Fri Apr 19 09:28:58 1996

From majordom  Fri Apr 19 09:28:58 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (5.0/SMI-SVR4)
	id AA24697; Fri, 19 Apr 1996 09:28:58 +0500
Date: Fri, 19 Apr 1996 08:26:01 -0500 (CDT)
Message-Id: <199604191326.IAA04819@homer.bethel.edu>
X-Sender: holmic@mailhost.bethel.edu
X-Mailer: Windows Eudora Light Version 1.5.2
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: Michael Holmes 
Subject: Re: new leaves of Codex Sinaiticus?
Content-Length: 1470
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu

For the record, the 1975 discovery of MSS at St. Catherine's Monastery was
written up by Charlesworth in _The New Discoveries in St. Catherines's
Monastery: A Preliminary Report on the Manuscripts_ (ASORMS 3; ASOR, 1981).
In this report he reports, among other things, the discovery of at least 8
and perhaps as many as 14 leaves of OT portions of Sinaiticus, and numerous
NT, patristic, and other MSS.  NA27 lists several MSS from the discovery:
0278, 0279, 0281, 0282, 0285 [connected with 081, interestingly], 0289,
0291, 0292, 0293 [linked with 089, 092a], 0294, 0296.  The intervening
numbers not listed in NA27 are, apparently, also MSS from the same find, but
for one reason or another not worth reporting in NA27.  All those listed are
dated in NA27 from the 6th to the 9th centuries.  Overall, it appears that
the patristic MSS were of far more interest than the biblical materials.

I suspect that recent queries about "new leaves of Sinaiticus" are an
outgrowth of garbled and/or poorly- remembered references to this 1975
discovery?

I confess to not having good bibliographic control of material appearing
since Charlesworth's 1981 publication.  If anyone knows of bibliography
relevant to this discovery that has appeared since 1981, perhaps they could
post it to the list.  Has a catalog of the discoveries ever been published?
Also, if our Muenster colleagues can update us in any respect, that would, I
am sure, be appreciated by the rest of the list.

Back