I blogged the new on-line version of the Codex Sinaiticus a while ago. The 694 pages in the British Library, 86 in Leipzig University Library, 36 in St Catherine’s Monastery Sinai, and 8 in the National Library of Russia are now re-united virtually.
A small exhibition (see left) is free and open to all at the British Library (next to St Pancras Station, London), and an interview with Scot McKendrick, curator at the British Library, about it all is online here.
Two exhibits caught my eye. The first was a copy of the advertisement issued to raise funds to buy the bulk of the manuscript for the British Museum (where the British Library then was).
The second was a reconstruction of the technique used to bind the codex – with the parchment leaves formed into quires, which were then stitched together between solid wooden boards. The basic process is common from late antiquity onwards, though different places and times have different approaches to the detail.
The key point here, though, is not the technique but that once bound, the volume was ‘fixed’. A cupboard full of scrolls and loose leaves is one thing – a bound book is another. So a new technology brought with it a new approach to the ‘Canon’ of Scripture: it was now going to be much clearer what was in and what was not, what was orthodox and reliable, and what not so much so.
Scroll on (if you’ll forgive the pun) to the present day, and here is a new angle on a very contemporary debate. How firm should be boundary of the church be? At the moment our focus is on issues of sexuality, and behind those lie questions of authority, behind which in turn lie questions of orthodoxy and ultimately salvation. Every age will have such issues to wrestle with. Do we respond with a tightly bound definition of the faith and the church, very clear as to what and who is in and out? Do we look for the best text, core faith, that we can, but control how it is read and used very gently, more concerned to reach out than shut out? Or do we prefer a cupboard to a book, a place where we can all rootle, and even add and subtract contents, but share the quest together?
I have a feeling that how we answer those questions may be as important for how we end up as how we answer the specific questions of doctrine and morality that we face.
Let the final word go to the Codex though. A key touchstone for me is that we are all doing our best to let the Scriptures speak, and the website offers us significant new tools for this. Here’s a screenshot of what you’ll find:
Highlighted is Matthew 6.:28: “Consider the lilies of the field”. Bottom right is the English text. Above it is the actual Greek of the Codex. To the left is the handwriting itself, and you can zoom in and add different lighting too.
In this case the boxed Greek word AUXANOUSIN turns out to have been altered from an earlier word, while that was still wet. It formerly read OU XENOUSIN. Not a big change: but the earlier version means “they do not card” instead of “how they grow”. Also not a big change perhaps, but then a bit more rootling and you’ll discover that the Greek (but not the larger Coptic) version of the Gospel of Thomas has the ‘card’ version of the text, if that has been read correctly. So how do the different versions and traditions link together; who thought what was right and what was not; and why? What is in, and what is out? We’re back with our main debate – and the realisation that though in the vast majority of cases Scripture has a clear text and clear meaning, serious study of it throws up some conundrums too.
Filed under: Christianity, Thoughts for the Day, Bible, British Library, Codex Sinaticus
![Reblog this post [with Zemanta]](http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=4856b4a0-c668-4ebe-9586-8ff46fc6fe03)
It’s rather late at night – but as the day has gone by I’ve found myself reflecting more on those names in Romans 16.
