Steven Avery
Administrator
McGrane - Cooper
https://protestanttruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Forging-of-Codex-Sinaiticus.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/37556820/A...iled_background_of_the_discovery_of_the_Codex
p. 40
– Tischendorf had to travel to Cairo to see Vitalius’ superior to overrule him, and only then was the Codex transported to the monastery’s metochion in Cairo for copying over a number of months.
82 Uspensky’s 452-page catalogue of the manuscripts in St Catherine’s and their Juvanie metochion in
Cairo is extant (Imperial Academy of Sciences, reference VIB19). Simonides claimed to have made
such a catalogue on a (fictitious) trip to St Catherine’s in 1844, but Uspensky would not have needed
p. 43
..Porphyrius brought with him from Sinai some fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus itself,91 containing portions of Genesis and of Numbers.92
91 Strictly, the leaf from Numbers came from the monastery’s metochion [= associated compound] in Jouvanie, Cairo. Uspensky removed it in 1861.
p. 46
- 46 -
© Kevin McGrane 2018
On this his third visit to St Catherine’s monastery, Tischendorf came into possession
of 347 leaves100 of the codex from which he had previously carried away 43 leaves.101
With Russian support Tischendorf managed to remove all those leaves from the
monastery (which at his request had been removed to the monastery’s metochion in
Cairo)
p. 89
(iii) Intelligence from Russia: Tischendorf reports that photography was done on the Codex while it
was in Cairo from as early as March 1859, and that there was pressure to produce additional
photographs in St Petersburg before he removed part of the Codex to Leipzig to work on his facsimile
in late 1859
There are grounds for believing that there was collaboration between Simonides and the
Russian government, who had a motive to create a temporary distraction over the Codex among the
English. The Russian government certainly had materials by late 1859 and 1860 that they could have
copied to Simonides to support an assignment. Further details about this collaboration will be given
in a separate publication (in preparation).
p. 105
Dr Cooper makes a great deal of leaf Q11-f.2 (containing parts of Numbers chapters
5, 6 and 7) which is missing a large portion,
asserting that Tischendorf deliberately mutilated it (p.73, 75):
Tischendorf did not take it to Russia – Uspensky did:237 he brought it to St Petersburg in 1861, having found it in Cairo earlier that year.
p. 106
There is, in any case, a perfectly straightforward explanation for the shape of these
fragments: they were recovered by Uspensky from the binding of a secular Greek
book that he found in Cairo: the leaf had been re-used for constructing the end
boards and papers, a practice that was very common in bookbinding. Uspensky
recognized it as part of Codex Sinaiticus and carefully peeled away the remains of
that leaf from the binding.240
p. 106
Interestingly, it is recorded when, where and in what book Uspensky made this find, but the
details do not appear to have permeated through to the online Codex Sinaiticus Project as they clearly
have not read all of Uspensky’s papers. The online site shows photographs of these fragments, and
states (obviously translated) ‘In the 1845 [it was actually 1861 for these fragments], by the bishop
Porphyrius Uspensky other fragments were removed from the Monastery [these fragments were from
the Cairo Jouvani metochion] and are now conserved in to the Slatykov-Shchedrin State Public Library,
St Petersburg. Some of the Russian fragments (like some of the New Finds in the Saint Catherine
Monastery) show evidences of folded lines that may suggest they were reused as cover material [the
‘suggestion’ is correct: we know it for a fact since Uspensky tells us].’ In spite of such errors on the
website, it is at least correct that Uspensky recovered these fragments, not Tischendorf. How could Dr
Cooper have missed this, since he claims to have viewed the website?
p. 114
Another of Uspensky’s collection, the fragmentary leaf from Numbers, appears in a
superb colour facsimile published in England in 1866,261
261 Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, Vol.8, 1866. The fragment was lent to Tischendorf for
his trip to London in 1865. Uspensky discovered it in Cairo in 1861 within the binding of a secular
book.
==================================================================
The celebrated Russian archimandrite and scholar Konstantin Alexandrovitch
Uspensky (1804-85),74 who took the name Porphyrius at ordination, records:75
- 39 -
© Kevin McGrane 2018
The Greek monks under various pretexts did not show him the precious manuscripts stored in the secret places of their holy abodes. These monks, long frightened by the sublime Porte’s [i.e. Ottoman government] empowering European travellers to enter the sacristies and book depositories of Orthodox monasteries, and offended by the unfavourable reviews about them in travel descriptions, rightly shied away from fulfilling Tischendorf’s requests, who did not and does not have the main attractive power, that is, confession of the Orthodox faith.76
76 P.V. Bezobrazov,
Материалы для биографии епископа Порфирия Успенского (St Petersburg, 1910), Vol. II.
Materials for the biography of Bishop Porfiry Uspensky
". Материалы для биографии епископа Порфирия Успенского. "
https://protestanttruth.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Forging-of-Codex-Sinaiticus.pdf
https://www.academia.edu/37556820/A...iled_background_of_the_discovery_of_the_Codex
p. 40
– Tischendorf had to travel to Cairo to see Vitalius’ superior to overrule him, and only then was the Codex transported to the monastery’s metochion in Cairo for copying over a number of months.
82 Uspensky’s 452-page catalogue of the manuscripts in St Catherine’s and their Juvanie metochion in
Cairo is extant (Imperial Academy of Sciences, reference VIB19). Simonides claimed to have made
such a catalogue on a (fictitious) trip to St Catherine’s in 1844, but Uspensky would not have needed
p. 43
..Porphyrius brought with him from Sinai some fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus itself,91 containing portions of Genesis and of Numbers.92
91 Strictly, the leaf from Numbers came from the monastery’s metochion [= associated compound] in Jouvanie, Cairo. Uspensky removed it in 1861.
p. 46
- 46 -
© Kevin McGrane 2018
On this his third visit to St Catherine’s monastery, Tischendorf came into possession
of 347 leaves100 of the codex from which he had previously carried away 43 leaves.101
With Russian support Tischendorf managed to remove all those leaves from the
monastery (which at his request had been removed to the monastery’s metochion in
Cairo)
p. 89
(iii) Intelligence from Russia: Tischendorf reports that photography was done on the Codex while it
was in Cairo from as early as March 1859, and that there was pressure to produce additional
photographs in St Petersburg before he removed part of the Codex to Leipzig to work on his facsimile
in late 1859
There are grounds for believing that there was collaboration between Simonides and the
Russian government, who had a motive to create a temporary distraction over the Codex among the
English. The Russian government certainly had materials by late 1859 and 1860 that they could have
copied to Simonides to support an assignment. Further details about this collaboration will be given
in a separate publication (in preparation).
p. 105
Dr Cooper makes a great deal of leaf Q11-f.2 (containing parts of Numbers chapters
5, 6 and 7) which is missing a large portion,
asserting that Tischendorf deliberately mutilated it (p.73, 75):
Tischendorf did not take it to Russia – Uspensky did:237 he brought it to St Petersburg in 1861, having found it in Cairo earlier that year.
p. 106
There is, in any case, a perfectly straightforward explanation for the shape of these
fragments: they were recovered by Uspensky from the binding of a secular Greek
book that he found in Cairo: the leaf had been re-used for constructing the end
boards and papers, a practice that was very common in bookbinding. Uspensky
recognized it as part of Codex Sinaiticus and carefully peeled away the remains of
that leaf from the binding.240
p. 106
Interestingly, it is recorded when, where and in what book Uspensky made this find, but the
details do not appear to have permeated through to the online Codex Sinaiticus Project as they clearly
have not read all of Uspensky’s papers. The online site shows photographs of these fragments, and
states (obviously translated) ‘In the 1845 [it was actually 1861 for these fragments], by the bishop
Porphyrius Uspensky other fragments were removed from the Monastery [these fragments were from
the Cairo Jouvani metochion] and are now conserved in to the Slatykov-Shchedrin State Public Library,
St Petersburg. Some of the Russian fragments (like some of the New Finds in the Saint Catherine
Monastery) show evidences of folded lines that may suggest they were reused as cover material [the
‘suggestion’ is correct: we know it for a fact since Uspensky tells us].’ In spite of such errors on the
website, it is at least correct that Uspensky recovered these fragments, not Tischendorf. How could Dr
Cooper have missed this, since he claims to have viewed the website?
p. 114
Another of Uspensky’s collection, the fragmentary leaf from Numbers, appears in a
superb colour facsimile published in England in 1866,261
261 Transactions of the Royal Society of Literature, Vol.8, 1866. The fragment was lent to Tischendorf for
his trip to London in 1865. Uspensky discovered it in Cairo in 1861 within the binding of a secular
book.
==================================================================
The celebrated Russian archimandrite and scholar Konstantin Alexandrovitch
Uspensky (1804-85),74 who took the name Porphyrius at ordination, records:75
- 39 -
© Kevin McGrane 2018
The Greek monks under various pretexts did not show him the precious manuscripts stored in the secret places of their holy abodes. These monks, long frightened by the sublime Porte’s [i.e. Ottoman government] empowering European travellers to enter the sacristies and book depositories of Orthodox monasteries, and offended by the unfavourable reviews about them in travel descriptions, rightly shied away from fulfilling Tischendorf’s requests, who did not and does not have the main attractive power, that is, confession of the Orthodox faith.76
76 P.V. Bezobrazov,
Материалы для биографии епископа Порфирия Успенского (St Petersburg, 1910), Vol. II.
Materials for the biography of Bishop Porfiry Uspensky
". Материалы для биографии епископа Порфирия Успенского. "
Last edited:
