1 Porphyrius states (Iid., 1, pp. 22J, fgg.) That "the Greek" letters of the manuscript are very similar to the Slavonic characters; Furthermore, that the text is
written stichometrically, from which it concludes the writing of the manuscript in the 5th century, because
Euthalius around the year 446 introduced the stichometric spelling, but their application was soon abandoned. He also indicates the order of the individual books. From the text of the Psalms he mentions that often the word (Greek),
written red on a special line, is added to the understanding of the song and that the 2nd Psalm is connected with the 1st. He expresses a special interest in the
intermediate sentences inserted in the text of the Song of Songs, thereby establishing a true dialogue. In the speech of the manuscript he finds the Alexandrian dialect, in so far as that in forms such as (Grk) ). to be held in front of tonsonsonants. According to him, the text of the New Testament is of a special kind, perhaps derived from private use or perhaps from the catechetical school of Alexandria; but at the same time it had been corrigated according to the general text of the orthodox church. For this reason he attaches a special value to the manuscript, as he testifies that the text of the church has been the same at all times.
following up on sister thread https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.785 Plus this should be compared to the book Assaults or Weapons of Darkness, the one with Uspensky. Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel - (Assaults on the Sinai Bible)...
www.purebibleforum.com
This portrayal of the archimandrite Porphyrius proves some good knowledge. What he says of the recent contact of Scripture with the Slavonic is, of course, unsuited to the characterization of our manuscript, since the Slavonic characters are closest to the Greek of the eighth and ninth centuries, from which they are borrowed, but almost all of them Letters differ from those of the Codex Sinaiticus. He also erred in the statement that the first psalm was connected with the second, which would be of great ludishness. And
his most important claims that the manuscript was written in the spelling of Euthalius and therefore from the fifth century, as well as that the peculiar, the "Privaf 'text of simultaneous handwriting the text of the Orthodox Church is written, are all wrong. The manuscript by no means follows the Euthalian system, but its application would not justify its acceptance in the fifth century. But of those corrections, on which he bases the special value of the manuscript, there may be some at the same time, which complement, in particular, manifest omissions; those which Porphyrius prefers, as in Matt. 9, 10; 9, 14. Job. 1. 28; The text of the text, which the others, like the others, inscribed in the manuscript, often joins in readings of the text of the Orthodox Church, but by far more often, and especially in very important passages, for example, the B. Marc. IC, 9 fgg. Jn. 5, 3, and 4; 7.53 fgg.
1 Timothy 3:16 (in the last passage only one hand of the twelfth century has been corrected) he offers no mediation with the latter, indeed, it often expresses even a difference from the latter expressly, although it must not be forgotten that the learned Archimandrite has fallen into very difficult questions in these investigations, and where the appendix to the text of our oldest monuments belongs.