Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:17 pmI 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 pmHowever, 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 pmIt'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
.