THE SINAITIC CODE IX.1.
II CASE OF THE SINAITE CODE
As I repeat, I am not an expert to deal with the Codex Sinaiticus and analyze whether it is an authentic manuscript of the 3rd, 4th, 5th or 6th century, as is sometimes stated by various people. I refer to facts as they appear from sources not connected with the Simonides-Tischendorf controversy. After seeing them and reflecting on what we have said so far, we conclude what exactly happened and what the Sinaitic Codex is in the end.
The Codex Sinaiticus has a history with many dark spots. It is not a dispute between Simonides and Tischendorf, but we also have other factors: the monks of Mount Sinai, the Patriarchate of Jerusalem and public opinion, mainly of the Greeks of Egypt, who play a more essential role than that of Tischendorf and Simonides. Let's look at the story from the beginning, as told by Tischendorf, and then go to other sources.
The first 43 leaves of the Sinaitic Codex were "found" by the German philologist Constantinos von Tischendorf in 1844 in the Monastery of Saint Catherine (at its foundation), the so-called Mount Sinai in Egypt. While very secretive about his initial discovery, Tischendorf later claimed that the pages he found had been thrown by the Greek monks into a wastebasket and were destined to be burned in the fire. The monks claimed that he stole them from them. Tischendorf visited the monastery a second time, in 1853.
He then discovered another piece of Genesis. His next major discovery was in 1859. He found part of the New Testament and part of the Old, along with the Epistle of Barnabas and part of a copy of the Shepherd of Hermas. At this point the manuscript was called the Codex Sinaiticus and he declared it to be the oldest Bible ever found. However, we should note that Simonides published the Epistle of Barnabas in Smyrna in 1843 and Hermas in 1856 in Leipzig (Anger, Dindorf). These editions are said to be almost identical with the Codex Sinaiticus.
The leaves that Tischendorf took from the Monks, he donated to the University of Leipzig. This part was called the Leipzig Codex (or Friderico-Augustanus). Tischendorf hinted that the remaining part, with persuasive promises to the monks, he subsequently received and donated to the Tsar of Russia47*. In 1935 the Soviet Government, despite the Monks' protests, sold it to the British Museum for £100,000, where it has been ever since. A handwritten document in Greek, written by Tischendorf179, is kept in the Archives of the Monastery to this day. He hereby declares that he has temporarily borrowed the Code.
p. 329
But let us see how the same story is presented by other more reliable sources41®. Cyril, Archbishop-elect of Sinai, was the chief representative of the monks in the negotiations with Tischendorf, which took place on his third trip in 1859. On October 5, 1859, a week after the conclusion of these negotiations, Cyril left Cairo for Constantinople, to give explanations to the Ecumenical Patriarchate, the High Gate and the Russian Imperial Embassy. This trip was deemed necessary, as the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who traditionally ordained the archbishops of Sinai, was violently opposed to Cyril, and one of his arguments was the granting of the Codex. While he is in Constantinople, he wants to be informed about the events and the climate of public opinion back in Egypt, where in the meantime the faithful had risen against the Monastery and for this reason, Cyril turned to a confidant of the informant, the monk Germanos. From Germanos' letter of October 16/28, 1859, which was his first reference to Cyril, we also see what happened to Tischendorf in Egypt and not in Sinai, as he narrates. The monk Germanos writes on the subject of Tischendorf, who had left Alexandria on October 9, a few days after Cyril's departure:
p. 329-330 (mess not that important)
««'<9 Τίσχενδορφ, απ' εναντίας των ύμετέρων συστάσεων και των ύπο-
σχέσεών του, άμα ειχε λάβει τό βιβλίον εις χεϊρας, έσπευσε να τό όιακοινώση
εις όλον τό Κάϊρον, είτε άπό ματαιότητα, είτε άπό άλλην τινά αιτίαν. Έμάθο-
μεν δέ ότι ό ίδιος ειχε καταχωρήσει επί του άντικειμέ\>ου τούτου προλαβό-
ντως εν όφθρον εις μίαν άγγλικήν εφημερίδα?*'. Καί επειδή ό κόσμος έδώ
δέ\> έχει άλλην ομιλίαν ήδη παρά τα Σιναϊτικά, ήγέρθη μεγάλα} κατακραυγή
κατά των Σιναϊτών, διότι άπεζένωσαν τό χειρόγραφον τοΰτο, έπειδή ό Τι-
σχενδόρφ διεκήρυξε\> όχι ότι τό έδανείσθη, άλλ' ότι τό έλαβεν όριστικώς διά
νά τό προσφέρη εις τον Αύτοκράτορα. Όθεν έδώ είναι γνώμη ότι την προ-
σφοράν ταύτην έκάματε ή Σεβασμιότης Σας διά νά προσλάβητε τήν ύπερά-
σπισιν τής αύτόσε Ρωσικής Πρεσβείας. Τούτο ήκουσα παρά πολλών, καί
παρά του Ευγενίου, όστις προς τοις άλλοις μοί ειπε\> ότι τοΰτο τό περιστα-
τικόν δύναται νά φέρη σκάνδα/.όν τι, διότι βεβαίως οί ενταύθα ύπε\>αντίοι
δέ\’ θέλουν λείψει άπό του νά γράψουν τω Ιεροσολύμων, χαρακτηρίζοντες
τήν πράξιν ταύτην όπως τοις συμφέρει. Ό Σπα\'όπουλος4*2 μάς έπεσκέφθη
καί μάς ειπε μέ ά/α.ους λόγους, καί μέ 7τ\>εΰμα έναντίον, τά αύτά. Ημείς ήρ-
νήθημεν καί άρνούμεθα πάντοτε τήν έκδίδοσιν του χειρογράφου λέγοντες ότι
τό άπεστείλαμεν εις τό Μοναστήριον. Μολαταύτα ένεκρίναμεν νά προλάβω-
μεν διά του έσωκ/χίστου πάν ένδεχόμε\}ον, δημοσιεύοντες τό δάνειον τοΰτο.
Άποστέ/Σομεν δέ τήν έσώκ/χιστον διατριβήν τή Υ. Σεβασμιότητι, ώστε άν
έγκρίνη αύτήν, νά τήν δημοσιεύση. Νομίζω ότι ή δημοσίευσις αΰτη δύναται
νά όμβλύνη τουλάχιστον τάς έπί τού άντικειμέτνου τούτου προσβολάς των
εναντίων, καί πρέπει νά θεωρήσητε τήν ύπόθεσιν ταύτην μέ τήν άνήκουσαν
σπουδαιότητα, καθότι άν αί φήμαι αυται φθάσωσιν εις τά ωτα τής Ρωσικής
Πρεσβείας, θέλ.ουσι, τήν δυσαρεστήσει βεβαίως» (sic).
