Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

Tischendorf had connections in the Russian government, and they supported his trip to Sinai.

Uspensky was also a major figure in the Russian world, and wrote specifically about his trips to Sinai.

Uspensky’s first book that describes the Sinai manuscript, including problematic readings, was published in 1856. So Tischendorf had years to come up to speed.

The possibility that Tischendorf did not know about the Uspensky trip and book is extremely slim. However, it did not n\match his tissues of lies narratives, so he played pretend.

Like Simonides, the more stuff you make up, the more difficulty you create for yourself. ☝️😉
 
What’s funny is Daniels’s conspiracy theory requires a minuscule eschatological position (pretrib premil dispensationalism) to be correct for his opinion to even work.
Exactly.

This follows immediately after the excerpt I provided, and ends the chapter:

"But it’s not hopeless. There is the bright side: You can trust ONE Bible —in English, it is the King James Bible; 400+ years tried, tested and proven. And it was never “found,” because it was never lost in the first place."

So we should fear a one world Bible, unless that one Bible for the world is the KJV.

Just one more in a long line of "Supreme Ironies," which I began enumerating in a discussion with everyone's favorite canned response man, Will Kinney, over at the old AV1611 God's Word forum years ago.
 
Last edited:
Exactly.

This follows immediately after the excerpt I provided, and ends the chapter:

"But it’s not hopeless. There is the bright side: You can trust ONE Bible —in English, it is the King James Bible; 400+ years tried, tested and proven. And it was never “found,” because it was never lost in the first place."

So we should fear a one world Bible, unless that one Bible for the world is the KJV.

Just one more in a long line of "Supreme Ironies," which I began enumerating in a discussion with everyone's favorite canned response man, Will Kinney, over at the old AV1611 God's Word forum years ago.
I suppose the KJVOs hold to a kind of substitute belief of infallibility on earth (i.e. in the KJV). However the bible teaches sufficiency on earth, not infallibility, which is reserved for heaven.
 
Like Simonides, the more stuff you make up, the more difficulty you create for yourself. ☝️😉

You simply have your head in the sand. Christfried Bottrich even explains how the Russian administration was well aware of the Uspensky experiences before they gave Tischendorf the $$$ for Sinai.

There was no mystery in Russia about Uspensky and the manuscript, including the NT, before 1859. He put it all in his books.

However, there are many Tischen-dupes.

And you simply do not know the history.

Remember, too that Tischendorf was nervous about Simonides on his way to Sinai.
 
You simply have your head in the sand. Christfried Bottrich even explains how the Russian administration was well aware of the Uspensky experiences before they gave Tischendorf the $$$ for Sinai.

There was no mystery in Russia about Uspensky and the manuscript, including the NT, before 1859. He put it all in his books.

However, there are many Tischen-dupes.

And you simply do not know the history.

Remember, too that Tischendorf was nervous about Simonides on his way to Sinai.

He wasn’t nearly as nervous as you are about debate. Then again, if all I could do was cherry pick authors and misquote them, I’d….actually I’d run scared, too, now that I think about it. Fortunately, unlike you, I learned how to do more than grab tabloid quotes and come to the wrong conclusion.
 
And now this pathetic lonely and miserable old man continues to make a fool of himself, apparently NOT KNOWING THERE’S A WAR ONGOING:

Dear Dr. Gertsman,

We are studying Codex Sinaiticus through the eyes of Porfiry Uspenskly.

This information for us is new.

82. Remarkable manuscripts in the libraries of the Sinai Monastery and in the archbishop's cells there// Collection of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. No. 136.1.

82. Замечательные рукописи в библиотеках Синайского монастыря и в архиепископских кельях там// Сборник Императорской Академии Наук. № 136.1.

Apparently there is a lot about Codex Sinaiticus there, especially pages 3 to 22.

Can you help describe what this represents, eg. was it notes from the 1850 visit?

And how would it be possible to have access?
We can get the Russian translated, as we did with material from the 1856 books.

Any help appreciated!

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
(347) 218-3306

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


Her reply:


Hello, dear Mr. Avery!

Regarding your studying Codex Sinaiticus through the eyes of Porfiry Uspensky.
I was engaged in the creative biography and scientific heritage of Porfiry Uspensky many years ago - 18 years ago. Since then, the range of my scientific historical interests has changed a lot. But that's not even the problem. The fact is that I have not lived in Russia for a long time, and in connection with the present Russian aggression against Ukraine, I don’t even visit Russia now. And I don't know if I'll ever be there in the future. Therefore, I will not be able to help you access the materials you are interested in.
I wish you every success in your scientific research.
Sincerely
Ekaterina Gertsman
 
However, there are many Tischen-dupes.
The entire world is a Tischen-dupe in your eyes, including the Russian Orthodox church, the Russian government, and every biblical scholar. Only your own dupes are given credence by you. The fact is, it is you who can't prove a single thing: "always learning but never able to acknowledge the truth" (2 Tim 3:7).
 
More on Arabic glosses from p.118 Parker:

"Another note provides a date before which the note must have been written. Across the bottom of Q90-F4r, probably annotating 8.1 onwards, is a long comment explaining the prophecy of the seventh seal ([....] indicates unreadable text):

And at the beginning of the seventh thousand a persecution [of Christians] will take place. They say that [other] martyrs, who were martyred on the Messiah's lance [...] Then peace and calmness will come and the number of holy men increase. Their [...] will be eleveated and will compel them to appear in front of the Lord. And as a consequence will appear then a star of the Arabs, which looks like hellebore, will appear [...] This star is called afsintis, which is absinth, It will fall into the water and many [...]​
The seventh thousand is probably a reference to the date in the Byzantine calendar, which would be 1491 AD. The word afsintis is a colloquial form, which may be associated with the Near Eastern drug trade. The spelling suggests that the writer was a Syrian.

Predictions that the world would end seven thousand year after its creation (1492 in the common reckoning) were made in the years after the fall of Constantinople in 1453. The first Patriarch under Ottoman rule, Gennadios II Scholariosm foretold that it would come on 1st Sept. This explains the glossator's interest in the Apocalypse, and gives an approximate date (after 1453 and before 1492) for the gloss.

The Arabic glosses are, unfortunately, the only evidence for the six hundred years between the 12th century glosses and the middle of the eighteenth century. It is highly probable that the Codex was in St. Catherine's Monastery throughout that period. There is certainly no evidence to the contrary, and the presence of native Arabic speakers there is perfectly natural.

From the ninth century, the change in Greek script from majuscule to minuscule meant that fewer and fewer people were able to read the older scripts, until at last manuscriptys like the Codex became useless. It was common enough for the parchment to be scaped down and reused (as was the case with the Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus). From this point on, Codex Sinaticus is unlikely to have been used regularly."
 
Last edited:
Upenski viewed the Codex Sinaiticus as heretical.

"In 1863 Upenski published a bad-tempered attack on the manuscript, observing that 'the people looked affectionately on the relic of Sinaitic antiquity, and kissed it devoutly, knowing nothing of its heretical origin, neither perceiving any foul odour from it'. (The supposed heresy is due to the text's differences from the Byzantine text of later centuries.)" p.140 Parker.
 
So you do not know what Tischendorf actually wrote.

No surprise.

Are you implying Tischendorf wrote the Arabic notes in the Sinaiticus "after 1850"👉?👈

If it wasn't Simonides, then who are you saying put the Arabic notes in the Sinaiticus "after 1850"👉?👈

As I pointed out earlier, if Uspensky is not even noticing the Arabic notes, then it is likely that they were put on the manuscript after 1850.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-13#post-1006128
 
Last edited:
If it wasn't Simonides, then who put the Arabic notes in the Sinaiticus "after 1850"?

It's your theory...own it...

Ockham’s Razor: Uspenski didn’t do a detailed examination of the entire manuscript and either didn’t notice these or didn’t think anything unusual about it.

( Reminder that the same dolt who, when it’s the Comma Johanneum says just because it isn’t quoted doesn’t mean anything, NOW uses an argument from silence and draws his predetermined conclusion)!

Complicated argument: they weren’t there and someone (who and why and when?) put them in after 1850. What’s the reason? To make it look older? I mean, he’s gone full Oliver Stone here where everyone on planet earth BUT Oswald (Simonides in this case)is guilty.

There’s always a reason people like this never say exactly what they mean: it’s called fear of being laughed at. (It’s why Cochran wouldn’t come out and say “the LAPD and the prosecutors and the forensics and the labs all conspired to frame OJ.” He said that exact thing - but far more flowery to avoid the obvious ridicule and laughter that we are all directing at the OJ Simonides lawyer here).
 
Back
Top