An important post that vanished, about Uspensky, which TNC nicely quoted (thanks!) the context was the debate on the manuscript, including Uspensky.
TNC quoted post here:
Small changes now.
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 on the Sinai manuscript containing the Old Testament incomplete and the entire New Testament with the epistle of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas
or longer title
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 II. Apostle Barnabas, and the Book of Hermas.
Note that Uspensky had actually raised specific verse issues from the manuscript in his 1856 book about his 1845 Sinai visit.
All before the 1859 phony red cloth "discovery." He also copied in part of Psalms and Song of Songs.
Avraam Sergeevic Norov (1795-1869) wrote a defense, essentially Tischendorf's position that was put in his 1863 books.
Защита синайской рукописи библіи от нападеній О. архимандрита Порфирія Успенскаго
(Zaščita sinajskoj rukopisi biblii ot napadenij O. Archimandrita Porfirija Uspenskago )
Avraam Sergyeevich Norov
Vindication of the Sinaitic MS. of the Bible from the Charges brought against it by F. Archimandrite Porphyry, of the Assumption. by A. Noroff. St.
Journal of Sacred Literature
Review - shill for Sinaiticus
Similar shilling for the corruption text contra Uspensky by:
Michael Luzin (note: to his credit he defends the heavenly witnesses verse!)
Tischendorf has direct defense material too:
Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel (1863)
Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel (1863)
In these books he is wildly attacking Uspensky, Simonides, Hilgenfeld and an anonymous English writer. I believe Tischendorf is a bit unbalanced in these books because he can sense that the whole charade (4th century, authenticity or both) can come crashing down. You can understand his concern with Simonides, however the others simply pointed out flaws in his 4th-century theory.
Christfried Bottrich in the Perspectives book, 2015
Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript
One Story - Different Perspectives:
The Discovery of Codex Sinaiticus
Uspenskij’s visit to the Monastery in 1845 may have provided the main impulse to reunify the separate parchment sheets and then to preserve them carefully. His first written report of 1856 was evidently known to the Holy Synod in St Petersburg and influenced its position during the negotiations before Tischendorf’s third journey under the Russian flag.21 These are Uspenskij’s principal contributions. In contrast, his 1862
treatise is of no scholarly value, reflecting only his personal resentment.22
AUTHORITY IN THE BACKGROUND -
THE HOLY SYNOD’S GUIDELINES
One of the most exciting documents offering a clear perspective on the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus is preserved in a statement formulated by the Holy Synod in St Petersburg in May 1858, concerning the planned send-off of Tischendorf to Sinai. This statement is part of a dossier produced by the Russian Minister of Education on 11 June 1862.23 The Holy Synod, having been asked for an opinion on the venture, warned the Minister about entrusting a German Protestant with such a complicated mission. The Synod advised that the mission could better be executed by an Orthodox scholar, who would be able to open the doors of Greek monasteries in the East. The Holy Synod therefore proposed Professor Viktor Ivanovic Grigorovic from Kazan and Archimandrite Porfirij Uspenskij for the mission, instead of Tischendorf.
Then there follows a very important demand: these Orthodox scholars should only register, describe and copy the manuscripts. The Synod advised that perhaps it might be useful to ask permission to transfer some manuscripts to Russia for a limited period for scholarly analysis. However, the purchase of manuscripts was to be forbidden absolutely! The basis for this prohibition was a consensus reached by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Hierarchs of the Eastern Churches. This statement may have been based on negative incidents the churches and monasteries had already experienced. So the Holy Synod insisted on the untouched preservation of the original collections in situ
. Only privately owned manuscripts were excepted from this guideline.