Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Tischendorf ducks the English trip

  1. Default Tischendorf ducks the English trip


    PBF Update
    Simonides documentation from 1865 to 1890

    Journal of Sacred Literature

    "All this time, too, the real test of the genuineness of the Codex Sinaiticus is neglected. The public were assured that in May Tischendorf was to be in London, armed with a portion at least of his great Codex. I have waited in England hoping to have the opportunity of meeting him, face to face, to prove him in error; but May has come and gone, and the discoverer has not appeared." - Simonides

    Scrivener went into this as well, maybe others

    Here is the Literary Churchman:

    In the following year Tischendorf published a pamphlet "Die Anfechtungen der Sinai Bibel" (Leipzig 1863) which begins with what The Literary Churchman review of 1st July 1863 [said was] "a flippant tirade against Simonides" which is "mere banter and ridicule and does not advance anything in the shape of legitimate argument against Simonides". The Literary Churchman in fact had been proposing throughout the controversy that the two men meet. For example in its issue of 16th January, 1863 we read:

    We venture to propose at once that Dr. Tischendorf be invited to meet M. Simonides, and challenge him to the proof of his "authorship" of the now supposed "Sinaitic MS".We are willing to be of any use in convening a meeting on the subject, if MM. Tischendorf and Simonides will inform us of their desire to effect it. We shall be glad to receive communications at once from all who can assist us in bringing matters to an issue.

    But this came to nothing. Elliott p. 34
    Again. I seriously assert (as Mr. Bradshaw seems to think I am jesting on this grave subject) that I wrote the Codex, to portions of which Tischendorf has given the names of Friderico - Augustanus and Sinaiticus; and I challenge him to produce these Codices in London. I will meet him there at any time he may appoint, and in a public meeting of literary men assembled for the purpose it shall be once and for ever decided whether he or Simonides has spoken truly.
    Mr. Davies shirks my query about Tischendorf: when is he coming? Elliott, p. 113, July,. 1863
    Last edited by admin; Yesterday at 02:44 PM.

  2. Default Tischendorf in London in 1865

    Pure Bible

    Tischendorf in London in 1865 with the CFA 1844 Leipzig section

    Here is a little bit about the Tischendorf trip to London in 1865, a partial second-hand report. Apparently he brought the 1844 heist, the Codex Frederico Augustanus, or part of it, to the Royal Society of Literature. (His letters show that he also brought his facsimile for the other part, avoiding the colour and staining clash being obvious.)

    The Journal of sacred literature, p. 108-109
    April, 1865
    Codex Sinaiticus

    There is a second part beginning on p. 161-174

    And this I will try to give a review.

    Benjamin Harris Cowper, quoting John Medows Rodwell in the Churchman (is this the Literary Churchman?, no it is likely The Churchman's shilling magazine and family treasury) , makes some excellent points about the ms., questioning the Tischendorf antiquity claims.

    John Medows Rodwell

    Most of the pro-antiquity arguments are irrelevant since the ms. was a replica or forgery, and they are features that could very easily have been incorporated as part of the replica process.

    However, it would be very interesting to find any more material about this 1865 visit to London.

    Note that this is after Simonides had left London, which seems to be 1864. And I conjecture that Tischendorf had made an agreement with Simonides, since he shows up (recognized by Tregelles!) in St. Petersburg a couple of years later, working on the Russian historical archives (!). Why would you hire an accused forger to work on your historical archives? .. hmmm.

    (Some additional material about Simonides in those years might be in Russian or Italian, I'll try to share more on this separately.)

    A longer article could be checked to see if the white parchment and pristine condition of the leaves is mentioned. (And what about Scrivener, was he there?)

    p. 108-109 above

    Codex Sinaiticus.—It affords us pleasure to introduce here from the pages of the Churchman, some observations by the Rev. J. M. Rodwell, on a subject elsewhere treated in this number of J. S. L. --

    * A very interesting meeting was held at a special stance of the Royal Society of Literature, the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of St. David’s in the chair, for the inspection of the original “Codex Sinaiticus,” * which was kindly brought for exhibition by the discoverer. Dr. Tischendorf, after a few introductory remarks by the Right Rev. Chairman, gave a long description in French of the circumstances under which he was led to the discovery of the MS. in the convent of St. Catherine, and of the manifold difficulties which he was enabled successfully to overcome. He also defended the manuscript against those who on various grounds impugned the extreme antiquity which he claims for it, and concluded by re-asserting the statement embodied in his printed dedication to the lovers of Christian truth throughout the world, that this MS, is ‘ultimae antiquitatis Christianae monumentum.’ There certainly are, it must be admitted, many signs in it of nn extremely early date, e. g.

    (1) the order in which the Books of the New Testament are arrayed: viz., after the Gospels, the Epistles of St. Paul, with that to the Hebrews, interposed between 2 Thess. and the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon; theu the Acts; then the Catholic Epistles; lastly, the Revelation.

    (2) The annexation of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hennas, to which may have been added, where a few pages are now wanting, cither the Epistles of St. Clement or the Apocalypsis Petri. These contents, and, to a certain extent, their arrangement, are those adopted by Eusebius, and it was not till the Council of Laodicca a.d. 364, and of Carthage a.d. 397, that these last-mentioned works were excluded from the Christian Canon.

    (3) The fact that there are four columns upon each page instead of three columns, as in the ‘ Codex Vaticanus.’ This circumstance may be taken as pointing to a time when the Codex had recently superseded the voluraen or roll, to which a MS. in the form of the ‘ Codex Sinaiticus’ would bear a closer resemblance. The same criterion of antiquity may be observed in the AEithiopic MSS. in the British Museum, where the number of columns on a page, and the larger size of the characters, is a certain mark of increasingly remote antiquity. Against these three points in favour of the early date claimed for the 'Codex Sinaiticus’ may be mentioned

    (1) the enormous number—20 or 30 on almost every page—of the most extraordinary violations both of grammar, sense, and spelling in the various readings. These are of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that these barbarisms are due to a period when the art of caligraphy had so declined that the MS. was made after dictation by a scribe imperfectly acquainted with Greek, and trusting to his ear, rather than to his eye, or to his knowledge. It is quite inconceivable how such constant blunders could have been made by the copyists of Alexandria, so famed for their skill in the fourth century. The Vat. and Alexandrian MSS. are nearly free from mistakes of this kind.

    (2) The seeming alterations of the text in favour of Monophysite opinions, which were at their climax about a.d. 530, the time when the Convent of St. Catherine was founded. We allude to the reading (Grk) in John i. 18, and the omission of (Grk) before (Grk) in Luke ii. 50, instead of in wisdom and favour with God, the Cod. Sin. reads in the wisdom and in the grace of God. In Matt. xiii. 54, instead of Nazareth, his own country, we find a reading which implies that it only seemed to be his country, or was equivalent to his country. In Mark i. 1, the words Son of God are omitted from the first clause of the sentence; a similar theological bias may be detected in the various readings of John xvi. and xvii. Dr. Tischendorf does not appear to us to have disposed of these objections in his allusions thereto at p. xxxix. of his preface to the smaller quarto edition.

    (3) The note which has been added, apparently in the same handwriting as that of the original transcriber at the end of Esther, which says that the Cod. Sinait. ‘had been collated with a most extremely ancient (Grk) copy, which had been corrected by the hand of the Holy Martyr Pamphilus.’ Now, as Pamphilus was martyred about 294, and Tischendorf claims the date of a.d. 350 for his MS., it would seem that the expression, most extremely ancient, implies the lapse of a longer interval between the collation referred to in the note and the original transcript of Pamphilus. Half a century will certainly not satisfy that expression; two or three centuries would be much nearer the mark. The question concerning the age of this undoubtedly ancient, but, perhaps, not most ancient MS., must be considered quite unsettled.

    The question still awaits a full discussion and final settlement; nor will anything, in our judgment, better conduce to this result than a careful analysis and classification of the various readings. Should it ultimately be proved, which we suspect to be the case, that the Cod. Sin. is a copy made in the latter part of the sixth century, at the very earliest, of some more ancient text; it will still, through shorn of a claim which would place it in a superior rank to any other existing MS., afford valuable, though only secondary, aid in settling the text of the New Testament.”

    * Or rather of the “ Codex Fridcrico-Augustanus,” which forms a part of the Sinaitic MS.—Ed. J. 8. L.
    #3 is one of the colophons


    Christian Remembrancer (1865)
    New Testament: Greek Text and English Version

    These editions of the entire MS., together with the collations made by Volbeding and Gerhardts, by Mr. Hansell and by Mr. Scrivener, have made the Sinaitic text of the New Testament accessible to all. We may add, that all competent judges appear now to acquiesce in the genuineness of this document. Professor Tischendorf brought the Codex Friderico-Augustanus (an undoubted part of the MS.) to England in 1865, where it was exhibited at London, Oxford, and Cambridge; and no one could entertain a doubt that those venerable vellum leaves, inscribed with their beautiful simple characters, were a real article and no forgery. It may be added, that Simonides has been for some time silent, and as the onus of proving the Sinaitic MS. to be his own manufacture rests with him, we may reasonably infer that, in the absence of all proof, his bare assertions will simply go for nothing.

    The Journal of sacred literature,
    April, 1865
    Codex Sinaiticus

    ... On the other hand the Sinaitic Codex is coming to be better understood. The phenomena connected with it were too numerous and too peculiar to be closely investigated and carefully weighed in a short time. Scarcely any one here had seen any portion of the manuscript, not even that first discovered and called the Friderico-Augustanus. Under the circumstances men had to wait, and although fully convinced by the evidence at their disposal that the MS. was genuine, and very ancient, they were not prepared at once to express an opinion as to its true age, and the character and value of its text. Thanks, however, to the aid supplied by Dr. Tischendorf, light is gradually intensifying, and before long we expect the scholars, of this nation at least, to arrive at a generally accepted conclusion. Dr. Tischendor's conclusion was reached long ago, but with characteristic caution, our countrymen paused in order to reflect upon the matter for themselves. Some of them thought it very probable that the manuscript was of about the time of Justinian, who founded the monastery in Mount Sinai, where the volume was discovered. Opinions not very dissimilar were formed by some of the German critics. There were some who believed that Dr. Tischendorf was right in fixing the date before the end of the first half of the fourth century. Nor can we wonder at this: that eminent scholar has had unequalled opportunities of judging of the age of ancient documents, and has almost an instinctive perception of their character. But there were some who doubted as to both the opinions referred to; and as occupying a middle ground, they merited attention. They thought it somewhat older than Justinian’s time, and younger than that of Constantine. Upon the whole, nobody except the discoverer seemed very decided as to the actual date; probably because they considered —as Sir Frederick Madden observed on an occasion to be referred to again—that we have so few documents in Greek which claim to belong to the period claimed for this. They also considered that the question was critical as well as palaeographical, and required a study of the text of the book, as well as of its writing and other external peculiarities.

    Dr. Tischendorf has himself come forward in the most liberal manner to facilitate the solution of the problem in two ways: he has brought among us the Codex Friderico-Augustanus,—the only portion at his disposal,—and he has given those who could avail themselves of it ail opportunity not only to see this manuscript, but to confer with him and together upon the subject. Let us very briefly mention the circumstances.

    On Feb. 15 of the present year a meeting was convened at the rooms of the Royal Society of Literature, when many gentlemen who take an interest in such matters were in attendance. The chair was occupied by the Bishop of St. David’s, Dr. Thirlwall, who delivered a very appropriate address, chiefly congratulatory, but exhibiting hearty sympathy with the main business. A very different feeling evidently prevailed from that which characterized a meeting in the same place exactly two years previously to meet Simonides, chiefly on the subject of the same Codex Sinaiticus. On the last occasion Dr. Tischendorf exhibited the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, which some may need to be reminded contains part of the Old Testament from the same volume as the Codex Sinaiticus, but discovered much earlier. This is a noble fragment upon large vellum, the leaves of which are thin and time-worn. The ink is of a pale iron-brown colour, except the frequent corrections, which are darker. There are four columns of writing upon a page, so that at each opening eight columns are visible. The characters are ancient uncials of an excellent type, and doubtless of a pure and well-developed period of caligraphic art. The pages are ruled with parallel and horizontal lines by a blunt instrument which has left the marks indented in the skin. We may suppose that, in accordance with common custom, these lines were drawn and the sheets written before the book was bound. The corrections have been made since, and would seem, from a too brief inspection, to be some centuries later than the text, as may be inferred not only from the colour of the ink, but from the different type of uncial represented by them. It was but natural that we should look rather anxiously for the celebrated note at the end of the Book of Esther. The shorter one at the end of Esdras we barely saw. The longer one has been frequently copied and translated, but it will bear to be referred to again. It will not be necessary, we suppose, to copy the Greek, but we will give our rendering of it, and say a word or two about the original. Was this note penned by the scribe who wrote the manuscript or part of it; or by a later reviser, corrector, or collator? If it is a prima manu, it is impossible to believe that the manuscript is so ancient as its discoverer supposes. (continues)
    Last edited by admin; 06-12-2018 at 08:06 PM.

Posting Permissions

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