David Parker touches on the accessibility of the New Finds room for Sinaiticus fragments in the 1840s-1850s by Uspensky and Tischendorf

Still no details on Simonides acrostic claims, in the words of Simonides himself!
I wonder why?

There are some quotes available.

However the Falconer Madan sources clearly go beyond what was in the Journals.

Plus the actual tracings referred to by Simonides were available into the 20th century,

Simonides in England: A Forger's Progress (2017)
Pasquale Massimo Pinto
https://www.academia.edu/33381674/S...nhoeck_and_Ruprecht_Göttingen_2017_pp_109_126

37
In the first years of the 20th century, when Farrer was writing, the Mayer papyri could still be seen in the Liverpool Free Public Museum, together with the tracings taken by Simonides for his lithographed facsimiles, see Farrer 1907,56. For an updated survey see Capponi 2008 and Maraglino 2008.

With primary sources unavailable we look through a glass darkly.
 
Explained earlier.

Through the grapevine it would be easy for Simonides and Tischendorf to know about the Uspensky 1856 and 1857 publications.

Do you admit to your deviancy, that it's actually you, and not me, who claims Uspenky was an "accomplice" (not a word I wrote) just because it might have been possible for Simonides to have read, or seen, or heard of something about Uspenky's books through a "grapevine"?
 
Since the pictures were based on solid standards, they support the very specific accusation that the 1859 leaves had been stained.

The timeline (previously posted) shows Simonides only made his staining and yellow-ish claim after Tischendorf wrote about it.

Plus...

Tischendorfs "Aus Dem Heiligen Lande" was also published in 1862, which giving the most complete and detailed information on the CFA-Sinaiticus discovery, which Simonides could have mined (being able to read German very well) for information to create his lying story in the 1862-1864 newspapers.

The timeline of events helps to clarify many things which were metaphorically clouded by the fog of war as the controversy was unfolding.
 
Do you admit to your deviancy, that it's actually you, and not me, who claims Uspenky was an "accomplice" (not a word I wrote) just because it might have been possible for Simonides to have read, or seen, or heard of something about Uspenky's books through a "grapevine"?

How do you feel that Uspensky and Simonides were connected on the acrostics?
 
Your words, your grapevine theory:


Plus there would be a grapevine involving Uspensky, who had published on Sinaiticus in 1856 and 1857,
where he was referring to his Sinai visits in 1845 and 1850. Simonides had visits to St. Petersburg and Odessa,
and contacts in the Greek and Russian Orthodox circles, so this information would likely get to Simonides.

https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/tommy-wasserman-sinaiticus-gate-keeper.514/

Actually, it is a bit more involved that what I wrote in your extract which is as usual lacking context, the context was:

"In this context of rushing to Sinai, the most Occam-friendly understanding of the "stories told by Simonides" is the rumors and discussions of his involvement with the St. Catherine's manuscript."

Now if Simonides and Athos were involved in the manuscript, Tischendorf would have heard about it in Sinai or Cairo or Constantinople or Antigonus or Athos.

Now if Simonides was not involved in the manuscript, it would be hard to come up with a sensible theory for the Tischendorf grapevine.
 
The timeline (previously posted) shows Simonides only made his staining and yellow-ish claim after Tischendorf wrote about it.

And it would have been an absurd claim if it were not true.

All somebody would have to was compare the leaves.
Quite obviously.

"wrote about it" ?????

Tischendorf did not write about the yellowed and stained St. Petersburg leaves, nor did he compare them to the Leipzig leaves. His facsimile editions hid the difference, which smoothing and hiding was also done in the recent Hendrickson edition.
 
Uspensky noting the books of Barnabas and Hermas, not just the first part of Hermas

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

Here we note that Uspensky did NOT refer to seeing the first part of Hermas, even though it is clear that his examinations in 1845 and 1850 were quite thorough. (All available to Tischendorf when he was feigning ignorance leading to the phantom red cloth discovery!)

If Uspensky had only seen the first section of Hermas, it actually would be an important evidence for the Sinaiticus Antiquity Defenders (SAD).
It would mean that as of 1845 that Hermas section was almost certainly already in the "New Finds", which would be inconsistent with the Mt. Athos production. There is no solid reason for discarding those pages between 1841 and 1845,

And similarly, the fact that Uspensky simply refers to the whole book of the Shepherd of Hermas, not a part, is strong evidence that the later part of Hermas did not get into the New Finds till later. Likely during an 1859 Tischendorf clean-up and cover-up.

We still have in 1859 the 1856 Tischendorf accusation against the very similar Codex Athous of Simonides, as being a Latin retro-version, with Tischendorf going into some detail. So for Tischendorf, the less Hermas the better, he understood that toppling Athous could also topple Sinaiticus! And then a bit later Tischendorf came up with his humorous ultra-awkward retraction, which reads a bit like gibberish, written in Latin.

Here is the key 1856 publication from Uspensky:

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

Первое путешествие в Синайский Монастыŕ в 1845 году (1856)
Архимандрита Порфиря Успенскаго
https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA225

1856 book on 1840 visit - hybrid translation from John Spillman and Kevin McGrane and/or TNC and tiny tweaks.

The first manuscript, containing the Old Testament which was incomplete and the entire New Testament with the epistle of St. Barnabas and the book of Hermas, was written on the finest white parchment in the fourth part of a long and a wide sheet.

.....

She 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. Then the New Testament begins directly without 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, Philippians, Colossians, two to the Thessalonians, and Hebrews, then his Epistles to Timothy, two to Titus 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".

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

There is more to search out on Uspensky and Hermas, but this immediately shows us that he was referring to the book, not a "first part" of the Shepherd.

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

Other special notes are the:
an intelligible presentation of the Psalter and the Song of Songs

Which is anachronistic to the early centuries and appears to be the result of incorporating later medieval Latin and Coptic formatting and rubrications.
(Note: There may also be Masoretic Text manuscript stylistic input.)

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

the white parchment
which does match the text that Uspensky saw, and the Leipzig pages taken by Tischendorf in 1844, but not the later stained section that went to Russia in 1859, which is yellow with age.

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

Another special note is the:
all the Epistles in our order

==========================================
 
Last edited:
Here is the 1857 book on the 1850 visit:

Второе путешествие архимандрита Порфирия Успенскаго в Синайский монастырь в 1850 году (1857)
The second journey of Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky to the Sinai Monastery in 1850
https://books.google.com/books?id=gJe8LW5zjxYC&pg=PA183

Остальные дни Іюля проведены были въ книжныхъ занятіяхъ. Я разсмотрѣлъ старинную рукопись Греческую на бѣломъ и тонкомъ пергаминѣ въ листъ, содержащую часть ветхаго завѣта, И весь новый завѣтъ съ посланіемъ апостола Варнавы и книгою Ермы.

The remaining days of July were spent in book studies. I examined an ancient Greek manuscript on a sheet of white, thin parchment, containing part of the Old Testament, and the entire New Testament with the epistle of the Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas.
 
Is there any later writing from Uspensky which references Hermas?

Possibly in the unpublished 20 pages on Sinaiticus or the 8-volume diary of his life.

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

The 1863 book from Avraham Norov, shilling for Tischendorf, mentions the title of a Uspensky publication that mentions Hermas.
Abbreviated - вый ЗавЪтъ съ послаыемъ Св . Апостола Варнавы и книгою Ермы . (spelling?)

And I think that is the title of the 1862 book from Uspensky, attacking Sinaiticus doctrinally, that is not online afaik, it would help. So far I had only used the Norov response to know what was in the book.
Here is a review of the Norov book.

Journal of Sacred Literature (1864)
https://books.google.com/books?id=VLcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA247


Note the translated title of the Uspensky book:

Opinion of the Archimandrite Porphyry of the Assumption, regarding the Sinaitic MS. which contains the Old Testament incomplete, and the whole of the New 'Testament, with the Epistle of the H. Apostle Barnabas, and the Book of Hermas.

(By this time Uspensky would know that Tischendorf claimed that Sinaiticus was just the first part of Hermas.)

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

Opinion about the Sinai manuscript, which contains the incomplete Old Testament and the entire New Testament with the letter of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas,

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

Another element to look for would be mention of the Arabic writing, which may have been added after 1850 in Sinai.
 
Last edited:
It would have been trivially easy for Uspensky to write:

“the incomplete Shepherd of Hermas”

As he wrote:

“the Old Testament, which was incomplete”

It would have been trivially easy for Uspensky to write:

"the [complete] Shepherd of Hermas"

As he wrote:

"the complete New Testament"
Ironically....we have an IN-COMPLETE picture of all that Uspensky said on this subject.
 
Possibly in the unpublished 20 pages on Sinaiticus or the 8-volume diary of his life.

Those pages would probably settle this dispute, I would imagine.

In what is available in English, he neither says:

"the [complete] book of the Shepherd of Hermas"

Or:

"the [in-complete] book of the Shepherd of Hermas"

The answer to this is really on hold until we get the full context of what he wrote.
 
Those pages would probably settle this dispute, I would imagine.

On another thread on March 14th, I offered this information:

I am not sure whom I am supporting here but the Sinaiticus has only a part of the text of the Shepherd of Hermas, starting at the beginning, Vision I,i,1 and going to Mandate IV,iii,6. In the Loeb Classical Library edition (transl. by Kirsopp Lake) this is pages 6 to 85, out of a total text that goes to page 305. In the Goodspeed translation this is pages 101 to 128 out of total that goes to page 201. Lake lists the later manuscripts that help complete the Shepherd.

I think this makes clear that Sinaiticus did not show the complete text of Hermas, but only about the first third of the text. I presume the text stops abruptly because pages of the Codex have gone missing, as I doubt someone would deliberately halt partway in writing the Shepherd of Hermas.
 
Last edited:
It makes no sense to me that, if Simonides worked up the Codex Sinaiticus only about 20 years before Tischendorf 'discovered' it, that so many pages would have gone missing in that short span. Two-thirds of the Shepherd of Hermas is a major example. It seems implausible that someone - ancient or modern - would have started writing Hermas and then quit one-third in and left those pages; if he had changed his mind about including Hermas he would have removed the pages already written.
 
Last edited:
These are missed by Parker because he shows little awareness of the Simonides history,

He mentioned Simonides in the original Codex Sinaiticus book as the forger he was so for you to say he has little awareness of Simonides history is 100% at variance with the facts.

His book wasn't about "The Entire Boring History of The Lying Jackweed Constantine Simonides," so please spare us.
 
It makes no sense to me that, if Simonides worked up the Codex Sinaiticus only about 20 years before Tischendorf 'discovered' it, that so many pages would have gone missing in that short span. Two-thirds of the Shepherd of Hermas is a major example. It seems implausible that someone - ancient or modern - would have started writing Hermas and then quit one-third in and left those pages; if he had changed his mind about including Hermas he would have removed the pages already written.

For starters, he actually only "worked it up" LESS THAN FOUR YEARS before Tischendorf discovered it.
That's by Dimbulbides' own dates - he himself said he did it in eight months in 1840, and Tischendorf found it (however) in 1844.

Simonides claimed he ran out of room on Hermas, but as Snapp drilled Avery with his "you're no Jack Kennedy" in their debate, Simonides only said that because he thought there was no more of it because HE WAS LYING!!! Naturally, Avery decided this meant that Tischendorf was to blame for something else.
 
Back
Top