Coptic-Arabic miniatures - two-step 1853 and 1859 theft-extraction from St. Catherine's by Tischendorf - similar to Sinaiticus CFA 1844 and 1859

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Theft reports from St. Catherine's and other monasteries, and libraries, can be reported in various spots and found out in a variety of ways, over time. Not necessarily reported by the monks at the monastery. (cjab wrote that the monks at the monastery claim would be the starting point of the 1844 claim of theft, showing a bit of naivety.)

In fact, the most successful thefts, like, the 1844 CFA from St. Catherine's by Tischendorf, may not even be known by the marks who lost their goods. (Below, we are not given details on the 1859 extraction.)

Islamica - Journal of Islamic Studies (1943)
Kurt Weitzmann
https://archive.org/details/volume-4/Volume 10/page/118/mode/2up

1672341174670.png


p. 119-133 (extracts from 119-121)

An Early Copto-Arabic Miniature in Leningrad (1943)
Kurt Weitzman (1904-1993)

I
From his second voyage to the Orient in 1853, Constantin Tischendorf brought back seventy-five leaves of an early Arabic manuscript containing the epistles of Paul.1 He showed this fragment to the orientalist Fleischer in Leipzig, who, on palaeographical evidence, dated it in the eighth or ninth century.2 Then Delitzsch examined the fragment3 and, on the basis of several passages concerning the nature of Christ, proved the Nestorian character of the Pauline epistles. Tischendorf, shrouding his find in the same secrecy with which he had tried to hide the provenance of the famous codex Sinaiticus, did not tell where he acquired the seventy-five Arabic leaves. Delitzsch stated explicitly, however, that Tischendorf had brought them from a monastery in Egypt and, since it is known not only that the two theologians were in close personal contact with each other but that Delitzsch had seen the leaves in Tischendorf’s house, it may rightly be assumed that the latter had, at least to some extent, given away the secret, though he did not reveal the name of the Egyptian monastery.

On his third voyage in 1859, Tischendorf acquired the remainder of the same manuscript, that is, 151 more leaves.4 Both parts, then, were given to the Russian czar, who deposited them in the Public Library in Leningrad, where the combined 226 folios became united again in one volume5 under the signature Arab. N. F. No. 327.

1 C. Tischendorf, Anecdota Sacra ct Profana (2d ed.; Leipzig, 1861), pp. 13-14, No. XVI.

2 H. L. Fleischer, “Beschreibung dcr von Prof. Tischendorf im Jahre 1853 aus dem Morgenlande zuriuckgebrachlen christlich-arabischen Handschriften,” Zeitschr.d. Dentsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch., VIII (1854), 584-85. On an additional plate he reproduced four text lines in facsimile.

3 F Delitzsch. Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebraer (Leipzig, 1857), pp. 764-69.

4 C. Tischendorf, Notitia editionis codicis bibliorum Sinaitici auspiciis Imperatoris Alexandri II susceptae (Leipzig, i860), p. 67.

5 The measurements are 27, 8 by 19, 8 cm.

Previously referenced here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/post-1007492
 
Last edited:
Theft reports from St. Catherine's and other monasteries, and libraries, can be reported in various spots and found out in a variety of ways, over time. Not necessarily reported by the monks at the monastery. (cjab wrote that the monks at the monastery claim would be the starting point of the 1844 claim of theft, showing a bit of naivety.)
I agree that minatures might be pilfered with relative ease, and I think that is commented on by one reviewer I have read, but not something the size of the Codex Frederico Augustanus. After all the monks would see you carrying it around very easily. Moreover the publication of the Codex Frederico Augustanus was in 1846, and located by Tischendorf himself as likely originating in Egypt, so it wasn't hard to figure out when it might have come from. The monks of St. Catherines would have become aware of its publication from other visitors.

Again, absolutely no evidence is forthcoming from you that anything was stolen. And why would he have recourse to theft, when his journeys had cost him $5000 (that's $5000 in 1844)? That's $183,439.02 today.

Do you think that people with this amount of money to spend are going to ruin their reputations by pilfering documents when they could buy them?

I fear you are moulding yourself into a Simonides-style slanderer, accusing protestants of criminality when you have zero evidence.

And if the librarian had let him have the Codex Frederico Augustanus, then why wouldn't he have let Tischendorf have the Arabic minature?

He says: "I resolved, in 1840, to set out
for Paris (on the very day of the Feast of the
Reformation), though I had not sufficient means
to pay even for my travelling suit ; and when I
reached Paris I had only fifty dollars left. The
other fifty had been spent on my journey.
However, I soon found men in Paris who
were interested in my undertaking. I managed
for some time to support myself by my pen,
keeping, however, the object which had brought
me to Paris steadily in view. After having
explored for two years the rich libraries of this
great city, not to speak of several journeys
made into Holland and England, I set out in
1843 for Switzerland, and spent some time
at Basle. Then passing through the south of
France I made my way into Italy, where I
searched the libraries of Florence, Venice,
Modena, Milan, Verona, and Turin. In April,
1844, I pushed on to the East. Egypt and the
Coptic convents of the Libyan desert, Mount
Sinai in Arabia, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, and the
Convent of St. Saba on the shores of the Dead
Sea, Nazareth and its neighbourhood, Smyrna
and the island of Patmos, Beyrout, Constantinople,
Athens ; these were the principal points
of my route, and of my researches in the East.
Lastly, having looked in on my way home on
the libraries of Vienna and Munich, I returned
to Leipzig in January, 1845.
This journey cost me 5,000 dollars."
 
Last edited:
cjab, didn't you start by agreeing that the Miniatures were stolen by Tischendorf?

Was that a slander by Delitzsch et al?

Your argument is simply that the CFA would be a difficult steal, the catcher has too good an arm.

(I am sticking with this Tischendorf theft for now because of its similarity to the Sinaiticus extractions.)
 
cjab, didn't you start by agreeing that the Miniatures were stolen by Tischendorf?
No. I am referring to the period before Tischendorf, to the period when the French were predominant (17th and 18th centuries). There are reports of thefts from St. Catherines long before Tischendorf arrived.

(1) "Exploring the Manuscripts of Sinai and Jerusalem"
Kenneth W. Clark

The Biblical Archaeologist, Vol. 16, No. 2 (May, 1953), pp. 21-43

p.27 "When in 1715, the Jesuit scholar, Claude Sicard, reached Sinai the monks complained that manuscripts were lost whenever they opened the library. Nevertheless he succeeded in acquiring some for the king of France. Sicard reported that the manuscripts had been moved often and were in general confusion, but in 1735 Archbishop Nicephorus built a new library."

KW Clark also says on p.27 that in 1712 "Michael Eneman of Uppsala reproached the monks for their negligence because the manuscripts were all piled along the wall "as I have never seen them.""

(2) «ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΟΝ ΦΑΡΟΝ», τόμ. 8ος, σελ. 154-160, ’Αλεξάνδρεια 1911.

Γρηγόριος Παπαμιχαήλ

ΚΡΙΤΙΚΗ: Πορφνρίου Ούοπέν σκη, Περιγραφή τών *Ελληνικών χειρογράφων τής Μονής τής άγιας Αικατερίνης εν Σινα, επιστασία Β. Ν. Μπενεσχέβιτς, .......................154—160

"In 1811, Bankes saw all the books in the library, which amounted to 2,000 volumes, of which 1,500 were manuscripts, most of them Greek, and of a theological content. Manuscripts containing the works of ecclesiastical authors, namely copies of miniatures, travelers managed to steal."


Was that a slander by Delitzsch et al?
I don't know what Delitzsche et al. are saying. You'll have to englighten me.

However I think I know what Greek Orthodox are saying: see below.

Your argument is simply that the CFA would be a difficult steal, the catcher has too good an arm.

(I am sticking with this Tischendorf theft for now because of its similarity to the Sinaiticus extractions.)
It's impossible to know the exact relations between Tischendorf and the monks.

We know from various sources that the monks were in those days reckless and negligent as to the state and contents of their library. We know that they were burning old manuscripts and books. We can easily suppose that they let Tischendorf have some material, if they did not know its value. What they valued was books with gold embellishments etc. That is to say, "age" was not necessarily indicative of value to them, at least before Tischendorf arrived.

There is however this statement in the review in «ΕΚΚΛΗΣΙΑΣΤΙΚΟΝ ΦΑΡΟΝ» of August (8) 1911, which isn't written in modern Greek:

"Τῷ 1844 ὁ C. Tischendorf εὗρε 50 χειρόγραφα ἐν τῇ Δζουβανίᾳ, ἅτινα καὶ περιέγραψε, καὶ 300—400 έν τή μονή τοϋ Σινά έν διαφόροις γλώσσαις, ἰδίως δ’ ἐν ἑλληνική, πολλά δ’ἐξ αὐτῶν ὑπεξῄρεσε."

The word ὑπεξῄρεσε is problematic. It derives from Ancient Greek (ὑπεξερύω), where it means to "drag out and away" but it also has other connotations like "save" or "decipher" according to modern Greek language tools. Thus DeepL gives this translation to the above:

"In 1844 C. Tischendorf found 50 manuscripts in [Juvania - area of Old Cairo and a dependency of St. Catherine's monastery], which he described, and 300-400 in the monastery of Sinai in various languages, especially in Greek, many of which he translated."

Google-translate gives:

In 1844, C. Tischendorf found 50 manuscripts in Juvania, some of which he described, and 300-400 in the Sinai monastery in various languages, especially in Greek, many of which he recovered/survived/deciphered/extorted (depending on variations - i.e. where you place things like commas).

However, there is little doubt that the analogous modern Greek word υπεξήρεσε (i.e. from υπεξαιρώ / υπεξαίρεσα) does mean "embezzled" - as in a criminal offence - to the exclusion of all else - but not necessarily "stolen" - for a later Greek Orthodox source, in quoting the above verbatim, but simply transcribing it into modern Greek and substituting "υπεξήρεσε" ("embezzled" - as in a criminal offence - which is a very questionable translation technique) adds "—ἴσως τῆ συνεργασία τοῦ Κυρίλλου" (i.e. perhaps with Cyril's collaboration) —- this "Cyril" being (perhaps) Hieromonk Cyril, the later Archbishop of Sinai (1859-1866). K. W. Clark speaks of Cyril's handwritten list, compiled in 1840 (not locatable at present). It is very possible that Cyril was at one time in the Sinaitic Metochion of Cairo in Juvania, to compile a list of the Sinaitic manuscripts found there, which was later used or taken by the Russian Archimandrite Porphyry Uspensky."

So still no support for Tischendorf having "pilfered" anything. As I have already made clear, what Tischendorf was up to may well have been "sinful" when looked at objectively in the balance, and also underhand in the eyes of the Greek Orthodox jealous of their treasures, but it wasn't necessarily "theft" especially if he had someone's approval and knowledge. You will need to prove much more to allege the criminal offence of straight "theft."
 
Last edited:
No. I am referring to the period before Tischendorf, to the period when the French were predominant (17th and 18th centuries). There are reports of thefts from St. Catherines long before Tischendorf arrived.

... I don't know what Delitzsche et al. are saying. You'll have to englighten me.
So still no support for Tischendorf having "pilfered" anything. .... it wasn't necessarily "theft" especially if he had someone's approval and knowledge.

No indication of approval and knowledge.

Also, "someone" isn't good enough, if Tischendorf had accomplices in the monastery (clearly he did, David Daniels writes about that), helpful for various thefts, that does not legitimize the theft. They would have to have the necessary authority to authorize manuscripts taken away without documentation.

You need to read the OP again, carefully.

Also there are five references given, including Franz Delitzsch, four are easily available, I put the urls on my PBF page about these Coptic-Arabic miniatures taken by Tisch.
 
Last edited:
No indication of approval and knowledge.

Also, "someone" isn't good enough, if Tischendorf had accomplices in the monastery (clearly he did, David Daniels writes about that), helpful for various thefts, that does not legitimize the theft. They would have to have the necessary authority to authorize manuscripts taken away without documentation.

You need to read the OP again, carefully.

Also there are five references given, including Franz Delitzsch, four are easily available, I put the urls on my PBF page about these Coptic-Arabic miniatures taken by Tisch.
Don't forget: you're the one alleging theft. He who alleges a crime must prove it. There is no reverse standard-of-proof in criminal offenses. Clearly Tischendorf wasn't going to discuss his contacts at Sinai in public (and why should he).

This discussion is pretty pointless, given (so I have heard) there is a going to be a document produced at some stage by the Greeks as to who really owns the Codex Sinaiticus, when I suspect all the evidence will be divulged in greater detail. I find your approach disturbing: alleging crimes against people you don't happen to like without proper evidence is for polite society.
 
Last edited:
[cont. from above]

... for polite society not an acceptable proposition. Crimes hang on evidence, and on evidence alone, not on one person's antipathy for another. If you knew anything about criminality, you would realize the importance of having evidence before making such allegations. i don't have to defend anything, as the prima facie evidence is yet to be forthcoming from you.

For instance: the minatures were given by Tischendorf to the Russians, so it is hardly the case that he appropriated them with the aim of securing them for financial gain, as his personal possessions. Same with Codex Frederico Augustanus: it was given to the university of Leipzig. This is a point you keep on overlooking.
 
Last edited:
No indication of approval and knowledge.

Also, "someone" isn't good enough, if Tischendorf had accomplices in the monastery (clearly he did, David Daniels writes about that), helpful for various thefts, that does not legitimize the theft. They would have to have the necessary authority to authorize manuscripts taken away without documentation.

You need to read the OP again, carefully.

Also there are five references given, including Franz Delitzsch, four are easily available, I put the urls on my PBF page about these Coptic-Arabic miniatures taken by Tisch.

So you're saying he didn't ask to buy the Codex Siniaticus leaves in 1859?

Are you saying he didn't ask if he could simply have the Codex Siniaticus leaves as a gift (like previously in 1844) in 1859?

Are you saying he didn't ask the St Catherine's monastery authorities if he could have the Codex Siniaticus leaves in 1859?

The way you're portraying things makes it look like he didn't ASK...which is simply not true.
 
Last edited:
Cyril was fully aware that Tischendorf had taken the leaves in 1844, which is why he was so cagey about the remainder when Tischendorf returned in 1853. Moreover if Tischendorf had stolen the leaves, he would have been arrested as a thief in 1853. Avery is having recourse to that ancient technique of defamation in alleging an "abstraction theft." This blog post worth a read - not even Greek Orthodox allege straight theft.
 
Last edited:
This is an anachronistic comparison, judging things by modern and unreasonable standards to frame the situation.

Nonsense.
The monasteries had specific individuals with the authority to make gifts.

Otherwise, a European could give Prince Regent and baksheesh to any underling for corruption and theft.
 
Cyril was fully aware that Tischendorf had taken the leaves in 1844

Are you simply making things up?
Saying whatever is convenient, without an iota of evidence.

if that were true, how did Tischendorf manage his 1853 heist and haul of manuscripts?
 
So you're saying he didn't ask to buy the Codex Siniaticus leaves in 1859?
Are you saying he didn't ask if he could simply have the Codex Siniaticus leaves as a gift (like previously in 1844) in 1859?
Are you saying he didn't ask the St Catherine's monastery authorities if he could have the Codex Siniaticus leaves in 1859?
The way you're portraying things makes it look like he didn't ASK...which is simply not true.

Maybe, maybe not.

Overall, I am more sympathetic to the account given by William George Thorpe (1828-1903) explaining how the leaves got out of Sinai to Cairo. In this account, once Tischendorf was in the Russian Consulate in Cairo with the manuscript he had negotiation leverage.

Remember, we had the Finn report that places the manuscript in Cairo early.

A Cairo archivist/historian/librarian might help sort this out.
 
Last edited:
For instance: the minatures were given by Tischendorf to the Russians, so it is hardly the case that he appropriated them with the aim of securing them for financial gain, as his personal possessions. Same with Codex Frederico Augustanus: it was given to the university of Leipzig. This is a point you keep on overlooking.

How much money did those political administrations supply to Tischendorf?
The thefts became their ROI.

Some Tischendorf thefts stayed in his possession, even showing up in his estate.
 
Don't forget: you're the one alleging theft. He who alleges a crime must prove it.

There is massive evidence for the 1844 theft By Tischendorf.

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is only the USA standard for a court conviction of a living defendant not named Simpson.
 
Are we supposed to “like” a thief who pulled off a massive textual con?
If you hate someone enough, you can convince yourself that anything is true. For a more balanced view of the 1844 event, consider Christfried Böttrich's further work "Supplements to the Re-Discovery of Codex Sinaiticus in the Nineteenth Century" in Early Christianity 8 (2017), 395–406.

(I've already mentioned my thesis that much of this manuscript, and plenty of other similar manuscripts, had likely already been committed to the flames, as they've inexplicably vanished. Böttrich seems to agree with me that this was at least a real possibility.)

______________

Even an expert like the Russian archimandrite Porfirij Uspenskij, visiting the monastery twice in 1845 and 1850, held the codex in his hand and put it aside, unaware of its value [9].

[9] Cf. in detail Böttrich, Jahrhundertfund (see n. 2), 62–71.

2 The Ominous Basket in the Library

Tischendorf found the first parchment sheets of the codex1844 in a basket, intended for burning. This is part of his own “vulgate version.” Scholars have questioned what Tischendorf recounted about this notable moment in many scientific and popular publications. Is it plausible that the monks would have burned such valuable material as parchment? Why should they do this? Burning parchment (which is nothing else than organic skin) smells awful. It can better be used for secondary purposes like book binding or smaller leather works.

Did the librarian – speaking about “burning” – perhaps make a joke only to tease the enthusiastic German Protestant a little and to test his reaction? But this idea seems very unlikely. Such a “joke” would have been only at the monastery’s expense.

The monks had long felt the arrogance of western scholars; why should they nourish such prejudices unnecessarily? Most of all: joking this way the librarian would have deprived himself of any argument for not surrendering all the 129 sheets to Tischendorf. A real misunderstanding seems more plausible than a joke. The basket itself is well attested also by other travellers. But burning its content is another question.

Obviously, Tischendorf misunderstood his partner. He communicated with the monks mainly in French which was a foreign language on both sides. Perhaps Tischendorf tried also to catch the modern Greek and missed its real meaning?

Nevertheless, on one point he was correct: the sheets in the basket had been regarded as waste or scrap, as recycling material. They consisted of discarded codices no longer in use. Rendel Harris, for example, published in 1890 fragments of other biblical codices (from between the fourth and sixth centuries) which have disappeared except for a few remnants.

The library of St Catherine’s offers many more examples of book binding with older parchment material. The basket is best understood as a parchment resource, collected for the monastery's bookbindery.

The idea of this basket as a regular repository of manuscripts is impossible – if we assume a plaited basket in cylindric form as known from ancient times on up to now. Such a way to store texts would be much more appropriate for scrolls: in Qumran, we find the famous scrolls in cylindric jars of clay; the Hellenistic world knew cylindric leather boxes called capsae for transporting scrolls. Plaited baskets are unknown for that purpose – and would be totally unsuitable because of their rough surface. Books would have been piled up, which complicates quickly extracting those from the bottom. But, most of all, the rectangular form of a codex is incompatible with the cylindric form of a basket. One cannot avoid the conclusion: this ominous basket was not the proper place for the precious sheets to survive the next hundred years as well. Tischendorf in fact recognized the danger the bundle was in and its dissolution which already had begun.[22]

[22] Fyssas, “Recent History” (see n. 21), 190, mentions a letter of Callinicos of Sinai quoted by F.H.A. Scrivener, A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Revised Text of the New Testament (Cambridge, 1864), vii n. 1, saying “that the manuscript was always kept in the library and was inserted in the old catalogues of the Monastery.” Alas, there is again no proof of this. Bénéchevitch, Les manuscrits Grecs (see n. 8), 25–31, mentions a first but incomplete catalog prepared by Cosmas, later patriarch of Constantinople, of 1704; this catalog does not include the codex. The same is true for the new catalog by the librarian Cyrillos in the 1840s; further work in cataloging the manuscripts (after Tischendorf’s first visit) was done by Porfirij Uspenskij (1845 and 1850), ArchimandriteAntonin Capustin (1850), Victor Gardthausen (1886), and Vladimir NikolaevicˇBénéchevitch (1911); the most comprehensive now is M. Kamil, Catalogue of All Manuscripts in the Monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai (Wiesbaden, 1970; Arab. original, 1951).

This moment in the library in April 1844 was perhaps the last chance to save the manuscript. Nobody is to be blamed for that situation. In the middle of the nineteenth century, the monasteries in the East lived under difficult conditions.

They had to struggle with serious economic problems. A place like St Catherine’s was not a home for scholarly work, but for spiritual life. The fathers hosted pilgrims from all over the world and celebrated the liturgy. For their liturgical practice, old manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus were worthless. Its majuscule script belonged to a by-gone age and was no longer readable. Text-critical study played no part in the monks’ approach to reading the holy texts. This was the interest of the learned travellers who visited the monastery now and perceived what treasures the libraries in the East harbored. The “historical” moment in the library, when Tischendorf and the librarian Kyrillos discussed the content of the basket, should be seen as a lucky one, as a kairos, as the beginning of a new appreciation of old manuscripts, as a starting point for cooperation between East and West. Beside all the colonial activity evident in Tischendorf ’s report and all the obvious suspicions of western scholars in the monk’s strategy – for the survival of the codex the basket-scene was something like a turning point.
 
Last edited:
Even an expert like the Russian archimandrite Porfirij Uspenskij, visiting the monastery twice in 1845 and 1850, held the codex in his hand and put it aside, unaware of its value [9].

[9] Cf. in detail Böttrich, Jahrhundertfund (see n. 2), 62–71.

Wrong.
Uspensky wrote extensive notes, copying out sections, describing the manuscript.
Why not tell the reader?

On the plus side, he calls it a Codex, adding another nail in the coffin of the Tisch-con.
 
Moreover if Tischendorf had stolen the leaves, he would have been arrested as a thief in 1853.

Like someone else we know. ?

I mean, that's interesting Cjab.

Why didn't Simonides simply have Tischendorf arrested for stealing his valuable property? And take him to court to prove the so-called truth?

We all know the answer to that (the answer to why he didn't have Tischendorf arrested or take him to court), and it's quite telling.
 
Back
Top