Steven Avery
Administrator
Elliott p. 19-20 -- bring 1859 Literary Churchman in this section and combine arguments
Last edited:
Literary Churchman Feb 16, 1863 - authenticity challenged - Alexandrinus
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
On 16th December 1862 The Literary Churchman commented that «No manuscript (i.e. of the New Testament) hitherto has been heard of without an omission or without a flaw. Its very perfection is a difficulty». This joumal retums to the same theme again on 2nd February, 1863:
We are not aware that there is any other old MS. in existence which contains the entire New Testament without any hiatus. This is, to our mind, a most doubtful fact, in limine. Even the Canon of Laodicaea (A. 363) omits the Revelations of St. John: and as late as St. Jerome’s time the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been struggling for its place. The idea of finding an entire Codex, containing the whole of our present New Testament, in the fourth Century, startles us not a little, and forms a prima facie case against its being of so great an antiquity. But we must not prejudge so grave a matter.
We are not aware that there is any other old MS. in existence which contains the entire New Testament without any hiatus. This is, to our mind, a most doubtful fact, in limine. Even the Canon of Laodicaea (A. 363) omits the Revelations of St. John: and as late as St. Jerome’s time the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been struggling for its place. The idea of finding an entire Codex, containing the whole of our present New Testament, in the fourth Century, startles us not a little, and forms a prima facie case against its being of so great an antiquity. But we must not prejudge so grave a matter.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Literary Churchman - Summary of known 1859 and 1862 1863 arguments contra authenticity
The Next post will have the same information with the words made into a 1-2-3-4 method.
«No manuscript (i.e. of the New Testament) hitherto has been heard of without an omission or without a flaw. Its very perfection is a difficulty».
July 16, 1859
in the newly discovered MS, not a single leaf is deficient in the New Testament. Of all the MSS. with an antiquity beyond 1,000 years, it is the only perfect one. ... Dr. Tischendorf then, goes on to state that this MS. comprises, besides this perfect copy of the New Testament, two other treatises of great value.
We are not aware that there is any other old MS. in existence which contains the entire New Testament without any hiatus. This is, to our mind, a most doubtful fact, in limine. Even the Canon of Laodicaea (A. 363) omits the Revelations of St. John: and as late as St. Jerome’s time the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been struggling for its place. The idea of finding an entire Codex, containing the whole of our present New Testament, in the fourth Century, startles us not a little, and forms a prima facie case against its being of so great an antiquity. But we must not prejudge so grave a matter.
the antiquity of the manuscript was in doubt because of its completeness, its neatness and its very regular penmanship, the editor adds the following:
To this statement we have to add our own impressions, after examining a facsimile of the Sinaitic MS. for ourselves. We confess to be much staggered. We are unable to believe that a MS. of the fourth century has this completeness, including, as of course, the Ep. to the Hebrews, the 2nd. of St. Peter, and the Apocalypse, the latter of which was not in any list formally accepted by the Church before the Council of Laodicea.
Other details
made us sceptics; such as
the insertion, in the Song of Solomon, of Rubrics between the verses, assigning too definitely what was said by the
«Bridegroom», and what by the«Bride».
The saying of Dr. Tregelles, that if we give up the «Sinaitfc MS.» we may give up the Alexandrian and the Vatican, does not move us. First, because Dr. Tregelles, if he knows as much of MSS. as he says, must know that neither of these MSS, are, in appearance, as regular, complete, and modern-shaped as this four-columned parchment now adduced; and he may also know, that it is possible the Alexandrian MS. may itself be traced to monks of Mount Athos. The opinion of Wetstein was not favourable to it. But we have no wish to stir controversy about it. It is, anyhow, not the complete document which the «Sinaitic MS.» is affirmed to be.
As to the «Itacisms» which constitute the third argument against Simonides, they really seem to us a strong one in his favour. The pronunciation of the modem Greeks constantly would lead them to this, especially if they write from dictation.
==============
Possibly add Ammonian sections of Alexandrinus
The Next post will have the same information with the words made into a 1-2-3-4 method.
«No manuscript (i.e. of the New Testament) hitherto has been heard of without an omission or without a flaw. Its very perfection is a difficulty».
July 16, 1859
in the newly discovered MS, not a single leaf is deficient in the New Testament. Of all the MSS. with an antiquity beyond 1,000 years, it is the only perfect one. ... Dr. Tischendorf then, goes on to state that this MS. comprises, besides this perfect copy of the New Testament, two other treatises of great value.
We are not aware that there is any other old MS. in existence which contains the entire New Testament without any hiatus. This is, to our mind, a most doubtful fact, in limine. Even the Canon of Laodicaea (A. 363) omits the Revelations of St. John: and as late as St. Jerome’s time the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been struggling for its place. The idea of finding an entire Codex, containing the whole of our present New Testament, in the fourth Century, startles us not a little, and forms a prima facie case against its being of so great an antiquity. But we must not prejudge so grave a matter.
the antiquity of the manuscript was in doubt because of its completeness, its neatness and its very regular penmanship, the editor adds the following:
To this statement we have to add our own impressions, after examining a facsimile of the Sinaitic MS. for ourselves. We confess to be much staggered. We are unable to believe that a MS. of the fourth century has this completeness, including, as of course, the Ep. to the Hebrews, the 2nd. of St. Peter, and the Apocalypse, the latter of which was not in any list formally accepted by the Church before the Council of Laodicea.
Other details
made us sceptics; such as
the insertion, in the Song of Solomon, of Rubrics between the verses, assigning too definitely what was said by the
«Bridegroom», and what by the«Bride».
The saying of Dr. Tregelles, that if we give up the «Sinaitfc MS.» we may give up the Alexandrian and the Vatican, does not move us. First, because Dr. Tregelles, if he knows as much of MSS. as he says, must know that neither of these MSS, are, in appearance, as regular, complete, and modern-shaped as this four-columned parchment now adduced; and he may also know, that it is possible the Alexandrian MS. may itself be traced to monks of Mount Athos. The opinion of Wetstein was not favourable to it. But we have no wish to stir controversy about it. It is, anyhow, not the complete document which the «Sinaitic MS.» is affirmed to be.
As to the «Itacisms» which constitute the third argument against Simonides, they really seem to us a strong one in his favour. The pronunciation of the modem Greeks constantly would lead them to this, especially if they write from dictation.
==============
Possibly add Ammonian sections of Alexandrinus
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
«No manuscript (i.e. of the New Testament) hitherto has been heard of without an omission or without a flaw. Its very perfection is a difficulty».
July 16, 1859
in the newly discovered MS, not a single leaf is deficient in the New Testament. Of all the MSS. with an antiquity beyond 1,000 years, it is the only perfect one. ... Dr. Tischendorf then, goes on to state that this MS. comprises, besides this perfect copy of the New Testament, two other treatises of great value.
We are not aware that there is any other old MS. in existence which contains the entire New Testament without any hiatus. This is, to our mind, a most doubtful fact, in limine. Even the Canon of Laodicaea (A. 363) omits the Revelations of St. John: and as late as St. Jerome’s time the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been struggling for its place. The idea of finding an entire Codex, containing the whole of our present New Testament, in the fourth Century, startles us not a little, and forms a prima facie case against its being of so great an antiquity. But we must not prejudge so grave a matter.
the antiquity of the manuscript was in doubt because of its completeness, its neatness and its very regular penmanship, the editor adds the following:
To this statement we have to add our own impressions, after examining a facsimile of the Sinaitic MS. for ourselves. We confess to be much staggered. We are unable to believe that a MS. of the fourth century has this completeness, including, as of course, the Ep. to the Hebrews, the 2nd. of St. Peter, and the Apocalypse, the latter of which was not in any list formally accepted by the Church before the Council of Laodicea.
Other details made us sceptics; such as
the insertion, in the Song of Solomon, of Rubrics between the verses, assigning too definitely what was said by the
«Bridegroom», and what by the«Bride».
The saying of Dr. Tregelles, that if we give up the «Sinaitfc MS.» we may give up the Alexandrian and the Vatican, does not move us. First, because Dr. Tregelles, if he knows as much of MSS. as he says, must know that neither of these MSS, are, in appearance, as regular, complete, and modern-shaped as this four-columned parchment now adduced; and he may also know, that it is possible the Alexandrian MS. may itself be traced to monks of Mount Athos. The opinion of Wetstein was not favourable to it. But we have no wish to stir controversy about it. It is, anyhow, not the complete document which the «Sinaitic MS.» is affirmed to be.
«Itacisms» The pronunciation of the modem Greeks constantly would lead them to this, especially if they write from dictation.
==============
Possibly add Ammonian sections of Alexandrinus
July 16, 1859
in the newly discovered MS, not a single leaf is deficient in the New Testament. Of all the MSS. with an antiquity beyond 1,000 years, it is the only perfect one. ... Dr. Tischendorf then, goes on to state that this MS. comprises, besides this perfect copy of the New Testament, two other treatises of great value.
We are not aware that there is any other old MS. in existence which contains the entire New Testament without any hiatus. This is, to our mind, a most doubtful fact, in limine. Even the Canon of Laodicaea (A. 363) omits the Revelations of St. John: and as late as St. Jerome’s time the Epistle to the Hebrews seems to have been struggling for its place. The idea of finding an entire Codex, containing the whole of our present New Testament, in the fourth Century, startles us not a little, and forms a prima facie case against its being of so great an antiquity. But we must not prejudge so grave a matter.
the antiquity of the manuscript was in doubt because of its completeness, its neatness and its very regular penmanship, the editor adds the following:
To this statement we have to add our own impressions, after examining a facsimile of the Sinaitic MS. for ourselves. We confess to be much staggered. We are unable to believe that a MS. of the fourth century has this completeness, including, as of course, the Ep. to the Hebrews, the 2nd. of St. Peter, and the Apocalypse, the latter of which was not in any list formally accepted by the Church before the Council of Laodicea.
Other details made us sceptics; such as
the insertion, in the Song of Solomon, of Rubrics between the verses, assigning too definitely what was said by the
«Bridegroom», and what by the«Bride».
The saying of Dr. Tregelles, that if we give up the «Sinaitfc MS.» we may give up the Alexandrian and the Vatican, does not move us. First, because Dr. Tregelles, if he knows as much of MSS. as he says, must know that neither of these MSS, are, in appearance, as regular, complete, and modern-shaped as this four-columned parchment now adduced; and he may also know, that it is possible the Alexandrian MS. may itself be traced to monks of Mount Athos. The opinion of Wetstein was not favourable to it. But we have no wish to stir controversy about it. It is, anyhow, not the complete document which the «Sinaitic MS.» is affirmed to be.
«Itacisms» The pronunciation of the modem Greeks constantly would lead them to this, especially if they write from dictation.
==============
Possibly add Ammonian sections of Alexandrinus
Last edited: