TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Uspensky viewed the Sinaiticus from the "fifth century".
And genuinely ancient.
And genuinely ancient.
More interesting material from Cjab.
_________________
I suggest that after the monks had become apprised of the potential value of this codex from Tischendorf, they had put as many disparate parts back together again that they could find (i.e. before Uspensky's 1845 visit). According to Uspensky, Tischendorf was never given access to the "precious manuscripts" in 1844, so how could he have stolen any?
Where is the evidence that Tischendorf was accused of theft by the monks of St. Catherine's?We have knowledge of various manuscripts Tischendorf stole, including the 43 leaves, so he had access to those manuscripts, perhaps with an accomplice.
There is no actual evidence for the monks gathering together disparate parts of the manuscript, this is only one of the cover stories to go with the Tischendorf theft.
Where is the evidence that Tischendorf was accused of theft by the monks of St. Catherine's?
May be your visceral hatred of Tischendorf needs a thread so we can explore the motivations. Unfortunately, until we receive a formal complaint from the monks of theft, we can't credit any of your allegations. Of course the monks became fully aware of what Tischendorf had taken. We await the allegation of theft from these monks.The most successful thefts are those where the mark is not aware of what is taken.
There are so many Tischendorf thefts they need separate threads.
Giulia Rossetto about one of the 1844 thefts, an Arabic palimpsest with a Greek undertext.
“Afterwards, in 1844. some leaves of the codex (at least 28) left the Monastery in Konstantin Tischendorfs suitcase.”
. Of course the monks became fully aware of what Tischendorf had taken.
Which palimpsest? Codex Sinaiticus is not a palimpsest. Did the monks conclude upon whatever discovery you allude to, that Tischendorf was a thief?Nope. The theft of the palimpsest was hidden for more than 130 years, when fragments remaining at St. Catherine’s were found in the New Finds dump room.
And if all this haphazard stuff was extracted from the basket, with the permission of the librarian Cyril, then who are you to complain?This palimpsest starts with the Tischendorf report from 1844.
“He also possesses 24 palimpsest folia with Arabic writing of the 12th century and Greek of the 8-9th century ; further, 4 similar palimpsest folia ; and finally, amongst other less significant things, 4 mutilated folia of a Greek New Testament of the 7-8th century”
This was not a public letter, it was only recently published, and the New Finds was way in the future.
And if all this haphazard stuff was extracted from the basket, with the permission of the librarian Cyril, then who are you to complain?
Tell us why Cyril didn't denounce Tischendorf as a thief? Because, as he knew, these old parchments really were being consigned to the flames.Tell us all about anything Cyril wrote about approving Tischendorf taking manuscripts in 1844.
Tell us why Cyril didn't denounce Tischendorf as a thief?
But you're living in a world of unremitting speculation: no facts, just incessant propaganda. Actually it's gets wearisome after a while. This isn't scholarship as we know it. Treating people's reputations as expendable is not a good trait, even when they are dead. Some sins, if they were committed, you have to let God be the judge. Otherwise you end up destroying yourself.Even if he was not on the take, he could not denounce invisible thefts, thefts that he knew nothing about.
But you're living in a world of unremitting speculation: no facts, just incessant propaganda. Actually it's gets wearisome after a while. This isn't scholarship as we know it. Treating people's reputations as expendable is not a good trait, even when they are dead. Some sins, if they were committed, you have to let God be the judge. Otherwise you end up destroying yourself.
Why are you, with a vendetta against Tischendorf, the only one to consider this theft proven?What psycho-babble gibberish. It is important that Tischendorf stole the 1844 section of what was later part of Sinaiticus, and you are upset that the evidence of that theft and others is so massive.
This is important not because of personal feelings toward Tischendorf, or Simonides, but simply to unravel the true history.
What psycho-babble gibberish. It is important that Tischendorf stole the 1844 section of what was later part of Sinaiticus, and you are upset that the evidence of that theft and others is so massive.
This is important not because of personal feelings toward Tischendorf, or Simonides, but simply to unravel the true history.