Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: Tischendorf in 1859 did not have the 4th century date for Vaticanus or any uncials

  1. Default Tischendorf in 1859 did not have the 4th century date for Vaticanus or any uncials

    Bernard Janin Sage is noted for having a fascinating section on palaeographical considerations for the uncials and the vapidness of the pronouncements given by Hort.

    Bernard Janin Sage (P. C. Sense) questions great uncial dating edifice
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=190

    A Critical and Historical Enquiry Into the Origin of the Third Gospel (1901)
    P
    . C. Sense
    https://books.google.com/books?id=QnlCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA291

    Sage (p. 291-292) considers that the uncials could only take a century of heavy use and wear before replacement, and since they were likely retired around the ninth or tenth century, they could be effectively dated about a century earlier. The modern theory today is that they must have undergone a millennium and more of heavy use and handling, reading and corrections, this we go into at:

    Sinaiticus through the centuries in the 4th century paradigm
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=137

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

    In the midst of this Sage gives a note about the Tischendorf dating in his 7th edition of 1859.

  2. Default Tischendorf in 1859 did not have the 4th century date for Vaticanus or any NT uncials

    This estimate, formed on rational and probable grounds, is more reasonable than the unsupported estimate of our learned theologians that they 'appear to date ' from the middle part of the fourth century and the fifth century. Tischendorf, by the way, knocks off one century, for he says the fifth and sixth century (Prolegomena, Greek Testament, 7th ed. p. xiii) ; and Scrivener ' reasonably suspects ' the conventional dates (Collation of Greek Manuscripts of the Holy Gospels; Introduction, p. xx). Sense p. 292.
    Remember, Tischendorf was not yet dating the Sinaiticus NT ms, except the CFA, which he does push as 4th century in the footnote.

    So here he was talking about manuscripts including Vaticanus and he does not go earlier than the 5th century.

    The Tischendorf wording is here:

    Novum Testamentum graece, Part 1
    By Constantin von Tischendorf
    https://archive.org/stream/Tischendo...e/n17/mode/2up

    https://books.google.com/books?id=D9w_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PR11

    Detecti mea opera et ex orientis latebris ad nos allati sunt I (fragmenta ex evangeliis, actibus, epistulis, maximam partem saeculi V. et VT.)
    Vaticanus and the CFA are again mentioned in p. LXXXVII in the google book.
    https://books.google.com/books?id=D9w_AAAAcAAJ&pg=PR87

    The Scrivener comment is not really significant since he simply "reasonably suspect" is on the 4th century date for "most of" the Lachmann seven mss.
    https://archive.org/details/MN41408ucmf_5

Posting Permissions

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