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: 1308
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:05 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:13 am
Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:44 am
You also forget about those parts of the manuscript which still had been stored in different parts of the monastery up to the year 2009..
Nothing you say makes sense. Are you talking about the New Finds of 1975 in the back dump room?
My post says 2009. Sinaiticus had been used by the monks as garbage parchment for fixing other books. It wouldn't be overly surprising if we saw more fragments show up in the coming years.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:13 am
Your claim that the Brit stains corroborate Tischendorf's version (while Leipzig is unstained) is one of the dumbest Sinaiticus claims anyone has made, which jumps you over a very high bar.
At least we now know that you don't have any arguments. If you don't understand the connection between the points I made, I can't really help it. It's hard to get through to someone who is a staunch believer of his own truth.

Anyway, from the points you pick up from my posts and your last comment about the binding, you are aware of how this gels together into a concise explanation. You just don't like it.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 11275
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:06 am

Was reading Tommy Wassermann's Facebook page today. Steve's name came up. Lots of love for Steve in the academic community. :banghead:
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Steven Avery
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Tischendorf rushes to Sinai concerned about the "stories told by Simonides" in 1859

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Oct 03, 2018 3:34 pm

Tommy Wasserman wrote a generally very good article on the Mayer papyri and Simonides.

Simonides’ New Testament Papyri: Their Production and Purported Provenance - July 6, 2018 -
Tommy Wasserman
https://marginalia.lareviewofbooks.org/ ... rovenance/

There was a Facebook posting glitch that led to some confusion. No biggie.

The spot that needs closer examination is the intersection of Simonides and Sinaiticus and Tischendorf.

Some of the information that was not covered by Tommy Wasserman can be read here:

Tischendorf rushes to Sinai concerned about the "stories told by Simonides" in 1859
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 9#post1799

Why was Tischendorf concerned about Simonides when he was rushing to get the Sinaiticus ms. from Sinai?

Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Wed Oct 03, 2018 6:13 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Oct 02, 2018 11:06 am
Was reading Tommy Wassermann's Facebook page today. Steve's name came up. Lots of love for Steve in the academic community. :banghead:
Nobody likes an arrogant rude asshole, regardless of what he claims to believe.

Steven Avery
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:50 pm

Ulan wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:05 pm
My post says 2009. Sinaiticus had been used by the monks as garbage parchment for fixing other books. It wouldn't be overly surprising if we saw more fragments show up in the coming years.
Are you talking about anything other than the Nikolas Sarris fragment, which has rather sketchy scholarship?
Ulan wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:05 pm
At least we now know that you don't have any arguments. If you don't understand the connection between the points I made, I can't really help it. It's hard to get through to someone who is a staunch believer of his own truth. Anyway, from the points you pick up from my posts and your last comment about the binding, you are aware of how this gels together into a concise explanation. You just don't like it.
As usual, I will skip responding to the unclear.

Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Thu Oct 04, 2018 6:11 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Oct 03, 2018 8:50 pm
Ulan wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:05 pm
My post says 2009. Sinaiticus had been used by the monks as garbage parchment for fixing other books. It wouldn't be overly surprising if we saw more fragments show up in the coming years.
Are you talking about anything other than the Nikolas Sarris fragment, which has rather sketchy scholarship?
Ulan wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 7:05 pm
At least we now know that you don't have any arguments. If you don't understand the connection between the points I made, I can't really help it. It's hard to get through to someone who is a staunch believer of his own truth. Anyway, from the points you pick up from my posts and your last comment about the binding, you are aware of how this gels together into a concise explanation. You just don't like it.
As usual, I will skip responding to the unclear.
You can continue to avoid me, too.

But it will speak to the people who actually use the brain God gave them.

Steven Avery
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the Tischendorf lies about his 1844 theft have skewed the physical analysis history

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Oct 05, 2018 5:17 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 3:00 pm
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 01, 2018 11:13 am
Ulan wrote:
Sat Sep 29, 2018 12:44 am
Also, you forget about the point that the monks had been collecting all the different parts from the monastery in the time between.
A Tischendorf fabrication myth that does not have a scintilla of support evidence.
In fact the modern theorists went a step further. They conjectured an 1844-1845 Sinai binding. Just because they were stuck with the Tischendorf 1844 lies,
So how has Ulan and many others been duped by Tischendorf?

This is a fine example of circular misinformation based on Tischendorf lies.

The Collected Biblical Writings of T.C. Skeat (2004)
Introduction by James Keith Elliott
http://books.google.com/books?id=td_OLXo4RvkC&pg=PR12

James Keith Elliott:
In a letter to me dated 27.4.1999 Skeat, in anticipation of writing that article for Novum Testamentum wrote:
What, then, happened to the rest of the dump which the monks had collected and had intended to burn? Tischendorf had, before he left Sinai [SA: 1844], urged the monks to search for further fragments of Sinaiticus, and it is clear that they did just this, recovering in all further leaves of the Old Testament plus the complete New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas and the earlier part of Hermas. These the monks attempted to bind. This is the 'second binding' described by Cockerell on pp.82-3 of Scribes and Correctors and, as he showed, a very incompetent job it was indeed so faulty that it looks as if they abandoned the attempt to complete it by attaching boards. Their efforts did, however, succeed in keeping the surviving leaves together. That this binding was after Tischendorf's 1844 visit is proved by the fact that it includes the leaf containing Isaiah 66:12 - Jeremiah 1:7 which Tischendorf had been allowed to copy, though he was not permitted to take away. Furthermore, Uspensky claimed to have seen the volume during two visits to Sinai, in 1845 and 1850, and the binding applied by the monks must have been executed between Tischendorf's departure in May 1844 and 1845. This was the same binding which the manuscript possessed when Tischendorf finally found it in 1859 and still possessed when the manuscript reached the British Museum on 27 December, 1933. "(cf. the plates in Scribes and Correctors fig. 1) - Collected Writings of T. C. Skeat,
Now, I have placed a lot of the background on one page, to make it easy to understand how Ulan, and many others, have been duped by accepting as true the Tischendorf made up stories once again (here the key issue is the wondrous story he made up in 1859 to explain his 1844 theft.)

Pure Bible Forum - Sinaiticus
bindings and rebindings
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... rebindings

Steven Avery
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Tischendorf red cloth fabric-ation leads to skewed history of ms.

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Oct 07, 2018 9:38 am

In other words:

1844 - Tischendorf claimed to only see 129-130 folia (and he took 43 to Leipzig, 86 pages, and he claimed he saved the folia from fire)
- what Tischendorf actually takes is from five complete quires and part of a contiguous sixth.
1845 - Porfiry Uspensky sees the whole ms (minus the folia that went to Leipzig) -
1856 - Uspensky writes of the 1845 analysis of the whole ms.
1859 - Tischendorf "discovers" the full ms. in the red cloth fabric-ation

So why was there a theory of a second rebinding? Done by the monks. There really is no physical evidence to support the theory. This theory arose because of the fake discovery story that Tischendorf created for the 1844 heist. He made up that story in 1859, when he needed political cover. (And it was thought that Uspensky had seen a bound codex.) That story is still part of "Sinaiticus science" today, even though it is quite absurd, and even contradicts his own letter to his brother Julius.

Once you understand that the Tischendorf 1844 story was phony, it becomes easier to do a real history. And the 1844 rebinding and/or recollection of the manuscript by the monks, mentioned by Ulan as history, goes kaput.

You also have to wonder why the ms. got dismantled. SImonides gives one explanation.

Post Reply