# Talk:Codex Sinaiticus

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)

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)

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)
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)

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)

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

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)

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)
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)
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)