Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: when did Tischendorf first publicly connect the 1844 CFA to the 1859 Sinaiticus?

  1. Default when did Tischendorf first publicly connect the 1844 CFA to the 1859 Sinaiticus?

    In March of 15, 1859 Tischendorf wrote a letter to the Minister von Falkenstein announcing the Sinaiticus manuscript. This was published in the Literary and Scientific Appendix to the
    Leipziger Zatung in April 17. 1859 as

    'Ein Brief des Prof
    . Dr. Tischendorf an den Staatsminister v. Falkenstein',

    By July of 1859, this reached the English Press in the

    Journal of Sacred Review

    The Literary Churchman: A Critical Record of Religious Publications
    Tischendorf's Recent Discovery p. 257-258

    The Literary Churchman took issue with the idea given by Cowper that the CFA was identified.

    "The only other Greek parchment MS. to which I had before given a chronological place prior to the Vatican, was the Leipsic Codex Friderico-Augustanus, but this, as I am already convinced, is a relic of the very MS. of which I am so happy as to find these important constituents." - Cowper translation, Journal of Sacred Literature, 1859

    "He appears to identify the new manuscript with the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, but his expressions are very ambiguous. .. We do not know if he alludes to this or some other discovery. Time will shew."
    Reprinted here in a review of the 1860 Tischendorf book.

    The Christian Remembrancer, Volume 41 -Jan 1861

    New documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (1964)
    Ihor Ševcenko

    In 1855, he declared that the 43 folios of the Frederico-Augustanus were but a part of what he had seen on his previous trip, but maintained silence as to where he had seen the manuscript: Cf. Monumenta Sacra Inedita. Nova Collectio, I (1855), p. xxxx. However, he waited until March 15, 1859 before admitting in print that the Frederico-Augustanus was but a fragment of the manuscript he had found on Sinai. This, he said in a display of deadpan humor, had become clear to him beyond any doubt: Cf. " Kin Brief des Prof. Dr. Teschendorf an den Staatsmlnlster v. Falkenstein," Leipzigrr Zeitung, Wissenschaftliche Beilage nr. 31, April 17, 1859, p. 137.

    This private letter was published. However, in the public arena, Tischendorf kept the issue vague. The 1862 Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, printed in Leipzig, did not include the CFA text.

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 02-04-2016 at 03:59 AM.

  2. Default

    The 1863 book:

    Novum testamentum sinaiticum: sive, Novum testamentum cum epistala Barnabae et fragmentis Pastoris. Ex Codice sinaitico auspiciis Alexandri II. omnium Russiarum imperatoris (1863)
    Constantine Tischendorf

    Does have unusual references to the CFA:
    At quum secundum visebam Sinai montem cum S. Catharinae monasterio, nec vidi quem adpetebam thesaurum, nec quo devenisset comperi. Hinc in Europam eum delatum neque amplius locum spei meae relictum esse coniiciens, quum anno 1855 primum volumen Monumentorum sacrorum meorum edebam, textum extremae paginae vaticiniorum Esaiae, quem iam anno 1844 descripseram, una edendum curavi, monens ut codicem Friderico-Augustanum ita etiam reliqua eiusdem libri antiquissimi fragmenta, quoquo pervenerint, mea opera ab interitu esse vindicata.

    Quarto vero saeculo dum adscribimus biblia Sinaitica. quaeritur an forte erroris nos convincant quae libris Esdrae et Estherae posteriore manu subscripta sunt Haec enim qui scripsit testatur utrumque illum librum in codice Sinaitico ad exemplar collatum esse "antiquissimum" ab ipso Pamphilo captivo recognitum. At minime contraria ista sunt nostrae de aetate codicis sententiae. Spectant enim ad ea quae a ea et ob correctoribus nostris ineunte fere saeculo septimo in illis libris mutata sunt. Illo tempore codex Sinaiticusa qui etiamnum i. c duodecim saeculis post, maximam partem pulcherrimus est, haud dubie satis novus videbatur. Pamphili vero exemplar a manu eius certissimum venerandae vetustatis indicium habebat. Praeterea exemplar illud minime tum videtur scriptum esse quum recognoscebat Pamphilus: id ipsum in eo inest quod Pamphilus ad Hexapla Origenis mutatum esse dixit; nondum igitur Origenis studia expertum erat. Qui vero notam codicis Sinaitici sive Friderico-Augustani scripsit duas virtutes exempli illius laudat quod et antiquissimum esset et manu Pamphili recognitmn. Quum autem tertio saeculo sive ineunte sive medio scriberetur, papyro potius quam membrana constabata unde antiquitatis species aliquot saeculis post, papyro dudum desuefactm mirum in modum augeri debebat
    Uspensky on 13-14, 34, 39-40 (this section might do well to be studied)
    Major MacDonald on p. 14, quoting Tregelles 1860. Note that MacDonald probably got his own conclusions indirectly from Tischendorf, through the monastery.
    Hilgenfeld is referenced on p. 33.
    Scrivener references the p. 40-41 (this should be checked).

    Hilgenfeld, Uspensky and other critics of the 4th century date are attacked in two other books in German in 1863.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 03-16-2016 at 12:47 AM.

  3. Default Tischendorf strategy - kee thep CFA and CSP apart

    Tischendorf did not want the mss seen together, keeping scholars ignorant of:
    The Tale of Two Manuscripts

    The CFA was the known quantity after 1846. And it was pristine snow-white. Clearly, Tischendorf did not want the two mss seen together, even when he was physically in Leipzig with the mss. This was 1862 and perhaps earlier in 1859 or 1860 (see Tregelles discussion).

    In fact, the 1862 publication should have been one unified manuscript. Since the quality of the publication was far above that of 1846. Beyond that, even if the CFA was to be omitted, it should have been clearly indicated ... "the rest of the text is in the 1847 publication..".

    There is only one reason for the artificial separation, a game played by Tischendorf up to 1865, that makes sense. Tischendorf was well aware of the colouring of the CSP (Codex Sinaiticus Pretrpolitanus) and the glaring difference with the white pristine CFA. Thus, his goal was:

    a) put all the focus on the hand-written facsimile (no parchment to study)

    b) say very little about the parchment, its colour and condition and conservation

    c) keep them physically apart and as inaccessible as possible

    Even his supporter, William Aldis Wright (1831-1914), later on the OT Revision company, wrote as early as 1863, in the midst of trying to counter Simonides.

    Genuineness of the Codex Sinaiticus
    William Aldis Wright - Jan 13, 1863

    although the "Codex Sinaiticus" is now all but inaccessible, "it was perfectly easy of access at Leipzig, and was there seen by two English scholars at least.. they .. pronounce the Codex Sinaiticus to be a genuine ancient manuscript"
    All the access to either ms. was very limited. Let's point out again that this is the article where the Tischendorf supporter said:

    Granted that Tischendorf has exhibited an unscholarly greed of English gold, and an unseemly obsequiousness to rank
    And Tischendorf ducked out of coming to England with the ms, or part of the ms. (Will try to get the exact timing.)


    Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and "few scholars had set eyes on it" (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3)


  4. Default

    Even as late as 1901, Bernard Janin Sage noted the two sections as one ms. yet he did not acknowledge this as from Tischendorf:

    Dean Alford says that the Codex Frederico-Augustanus (now at Leipzig), obtained in 1844 from the same monastery, is a portion of the same copy of the Greek Bible as the Codex Sinaiticus, the 148 leaves of which, containing the entire New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas, parts of Hermas, and 199 more leaves of the Septuagint, have now been edited by the discoverer.
    This was the result of the reluctance of Tischendorf to connect the two sections of the same ms.

    The only sensible explanation for the Tischendorf reluctance is simple:

    a) The colours don't match,
    b) Tischendorf knows it
    c) it is immediately suspicious and thus
    d) Tischendorf would like that other not study the two manuscripts together.

Posting Permissions

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