Leucius Charinus wrote:Interesting thanks Steven.
Leucius Charinus wrote:It's provenance is unknown. Tischendorf claimed he found it "in a rubbish bin" in a church monastery.
The trash bin saved from the flames story arose in 1859, in the time of justifying the manuscript heist from Sinai before the Russian authorities, and also the public arena.
When Tischendorf wrote to his family about obtaining the 43 leaves in 1844 the cover story was not yet in place, nor is it seen in any form before 1859.
Leucius Charinus wrote:Background story:
As has been pointed out, there is no confirmation of these stories. The basic piece of information is that 43 leaves were taken from Sinai in secretive circumstances in 1844 and the other 90% was taken in 1859 under the guise of a loan. For what happened before 1844 and between 1844-1859, Tischendorf has to be considered as, shall we say, unreliable. Except for telling us about the 1846 publication of the CFA.
Tischendorf did say he had help in 1859 with the ms. in Cairo for a couple of months, from two vaguely identified Germans. My memory is that they were supposed to be copying certain sections, although where those supposed copies ended up is not known or discussed.
Leucius Charinus wrote:... He retrieved from the basket 129 leaves in Greek which he identified as coming from a manuscript of the Septuagint.
Thus the 43 leaves that he retrieved and took to Leipzig are white parchment, without stains. The other 86 leaves are totally different, part of the Sinaiticus mass of leaves.
Leucius Charinus wrote:Rev. J. Silvester Davies in 1863 quoted "a monk of Sinai who... stated that according to the librarian of the monastery the whole of Codex Sinaiticus had been in the library for many years and was marked in the ancient catalogues
This is likely a reference to the 1734 catalogue of Nicephorus Marthalis, who both copied and signed manuscripts in that period.
In 1725, Nicephorus Marthalis was elected Archbishop of Sinai. He had been a scribe, and the library contains manuscripts written in his hand. He had a great concern for the manuscripts, and asked that they be gathered into a new location opposite the Archbishop's quarters, and that a catalogue of the manuscripts be drawn up..
The Mount Sinai, Monastery of Saint Catherine, Sin. Gr. 1464 is signed by Nikephoros the Hieromonk [Νικηφόρος Ἱερ[ομόναχος] ὁ Κρητός ] on fol. 270v..
http://www.doaks.org/library-archives/l ... in-gr-1464
Interestingly, despite the great interest in the provenance of Sinaiticus, afaik nobody has produced or examined this 1734 catalog, or any ancient catalog.
The Davies account, twice removed, is far less significant than the poof factor of the catalog (why was it never produced?) and the general poof provenance.
Many European adventurers and manuscript hunters had passed through Sinai without indication of a special ancient manuscript that could match Sinaiticus. In fact, what received notice from the Sinai visitors before 1840 was the Golden evangelistarium:
Now we see that even "pristine condition" applies to the 43 leaves.Leucius Charinus wrote:.... Is it likely... that a manuscript known in the library catalogue would have been jettisoned in the rubbish basket." Indeed, it has been noted that the leaves were in "suspiciously good condition" for something found in the trash.
Leucius Charinus wrote:The story of how von Tischendorf found the manuscript, which contained most of the Old Testament and all of the New Testament,
An interesting aspect is how the OT is in textual tatters, and every single leaf of the NT was found. Allowing for the cancel sheets.
Yes, there is a lot we could go into here. Contextual analysis sounds like simply "our textual theorists say...". "Imaging analysis" might mean "we took pictures".Leucius Charinus wrote:British Library on C14 dating Sinaiticus: ... I can confirm that the Library has not previously subjected either manuscript to C14 dating, nor do we have plans to do so. There is broad scholarly consensus on the dating of both codices based on various well established criteria for judging the date of a manuscript. ... a range of non-destructive techniques including contextual and imaging analysis. ....To undertake research into the history of the Codex . . . , to commission an objective historical narrative based on the results of the research which places the documents in their historical context ...."--
Here is a comment the British Library made about analyzing the color distinctions:
So at least we are right in the bullseye of their hope!"... Gavin Moorhead, who was one of the conservators who worked on the project. He mentioned that initially there were plans to do a detailed study of the colour variance between parchment leaves, but for reasons of time and finances this was not followed through on, and instead the information was put up on the Sinaiticus website in the hope that researchers might be able to make some use of it." - Cillian O'Hogan, British Library, email correspondence
Leucius Charinus wrote:I have no ideas how to explain the different coloured sheets. However I'd be interested to know why Tischendorf - the discoverer - did not make a note of this. From your summary above it appears that Tischendorf never mentioned this himself. Is that correct? Why would that be?
Yes, this is 100% right, and quite curious. So far, I have seen no indication of any mention of this color and condition disparity from Tischendorf. (You can't be too dogmatic, because Tischendorf has writings and letters and articles untranslated.)
Remember that until 2009, there were not that many people who had seen the two sections.
Nonetheless, you would think that anyone who saw the CFA would make a "wait a minute" comment about the condition. And not just in the context of not being burned (as above.)