Porfiry Uspensky views Sinaiticus in 1845 and 1850 and 1862-63 doctrinal dispute with Norov and Tischendorf

Steven Avery

Administrator
vx6he7kjwb6razixlhap5k8310c1hs04

Russian Orthodox Porphyrius Uspensky of Chigirin saw the Codex Sinaiticus in 1845 and 1850.
(There is an extract from 1845, related in his book published in 1856, in the "white parchment" thread.)


Bishop Porphyrius (Uspensky) and his Collection
Zh. Levina
http://www.nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSinaiticus/porf.html

... In the East he obtained ample opportunities to travel, visit monastery libraries and explore antiquities. In 1845-1846 Porphyrius Uspensky made his first trip. Between January and June 1845 he undertook an expedition covering Egypt, Mt Sinai and monasteries in the Nitrian desert. Between August 1845 and January 1846, and between March and late June 1846, the richest treasures of Christian antiquity were examined by him on the Holy Mount Athos.

Yet Mt Sinai was Fr. Porphyrius's primary concern. Unlike other old community, St. Catherine had never been plundered. The scholar considered it as an inexhaustible mine of antiquity. It was there that in 1845, fifteen years before C. Tischendorf, Porphyrius Uspensky discovered and described a major portion of the manuscript Greek Bible, the celebrated 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus (the German scholar could see no more than 129 sheets in 1844).

Porphyrius Uspensky maintained a firm position on the Codex Sinaiticus and disputed with C. Tischendorf. Nevertheless, he respected his scholarly opponent, kept in touch with him and often sent his own papers or old manuscripts to C. Tischendorf. For instance, he gave a Sinaitic Palimpsest from his own collection (RNB, Greek 225) to C. Tischendorf for publishing. The latter, in turn, presented Fr. Porphyrius with several sheets from the publication of the Codex Sinaiticus, as indicated by the inscription on one leaf.

.... Over the years of work in the Mission Archimandrite. Porphyrius with his team traveled all the shrines of the East. From 18 March to 17 August 1850 he was taken second trip to Egypt, during which the expedition visited the monastery of Sabas in Alexandria, New Patriarchy and Saint Nicholas church in Cairo, the oldest monasteries in prep. Anthony the Great and Paul of Thebes Red Sea, Monastery of St. Catherine in Sinai.

... Bishop Porphyrius's Most Important Works Related to Sinai:



  1. The Sinai Peninsula // ZhMNP. 1848. No. 11 (otd. ott.: Saint Petersburg, 1848)
  2. The Second Visit to Mt Sinai Monastery in 1850. Saint Petersburg, 1856.
  3. The First Trip to Mt Sinai Monastery in 1845. Saint Petersburg, 1856.
  4. The Christian Orient: Egipt and Sinai. Saint Petersburg, 1857.
  5. Inscriptions on the Rocks of Sinai by Kinei Manafa. Saint Petersburg, 1857.
  6. News of a Glagolytic Psalter, Held in the Library of Mt Sinai Monastery. Bulletin of the Imperial Archaeological Society /Izvestia Imperatorskogo Arkheologicheskogo obshestva/ 1863. Vol. 5, issue I.

One problem in the above. The evidence is strong that Uspensky, like Tischendorf, took manuscripts on the QT. However, overall it is one of the few places where his relationship to the Sinai manuscript is discussed in English.

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


FIRST PRE-1859 USPENSKY BOOK THAT HAS DESCRIPTION OF SINAITICUS MANUSCRIPT (over 14 pages)

1845 visit --> 1856 book


2. The First Trip to Mt Sinai Monastery in 1845. Saint Petersburg, 1856.

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


"Первая рукопись, содержащая Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием ап. Варнавы и книгой Ермы, писана на тончайшем белом пергаменте. (...) Буквы в ней совершенно похожи на церковно-славянские. Постановка их прямая и сплошная. Над словами нет придыханий и ударений, а речения не отделяются никакими знаками правописания кроме точек. Весь священный текст писан в четыре и два столбца стихомерным образом и так слитно, как будто одно длинное речение тянется от точки до точки." (Порфирий (Успенский), Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь в 1845 году, Petersburg 1856, с. 226.)

"The first manuscript, containing the Old Testament is incomplete and the entire New Testament with a message up. Barnabas and Hermas book, writing on the thinnest white parchment. (...) The letters in it quite similar to the Church Slavonic. The writing style is direct and continuous (without space). Above the words, there are no breathings and accents and words are not separated by any punctuation (pronunciation symbol) above the letter) except for points. All the sacred texts were written in four columns and two stichometric together, as one long utterance stretches from point to point." Porfiry Uspensky), the first trip to the Sinai Monastery in 1845, Petersburg 1856, p. 226.) - translated by google using a Russian native friend to do some tweaking.

Note that Sevcenko below tells us that the whole section from 225-238 is about Sinaiticus!

Here is the same work in a different font:


Pervoe puteshestvīe v Sinaĭskīĭ monastyrʹ v 1845 godu
Porfirīĭ, Uspenski
http://www.worldcat.org/title/pervoe-puteshestvie-v-sinaiskii-monastyr-v-1845-godu/oclc/070912898

More translation is being given in the third post.


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

SECOND PRE-1859 USPENSKY BOOK THAT REFERENCES THE SINAITICUS MANUSCRIPT

(p. 193 is emphasized, talks of weeks in monastery)

1850 visit - -->1856 book -- often listed as 1857
3. The Second Visit of Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky to the Mt Sinai Monastery in 1850. Saint Petersburg, 1856.

Vtoroe putešestvie Archimandrita Porfirija Uspenskago v Sinajskij Monastyrʹ v 1850 godu|
Konstantin A. Uspenskij
https://books.google.com/books?id=mIlCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA193
https://play.google.com/books/reader?id=mIlCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA193
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/en/fs1/object/display/bsb10469914_00198.html


Same book, different font:

Второе путешествіе архимандрита Порфирія Успенскаго в Синайскій монастырь в 1850 году (NOVIEW)
https://books.google.pl/books?id=4vgjHQAACAAJ

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

THIRD PRE-1859 USPENSKY BOOK THAT REFERENCES THE SINAITICUS MANUSCRIPT
- 2 Facsimile Plates from 1 Corinthians 13, Plates XV and XVI p. 121
In terms of Sinaiticus, it may simply have the Corinthians fragment.

Jongkind, p. 6 (after not giving the white parchment info from Vol 1) says this is a two-volume work with Plates XV and XVI being drawings, referencing 1 Corinthians 13.
Vol 1 only has plates 1-9 on p. 133-135 so that connection fits. Vol 2 is unfound, so far.
vx6he7kjwb6razixlhap5k8310c1hs04

vx6he7kjwb6razixlhap5k8310c1hs04

We are still checking out the 2 volume aspect above.

4. The Christian Orient: Egipt and Sinai. Saint Petersburg, 1857.

The Christian Orient: Egipt and Sinai. Views, sketches, plans and inscriptions supplementing the journeys of Archimandrite Porfiry..Saint Petersburg, 1857.

Vostok khristīanskīĭ : Egipet i Sinaĭ, vidy, ocherki, plany i nadpisi k puteshestvīi︠a︡m A. Porfirīi︠a︡.
http://www.worldcat.org/title/vostok-khristianskii-egipet-i-sinai-vidy-ocherki-plany-i-nadpisi-k-puteshestviiam-a-porfiriia/oclc/73429870 Yale, NYPL, Cambridge, Munich
http://www.worldcat.org/title/vostok-khristianskii-afon/oclc/302231108?referer=di&ht=edition Yale, Princeton, Sacramento
http://www.worldcat.org/title/vostok-khristianskii-afon/oclc/688404561 (1892)

Vostok christijanskij Egipet i Sinaj, Vidy, očerki, plany i nadpisi k putešestvijam A. Porfirija
(this has his artwork, maybe the Hermas piece.)
Is it Volume 2? Is that Volume correct? Available in NYPL, Yale, Princeton and Sacremento.

EOD
https://www.books2ebooks.eu/odm/orderformular.do?lang=en&formular_id=43&sys_id=28432264


One Codex, Three Scribes, and Many Books: Struggles with Space in Codex Sinaiticus, (2006) -p. 121-136
Dirk Jongkind

2 ...The first verses of the New Testament were not published by Tischendorf but by the archimandrite Porfiri Uspenski who has included a plate of parts of 1 Corinthians 13 in a book on his travels to the Middle East (P. Porfiri, Vostok khristianskii: Egipet i Sinai; bidy, ocherki, plany i nadpisi. 2 vols. [St. Petersburg 1857]). p. 121

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

5. Inscriptions on the Rocks of Sinai by Kinei Manafa. Saint Petersburg, 1857.


PlayPisʹmena Kineja Manafy na Sinajskich utesach: Sočinenie archimandrita Porfirija Uspenskago. S 23-mja nadpisjami, egipetskimi, vavilonskimi, samarskimi, finikijskimi i sinajskimi i s kartoju sinajskich nadpisej, vyrězannoju na mědi (date?.. topics?)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr8-AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA133

Pisʹmena Kineja Manafy na Sinajskich utesach : Sočinenie archimandrita Porfirija Uspenskago. S 23-mja nadpisjami, egipetskimi, vavilonskimi, samarskimi, finikijskimi i sinajskimi i s kartoju sinajskich nadpisej, vyrězannoju na mědi - (1857) 147 pages
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs3/object/display/bsb10257967_00007.html
http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs3/object/display/bsb10257967_00157.html (end)
https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr8-AAAAcAAJ

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

USPENSKY 1862 DOCTRINAL BOOK

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

Mnenie o Sinaijskoj rukopisi, soderiascej v sebe Vetchij Zavet nepolnyj, i ves' Novij Zavet s poslaniem svjatago apostola Varnavy i knigoju Ermy

"Opinion on the Sinai manuscript, which contains the Old Testament incomplete and the entire New Testament with the message of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Erma the Archimandrite Porfiry."


Christfried Bottrich references this at times.
Constantin Tischendorf und Avraam Norov

https://books.google.com/books?id=e2N0zg3y2NoC&pg=PA104
Der Jahrhundertfund: Entdeckung und Geschichte des Codex Sinaiticus p. 187

1671239608118.png

1671239666570.png

Uspenskij .. wrote a little treatise in which he attempted to present Codex Sinaiticus as a copy made by heretics in the fifth century. 18 This treatise appeared shortly before Tischendorf completed his facsimile edition in 1862, and it was written in order to delay this publication. Third, in his diaries published posthumously, Uspenskij came back to the story several times with many complaints. 19
Perspectives p. 176

18 references the 1862 doctrinal book

19 P. Uspenskij, Kniga bytija moego. Dnevniki i avtobiograficeskija zapiski episkopa Porfirija Uspenskago. Izdanie Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk* pod redakcieju P. A. Syrku Ipostumj, 8 vols
(St Petersburg, 1894-1902).
http://www.worldcat.org/title/kniga-bytija-moego-dnevniki-i-avtobiograficeskija-zapiski/oclc/600869768

McGrane
1688161147964.png


1688161045946.png


Another book in the bibliography looks to be related to the doctrinal attack, Bottrich apparently places it with the books by Uspensky, however we have the 1863 Avraam Norov response to Uspenksy.

1863 Norov Response
A.S. Norov - (St. Petersburg, 1863)
Protecting the Sinai manuscript from attacks by Archimandrite Porfiry

Защита синайской рукописи от нападений о. архимандрита Порфирия (Успенского)
Zashchita sinayskoy rukopisi ot napadeniy o. arkhimandrita Porfiriya (Uspenskogo)

Zascita sinajskoj rukopisi biblii ot' napadenij o. Archimandrita Porfirija Uspenskago - (Worldcat)[Die Angelegenheit der Bibelhandschrift vom Sinai nach dem Angriff des Archimandriten Porfirij Uspenskij]

Bottrich also references a period of some "cautious cooperation" between Uspensky and Tischendorf, followed by slights and animosity.


Sevcenko also references other materials, including a 1910 edition of a book by Bezobrazov, V. P. (Vladimir Pavlovich), 1828-1889

Sevcenko did not have access to the 1862 doctrinal book.

New documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (1910)

Ihor Sevcenko
http://www.persee.fr/doc/scrip_0036-9772_1964_num_18_1_3197

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

Here are plates 1-9 starting on p. 133 .. so far, it seems like Volume 2 is not easily available. (correction possibly, this may be a different book)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Ihor Sevcenko on Uspensky descriptions of Sinaiticus

The writer who gives more information is Ihor Sevcenko:

New Documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (1964)
Ihor Sevcenko
http://www.persee.fr/doc/scrip_0036-9772_1964_num_18_1_3197


It is easier to assess the part played by Tischendorf the scholar in the Sinaiticus affair: All one has to do is compare his instant realization of the manuscript's value to the long and irrelevant description of the Sinaiticus produced by Porfirij Uspenskij (78), who saw it in 1845 and 1850 and who, on the latter date, was able to study it on Sinai at his leisure (79). Uspenskij's subsequent attacks, occasioned by the alleged heretical traits in the Sinaiticus, were merely sour grapes. Until Tischendorf's announcement of 1860, the learned but confused Archimandrite had seen nothing amiss in that manuscript. He had been convinced that it was of importance (80), but he never realized how great this importance was.

(78)

Pervoe puteshestvīe v Sinaĭskīĭ monastyrʹ v 1845 godu: - p. 225-238. Porfirij reports on the letter of Barnabas without being aware of the capital importance of the find.

(79) Cf. Kniga... (as in note 20 supra), VIII, p. 56 : "for a long time;" P. V. Bezobrazov, Materialy (as in note 20 supra), II. p. 881 : "forty days;" this can hardly be true, since it appears from Porfirij's Vtoroe putesestvie... (as in note 20 supra), p. 77. 162 ff., 193, that in 1850 he spent a total of 29 days on Sinai, out of which a maximum of four were devoted to the study of the Sinaiticus (which Porflrij specifically mentioned on p. 193).

(80) Cf. P.V.
Bezobrazov, Materialy... (as in note 20 supra), II, p. 681-684 : reporting to Count A. P. Tolstoj on March 1, 1858, Uspenskij expressed a negative opinion on Tischendorf's intended trip to the Near East (the trip that led to the Sinaiticus discovery). Instead, Porfirij suggested that three Russians should be sent on a mission, and that they should obtain permission from the Eastern Patriarchs to borrow (not without compensation) certain [important] manuscripts for a time, e.g. " the Sinai Septuagint of the fifth century," in other words, the Sinaiticus.

===

Extracting Uspensky #2

(79) .... "forty days;" this can hardly be true, since it appears from Porfirij's Vtoroe putesestvie... (as in note 20 supra), p. 77. 162 ff., 193, that in 1850 he spent a total of 29 days on Sinai, out of which a maximum of four were devoted to the study of the Sinaiticus (which Porflrij specifically mentioned on p. 193).
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
more about the Uspensky section about seeing the ms. on the 1845 visit

Первая рукопись, содержащая Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием ап. Варнавы и книгой Ермы, писана на тончайшем белом пергаменте. (...) Буквы в ней совершенно похожи на церковно-славянские. Постановка их прямая и сплошная. Над словами нет придыханий и ударений, а речения не отделяются никакими знаками правописания кроме точек. Весь священный текст писан в четыре и два столбца стихомерным образом и так слитно, как будто одно длинное речение тянется от точки до точки. (Порфирий (Успенский), Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь в 1845 году, Petersburg 1856, 225-226.)

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


More Fully

Самые лучшие рукописи Греческие хранятся в настоятельских кельях. Их только четыре, но они весьма драгоценны по своей древности, редкости и особенности почерков, по содержанию своему, по изяществу живописных ликов святых и по занимательности чертежей и рисунков.

Первая рукопись, содержащая Ветхий Завет неполный* и весь Новый завет с посланием апостола Варнавы и книгою Ермы, писана на тончайшем белом пергаменте в четвертую долю длинного и широкого листа. Буквы в ней совершенно похожи на церковно-славянские. Постановка их – прямая и сплошная. Над словами нет предыханий и ударений, а речения не отделяются никакими знаками правописания, кроме точек. Весь священный текст писан в четыре и в два столбца стихомерным образом и так слитно, как будто одно длинное речение тянется от точки до точки**. Такая постановка букв без грамматических просодий, и такой способ писания священного текста, придуманный Александрийским диаконом Евфалием около 446 года по рождестве Христовом и вскоре покинутый по той причине, что между столбцами оставалось много пробелов на дорогом пергаменте, доказывают, что это рукопись была издана в пятом веке. Она достопримечательная во многих отношениях. В ней усматриваются: особый порядок священных книг, вразумительное изложение Псалтыря и Песни Песней, множество разных чтений на полях новозаветного текста, и особенное наречие. Историческая часть Ветхого Завета окончена книгами Товита, Юдифи и Маккавейскими, потом следуют Пророчества, и за ними Псалтирь, Притчи, Екклесиаст, Песни Песней, премудрость Соломона и книги Сираха и Иова. Далее непосредственно начинается Новый Завет без всякого предисловия. Сперва написаны Евангелия Матфея, Марка, Луки и Иоанна, потом послания апостола Павла к Римлянам, к Коринфянам, к Галатам, Ефесянам, Филиппийцам, Колоссянам, два к Фессалоникийцам и к Евреям, далее его же послание к Тимофею. (end of p. 226 .. begins p. 227 with Barnabas)


*Кроме книг, Товита, Юдифь и Маккавейских утрачены, все прочие исторические описания, и пророчества и пророчества Иеремии, Иезекииля, Даниила, Осии и Амоса.

**Смотри снимки между Син. видами

This next section is courtesy of David W. Daniels and especially the efforts of John Spillman, Baptist missionary to Ukraine and a translator unnamed, working from the Old Slavonic script to modern Russian to English. Notice that it includes the section above, while smoother and adds a lot more, with efforts continuing to translate more of this Uspensky section.

The best Greek manuscripts are stored in the priors’ cells. There are only four of them, but they are very precious for their antiquity, rarity and handwriting features, for their content, for the elegance of the beautiful faces of the saints and entertaining drawings and paintings.

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 share of a long and a wide sheet. The letters in them are quite similar to the Church Slavonic. The setting of the letters is straight and solid. Above the words, there are no aspirations and accents and utterances are not separated by any punctuation marks, except for the points. All the sacred texts were written in four and two columns in a stichometry way and so together as if one long utterance stretches from point to point**. Such a formulation of letters without grammatical prosody (versification), and the way of the writing of the sacred text, invented by the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius about 446 AD, and soon abandoned due to the many gaps between the columns on the expensive parchment, prove that this manuscript was published in the fifth century. It is notable in many ways. It comprises: a special order of the sacred books, intelligible presentation of Psalms and the Song of Solomon, many different readings on the margins of the New Testament texts, and the particular dialect. The historical part of the Old Testament books finishes with the books of Tobit, Judith, and the Maccabees, which are followed by Prophecies, and after them the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Solomon, the wisdom of Solomon, and the Book of Sirach, and Job. Further begins the New Testament itself without a preamble. First are written the Gospel of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, then the Epistles of Apostle Paul to the Romans, Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, two to the Thessalonians and Hebrews, and also to Timothy.

*Except for the books of Tobit, Judith and Maccabees, were lost all other historical descriptions and prophecy of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea and Amos.

**See images between Syn. types

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

Please find attached a rough, but not bad, translation of the pages Bro. David sent to us. ... The woman translated the text into Russian, then into English. ... God bless!
Sincerely, John Spillman Prov. 23:26; Ps. 112:7

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

Old Slovenian is nearer to Bulgarian than Russian. There is also Church Slovenian. Russians do not understand Old Slovenian. There are many words taken from Greek and from Bulgarian.
- Leszek Janczuk

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

The description continues onto p. 238, this is likely the single most salient part of the Uspensky description of the manuscript. We plan to have the full section available here for Bible researchers.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Uspensky's visits and books would be known to Tischendorf - including NT description

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. p.176 21 -

21 That can be learned from a letter included in the dossier of the Russian minister, Golovnin, see below. p.185

Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript (2015)
One Story - Different Perspectives: The Discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, Christfried Bottrich

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

Sevcenko's first page, p. 55, may have the reference (about where Tischendorf claims to not know of the Uspensky writing (this is likely to Lobanov in August, 1859). Sevcenkno says, in effect, that Tischendorf did not make up the number of 130 (later 129) folios till 1865. refs Skeat and Milne, p. 82.

"Die Manuscripta Tischendorfiana" in 1847, like the 1846 CFA book, might have a parchment reference.
P. 11 of the Waffen book, 1863, talks of telling von Beust some inside info in 1853 (also in the 1871 Sinaibibel p. 5)

In 1855 he declared that the 43 folios of the Frederico-Augustanus were but a part of what he had seen on his previous trip, but maintained silence as to where he had seen the manuscript: Cf. Monumenta Sacra inedita. Nova Collectio, I (1855), p. xxxx. However, he waited until March 15, 1859 before admitting in print that the Frederico-Augastanus was but a fragment of the manuscript he had found on Sinai. This, he said in a display of deadpan humor, had become clear to him beyond any doubt: Cf. "Ein Brief des Prof. Dr. Tischendorf an den Staatsminister v. Falkenstein," Leipziger Zeitung. Wissenschaftliche Beilage nr. 31, April 17, 1859, p. 137.

Dmitrievskij Peradze Benesevic, and Uspensky are among those recommended by Sevcenko for more balance than the vulgate story. Dmitrievskij looks new.

Returning to the 1840s and 1850s, I think there is a fill-in spot about word getting out somewhere in Perspectives. With a couple of new tidbits.

p. 59, British Museum pamphlets of 1935 and 1955 simply lied about Uspensky. Also Ignatiew (Ignat'ev) and more. "accursed wine-bibbing" at the monastery p. 62 Germanos with Cyril

Germanos to Cyril Oct 16/28, 1859
p. 62 (35) Contrary to our recommendations and to his own promises, Tischendorf, as soon as he put his hands on the book, hastened to spread the news throughout the whole of Cairo, either out of vanity or for some other reason. We also learned that he had beforehand published an article on this subject in an English daily. Since by now people here have no other subject of conversation than the affairs of Sinai, a great outcry arose against the Sinaites for having alienated this manuscript, since Tischendorf announced not that he had borrowed it, but rather that he had taken it for the definite purpose of offering it to the Emperor. ..

In 1868, the Russian Ambassador to the Porte Ignat'ev, who did not mince words, alluded to Tischendorf's proposed scheme and said that the " misunderstandings " connected with the Sinaiticus were created by "a German who had wanted to take another joyride to Sinai and Athos at the Government's expense and under the Russian flag." (45)

(48) The Holy Monastery of Mount Sinai, being in possession of a very ancient manuscript, in the opinion of more experienced critics going back to the second or third century after Christ, and containing

A part of the Old Testament
The whole of the New Testament
The unpublished Epistle of the Apostle Barnabas,
and some other fragments of unknown ecclesiastical writings—consisting of 346 folia and a small fragment. .. p. 70 Cyril sometime between 1867 to 1869

To be complete, this account would have to rely upon all the previously known documents : Cyril's correspondence with Tischendorf, Tischendorf's letters to his wife Angelika (59),

(59) The absence of an edition of these letters is to be regretted. At present, one has to rely upon excerpts appearing in H. Behrend's book (as in note 9 supra), and even on a slide (cf. note 1 supra: we have no full text of that letter, written a mere eleven days after Tischendorf's second discovery of the manuscript).

P. 77 Brugsch

p. 79
(81) Our eyebrows tend to rise on only one occasion : Having described a fifteenth-century manuscript (the Tomos against Barlaam) which he had acquired on his trip of 1844, Tischendorf copied its curse formula : "the present book belongs... to Mount Sinai. ... whoever removes it from the... monastery, may he be afflicted with the curse of the Holy Fathers and of the Burning Bush." Tischendorf added in brackets, for no apparent reason, "I found these leaves when I was already far away from Sinai."—The reliability of two important points in Tischendorf's own story has been impugned by Benesevic, Les manuscrits grecs... (as in note 23 supra), p. 34-39 and 68-72. The first point deals with the authenticity of the famous basket in which the first portion of the Sinaiticus was presumably found in 1844, and with the question of whether that portion was about to be burned; the second, perhaps more interesting, point is concerned with the motivation of Tischendorf's third trip to Sinai in 1859. Was he driven there by an unclear impulse, a "pressentiment dont je ne savais me rendre compte," cf. Memoire sur la decouverte... (as in note 2 supra), p. 4, or had he gotten wind, as early as the summer of 1857, of the presence of the manuscript's other parts still on Sinai through the publications of Porfirij Uspenskij (1856) and the interview with A. S. Norov (cf. note 39 supra)! The documents I have seen clear up neither of these points.

(82) Strictly speaking, until April of 1859, cf. end of note 4 supra. For all that, the fact of Tischendorf's priority in having seen a sizeable portion of the manuscript is incontestable. Nonetheless, a recent appraisal of Porfirij Uspenskij states that "the honor of the discovery" of the Sinaiticus belongs to the Russian scholar. Cf. M. A. Korostovcev and S. I. Hodzas, Vostokovednaja dejatel'nost Porfirija Uspenskogo, Bliznij i Srednij Vostok, Sbornik statej (1962), p. 130.

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

Follow-up notes

Ask Zh. Levina if the 1 Corinthians plates are available, and if there is any text. (try to contact, library and forums is another plan.)

Uspensky auxiliary material

Is the first doctrinal book available (Euthalius is mentioned in book #1, is that continued).

Is the 2nd book, 1863, given by Bottrich, by Uspensky? Is it available.

Any writings about his later diaries. Any info there, or any of the books, about the years before 1859.

Bibliography pics and stuff from Sevcencko and Bottrich can be included here.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
additional referencing

Where did transcription come from on

Porfiry Uspensky Translated part 01

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

http://www.nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSinaiticus/#2

Towards the end of the 19th century the Society of Lovers of Ancient Literature in Saint Petersburg (OLDP) acquired a fragment of a parchment leaf bearing a washed Greek text. Vladimir Beneshevich deciphered, identified and published the text in his catalogue of Mt Sinai St. Catherine's manuscripts, attributing the fragment to the Codex Sinaiticus4.

4A Description of Greek Manuscripts in St Catherine's Monastery on Mt Sinai Vol. 1: Remarkable Manuscripts in the Library of Mt Sinai Monastery and Mt Sinai House in Cairo Djuvania, Described by Archimandrite Porphyrius Uspensky.

Published by the Imperial Academy of Sciences with money bequeathed to it by Bishop Porphyrius, under the editorship and with additions of V.N. Beneshevich. Saint Petersburg, 1911. Pp. 639-642. Reprint: Hildesheim, 1965.

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

Facebook thread
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/permalink/276711049172374/

Does this have Corinthians
http://www.nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSinaiticus/show_img.php?n=porfir/01

Check this
http://www.nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSinaiticus/sobr_p.html
more
http://www.nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSinaiticus/list.html
and this - bio by Levina with 6 books
http://www.nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSinaiticus/porf.html

possibly related
https://books.google.com/books?id=xUFixBTlKqkC&pg=PA201

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

Skeat - Uspensky "claimed"
https://books.google.com/books?id=td_OLXo4RvkC&pg=PR12

Epp
https://books.google.com/books?id=eJMDCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA42

Scrivener - "tolerable account"
https://books.google.com/books?id=v-JUmBD5zIcC&pg=PP17

London Quartery (1864) - better description - Uspensky and MacDonald
http://books.google.com/books?id=oH1IAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA244

Christian Remembrancer (minor)
https://books.google.com/books?id=EYE4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA229
Porter on Bentley report to Lobanov
https://books.google.com/books?id=QhCdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA28

Lucien Frary
https://www.academia.edu/3081433/Ru..._Orthodox_East_Antonin_Kapustin_and_His_World

p. 137
Porfirii (Uspenskii), Pervoe puteshchestviev Afonskii monastirii i skiti arkhimandrita, nyne
episkopa, Porfiriia Uspenskoqo v 1845 godu, 2 parts in 5 vols. (Kiev and Moscow, 1877-1881).

more on p. 138

======================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
more from Uspensky

Note: the first part of Uspensky has been made public. One of the more interesting responses was from Dirk Jongkind, who thanked us for making this available, and would have liked to have had that information when writing his book.

We plan to post more from the various Uspensky material (including some of what he wrote after 1859) and plan to use this thread as a coordination spot.

While working on Uspensky, our St. Petersburg researcher discovered the analysis of Morozov, which is complementary in significance. New thread coming.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
How did they get around the problem of Sinaiticus, noticed by Uspensky, having to be after the Euthalian sections, since they wanted Sinaiticus to be 4th century.

Simple: They simply claimed that the sections were not original but an insertion in a later scriptorium. You can get anything you want in the textual circularity restaurant.

The following is from:

Codex Sinaiticus

Kirsopp Lake, 1911, p. xix:
https://archive.org/details/codexsinaiticus_201907/page/n11/mode/2up
http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_01

Coislinianus Hpaul

. There are found in many Greek MSS. and in many versions the traces of something resembling a critical edition of the Acts and Epistles, giving a series of prologues and chapter divisions, and dividing the text stichometrically. Traditionally this edition was made by Euthalius—an unknown person who is sometimes referred to as a deacon, sometimes as a bishop, sometimes of Alexandria, sometimes of Soulka, which is probably Sulci in Sardinia. It is, however, one of the many difficulties connected with this question that critics are not agreed as to whether the name of Euthalius, or at least the name of Sulci, be not a later growth in the tradition. It is therefore wiser at present to speak of ‘Euthalius’ rather than Euthalius, in order to show that the name is used as a symbol for the original author of this edition of Acts and Epistles, rather than as the name of an historical person. At one point in its history this edition was compared with the MSS. of Pamphilus in Caesarea by a certain Evagrius whose name is found in the colophon attached to Cod. H-paul—the oldest MS. of the ‘Euthalian’ edition. In this respect the history of the edition is precisely similar to that of the Codex Sinaiticus, which was corrected by a C corrector by means of the same MSS. in parts of the Old Testament; but this does not prove that the edition was originally made in Caesarea, any more than it proves that the Codex Sinaiticus was written there. Now, among the characteristics of the earliest form of this edition—belonging, that is to say, to the original ‘Euthalian’ recension, and not due to the further work of Evagrius—is a rather elaborate system of dividing the Acts into chapters, and these chapters into smaller divisions, and a corrupt form of the same system is found both in the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. That this is so is the discovery of Dr. Armitage Robinson,1 who has shown that though both codices have the same corrupt form, each has mistakes which the other has avoided. In the Codex Sinaiticus the chapter divisions were added by the corrector A2, who worked in the scriptorium, and it is usually stated that in Codex Vaticanus they were also added by a very early hand. From this therefore Dr. Armitage Robinson concluded that the numeration 'must go back to a common source—some MS. which gave its numeration to them both: and this seems to imply that Aleph and B were at an early stage of their history lying side by side in the same library ’. So far as the first part of this argument goes it holds good; but unfortunately a glance at the facsimile of Codex Vaticanus 1 shows that the hand which added the numeration is not really very early. It cannot well be put before the sixth century, and I should think that it more probably belongs to the eighth. Thus this argument throws no special light on the provenance of the Codex Vaticanus. However, the ‘Euthalian’ character of the numeration in the Codex Sinaiticus remains a valuable fact. It is important in two ways: in the first place it takes away the force of a suggestion made by Westcott and Hort 2 to the effect that the Codex Sinaiticus came from the West. They were struck by the similarity between its chapter numeration and that in the Codex Amiatinus and other Vulgate MSS. In the light of Dr. Armitage Robinson’s work we can see that this similarity is merely due to a common use of a ‘Euthalian’ system, and one is inclined to guess that if it be Hieronymian in the Vulgate it may be that the Evagrius who was a friend of Jerome is the same as he who collated the 'Euthalian’ edition with the MSS. of Pamphilus in Caesarea, and that he is the connecting link between Jerome and the ‘Euthalian’ numeration. In the second place it is important because the only clue—admittedly a slight one—which we possess for the provenance of ' Euthalius ’ is that in the prologue to Acts the whole is dedicated to Athanasius. It is true that critics have doubted the authenticity and the meaning of this dedication; but they have done so partly on erroneous theories as to the date of 'Euthalius'. There is not in fact any reason why he should not have been a younger contemporary of the great Athanasius.

1 Euthaliana (Texts and Studies, iii. 3), pp. 36 43.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Similarly here.

Harvard Theological Review
The Sinaitic and Vaticanus Manuscripts
Kirsopp Lake
https://archive.org/stream/jstor-1507391#page/n3/mode/2up


.. the Codex Siniaticus was corrected about two hundred years after it was written, or perhaps even later, at Caesarea, and that it contains a chapter-numeration in the Acts which is closely related to that of Euthalius, whose work was also revised by a certain Evagrius in Caesarea. But books are not necessarily written in the places where they were afterwards corrected, and we do not know anything certain about Euthalius. He seems to have dedicated his critical studies to Athanasius, possibly of Alexandria, but we have no real knowledge. p. 35

When David Trobisch says that the Sinaiticus ms. could be anywhere from the 5th to 8th century, that it is not necessarily the 4th, my sense is that he is discounting the sleight of hand that insists on a 4th century date and then interprets any other markings from that lens.

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

1/26/2016

Euthalius; [textualcriticism] the Brugsch Leviticus fragments - Uspensky and Sinaiticus ** OFFLIST

James Miller <jamtata@yahoo.com>
Hi James,


This is Euthalius. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euthalius

Thanks, that should be correct

Euthalius (462 A.D.) arranged those words that were related to each other by the sense into stichoi or lines. Subsequently, to save space, a colon or point was substituted, until, finally, a complete system of punctuation arose In the 13th c., as we have already seen, the division into chapters took place, and in the 6th the versicular division was perfected by Stephens.
https://books.google.com/books?id=wwP20JWlBSgC&pg=PA78


Now that date seems to have moved around.
And it is not clear that this can be applied to Sinaiticus. However, it gives a good starting point on the Uspensky comment. He knew a lot more than he is normally given credit.

Thanks!
Steven


Steven:
Tried sending the message below to the list this morning but I've seen no sign of it since. So I thought I'd try sending it directly to you.
James
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Kirsopp Lake

While on Kirsopp Lake and inks

Is Codex Sinaiticus a Forgery After All?
(2011 - a number of tidbits in that thread)
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/showthreadd456.html?t=308716&page=2
using
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx


While developing the glass plate negatives of the leaves, Kirsopp Lake noticed a difference in the way the inks were reacting. Some of them would take longer to appear, suggesting differences between the media.[11] However, he does not provide any further explanation, but the difference of “behaviour” and “reaction” of the writing media may indicate a variation in composition (or proportions) of ingredients used to manufacture the inks.

Why such differences in what are supposed to be 1500-year-old dried out ink?

We know that the parchment does not really have its supposed age, so there should be no surprise about observations that indicate the same as to the ink.

However so far I have not found the glass plate section in:

Kirsopp Lake, 1911, looking around p. xix.
http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_01
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
thickness

One gentlemen made some observations about thickness and the surprising Sinaiticus bleed-through.

(pull that from our chat)

THE VELLUM AND INK
Lake, 1911 p. xix


.... It varies considerably in thickness : and the thicker leaves, which have generally preserved the writing better than the thin ones, are inclined to a yellowish tint. Many of the leaves are so thin that the writing from the other side is sometimes so plainly visible as to become confusing, and in a few cases the ink has eaten through the vellum so as to leave holes. As a rule, however, the vellum struck me as not quite so thin as that of the Codex Alexandrinus, and consequently to have suffered somewhat less from erosion.

The edges of the leaves have been slightly trimmed since the time of the C correctors. So far as it is now possible to discover, there is no writing on the edges of the closed MS.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
A correction was made about the above on the textualcriticism forum.

Although Uspensky felt that the text had to be no earlier than Euthalius, the reasons did not have to do with the Euthalian sections in Acts.

All the basic concerns above remain about circularity and such. I'll include more on this later.

ADDED 10/18/2018: much more can be added here from additional research and discussions with scholars. The key issues involve sense-lines.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Noroff tries to counter Uspensky - hiding the heresy issue

‘These relics have been exposed to the sight of the whole people of the capital for the space of two weeks; and this people looked affectionately on the relic of Sinaitic antiquity, and kissed it devoutly, knowing nothing of its heretical origin, neither perceiving any foul odour from it. I expect that Tischendorf, knowing well how dangerous this relic is for us, laughed in secret at our blissful ignorance.’

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

Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel - (Assaults on the Sinai Bible)
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.155
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Sevcenko note above
McGrane note

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

Gertsman, Ekaterina Evgenievna,
Gertsman Ekaterina Evgenievna, Ph. D., Associate Professor, St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University,
E-mail: kitriger2205@yandex.ru
Karymova Svetlana Mikhailovna, PhD, Associate Professor, Highest School of Print and Media,
E-mail: karymova.s@gmail.com

https://www-dissercat-com.translate...tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

Russian
https://www.dissercat.com/content/porfirii-uspenskii-tvorcheskaya-biografiya-i-nauchnoe-nasledie

List of references for dissertation research
Candidate of Historical Sciences
Gertsman, Ekaterina Evgenievna, 2004


1. Catalog of various acts kept in monasteries, sketes and cells of Mount Athos // Journal of the Ministry of National Education1. 4.55. 1847.
2. Description of the monasteries of Athos in 1845-1856 // ZhMNP. 4.58. 1848.
15. A precious find for Russia at St. Mount Athos // Church Chronicle. November, 1861.

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

6. The first trip to the Sinai Monastery in 1845. SPb., 1856.
6. Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь в 1845 году. СПб.,1856.

7. Second trip to the Sinai Monastery in 1850. SPb., 1856.
7. Второе путешествие в Синайский монастырь в 1850 году. СПб.,1856.

1857 with Corinthians fragment?

16. Opinion about the Sinai manuscript containing the Old Testament incomplete, and the entire New Testament with the message of St. Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas. SPb., 1862.
16. Мнение о Синайской рукописи, содержащей в себе Ветхий Завет неполный, и весь Новый Завет с посланием св.Апостола Варнавы и книгой Ермы. СПб., 1862.

McGrane
heterodoxy, in his
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),

Noroff answered in 1863
And Tischendorf books

82. Remarkable manuscripts in the libraries of the Sinai Monastery and in the archbishop's cells there// Collection of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. No. 136.1. Other sources:

82. Замечательные рукописи в библиотеках Синайского монастыря и в архиепископских кельях там// Сборник Императорской Академии Наук. № 136.1. Другие источники:

McGrane
A great deal was never published, but is extant. For example, see Uspensky’s 132pp manuscript
Замечательные рукописи в библиотеках Синайского монастыря и в архиепископских кельях там
[‘Wonderful manuscripts in the libraries of the Sinai monastery and in the Archbishop's cells there’]

in the Uspensky collection at the Imperial Academy of Sciences, № 136.1.
Pages 3-22 are dedicated to Codex Sinaiticus.


Also look at this.

19 P. Uspenskij, Kniga bytija moego. Dnevniki i avtobiograficeskija zapiski episkopa Porfirija Uspenskago. Izdanie Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk* pod redakcieju P. A. Syrku Ipostumj, 8 vols
(St Petersburg, 1894-1902).

102. Beneshevich V.N. Description of the Greek Manuscripts of St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai, vol. 1 Remarkable manuscripts in the library of the Sinai Monastery and the Sinai-Juvani Compound (in Cairo), described by Archimandrite Porfiry (Uspensky). SPb., 1911.
102. Бенешевич В.Н. Описание греческих рукописей монастыря св.Екатерины на Синае, т. 1 Замечательные рукописи в библиотеке Синайского монастыря и Синае-Джуванийского подворья (в Каире), опи санные архимандритом Порфирием (Успенским). СПб., 1911.

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

McGrane
I was at the monastery of St Catherine and described its composition, supplemented my previous excerpts from it, and carefully studied the text contained in it, especially the New Testament.’
Книга бытия моего. Дневники и автобиографические записки (St Petersburg, 1894-1902).

Vol IV, diary for June-July 1850.


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

22. Letter to Konstantin Tishendorf (Petersburg, 1864, February 23) // Proceedings of the Kyiv Theological Academy. 1865, No. 11.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Uspensky thesis
Gertsman Ekaterina Evgenievna, Ph. D., Associate Professor, St. Petersburg State Polytechnic University,
E-mail: kitriger2205@yandex.ru

https://www.dissercat.com/content/porfirii-uspenskii-tvorcheskaya-biografiya-i-nauchnoe-nasledie
#82
82. Замечательные рукописи в библиотеках Синайского монастыря и в архиепископских кельях там// Сборник Императорской Академии Наук. № 136.1. Другие источники:
82. Remarkable manuscripts in the libraries of the Sinai Monastery and in the archbishop's cells there// Collection of the Imperial Academy of Sciences. No. 136.1. Other sources:



Karymova Svetlana Mikhailovna
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-31#post-971855

[Page 225] Самые лучшие рукописи греческие хранятся в настоятельских келлиях. Их только четыре; но они весьма драгоценны по своей древности, редкости и особенности почерков, по содержанию своему, по изяществу живописных ликов святых и по занимательности чертежей и рисунков. Первая рукопись, содержащая Ветхий Завет неполный88 и весь Новый Завет с посланием апостола Варнавы и книгой Ермы, писана на тончайшем белом пергамине в четвертую долю длинного и широкого листа. Буквы в ней совершенно похожи на церковно-славянские. Постановка их – прямая и сплошная. Над словами нет придыханий и ударений, а речения не отделяются никакими знаками правописания, кроме точек. Весь священный текст [Page 226] писан в четыре и в два столбца стихомерным образом и так слитно, как будто одно длинное речение тянется от точки до точки89. Такая постановка букв без грамматической просодии и такой способ писания священного текста, придуманный александрийским диаконом Евфалием около 446 года по Рождестве Христовом и вскоре покинутый по той причине, что между столбцами оставалось много пробелов на дорогом пергамине, доказывают, что эта рукопись издана была в пятом веке. Она достопримечательна во многих отношениях. В ней усматриваются: особый порядок священных книг, вразумительное изложение Псалтири и Песни Песней, множество разных чтений на полях новозаветного текста и особенное наречие. Историческая часть Ветхого Завета окончена книгами Товит, Юдифь и Маккавейскими; потом следуют Пророчества, и за ними Псалтирь, Притчи, Екклезиаст, Песнь Песней, Премудрость Соломона и книги Сираха и Иова. Далее непосредственно начинается Новый Завет без всякого предисловия. Сперва написаны Евангелия Матфея, Марка, Луки и Иоанна, потом Послания апостола Павла к римлянам, к коринфянам два, к галатам, ефесеям, филипписеям, колоссаям, к солунянам два и к евреям, далее его же Послания к Тимофею, [Page 227] к Титу два и к Филимону; за ними следуют Деяния апостольские, все Соборные послания в нашем порядке и Апокалипсис; а под конец помещены: Послание апостола Варнавы и книга Ермы под названием Ποιμὴν, т.е. «Пастырь».
[Page 225, Footnote 88]: Кроме книг Товит, Юдифь и Маккавейских, утрачены все прочие исторические бытописания и пророчества Иеремии, Иезекииля, Даниила, Осии и Амоса.
[Page 226, Footnote 89]: Смотри снимки между синайскими видами.

[Page 225] The best Greek manuscripts are kept in the rector's cells. There are only four of them; but they are very precious in their antiquity [Or: "because of being ancient" "because of their great age" "because of their being very old"], rarity and peculiarity of the handwriting, in their content, in the elegance of the picturesque faces of the saints and in the amusingness of the drawings and pictures. The first manuscript, containing the incomplete Old Testament88 and the entire New Testament with the Epistle of the Apostle Barnabas and the Book of Hermas, was written on the thinnest white parchment in the fourth part of a long and wide sheet. The letters in it are completely similar to Church Slavonic. Their setting is straight and solid. There are no aspirations and stresses above the words, and speeches are not separated by any spelling marks, except for periods. The entire sacred text [Page 226] is written in four and two columns in a verse manner and so seamlessly, as if one long utterance stretches from point to point.89 Such a setting of letters without grammatical prosody and such a way of writing the sacred text, invented by the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius around the year 446 after the Nativity of Christ and soon abandoned for the reason that there were many gaps between the columns on expensive parchment, prove [Or: "demonstrate" "confirm" "substantiate" "provide clear evidence"] that this manuscript was published [Or: "issued" "written"] IN THE FIFTH CENTURY. 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, Philippiseians, Colossians, to the Thessalonica two and to the Jews, then his Epistles to Timothy, [Page 227] to Titus two 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".
[Page 225, Footnote 88]: In addition to the books of Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, all other historical writings and prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, and Amos have been lost.
[Page 226, Footnote 89]: See pictures between Sinai views.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM

Didn't...
Uspensky do a tract on the UN-orthodox nature of the manuscript.

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),

Google mangle:
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 Archiniautirite 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 ITermas.

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

Avraam Sergeevic Norov (1795-1869) wrote a defense.

Защита синайской рукописи библіи от нападеній О. архимандрита Порфирія Успенскаго

(Zaščita sinajskoj rukopisi biblii ot napadenij O. Archimandrita Porfirija Uspenskago )
Avraam Sergyeevich Norov
https://books.google.com/books?id=HJdaAAAAcAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=yCKU5DacJzUC

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.
Petersburg. 1863.

Journal of Sacred Literature
Review - shill for Sinaiticus
https://books.google.com/books?id=3h82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA247
p. 247-251

Similar shilling for the corruption text contra Uspensky by:
Michael Luzin
https://azbyka-ru.translate.goog/ot...tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

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

Tischendorf has direct defense material too

Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel (1863)
http://books.google.com/books?id=577FhUUliFQC&pg=PA14

Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rd1UAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA9


Christfried Bottrich in the Perspectives book, 2015

Uspenskij .. wrote a little treatise in which he attempted to present Codex Sinaiticus as a copy made by heretics in the fifth century. 18 This treatise appeared shortly before Tischendorf completed his facsimile edition in 1862, and it was written in order to delay this publication. Third, in his diaries published posthumously, Uspenskij came back to the story several times with many complaints. 19
Perspectives p. 176

18 references the 1862 doctrinal book

19 P. Uspenskij, Kniga bytija moego. Dnevniki i avtobiograficeskija zapiski episkopa Porfirija Uspenskago. Izdanie Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk* pod redakcieju P. A. Syrku Ipostumj, 8 vols
(St Petersburg, 1894-1902).

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

===========================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Uspensky in 1845 - 1856 on specific verses on doctrinal heresy issue

1672260926884.png


Psalms

Song of Songs
Matthew 5:19 (KJV) Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

John 1:28 (KJV)
These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

John 6:23 (KJV) (Howbeit there came other boats from Tiberias nigh unto the place where they did eat bread, after that the Lord had given thanks:)

John 14:4 (KJV) And whither I go ye know, and the way ye know.

John 16:7 (KJV) Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you.

Romans 11:6 (KJV) And if by grace, then is it no more of works: otherwise grace is no more grace. But if it be of works, then is it no more grace: otherwise work is no more work.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator

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”]."


Google Translate
Be that as it may, this ancient manuscript, hardly the only one in the entire Orthodox Church, is especially precious because it was compared to such a text of the Bible as is read even in our time. So, this text was always the same and unchanged.

Ironically

Как бы то ни было, но эта древнейшая рукопись

Gives 4 results
Gives a translate option for the page better on the ipad.
But shows the book on Windows not the Ipad

Windows

One is
Писания мужей апостольских (2022)
The Writings of the Men of the Apostles



1682399735170.png


Uspensky
1682400396765.png

Какъ бы то ни было, но эта древнѣйшая рукопись, едва ли не единственная во всей церквѣ православной, драгоцѣнна наипаче потому, что свѣрена была съ такимъ текстомъ библии, какой читается и въ наше время. Стало быть, сей текстъ всегда былъ одинаковъ и неизмѣ

Whatever it was, but this ancient manuscript, hardly the only one in the whole Orthodox church, is especially precious because it was written with the same text of the Bible as it is read even in our time.
Therefore, this text has always been the same and unchanged.






 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Michael Luzin
https://azbyka-ru.translate.goog/ot...tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct...pisi-biblii/&usg=AOvVaw397sWfne3oxuoVe0Svwbme

While we were analyzing the most important variants of the Sinai manuscript, we received an “Opinion on the Sinai manuscript containing the incomplete Old Testament and the entire New Testament with the Epistle of Barnabas and the Book of Hermas” - Fr. Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky. - Even before it was heard that Fr. the archimandrite, who first drew attention to this manuscript in 1815 when he was in Sinai, later changed his first opinion about this manuscript, set out in the description of his first trip to the Sinai monastery (ed. 1850, pp. 225 - 238), and began to count this precious, as he used to call it, a heretical and dangerous manuscript. It was curious to know the reasons for this change of opinion, and the grounds on which this really precious manuscript is suspected of heretical origin. In the "opinion" these reasons or grounds are categorically put forward. But after reading the pages of the “opinion”, which set out evidence of the heretical origin of the manuscript (the New Testament itself and especially the Gospels), one cannot help but marvel at how weak, even insignificant, these evidence, how unfounded the author’s judgments, and how harsh (to say the least) the tone of the review of the manuscript. Everything is based only on the fact that several expressions and passages from the Gospel are omitted from the Sinai manuscript. Among the most important variants of the Sinai manuscript that we have analyzed above, we have considered all the variants on which Fr. Porfiry bases his new opinion on the heretical character of this manuscript, and therefore it is not necessary to discuss them in detail here; it will suffice here only to write out these accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript, as Fr. Porfiry, with brief remarks to see the groundlessness of the judgments of the accuser of the manuscript (see ch. III of the Opinion). Such accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry exhibits seven: that several expressions and passages from the Gospel are omitted from the Sinai manuscript. Among the most important variants of the Sinai manuscript that we have analyzed above, we have considered all the variants on which Fr. Porfiry bases his new opinion on the heretical character of this manuscript, and therefore it is not necessary to discuss them in detail here; it will suffice here only to write out these accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript, as Fr. Porfiry, with brief remarks to see the groundlessness of the judgments of the accuser of the manuscript (see ch. III of the Opinion). Such accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry exhibits seven: that several expressions and passages from the Gospel are omitted from the Sinai manuscript. Among the most important variants of the Sinai manuscript that we have analyzed above, we have considered all the variants on which Fr. Porfiry bases his new opinion on the heretical character of this manuscript, and therefore it is not necessary to speak of them here in detail; it will suffice here only to write out these accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript, as Fr. Porfiry, with brief remarks to see the groundlessness of the judgments of the accuser of the manuscript (see ch. III of the Opinion). Such accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry exhibits seven: and therefore it is not necessary to speak of them in detail here; it will suffice here only to write out these accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript, as Fr. Porfiry, with brief remarks to see the groundlessness of the judgments of the accuser of the manuscript (see ch. III of the Opinion). Such accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry exhibits seven: and therefore it is not necessary to speak of them in detail here; it will suffice here only to write out these accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript, as Fr. Porfiry, with brief remarks to see the groundlessness of the judgments of the accuser of the manuscript (see ch. III of the Opinion). Such accusatory points against the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry exhibits seven:

1 . “The entire Catholic Church has been reading Matthew 25 for centuries . 1st ch. So; and not knowing her (Joseph), until you give birth to your firstborn son . And in the Sinai manuscript it is read shorter; " and ignorant of her until you give birth to a son ." Words: your firstborn- are omitted, as if the publishers of this manuscript thought that Christ was not the fruit of Mary, that He did not take anything from Her most pure body, but passed through Her as through a channel, and therefore did not call Him Her son. Such a conclusion about Porfiry, of course, would not have deduced from the omission of two words if he had paid attention at least to the 2nd chapter of the Gospel of Luke, according to the Sinai manuscript, where in the 2nd column. 33 * sheet, (v. 7.) he would read the same words as are omitted here from the Evangelist Matthew, written by the hand of the first scribe (not to mention reading this place in other ancient manuscripts, translations and ancient writers). Omitting words in one place and leaving them in another is idle for a heretic, and it is unreasonable for a critic of a sacred text to suspect malicious intent in such an omission. How much can one judge of the grounds on which the heretics thoughtPhilip. 2, 7 .), that ος , και σχηματι ευρεθεις ως ανθρωπος -Christ belittled Himself , we received the form of a servant ,being in the likeness of humanity and being found in the image, like a man .

2 . “The whole Catholic Church has been reading 1st v. Chapter 1 of the Gospel of Mark as follows: the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ the Son of God. And in the Sinai manuscript, the words - the Son of God - are omitted. And so Christ is not the Son of God!” Is it really possible to conclude from this omission that the publishers of the Sinai manuscript (more precisely, one scribe), having omitted the expression under consideration, do not (allegedly) recognize Christ as the Son of God? It's strange how o. Porfiry from this omission (soon supplemented) drew such an imprudent conclusion, when in the same Gospel in several places, this expression about Christ as the Son of God, is, when in other books of the New Testament one can count dozens of places where this same expression and similar ones in the Sinai manuscript are written correctly. In a similar way of reasoning, you can reach the strangest conclusions. For example, the Evangelist Matthew reads Peter's confession as follows: You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.(16, 10), and the Evangelist Mark (8, 29) says: You are the Christ , and there are no words: Son of the living God . (So according to the generally accepted text, and in the Sinai manuscript in the Gospel of Mark, to the words: You are the Christ added - the Son of God ). According to the accepted Porfiry's method of reasoning, shouldn't it be concluded that the Evangelist Mark did not recognize Christ as the Son of God?! -

3 . “The entire Catholic Church from time immemorial has been reading the last 12 verses of the last chapter of the Gospel of Mark, which, among other things, speak of the ascension of Christ into heaven. But in the Sinai manuscript they are not. And so Christ did not ascend to heaven!”

4 . “The entire Catholic Church from time immemorial reads in the Gospel of Luke (ch. 24, v. 51.) that Christ blessed His disciples near Bethany, departed from them, and ascended into heaven. And in the Sinai manuscript, the words - ascended to heaven - are omitted. Again there is no gospel about the ascension of Christ. Becausebut only two evangelists Mark and Luke mentioned this event, while others were silent: by omitting it, the whole dogma of the Christian faith is tested. And this, no doubt, a very important omission in the Sinai manuscript would not have seemed suspicious and terrible to Fr. Porphyry, if he paid attention a) to the fact that in the book of Acts, by the hand of the same scribe, it is written three times about the ascension of Christ, the fourth time in the epistle to Timothy, the fifth time in the epistle to Ephesians and the sixth time in the 2nd epistle of St. . Peter. Is it possible after this from the mentioned omissions to conclude that, according to the manuscript, Christ did not ascend to heaven, that these omissions refute an entire dogma of the Christian faith?! This pass would not have seemed suspicious if Fr. Porfiry drew attention b) to the fact that these places were omitted in some ancient manuscripts and in some ancient writers, and that no one left evidence that these codes, translations, and writers were suspected of heresy. - True, he could not remain silent about the evidence of Eusebius and Jerome that in some manuscripts the end of the Gospel of Mark, omitted in the Sinai manuscript, was missing; but he only draws from this the conclusion that “these gospels were not ecclesiastical, not sovereign” (these names are discussed below), “both of these teachers pointed to them as exceptions to the rule, but they themselves read such a Gospel of Mark, which contained the gospel of the ascension of Christ. But why o. Porfiry deliberately does not mention that Eusebius names such manuscripts, which omit the end of the Gospel of Mark, he could not keep silent about the testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome that in some manuscripts the end of the Gospel of Mark, omitted in the Sinai manuscript, was missing; but he only draws from this the conclusion that “these gospels were not ecclesiastical, not sovereign” (these names are discussed below), “both of these teachers pointed to them as exceptions to the rule, but they themselves read such a Gospel of Mark, which contained the gospel of the ascension of Christ. But why o. Porfiry deliberately does not mention that Eusebius names such manuscripts, which omit the end of the Gospel of Mark, he could not keep silent about the testimonies of Eusebius and Jerome that in some manuscripts the end of the Gospel of Mark, omitted in the Sinai manuscript, was missing; but he only draws from this the conclusion that “these gospels were not ecclesiastical, not sovereign” (these names are discussed below), “both of these teachers pointed to them as exceptions to the rule, but they themselves read such a Gospel of Mark, which contained the gospel of the ascension of Christ. But why o. Porfiry deliberately does not mention that Eusebius names such manuscripts, which omit the end of the Gospel of Mark, but they themselves read such a Gospel of Mark, which contained the gospel of the ascension of Christ. But why o. Porfiry deliberately does not mention that Eusebius names such manuscripts, which omit the end of the Gospel of Mark, but they themselves read such a Gospel of Mark, which contained the gospel of the ascension of Christ. But why o. Porfiry deliberately does not mention that Eusebius names such manuscripts, which omit the end of the Gospel of Mark,τα ακριβη (correct), and says that what is omitted occurs only in some, and not in all lists - rarely? Why does he deliberately keep silent about similar testimonies of Bl. Jerome and other ancients? (See above when analyzing this option). Such reviews show that these teachers looked at the Gospels with the omission of the verses in question (erroneously, of course) not at all “as exceptions”, but as ordinary, even more correct ones. What about the reviews of other manuscripts and ancient writers? We do not defend lists with this omission, but we only say that there were enough such lists, that they were even considered correct, and no one said that they were heretical - we say that on the basis of these options it is unreasonable to recognize the Sinai manuscript as heretical, and we have every right say so.

5 . “The entire Catholic Church from time immemorial reads in the Gospel of John (chapter 8, verses 9-12) a comforting story about the Lord's forgiveness of a wife taken at the place of adultery. And in the Sinai manuscript this legend is omitted. What? By this omission, should the Sinai manuscript be considered heretical? But in this case a) it is necessary to consider as heretical many ancient codices, starting with the Alexandrian, and the Vatican, and found in the works of St. Ephraim the Syrian (C), and others, who also omit this narrative; but no one has yet suspected these codes of heresy, nor many others similar to them in this respect; b) it is necessary to consider as heretical many ancient translations, starting with the Syrian-Peshito, in which there is no such narration; c) must be suspected of heresyCyril of Alexandria , Chrysostom and Theophylact, who (in interpretation) do not have all this separation? - Of course, he will not dare to do this. Archimandrite Porfiry? He says that this separation was omitted (originally?) by the heretic Apollinaris (4th century) in his edition of the Gospel. But how did this omission appear in translations that were made long before this heretic, for example. in the Syrian-Peshito (II century) Coptic and Thebes (III century) and ancient Italic (before Jerome)? ... Then, pointing to the above evidence of Augustine and Nikon and two (also above) additions to the ancient codices , indicating that the branch in question was read in ancient manuscripts, Fr. Porfiry again imprudently (according to the above) concludes: “after such (!) evidence, it was impossible not to classify the Sinai manuscript as heretical”

6 . “The whole Catholic Church from time immemorial reads in the Gospel of John (ch. 1 (>. Art. 14): He will glorify Me (the Spirit of truth), as if from Mine he will receive and proclaim to you ; (v. 15) all, the Father has, Mine For this reason , he will receive from Mine and declare to you . But in the Sinai manuscript, this 15th verse is omitted, as if its publishers did not believe that Christ is the Son of God, and that He has everything that His Father has.

7 . “The whole Catholic Church from time immemorial reads in the first epistle to the Corinthians (ch. 12, art. 28. 29): God put in the church the third of the Apostles ... the gift of healings, intercession, government, various tongues ; and in the Sinai manuscript, the word - give birth is omitted, perhaps by mistake of the scribe; but it may also be that the publishers of her two words - the rule of tongues - read together and understood that God would give Christians the power to rule over tongues, i.e. peoples. That's the perverse meaning this manuscript gives

From the analysis of these places we have made above, it is quite clear that these speculations about. Porfiry are unfounded, and especially the last one is arbitrary.

That's all the reasons why Fr. Porfiry changed his mind about the Sinai manuscript, and at the same time the grounds on which he recognized it as heretical. After all this, it is strange to read his conclusion: “I do not recognize the dignity of such a text, which gives different concepts about Jesus Christ, that He is not the Son of Mary, not the Son of God, does not have what the Father has, did not forgive the harlot, did not ascend to heaven and, instead of the gift of speaking in tongues, gives power to govern the nations.” Terrible accusations, not at all deserved by the manuscript! The groundlessness of this opinion becomes deplorable, all the more so since Father Porfiry exposes it as the fruit of his "free biblical criticism."

Having set forth the above grounds on which the Sinai manuscript should (allegedly) be considered heretical, Fr. Porfiry then turns his attention to corrections in the text of the manuscript. “It turned out, he says, that there are a lot of corrections, that the scribe made many omissions, or had at hand a very bad list, in which there is a lack of sense here and there, and that the corrections were made according to such a text that does not agree with the text of the catholic churches". All this is true, but it does not yet testify to the heretical origin of the manuscript, and Fr. Porfiry, it seems, does not see heretical maliciousness in these corrections, but only that the lists according to which the text of the Sinai manuscript was corrected did not agree with the Catholic text in everything. From the consideration of examples of such corrections given by Fr. Porfiry, the truth of his words is visible, and it is visible It is as clear as possible that there is nothing heretical in these corrections. Corrections consist almost exclusively in the additions of words, expressions and entire verses omitted by the first scribe, and if these corrections are made according to the text not in all similar to the generally accepted text: then it is non-heretical; disagreement only - in the replacement of some words with other equivalent ones, in grammatical phrases, etc. Therefore, we consider it unnecessary here to enter into an analysis of these comparisons made by Fr. Porfiry; it suffices to repeat that there is positively nothing heretical in these corrections. disagreement only - in the replacement of some words with other equivalent ones, in grammatical phrases, etc. Therefore, we consider it unnecessary here to enter into an analysis of these comparisons made by Fr. Porfiry; it suffices to repeat that there is positively nothing heretical in these corrections. disagreement only - in the replacement of some words with other equivalent ones, in grammatical phrases, etc. Therefore, we consider it unnecessary here to enter into an analysis of these comparisons made by Fr. Porfiry; it suffices to repeat that there is positively nothing heretical in these corrections.

All error about. Porfiry, in judging the merits of the text of the Sinai manuscript, seems to have originated from the indefiniteness and one-sidedness of the critical principle that he used in his judgment. In relation to the New Testament text, which he actually considers heretical (that the text of the Old Testament of this manuscript is also heretical, he does not expose a single proof and does not express any suspicions of this at all, and therefore we will not talk about it), he uses the following critical beginning: “if the handwritten New Testament is in complete agreement with the gospels and other apostolic books generally accepted in the Catholic Church, then its dignity is the highest. Otherwise, it belongs to the category of dubious texts. This is the basis for judging the worth of handwritten and printed bibles. It is firm and unshakable." - Is it true; but it is necessary to determine what are the Gospels and other apostolic books generally accepted in the Catholic Church? “Here I mean,” Fr. Porfiry, not the text that was published by pundits, or booksellers, or painters who put it on sale, but the one that was copied at episcopal chairs, was read in churches in the hearing of all Christians, and therefore was called sovereign (κειμενον αυθεντικον ), promulgated ( δημοσιευμενον ), confessed ( ομολογ ᴕ μενον). This sovereign, promulgated, confessed text is a test for evaluating all handwritten and printed editions of the New Testament. - So; but where can one find this sovereign, promulgated, confessed text? Now several hundred ancient manuscripts are known, both complete and incomplete, intended for church and home use, written in statutory letters and cursive from all centuries, starting from the 4th (there are no more ancient ones); manuscripts of the most ancient translations are known, and in each of these manuscripts there are necessarily more or less important, in greater or lesser numbers, variants, as their comparisons made by learned theologians show. In which of them is exclusively the text of the rulers and which are heretical? According to the accepted Porfiry's way of evaluating manuscripts, they can all be suspected of heresy, starting with the ancient Vatican (B), in which Mat. 1, 25:αυτης πρωτοτκον ; there is no end to the Gospel of Mark; there is no story about a woman who is in adultery. In the same way, quite a few omissions can be found in other manuscripts, and one can, giving them a special, unusual meaning, say: I do not recognize the dignity of such a text, which gives different concepts ... etc. But this would be completely unfair and contrary to the principles sound criticism. The fact is that this text, called (allegedly?) sovereign, promulgated, confessed, which in all the lists that were copied at the episcopal sees and read aloud in the churches of all Christians, was the same(i.e. without options?), that such a text, we say, is assumed about, by Porfiry erroneously; such lists with the same, i.e. there was no exactly similar text (which is the current textus receptus, distributed by means of printing) in antiquity, and for the reasons indicated above it could not be. Evidence, in addition to the ancient lists that have come down to us, in the original and translations, works on comparing texts in different lists of Lucian, Hesyxia and Origen and the latter's complaints about the malfunction of the lists of sacred books that existed in his time. Indeed, why would the aforementioned men undertake to correct the sacred text according to different manuscripts, if the text was the same in the manuscripts copied at the episcopal sees? What right and reason would Origen have(Com. ad Math. 19, 19.) to complain that(nowadays a great difference in the manuscripts), without mentioning that the text is the same in the sovereign manuscripts, if it were so? No, not to talk about. Porfiry about the similarity of the text in the sovereign lists, this similarity remains only in his thoughts, but in fact the text in different lists of the ancients was not the same, according to all signs and evidence. That is why the argumentation of Fr. Porfiry, in favor of the sameness of the text in the sovereign manuscripts, is so vague and unproven; he himself seemed to realize that it was impossible to prove this. "The text of the New Testament has been invariably preserved in the Catholic Church." So; but what does it mean permanently? Was it that there were no variants in the manuscripts of the Catholic Church? The author hardly thinks, or at least can think so, if he does not admit that the manuscripts that have come down to us are all deliberately corrupted by heretics, with the exception of those which he considers sovereign, promulgated, confessed, and which only he knows. “For, he continues, although the handwritten writings of the evangelists and apostles were lost a very long time ago, almost from the 3rd century (let's put it this way), the lists remained from them in the churches founded by the apostles, namely in Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria and Rome ". And it does not prove (and will not prove) Fr. Porfiry that these lists were exactly the same in reading. And in Alexandria, Antioch and Rome there were exactly different reading lists in the III and IV centuries, as can be seen from the review Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. And it does not prove (and will not prove) Fr. Porfiry that these lists were exactly the same in reading. And in Alexandria, Antioch and Rome there were exactly different reading lists in the III and IV centuries, as can be seen from the review Antioch, Alexandria and Rome. And it does not prove (and will not prove) Fr. Porfiry that these lists were exactly the same in reading. And in Alexandria, Antioch and Rome there were exactly different reading lists in the III and IV centuries, as can be seen from the reviewOrigen , from the writings of Lucian, Hesychius, and Jerome. “From these lists, and mainly from Jerusalem, other lists and translations into different languages were made.” And in these translations there are many variants, and among them are precisely such variants, as we have seen from the few examples we have analyzed, because of which Fr. Porfiry suspects the Sinai manuscript of heresy, “The Jerusalem tradition of the New Testament, he continues, in the number of 50 copies, was received by Tsar Constantine the Great, and from Tsaregrad it has come down to us in a Slavonic translation” (which, we add, has been corrected again many times). But this, it seems, does not at all prove that in the early days of the Christian church there was a text of sacred books without variants! But - "the history of the Catholic Church vouches for the fidelity (to autographs?) of such church lists of the New Testament." Curious; - where is this guarantee? “This story, explains Fr. Porfiry, does not present us with a single case when the apostolic churches would denounce one another for the corruption of the New Testament text, while he cites a lot of evidence of its corruption by heretics. It’s clear: along with the less serviceable manuscripts (not due to the maliciousness of the heretics, but due to the failure of correspondence and other reasons for the variants), there were manuscripts that were more serviceable, in which it was impossible to suspect any maliciousness,the church in the corruption of the text by its heretics, for the ancients very well distinguished malicious corruption from ordinary malfunction. “For example, it never happened that the Jerusalem church reproached the Antiochian or Alexandrian church for omitting the legend of the Evangelist Mark about the ascension of Christ into heaven.” Is it true; - but Eusebius calls the lists with the omission of this narrative of Mark ακριβη (serviceable); there are similar testimonies. Jerome n St. Gregory of Nyssa? What does this mean? The fact that such lists were (wrong, but not heretical), although the churches did not reproach one another for this omission. – “And if this (denunciation of one church by another in the corruption of the New Testament text) did not happen: then all the apostolic churches always read the same text of the Gospel and the Apostle, just like now the entire Catholic Churcheastern and western reads the same text. Those. O. Porfiry thinks that in the ancient church there was in the manuscripts the same identical, exactly uniform text, what is the current lextus receptus? But this, we repeat, is a mistake. The current textus receptus is based on all the ancient codes (according to certain critical principles), especially the most important ones, in which, however, there are a lot of variants, more or less important, and in ancient times there were no such completely uniform codes. This is beyond any doubt... Where did you find Fr. Porfiry is such a completely identical text? "In the East," he says, "I have seen many ecclesiastical lists of the New Testament in Greek, complete and in fragments, dating back to the fifth century. All such lists agree with each other." Those. no options? Is not it? this is impossible. Or just without those options which are indicated by him in the Sinai manuscript as proof of its heretical origin? If so, and if only on this basis, Fr. Porfiry considers these manuscripts not heretical, but containing the text of the rulers, promulgated and confessed: then he must recognize as heretical all the codes, translations and readings of the fathers and teachers of the church, which are identical in reading in the places considered with the Sinai manuscript. Will he agree to this? - What does the conclusion mean after this: “so, the centuries-old, continuous reading of the same (i.e., without variants? - unprecedented reading!) New Testament text in catholic churches, testified by history (non-existent evidence!) and confirmed By the very lists of it, ancient and new (known only to Father Porfiry!), is there an indisputable proof of the integrity of this text? Why is the concept of the integrity of the text mixed up here with the concept of its uniformity in the ancient lists? These are not words at all that can be put one instead of the other. The 50,000 variants (according to the existing lists of the ancients) in the New Testament do not at all testify against the integrity of the New Testament text; - options and remain only options in which the dogmatic (and not literal) integrity of the text remains in itself. This may seem incongruous, strange and incomprehensible only to those unfamiliar with the history of the text of sacred books, and give rise to a strange desire to prove that in ancient manuscripts there was the same text, without variants, and texts with variants are heretical texts, which (allegedly) for example. and the text of the Sinai manuscript, the most important variants of which, as we have seen, are found in many ancient codices,

There is no need for us to go through the remaining chapters of Fr. Porfiry: they do not relate to the issue we are considering, and do not explain either it or the above view of the text of the Sinai manuscript of Fr. Porfiry. The first chapter describes the composition and type of the manuscript; the second considers the place and time of its origin (Alexandria, in the 5th century; according to Tischendorf, more thoroughly, in the 4th century); the fourth chapter describes the fate of the manuscript and the indecent reproach of both the manuscript itself and its publisher Tischendorf, the Sinai monks and persons in contact with the publication, and the Russian learned clergy. We will only write out the words from the conclusion of this opinion about the meaning that the author himself attaches to it: “I declare this opinion, says Fr. Porfiry, before the publication of the printed text of the Sinai Bible. It's mine. It is made by my mind. It is the fruit of my free biblical criticism and is the first fruit on the basis of our theological literature. No one, having read it, will later say that the Russian clergy do not have their own understanding of the Bible, they do not have their own seed to sow, they do not have a threshing machine to separate the tares from the wheat. – But on the basis of this opinion alone, is it not possible to fear that, after reading it, they will later say that the Russian clergy have a superficial understanding of the Bible, their seed is of poor quality for sowing, and they threshed poorly to separate the chaff from the wheat?! Fortunately, the Russian clergy do not recognize Fr. Porfiry is a representative of his biblical criticism and his understanding of the bible. Opinion about. archimandrite will remain responsible only to his conscience - and in vain he that the Russian clergy do not have their own understanding of the Bible, they do not have their own seed to sow, they do not have a threshing machine to separate the tares from the wheat. – But on the basis of this opinion alone, is it not possible to fear that, after reading it, they will later say that the Russian clergy have a superficial understanding of the Bible, their seed is of poor quality for sowing, and they threshed poorly to separate the chaff from the wheat?! Fortunately, the Russian clergy do not recognize Fr. Porfiry is a representative of his biblical criticism and his understanding of the bible. Opinion about. archimandrite will remain responsible only to his conscience - and in vain he that the Russian clergy do not have their own understanding of the Bible, they do not have their own seed to sow, they do not have a threshing machine to separate the tares from the wheat. – But on the basis of this opinion alone, is it not possible to fear that, after reading it, they will later say that the Russian clergy have a superficial understanding of the Bible, their seed is of poor quality for sowing, and they threshed poorly to separate the chaff from the wheat?! Fortunately, the Russian clergy do not recognize Fr. Porfiry is a representative of his biblical criticism and his understanding of the bible. Opinion about. archimandrite will remain responsible only to his conscience - and in vain he that the Russian clergy have a superficial understanding of the Bible, that their seed is of poor quality for sowing and threshed poorly to separate the tares from the wheat?! Fortunately, the Russian clergy do not recognize Fr. Porfiry is a representative of his biblical criticism and his understanding of the bible. Opinion about. archimandrite will remain responsible only to his conscience - and in vain he that the Russian clergy have a superficial understanding of the Bible, that their seed is of poor quality for sowing and threshed poorly to separate the tares from the wheat?! Fortunately, the Russian clergy do not recognize Fr. Porfiry is a representative of his biblical criticism and his understanding of the bible. Opinion about. archimandrite will remain responsible only to his conscience - and in vain heprophesies that everything he said about the dignity of the Sinai text “will turn out to be an immutable and unchanging truth, and that this truth will be clarified and defended by the Catholic churches, Eastern and Western, and will triumph after fiery doubts and zealous debates.” Falsehood will turn out to be false; and an opinion which, under other circumstances, would in fact not deserve criticism, cannot give rise to fiery doubts and zealous debates. It cannot be excused even by the fact that it is the fruit of free biblical criticism, the first on the basis of our theological literature!

* * *
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/con...he-codex-siniaticus.14383/page-7#post-1158407

Here is the Norov article.
I've yet to find the Uspensky book. Any ideas?

«Мнение о Синайской рукописи, содержащей в себе Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием Св. Апостола Варнавы и книгою Ермы Архимандрита Порфирия Успенского». (St. Petersburg, 1862)
Mnenie o Sinaijskoj rukopisi, soderiascej v sebe Vetchij Zavet nepolnyj, i ves' Novij Zavet s poslaniem svjatago apostola Varnavy i knigoju Ermy

"Opinion on the Sinai manuscript, which contains the Old Testament incomplete and the entire New Testament with the message of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Erma the Archimandrite Porfiry."

Not in Worldcat
Could contact Library of Congress, Dumbarton Oaks who are Byzantine specialists, New York Public Library.

Christfried Böttrich references it and he is helpful, he may help in various ways to find the book.

Michael Luzin gives a good summary, which Google translates to English, if you bypass his Noroff confusions on the variants and doctrinal significance.

Not sure if the Noroff book translates easily to English.

Journal of Sacred Literature
https://books.google.com/books?id=VLcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA247
5 pages on the Noroff book, looks similar to Luzin, who likely relied on Noroff.
 
Last edited:
Top