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

cjab said:
Tischendorf had published the Codex Frederico-Augustanus. Uspensky is therefore fixed with constructive knowledge of where the Codex Frederico-Augustanus had originated.
Click to expand...

You are working with his second visit, in 1850, since his first visit in 1845 was before the Tischendorf 1846 publication.

The silence from Uspensky in both books, published 1856 and 1857, is constructive evidence that he actually did not make the connection. If he knew the CFA was part of Sinaiticus from Sinai, he would have discussed the colophons, which are a critical part of the dating and authenticity discussions.

On the other hand, Tischendorf tried to claim that he was ignorant of the Uspensky writings on the manuscript when he left Russia to steal the rest of the manuscript in 1859 (and was concerned about Simonides en route). That looks like another Tischendorf whopper.
 
Steven Avery said:
You are working with his second visit, in 1850, since his first visit in 1845 was before the Tischendorf publication.
Click to expand...
Such is inconsequential in the light of the book's publication date of 1856.

Steven Avery said:
The silence from Uspensky in both books, published 1856 and 1857, is constructive evidence that he actually did not make the connection. If he knew the CFA was part of Sinaiticus from Sinai, he would have discussed the colophons, which are a critical part of the dating and authenticity discussions.
Click to expand...
As far as I am aware, the only reference to the Sinaiticus codex in the later books are these:

Travelogue in 1850.
_________________
From 27 to 30 July.

The rest of July was spent in book studies. I examined an old Greek manuscript on a white and thin sheet of glassine, 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.
________________

There is also this in the "history of my life Vol 4" (diaries and autobiographical notes Vol 4). Again, we wouldn't expect to see any controversy re Tischendorf in these, which are foreign to his purpose.

________________

In the Department of Holy Scripture:

Ἡ Θεία Γραφή (The Holy Bible). This is part of the books of the Old Testament and the entire New Testament with the epistle of Barnabas and the book of Hermas called Ποιμήνi.e. Shepherd. I saw this manuscript in 1846, but then I did not examine it in great detail because of my other obligatory studies in Sinai, and now I kept it with me for a long time during my stay in the monastery of St. Catherine and described its composition, supplemented my previous extracts from it and carefully studied the text contained in it, especially the New Testament. After such a secondary examination of this manuscript, my first opinion about it changed so that it seemed to me a product that appeared not in a single, holy, catholic and apostolic church, but outside of it. My new opinion about it was written partly in the monastery of Sinai itself, where I had this manuscript at hand, partly in Jerusalem, where I returned from Sinai on the 17th day of August of this year. [77].

The Sinai Bible bored me. And it is remarkable, as an example of corruption of the Holy Scriptures , especially the New Testament. Better than her [are] other manuscripts in the monastery library.

[77] Of this manuscript, two sheets are now owned by Imper. Pub. Library, received there in the collection of Bishop. Porfiry. Subsequently, these sheets were published by K. Tischendorf in “Appendix codicum celeberrimorum Sinaltici, Vaticani, Alexandrini. Lipsiac. 1867". In the same place, Tischendorf published this entire remarkable Sinaitic manuscript, usually called the Sinai Bible and Codex Sinaiticus. Ep. Porfiry set out his opinion on the manuscript, first briefly on his first trip to the Sinai monastery in 1845, pp. 225–238, and then extensively in a separately published discourse . Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas. SPb. 1862 (Варнавы и книгою Ермы. Спб. 1862). He repeats this opinion almost entirely in this diary, from which the editors have excluded this opinion, as already published, and therefore quite accessible to everyone who would like to see it. Ed.
________________

Steven Avery said:
On the other hand, Tischendorf tried to claim that he was ignorant of the Uspensky writings on the manuscript when he left Russia to steal the rest of the manuscript. That looks like another whopper.
Click to expand...
Couldn't be bothered to reply to your insufferable propaganda.
 
cjab said:
As far as I am aware, the only reference to the Sinaiticus codex in the later books are these:

Travelogue in 1850.
Click to expand...

The 1856 Sinai book from the 1845 visit, the 1857 Sinai book from the 1850 Sinai visit which should be the Travelogue, the 1862 doctrinal book and later unpublished papers.

The point we are discussing is that afawk in the published material he never discusses the Leipzig pages, the result of the first theft, although of course by c. 1862-1863 the connection of the two manuscripts was becoming public knowledge.

In fact, it seems he never goes into the colophons, which was a major part of the Tischendorf-Hilgenfeld discussions, c. 1864.
 
Steven Avery said:
The 1856 Sinai book from the 1845 visit, the 1857 Sinai book from the 1850 Sinai visit which should be the Travelogue, the 1862 doctrinal book and later unpublished papers.

The point we are discussing is that afawk in the published material he never discusses the Leipzig pages, the result of the first theft, although of course by c. 1862-1863 the connection of the two manuscripts was becoming public knowledge.
Click to expand...
No discussion of the Leipsig pages works against you. Uspensky had no desire to critique the monks more than he had already done, due to solidarity amongst the Orthodox. Any mention of the Leipsig pages would be taken as further unseemly critique (i.e. due to the monks having simply given them to Tischendorf). If he doesn't mention the Leipsig pages, it's because he has nothing to say: no allegation to make. This works strongly against you.

Steven Avery said:
In fact, it seems he never goes into the colophons, which was a major part of the Tischendorf-Hilgenfeld discussions, c. 1864.
Click to expand...

Think of it this way: The orthodox world in renowned for doing some VERY stupid things in its history. In 1867, Russia sold Alaska for $7.2 million, or $146,839,135.14 today (peanuts). Alaska discovered total of 70 billion barrels of oil, which at $50 per barrel, is $3.5trillion (just for oil), excluding minerals.

In 1933 Stalin sold the Codex Sinaiticus for £100,000, which is somewhere between £6million-£7.6million today. Likely worth today is probably circa £100million.

It seems that the "orthodox" don't always appreciate the value of their stuff. May be there is something wrong with their religion. It was the "orthodox" that imposed the cult of the Theokotos on the world, and were defeated by the armies of Islam and Genghis Khan's successors, and were in many places subject to Islamic rule for hundreds of years, and still are subject to Islam as far as the middle east and Turkey are concerned.

Even in Greece itself - "although initially a mortal enemy of the Byzantines, the Muslims agreed to help Byzantium tame the troublesome Serbs—and stayed five and a half centuries. Even as late as 1913 Muslims formed nearly 40 percent of the population of Macedonia." (Wiki).

Look at Simonides: some might say, the Greek Orthodox world is / was extremely deficient in something. He hardly did any jail time, despite being widely recognized in Greece itself as a forger/swinder. It doesn't do to treat the Greeks/orthodox as if they were always "victims." It seems they were often partly responsible for their own downfall.
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
No discussion of the Leipsig pages works against you. Uspensky had no desire to critique the monks more than he had already done, due to solidarity amongst the Orthodox. Any mention of the Leipsig pages would be taken as further unseemly critique (i.e. due to the monks having simply given them to Tischendorf). If he doesn't mention the Leipsig pages, it's because he has nothing to say: no allegation to make. This works strongly against you.
Click to expand...

All very convoluted.

Ockham gives a much simpler explanation:

Uspensky did not know of the 43 missing leaves.

Note that the Tischendorf 1846 publication does not show four columns.
 
Last edited:
Travels in the East tr. from [Reise in den Orient] by W.E. Shuckard (1847)
Constantine Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=rYZTAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA273

At the present clay in Germany, together with the belief in concealed treasures in general, the belief also in the existence of the treasures in question has declined; but the incredible is often true in the East. Who would not discredit the possibility of walled-up libraries ? yet the walled-up library at Cairo, of which I have before given an account (p. 30), is a fact. The Greek Biblical fragment also, which 1 was so lucky as to discover and bring home, and which in my opinion is not surpassed in antiquity by any of the Greek vellum codices*, has surprised very many who considered the hopes I entertained of such discoveries, as merely silly enthusiasm. All things considered, there is still, methinks, a probability that the seraglio of the Sultan conceals ancient and valuable Greek manuscripts, although complete obscurity prevails as to their contents. I had some conversation upon this subject (as I shall subsequently relate) with the Greek patriarch Constantius ; he strengthened me in my opinion, and thereby confirmed also what he himself had said upon the subject, twenty years ago, in his Greek work upon ancient and modern Constantinople.

* I have given a more particular account of this in the Wiener Jahrb. 1845, b. ii and b. iv. Anzeigeblatt fur Wissenschaft und Kunst Of this
manuscript, which I call after his Majesty the King of Saxony, Codex Frederico-Augusteus, and which has become the property of the University
Library of Leipzig, a splendid and faithfully correct impression is published.

===========================

Visit to the Patriarch Constantius, on the island Antigone

"Constantius, who, as archbishop of Sinai" - p. 274
 
Steven Avery said:
All very convoluted.

Ockham gives a much simpler explanation:

Uspensky did not know of the 43 missing leaves.
Click to expand...
That again is mere conjecture. The Codex Frederico-Augustanus at Leipsig was quite famous in its day.

Steven Avery said:
Note that the Tischendorf 1846 publication does not show four columns.
Click to expand...
I don't know what you're talking about. This link to the Codex Frederico-Augustanus shows the four columns, which is also acknowledged in the preface to the document. (At one time I assumed the link was showing the actual parchment leaves, but it is clear that it is just Tischendorf's 1846 publication, as can be seen from this page.)
 
cjab said:
That again is mere conjecture.
The Codex Frederico-Augustanus at Leipsig was quite famous in its day.
Click to expand...

Ultra-conjecture nonsense is your idea that Uspensky knew of the theft but did not want to hurt anyone’s feelings.

The CFA being from Sinai, or St. Catherine’s, was unknown.

Thanks for the 1846 4-column correction.
 
Also, there was clearly some form of collaboration by Tischendorf with Uspensky, as Tischendorf published fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus from the Porphyrius Uspensky Collection in Appendix codicum celeberrimorum Sinaitici Vaticani Alexandrini. Lipsiae, 1867. S. XVI-XVII, 3-7. So it would have been inconcievable that Uspensky did not know of Codex Frederico-Augustanus Lipsiensis by then (if he had not been aware beforehand).
 
cjab said:
Also, there was clearly some form of collaboration by Tischendorf with Uspensky, as Tischendorf published fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus from the Porphyrius Uspensky Collection in Appendix codicum celeberrimorum Sinaitici Vaticani Alexandrini. Lipsiae, 1867. S. XVI-XVII, 3-7. So it would have been inconcievable that Uspensky did not know of Codex Frederico-Augustanus Lipsiensis by then (if he had not been aware beforehand).
Click to expand...

While Tischendorf tried to keep it hush-hush for a couple of years after 1859, it was common knowledge by about 1863-64. Thus, Hilgenfeld was jostling with Tisch about the colophons.
 
cjab said:
Also, there was clearly some form of collaboration by Tischendorf with Uspensky, as Tischendorf published fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus from the Porphyrius Uspensky Collection in Appendix codicum celeberrimorum Sinaitici Vaticani Alexandrini. Lipsiae, 1867. S. XVI-XVII, 3-7. So it would have been inconcievable that Uspensky did not know of Codex Frederico-Augustanus Lipsiensis by then (if he had not been aware beforehand).
Click to expand...

Two different time periods. There is zero indication that Uspensky knew of the connection of the manuscript he had seen and handled and the CFA before c.1860, when the connection started to leak out. Afawk, no mention even in his 1862 book.

For many questions, it would very be interesting to look at his unpublished material, c. 1890.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top