Results 1 to 7 of 7

Thread: Tischendorf palaeography attempts

  1. Default Tischendorf palaeography attempts

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

    Sister Threads - Traffic Cop

    Hilgenfeld and the German date debate of the 1860s
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...e-of-the-1860s


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

    Tischendorf had to deal with two very different colour mss.
    And very real problems with the excellent condition of the vellum.

    So we might seek out his comments in German and Latin (this research has never before come to English) in addition to the debates in the 1860s about the dates with Hilgenfeld, Uspensky and others.

    (Plus, for now, we can put some Simonides references here. Also some info on the Esther and 2 Esdras margin note, and the question of their dating, which came up in Hilgenfeld)

    For now, some quotes are simply google translate.

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

    Verhandlungen der 1en (-57en) Versammlung (1861), from 1860
    Verein deutscher Philologen und Schulmänner
    https://books.google.com/books?id=61QFAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA25
    text p. 30
    https://books.google.com/books?id=61QFAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA30

    Jene Unterschriften beziehen sicii nämlich auf die zahlreichen, den Büchern Esra und Esther etwa zu Anfang des 7. Jahrhunderts (von unseren Correctoren Ca und Cb) beigeschriebenen Verbesserungen. Zu dieser Zeit also erschien der Codex Sinaiticus, der noch heutzutage, d. h. 1200 Jahre später, durch seine Erhaltung auf vielen Schriftseiten in hohem Gradeüberrascht, noch nicht als ein sehr altes, wohl aber das Exemplar des Pamphilus

    These signatures refer to the numerous improvements made to the books of Ezra and Esther at about the beginning of the 7th century (by our Correctors Ca and Cb). At that time, therefore, the Codex Sinaiticus, which is still today, d. h. 1200 years later, highly conserved by its preservation on many pages, not yet as a very old, but probably the copy of the Pamphilus

    surprised by its conservation on many magazine pages highly
    good stuff.jpg

    The 1200 years seems to be from the theory of the Ezra and Esther 7th century to his viewing in the 1800s. Is Tischendorf saying he is surprised by the conservation? Needs better German translation. Overall, this is becoming one of the key elements we are recognizing. Not only is the part sent to St. Petersburg obviously coloured and tampered, the ms as a whole is simply in a condition that is not compatible with the modern theory. Hardly anybody over the years actually examined the ms. physically. Morozov, who did, said very clearly that it was not ancient. So it is very curious how Tischendorf managed to mask this whole area.

    As is often the case, the missing ending of Mark is used by Tischendorf as a major 4th century argument. However, if Eusebius (and Jerome) were correct that there were many mss without the ending in their day, then of course there is no difficulty in a ms centuries later not having the ending (even putting aside the forgery/replica issues.)

    Vortrag des Hofraths Dr. Tischendorf aus Leipzig heute zuerst an die Reihe kam, so wurde dieser nach einter Verstandigung mit Prof. Dr. Kochly aus Zuric gebeten daas angekundigte Thema (p. 25 intro)
    Prof. Herrmann Kochly (1815-1876) of Zurich is a new name in our Sinaiticus studies, he set up a lecture by Tischendorf.

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

    The Tischendorf 1864 article to Hilgenfeld includes some of the same phrasing, this is in the Journal with two Hilgenfeld articles.


    Zeitschrift für wissenschaftliche Theologie, Volume 7 (1864)
    Berichtigung -
    Constantine Tischendorf
    https://books.google.com/books?id=zEcbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA209
    p 202-211
    1200 Jahre spater, durch seine Erhaltung auf vielen Schriftseiten ....p. 209
    Thus, the 1200 year conservation idea is still here:

    Tischendorf (or perhaps the notes are the editor Hilgenfeld) quotes his own 1846 CFA book:


    "Sunt in aliquot foliorum marginibus notae eadem prorsus cum ipso textu scripturae elegantia, quas codem atque textum tempore exaratas esse probabile fit." p. 208-209

    The edges of the leaves are well known in the elegance of the same in complete agreement with the text of the Scriptures, the text of which the time of the languages to be probable; and it is the same."
    The context here is the two notes:

    2 Esdras
    http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ma...r&zoomSlider=0
    Esther
    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=9&chapter=10&lid=en&side=r&ve rse=3l&zoomSlider=0
    αντεβληθη προϲ παλαιω τατον λιαν αντιγραφον δεδιορθωμενον χειρι του αγιου μαρτυροϲ παμφιλου οπερ αντιγραφον προϲ τω τελει ϋποϲημειωϲιϲ τιϲ ϊδιοχειροϲ αυτου ϋπεκειτο εχουϲα ουτωϲ :
    μετελημφθη και διορθωθη προϲ τα εξαπλα ωριγενουϲ αντωνινοϲ αντεβαλεν παμφιλοϲ διορθωϲα

    Thus, the 1846 note is hard to follow, since those notes are placed in a later hand (supposedly even the theory of Tischendorf.)


    The Journal of Sacred Literature (1864)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=onotAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA497


    T
    he next point to which Dr. Hilgenfeld appeals is the subscription to the book of Esther in the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, which once belonged to the Sinaiticus. This subscription says that it was compared with an exceedingly ancient copy corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus; who states that it was taken, or copied (μετελημφθη) and corrected, from the Hexapla of Origen, corrected by himself, etc. This he regards as the testimony of the book itself. It may be from the hand of a corrector early in the seventh century, as Dr. Tischendorf says, but it implies a great difference in the ages of the two books. The editor's opinion cannot be reconciled with this statement; in which, moreover, the word μετελημφθη must mean "copied." Whether the subscription to Esther was written by the original transcriber or by the corrector in the seventh century, makes no difference to the general inference that the MS. cannot be older than a.d. 530.
    The next article is important, it even warns against the quick use of Sinaiticus as "foundation-text of future editions" of the GNT.

    Miscellanea Theologica
    Notes on the Codex Sinaiticus - p. 214-222
    https://books.google.com/books?id=QUAEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA218


    The point, however, on which Hilgenfeld lays the greatest weight in support of his own view, is a note which either the original transcriber or a subsequent corrector has added at the end of the book of Esther, to the following effect: " Collated with a very ancient copy (Grk) which had been corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilus; at the end of which most ancient book, commencing with 1 Kings and terminating with Esther, there is the following autograph notice subjoined in large characters by the martyr himself: 1 Transcribed from,..
    .
    =============================

    Prolegomena - 1865 - Greek New Testament
    https://archive.org/stream/Tischendo...e/n29/mode/2up

    1. Membrana codicis non tam alba quam sufflava est, magnaque ubique laevitate et subtilitate, quamvis singula folia satis inter se different. Pleraque enim a crassitudine pariter atque a nimia tenuitate abhorrent; sunt vero etiam tanta tenuitate ut superari nequeat, proptereaque partim exesa et perforata. Totem per codicem, paucis exceptis foliis, altera folii pagina scripturam bene, altera parum conservavit. Quod a diversitate laterum pellis ex qua membranam confecere ortum est; quo enim latere carnem attingebat pellis, membrana multo mollior altero latere pilis tecto facta est. Qua in re memorabile est quod totus codex ita confectus est ut, mollioribus partibus cum mollioribus, fortioribus cum fortiori bus iunctis, binae paginae molliores binas fortiores exciperent. Quae lex tantopere observata est ut quod excipias rarissime inveniatur, cuiusmodi sunt voluminis quarti folia 65 et 66, disparibus paginis iuncta.

    Is not so much white thing rather than sufflava. When the films from the Code, the great everywhere by fire and precision, and even though the difference between each of the leaves is enough. In most instances, the thickness of the same and by too great from the tenuity of the horrible; But there are also great thinness that can not be overcome, and therefore the erosion and partly perforated. Be maintained throughout the book, with the exception of a few leaves, and the other of the leaf pages of the Scriptures well, and the other too little of any one. Has risen from the diversity of the sides of the skin from which the membrane of the fact that they have made; For the flesh side which reached the skin, the skin is much softer than the other side of the hair of the roof is made. In such circumstances it is worth noting that the entire pad is so worn that the softer parts with softer, stronger and stronger bus joined two softer than pick up two pages. So much so that with the exception of the law was observed, which very rarely can be found, for example, the leaves of the book of the fourth 65 and 66, of unequal the pages of the joint.
    Needs Latin translation. One of the few discussions of the actual leaves of the ms. by Tischendorf.
    =============================

    The next two relate to the Simonides controversies.

    https://archive.org/stream/Tischendo...e/n55/mode/2up
    XXXXIX
    In Prolegg. libri sui Scriv. multus est in refutanda fabula Simonidea circa codicera Sinaiticum. Fuerunt fortasse qui mirarentur in edd. meis codicis Sinaitici nusquam istius fabulae mentionem fieri. At praestabat rem tam turpem praeterire silentio. Turpitudinem autem non ab ipso tam nobili falsario adsumsit sed ab iis, opinor, quibus ille post tot fraudes denuo fucum fecit. Simonidem nunquam vidisse codicem dudum mihi certissimum erat. Si enim vidisset, tam imprudenter labi non poterat. Ceterum nee apud Scriv. miserrimae illius fabulae caussam relatam legi.

    In Prolegg. his book Scriv. a lot to refute the myth Simonideis about codex Sinaiticum. There were, perhaps, that they were astonished, in the editions. my manuscript Sinaitici no mention of this story. At provided such an ugly pass over in silence. The nakedness of so noble a forger, adsumsit, however, not of him, but also by those, I suppose, to whom he made a bee again, after so many frauds. Simonides had never seen the book, I was quite certain. For if he saw them, he could not fall in such an imprudent. However, even with Scriv. unhappy that the cause of the story related to the law.
    https://archive.org/stream/Tischendo...e/n69/mode/2up
    LXIV
    Palaeographiam Graecam a theologis ac philologis plurimis ignorari ut satis notum est, ita ignorantia pudendum nihil habet nisi indocilem arrogantiam coniunctam habet. Haec a Sinaitico quidem codice vix poterat fieri ut maneret remota, ita ut Hieronymi verbis adhibitis princeps codicum dici non potuerit "absque morsu invidorum, qui ignorantes quid audiant,quid loquantur, de eo audent iudicare quod nesciunt " At ut in hoc litterarum genere quae ignorant frustra doceantur nec pudeat eos Simonidea fabula deserta quodcumque occurrit cupide amplecti, reliquum est longe gravissimum et a palaeographicis rationibus quas proprie dicis satis exemtum summae antiquitatis argumentum. Hoc in eo quern codex Sinaiticus continet textu positum est.

    Palaeographie Greek term used by many theologians and philologists as is well known is not understood by man, so closely bound up with the arrogance of ignorance has to be ashamed of nothing contains no more than showed here. This article from the book, indeed, hardly could be done, to remain Sinaitico been removed, so that the books of Jerome uttering the words of the chief, he could not be said to be "without the biting of the jealous, who do not know what they are hearing what they say, dare to judge about what they do not know how" As in the class of those which are ignorant of letters they taught them to not be ashamed to play Simonideis waste eagerly embrace whatever occurs, it remains by far the heaviest and a palaeographic reasons which properly say enough exemtum of antiquity argument. In this context that which has been contained in the body of the text is the Codex Sinaiticus.
    =============================

    There is more in his books c. 1863.

    Waffen der Finsternis gegen die Sinaibibel - Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel -
    Weapons of Darkness against the Sinai Bible

    Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel
    The Challenges to the Sinai Bible - (Assaults)

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 08-05-2018 at 04:44 AM.

  2. Default Tischendorf - CFA - 'extremely fine and delicate, and on the whole well preserved'

    "Der Codex Friderico-Augustanus ... Das pergament.. äusserst fein und zart und im Ganzen wohl erhalten, "

    "The Codex Friderico-Augustanus ...The parchment .. extremely fine and delicate, and on the whole well preserved"

    Serapeum - Leipzig, Aug 15, 1847
    https://books.google.com/books?id=l4gRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA50 - p. 49-61- Naumann - Tischendorf mss in Leipzig
    .................................................. .........................................p. 50-51 is CFA
    https://books.google.com/books?id=l4gRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA225 - p. 225-233 Lipsius articles begins

    https://books.google.com/books?id=l4gRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA227 - quote above
    https://books.google.com/books?id=l4gRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA241 - p. 241-250
    https://books.google.com/books?id=l4gRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA257
    - p. 257-263

    CFA description, referenced from Tischendorf by the reviewer. Adelbert Lipsius is referenced at the end of the 3 parts, on p. 264. The editor is the Leipzig librarian Robert Naumann, who may have written the first article.

    Colour not even mentioned.
    The excellent condition compared to ... nothing.

    The idea of pretending that these were fragments set aside to be burned had not yet arisen.

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-15-2018 at 02:14 PM.

  3. Default circularity - Sinaiticus is early, misses Mark ending --> Mark ending autographic, note early Sinaiticus ms corroboration

    Quote Originally Posted by Steven Avery View Post
    As is often the case, the missing ending of Mark is used by Tischendorf as a major 4th century argument. However, if Eusebius (and Jerome) were correct that there were many mss without the ending in their day, then of course there is no difficulty in a ms centuries later not having the ending (even putting aside the forgery/replica issues.)
    Beyond that, it is clear that some manuscripts in later centuries did in fact lack the ending, from the notes we have in extant mss.

    (Allowing the possibility that the notes were simply copies going back to the fourth century without any independent thinking of confirmation of their integrity involved. However, they are strong enough evidence to cast great doubt on the Tischendorf claim that an ending missing the traditional Mark ending is therefore very early. In fact, an 1800s ms. could easily miss the Mark ending.)


    Mark 16:9-20 - Sorting Out Some Common Mistakes

    http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...me-common.html

    Facebook discussion
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/2120...3564521841693/


    > James E. Snapp, Jr.
    "Three of these manuscripts (20, 215, and 300) even share a note which says, regarding the end of 16:8,

    "The text from here to the end is not in some copies. But in the ancient ones, it all appears intact."

    Thus instead of conveying scribal doubt, this note emphasizes the presence of the passage in ancient copies. "

    Five manuscripts (1, 205, 205abs, 209, and 1582) share a note which says, before 16:9,

    "In some of the copies, the Gospel concludes here, and Eusebius Pamphilus Canons also stop here. But in many, this [i.e., verses 9-20] also appears."

    Again, the intention of the note-writer appears to have been to defend the acceptance of these 12 verses, rather than to draw them into doubt. Another group of five manuscripts (15, 22, 1110, 1192, and 1210) shares the same note, but without the reference to the Eusebian Canons. The wording of the note is so similar that these ten manuscripts cannot constitute independent witnesses; these notes descend from a common source, and after the Eusebian Sections were expanded, the part about the Eusebian Canons was removed. Lastly, a note in minuscule 199 (from the 1100's) states succinctly, "In some of the copies, this [i.e., verses 9-20] is not present, but the text stops here" (that is, at the end of 16:8).
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-15-2018 at 05:04 PM.

  4. Default the immediate push of Tischendorf to claim the CFA was the oldest Biblical ms.

    The more you study Tischendorf and palaeography, the more question marks arise.

    It seems like there was an attempt to lead with the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, to test the waters and make sure he could get away with the early dating claims.

    Despite its amazingly pristine condition and fine white parchment, and very limited features for other areas of palaeography, and lack of reviews by other Bible scholars who could view and handle the ms., Tischendorf was immediately insisting that the CFA was the earliest Biblical ms., earlier than Vaticanus or any other ms. (Nothing of course about the colour and condition of the parchment.)


    The Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology (1859)
    https://books.google.com/books?id=ffG5WQIynh8C&pg=PA378
    http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbo...1000254365/383

    "T. wrote in 1847 (Stud. u. Krit. pp. 132 f.), after visiting the libraries of all Europe, that he knew of but one Greek parchment MS. of greater antiquity, the Cod. Frid.-Aug. of the LXX."
    This was in a review of a Scrivener book and:

    Novum Testamentum Greece, ad antiq. testes denuo recensuit, appar. crit. omni studio perfectum apposuit, comment. isagogicam prsetexuit M. F. Const. Tischendorf. Ed. 7. Lipsise, Winter. [1855" ]1859. 8vo. pp. cclxxx, 696, 682.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-15-2018 at 05:00 PM.

  5. Default Skeat and Milne on the Tischendorf palaeography - "in no case does he give any details .."

    Skeat and Milne on the Tischendorf palaeography dating

    "The account of the hands given by Tischendorf, Prolegomena, pp. 8-8*, is repeated almost verbatim in two later publications, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, 1863, p. xxi, and Novum Testamentum Graece ex Sinaitico Codice, 1865, p. xxx. In no case does he give any details of the characteristics of the various hands he professed to identify, and we must assume that, in the main, he was guided solely by the general appearance of the script” (Milne and Skeat 1938:18).
    Joseph Verheyden calls it a "fairly disturbing comment"

    "They had the summary preceded by the fairly disturbing comment"

    Lire demain - Reading Tomorrow (2013)
    Read, Write and Correct: the Scribe and the Perfect Text
    3. Of Scribes and Correctors
    https://books.google.com/books?id=EbtYKIc0_Q4C&pg=PA460
    Here is one of the comments from Skeat & Milne dealing with the lack of any real palaeography:

    The C correctors have been assigned by some to the fifth, by others to the seventh century, and lack of comparative material enforces caution upon whoever would decide between the two dates
    Or the 19th century.

    Last edited by Steven Avery; 06-13-2018 at 04:34 AM.

  6. Default

    This Tischendorf to Uspensky page plugs dates into various manuscripts, without any supporting examples or explanations.
    http://nlr.ru/eng/exib/CodexSinaitic...?n=porfir%2F01


    Specimens of Uncial writing styles from different centuries in C.Tischendorf's edition

    Codex Sinaiticus Petropolinanus. Dedicatory inscription to Porphyrius Uspensky in C.Tischendorf's hand. Autograph. S.a.
    F. 1499. Bishop Porphyrius (Uspensky) Collection (copies of fragments of manuscripts, miniatures, etc.). Greek, box 5, table 1.
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-26-2018 at 03:46 AM.

  7. Default

    Bulletin of the Institute of Classical Studies of the University of London - 1970

    Tischendorf described himself as a "Professor of Biblical Palaeography" and his observations on the manuscripts which he acquired are included in the Latin introductions with which he prefaced his descriptive accounts of them; he wrote no special studies of Greek palaeography and did not engage in academic teaching while he was in Russia.
    .

Posting Permissions

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