Steven Avery
Administrator
- Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - His Description of the original Codex Simonideos
Lets list what Simon sez (Constine Simonides himself says) about what supposedly the finished product that left the Rossico monastery in Mt Athos in 1840-1841 to be taken to Constantinople to show the Patriarchs, Anthimos and Constantius, would have looked like before the Tischendorf vandalism...
forums.carm.org
Noroff was his wing man to answer Uspensky.
At one point Tischendorf considered that sufficient.
The Journal of sacred literature
https://books.google.com/books?id=vvgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA12
“A violent brochure has recently appeared against the Codex Sinaiticus as of heretical origin, and against me, by Porphyrides of Petersburg, written in Russian. The old Minister of Instruction, Von Noroff, has already replied to it. For inyself I shall not otherwise engage in the dirty controversy of a stupid and fanatical monk, who is full of absurd petty jealousy.”
Not very nuanced and balanced.
=============================
The Noroff-Uspensky back and forth is best addressed in English here, even though it is only a review of Noroff:
The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=VLcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA247
=============================
Tischendorf joined the fray directly in:
Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel (1863)
by Constantin von Tischendorf
http://books.google.com/books?id=577FhUUliFQC&pg=PA14
This is where he attacks Uspensky in the East and Simonides in the west:
Simonides
"On English ground, it is come to light that the manuscript as it lives and breathes, is nothing else than the fine concoction of a Greek youth from the year of our Lord 1839"
and even includes:
"the typography, the diving bell, the steamboats that fire bullets from an ancient manuscript as inventions of Symie, his compatriots proved"
"in 1839 on Mount Athos, on behalf of his uncle, he had made a manuscript of the Bible under the most precise imitation of the oldest documents, right down to the ink, although Athos does not exactly have such a thing"
"Who is the deceiver? Who was the dupe?"
Uspensky
some insults
he tries to answer the per cola et commata Euthalius objection
"the result that the Sinaitic manuscript is on completely the same level of orthodoxy not only with pious honest people of today and yesterday, but the most celebrated saint of the Greek and the Roman Church."
" the only begotten God who was in the Father's bosom" a stronger expression of the divine sonship can boast neither the whole Holy Scriptures nor the whole Christian Church. "
the result that the Sinaitic manuscript is on completely the same level of orthodoxy not only with pious honest people of today and yesterday, but the most celebrated saint of the Greek and the Roman Church.
attempts to defend various corruptions
=============================
Some earlier info here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/con...he-codex-siniaticus.14383/page-7#post-1158407
=============================
Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel, Tischendorf responding to Uspensky, is discussed here
London Quarterly Review (1864)
https://books.google.com/books?id=oH1IAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA269
=============================
While Tischendorf claimed his text was not heretical, in response to Uspensky, if it was done by Simonides it was heretical.
This trips up Kevin McGrane
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...catalogue-s-plural.14121/page-13#post-1218037
=============================
Athenaeum (1871) reviews Die Sinai-Bibel
https://books.google.com/books?id=JJdTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA429