Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - Uspensky's View of the Manuscript's Age and Condition

In reply to Steven Avery.

1862 is still 17 years later and in hindsight (which affects his judgement quite dramatically).

What he wrote about the Codex Sinaiticus in 1845 was different.

Though, acknowledged, he spoke of some faults and things he didn't like about it, there are contextual statements which differ quite considerably from his 1862-1864 sour grapes ? retrospective attacks.
 
I will look at this:

USPENSKY 1862 DOCTRINAL BOOK

«Мнение о Синайской рукописи, содержащей в себе Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием Св. Апостола Варнавы и книгою Ермы Архимандрита Порфирия Успенского». (St. Petersburg, 1862)

Mnenie o Sinaijskoj rukopisi, soderiascej v sebe Vetchij Zavet nepolnyj, i ves' Novij Zavet s poslaniem svjatago apostola Varnavy i knigoju Ermy

"Opinion on the Sinai manuscript, which contains the Old Testament incomplete and the entire New Testament with the message of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas the Archimandrite Porfiry."​

In more detail when I get time.
 
This is excellent material from Cjab below.

This critique of Tischendorf by Uspensky has been well refuted by Orthodox critics of Uspensky such as Bishop Michael (Luzin) in "About the text of the Sinai manuscript of the Bible" and by Abraham Sergeevich Norov, "Protecting the Sinai manuscript from attacks by Fr. Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky)" (see below):
_________________

"Being engaged in the publication of the second part of the New Testament (Acts and Epistles of the Apostles) in Greek and Slavonic, in addition to the first part published a year ago, I was greatly facilitated in my research on clarifying the text variants in its application to the Slavic translation through the appearance in the light of the Sinai Bible, IV century, a copy of which I was honored to receive from the generosity of the Sovereign Emperor. This monumental work, so gratifying for the Christian world, published under the high auspices of your Sovereign, was brilliantly executed by the Professor of the University of Leipzig, K. Tischendorf, who acquired a fair reputation in the field of Biblical philology. Following the appearance of the Sinai Bible, I became aware of the printed one, Fr.Archimandrite Porfiry in a brochure entitled: “Opinion on the Sinai manuscript containing The Old Testament is incomplete and the entire New Testament with the epistle of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas by Archimandrite Porfiry of the Assumption".

"I hastened to acquire it, hoping to take advantage of Fr. the archimandrite, who lived quite a long time in the East, is known for his journey to Sinai, and who was the first to point out this code and partly describe it but I was struck by the strangulation and grieved deeply when I saw that Fr. the archimandrite [wrote] nothing more than the most caustic article, directed primarily at the personality of G. Tischendorf and not withstanding the slightest scholarly criticism, and which should never have come from the pen of a husband invested with a spiritual dignity.

"With extreme regret I take up the pen; but I make it my duty; for my goal is not to analyze the personalities of Fr.archimandrite with G. Tischendorf, and the protection of the sacred monument torn from the flame of Omar, which was kept for so many centuries on Mount Sinai; which was in the hands of the Holy Fathers and hermits, who left traces of their reading on him, and now desecrated, betrayed by the excommunication of the Church, for that only, as is clear from the writings of Fr. archimandrite that G. Tischendorf did not recognize him as the first who discovered him in the Sinai monastery. This is a reproach from a person invested with holy dignity, who says that his opinion “is the fruit of free biblical criticism, and the first fruit on the basis of our theological literature”, and that “no one, having read it, will say later that the Russian clergy have no understanding Bible , there is no seed to sow, there is no threshing machine to separate the tares from the wheat.” This reproach, I say, may make a deep impression on those who are unfamiliar with the Greek language and will not have in their hands this edition, not accessible to everyone at its price and printed in a small number of copies. Above this, oh The archimandrite says the following about the Sinai Bible and other manuscripts brought by G. Tischendorf: “These monuments were put on display to all the people of the capital for two weeks; and this people gazed tenderly at the Sinai antiquity and passionately kissed it, not knowing anything about its heretical origin, and not feeling a bad smell from it.I think that Tischendorf, who knew well how dangerous this antiquity is for us, quietly laughed at our blissful ignorance.

"It is also my duty to denounce the unforgivable censure made by Fr. archimandrite, of all the Sinai brethren, in the person of her venerable Bishop, who with such love looks after the poorest Russian worshipers in the deserts of Sinai, to which I myself was a witness, and who, with holy zeal, worries about the benefits of the Sinai church, and with perfect cordiality provided a precious manuscript for editions.

"fr. Archimandrite, speaking in Constantinople and wherever he traveled, that "the text of the Sinai Gospel does not agree with the text accepted by the entire Catholic Church , and even overthrows the doctrine of the face of the God-man," and, arousing various word disputes on this subject, not only did these services, but perhaps gave rise to polysyllabic rumors, and will now give a bad opinion about the learning of your clergy, both in the East and in the West.

"In my recent journey through the East, I never heard any reproaches from the Sinai for the alienation of the manuscript; for the Russian Government never alienates anything, and if the Sinaiites presented this Bible as a gift to Russia, then, of course, she would remain indebted to them, this very thing would serve to the prosperity of St. a declining monastery, and not a single Eastern Patriarchal See could reproach the Bishop of Sinai for the fact that the manuscript of the Bible, left useless in the deserts of Sinai, served for the prosperity of her church..."

____________


Also see "REVIEW ABOUT THE SINAIAN MANUSCRIPT OF THE BIBLE PUBLISHED BY KONSTANTIN TISHENDORF."
Priest Mikhail Arkhangelsky.
 
More interesting material from Cjab.

First journey to Sinai in 1845

VIII. book depository
There is not a single learned man in the assembly of the present-day Sinaiites, except for Archbishop Constantius, who was educated in Kyiv. But he is also known not so much for his theological writings as for his archaeological descriptions of Egypt and Constantinople. However, in their monastery there is a book depository. It was built near the chapel of John the Baptist by the Sinai archbishop Nikifor in 1734, as can be seen from the inscription above the entrance to it. In one long room, against three walls, against the windows, high cabinets with shelves without folding doors are placed, and printed books are placed in them, and more manuscripts, in alphabetical order, so that, for example: under the letter "A" the apostolic letters are tidied up, under "E" - the Gospels, under "Ps" - the Psalms and so on. This way of placing books is common in monastic libraries in the East. Accordingly, their lists are compiled. The book depository in question contains 1700 Greek manuscripts and printed books, 40 Slavonic manuscripts and 500 Arabic and Syriac manuscripts. Almost all of them, according to their content, belong to the category of spiritual literature. In addition to the Apostles, the Gospels and liturgical books, there are collections of patristic writings, the lives of the saints, chronicles and many musical usages. There is no list of them. The shortness of time and poor health, unfortunately, did not allow me to take up a detailed examination of the Sinai book depository.
.
.
.
The best Greek manuscripts are kept in the rector's cells. There are only four of them; but they are very precious in their antiquity, rarity and peculiarity of the handwriting, in their content, in the elegance of the picturesque faces of the saints and in the amusingness of the drawings and drawings.

The first manuscript, containing the Old Testament incomplete [88] and the entire New Testament with the epistle of the Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas, was written on the thinnest white white parchment in the fourth part of a long and wide sheet. The letters in it are completely similar to Church Slavonic. Their setting is straight and solid. There are no aspirations and stresses above the words, and speeches are not separated by any spelling marks, except for periods. The entire sacred text is written in four and two columns in a verse manner and so seamlessly, as if one long utterance stretches from point to point. Such a setting of letters without grammatical prosody and such a way of writing the sacred text, invented by the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius around the year 446 after the Nativity of Christ and soon abandoned for the reason that there were many gaps between the columns on expensive white parchment, prove that this manuscript was published in the fifth century. It is remarkable in many ways. In it are seen: a special order of the sacred books, an intelligible presentation of the Psalter and the Song of Songs, many different readings in the margins of the New Testament text, and a special dialect. The historical part of the Old Testament ended with the books of Tobit, Judith and Maccabees; then come the Prophecies, and then the Psalter, the Proverbs, the Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the books of Sirach and Job. Next comes the New Testamentwithout any preface. First, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written, then the Epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, to the two Corinthians, to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippiseians, Colossians, to the Thessalonica two and to the Jews, then his Epistles to Timothy, to Titus two and to Philemon; they are followed by the Acts of the Apostles, all the Epistles in our order, and the Apocalypse; and at the end are placed: the Epistle of the Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas called Ποιμὴν, i.e. "Shepherd". In the Psalter, the second psalm is connected with the first, and the word Διάψαλμα is very common, written on a special line in red ink, for example:

[88] In addition to the books of Tobit, Judith and Maccabees, all other historical writings and prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea and Amos have been lost.
.
.
.
The scribe, due to his inattention, made many omissions, especially in the four Gospels; but they are all modernly supplemented in the margins of the manuscript. Whoever made these additions had at hand the sacred text accepted in all churches, and from it he entered words and whole sayings into the margins of the manuscripts.......
___________

There is a very brief account in his second journey in 1850. He doesn't appear to recognize it as any sort of "treasure," although he does enthuse over many other treasures at St. Catherines and its environs.

Uspensky (2nd journey of Archimandrite Porfiry of the Assumption to the Sinai Monastery in 1850):

"From 27 to 30 July (Chapter 7 / Return to Sinai Monastery)

"The rest of July was spent in book studies. I examined an old Greek manuscript on a white and thin sheet of white parchment, containing part of the Old Testament, and the entire New Testament with the epistle of the Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas.

"There was nothing to do in Sinai. I wanted to return to Zion."
_________________

I suggest that after the monks had become apprised of the potential value of this codex from Tischendorf, they had put as many disparate parts back together again that they could find (i.e. before Uspensky's 1845 visit). According to Uspensky, Tischendorf was never given access to the "precious manuscripts" in 1844, so how could he have stolen any?

“The Greek monks, under various pretexts, did not show him (Tischendorf) the precious manuscripts stored in the recesses of their holy cloisters. These monks, long frightened by the firmans of the Porte, who authorized European travelers to enter the sacristies and book depositories of Orthodox monasteries, and offended by unfavorable reviews about them in the descriptions of travels, partly rightly evaded the requests of Tischendorf, who did not have and does not have the main attractive force, i.e. confession of the Orthodox faith" [1] .

[1] Материалы для биографии епископа Порфирия Успенского. Спб., 1910, т. II, с. 682

___________________

And then Uspensky in his letter to Tischendorf did his best to "lower the value" of the manuscript didn't he? "The Sinai manuscript is not as old as you say......it smells of Arianism."
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
More interesting material from Cjab.
_________________
I suggest that after the monks had become apprised of the potential value of this codex from Tischendorf, they had put as many disparate parts back together again that they could find (i.e. before Uspensky's 1845 visit). According to Uspensky, Tischendorf was never given access to the "precious manuscripts" in 1844, so how could he have stolen any?
Click to expand...

We have knowledge of various manuscripts Tischendorf stole, including the 43 leaves, so he had access to those manuscripts, perhaps with an accomplice.

There is no actual evidence for the monks gathering together disparate parts of the manuscript, this is only one of the cover stories to go with the Tischendorf theft.
 
Steven Avery said:
We have knowledge of various manuscripts Tischendorf stole, including the 43 leaves, so he had access to those manuscripts, perhaps with an accomplice.

There is no actual evidence for the monks gathering together disparate parts of the manuscript, this is only one of the cover stories to go with the Tischendorf theft.
Click to expand...
Where is the evidence that Tischendorf was accused of theft by the monks of St. Catherine's?
 
cjab said:
Where is the evidence that Tischendorf was accused of theft by the monks of St. Catherine's?
Click to expand...

The most successful thefts are those where the mark is not aware of what is taken. :)

There are so many Tischendorf thefts they need separate threads.

Giulia Rossetto about one of the 1844 thefts, an Arabic palimpsest with a Greek undertext.
“Afterwards, in 1844. some leaves of the codex (at least 28) left the Monastery in Konstantin Tischendorfs suitcase.”
 
Steven Avery said:
The most successful thefts are those where the mark is not aware of what is taken. :)

There are so many Tischendorf thefts they need separate threads.

Giulia Rossetto about one of the 1844 thefts, an Arabic palimpsest with a Greek undertext.
“Afterwards, in 1844. some leaves of the codex (at least 28) left the Monastery in Konstantin Tischendorfs suitcase.”
Click to expand...
May be your visceral hatred of Tischendorf needs a thread so we can explore the motivations. Unfortunately, until we receive a formal complaint from the monks of theft, we can't credit any of your allegations. Of course the monks became fully aware of what Tischendorf had taken. We await the allegation of theft from these monks.

The context of this "theft" is that the monks had (from other authors) deliberately consigned considerable quantities of old books etc to the furnace. We await your acknowledgement of this too.
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
. Of course the monks became fully aware of what Tischendorf had taken.
Click to expand...

Nope. The theft of the palimpsest was hidden for more than 130 years, when fragments remaining at St. Catherine’s were found in the New Finds dump room.
 
Steven Avery said:
Nope. The theft of the palimpsest was hidden for more than 130 years, when fragments remaining at St. Catherine’s were found in the New Finds dump room.
Click to expand...
Which palimpsest? Codex Sinaiticus is not a palimpsest. Did the monks conclude upon whatever discovery you allude to, that Tischendorf was a thief?
 
This palimpsest starts with the Tischendorf report from 1844.

“He also possesses 24 palimpsest folia with Arabic writing of the 12th century and Greek of the 8-9th century ; further, 4 similar palimpsest folia ; and finally, amongst other less significant things, 4 mutilated folia of a Greek New Testament of the 7-8th century”

This was not a public letter, it was only recently published, and the New Finds was way in the future.
 
Steven Avery said:
This palimpsest starts with the Tischendorf report from 1844.

“He also possesses 24 palimpsest folia with Arabic writing of the 12th century and Greek of the 8-9th century ; further, 4 similar palimpsest folia ; and finally, amongst other less significant things, 4 mutilated folia of a Greek New Testament of the 7-8th century”

This was not a public letter, it was only recently published, and the New Finds was way in the future.
Click to expand...
And if all this haphazard stuff was extracted from the basket, with the permission of the librarian Cyril, then who are you to complain?
 
Steven Avery said:
Even if he was not on the take, he could not denounce invisible thefts, thefts that he knew nothing about.
Click to expand...
But you're living in a world of unremitting speculation: no facts, just incessant propaganda. Actually it's gets wearisome after a while. This isn't scholarship as we know it. Treating people's reputations as expendable is not a good trait, even when they are dead. Some sins, if they were committed, you have to let God be the judge. Otherwise you end up destroying yourself.
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
But you're living in a world of unremitting speculation: no facts, just incessant propaganda. Actually it's gets wearisome after a while. This isn't scholarship as we know it. Treating people's reputations as expendable is not a good trait, even when they are dead. Some sins, if they were committed, you have to let God be the judge. Otherwise you end up destroying yourself.
Click to expand...

What psycho-babble gibberish. It is important that Tischendorf stole the 1844 section of what was later part of Sinaiticus, and you are upset that the evidence of that theft and others is so massive.

This is important not because of personal feelings toward Tischendorf, or Simonides, but simply to unravel the true history.
 
Steven Avery said:
What psycho-babble gibberish. It is important that Tischendorf stole the 1844 section of what was later part of Sinaiticus, and you are upset that the evidence of that theft and others is so massive.

This is important not because of personal feelings toward Tischendorf, or Simonides, but simply to unravel the true history.
Click to expand...
Why are you, with a vendetta against Tischendorf, the only one to consider this theft proven?
 
Steven Avery said:
What psycho-babble gibberish. It is important that Tischendorf stole the 1844 section of what was later part of Sinaiticus, and you are upset that the evidence of that theft and others is so massive.

This is important not because of personal feelings toward Tischendorf, or Simonides, but simply to unravel the true history.
Click to expand...

So what's this got to do with Uspensky?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top