"Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus"
Gorgias Press, 2007
$ 102 (Amazon)
70 years after Milne and Skeat published their work, Dirk
Jongkind refines the analysis significantly.
Unfortunately he did not analyze the block mixture in the
first chapters of John.
His most interesting suggestion is that of a forth scribe.
Here's an excerpt:
"In Matthew, the profile of his orthographic errors changes
The change in spelling in Matthew is interesting in the
light of scribal behaviour. Do alternative explanations
exist for this change? If we also consider that the pattern
of nomina sacra is slightly different for this book and that
the superscriptions for Matthew follow a pattern not seen in
the remaining Gospels, one starts to wonder if we are not
dealing with a different and as yet unrecognised scribe. We
could add two further arguments in favour of a fourth
scribe. Firstly, the so-called B corrections occur
predominantly in the Gospel of Matthew and could therefore
be allocated to this fourth scribe. Milne and Skeat ascribe
all these corrections to scribe A, but acknowledge that they
form a distinct group of corrections. However, if we apply
their criteria for distinguishing scribes to Matthew, we
find a much stronger argument. In Sribes and Correctors,
Milne and Skeat point out that the coronis a scribe uses at
the subscription of a book 'amounts to his signature.'
Interestingly, the coronis at the end of Matthew shows
indeed a pattern that is fundamentally different when
compared with scribe A's normal design and does not appear
at any other place in the manuscript. A good case can be
made for a fourth scribe who is responsible for the Gospel
of Matthew only and whose bookhand is virtually identical
with that of scribe A. This scribe would be only
distinguishable from scribe A by means of an analysis of his
orthography and by the coronis. However, none of the
palaeographic authorities has so far ever proposed a
different scribe for Matthew, and it may well be that an
explanation for the differences between Matthew and other
work by scribe A must be sought in some outside influence.
Possible factors may be a difference in the method of
copying, influence from the exemplar, or inconsistency in
scribal behaviour. The new investigation of the manuscript
undertaken by the British Library will hopefully solve the
problem of the scribe of Matthew, but at this moment one
cannot state that the existence of a new scribe has been
demonstrated beyond any doubt."
Many other interesting observations. I am still reading ...
Wieland Willker, Bremen, Germany