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

So let’s educate them.
You need to wake up to this fact: anyone who asserts that Sinaiticus is fabricated puts themselves outside of academia. Have you seen even one real academic today who credits Simonides with truth? There is not even one.
 
And then Uspensky in his letter to Tischendorf did his best to "lower the value" of the manuscript didn't he? "The Sinai manuscript is not as old as you say......it smells of Arianism."

Looking at the link you provided to Uspensky's 1864 (quite late in the game) letter to Tischendorf, it looks like he's changed his attitude quite dramatically compared to his first report 1845 (19 year's later).
 
Uspensky was aware of the textual-doctrinal corruption of Sinaiticus.

USPENSKY 1862 DOCTRINAL BOOK

«Мнение о Синайской рукописи, содержащей в себе Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием Св. Апостола Варнавы и книгою Ермы Архимандрита Порфирия Успенского». (St. Petersburg, 1862)

Mnenie o Sinaijskoj rukopisi, soderiascej v sebe Vetchij Zavet nepolnyj, i ves' Novij Zavet s poslaniem svjatago apostola Varnavy i knigoju Ermy

"Opinion on the Sinai manuscript, which contains the Old Testament incomplete and the entire New Testament with the message of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas the Archimandrite Porfiry."
 
Uspensky was aware of the textual-doctrinal corruption of Sinaiticus.

USPENSKY 1862 DOCTRINAL BOOK

«Мнение о Синайской рукописи, содержащей в себе Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием Св. Апостола Варнавы и книгою Ермы Архимандрита Порфирия Успенского». (St. Petersburg, 1862)

Mnenie o Sinaijskoj rukopisi, soderiascej v sebe Vetchij Zavet nepolnyj, i ves' Novij Zavet s poslaniem svjatago apostola Varnavy i knigoju Ermy

"Opinion on the Sinai manuscript, which contains the Old Testament incomplete and the entire New Testament with the message of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas the Archimandrite Porfiry."
And this critique of Tischendorf by Uspensky has been well refuted by Orthodox critics of Uspensky such as Bishop Michael (Luzin) in "About the text of the Sinai manuscript of the Bible" and by Abraham Sergeevich Norov, "Protecting the Sinai manuscript from attacks by Fr. Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky)" (see below):
_________________

"Being engaged in the publication of the second part of the New Testament (Acts and Epistles of the Apostles) in Greek and Slavonic, in addition to the first part published a year ago, I was greatly facilitated in my research on clarifying the text variants in its application to the Slavic translation through the appearance in the light of the Sinai Bible, IV century, a copy of which I was honored to receive from the generosity of the Sovereign Emperor. This monumental work, so gratifying for the Christian world, published under the high auspices of your Sovereign, was brilliantly executed by the Professor of the University of Leipzig, K. Tischendorf, who acquired a fair reputation in the field of Biblical philology. Following the appearance of the Sinai Bible, I became aware of the printed one, Fr.Archimandrite Porfiry in a brochure entitled: “Opinion on the Sinai manuscript containing The Old Testament is incomplete and the entire New Testament with the epistle of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas by Archimandrite Porfiry of the Assumption".

"I hastened to acquire it, hoping to take advantage of Fr. the archimandrite, who lived quite a long time in the East, is known for his journey to Sinai, and who was the first to point out this code and partly describe it but I was struck by the strangulation and grieved deeply when I saw that Fr. the archimandrite [wrote] nothing more than the most caustic article, directed primarily at the personality of G. Tischendorf and not withstanding the slightest scholarly criticism, and which should never have come from the pen of a husband invested with a spiritual dignity.

"With extreme regret I take up the pen; but I make it my duty; for my goal is not to analyze the personalities of Fr.archimandrite with G. Tischendorf, and the protection of the sacred monument torn from the flame of Omar, which was kept for so many centuries on Mount Sinai; which was in the hands of the Holy Fathers and hermits, who left traces of their reading on him, and now desecrated, betrayed by the excommunication of the Church, for that only, as is clear from the writings of Fr. archimandrite that G. Tischendorf did not recognize him as the first who discovered him in the Sinai monastery. This is a reproach from a person invested with holy dignity, who says that his opinion “is the fruit of free biblical criticism, and the first fruit on the basis of our theological literature”, and that “no one, having read it, will say later that the Russian clergy have no understanding Bible , there is no seed to sow, there is no threshing machine to separate the tares from the wheat.” This reproach, I say, may make a deep impression on those who are unfamiliar with the Greek language and will not have in their hands this edition, not accessible to everyone at its price and printed in a small number of copies. Above this, oh The archimandrite says the following about the Sinai Bible and other manuscripts brought by G. Tischendorf: “These monuments were put on display to all the people of the capital for two weeks; and this people gazed tenderly at the Sinai antiquity and passionately kissed it, not knowing anything about its heretical origin, and not feeling a bad smell from it.I think that Tischendorf, who knew well how dangerous this antiquity is for us, quietly laughed at our blissful ignorance.

"It is also my duty to denounce the unforgivable censure made by Fr. archimandrite, of all the Sinai brethren, in the person of her venerable Bishop, who with such love looks after the poorest Russian worshipers in the deserts of Sinai, to which I myself was a witness, and who, with holy zeal, worries about the benefits of the Sinai church, and with perfect cordiality provided a precious manuscript for editions.

"fr. Archimandrite, speaking in Constantinople and wherever he traveled, that "the text of the Sinai Gospel does not agree with the text accepted by the entire Catholic Church , and even overthrows the doctrine of the face of the God-man," and, arousing various word disputes on this subject, not only did these services, but perhaps gave rise to polysyllabic rumors, and will now give a bad opinion about the learning of your clergy, both in the East and in the West.

"In my recent journey through the East, I never heard any reproaches from the Sinai for the alienation of the manuscript; for the Russian Government never alienates anything, and if the Sinaiites presented this Bible as a gift to Russia, then, of course, she would remain indebted to them, this very thing would serve to the prosperity of St. a declining monastery, and not a single Eastern Patriarchal See could reproach the Bishop of Sinai for the fact that the manuscript of the Bible, left useless in the deserts of Sinai, served for the prosperity of her church..."

____________


Also see "REVIEW ABOUT THE SINAIAN MANUSCRIPT OF THE BIBLE PUBLISHED BY KONSTANTIN TISHENDORF."
Priest Mikhail Arkhangelsky.
 
Last edited:
On the Michael Luzin Russian-English:

В новое время особенно замечательны сравнения сделанные Гризбахом, Шольцем, Лахианом и Тишендорфом.

1 In modern times, the comparisons made by Griesbach, Scholz, Lahian and Tischendorf are especially remarkable.

Who is Lahian or Lahianom?
 
Michael Luzin is good on the heavenly witnesses, noting the Sinaiticus verse 9 correction that tries to cover for one omission problem. However, the Sinaiticus correction is not that important since it is an 1800s manuscript.

1681911041405.png
 
Last edited:
Also very interesting is how Michael Luzin de facto supports the truth that the Sinaiticus formatting in the Song of Songs is very sophisticated. This is shown by Benjamin Cowper, Jay Curry Treat and others.

And this de facto shows that Sinaiticus is much later than fourth century, the sensible dating would be from the Latin sources, and 10th century or later.

1681917056816.png
 
Last edited:
Also very interesting is how Michael Luzin de facto supports the truth that the Sinaiticus formatting in the Song of Songs is very sophisticated. This is shown by Benjamin Cowper, Jay Curry Treat and others.

And this de facto shows that Sinaiticus is much later than fourth century, the sensible dating would be from the Latin sources, and 10th century or later.

View attachment 4098
Nonsense.
 
Michael Luzin is good on the heavenly witnesses, noting the Sinaiticus verse 9 correction that tries to cover for one omission problem. However, the Sinaiticus correction is not that important since it is an 1800s manuscript.

View attachment 4096
Nonsense. if this is the level of your textual criticism, it isn't surprising that academics just ignore you. Actually I find this propaganda very irritating.
 
Nonsense. if this is the level of your textual criticism, it isn't surprising that academics just ignore you. Actually I find this propaganda very irritating.

You gave the Michael Luzin report.
Now, because he makes a point in favor of the heavenly witnesses, you go into a wacky mode.
 
Uspensky was aware of the textual-doctrinal corruption of Sinaiticus.

USPENSKY 1862 DOCTRINAL BOOK

«Мнение о Синайской рукописи, содержащей в себе Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием Св. Апостола Варнавы и книгою Ермы Архимандрита Порфирия Успенского». (St. Petersburg, 1862)

Mnenie o Sinaijskoj rukopisi, soderiascej v sebe Vetchij Zavet nepolnyj, i ves' Novij Zavet s poslaniem svjatago apostola Varnavy i knigoju Ermy

"Opinion on the Sinai manuscript, which contains the Old Testament incomplete and the entire New Testament with the message of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas the Archimandrite Porfiry."

1862 is still 17 years later and in hindsight (which affects his judgement quite dramatically).

What he wrote about the Codex Sinaiticus in 1845 was different.

Though, acknowledged, he spoke of some faults and things he didn't like about it, there are contextual statements which differ quite considerably from his 1862-1864 sour grapes 🍇 retrospective attacks.
 
Looking at the link you provided to Uspensky's 1864 (quite late in the game) letter to Tischendorf, it looks like he's changed his attitude quite dramatically compared to his first report 1845 (19 year's later).
1862 is still 17 years later and in hindsight (which affects his judgement quite dramatically). What he wrote about the Codex Sinaiticus in 1845 was different.
Though, acknowledged, he spoke of some faults and things he didn't like about it, there are contextual statements which differ quite considerably from his 1862-1864 sour grapes 🍇 retrospective attacks.

The corrupt text was not a challenge to the Byzantine Greek text till after 1860.

Tischendorf used it to corrupt his GNT, in his 8th edition in 1864 he used it for thousands of corruptions, and then the decrepit Revision needed it for the super-corruption of the Westcott-Hort recension. So Uspensky simply sensed the danger ahead.

How much will the Critical Text NT change when Sinaiticus is pulled out of the apparatus, (as happened with Archaic Mark, ms. 2427)?
 
Last edited:
You gave the Michael Luzin report.
Now, because he makes a point in favor of the heavenly witnesses, you go into a wacky mode.
Given the sheer number of errors in Sinaticus, I don't think we need concur with or give any credit to Michael Luzin's speculation that the scribe "seemed to be aware that something was wrong but only did not know how to correct it", given that not a single Greek manuscript has been found with the heavenly witnesses verse (1 John 5:7) prior to the 16th century. Indeed Michael Luzin seems to be completely ignorant of the history and origination of the Johannine Comma in the Latin text in the 4th century.

Moreover why would such a hypothesized correction (of τῶν ἀνθρώπων --> τοῦ Θεοῦ) be made to verse 9, rather than the appropriate "correction" made to verse 7? It is amazing what bigotry will conjure up in the way of imaginative speculation when true scholarship is in want.

Don't forget: Greek orthodox regard Mary as the theokotos, and Christ as made after the pattern of a pagan "god-man"! But God-man isn't found in the NT. Yet the cult of the God-man infects Greek Orthodox theology like nothing else: their attachment to it is so profound that every argument must be made subservient to it.
 
Last edited:
Did you read the Jay Curry Treat exposition, where Sinaiticus is connected to medieval Latin manuscripts in how it handles the formatting?
But again, your hypothesis that Sinaiticus must be later is extraordinary and far-fetched, and obviously not concurred in by Jay Curry himself.

Per Jay Curry on 505:

_________________

D. The Development of the Tradition

An examination of the rubrics in section B makes it clear that there is a literary
relationship between the Old Latin (W-F) and the Old Greek (S) rubrics. Since neither set can be
accounted for as a simple variation on the other, we must assume that they had a common
ancestor. Uncertainty enters the picture when we try to determine what the common
ancestor looked like. De Bruyne considers the ancestor to have all of the elements that all
of its descendants have. In other words, he assumes that there was originally a full set of
rubrics and that both S and W -F represent defective transmissions of it. My alternative
proposal is that the ancestor is more likely to consist mostly of what S and W -F share. In
other words, I suggest that there was originally a smaller set of rubrics, and both S and WF
are the result of different scribes independently supplementing the original set. This
second proposal best explains the different styles of rubrics found within a single
witness.

______________________

NB: S = Sinaiticus (see page 29)

but to find out what "W-F" means (it's not in the footnotes), you have to turn to page 35, and understand this:

LaW Latin manuscript, Stuttgart, Wiirttembergische Landesbibliothek, HB. IT,35 = Z in
DEBRUYNE = W in Schulz-Fliigel (about 800 C.E.).

This edition uses LaW and LaF only as Latin witnesses to the rubrics of the
Sinaiticus tradition. Therefore S-LaW-LaF often appear together in rubrics. The
text of LaW-LaF is a Vulgate text with a very few OL elements.

LaF Latin manuscript, Fribourg, Bibliotheque Canton ale et Universitaire, L75 IT = F in
DE BRUYNE (thirteenth century).
 
But again, your hypothesis that Sinaiticus must be later is extraordinary and far-fetched, and obviously not concurred in by Jay Curry himself.

Sinaiticus 4th-century presuppositionalism always makes it hard to see the logical connections. A type of circularity, scholars do not want to contend against “deeply entrenched scholarship.”

The Sinaiticus sophisticated formatting in the Song of Songs as an outgrowth of the similarly sophisticated Latin medieval tradition is simply a logical connection, if you are able to think outside the box of the 4th-century Sinaiticus error.
 
Given the sheer number of errors in Sinaticus, I don't think we need concur with or give any credit to Michael Luzin's speculation that the scribe "seemed to be aware that something was wrong but only did not know how to correct it", given that not a single Greek manuscript has been found with the heavenly witnesses verse (1 John 5:7) prior to the 16th century. Indeed Michael Luzin seems to be completely ignorant of the history and origination of the Johannine Comma in the Latin text in the 4th century.

‘When Sinaiticus was written and corrected and when Michael Luzin gave his commentary the heavenly witnesses verse was oroperly accepted in the Greek Orthodox Bibles and by commentators. See e.g. Eugenius Bulgaria (1716-1806.)
 
‘When Sinaiticus was written and corrected and when Michael Luzin gave his commentary the heavenly witnesses verse was oroperly accepted in the Greek Orthodox Bibles and by commentators. See e.g. Eugenius Bulgaria (1716-1806.)
Much ado about nothing. This link may clear up this imaginary solecism; although in respect of the direct Engenius quote immediately below, I am most unclear as to why he says that "Spirit" denotes the Father, and "Water" indicates the Holy Spirit. I would have assumed it to be the other way around from:

Deu 8:7

"For the LORD thy God bringeth thee into a good land, a land of brooks of water, of fountains and depths that spring out of valleys and hills;"
____________

Eugenius:

".........And the symbols are the spirit, though which the Father is indicated, the blood, through which the Son, the water, through which the Holy Spirit. And these three Ones, Who certainly above revealingly through the sovereign names themselves in the heaven bearing witness, are presented, the same Ones, on the earth through the memory in the arrangement, symbolically being taken on again, these three Ones for the one thing They are. But alas, jug [a two gallon vessel] I have instituted, not amphora [a nine gallon vessel]."

Commentary:

"Eugenius says in his 1780 letter that the added (appositive) nouns πνευμα, υδωρ and αιμα (spirit, water and blood) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text express three things (neuter natural gender), and that one would therefore expect the language that is used in association with those three things in that verse to be in the neuter form (τρια … τα μαρτυρουντα … τα τρια / three … the-things bearing-witness … the three-things), but that the masculine form (τρεις … οι μαρτυρουντες … οι τρεις / three … the-ones bearing-witness … the three-ones) is instead used in that verse in reference to the three persons (masculine natural gender) to whom those three things (according to Eugenius) are being symbolically compared in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text, those three persons being the πατηρ, λογος and πνευμα (the Father, Word and Spirit / three persons) in 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text. Eugenius concludes that the masculine language (in reference to three persons) in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is therefore evidence that John wrote 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text (in which three persons are discussed).

However, at the end of his 1780 letter, Eugenius admits that his explanation for the masculine language in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is a minor point (a jug / a two gallon vessel) instead of a major point (an amphora / a nine gallon vessel), because his explanation does not actually require John to have written 1 John 5:7 in the Received Text. His explanation is merely one possible explanation for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text.

"Another possible explanation for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is that the three persons (masculine natural gender) to whom the spirit, water and blood are being compared in that verse are των ανθρωπων (the men) in την μαρτυριαν των ανθρωπων (the witness of-the men) in verse 5:9. Johann Bengel (1687-1752) subscribes to that explanation on page 145 in volume 5 in the 1873 English translation of the 1759 second edition of his 1742 book, The Gnomon of the New Testament.

"A third possible explanation for the masculine gender in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text is that the Spirit, water and Blood in that verse are a person and two things (masculine natural gender) instead of three things (neuter natural gender), and that the masculine gender in that verse refers to the person and two things (the Spirit, water and Blood) in that verse.

"According to Bengel and Eugenius (an expert in the Greek language), the masculine language in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text has nothing to do with the grammatical gender of any noun, and nothing to do with gender attraction, and everything to do with the natural gender (masculine) of the idea being expressed (three persons).

"The explanation that the masculine language in 1 John 5:8 in the Received Text (1 John 5:7-8 in the Majority Text and Critical Text) refers to the three persons (masculine natural gender) to whom the Spirit, water and Blood are being compared is the personalization (personification) explanation, which is the traditionally accepted explanation. It is a valid explanation. Even Eugenius (an expert in the Greek language) subscribes to it."
 
Last edited:
The Sinaiticus sophisticated formatting in the Song of Songs as an outgrowth of the similarly sophisticated Latin medieval tradition is simply a logical connection, if you are able to think outside the box of the 4th-century Sinaiticus error.
No, there is no "logical connection", because as Jay says, "neither set can be accounted for as a simple variation on the other."

That is to say, the strains are divergent, sharing a common ancestor, rather than one being derived directly from the other.
 
Much ado about nothing. This link may clear up this imaginary solecism; although in respect of the direct Engenius quote immediately below, I am most unclear as to why he says that "Spirit" denotes the Father, and "Water" indicates the Holy Spirit. I would have assumed it to be the other way around from:

Poor blog post, from "jim", that came out of the 2009 Latin forum translation, later improved by Barry Hofstetter (1958-2022), who posted on CARM.

wrong forum thread
topic is heavenly witnesses grammar, NOT Tischendorf thefts


Jim had been claiming that Nolan and Dabney had come up with the grammatical argument in many blog posts.
Jim has wacky, quirky, individual, non-scholarship theories of natural vs. grammatical gender, so you might like his writing.

No need to get it from Archive.org, still available online.
http://the1780letterofeugenius.blogspot.com/
 
Last edited:
Back
Top