Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

Does this photo show a color difference between the Codex Sinaiticus on the CSP website, and the Nikolas Saris Codex Sinaiticus fragment found inside a book cover?

Image violtions
 

Attachments

  • Cap 1e12_11zon.png
    Cap 1e12_11zon.png
    292.9 KB · Views: 82
Last edited by a moderator:
Or is it simply photographic (digital and/or film) differences?

Cap 1e12_11zon.png

Cap 1e12a_11zon.png

Perhaps internet host website color display differences when I took the screenshots?

Cap 1e14_11zon.png

Perhaps VGA color differences on my monitor? Or software differences?

Perhaps it was different digital color settings on the PDF's that I took the screenshots from?
 
cjab said:
I am acknowledging the Moorhead comment as very ambiguous. Given the lack of any authority Moorhead cites for my interpretation, your interpretation is probably the only realistic one.
Click to expand...

As confirmed by John Moorhead:

August 4, 2024
Dear Steven,

Thank you for your inquiry. The note was intended to indicate that the comma was an addition to the text of the Bible, not to the Book of the Catholic Faith. So its presence in the latter is early evidence for its having been added to the former.
I hope this helps!

all best,
John
 
Steven Avery said:
Tischendorf’s major 1859 handiwork in Jouvenia
Click to expand...

Where's your documentary proof he was "working" specifically "on the Codex Sinaiticus" in the Juvania compound in 1859?

Can you narrow this down to specific days and months in 1859 for your claim? And show clearly and lucidly the basis upon which you make this claim?

Tischendorf diary entries? Tischendorf letters?

Where's your physical evidence and/or documentary evidence that the Juvania monks were manufacturing manuscript codexes and books with ancient parchment scraps in the pastedowns and bindings in 1859, and specifically between 1859 and 1861, which has indisputably dated by qualified experts (e.g. Nikolas Sarris etc) to between the required date range of 1859 and 1861?

I'll hazard a bet that you've got nothing in the way of physical evidence to back your claim with the kind of required evidence mentioned in the sentence above 👆

Or is this more of your usual ghost story's, old wives tale's, myth level speculation without real substance, which you've made up a lying story about?

Anecdotal evidence, circumstantial evidence, or just quoting Kevin McGrane saying that Tischendorf was in "Cairo" (= general area, but not specific) in 1859, just doesn't cut it...not to mention you are dishonestly twisting and misrepresenting his material wickedly by doing this!
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Where's your documentary proof he was "working" specifically "on the Codex Sinaiticus" in the Juvania compound in 1859?
Click to expand...

Kevin McGrane covers this as the Cairo locale on his Cooper paper.

p. 40
– Tischendorf had to travel to Cairo to see Vitalius' superior to overrule him, and only then was the Codex transported to the monastery's metochion in Cairo for copying over a number of months.
Click to expand...

(Note: there are reasons to be skeptical about how the manuscript got to Cairo. It was reported that Tischendorf first ran off with the manuscript, using the Russian Consulate as his first destination. David W. Daniels pointed out that Tischendorf’s timeline fails.)

p. 43
… Porphyrius brought with him from Sinai some fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus itself,91 containing portions of Genesis and of Numbers.92

91 Strictly, the leaf from Numbers came from the monastery's metochion [= associated compound] in Jouvanie, Cairo . Uspensky removed it in 1861.

92 Scrivener, A Full Collation of the Sinaitic MS with the Received Text of the New Testament (1864). The relevant quotation here from Scrivener is repeated in JK Elliott's work Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair, p.51 ...
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Here we have a fascinating tidbit from Kevin McGrane:

p.59
There are grounds for believing that there was collaboration between Simonides and the Russian government, who had a motive to create a temporary distraction over the Codex among the English. The Russian government certainly had materials by late 1859 and 1860 that they could have copied to Simonides to support an assignment. Further details about this collaboration will be given in a separate publication (in preparation).
Click to expand...
 
p. 43
… Porphyrius brought with him from Sinai some fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus itself,91 containing portions of Genesis and of Numbers.92

91 Strictly, the leaf from Numbers came from the monastery's metochion [= associated compound] in Jouvanie, Cairo . Uspensky removed it in 1861.
Click to expand...

What was the date of production for this book (or books) that Uspensky found both the Genesis and Numbers fragments in?

Can you even identify this/these book/books?

I've seen no proof from you at all (let alone a qualified source;)) that these were books (or manuscripts/codexes) were created in that specific date range (between 1859 and 1861).

And it's not enough to find a quote saying there was book production going on at that time, you HAVE TO have the date and name (catalogue entry etc etc) of the very same book that Uspensky took the fragments from.

Until then, you're fabricating false stories and spouting nothing but unverified speculation.
 
Steven Avery said:
What info do you have on the source of the Genesis fragment?
Click to expand...

Not much further ahead to be honest. I'll tell you what I do (honestly) know, as of today, about the source manuscript from which Uspensky says he peeled it from.

It's only three things (nothing to get excited about).
  • It was written in Greek
  • It's described loosely as a book. Which is obviously a manuscript (handwritten), because it's said to be in his (i.e. Uspensky's) Juvania "manuscript" catalogue.
  • It's a secular work. So, not a religious subject.
The rest, i.e. quotes and other people's remarks, we've discussed already several times.

You?

Can you reveal everything you know about this... honestly? Without hiding or holding back anything?

Perhaps you put us all out of our misery with a link to the digitised manuscript online?
 
Uspensky fragment from Genesis

Q3-f4r
Genesis, 23:19 - 24:20 library: NLR folio: Greek 259 and 2 = CSRU F1 and F5 scribe: D
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...olioNo=3&lid=en&quireNo=3&side=v&zoomSlider=0

Q3-f4v
Genesis, 24:23 - 24:46 library: NLR folio: Greek 259 and 2 = CSRU F1v and F5v scribe: D
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...olioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=3&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Note that this is contiguous to the New Finds Genesis fragment

Q3-f3r
Genesis, 21:26 - 22:17 library: SC folio: scribe: D
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...olioNo=1&lid=en&quireNo=0&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Q3-f3v
Genesis, 22:21 - 23:16 library: SC folio: scribe: D
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...olioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=3&side=r&zoomSlider=0

This is one of many powerful evidences that the New Finds was "in play" in that 1845-1859 era.

As acknowledged also by David Charles Parker.

=================================

The connection of this with book-binding is almost surely wrong. This goes back to a Tischendorf 1867 comment that is referenced by Swete, where the Uspensky Genesis and Numbers fragments were spoken of together.

An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek: The history of the Greek Old Testament and of its transmission (1900)
Henry Barclay Swete
https://books.google.com/books?id=U9Y8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA130

Lastly in 1867 Tischendorf completed his task by printing in his Appendix Codicum certain fragments of Genesis and Numbers which had been discovered by the Archimandrite Porfirius in the bindings of other Sinai MSS 2

2 Cf. Tischendorf's remarks in Litt.C.-Blatt 1867 (27).
Click to expand...

The Tischendorf comment may be here:


Appendix Codicum (1867)
Prolegomena
Tischendorf
archive.org

Appendix codicum celeberrimorum sinaitici, vaticani, alexandrini. Cum imitatione ipsorum antiqua manu scriptorum nunc primum ed. : Tischendorf, Constantin von, 1815-1874, editor : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

xx, 52 pages : facsimile ; 44x41 cm
archive.org
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
Parker's hypothesis is complete speculation and there is no evidence Tischendorf or anyone else knew about the New Finds Room.
Click to expand...

This may help you.

Steven Avery said:
Uspensky fragment from Genesis

Q3-f4r
Genesis, 23:19 - 24:20 library: NLR folio: Greek 259 and 2 = CSRU F1 and F5 scribe: D
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...olioNo=3&lid=en&quireNo=3&side=v&zoomSlider=0

Q3-f4v
Genesis, 24:23 - 24:46 library: NLR folio: Greek 259 and 2 = CSRU F1v and F5v scribe: D
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...olioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=3&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Note that this is contiguous to the New Finds Genesis fragment

Q3-f3r
Genesis, 21:26 - 22:17 library: SC folio: scribe: D
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...olioNo=1&lid=en&quireNo=0&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Q3-f3v
Genesis, 22:21 - 23:16 library: SC folio: scribe: D
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...olioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=3&side=r&zoomSlider=0

This is one of many powerful evidences that the New Finds was "in play" in that 1845-1859 era.

As acknowledged also by David Charles Parker.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
What lying story are you to concoct now?

Are you going to invent imagined events to fit your faulty theory?

That's what he's busy doing right now "folks"!

Desperately trying to fill in the gaps in Simonides lying story's with his very own patented LYING stories...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top