Ebion doesn't have a theory yet - that's the purpose of these threads: for him to form one.... and putting aside ebion's theory.
.Or rather: he didn't "steal" them. He took them to Constantinople with the Patriarch's permission, or even at the Patriarch's request. Remember he's at Ste. Katherines on a Vatican budget: he had no money of his own and was an unknown for raising funds. To me, it is unbelievable that he would be allowed to, or would, "steal" the leaves. Not only would he never be invited back (he was), he would sully the name of those who recommended (or sent) him: cardinals Mai and Mezzofanti and others.Note that Tischendorf went directly to Constantius after he stole the 43 leaves in 1844, likely he had been told that the manuscript had gotten to Sinai from Constantinople. A trip there could help his efforts to get the full manuscript.
Ebion's theory is emerging: There's only one con job: the S&H+V con job, and Tischenduper's involvement was always central, but at the level of the patriarch: he knows that Bryennius would do nothing without the Patriarch. The Tischenduper "saved them from the fire" is to deflect any questions of the Patriarch's involvement. Ste. Katherines failure to accuse Tischenduper of theft speaks loudly.Tischendorf's involvement does not seem likely. '
Hoole's conclusion is very clear:
He would have be in Constantinople and he had his plate full topping off the Sinaiticus Con Tank.
Tischenduper comes to Ste. Katherines on a Vatican budget after spending a year in Italy with the support of the 2 most important librarian cardinals, the custodians of Vaticanus.
Simonides' letter to the Guardian documents his surprise at Tischenduper's deliberate deception, and that he was engaged only in the creation of a replica. Simonides was not a monk, so it's entirely appropriate he was paid well for his work with his uncle on it. And Constantius is visibly grateful for the replica. I see no involvement by Simonides with anything other than involvement with a replica.The question arises as to whether the Sinaiticus production was a deliberate deception. Note that I think Simonides may have sold Constantius (his connection with Constantius is confirmed historically outside of Sinaiticus at exactly the right time 1841!, this was shown in a book on Simonides by Nikolos Farmakidis) a bill of goods about the manuscript when he turned it over to him and received 25,000 piasters (most of the $ likely for Sinaiticus.) The Simonides story is that the ms. was always designed as a replica, and even if that were true during creation, by the time Benedict passed and he got it to Constantius there would certainly be a temptation to say this was an old manuscript.
Ebion's theory is emerging: Tischenduper took the leaves to Constantinople with the Patriarch's permission, and with the Vatican's connivance. Remember that what's in play here is gargantuan (bigger than huge): S&H laid the basis for the world-wide rewriting of the bibles that started in the 1880s, when combined with Vaticanus (V).
On PBF:
Perhaps this is the basis for that, but I can't help but wonder if Tischenduper's year in Italy was spent studying and copying Vaticanus,We also have his unusual claim to have transcribed the whole New Testament of the Codex Vaticanus in only 14 hours in his later visit.
Ebion's theory is that Tischenduper took the leaves to Constantinople to get the Patriarch's connivance in the project of turning the replica into a fraud on a gargantuan scale. Maybe somehow they (Tischenduper + Constantius + Mai + Mezzofanti ) felt that they needed something extra, which turned into an order for the (perhaps custom made) Bryennius manuscript.
Ebion's theory is that somehow the Bryennius manuscript fits as a piece of the S&H+V fraud to support the S&H+V -> NIV+New* gargantuan (bigger than huge) frauds. We eed to look for a pattern to the edits and emendations versus say the TR by GreekSinaiticus and Bryennius and Vaticanus that lays the basis for the TR -> NIV+New* frauds.
Statistics: Posted by ebion — Wed Jan 31, 2024 1:57 am