Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12

Thread: Porfiry Uspensky views Sinaiticus in 1845 and 1850

  1. Default Porfiry Uspensky views Sinaiticus in 1845 and 1850


    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„i†

    http://www.worldcat.org/title/pervoe...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.





    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...=di&ht=edition Yale, Princeton, Sacramento
    http://www.worldcat.org/title/vostok...oclc/688404561 (1892)


    Is it Volume 2? Is that Volume correct? Available in NYPL, Yale, Princeton and Sacremento.

    EOD
    https://www.books2ebooks.eu/odm/orde...ys_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...967_00007.html
    http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de...967_00157.html (end)

    https://books.google.com/books?id=Zr8-AAAAcAAJ

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

    USPENSPKY 1862 DOCTRINAL BOOK

    Mnenie o Sinaijskoj rukopisi, soderiascej v sebe Vetchij Zavet nepolnyj, i ves' Novij Zavet s poslaniem svjatago apostola Varnavy i knigoju Ermy (St. Petersburg, 1862)
    Opinions Sinaiyskoy manuscript soderiastsey a part the Old Testament and the New Testament ves with the message of the holy Apostle Barnabas and books Ermey(doctrinal book)

    Christfried Bottrich references this at times.
    Constaiitin Tischendorf und Avraam Norov https://books.google.com/books?id=e2N0zg3y2NoC&pg=PA104
    Der Jahrhundertfund: Entdeckung und Geschichte des Codex Sinaiticus p. 187

    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. Perspectives p. 176 19
    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).
    h
    ttp://www.worldcat.org/title/kniga-bytija-moego-dnevniki-i-avtobiograficeskija-zapiski/oclc/600869768

    Another book in the bibliography looks to be related to the doctrinal attack, Bottrich places it with the books by Uspensky, it may be the Avraam Norov response to Uspenksy.
    Zascita sinajskoj rukopisi biblii ot' napadenij o. Archimandrita Porfirija Uspenskago [Die Angelegenheit der Bibelhandschrift vom Sinai nach dem Angriff des Archimandriten Porfirij Uspenskij] (Petersburg, 1863)
    The matter of the Bible manuscript from the Sinai after the attack....

    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-..._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 by Steven Avery; 02-26-2016 at 09:58 PM.

  2. Default Ihor evcenko on Uspensky descriptions of Sinaiticus


    The writer who gives more information is Ihor evcenko:


    New Documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (1964)
    Ihor evcenko
    http://www.persee.fr/doc/scrip_0036-..._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 puteestvie... (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 puteestvie... (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 by Steven Avery; 02-02-2016 at 07:37 PM.

  3. Default 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 Old Slavonic to 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 by Steven Avery; 02-01-2016 at 09:06 PM.

  4. Default 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.

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

    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 by Steven Avery; 02-24-2016 at 12:14 AM.

  5. Default 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.

    4
    A 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/sina...6711049172374/

    Does this have Corinthians
    http://www.nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSina...hp?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/Rus..._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

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

  6. Default 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 by Steven Avery; 02-16-2017 at 06:22 AM.

  7. Default

    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:

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


    . 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.

  8. Default

    Similarly here.

    Harvard Theological Review
    The Sinaitic and Vaticanus Manuscripts
    Kirsopp Lake
    https://archive.org/stream/jstor-150...ge/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 tion 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 4rd, 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,


    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

  9. Default Kiropp 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/...=308716&page=2
    using
    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/projec...ation_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


  10. Default 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.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •