Talk:Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Sinaiticus has been listed as one of the Language and literature good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
January 6, 2009	Good article nominee	Listed
March 27, 2012	Peer review	Reviewed

Facts from this article were featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the "On this day..." column on February 4, 2005, February 4, 2006, February 4, 2007, February 4, 2008, February 4, 2009, February 4, 2010, February 4, 2011, February 4, 2013, February 4, 2014, February 4, 2016, February 4, 2017, February 4, 2019, and February 4, 2021.

Current status: Good article

Bible High‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

British Library Top‑importance

	This article is related to the British Library. Please copy assessments of the article from the most relevant WikiProject template to this one as needed.British LibraryWikipedia:GLAM/British LibraryTemplate:WikiProject British LibraryBritish Library-related articles
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Christianity Low‑importance

	Christianity portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Religion Low‑importance

	Religion portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.ReligionWikipedia:WikiProject ReligionTemplate:WikiProject ReligionReligion articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine Mid‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Archives

Archive 1

Arianism

Someone wrote that codex was written between 330–350 in Alexandria "during the peak of Arianism". Perhaps author of this words thought about Docetism, not Arianism, because Arianism was in the North of Byzantium and was connected with the Gothics. It was mistake, but I will answer: In Gospel of Matthew 27:49 was added this text: "The other took a spear and pierced His side, and immediately water and blood came out" (see John 19:34). The same textual variant we can find in Codex Vaticanus, Codex Ephraemi, Codex Regius, codex 036, 1010 and several other witnesses of the Alexandrian text-type. The peak of Docetism in Egypt was about A.D. 180, but Codex Sinaiticus was written in 4th century. Of course Docetism influenced into Alexandrian text-type (I gave an example), but Arianism into Byzantine text-type. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 02:03, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Athanasius was pursued out of Alexandria by the Arians; it wasn't just a belief of the north, although it persisted there longer! Ender's Shadow Snr (talk) 09:07, 31 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

On paper or animal skin? AND size of page?

So, is it paper or skins?

As it survives today, Codex Sinaiticus comprises just over 400 large leaves of prepared animal skin, each of which measures 380mm high by 345mm wide. On these parchment leaves ... http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/content.aspx Peter K Burian (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This book was made up of over 1,460 pages, each of which measured approximately 41cm tall and 36cm wide. https://www.bl.uk/collection-items/codex-sinaiticus According to the British Museum which houses the Codex. The article states about 40 by 70 cm.

BUT The Cambridge History of the Bible: The West - Page 78 says 40x35cm as do some other sources. How could they differ??? https://books.google.ca/books?id=hwgXAAAAIAAJ&q=Codex+Sinaiticus+cm+x+cm+pages&dq=Codex+Sinaiticus+cm+x+cm+pages&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjRyKCo8YvqAhVSg3IEHTTkBqAQ6AEIdDAJ

The World Today. Encyclopaedia Britannica... - Volume 1 - Page 40 The codex measures 43 cm x 37.8 cm . ... There are four columns on each page... Peter K Burian (talk) 17:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simonides/Eusebius/Arianism

The controversy seems to regard the misplaced use of the word 'fraud' or 'forgery' since it may have been a repaired text, a copy of the Septuagint based upon Origen's Hexapla, a text which has been rejected for centuries because of its lineage from Eusebius who introduced Arian doctrine into the courts of Constantine I and II.

This seems a little dogmatic regarding Eusebius and his Arian tendencies. Certainly the wikipedia entry for Eusebius and Arianism is more nuanced. Or does it reflect then-contemporary 1800s scholarship that the Hexapla-Eusebius-Arian link was felt to be stronger at the time?

--Rob Burbidge (talk) 13:20, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

editing vandalism

More editing vandalism - April 30, 2021 Bpier (talk) 02:27, 1 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]

New fragments supposedly found

The mention of the claim of Simonides having been allegedly disproven which has links to articles about some fragments-supposedly of "Sinaiticus"-found in book bindings allegedly done in the 18th century by a couple of monks, is insufficiently supported by those two articles. It is not clear that 1)These are truly fragments of Codex Sinaiticus, as that supposition was based merely on letter height and the way the columns were done. It is not as though Simonides-who had been to the monastery-would not have been able to copy this in his forgery. 2)That it is known beyond a shadow of a doubt when those books were rebound. At any rate, no proof of the date or manner of the rebinding is mentioned anywhere in either article. There is no conclusive disproof here. 207.244.205.106 (talk) 10:09, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both articles are sufficient references for the claim. Unless you have other published references which disprove that say, the fragment found in 2009 isn't from an 18th century book binding then there can be a counter claim. If not, then there's no issues with the references being used to support the claim. Can't forge something in the 19th century when parts of it are used in things the century prior. :) Stephen Walch (talk) 22:01, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No they're not. Both articles are basically some guy saying "trust me, bro" with insufficent details to prove that the fragments in the bindings are actually from Codex Sinaiticus. It isn't as if they even showed scans of it and how those scans fit together with portions of the other or discussed any other detailed proof. "Trust me, bro-I'm an expert" is insufficient. 207.244.205.106 (talk) 12:21, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a further ref confirming the find from 2009 from the actual person who discovered it (including a photo of the fragment). It links to their Academia page. Go question them there if you really have nothing better to do. The binding of Sinai Greek 2289 contains the page from Sinaiticus, and this is a manuscript securely dated to the first half of the 1700's (as this is a manuscript among several others which were bound in the same workshop at the monastery during that time). Let's not soil this talk page with more nonsense. Stephen Walch (talk) 17:42, 13 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]