades of ink serve to confirm the remote age in which the manuscript was originally written; as its own chastely neat forms of letters, its punctuation, its simplicity in titles, and subscriptions, and other marks, akin to the Herculanean Papyri, point to quite as early a date as the famous Vat. MS. — about the middle of the fourth century. Thus the absence of larger letters at the beginning of sentences or paragraphs is peculiar, among New Testament documents, to Codd. Sinait. and Vatic. unless we add Evan. Nh. a fragment of John written in the same fourth century. The Sarravian Octateuch of the LXX. attributed to the fourth century confirms this; and some other witnesses quite as early. Then the four columns in each page is a strong indication of an age at least as great as Codd. Vat. 1290, the oldest rival known; for if Palaeologists have ever argued on the three columns in each page of it as a sign of its antiquity as compared with MSS. of two columns or only one, one may yet more confidently reason from the four columns of the Sinai MS., not to speak of the fineness of the skins. Nor is the accompaniment of Pseudo- Barnabas and Hermas a just ground of prejudice against the antiquity of N, for in the fourth century such an arrangement was probable, just as we know that A. (or Cod. Alex.) contains the famous letter of Clement to the Corinthians. Other external points of correspondence have been remarked between the Vat. and the Sinai MSS., but I only state the fact without descending to particulars.

As to peculiarity of internal character Tischendorf long pointed out the sameness of Codd. Sin. and Vat. as to Mark 16:9–20, and Ephesians 1:2; and Mr. S. adds Matthew 10:25; 1 Corinthians 13:3; James 1:17 where this coincidence can scarcely be deemed accidental. The same blunder in the last text, found only in K and B, is very notable. In other instances it agrees with no other single ancient copy (as A, C, or D) against the rest. Sometimes also it stands supported by one ancient version only, or the express statement of an early ecclesiastical writer. These facts I mention as proofs, not of its accuracy in these cases, but of its independence and antiquity.

It may be interesting to some to know that in the judgment of Tischendorf the Vatican MS. was written by one of his supposed four writers of the Sinai MS., namely D, the fourth. The reasons would hardly be suitable here. At the same time he does not think, as indeed is certain, that they were copied from the same manuscript, older than themselves. On the other hand, he gives ingenious reasons for the opinion that, not the Vatican, but the Sinai MS. was one of the fifty copies of scripture written "on skins in ternions and quarternions" (Vit. Const. iv, 37), which Eusebius prepared, A.D. 331, by the emperor's direction for his new Rome in the East — Constantinople.