Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:51 pm

John T wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:43 pm
Personal insults, like the ones you have been hurling, are one of the lowest forms of ad hominem and the worse is calling your opponent a liar when you know they are not.
I guess the second part of the sentence is your actual quibble. If you actually tried to engage an argument, even once, we would gain a lot in these discussions. The insult was not the argument, it was part of the explanation of social dynamics we see at work in the development of this case. Scientists are in competition, and they don't want to ruin their reputation by dealings with groups with a somewhat fishy reputation. My personal feelings weren't even part of the argument. By the way, at least Steven seemed to understand pretty well what I meant.

I mean, it would already help if you recognized, at least once, that I have consistently pleaded for testing in this thread.
John T wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:43 pm
Try to imagine what you would feel like if I insulted you like that because you are an atheist and all atheists are nut jobs?
If I'd got a penny every time I heard that from someone, I'd be rich by now. You get used to it. It's just noise. The only regret would be the waste of time I spent reading that.

Ulan
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:16 pm

Accidental double.
Last edited by Ulan on Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:21 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Ulan
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:17 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:10 pm
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm

Well, here you show your sleight of hand again. The book wasn't intact when Tischendorf saw it in 1844. He got shown 129 leaves and took 43 with him.
This is a story that Tischendorf created in 1859. He needed political cover so he created the fanciful "saved from fire, I had permission" story. For which there is not a shred of evidence.

And even though many laugh at the story, (parchment does not burn well, the sheets are in wonderful condition) there are still many dupes today. All this was built on an absurd idea that Tischendorf walked in on a special day of destruction after 1,500 years and saved them from fire.

Why in the world would you believe these tissues of lies? How much of a dupe are you?
I have already mentioned upthread that I think he embellished the story somewhat. However, let's talk about the part of my argument that you excised, the one that proves that he at least told half the truth. The monks had used leaves from the Codex Sinaiticus for fixing the bindings of other books. Books with parts of Sinaiticus in them have still be found a decade ago. Uspenskij was given Sinaiticus fragments out of bindings from other books in 1845. This shows they valued the manuscript as garbage. It was probably in a box of parchment used for repair purposes. It was even distributed across multiple rooms in the monastery.

My personal hunch here is that Tischendorf asked a monk whether he could take some of their "repair parchment" from the box of spares, failing to mention what he actually discovered, and the monk said Yes.
Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:10 pm
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
One year later, Uspenskij saw 347 leaves
And who gave you this number? If you copy errors, as here, you should give the source.
It's the history of the Codex as presented on the official site. You should read it sometime.

The rest is all part of the story that makes it obvious that the monks didn't have a clue of what they had in their hands. I guess Tischendorf was a shrewd businessman. He certainly made sure that the monks wouldn't know any better until it was too late. I guess that's par for the course in the antiquities business. I can understand they felt duped. That's not theft though.

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:16 pm

Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:17 pm
I have already mentioned upthread that I think he embellished the story somewhat.
Brazen self-serving fabrications, to make a common pen-knife thief into a manuscript saviour, is not a "somewhat".
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:17 pm
However, let's talk about the part of my argument that you excised, the one that proves that he at least told half the truth. The monks had used leaves from the Codex Sinaiticus for fixing the bindings of other books. Books with parts of Sinaiticus in them have still be found a decade ago. Uspenskij was given Sinaiticus fragments out of bindings from other books in 1845. This shows they valued the manuscript as garbage.
Uspensky saw a whole ms., and quite likely the whole bound codex. (This is from where Tischendorf had gotten the 5+ quires, like a common thief.) Later, Tischendorf tore the binding apart, and he mangled the ms. in various ways, and this was specifically pointed out in the Simonides controversies.

Also, we know even from Gregory and Metzger that Tischendorf trimmed the manuscript, significantly. Why? Maybe for an easier getaway. However, the most likely is to get rid of Athos and Simonides related notes.

Chucked into the back room -- a major embarrassing part of Hermas, that was likely seen by Uspensky, ended up in a dump. In fact the New Finds connects Uspensky and Tischendorf, both with the New Finds, if you study the material carefully. For this you should work through the pages in the CSP related to Genesis and Numbers. Genesis 24 was especially a part of the SImonides controversies, so it is no surprise to be mangled.

Uspensky, in the midst of this, picked up few fragments. If you have any real evidence that what he took was from a book-binding, please share. You might be using this page.
http://nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSinaiticus/cs1.html#1

Do you really think that Uspensky was ripping up book bindings? Or somehow they were all falling apart and into his hands? Again, these sections are closely connected to Tischendorf fragments and to New Finds material. This all fits with Tischendorf mangling.

You are involved in circular thinking. The evidence points to Sinaiticus arriving c. 1840. You are pretending that it arrived in 350 AD, was mauled into pieces, suffered various dismemberments, yet managed not to lose a single NT verse or word in 1500 years! A highly unlikely fantasy theory.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:17 pm
It's the history of the Codex as presented on the official site. You should read it sometime
Please. I am far more familiar with the material than you are, quite obviously. You are just a dupe, though, in that you do not check the questionable material, and then try to handwave with the humorous "somewhat" above.

You accept whatever is written because it is "official". Even though anyone can easily see the various Tischendorf lies. If you study, you find out it goes far beyond "saved from fire."

And I am skipping your conjectures that are based on your gullibility.

Steven


.
Last edited by Steven Avery on Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:57 pm, edited 9 times in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Aug 02, 2018 9:22 pm

(dup)

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Aug 02, 2018 10:15 pm

Here is Skeat pointing out the wild 1844 rebinding theory.

"If we accept the statement of Uspensky, that he saw the codex in 1845, the monks must have worked very hard to complete their search and bind up the results in so short a period."
https://books.google.com/books?id=td_OL ... &lpg=PA240

Of course, there is not a scintilla of real evidence of this supposed search and binding. The reality was simple. There was a Codex in Sinai, at least since about 1840. Tischendorf in 1844 stole 43 leaves from that Codex. Uspensky in 1845 saw the Codex without those leaves. He did not know they were missing because of the "she's not there" syndrome.

And it is all based on the fantasy 1859 fabrication story of Tischendorf being true. Which is a joke.

Why not simply accept that Tischendorf stole the five+ quires in 1844 and work the history forward sensibly and intelligently?
A little historical forensics would help.

Even if you want to claim 4th century authenticity, why not try to be honest with the evidences?

andrewcriddle
Posts: 1621
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by andrewcriddle » Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:18 am

Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
..........................................................

Also, if Tischendorf had stolen those 43 leaves, why did the monks allow him to visit again in 1853, and even gave him another fragment that had been used as a bookmarker? Right, the "stealing" hypothesis fails a basic logic test. He visited the monastery a third time in 1859 (still nobody had objections against letting the "thief" into the library a third time), convinced the monastery to have 347 leaves transferred to Cairo (they obviously gave them voluntarily to the "thief"), worked some time on it and then signed a receipt to have these transferred to Moscow. The receipt contained a clause that the manuscript would be returned on request. In 1862 the facsimile was ready and brought to the tsar's attention. Then diplomatic negotiations started, and the manuscript stayed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for that time. In 1869, the final contract of donation was signed by all parties, including the monastery itself. The main reason for the delay was that the monastery was embroiled in some struggle over the leadership, but in the end, the monks got the leader they wanted, and everything was peachy.

They got some seller's remorse later, but that's a different story. If I remember correctly, part of the payment was some income from agricultural property in what was now the Soviet Union, and I guess everyone knows what happened to church property there. They probably didn't like that they lost part of their payment and the Soviet Union made a few millions by selling their part of the manuscript.

Your version of the story doesn't make a lick of sense. It fails basic checks.
IIUC there was an understanding that in return for having his election confirmed the new abbot would agree to sell Sinaiticus to the Tsar.

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:39 am

Here is the url to the Ihor Ševcenko article, which is a must for research and discussions of the post 1859 political-textual negotiations. (Which, as far as I can tell, are not of great importance to the authenticity studies. Although I do find it quite interesting that SImonides was in St. Petersburg working in the Russian historical archives in the late 1860s.)

New documents on Constantine Tischendorf and Codex Sinaiticus (1964)
Ihor Ševcenko
http://www.persee.fr/docAsPDF/scrip_003 ... 1_3197.pdf

And I think it is fair to say that some of the Russians were embarrassed by what Tischendorf had done. However, they could operate under the "possession is 99%" principle and they supported the folks in the Sinai Monastery political arena that were the most susceptible to Russian collusion.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:45 am, edited 2 times in total.

Ulan
Posts: 1291
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:42 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:18 am
IIUC there was an understanding that in return for having his election confirmed the new abbot would agree to sell Sinaiticus to the Tsar.

Andrew Criddle
Yes, but the new abbot was the candidate the monks themselves chose, with agreement from Jerusalem. The "Yes" from Constantinople took a few years and caused a 7 years delay. The main dispute was about whether the monks could get rid of an abbot they didn't want.


But let's not disturb the story about that villain who stole the manuscript and then forged it (or whatever the newest version is) any further.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by John T » Sun Aug 05, 2018 2:58 pm

I spent several hours watching the David W. Daniels videos.
I then spent several hours reviewing all 32 pages of this thread and fact checking many of the arguments from both sides.

During this research I was surprised to see that I chimed in early on this thread back in Oct 29, 2014. My original position was that the Codex Sinaiticus was created around the 4th century and likely a working copy for scribes to use while making copies of the Bible for others, perhaps even Emperor Constantine. After my post in 2014, I no longer followed the thread until last month, almost four years later.

After weighing evidence I found (so far) Steven Avery very knowledgeable and David Daniels' video presentations of the discrepancies in the provenance, history, condition, linguistics, and textual variants of the Codex Sinaiticus very compelling.

However, the excuses (by both sides) for not using modern scientific testing on the Codex Sinaiticus was less than adequate.
Modern testing can be done and should be done.

Until then my position has changed.
I now consider the Codex Sinaiticus most likely a modern forgery.

With that being said I must now commend Steven Avery for having the courage to present his case on this forum with dignity and respect for others when all the while personal insults were constantly hurled at him.

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Post Reply