more Tischendorf pretend - did not know of Uspensky seeing ms, 1 Corinthians fragment! - Uspensky did not see the ms - Archimandrate Dionysius

Steven Avery

Administrator
When a person is involved in a con job, often they have to pile up deceptions, and even false accusations, high and deep.

The Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 33 (1876)
Caspar Rene Gregory
https://books.google.com/books?id=iwgXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA176


After publishing his new Eastern travels in 1802, Tischendorf brought out in 1863 a hand-edition of the Codex Sinaiticus, and two pamphlets in defence of the Sinaitic manuscript, one in February and the other in August. The first opposed English and Russian attacks. Simonides, who still kept on with his manuscript forgeries and sales, came out in the Guardian with the announcement that he had, himself, written the Codex Sinaiticus. And Porphyrius Uspenski, a Russian archimandrite, charged the Codex Sinaiticus with heresy. In February 1863 Tischendorf answered these two with a storm of ridicule and sharp speeches. He reminded the manuscript forger of the facts which showed him to have been utterly ignorant of the manuscript before its discovery, and he not only charged the archimandrite with not having seen the book, but also made it plain that the alleged heresy found no hold in it at all. The second was against an anonymous writer in a church paper. The anonymous personage was furnished with dates, figures, and facts, generously seasoned with Tischendorf s too ready sarcasm, and finally the full quotation of Rev. iii. 17, 18, was commended to him, — a passage which, it was added, stood unchanged in the Sinaitic manuscript.

This Tischendorf accusation, passed on here through the Tischendorf historian and pseudo-protege Gregory, is truly absurd, and we should look for it in the Assault book, which has never been translated to English (however, Google mangle is a good start.) Uspensky described the manuscript in great detail in a book published years before Tischendorf even claimed to find the New Testament. This is another example of the many lies, and phantom history, at the base of the historical fabrication accounts.

In the 2015 Perpspectives book there is a section showing clearly how well known was the Uspensky material among the Russian administration. (I will plan on including here.)


And Tischendorf was working closely with those Russian administrators.

When Were Our Gospels Written? An Argument by Constantine Tischendorf. With a Narrative of the Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript (1866).
Constantine Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=uJ0HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA27

in the autumn of 1856, to submit to the Russian Government a plan of a journey for making systematic researches in the East. This proposal only aroused a jealous and fanatical opposition in St. Petersburg. People were astonished that a foreigner and a Protestant should presume to ask the support of the Emperor of the Greek and Orthodox Church for a mission to the East.
This is true whether or not he met Uspensky in those years, in the early 1860s they did cooperate on some publishing of a Uspensky fragment, in a short season where Tischendorf was respectful of Uspensky. And in fact Tischendorf at one point wrote of Uspensky getting some solid credit on the ms. .. (those quotes can be brought here as we bump into them again, some may be in the article by Nicholas Fyssas.)

There is a note also where Tischendorf in 1859 disclaimed knowing of the Uspensky siting of Sinaiticus (this was to one of the Russian officials, Lobanov.) Of course, since Tischendorf would be claiming the New Testament as an amazing last-day discovery,the red cloth fabric-ation to go with the fanciful 1844 saved by burning fabrication) ... any acknowledgement of knowing the various references of the NT of the manuscript would expose his own story as tissuedorfs of lies.

And is mentioned in Scrivener, who was prone to being duped by Tischendorf (think of the yellow with age ms, without mentioning the white CFA):


Before quitting this part of our subject, it is right to state that the manuscript must have been inspected by two persons at Mount Sinai during the interval between its being first seen by Tischendorf in 1844 and its removal from the convent in 1859. In 1845 or 1846 the Russian Archimandrite Porphyrius examined it, observed that the New Testament formed a part of it, and published a tolerable account of its contents and the character of its text at St. Petersburg in 1856. This book, being written in the Russian language, was unknown to Tischendorf until it was shown to him at Constantinople in August 1859, by Prince Lobanow, the Russian embassador there.

A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the Received Text of the New Testament (1864)
Scrivener

https://archive.org/stream/fullcollationofc00scri#page/n15/mode/2up
https://books.google.com/books?id=CNmOa7HaS6EC&pg=PR10

Aleksey Lobanov-Rostovsky Lobanov (1824-1896)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksey_Lobanov-Rostovsky

You can see the sense here from Stanley E. Porter, where the clear detailed published information from Uspensky, quite exhaustive, is amazingly reduced to a rumour (going downhill from the "tolerable account" of Scrivener). Porter, like almost all modern writers, likely never checked the Uspensky source, relying on snippets in secondary and tertiary sources. When you consider how fundamental was the Uspensky material, this has to be seen as shoddy research, by Parker, Porter and other English language writers.

'There was another rumour that a Russian, Archimandrite Porfiri Uspensky (spellings of his name vary), already mentioned above in relation to Tischendorf's first trip to Sinai, had seen the entire manuscript, Old Testament and New Testament, on two different visits to the monastery in 1845 and 1850, and that most likely he had been given some pages of it that had already been divided up for use as bookbinding. Even though Uspensky was not a scholar, he had recognized the oldness of the manuscript, but he failed to realize its antiquarian significance. He had taken notes on the manuscripts that he had seen on his journeys, and he had only a few comments to make about this codex, comments that indicate that he did not appreciate its full value. Tischendorf apparently did not find out until later that Uspensky had seen the manuscript, but perhaps Tischendorf's own later and renewed interest had made the monks more cautious. It is likely, as Bottrich suspects, that Tischendorf, failing to find the manuscript in 1853, was simply awaiting news of publication by another scholar of the Sinai Codex that he had sought so hard to find. Porter p. 34-35

Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel (1863)
Constantine Tischendorf
http://books.google.com/books?id=uuFUAAAAcAAJ


In discussing Simonides, there are tons of insults from Tischendorf in the Anfectungen book (Assaults on the Sinai-Bible). Among the more reasonable questions raised by Tischendorf is whether Simonides noticed the missing part of the OT (it was reported incomplete by Uspensky, and may have never been complete), or the dedication to the Tsar, in his 1852 visit to Sinai.

As to Tischendorf making a big deal about the condition of the ms in 1852, when Simonides may have seen it again in Sinai, remember that Simonides and Kallinikos were reporting tampering with the ms. more in the 1850s than 1840s. And that it seems that the ms was basically intact from Uspensky's accounts of 1845 and 1850. Also the dedication to the Czar may have been an embellishment by Simonides to make the enterprise look more like a legitimate replica than the forgery.

So, other than the Tischendorf theft of 1844, this would make the big Tischendorf bluster issue about the 1852 seem anachronistic. Although it would be good to have a monastery timeline than includes Kallinikos and Simonides from 1840 to 1859, note the timing given by Kallinikos:


"And further, I repeat, that the MS. in dispute is the work of the unwearied, Simonides, and of no other person. A portion of this was secretly removed from Mount Sinai, by Professor Tischendorf, in 1844. The rest, with inconceivable recklessness, he mutilated and tampered with, according to his liking, in the year 1859. Some leaves he destroyed, especially such as contained the Acrostics of Sirnonides..."
https://books.google.com/books?id=l7cRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA228

Note that the Archimandrate Dionysius, in a little-noted series of answers to questions, actually affirms some of the basics of the Simonides historicity. (Including the connecton of Simonides with Constantius.) This is from a source more reliable than anybody connected with Sinai, where the Tischendorf baksheesh and close connection to Cyrillus, and the recent international $$ interest in the manuscript, makes accounts, like those from another Callinikos, a monk of Sinai, that included the phantom ancient catalogs, very unreliable.

Journal of Sacred Literature

Archimandrate Dionysius - Oct 23, 1863
https://books.google.com/books?id=l7cRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA228

While used for attempts in the opposite direction. Dionysius affirms Simonides basics. Dionysius wrote that Simonides was in Athos in 1851, which would be consistent with following up with a visit to Sinai in 1852. While the 1840 Athos visit was consistent with his story of ms. production. Dionysius asserted that Benedict was not Simonides uncle, however as long as they are connected, that question of family lineage is quite minor anyway, even if Dionysius was accurate. The Dionysius account of Benedict passing in 1840 has to be balanced against an English account of Simonides having received letters from a few years later, and the entries in the Lambrou catalog.

Next, returning to Tischendorf being aware of the Uspensky travels:


The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as reported in the personal letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
Jeffrey-Michael Featherstone
https://lettres.unifr.ch/fileadmin/.../featherstone._tischendorf_correspondence.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/1123038/Th...he_personal_letters_of_Konstantin_Tischendorf


April 18, 1860 1000-year Jubilee.
In a postscript he inserts an historical sketch of the discovery, wherein he relates exactly how the beginning of it goes back to his find in a basket of the library in 1844, etc. It seemed to him desirable that the archbishop should know all of this from him with precision. He has composed the account in such a way as to mention the Russian archimandrite Porfirij, but that he himself had priority in the discovery.

Interesting wording "composed the account"

One of the prime Tischendorf contacts in Russia was Avraam Sergevic Norov, who was Minister of Public Information in precisely the critical years, 1853-1858, so it is quite clear that the Uspensky writings of 1856-57 would be quickly known to all the main players, and likely earlier his verbal accounts.

ADDED 4-24-2016

This post correlates with:


Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel - (Assaults on the Sinai Bible)


Steven Avery
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
From Gregory (post #1) - Looking for Tischendorf claim that Uspensky did not see the ms.

Norov
https://www-sravnika-narod-ru.trans...tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

Assaults (most likely)
https://books.google.com/books?id=uuFUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA14

Die Thatsache ist in Kurze folgende. Ein russischer Archimandrit, Namens Prophyrius Uspenski, der, wie bereits wiederholt in der Gesehichte der Handschrift von mir vermeldet worden, kurz nacli meiner Entdeckung vom Jahre 1844, namlich 1845 und 1850, auf dem Sinai war, dabei die Handschrift gesehen und 1856 in einem russischen Reisewerk mit grosster Unwissenheit beschrieben hat, wesshalb er sogar einen Antbeil an der Entdeckung zu haben verineint liess Anfang Januar cine russische Broschure erscheinen, worin er nacht einem hochst possirlichen Versuche, das Alter der Handschrift aufs Jahr 462 zuruckzufuhren ** uber ihren Text den Aufschluss gibt, dass nach demselben >> Christus weder der Sohn der Jungfrau Maria, noch der Sohn Gottes sei, auch nicht habe was der Vater hat,, dass er nicbt der Sunderin verziehen habe und nicht gen Himmel gefahren sei.«

Woher hat Prophyrius diese Summe entsetzlicher Aufschlusse ? Nicht etwa aus meiner Ausgabe des Codex selbst; denn am 24. Jan. schrieb er an mich (tanquam re bene gesta) »a Son Eminence«: » Mon cher ami «. — » De grace dites-moi quand sera publie Votre edition du Codex Sinaitique en miniature? Avec impatience je desire I'acheter, parce que je n'espere point procurer ici ni meme voir I'edition brillante que Vous avez dedie(e) a noire Auguste Empereur« Also ohne nur eine Kinsicht in den schon publicirten oder doch nuf dem Petersburger Unterrichtsministerium in zweihundert Exemplaren vorliegenden Text abzuwarten, ein Vernichtungsurtheil uber denselben? Nun er hat wenigstens aus meiner oft genannten »Notitia« vom Jahre 1860 geschopft, wo alle von ihm in Betracht gezogenen Stellen mit Ausnahme eines ubersprungenen Verses verzeichnet stehen.


1672277420971.png



1672266914435.png



**) Ganz abgeschen von dem russischen Archimandriten und seiner seltsamen obgleich dem Geschmack der deutschen Petersburger Zeitung entsprechenden Art, das Alter einer Handschrift zu bestimmen, mach’ ich bei dieser Gelegenheit darauf aufmerksam, wie wenig eine allgemeine Beschaftigung mit griechischen Handschriften zu einer Beurtheilung, einer Fest-

**) Quite apart from the Russian archimandrite and his strange way of determining the age of a manuscript, although it corresponds to the taste of the German Petersburger Zeitung, I would like to point out on this occasion how little a general occupation with Greek manuscripts leads to an assessment, a festival
1672265909641.png


The fact is, in short, this. A Russian archimandrite, named Prophyrius Uspenski, who, as I have repeatedly reported in the history of the manuscript, was on Sinai shortly after my discovery in 1844, namely in 1845 and 1850, saw the manuscript and in 1856 in a Russian one Reisewerk has described with great ignorance, which is why he even denied having a share in the discovery, published a Russian brochure at the beginning of January, in which, after a highly comical attempt to trace the age of the manuscript back to the year 462 **, he gives information about its text that according to the same >> Christ is neither the son of the virgin Mary, nor the son of God, nor have what the father hath, that he has not forgiven the sinners, and has not ascended into heaven.”

Whence did Prophyrius get this sum of terrible information? Not from my edition of the Codex itself; because on Jan. 24 he wrote to me (as well done)

»to His Eminence«: »My dear friend«. "Please tell me when your edition of the Sinaitic Codex in miniature will be published?" With impatience I wish to buy it, because I do not hope to procure here or even see the brilliant edition which You have dedicated to our Auguste Emperor.

So without waiting for a review of the text, which has already been published or is only available in two hundred copies to the Petersburg Ministry of Education, a verdict of destruction about the same? Well, at least he drew on my often-cited "Notitia" of 1860, where all the passages he considered are listed with the exception of one verse that was skipped.


https://books.google.com/books?id=uuFUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA24

Weapons
https://books.google.com/books?id=rd1UAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA9

1672264159582.png

1672264247413.png
 
Last edited:
Top