Nikolas Farmakidis - Pavlos P. Peppas Aeginitis and Constantius - no Catherine's info

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
This post is the English translation.
Kirk, please pull out the Greek.
Plus we can make obvious correction I am changing
Stur-ja to Sturtz
Tisendorfius to Tischendorf

In the same text sent in the letter from Nikolos, these are more normal than in the translation machine.

Archives of the Academy of Athens
http://www.academyofathens.gr/en/research/centers/greekdialects/archives

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

To refer to the Sinaitic Codex and its authenticity one must be an expert. But a letter comes to confirm everything we have said so far: It is recorded in the archives of the Academy of Athens. It was written on May 8, 1836, by Constantine Economos of Economon, to the teacher of Aegina, P. Pepas 490. In the continuation of this letter, much later (after 1860), someone (probably P. Pepas) expresses his views on "the Sinaitic Codex", distancing himself from Simonides. That is, he considers that Simonides did not write it. But finishing his letter he says:

"This Constantius, the bishop of Sinai, is wise, and wise in archaeology, and he is also wise in the paleography of Tischendorf, but if he had known it (for he also had seen the common library of Sinai, not as a stranger, but as the owner of it), and the wise Iconus, the editor of the seventy books of the Old Testament, the fourteenth book of the key of Sturtza, which is the seventy interpreters of the Old Testament, He hath communicated, though of course, that he hath also communicated to Sturtza and to him and to many other such things as he hath communicated to me in writing, even as he did to Economus, but not I, when before Tischedorf in Sinai I had overlooked such a treasure, but I took it with the others."

The person who writes this note is a person who is familiar with the correspondence between Economou, Sturtza and Constantius. He also says that he went to Sinai and that Constantius would tell him of the existence of this Codex, so precious. From this note it is clear that what we have said above is true and that Tischendorf understood little about palaeography. That is, the author of the note said the same things as Kallinikos of Simonides. We should note that Constantius I died on January 6, 1859, Economus in 1857, and Sturtzas in 1854.

490 Pavlos P. Peppas Aeginitis (Student of the Central School and Teacher at the "Orphanage"). Archive of the Academy of Athens. It bears number 403 and the seal of the Academy. Treasurer's correspondence from Treasurer no.

Correspondence
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
p. 343 - 1836 begins
(Do we have this Greek? Is it at all significant?)
We can make out a siggy.
1697655767319.png


And this should be the 1860s continuation
Back with the front showing through?

1697655808460.png


p. 345
1697655686746.png

1697670481372.png
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hello Steven I am sending you the text of the letter. Here I am sending the translation as I can understand it.

«ὁ Κωνστάντιος αὐτὸς ὁ τοῦ Σιναίου ἐπίσκοπος, σοφός ἐστί ἀνὴρ καὶ περὶ τὴν ἀρχαιολογίαν δεινὸς περὶ δὲ τὴν παλαιογραφίαν τοῦ Τισεντορφίου ὑπέρτερος, πάντως ἂν ἐγίνωσκε τοῦτο (ἀνεδίφησε γὰρ καὶ οὗτος τὴν τοῦ Σιναίου κοινὴν βιβλιοθήκην οὐχὶ ὡς ξένος, ἀλλ’ ὡς κυριεύων αὐτῆς), καὶ τῷ σοφῷ Οἰκονόμω τῷ περὶ τῶν ἑβδο- μήκοντα ἑρμηνευτῶν τῆς Παλαιᾶς Διαθήκης τετράβιβλον τοῦ κλεινοῦ Στούρ- τζα ἐκδίδοντι, ἐκοινοποίει ἂν βεβαίως, εἰ καὶ τῷ Στούρτζᾳ αὐτῶ τε καὶ πολ- λὰ τοιαῦτα ἄξια λόγου δι’ ἐμοῦ ἐγγράφως ἐκοινοποίησεν, ὥσπερ καὶ τῷ Οἰκονόμῳ, ἀλλ’ οὐδ’ ἐγὼ αὐτός, ὅτε καὶ πρὸ τοῦ Τισεντορφίου εἰς Σιναῖον δὶς ἐγενόμην παρέβλεπον τοιοῦτον θησαυρὸν ἀλλὰ παρελάμβανον καὶ τοῦτον σὺν τοῖς ἄλλοις»

Constantius who was bishop at Sinai, wise and very good at paleography much better than Tischendorf, if he knew this (for he studied the library of Sinai not as a stranger but as its master) and the wise Economist (Steward?) who published the four books about the seventy interpreters of the old testament of the private Sturjas, he would of course inform Sturjas as well, since through me he communicated valuable documents, as well as to the Treasurer, but not even I, even though I went to Sinai twice before Tischendorf, I would overlook such a treasure but would include it and him along with the others.


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

Machine translation below

"This Constantius, the bishop of Sinai, is a wise man, and in archeology he is a master, but in the paleography of Tisendorfius he is superior, even if this were to happen (for he also opened the public library of Sinai, not as a stranger, but as its owner), And to the wise Steward about the seventy interpreters of the Old Testament, the four books of the secret Sturja are being published, let him know, if indeed, to Sturja he also communicated many such things worthy of discussion for me in writing, as well as to the Steward, but not I, when even before Tischendorf in Sinai in the middle of the year I overlooked such a treasure, but included it with the others"
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Questions to resolve?
Kirk may want to continue conferencing with Nikolos.

Is Pepas or Peppas preferable?
Is Aeganitis where he is from?
Do we know anything about him other than being a teacher?

Is Constantine Economos of Economon, correct? Why so funky?
Is this the name for Constantius I?

What about the author of the 1860s part? No siggy?

What are the four books?

Constantius I of Constantinople (1770-1859)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantius_I_of_Constantinople

Precisely how do you tell the 1830s writing from the 1860s.
Can we show the separation on the two pages?
Ok, I think that is obvious, see above.

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

Where does Nikolos get this??

The person who writes this note is a person who is familiar with the correspondence between Economou, Sturtza and Constantius. He also says that he went to Sinai and that Constantius would tell him of the existence of this Codex, so precious.

From this note it is clear that what we have said above is true and that Tischendorf understood little about palaeography. That is, the author of the note said the same things as Kallinikos of Simonides. We should note that Constantius I died on January 6, 1859, Economus in 1857, and Sturtzas in 1854.
Click to expand...

Apparently that all comes from:

Constantius who was bishop at Sinai, wise and very good at paleography much better than Tischendorf, if he knew this (for he studied the library of Sinai not as a stranger but as its master) and the wise Economist who published the four books about the seventy interpreters of the old testament of the private Sturtzas, he would of course inform Sturtzas as well, since through me he communicated valuable documents, as well as to the Treasurer, but not even I, even though I went to Sinai twice before Tischendorf, I would overlook such a treasure but would include it and him along with the others.
Click to expand...

I this a logical conclusion? How would you read this section?
Is there some nuance missing?

Key question:
Constantius would tell him of the existence of this Codex,

Huh?

Plus, most everyone knew of the existence of the Codex by the time of Uspensky, 1845, so how important could the letter be, even with the preferred interpretation? His only reference to Uspensky is a non-Sinaiticus reference as an expert to look at somehing else.

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

In Kydonies the first settler, John Economou, established a School in the Church of Kato Panagia, to which Eugene of Vryoulon and then Vissarion of Simaeus (also there is Economus)

"The scholar A. Sturgas, of Odessa, having been informed of the discovery398, received a copy of it in order to correct a version of Aristeas which he was preparing to publish, and, having corrected it, sent it to the scholar Economos, who afterwards resided in Athens. Economus received it, inserted it at the end of his work on the Seventy, which is now known to have been written by Sturgas, but Economus published it as his own work, while Sturgas suspected nothing of the matter."
 
Last edited:
M

Maprchr

Administrator
Constantius who was bishop at Sinai, wise and very good at paleography much better than Tischendorf, if he knew this (for he studied the library of Sinai not as a stranger but as its master) and the wise Economist who published the four books about the seventy interpreters of the old testament of the private Sturtzas, he would of course inform Sturtzas as well, since through me he communicated valuable documents, as well as to the Treasurer, but not even I, even though I went to Sinai twice before Tischendorf, I would overlook such a treasure but would include it and him along with the others.

My reading is:
Constantinius was far better qualified to tell what was in his monastery collection than Tischendorf. Constantinius was the master of the library not a visiting student. The Oikonomos (Constantinius' title?) published four books on the translation of the Septuagint and communicated with me as well as Sturzas. He would never have neglected mentioning "such a treasure" (Sinaiticus) if it existed in the collection.
 
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
the grammar is so unlike our english it is hard to put things in proper function with each other










No matter how many times i read that page I still feel confusion but it is clear men who should have known that Sinaiticus was in the library somehow missed it. I hear the implication that Sinaiticus was not at Sinai That seems as dubious had noted the existence of Sinaiticus before 1854.


the idea that it was there but no one noticed it before 1854 is shrouded in doubt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top