Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: the washed Judith sheet, in between the two Leipzig sections

  1. Default the washed Judith sheet, in between the two Leipzig sections

    this Judith sheet that Uspensky took, and someone washed, was in the part in between the two Leipzig 1844 sections!


    The first Leipzig section ends on quire 37, the next begins on 47.

    Note that this is "3 incomplete columns".
    Description on NLR site:


    In addition to some Tobit , Judith, Isaiah and Jeremiah pages from 1859, there are other quirky pages in this in between section, like this one stained and streaky.


    The Reader (1863)
    Genuineness of the "Codex Sinaiticus"
    William Aldis Wright

    That the "Codex Friderico-Augustanus" is a part of the same MS. as the "Codex Sinaiticus" cannot be doubted for a moment. The gap in the former from Tob. ii. 2 to Jer. x. 25, is exactly filled up by a portion of the latter, with the exception of one leaf of Judith. The first leaf of the "Codex Sinaiticus" is the next before the first leaf of the "Codex Friderico-Augustanus." An examination of the writing will show that the two are parts of the same book. I will add one note from the "Codex Friderico-Augustanus." In the fourth column of the reverse of the fourth folio, the scribe, without even beginning a fresh line, breaks off from 1 Chr. xix. 17 to 2 Esdr. ix. 11. At the bottom of the column are three crosses, and a note to the effect that up to the sign of the three crosses extend the seven superfluous leaves, which do not belong to Esdras. This mistake might have been made by an ancient copyist, but not by one who had before him the Moscow edition of the Old and New Testaments. The Arabic writing on a leaf of Isaiah in the "Codex Sinaiticus" is pronounced by Professor Fleischer, perhaps the best Arabic scholar in Germany, to belong to the first century of the Hejra, that is, to the seventh century, A.D.

    To conclude, although the "Codex Sinaiticus" is now all but inaccessible, it was perfectly easy of access at Leipzig, and was there seen by two English scholars at least, whose acquaintance with MSS. is extensive, and on whose judgment I would place implicit confidence. The mention of their names would justify this trust. They, without hesitation, pronounce the "Codex Sinaiticus" to be a genuine ancient MS. It is convenient for Simonides to assert that the art of palaeography is a kind of black art, the secrets of which are known to himself, and one or two others, in the present age; but I will venture to say that his skill, great as it may be, is not sufficient to deceive the keen eyes of the authorities at the British Museum, and that he cannot point to any MS. written by himself which they have purchased as genuine. The meaning which he gives to the marks in the margin of the "Codex Sinaiticus" is entirely arbitrary, and to say that they bewildered Tischendorf is utterly untrue. They are of common occurrence, and well known to any one who has the least experience of MSS. The letters marked by Benedict to be illuminated do not exist
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 06-10-2018 at 03:47 PM.

  2. Default why was it washed? by whom and when? what is the liquid used?

    why was the Judit page washed? by whom and when? what is the liquid used?

    why the stains?

    Obvious questions.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts