Read a manuscript label: matrix, source cards, and corrections
Use your browser’s Print command to print or save as PDF. This worksheet works offline after download; external sources need a connection. Read the companion guide
Original Bibleward worksheet. No collection image is reproduced. The examples document combinations, not their relative frequency.
A. Materials × formats matrix
| Material / format | Roll or scroll | Codex |
|---|---|---|
| Papyrus: plant-based writing material | Khay Hapy’s Book of the Dead, Princeton Pharaonic roll no. 9. Non-biblical Egyptian example, explicitly labelled papyrus scroll by Princeton. | Chester Beatty BP III f.6 (P47): Greek Revelation leaf, catalogued as papyrus and Folio / Bi-Folio (Codex). Its leaf contains Revelation 13:1–15. Collection record |
| Parchment: prepared animal skin | Scroll of Esther, Princeton Hebrew MS. 8. Record states parchment and scroll; tentative date and location retained in its source. Princeton record | Codex Sinaiticus: parchment leaves in book form. Project explanation |
B. Completed Codex Sinaiticus source card
| Field | Entry, with limits |
|---|---|
| Object name | Codex Sinaiticus |
| Collection number / identifier | Project-level identifier: Codex Sinaiticus. Individual institutional shelfmarks are not supplied by the overview pages used for this card; add the relevant shelfmark when using a specific catalogue record. |
| Holding institutions | British Library; Leipzig University Library; National Library of Russia; Saint Catherine’s Monastery. Joint history |
| Material | Parchment. Name and form |
| Format | Codex; surviving material is distributed among institutions. |
| Language | Greek. Significance |
| Surviving physical extent | Just over 400 leaves according to the content overview; not a count of the original volume. |
| Surviving content | Part of the Old Testament; complete New Testament; Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas. Content overview uses its own book-category terminology. |
| Copying date | Fourth century; sometimes dated to mid-century by the project. |
| Dating method / precision | Handwriting comparison (palaeography); exact year not supplied; numeric confidence not quantified. Date account |
| Scribes | Three undisputed scribes; possible fourth discussed. Personal names not supplied. Production account |
| Place of original copying | Not established by the pages used here. Sinai in the name records preservation history, not a verified copying location. |
| Modern history limit | Joint account acknowledges differing interpretations of parts of modern history; this card does not adjudicate ownership claims. |
| View used for this card | Project explanatory pages, not a fresh reading of every manuscript image. |
| Specific leaf / photograph locator | None selected. Add a quire, folio, and recto/verso identifier when using an individual image. |
| Source checked | 24 September 2026 |
C. Your own collection card
Copy the fields; “not stated” is a valid answer.
Object title: ______
Museum/library and catalogue number: ______
Stable catalogue link: ______
Material: ______
Original format: ______
Present condition: ______
Language and script, if given: ______
Surviving contents (book and passage where stated): ______
Copying date, keeping circa/ranges/question marks: ______
Dating method and stated uncertainty: ______
Text-composition date, if the source discusses it: ______
Discovery/acquisition/digitization dates, separately labelled: ______
View used: photograph / transcription / translation / catalogue description
Leaf/page locator: ______
Information the source does not supply: ______
Date I checked the source: ______
D. Four labels to repair
These sentences are deliberately wrong. Rewrite each using the evidence above.
“P47 is papyrus, so it cannot be a codex.”
“Codex Sinaiticus was copied in the fourth century, so all its biblical books were composed then.”
“This modern searchable transcription is a photograph of the manuscript.”
“Princeton received its Esther scroll in 1950, so the scroll was written in 1950.”
E. Answer key
Papyrus identifies material; codex identifies format. Chester Beatty describes BP III f.6 as both. The label’s two fields answer different questions.
The project’s fourth-century estimate concerns this copy. It does not supply all the included works’ composition dates. Keep those dates separate and leave composition dates unknown on this card.
A transcription is an editorial representation of written text. A photograph records the object’s appearance. The project transcription account explains this distinction and its checking process.
1950 is the gift date. Princeton’s record assigns a tentative seventeenth-to-nineteenth-century date to the parchment scroll. Preserve the uncertainty rather than choosing one year.
Final check: Can another reader follow your link and distinguish the facts recorded there from your own inference? ______
AI-assisted original educational worksheet. References identify textual contents, not quotations from those manuscripts. Modern BSB references were checked only for valid passage locations; BSB is not evidence for an ancient witness’s wording.