Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

[Steven Avery]

The Sinaiticus manuscript originally contained 743 leaves.

Maybe, maybe not.

It certainly looks like the purpose of the manuscript was to influence New Testament textual theory. Thus every word of the New Testament is pristine, “perfect”. (Tischendorf)

One section in 1 Chronicles has double-text, there seems to be an aborted mess everywhere outside the NT and Barnabas.

Some critical pages ended up in the New Finds dump room.

We do not know the “original” production size.

 

[Steven Avery]

3) fact that Tisch fabricated the story 15 years later, in 1859, (covered well by Kevin McGrane) as a cover story for the 1844 theft. Since the connection of the two ms. would come out in public sometime.

Details given by Kevin McGrane:

Tischendorf’s unlikely personal account of his first visit to Sinai is often repeated—that in St Catherine’s monastery he came across leaves of a manuscript in a basket of materials ready to be burned and so rescued them from destruction—suggesting that the codex was considered of no value, a worthless manuscript merely fit for fuel.63 Tischendorf tried out this romantic story with the Emperor and Empress of Russia in.November 1859, and noticed that it excited shock and amazement.64 He repeated the story in a letter to the Archbishop of Sinai in April 1860, 65 and incorporated it in published works in Latin that same year. 66 It reached a more embellished form in 1862, when such a story would become very useful, and was disseminated in German, French, and English.67 However, the story is best considered as containing unreliable disinformation: few scholars believe it entirely, and it has the support of no witnesses, but the continual denial of the monks there that such ever was the case. Thankfully the tale is not actively promoted by the museums holding parts of the manuscript.

63 In private correspondence to his brother Julius on June 15, 1844, he merely states that as a result of his researches at St Catherine’s ‘I came into possession of’ (‘ich bin in den Besitzge langt von’) the 43 leaves, the propriety of which is hardly convincing. There is not the slightest mention of discovering them or finding them in a waste basket, or saving them from the fire.

64 Letter to his wife Angelika from St Petersburg, November 20, 1859.

65 Letter to Angelika, April 18, 1860, from St Petersburg. In Tischendorf’s account to Cyril the Archbishop of Sinai he states that he found the manuscript in a basket in the library in 1844. It is more than a little surprising that the Archbishop had to wait until 1860 to hear the account of the discovery in his own monastery, sixteen years after the event itself.

66 Tischendorf, Notitia editionis Codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici (Leipzig, 1860). Tregelles in a review of the latter work in 1861 gives the English reader the first taste of what is to become the ‘canonical’ Tischendorf account: the manuscript ‘was found (he states) in a basket with other fragments, destined for the fire by the monks.’ Tregelles sagaciously distanced himself a little by including the parenthetical ‘he states’, and with good reason: he had shown Tischendorf letters in 1850 detailing examination of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1845 by the Egyptologist and archaeologist Major Charles Kerr Macdonald, and Tischendorf had deceived Tregelles by positively denying its existence, i.e. Tischendorf claimed certain knowledge that the Codex was not at St Catherine’s (which in turn implies that Macdonald was fabricating), rather than he simply did not know whether it was there or not. When in 1862 Tregelles saw the manuscript for himself and compared it with Macdonald’s and Uspensky’s accounts, he knew for certain that Macdonald’s and Uspensky’s descriptions from 1845 were correct, and that Tischendorf had misled him for 13 years. It was these letters that mentioned the destruction of old manuscripts by fire, and Tischendorf later used that concept in a different sense to construct his account of the discovery with the romantic element of being saved from certain destruction, as well as justification for his rather dubious removal of the 43 leaves.

Another account (arguably earlier than the Notitia) is found in Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX Interpretes, 3rd edition (Leipzig, 1860), which mentions recovery from the basket of waste papers, but does not include mention of the fire.

67 The German original from which the ‘canonical’ versions were taken in English and French translation is Tischendorf’s Aus Dem Heilige Lande (Leipzig 1862), p.108, which reads

‘In der Mitte derm Bibliothek, deren Bücher und Handschriften ringsum auf Regalen aufgestellt waren, stand ein Korb
mit Bestell von verschiedenen alten theilweise verdorbenen handschriften, dergleichen schon zwei,Körbe voll als unbrauchbar ins Feuer geworfen worden waren. In diesem Korbe fand ich zur grössten.Ueberraschung mehrere Fragmente von einer griechischen Bibelbandschrift auf Pergament, in der ich.sogleich eine der ältesten, die es gibt, erkennen musste. Es gelang leicht die Abtretung eines Theils,derselben zu veranlassen.’

The following year the account appears as follows in Waffen der Finsternis.wider die Sinaibibel (Leipzig, 1863): ‘Im Mai 1844 stand in der Sinaibibliothek, deren Handschriften und.Bücher auf Regalen aufgestellt waren, auch ein großer Korb mit weggeworfenen Pergamenten,.dergleichen, wie mir der Bibliothekar bemerkte, als er mich zur Untersuchung schreiten sah, schon 2.Körbe voll ins Feuer geworfen worden waren. Aus diesem Korbe nun zog ich zu meinem höchsten,Erstaunen verschiedene alttestamentliche Reste der Sinaibibel hervor. Nachdem mir der geringere.Theil derselben ohne Schwierigkeit bei anscheinender Werthlosigkeit abgetreten worden war,,bemühte ich mich umsonst um die übrigen Fragmente.’

The present reviewer regards it as an element of a disinformation campaign, as part of the Russian,government’s political manoeuvrings at the time. As other visitors to St Catherine’s in the nineteenth.century noted, baskets were used to hold disbound sections of manuscripts.

68 He only managed to see these in 1859, visiting under the aegis of the Russian government, and then,not through any discovery of his own.

69 In respect of Codex Sinaiticus, for example

 

[cjab]

Maybe, maybe not.

It certainly looks like the purpose of the manuscript was to influence New Testament textual theory. Thus every word of the New Testament is pristine, “perfect”. (Tischendorf)

Truly bizarre.

One section in 1 Chronicles has double-text, there seems to be an aborted mess everywhere outside the NT and Barnabas.

Absurd.

Some critical pages ended up in the New Finds dump room.

So the manuscript became separated beforehand, due to some of its leaves appearing in book bindings in the 18h century. What did Upensky have to say about this?

We do not know the “original” production size.

I believe you live in a fantasy world.

 

[cjab]

Details given by Kevin McGrane:

66 Tischendorf, Notitia editionis Codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici (Leipzig, 1860). Tregelles in a review of the
latter work in 1861 gives the English reader the first taste of what is to become the ‘canonical’
Tischendorf account: the manuscript ‘was found (he states) in a basket with other fragments, destined
for the fire by the monks.’ Tregelles sagaciously distanced himself a little by including the
parenthetical ‘he states’, and with good reason: he had shown Tischendorf letters in 1850 detailing
examination of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1845 by the Egyptologist and archaeologist Major Charles Kerr
Macdonald, and Tischendorf had deceived Tregelles by positively denying its existence, i.e.
Tischendorf claimed certain knowledge that the Codex was not at St Catherine’s (which in turn
implies that Macdonald was fabricating), rather than he simply did not know whether it was there or
not. When in 1862 Tregelles saw the manuscript for himself and compared it with Macdonald’s and
Uspensky’s accounts, he knew for certain that Macdonald’s and Uspensky’s descriptions from 1845
were correct, and that Tischendorf had misled him for 13 years. It was these letters that mentioned the
destruction of old manuscripts by fire, and Tischendorf later used that concept in a different sense to
construct his account of the discovery with the romantic element of being saved from certain
destruction, as well as justification for his rather dubious removal of the 43 leaves.
Another account (arguably earlier than the Notitia) is found in Vetus Testamentum Graece Iuxta LXX
Interpretes, 3rd edition (Leipzig, 1860), which mentions recovery from the basket of waste papers, but
does not include mention of the fire.

McGrane is entitled to speculate, but IMO he over-does it. Tischendorf had his own reasons, even if partly selfish, for not publicizing his 1844 discovery, as he wanted to publish the manuscript. (If it ended up in Russia, it might never be published.) Selfish motioves, however distasteful when looked at through "politically correct" eyes, don't invalidate his story, when it eventually came out.

So his motives are in accordance with his self-trumpeting character. He may well have seen other old manuscripts being fed iinto the fire. Can you prove otherwise? No.

Moreover, what is of critical importance is that subsequent to the 1844 visit, the monks became aware of the value of the manuscript, which were due to their interactions with Tischendorf. There is little or no reason to suspect that the 43 leaves were "stolen," and certainly no proof of theft that will stand up. What could be alleged with reasonable probability is that Tischendorf played the imperialist in taking advanage of the monk's ignorance, which he despised, but that was common at the time.

What is extraordinary in that you continually overlook the incessant criminality of Simonides, who even by the Greek press was branded a scum-bag, a Jew, a criminal and a forger. The provenance of Sinaiticus does not depend on the character of Tischendorf; and nothing that Simonides said is remotely relevant.

 

[Steven Avery]

Moreover, what is of critical importance is that subsequent to the 1844 visit, the monks became aware of the value of the manuscript, which were due to their interactions with Tischendorf.

Are you claiming that the monks knew that he had taken out 43 leaves?

With Major MacDonald, Tischendorf and Uspensky all in the mix, as well as Simonides and Kallinikos, what evidence do you have that they were particularly concerned with the ms. because of Tischendorf? They did not know he had taken 43 leaves. Are you simply accepting the lies of Tischendorf that he peddled in 1859 and after? Not a good look.

 

[cjab]

Are you claiming that the monks knew that he had taken out 43 leaves?

With Major MacDonald, Tischendorf and Uspensky all in the mix, as well as Simonides and Kallinikos, what evidence do you have that they were particularly concerned with the ms. because of Tischendorf? They did not know he had taken 43 leaves. Are you simply accepting the lies of Tischendorf that he peddled in 1859 and after? Not a good look.

"In visiting the library of the monastery, in the
month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle
of the great hall a large and wide basket full of
old parchments, and the librarian, who was a
man of information, told me that two heaps of
papers like these, mouldered by time, had been
already committed to the flames. What was
my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a
considerable number of sheets of a copy of the
Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me
to be one of the most ancient that I had ever
The authorities of the convent allowed
me to possess myself of a third of these parchments,
or about forty-three sheets, all the more
readily as they were destined for the fire.
But I could not get them to yield up possession
of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction
which I had displayed, had aroused their suspicions
as to the value of this manuscript."

(Tischendorf p.23/24 Narrative of the Discovery/"When were our Gospels written," 1867 (2nd edn.)/Relgious Tract Society.)

If you look at the Codex Frederico Augustanus in Leipzig here, you can see that some parts of it are in v. poor condition. Then there is the matter that circa 350 leaves have disappeared, presumably "committed to the flames." It is this latter matter that substantiates Tischendorf's account. How can a volume as big as what is in the British library today simply "disappear" without being comitted to the flames?

___________________

You have committed yourself to prove the underlined part of the account above is false. It relates Tischendorf's interactions with the librarian, not other monks, who may provide different accounts. We don't which other "authorities" Tischendorf alludes to.

These monks surely wanted to protect themselves from the charge of neglect or stupidity. Given the sheer scale of the disposal, it is interesting to reflect on what other valuable parchments they might have disposed of. I wouldn't be surprized if a very large fortune in old parchments and papyri was burnt by these ignorant and monks in the years preceding Tischendorf's visit.

When the monks realized the value, it was they who started changing their story. e.g. as told to J Rendel Harris. However any refutation of parchments being committed to the flames by the monks will need to account for what happened to the missing 350-odd leaves. It is they who have to give account, in the first instance.

Your idea that Tischendorf simply purloined this stuff under the noses of the monks doesn't ring true. OTOH Tischendorf's account does: i.e. that the monks were simply burning worn out (i.e. mouldered by time) parchments that they assumed had no monetary value.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

"In visiting the library of the monastery, in the
month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle
of the great hall a large and wide basket full of
old parchments, and the librarian, who was a
man of information, told me that two heaps of
papers like these, mouldered by time, had been
already committed to the flames. What was
my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a
considerable number of sheets of a copy of the
Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me
to be one of the most ancient that I had ever
The authorities of the convent allowed
me to possess myself of a third of these parchments,
or about forty-three sheets, all the more
readily as they were destined for the fire.
But I could not get them to yield up possession
of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction
which I had displayed, had aroused their suspicions
as to the value of this manuscript."

(Tischendorf p.23/24 Narrative of the Discovery/"When were our Gospels written," 1867 (2nd edn.)/Relgious Tract Society.)

If you look at the Codex Frederico Augustanus in Leipzig here, you can see that some parts of it are in v. poor condition. Then there is the matter that circa 350 leaves have disappeared, presumably "committed to the flames." It is this latter matter that substantiates Tischendorf's account. How can a volume as big as what is in the British library today simply "disappear" without being comitted to the flames?

___________________

You have committed yourself to prove the underlined part of the account above is false. It relates Tischendorf's interactions with the librarian, not other monks, who may provide different accounts. We don't which other "authorities" Tischendorf alludes to.

These monks surely wanted to protect themselves from the charge of neglect or stupidity. Given the sheer scale of the disposal, it is interesting to reflect on what other valuable parchments they might have disposed of. I wouldn't be surprized if a very large fortune in old parchments and papyri was burnt by these ignorant and monks in the years preceding Tischendorf's visit.

When the monks realized the value, it was they who started changing their story. e.g. as told to J Rendel Harris. However any refutation of parchments being committed to the flames by the monks will need to account for what happened to the missing 350-odd leaves. It is they who have to give account, in the first instance.

Your idea that Tischendorf simply purloined this stuff under the noses of the monks doesn't ring true. OTOH Tischendorf's account does: i.e. that the monks were simply burning worn out (i.e. mouldered by time) parchments that they assumed had no monetary value.

Tischendorf remained good friends with the St Catherine's librarian after 1844.

Tischendorf affectionately refers to him as "his old friend" in 1859 etc.

The librarian was always affable and hospitable to Tischendorf whenever he visited the monastery after 1844, and would always ask visitor's from the outside world of any news they might have heard about his friend Tischendorf.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The same cannot be said of Simonides relationship with the St Catherine's monastery (if there ever was one).

His witnesses always happened to be on the move, near to death, or actually dead, or were deliberately misrepresented by having their identities stolen without their knowledge and came forward later when they eventually found out...

And the hiero-monarchos Kallinikos of Sanai (not to be confused with Simonides Kallinikos) claimed to be delivering the explicit and unanimous testimony of the other monks at St Catherine's with a loud and clear disavowal of any connection with Konstantinos Simonides or his fictional Kallinikos.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

There's something else as well.

Tischendorf specifically says that he was advised (my paraphrase, so don't go banna skury on the wording) i.e. by someone (or perhaps multiple sources) to keep the location of his most valuable manuscript find - ever - secret, after 1844.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

These posts belong more on this thread.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

These posts belong more on this thread.

Sorry. Accidental double up.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

When the monks realized the value, it was they who started changing their story. e.g. as told to J Rendel Harris.

Can you please elaborate on what Harris says please?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

However any refutation of parchments being committed to the flames by the monks will need to account for what happened to the missing 350-odd leaves. It is they who have to give account, in the first instance.

By "they" you mean the Sinai monks themselves?

Yes. I agree (if that's what you mean) that the alternative theory would really have to come from them (the monks themselves), because Avery's never set foot in St Catherine's on Mt Sinai ever, and he, quite simply, just makes stuff up (conspiracy theory stuff)...

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

"Theft"?

Tischendorf didn't just snatch the quire's and run...

Tischendorf didn't sneak out with them in the night without the monks knowing, and abseiled down the wall...

Yelling out "so long sucker's" as he hysterically laughed sprinting off and leaping onto a camel and heading for the nearest port...

"Theft"?

There's just way too much suspicion and inuendo being read into the narratives than is genuinely justified...

 

[cjab]

By "they" you mean the Sinai monks themselves?

Yes. I agree (if that's what you mean) that the alternative theory would really have to come from them (the monks themselves), because Avery's never set foot in St Catherine's on Mt Sinai ever, and he, quite simply, just makes stuff up (conspiracy theory stuff)...

Yes. (I'm still looking for the J Rendell Harris quote - I just copied it from someone else, assuming it was true. Trouble is he wrote a lot of stuff!)

____________

However, here is a report by Gregorios Papamichael in «ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΟΝ ΦΑΡΟΝ», τόμ. 8ος, σελ. 154-160, ’Αλεξάνδρεια 1911, seeming to confirm the integrity of Tischendorf's "manuscripts in the fire" story (he is going to be a reliable source as he is Greek orthodox):

"Άπό τού δευτέρου ήμίσεως τού ιθ' αιώνος οι επιστήμονες έστρεψαν σοβαρωτερον τήν προσοχήν αυτών εις τήν Βιβλιοθήκην τού Σινά ιδίως δ’ οί Ρώσοι. Έσκέπτοντο δ’ ότι ή έπρεπε νά χρησιμοποιήσωσίν αυτήν ώς πηγήν προς πλουτισμόν τών ευρωπαϊκών βιβλιοθηκών, ή νά ύποδειχθή εις τούς μοναχούς νά φυλάττωσιν αυτά έν πρεπούση τάξει.​

​

Τούτο δέ, ώς λέγει ὁ κ. Μπενεσιέβιτς, διότι ή Σιναϊτική Άδελφότης δέν επεμελειτο τού θησαυρού αυτής τούτου, ούτε ευρετήρια τής Βιβλιοθήκης ειχον, ούτε είχον ήριθμημένα τά χειρόγραφα, πολλάκις μεμβράνινα χειρογράφων φύλλα έχρησιμοποίουν διά νά σβύνωσι τάς θρυαλλίδας τών κηρίων!​

​

Εις αυτόν τον εκδότην τού παρόντος Καταλόγου ὁ Σιναΐτης Σκευοφύλαξ Πολύκαρπος διηγείτο τώ 1908, ὁτι ὁ διάσημος Σιναϊτικός Κώδιξ επί πολύν χρόνον έκειτο επί τίνος ραφίου τού δωματίου τού τότε Σκευοφύλακος υπέρ την θύραν, επ’ αυτού δ’έναπετίθεντο ύπό τών ύπ' αυτού ξενιζόμενων κυαθίσκοι τού καφέ!​

​

Ούχί δέ πρὸ πολλού, ΐνα άπαλλαγώσιν οί μοναχοί ενοχλητικών αχρήστων πραγμάτων, έθέρμαινον τον μοναστηριακόν κλίβανον διά παλαιών βιβλίων, έν οίς ύπήρχον καί σπανιώταται εκδόσεις!​

​

Σήμερον λέγει ὁ κ. Μπενεσιέβιτς—πρέπει νά χαίρωμεν, ότι τά έν Σινᾷ χειρόγραφα εινε ταξιθετημένα έν καλή αιθούση καί διατελούσιν ύπό την άγρυπνον έποπτείαν τής φιλοξένου ’Αδελφότητος, ὁ περιηγητής δέ θά ήσχύνειο νά άφαιρέση καί τό έλάχιστον χειρόγραφον χαρτιού άνευ ένδείξεως τής νομίμου αυτού άποκτήσεως."​

_____________

From the second half of the 19th century, scholars turned their attention more seriously to the Sinai Library, especially the Russians. They thought that either they should use it as a source of enrichment for European libraries, or that the monks should be shown to keep it in proper order.​

​

And this, as Mr. Benesiewicz says, is because the Sinaitic Brotherhood did not take care of this treasure, neither did they have indexes of the Library, nor did they have the manuscripts numbered, many parchment sheets of manuscripts were used to extinguish the fuses of the candles!​

​

In 1908, the publisher of this Catalog, the Sinaitic Sacristan Polykarpos, relayed that the famous Sinaitic Codex had for many years been placed on a shelf in the room of the then Sacristan over the door, and on it were placed coffee cups by the visitors!​

​

And long ago the monks, in order to be rid of annoying and useless things, filled the monastery furnace with old books, amongst which were rare and scarce editions! ​

​

Today, says Mr. Benesiewicz, we must rejoice that the manuscripts in Sinai have been put away in a good room and are under the watchful eye of the hospitable Brotherhood, and the traveller will be obliged to remove even the smallest manuscript of paper without any indication of its rightful possession.​

 

[cjab]

Incidentally, J Rendell Harris published other biblical fragments from Sinai in 1890,

BIBLICAL FRAGMENTS FROM MOUNT SINAI
EDITED BT J. RENDEL HARRIS
LONDON
C. J. CLAT AND SONS.

It suggests that there were originally other ancient Greek biblical codices at Sinai!

________________


NB: Last paragraph of the above better translates:

"Today, says Mr. Benesiewicz, we must be glad that the Sinai manuscripts are arranged in a good room and are under the watchful supervision of the hospitable Brotherhood, and the traveler will not easily remove even the least manuscript of paper without indicating its legitimate acquisition."

 

[Shoonra]

It suggests that there were originally other ancient Greek biblical codices at Sinai!

I do not think that other Biblical mss were "originally" there, I think they are there now and have been there continuously, but perhaps those other mss are not as impressive as the Sinaiticus. I also don't think they are "the least manuscript of paper" - paper came into the Western world around the 12th century, I think all those mss are on parchment instead of paper.

 

[cjab]

I do not think that other Biblical mss were "originally" there, I think they are there now and have been there continuously, but perhaps those other mss are not as impressive as the Sinaiticus.

I don't understand you.

If they were "there", in the sense that fragments of them are still there, then where are they now? Certainly there is a record of unknown manuscripts being loaned to Nicholas Mavrocordatos, one of the first Greek Orthodox rulers appointed by the Porte, sometime before 1729. However according to my source, Εκκλησιαστικός Φάρος, ΤΕΥΧΟΣ ΜΔʹ, ΚΡΙΤΙΚΗ: Πορφνρίου Ούοπέν σκη, Περιγραφὴ τῶν Ἑλληνικῶν χειρογράφων τῆς Μονῆς τῆς ἁγίας Αἰκατερίνης ἐν Σινα, ἐπιστασία Β. Ν. Μπενεσχέβιτς, ὑπὸ Γρηγορίου Παπαμιχαήλ:

"it was unlikely that he would have returned these, if they did not burn during the fire of the sovereign library, which took place on July 27, 1729."

IMO especially the uncial manuscripts were always in danger of being disposed of in the furnace as being deemed equivalent to waste paper by the ignorant monks, who likely could no longer read them by the 18th century. (They probably weren't loaned either, as of no particular interest or value to anyone until the 19th century arrived. Many old uncial manuscripts also became palimpsests.)

 

[cjab]

My apologies: early Greek codices were of interest to protestant scholars since the 16th century, but it seems not to the Greek Orthodox or Roman Catholics. Protestant scholars seem not to have ventured into the east in any numbers until the 19th century.

 

[Steven Avery]

especially the uncial manuscripts were always in danger of being disposed of in the furnace as being deemed equivalent to waste paper by the ignorant monks, who likely could no longer read them by the 18th century.

I think you are just making this up.

Uspensky read Sinaiticus easily. I have never heard a claim that the monks in Sinai could not read the text. If you have any actual evidence for your claim, share away.