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 said:
Wrong.
Uspensky wrote extensive notes, copying out sections, describing the manuscript.
Why not tell the reader?
Click to expand...

What notes?

One might ask, why do YOU not quote them for the reader?

Cjab didn't say he was quoting Uspensky, he said he was quoting Bottrich.

Why jump to the conclusion that he was hiding what Uspensky said? When he wasn't even talking about him directly?

You're soooo desperate to make him look decietful, when it's YOU, whose doing the misrepresenting of Cjab by taking a footnote (an indirect reference) and twisting it into some sort of wacky conspiracy!!!

We should nickname you "the Projectionist" oh post twister Extraordinaire!
 
cjab said:
Moreover if Tischendorf had stolen the leaves, he would have been arrested as a thief in 1853.
Click to expand...

Who would have accused him, in what court?

Isn't your position that some underling unknown gave him "permission"?
Secretly, without a paper trail, and with Tischendorf keeping it all secret.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
What notes?
One might ask, why do YOU not quote them for the reader?
Click to expand...

We have put up lots of Uspensky material.

Dirk Jongkind gave us thanks for making Uspensky available in English.

Is it possible that Christfried Böttrich did not know when he wrote the 2011 book or the 2017 book/article quoted?
Nahh, he is referencing two Uspensky books, at least, in 2011, in Constantin Tischendorf und Avraam Norov.

The circumstantial evidence is that he omitted the Uspensky manuscript descriptions due to his pro-Tischendorf bias.
No big surprise.
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
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.
Click to expand...

Why would a monk have a responsibility to give even one leaf to Tischendorf?

Unless he was a corrupt accomplice.

The real facts are simple.
TIschendorf took five intact quires and part of a sixth out of the existing codex, which Uspensky saw the next year.
 
cjab said:
[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), Archimandrite Antonin 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).
Click to expand...

The Fyssas recent history is a good read, the best in that book, he is very suspicious of the Tischendorf account.

Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript (2015)
Ch 14 The Recent History of Codex Sinaiticus: Insights from the Sinai Archives p. 189-200
Nicholas Fyssas

And I placed some excerpts on PBF.

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

This article from Bottrich is a rarity in covering the 1937 Beneshivich book on Greek manuscripts in St. Catherine's which destroys the Sinaiticus Authenticity Defender narrative about ancient catalogues showing Sinaiticus. This needs a more complete exposition, we may be able to do it this week. (I had been told of the resource by a Byzantine scholar and now have a bunch of the critical pages.)

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

As for the Bottrich article I only see it in a paid mode on Mohr Sibeck, from Early Christianity, 12 pages. Anything else good there?

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

More precision on the Scrivener quote:

Full Collation (1864)
https://books.google.com/books?id=v-JUmBD5zIcC&pg=PP15

How these precious fragments came into such a place is not easily understood, the rather since we have been recently assured that the manuscript of which they formed a part had long been in the library of the monastery, and inserted in the old catalogues 1.

1 See Callinicos of Sinai’s letter to Mr. J. S. Davies, in the Guardian of May 27, 1863.
Click to expand...

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

The Guardian article is online through the

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA493

.... the MS. in question (as the librarian of our holy monastery, having been so from the year 1811 to 1858, assured me) belonged to the library of the monastery, and was marked in its ancient catalogues.
Click to expand...

===============================
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
... old manuscripts like the Codex Sinaiticus were worthless. Its majuscule script belonged to a by-gone age and was no longer readable.
Click to expand...

A claim without evidence.

If it were true, Tischendorf would likely have crafted a story as to how he told them what was in the manuscript. In his fake story, the red cloth monk knew he had the New Testament.
 
Steven Avery said:
A claim without evidence.

If it were true, Tischendorf would likely have crafted a story as to how he told them what was in the manuscript. In his fake story, the red cloth monk knew he had the New Testament.
Click to expand...
If you were presented with a English book, where all the letters were written in a continuous string without spaces, and which you didn't believe had any monetary value, would you be inclined to read it, when you had other books with the same content which were properly formatted?

I think it is eminently reasonable to suppose that the parchment "wasn't readable" in the ordinary sense.
 
Steven Avery said:
Why would a monk have a responsibility to give even one leaf to Tischendorf?
Click to expand...
How many leaves of the Codex Sinaiticus, and other ancient condexes, had been consigned to the flames or to other purposes by 1844? Answer: a vast quantity. Probably the remnants of Sinaiticus were the only survivor of a prior wealth of ancient codices.

Steven Avery said:
Unless he was a corrupt accomplice.

The real facts are simple.
TIschendorf took five intact quires and part of a sixth out of the existing codex, which Uspensky saw the next year.
Click to expand...
A charge that doesn't stand up, as the rest of Sinaiticus was kept in a monk's cell, to which Tischendorf had no access and no sight of. And you won't answer what happened to the other half of the codex. Thus your contentions here would be "laughed out of court" for lack of evidence.


[And to add to the post above: why would anyone, other than a scholar, want to wade through tens of thousands of corrections in the Sinaiticus text which, in any event, bore little resemblance to the Textus Receptus of the Greek Orthodox Church?]
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
the rest of Sinaiticus was kept in a monk's cell, to which Tischendorf had no access and no sight of. And you won't answer what happened to the other half of the codex.
Click to expand...

Why was it all together when Uspensky saw it in 1845 and 1850?

Why believe Tischendorf self-serving stories, myths, legends and lies that have no corroboration?

You probably believe that Tischendorf learned of the NT only when the red cloth was lifted.
 
Steven Avery said:
Who would have accused him, in what court?

Isn't your position that some underling unknown gave him "permission"?
Secretly, without a paper trail, and with Tischendorf keeping it all secret.
Click to expand...

Where's any paper trail of Archbishop Kallinikos of Thessaloniki - being at - St Catherine's on Mt Sinai in May 1844?
 
Steven Avery said:
Why was it all together when Uspensky saw it in 1845 and 1850?
Click to expand...

Actually a weak argument from silence...

Uspensky didn't specifically say the "complete" or "entire" or "whole" book of Hermas (like he said of the New Testament) when describing the contents of the Codex Sinaiticus.

Where does Uspensky actually say that he saw the "complete" or "entire" or "whole" book of Hermas in the Codex Sinaiticus in his extensive notes?
 
cjab said:
If you were presented with a English book, where all the letters were written in a continuous string without spaces, and which you didn't believe had any monetary value, would you be inclined to read it, when you had other books with the same content which were properly formatted?

I think it is eminently reasonable to suppose that the parchment "wasn't readable" in the ordinary sense.
Click to expand...

He can't comprehend your argument, because he doesn't read Greek in the first place.
 
Steven Avery said:
A claim without evidence.
Click to expand...

This was one of your quotes originally.


"Traveling Through Sinai: From the Fourth to the Twenty-First Century"
By Deborah Manley, Sahar Abdel-Hakim, 2009
Page 179
Subheading: The Library, 1820
Sir Frederick Henniker

"The library does not contain many books of value; all that were worth moving have been lately carried to Egypt; there still remain many scrolls of parchment, on which are written prayers in Greek and Syriac, and also some damaged Aldine editions; - but listen, Mr Frognall Dibdin while I was dirtying my fingers in search of the true black letter, the Superior told me to throw away the stupid old books, and look at some nice new ones! They are very clean copies - they bear no mark, but that of the Bible Society, and are very carefully put on the shelf."

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...1oC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA179&printsec=frontcover


The attitude of the head Monk!

1820 = just twenty four years before Tischendorf's arrival

"...THROW AWAY THE STUPID OLD BOOKS..."

Context = throw away

the old scrolls,
the old parchment
the old manuscripts,
the old books!

Note those words:

"...THROW AWAY..."

The Codex Sinaiticus was in the process of being

"...THROW[N] AWAY..."

And was given away!

Because it was being:

"...THROW[N] AWAY..."

​
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Actually a weak argument from silence...

Uspensky didn't specifically say the "complete" or "entire" or "whole" book of Hermas (like he said of the New Testament) when describing the contents of the Codex Sinaiticus.

Where does Uspensky actually say that he saw the "complete" or "entire" or "whole" book of Hermas in the Codex Sinaiticus in his extensive notes?
Click to expand...

You are confusing two discussions. Here we are discussing whether the rest of the ms. was in a monk’s cell. What Uspensky saw of Hermas was not mentioned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top