Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:If I have not overlooked something the official chronological order of discoverings is
1844 - Tischendorf reports that he discovers 129 leaves, takes 43 leaves
1845/1850 - Bishop Porphyrius sees the remaining 86 sheets and discovers 260 more sheets, he takes 4 further fragments
1853 - Tischendorf discovers and takes one more fragment
1859 - Tischendorf takes the 346 sheets (86 + 260) described by Bishop Porphyrius
end of the 19th century - the Society of Lovers of Ancient Literature in Saint Petersburg (OLDP) acquired a further fragment
1975 - 12 unknown leaves and 24 fragments are discovered at St Catherine's Monastery
2009 - Nikolas Sarris discovers one more fragment in a book binding at St Catherine's Monastery
Allow me to offer some important corrections.
1844 - Tischendorf discovers 129 sheets, takes 43 sheets
Tischendorf would have seen the same thing as Uspensky, one full manuscript, presumably nicely bound. The 129 (or 130) sheets is a transparent cover story, as was the 1860s idea that he had saved the leaves from burning. The evidence simply points to Tischendorf having simply heisted the 43 sheets from the bound ms.
Remember, the actual Uspensky material was only made available in English the last few years, by our group.
Even without that, the recent article by Nicholas Fyssas in the 2015 “Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript” book said:
“These observations may also urge us to take with some reservation Tischendorf’s claim that be was allowed to take the forty-three folios.”
And in 1874, the top Scottish scholar James Donaldson wrote:
“There are many circumstances in this narrative calculated to awaken suspicion”
1845/1850 - Bishop Porphyrius sees the remaining 86 sheets and discovers 260 more sheets, he takes 4 further fragments
This is changing the Uspensky story to try to match the Tischendorf fabrications. Uspensky described one manuscript with all the books that are in our current Sinaiticus.
These are key differences. You can not change the actual history to match the 1860s Tischendorf explanations of convenience. And we have additional history, like Kallinikos describing the colouring of the manuscript, that fit exceedingly well with the actual history.
1844 saved from burning myth - "ich bin in den Besitzgelangt von"
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=85
And I do understand the reluctance to accept the situation about Tischendorf. He has been painted as a romantic textual hero, and especially some of the German Christian folk hold him in high honour.
Steven