Tue Sep 10 09:28:13 1996

From owner-tc-list  Tue Sep 10 09:28:13 1996
Return-Path: 
Received: by scholar.cc.emory.edu (SMI-8.6/SMI-SVR4)
	id JAA09634; Tue, 10 Sep 1996 09:27:09 -0400
X-Sender: waltzmn@popmail.skypoint.com
Message-Id: 
In-Reply-To: 
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Date: Tue, 10 Sep 1996 08:20:24 -0700
To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
From: "Robert B. Waltz" 
Subject: Re: text-type of Sinaiticus
Sender: owner-tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: tc-list@scholar.cc.emory.edu
content-length: 1208

On Tue, 10 Sep 1996, "James R. Adair" 

>I'm writing a brief article on Codex Sinaiticus, and I want to verify the
>information that I have concerning the textual affinities of Codex
>Sinaiticus.  In the OT, the sources I have looked at say that it is
>basically Old Greek (where that has been determined), generally inferior
>to B, but sometimes superior (e.g., in 1 Chron, Esdras B, & the prophets).
>
>In the NT, Sinaiticus is generally counted among the Alexandrian witnesses.
>However, Fee argues that it is Western in John 1-8.  Are there any other
>caveats?

I would add that, in the gospels, Aleph, while Alexandrian, aligns more
with Z and the later minuscules than with p75-B-T-L-sa.

In Paul, Aleph is Alexandrian, standing with A C 33, but does *not*
belong with p46-B-sa (Zuntz's proto-Aleandrian group) or with 1739.

In the Catholics, it is, again, Alexandrian, but stands apart from
p72-B and also from the bulk of later witnesses (A 33 81 436 etc.).
(Note that C is *not* Alexandrian in the Catholics; it goes with 1241
and family 1739.)

In the Apocalypse, Aleph goes with p47 against the purer Alexandrian
text of A C vg etc.

Bob Waltz
waltzmn@skypoint.com

Back