Steven Avery
Administrator
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles shared from his Tischendorf contact and he was talking about the red cloth story (although it was not yet red, simply a cloth):
An Introduction to the critical study and knowledge of the Holy Scriptures (1860) - https://archive.org/stream/introductiontocr04horniala#page/776/mode/2up
Journal of Sacred Literature - https://books.google.com/books?id=hbURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA486
Tregelles added, clearly from Tischendorf (Tregelles was not Embellish, he was a straight-shooter):"the whole New Testament, without even the smallest defect"
Many elements of the Tischendorf stories that are clearly fabrications of convenience. e.g. The "saved from burning" myth that was created about 1844, which makes no sense -- parchment does not burn and the supposed discarded fragments were actually full folios in beautiful, pristine condition. Yet, even today, only a few writers will hint that Tischendorf simply stole the leaves.All the leaves were loose,—many of them were torn into separate parts, —but, when arranged, there was the New Testament complete, and much of the Old.
We find this one above almost humorous in the expected gullibility of the hearers or readers.
Hundreds of leaves supposedly had been lying around Sinai in 1844. No interest in the ms. And now again, here in 1959 the leaves were "torn into separate parts".
And the gullible textual world was supposed to simply accept that, throughout all this disarray and disassembling, Tischendorf rearranged the jigsaw puzzle of fragments, and every page of of the New Testament was there, in perfect condition, after the 1650 years.
Do "textual critics" like buying bridges?
Weren't they at all interested in why Tischendorf was fabricating the whole account?
Did they ever ask why?
Today we can easily look at the two sections of the ms., Leipzig-1844 and Russia->England-1859, and read the history, and work out the Sinaiticus puzzle.