Talk:Constantin von Tischendorf

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles
	This article is supported by the science and academia work group (assessed as Low-importance).

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Bible Low‑importance

	Bible portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Bible, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Bible on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BibleWikipedia:WikiProject BibleTemplate:WikiProject BibleBible articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Problems[edit]

In the sentence beginning "In the winter of 1849"..., the sentence structure looks like its a conflation of two sentences; the Latin title of the New Testament immediately changes to English and includes a wiktionary cite to the word canons. Any way to fix this; it looks like an extra insert not in the 1911 Encyc. Brit. --FeanorStar7 09:32, 9 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also, I believe the Codex Sinaiticus is more than just a New Testament manuscript, it contains portions of the Septuagint. Is this not so?

It contains the old testament and the new testament, however the new Testament is the key find, as this is the oldest comprehensive NT. The old testament scriptures can be found even older, but few old new testament collections/ codex have been found. AWS69 (talk) 23:16, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea if I'm doing this correctly but... someone can edit me or whatever but this line: "The Codex Sinaiticus is the pillar of Christian belief today, as it proves the authenticity of the bible." Christians are endlessly editing these wiki documents/articles with their unsupported BS and this is sad because an encyclopedia article should not be making silly claims such as this. The existed of C. Sinaiticus doesn't "prove" anything. It is a 4th century Bible and there are older OT and NT mss than Codex Sinaiticus. It is simply the earliest collection that matches our modern Bibles (for the most part). Codex Vaticanus is also basically as early. Articles should not make inaccurate statements and Christians should stop trying to infiltrate the facts with their fiction. If anything, CS proves that the Bible was always being edited by Christians. The name "chrestianos" shows up in three places in the CS New Testament. Interestingly, someone erased the E and made it an I so those three chrestianos now show up as christianos. Please, someone bar Christians from editing wikipedia. Thanks, TS. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:558:6006:38:68C3:A95E:25D2:6C50 (talk) 03:46, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rumors of theft by Tischendorf[edit]

Rumors of theft of the Codex Sinaiticus were rumors of the St Catherine Monastery, and those persons, who cited the Monastery. This can be read in the article and the article reflects this. Interestingly Tischendorf only made fame, but never a fortune out of his achievements, he reflected in a letter his disappointment that only the title "von" was to be gained from the Zar for the oldest complete New Testament. The existence of a document, where the Monastery was donating the Codex to the Zar of Russia, has been cited by at least one reputed bible scholar Kurt Aland, and others. The Zar has never been named as a thief by the monastery, apparently. During the transfer of the Codex to Russia, the monastery abbot election was not confirmed by the Syrian and Jerusalem Brotherhoods for 10 years, which was the exclusive consequence of the late signing of the donation documentation. The monastery has started false claims about ownership after the Codex was sold by the communists to Great Britain. Interestingly, in Tischendorf's life time he had other greek critics claiming that the Codex was not an old, but recently produced greek bible. They claimed that the Codex was a fake. He dismissed this by discussing it in earnest. 92.16.54.206 (talk) 23:11, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Do you mean "Czar"? The talk page's purpose is not for a general discussion of the subject. IF you have a citation by Kurt Aland and others, add them to the article. Generally a "donation" is a gift while a purchase is aquisition in exchange for value, ie. a monetary transaction. You seem to confuse these two distinct concepts. "The Monastery" is a vague term, who are you referring to? Its Abbot? (Which one?) An official policy? You also have a seeming contradiction: if the codex was given away, or sold, by someone who did not have the authority to do so, then the issue of theft becomes important and not easily refuted. And your claim that the Czar did not go to the monastery and physically remove the codex (was not accused of the theft) is a non-sequitur.216.96.79.162 (talk) 16:36, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Mistaken: theft[edit]

The german media have now clarified that Konstantin von Tischendorf has never stolen a document, although the story has been told for many years by the monastery. A Russian/ Greek hand written agreement exists, that formalises the sale of the Codex Sinaiticus to the Zar for 9000 Gold rubels (referenced by a long study of Kurt Aland)and in exchange for the Zars protection of its Rumanian land ownerships. As this document was believed to be lost, the monastery was very happy to circulate the rumours of theft, which have not circulated in Tischendorfs livetime. 2007 the gift certificate (Schenkungsurkunde) was found in St Petersburg, where the monastery agree to sell it to the Zar. I got a copy of it, which can be acquired from biblical experts, such as the Professor of Theology at Leipzig. Meanwhile this gift certificate has been published by the National Russian Library, see link in the main article. The german version of Wikipedia (text: Codex Sinaiticus)explains this controversy as clarified with Tischendorfs honoroble reputation maintained, as the central document has been discovered and already published in 2007 in Russia. Quote: "Kontroversen [Bearbeiten] -Wikipedia.de Wer heute das Katharinenkloster besucht, bekommt zu hören, dass Tischendorf die Bibelhandschrift den Mönchen abspenstig gemacht habe, zumindest aber zurückgeben wollte, weshalb sogar hier und da von Diebstahl die Rede gewesen ist. Inzwischen konnte der Streit um den Erwerb der Handschrift geklärt werden. Für die erste umfassende Tischendorf-Bibliographie, die 1999 zum 125. Todestag erschien, bearbeitete der Greifswalder Neutestamentler Prof. Christfried Böttrich auch bisher unveröffentlichte Briefe Tischendorfs, darunter solche, die Tischendorf aus dem Kloster an seine Frau geschrieben hat. Nach Sichtung des gesamten Materials kommt Böttrich – genau wie Kurt Aland – zu dem wohlwollenden Urteil, der Erwerb der Sinai-Handschrift sei rechtmäßig erfolgt. 2007 wurden im alten Zarenarchiv in Moskau die Schenkungsurkunde der Sinaitien an den russischen Zaren aufgefunden. Bisher gibt es darüber nur eine russische Fachveröffentlichung." - Unfortunately english speaking references are often oblivious of these facts and I can back them up with other publications and theologians. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Annegret Tischendorf (talk • contribs) 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC) 92.16.54.206 (talk) 22:57, 26 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

non neutral POV, extremely poorly sourced, poorly written.[edit]

This entire article reads as if it's a PR campaign to justify his canonization. That is: it is blatantly biased. It requires a complete rewrite using a neutral POV. The first sentence claims he was "world leading biblical scholar at [sic] his time." What time that would be is left to our imaginations, as is whose opinion is being offered. (It also doesn't appear to have been written by a native English speaker; phrasing is awkward, to say the least.) Also, while it may or may not be true that the codex can be seen at the British Museum (citation?? I highly doubt this claim. It may or may not be displayed at the BM, but at best we'd be able to "see" the open book (ie 2 pages).). And you can not "see" it on-line; you can see its image on-line - the distinction is obvious. This article makes statement after statement without giving ANY justification (citation) and repeatedly offers opinion as fact. Really a very poor contribution to Wikipedia.216.96.79.162 (talk) 16:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Constantin von Tischendorf. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:28, 12 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]