Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Hilgenfeld and the German date debate of the 1860s

  1. Default Hilgenfeld and the German date debate of the 1860s

    Sister Threads -
    keep these handy -
    ä é ü ö

    TRAFFIC COP -->THIS THREAD --> Hilgenfeld and the German date debate of the 1860s
    www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?194-Hilgenfeld-and-the-German-date-debate-of-the-1860s

    Tischendorf palaeography attempts

    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?195-Tischendorf-palaeography-attempts

    English extracts are also here:

    the James Donaldson linguistic argument that Barnabas and Hermas are not 4th century
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...ot-4th-century

    scholars seeing Sinaiticus as later than 4th century
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...an-4th-century


    Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel - (Assaults on the Sinai Bible)
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...e-Sinai-Bible)

    even in the 1860s, Tischendorf prevented access to the ms to control the authenticity and date debate
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...nd-date-debate
    =========================

    English Articles
    This had been lightly covered in the English press, however there are superb extracts, including how the discussion was based on the tampered and illusionist Tischendorf facsimile, not the actual manuscript sections.

    Journal of Sacred Literature (1864)
    The Age of the Sinaitic Codex (based on the two Hilgenfeld articles above) - Benjamin Harris Cowper, editor
    http://books.google.com/books?id=onotAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA495
    p. 495-500

    Theological Review (1864)
    Notes on the Codex Sinaiticus
    signed by "T."
    http://books.google.com/books?id=QUAEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA214
    p. 214-222

    excellent article

    ....and it was thought the wiser course to reserve a final judgment till the Codex had been subjected to a more thorough examination by those who have made palaeography their special study. The means for doing this are now placed within reach of scholars, not only by the splendid facsimile edition of all the fragments recovered by Tischendorf, brought out last year under the auspices of the Emperor of Russia,—but also by the publication in one volume of the text of the New Testament.


    Especially interesting is to see if there is any discussion about the physical flexibility, colour, etc. of the manuscripts.

    The American Presbyterian and Theological Review (1866)
    Literary Intelligence
    https://books.google.com/books?id=4YIeAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA192

    Brockhaus has published another edition, (8vo, price 4 thlr.) of Tischendorf’s Novum Testamentura grace, ex Sinaitieo Codice, giving also the readings of the Vatican Codex, and of the Elzevir edition. The previous edition by Brockhaus, Novum Test. Sinaiticum, 1863, is out of print. This later edition omits the palaeographic peculiarities, and corrects the evident blunders of the original; nor does it contain the Epistle of Barnabas, nor the Pastor of Hermas. Tischendorf has also written an Appendix on this Codex for the 8th edition of Theile's New Test. ; and another collation for the Polyglot of Stier and Theile. He replied sharply in 1863 to the impudent claim of Simonides, in a pamphlet, entitled “Assaults on the Sinai MS.;" and there too refuted the theory of the Russian Archimandrite, Porphyry Uspenski, that the Codex had a heretical origin. In another pamphlet, “Weapons of Darkness against the Sinai Bible,” 1863, he replied to an anonymous writer in the S
    ächsisches Kirchenblatt, who assigned the MS. to the 6th century. Hilgenfeld also tried to bring it down to the 6th century ; Tischendorf replied to him in the Tübingen Zeitschrift, 1864. But while this MS. is generally conceded to belong to the fourth century (e. g. by Weizsäcker on the Epistle of Barnabas, 1863 ; and by Tobler in an essay on the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hilgenfelds's Zeitschrift), several recent writers put it below the Vatican MS. as an authority, on account of its evident carelessness and numerous mistakes. Thus, Prof. Buttmann, in Hilgenfeld’s Zeitschrift, 1864, examines it carefully and finds in the Gospels alone some 360 plain errors or mistakes. Dr. Bömel, in a work on the Galatians, Frankfort, 1865, comes to a kindred result, and says, that Tischendorf himself, in the last, edition of his New Test., in the part on Matthew, i. to xvi. 23, "adopts the Sinaitic reading against the Vatican in 130 places, but the Vatican against the Sinaitic in 164 places.” The above is condensed from the Neue Evang. Kirchenzeitung. The editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature (April, 1865), Mr. Cowper, assigns the Sinai Codex to the 4th century, and a Coptic origin.


    quick summary of some positions

    Origin of the Four Gospels (1868)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zkpVAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA11

    Two men in particular have undertaken the task of assailing my work with the weapons mentioned above,—Dr. Hilgenfeld, of Jena, and Dr. Volkmar, of Zurich. The first has devoted to this task an article in the Review which he edits, heading it, “ Constantine Tischendorf as Defensor Fidei.” ... and although I do not speak specifically of the whole'canon, and merely put together as of equal canonicity the four Gospels, the Pauline Epistles, the first of John, and the first of Peter,

    Section with Tischendorf response to 1865 article by Hilgenfeld on dating of NT and canonicity.
    ================================
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-05-2018 at 11:54 AM.

  2. Default

    With barely any examination of the ms. and apparently nobody except Tischendorf seeing both mss in the tale of two manuscripts, there was a mini-debate about the date of Sinaiticus in the 1860s.

    Generally the range was fourth century (Tischendorf) to 6th and 7th century. Once Hortian theory was based on the early dating of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, and the conceptual blunder of their presumed common ancestor, all this was ignored in textual circles.

    To start there is, in addition to a separate Uspensky Russian debate.


    The second Hilgenfeld article, One More Word About the Codex Sinaiticus, looks likes like the most interesting.


    From Hilgenfeld's Journal there was a spirited debate about the 4th century date.

    Who actually saw how young is the manuscript?
    Who could handle it and knew other manuscripts?
    And who could compare the white parchment Leipzig CFA with the yellow with age St. Petersburg CSP?

    (Included below are all the articles on Sinaiticus, some are far more germane to our studies than others.)

    The following issue with six German articles on aspects of Sinaiticus.

    =================================

    1864

    Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, Volume 7 (1864)
    Title Page and TOC
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zEcbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1
    TOC
    http://reader.digitale-sammlungen.de/de/fs1/object/display/bsb10786535_00009.html

    VI Der codex Sinaiticus der Bibel.
    Ein Bedenken - von D. A.Hilgenfeld. p. 74-81
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zEcbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA74

    XIV Berichtistung
    von D. C. Tischendorf, p. 202-210
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zEcbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA202

    XV.
    Koch ein Wort fiber den codex Sinaiticus
    von D. A. Hilgenfeld. p. 211-219
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zEcbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA211


    XXII
    Studien nach dem Codex Sinaitirus
    über den Hebräer - Brief,
    von J. T. Tobler. Pfarrer in
    Zürich. p. 351-366
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zEcbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA351

    Tobler p. 351-395 - (Hebrew issues)

    XXIII
    Bemerkungen
    über einige Eigentümlichkeiten des Cod. J. T. Tobler. Pfarrer in Zürich
    Sinaiticus im N. T., zun
    ächst in den Evangelien,
    von Ph. Huttmanii, Prediger in Berlin (Gesundbrunnen). p. 367-395
    Buttmann p. 367-395
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zEcbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA367
    =================================

    1865

    Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, Volume 8 (1865)
    Title Page and TOC
    https://books.google.com/books?id=GEgbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR1

    VI.
    Ein Nachwort zum Hebr
    äerbrief nach Cod. Sinaiticus
    von Gustav Volkmar. p. 108-112
    https://books.google.com/books?id=GEgbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA108

    XIV.
    Constantin Tischendorf als Defenstr fidei,
    von D. A. Hilgenfeld. p. 329-343
    https://books.google.com/books?id=GEgbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA329

    This is more on the canon and the dating of the New Testament.
    Caspar René Gregory did cover some of this in bibliographic style, mentioning the 1864 issue and Donaldson on p. 347, and lots on p. 354

    Novum Testamentum graece: Ad antiquissimos testes denuo recensuit, apparatum criticum omni studio perfectum apposuit commentationem isagogicam praetexuit, Volume 3 (1894)
    Caspar René Gregory
    https://books.google.com/books?id=4SJVAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA347



Posting Permissions

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