Hi, while this thread is Causidicus:
Consider the thread right below:
A TALE OF FOUR PAGES - CHECKERBOARD
"the tale of the white-to-yellow manuscript"
as pseudo-pinned. I didn't like some aspects of pinning, so we can be sure to bump it up with new info and sharing each day.
=======================
Causidicus.
In January 12, 1863 there was a letter from
"Causidicus" that was published in the Parthenon (formerly the Literary Gazette). The letter was unusual because it really tried to look at the big picture, and pointed out difficulties in both the Simonides and Tischendorf accounts. Perhaps with a mild pro-Simonides tinge. The letter created a furor even in Germany. So I want to do a little series extracting sections from this letter.
=======================
Causidicus on the Tischendorf forgery question.
"let us consider ... the possibility of fraud on the part of Tischendorf. The temptation was immense. The name of a man previously obscure, of no distinguished talents or learning, would immediately become known to all Europe. Should we not act basely, in a case of such vital importance, if overpowered by the clamour of some hundreds of Biblical critics, who have swallowed Chwolson, we should shrink from the investigation of this possible state of the case?
... With respect to the eight thousand corrections. Taking (as I have engaged to do, for the sake of fairness) all possibilities into consideration, I am justified in asking - Who shall assure us that the far greater part of these are not the work of Tischendorf himself? He might have seen the manuscript of Simonides at the convent in 1844- noted its adaptation for the character of a manuscript of superior antiquity, and at a subsequent period, have not scrupled to add everything which was requisite to give it an air of the most venerable ancientry. In an ordinary case notwithstanding the vulgar insolence of Tischendorf I should have been exceedingly unwilling to have suggested such a possibility, but this is a question of Biblical doctrine, and under such circumstances, the character of no man ought to be exempt from inquiry."
=======================
Avery short-notes:
The calling of Tischendorf as obscure was criticized in the responses. Understandably, yet the point was nonetheless sound. The international fame and recognition of Tischendorf is directly hinged to the Sinaiticus discovery. He had a little localized reputation in the textual world before this time. If you look at the encyclopedias of the 1850s (e.g. one by Migne), Tischendorf is not given special note.
As for Chwolson, I believe this is a reference to the Russian scholar of the day, Daniel Chwolson.
As to the corrections, there were 15, maybe more, years for action on the manusript, including possible manipulation, by Tischendorf and others. And special months puzzling with the manuscript in the private hands of Tischendorf and unusual friends unknown in Cario. In total, almost twenty years where everybody and their brother could write on the manuscript, in Greek or Arabic. The idea that all the markings are before 1800, or 1300, is virtually absurd. (This simple point is true In scenarios with Simonides involvement, and without.)
=======================
The key point was that Causidicus was willing to speak the basic underlying issue. Not that Tischendorf simply got fooled by the Sinaiticus manuscript, we have to consider that he might have been enticed and drawn into what were simply fraudulent activities.
Remember, this was the Kallinikos sense, on the scene, when he accused Tischendorf of mutilating and also deliberately yellowing and aging the manuscript (which Uspensky saw as "white partchment") with lemon juice and herbs. And there were periods of time with the manuscript under the private control of Tischendorf, with assistants unknown. Supposedly copying sections, while afawk those copied sections are .. nowhere.
And Uspensky was criticized for not realizing that the manuscript was so old, yet Uspensky was no slouch on a couch. Remember, he said specifically that he saw a "white parchment" manuscript, so it is very understandable if he did not have any sense that it was 1500 years old.
Today we know that Tischendorf was a manuscript thief and mutilator. (This could be covered one separate post, including the recent studies of Natalie Tchemetska) We know that Tischendorf was vain-glorious and virtually obsessed with honors and medals and jealous for the "British gold". We know that he "saw" things as if he had x-ray vision, or inside knowledge of how they developed. (This background was not all available to Causidicus.)
We also know that Tischendorf gave the gullible scholarly world a fabrication with his cover story about how he found the manuscript. Including the tissuedorfs about saving the manuscript from the fire.
Uspensky saw the whole "white parchment" manuscript in 1845, so we can be quite certain that Tischendorf did as well ... way before 1859. We can also be reasonably certain that Tischendorf mutilated the manuscript to remove the inner pages for Frederico-Augustinus. And the unbinding of the manuscript is almost certainly his doing as well.
As an aside, let's also mention the almost miraculous New Testament preservation, every page, every verse, other than scribal and textual blunders. This for a manuscript that supposedly had 1600+ years of use and abuse, bindings and rebindings. While the Old Testament was in tatters and shreds. Bridge for sale. Or, should we say .. tissuedorf for sale.
Thus, Causidicus above. Among the alternative historical reconstructions, the possibility of Tischendorf fraudulent activity must be one consideration.
In fact, next, let's wait a bit on more from Causidicus. First, let's go to the video-tape. The manuscript.
Steven Avery
Hi,
Returning to Causidicus, I want to include his section about provenance, or the lack thereof, for this manuscript. It is truly excellent thinking. And there are additional searching explorers and scholars that can be added to this section. I am going to add paragraphing.
=============================
Causidicus
Consider how frequently the library of the Monastery of St Catherine had been examined before the first visit of Tischendorf, in 1844: and by what men?
Dr Thomas Shaw had been there in the early part of the last century, a man of much higher attainments than Tischendorf, Regius Greek Professor at Oxford,a Doctor of Divinity, and the author of a most valuable and learned book of travels - no clumsy jumbler of incongruous ideas, nor the sort of person to have connected in a plus quam anile fashion, the comic character of Shakespeare with researches into the authenticity of a Biblical manuscript.
Dr Richard Pococke also, in the first half of the last century, examined the library of these monks, and stated, as the result of his researches that they had no rare manuscripts.
In the second decade of the present century M Bankes carefully overhauled the literary treaaurea of the convent and by dint of perseverance and rummaging found a library of two thousand volumes, three-fourths of which were manuscripts, and of these nine-tenths Greek. He brought away, with the permission of the monks five manuscripts, containing among them the work of Hephaestion on the Greek Metres, the Byzantine History of Cedrenus and the Physics of Aristotle.
If the Tischendorf manuscript had been then at the convent is probable that it would have escaped the careful and critical researches of M Bankes?
=============================
The Shakespeare reference is interesting, but it may be hard to track down. My conjecture is that Tischendorf made some sort of unusual comment.
More importantly, Causidicus is right, and if anything vastly understates the missing provenance lack of evidence and signiificance. He definitely shows the right type of thinking. With ancient artifacts, provenance is a key factor. e.g. Where was this 100 years ago? Why wasn't it noted?
Steven Avery
Steven Avery
Author
Admin
And a bit more from Causidicus.
"6 With respect to the calligraphy and arrangement of the manuscripts let It he recollected that Simonides (a man, as it seems to me, of incomparably greater talent and learning than Tischendorf has ever displayed) produced a work on Egyptian history, purporting to have been composed by Uranius the historian of the Nabathaeans which was pronounced by the members of the Berlin Academy to be genuine and for which the Minister of Public Instruction was authorized by the King to offer about £700. Professor Dindorf (on whose skill in Greek, and in Greek palaeography, it would be ridiculous to insist) and Dr Lepsius (whose knowledge of Egyptian antiquities is certainly not under-rated at the present day) were originally among the most zealous believers in the Uranian manuscript. Is it then, so certain that those who assert that they themselves were mystified in the matter of the "Uranius" may not have been equally mystified with respect to the Codex Slnaiticus? And is it not unpardonable impudence, on the part of such a man as Tischendorf to give himself airs because English critics, before they admit the authority of the disputed Codex, feel a wish to possess all the information which can be collected on the subject."
This is an excellent "turnabout" point. The top Germans were totally baffled and confused on Uranius. Eventually they sort of got to a consensus that it was a forgery by Simonides (or, alternatively, received by Simonides.)
Maybe so. (However, a conclusion that better not be dependent on the German scholar skill-set.)
The point of Causidicus is clear. These German experts have shown themselves unable to determine much of ... anything. Their palaeographic skills are lacking. So if they beliigerantly insist "Sinaiticus is this and that" .. that and a Metrocard will get you on a subway.
And the insiders here have seen how their incompetence works in actual practice.
Steven
Steven Avery
Author
Admin
And Causidicus had one other section that I thought worthy of special note. This was a point that he thought favored antiquity.
"7 As to the ink.his apparently trifling point really seems to possess more weight than any of the other objections. It is clear that Simonides does not pretend to have used such ink as should give the character of antiquity to his manuscript. On the contrary, it was to be a fair and rich copy, fit for presentation (as a modern copy, to the Emperor of Russia - On this point I offer no opinion, though I cannot easily persuade myself that to such a manuscript as Simonides describes, an appearance both as to ink and parchment, of very high antiquity might not have been subsequently given by a man who had made palaeography a study, and who saw his own way to fortune and honors by an artful imposture. Might not such chemical means have been used as might deceive even the pundits of palaeography? I offer these remarks in a spirit of the most perfect impartiality with respect both to the Symiote and the Teutonic doctor I would myself accept no manuscript on the authority of Simonides, and I am inclined to accept none on the authority of Tischendorf without the strictest investigation. As to the German pundits in general, they have been once deceived, and may be deceived"
If Simonides said he was simply doing a nice manuscript, why is the ink so old? Well maybe by chemical means? (To which we can now given a hearty, demonstrated amen.
And much of the Sinaiticus manuscript does have modern looking super-ink (not just CFA, there was more emphasis on parchment than ink). Apparently there was a propaganda campaign from Germany about the antiqutiy of the ink.
As of 2014 not even basic chemical tests have been done on the ink (which it is pointed out that the acid would have real deleterious effect on the parchment over the centuries, if there were all those centuries.)
Steven
