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

Uspensky's view of the Codex Sinaiticus was very different in his first visit in 1845.



Первое путешествие в Синайский Монастыŕ в 1845 году Архимандрита Порфиря Успенскаго

"The First trip to the Sinai Monasteries in 1845 of Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky"
By Porfirij Bischof v. Tschigirin 1856
Page 225


Самые лучшие рукописи греческие хранятся в настоятельских келлиях. Их только четыре; но они весьма драгоценны по своей древности

"The very best of the best Greek manuscripts are kept [Or: "stored" "conserved"] in the Father Superior's [Or: "the Rector's" "the Prior's"] cells. There are only four of them; but they are extremely precious because of their antiquity [Or: "of being ancient" "of their great age" "of being extremely old"]..."

[...]

Краткость времени и слабость здоровья, к сожалению, не позволили мне заняться подробным рассмотрением синайского книгохранилища. Я обратил внимание лишь на те рукописи, кои по своей маститости и по надписаниям на корешках их показались мне замечательными, но за малый труд вознагражден был немало. Излагаю здесь прибытки моего знания, полученные в этом книгохранилище.

"Unfortunately, the shortness of time and poor health did not allow me to make a detailed examination of the Sinai library. I only paid close attention to the manuscripts which were revered because of their great antiquity [Or: “which by their venerability”] and by the inscriptions on their spines, that seemed in my opinion to be extraordinary [Or: “outstanding” “remarkable” “noteworthy” “wonderful” “great”]. But for just a little bit of work I was rewarded a lot. I present here the gains of my knowledge obtained in this library."

[...]

Как бы то ни было, но эта древнейшая рукопись, едва ли не единственная во всей Церкви Православной, драгоценна наипаче потому, что сверена была с таким текстом Библии, какой читается и в наше время. Стало быть, сей текст всегда был одинаков и неизменен.

"Be that as it may, this one [i.e. the Codex Sinaiticus] is thee most-ancient manuscript in the entire Orthodox Church, most probably the only one [of it's kind], which is the most-precious one [Or: “which is extremely precious”], because it has verified a similar [Or: “like”] text of the Bible which is read in our time. This proves then, that the [Bible's] text has always remained the same and is immutable [Or: “unchangeable” “unalterable” “invariable”]."

It appears from the Russian text Uspensky was fond of superlatives.
 
Как бы то ни было, но эта древнейшая рукопись, едва ли не единственная во всей Церкви Православной, драгоценна наипаче потому, что сверена была с таким текстом Библии, какой читается и в наше время. Стало быть, сей текст всегда был одинаков и неизменен.

"Be that as it may, this one [i.e. the Codex Sinaiticus] is thee most-ancient manuscript in the entire Orthodox Church, most probably the only one [of it's kind], which is the most-precious one [Or: “which is extremely precious”], because it has verified a similar [Or: “like”] text of the Bible which is read in our time. This proves then, that the [Bible's] text has always remained the same and is immutable [Or: “unchangeable” “unalterable” “invariable”]."​

Your source for the expansive translation?
 
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.
That the monks were quite capable of, and did, commence lawsuites against thieves of their manuscripts is shown in Agnes Lewis's book "IN THE SHADOW OF SINAI", 1898, where they did just that when a theft was recognized. A lawsuit was commenced between the monks and the dealer who had bought the Sinai manuscripts from the thief.

That they never sought to commence a lawsuite against Tischendorf, despite being perfectly well aware that he had taken the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, speaks volumes.
 
That the monks were quite capable of, and did, commence lawsuites against thieves of their manuscripts is shown in Agnes Lewis's book "IN THE SHADOW OF SINAI", 1898, where they did just that when a theft was recognized. A lawsuit was commenced between the monks and the dealer who had bought the Sinai manuscripts from the thief. That they never sought to commence a lawsuite against Tischendorf, despite being perfectly well aware that he had taken the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, speaks volumes.

The horses were out of the barn, the thieves of the 1840-1860 era were in repose.

By the 1890 era, they were well aware of much of the thievery. Tischendorf's estate supplied some of the factual material. Then you had the studies of Beneshevich. Later, the New Finds supplied still more, by matching Catherine's fragments with those in Europe.

However, you cannot start a lawsuit against those deceased.

The monastery today has a clearer idea of the plundering that occurred.
 
The horses were out of the barn, the thieves of the 1840-1860 era were in repose.

By the 1890 era, they were well aware of much of the thievery. Tischendorf's estate supplied some of the factual material. Then you had the studies of Beneshevich. Later, the New Finds supplied still more, by matching Catherine's fragments with those in Europe.

However, you cannot start a lawsuit against those deceased.

The monastery today has a clearer idea of the plundering that occurred.
All this is unsubstantiated propaganda. The fact remains that Tischendorf was not accused of theft by those around in the 1840s-1860s; and perhaps more importantly, would not have gained the confidence of the Russian Emperor in preference to the likes of Uspensky, for his final visit, had he been regarded as a common thief. Scholars were perfectly well aware of the existence of the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, and Uspensky would have certainly accused Tischendorf of theft, had he suspected it. He had ample time to discover the truth.
 
All this is unsubstantiated propaganda. The fact remains that Tischendorf was not accused of theft by those around in the 1840s-1860s.

They did not know what he had taken in 1844 and likely not the 1853 heist which was part of a two-part 1853-1859 abstraction.
As I pointed out to you, the most successful thefts are those where the mark does not even know what was taken.

The 1859 abstraction of the rest of Sinaiticus was accused of being de facto theft. Leading to ten years of intense turmoil, the Russians knew that Tischendorf was accused of theft, and lots of politics, like getting the head of the monastery deposed.

These various heists are often called out as theft by those connected to the monastery even today. Not just Tischendorf, but also Uspensky and also Georg Graf (1875-1955) are specifically mentioned. There is said to be helpful material in a Beneshevich 1911 book.
 
Last edited:
They did not know what he had taken in 1844 and likely not the 1853 heist.
As I pointed out to you, the most successful thefts are those where the mark does not even know what was taken.

The 1859 abstraction of the rest of Sinaiticus was accused of being de facto theft.
Leading to ten years of turmoil and lots of politics, like getting the head of the monastery deposed.

These various heists are often called out as theft by those connected to the monastery even today. Not just Tischendorf, but also Uspensky and Graf.
I don't care what people today think. Today is a very different world from what it was 175 years ago. In any case, revisionists today are frequently guided by agendas that consider the facts subsidiary. Even Countess Bathory (the world's worst mass murderer) is today being rehabiliated by feminists without an ounce of proof to support an alternative version of the facts. You don't seem to understand that you are just one of a large number today engaged in historical revisionism on very flimsy grounds. The silence of history in this case is very telling.
 
Last edited:
Was this inscription removed by Tischendorf?

It's plural.

Uspensky did not say AT ALL that the Codex Sinaiticus had a cover of any sort with spine that had any sort of inscription on it.

Oh text and post twister extraordinaire!


Краткость времени и слабость здоровья, к сожалению, не позволили мне заняться подробным рассмотрением синайского книгохранилища. Я обратил внимание лишь на те рукописи, кои по своей маститости и по надписаниям на корешках их показались мне замечательными, но за малый труд вознагражден был немало. Излагаю здесь прибытки моего знания, полученные в этом книгохранилище.

"I only paid close attention to those manuscript(s) which were revered because of their great antiquity and by the inscription(s) on their spine(s), that seemed in my opinion to be extraordinary [Or: “outstanding” “remarkable” “noteworthy” “wonderful” “great”]."

Cap 3c.PNG
 
cjab connected Tischendorf’s fantasy story of his 1844 theft with Uspensky’s 1845 account.

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?
 
cjab connected Tischendorf’s fantasy story of his 1844 theft with Uspensky’s 1845 account.
I said "Scholars were perfectly well aware of the existence of the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, and Uspensky would have certainly accused Tischendorf of theft, had he suspected it. He had ample time to discover the truth."

Your question: why didn't he accuse Tischendorf of the theft? And why was Tischendorf appointed to represent the Russians in place of Uspensky, if he was suspected of dishonesty? I suggest there was no suspicion of it.
 
Scholars were perfectly well aware of the existence of the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, and Uspensky would have certainly accused Tischendorf of theft, had he suspected it. He had ample time to discover the truth.

Which scholars knew that the CFA came from Mt. Catherine’s between 1844-1859?
 
The scholars that had seen the Codex Sinaiticus of course - i.e. Uspensky, and then everyone else who mattered by 1862.

So one scholar - Uspensky - yet he does not mention the CFA in his 1856 or 1857 books that reference Sinaiticus - so you have zero.
 
So one scholar - Uspensky - yet he does not mention the CFA in his 1856 or 1857 books that reference Sinaiticus - so you have zero.
The principal early writing from Uspensky on Sinaiticus is Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь в 1845 году printed in 1856 which is dedicated to the Sinai trip and examination of the document in Sinai. It wasn't the place to disgress into the earlier policies of the monks in burning/disposing of their old books, which we glean from other orthodox sources. There is much that could reflect badly on the monks that Uspensky doesn't reveal. What he does reveal is that there were no scholars at St. Catherine in Sinai, but that the most valuable documents were kept in the monks cells, and so unavailable to visitors such as Tischendorf. Uspensky reveals that the monks faced many issues with the upkeep of their buildings and with thefts from visitors. All this strongly supports Tischendorf's account. He had also found the monks incredibly ignorant, but claimed he never saw the rest of the Codex. Moreover and what is essential to take into account: if Tischendorf had been intent on theft of some part of the Codex, per the Simonides mentality at Athos, he certainly would have stolen parts from the NT, rather than Septuagint material.

This dual and independent testimony to the monk's ignorance as to the scholarly value of their treasures, and their attitude towards visitors, is absolutely essential in any exercise of historical revisionism, but it is always overlooked by you. Consequently I find your revisionism to be less than frank: revisionism that fails to take into account the evidence, as is so often the case with non-scholars and bigots linked to agendas, is mere cant.

Also, if Uspensky were to make an allegation of dishonesty, it wouldn't be in the context of a travelogue.

Silence in the travelogues is not proof of anything, and it works against you as well.
 
Last edited:
So you have given up your claim that Uspensky or any scholars show knowledge of the CFA being from St. Catherine;s before 1859.

Scholars were perfectly well aware of the existence of the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, and Uspensky would have certainly accused Tischendorf of theft, had he suspected it. He had ample time to discover the truth.
 
So you have given up your claim that Uspensky or any scholars show knowledge of the CFA being from St. Catherine;s before 1859.
Uspensky must have been informed of Tischendorf's visit, when he visited the monastery. Tischendorf had published the Codex Frederico-Augustanus. Uspensky is therefore fixed with constructive knowledge of where the Codex Frederico-Augustanus had originated. That he didn't disclose it, and other silly things the onks did, is surely for political reasons. One doesn't disclose everything one knows in print. As I recall Uspensky was actually quite critical of these monks, as other authors aver.
 
Back
Top