Waffen der Finsternis - Weapons of Darkness - 1863, Tischendorf still stumbles over Hermas Latin retroversion

[Steven Avery]

Find this is Hermas, Tischendorf tried to vindicate his attack on Hermas by saying it was also in Sinaiticus!

πανούργος εἶ περὶ τὰς γραφάς

you are clever (cunning) about scriptures

( = versuta te esse circa scripturas of the Vatican text), Vis, iii. 3, are not found in the Sinaitic

What is the Vatican text of Hermas?

This Greek is in Memnon
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...-latin-manuscripts-in-memnon.3287/#post-13610

γραφάς

the Latin manuscripts of the Hermas Vulgate and Palatine editions

Christian Tornau, Paolo Cecconi - Shepherd Hermas Latin - V https://books.google.com/books?id=9t3mBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA9 41 Mazzini (1980) p. 181 182; Vezzoni (1994), p. 41. Same as The Shepherd of Hermas in Latin: Critical Edition of the Oldest Translation Vulgata Christian Tornau, Paolo Cecconi...

purebibleforum.com

γραφάς on p. 47 is given in Jallabert but is omitted in Sinaiticus ?
and the one word may be in Acts 17:11
Roy Ciampa, “‘Examined the Scriptures’? The Meaning of α̉ναϰρíνoντες τὰς γραϕάς in Acts 17:11”

Jallabert

Maximo in Hermas Visions II:3,4 - from Tischendorf to James Donaldson to David Daniels

Hermas and Bodmer. Another Look at the Text of Vision 1.3.4, 2.3.1, and 3.2.1 in P. Bodm. XXXVIII Joseph Verheyden...

purebibleforum.com

Find the German of Latin talking of the 14th and 15th century
Confirm if γραφάς does not apply? (graphes) confused somewhere scripture according to structure - only apply to Athos?


The Home and Foreign Review, Volume 4 (1864)
Comptemporary Literature
Editor
https://books.google.com/books?id=s39HAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA271
https://archive.org/details/a634742500londuoft/page/271/mode/1up

Looking for it in Dibelius

Der Hirt des Hermas

books.google.com

Classical Review ******
https://books.google.com/books?id=IFRJAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA65

T. K. Abbott with a review on p. 64 of:

Hilgenfeld 1881

Graece e codicibus Sinaitico et Lipsiensi scriptorum que ecclesiasticorum excerptis, collatis versionibus latina utraque et aethiopica, libri clausula latine addita, restituit ... Adolphus Hilgenfeld. Ed. II. emend. et ... aucta

books.google.com

Hilgenfeld 1881

Graece e codicibus Sinaitico et Lipsiensi scriptorum que ecclesiasticorum excerptis, collatis versionibus latina utraque et aethiopica, libri clausula latine addita, restituit ... Adolphus Hilgenfeld. Ed. II. emend. et ... aucta

books.google.com

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

Hilhorst

 

[Steven Avery]

Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel - (Assaults on the Sinai Bible) & Waffen der Finsternis - Weapons of Darkness

=========================== Sister Threads - traffic cop for 1860s authenticity and date debate threads Hilgenfeld and the German date debate of the 1860s https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.194 =========================== 2015 summary sent to Christfried Bottrich...

www.purebibleforum.com

had been repeated by me in more detail, there were no small doubts as to whether he really came from ancient times, or contained in the main a medieval back translation from Latin. Above all else, I took the latter view myself. The handwriting, which is exactly 100 years older than the Leipziger Blätter, has now given it full clarity. I am glad to announce that the Leipzig text was not derived from medieval studies but from the old original texts. My opposite assertion, however, has proven itself in so far as the Leipzig text suffers from many corruptions and also from those which undoubtedly originate from the medieval use of the Latin text. "" Coated ", however, is one, namely that one of the 2 Main passages from which I derived the Latin origin, the Sinai manuscript confirms the testimony of the Latin origin. And that I have this passage: navoS ^? "rc ^ l r"? Even though it is not written "frankly", its reason lies in the protection of the friend of the anonymus, whose pages are followed by an irresponsible play on these words: perhaps the anonymus does not know it "Corruptions" is, first of all, the recently published 2nd edition of the Dressel'schen. read. The "favorable impression" of the anonymus and his peers, of course, never and not in the past, what I write, is open to everyone's eyes, and is represented by me everywhere.Here comes the anonymous on the "immense Russian costs" the publication of the Codex. These "immense Russian costs" have already spread, often in the German press.Also, it was missing in my "Frankness". In all probability, a precise communication on the part of the facts, as I have never held it back from suitable place, would hardly be believable. Simple people to whom such undertakings live their quiet domestic studies

 

[Steven Avery]

https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...sutum-te-esse-circa-scripturas.93/#post-11918

See also

Tischendorf 1860 Hermas retraction - Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici - versutum te esse circa scripturas

Latin editions from Germany Hermae Pastor Graece Ex Fragmentis Lipsiensibus Instituta Quaestione De Vero Graeci Textus Lipsiensis Fonte (1856) (German Edition) http://www.amazon.com/Fragmentis-Lipsiensibus-Instituta-Quaestione-Lipsiensis/dp/1162528184...

purebibleforum.com

"Bemantelt" ist hierin allerdings eins, namlich, daB gerade an einer der 2 Hauptstellen, aus denen ich den lateinischen Ursprung herleitete, die Sinaihandschrift das ZeugniB des lateinischen Ursprungs bestatigt. Und daB ich Uber diese Stelle:

sogar jetzt nicht ganz "offenherzig" geschrieben, hat seinen Grund in der Schonung desjenigen Freundes des Anonymus, von dessen Seiten sich an diese Worte ein unverantwortliches Spiel anknlupft. Moglicherweise kennt es der Anonymus nicht. Ueber die weiteren "Corruptionen" ist zunachst die kurzlich erschienene 2. Aufl. der Dressel’schen PP. Apost. nachzulesen. Auf den "gunstigen Eindruck" beim Anonymus und Seinesgleichen habe ichs freilich nie und auch hier nicht abgesehen; was ich schreibe, liegt often vor Jedermanns Augen, und wird von mir allenthalben vertreten.


However, one thing is "cloaked" here, namely that precisely in one of the 2 main passages from which I derived the Latin origin, the Sinai manuscript confirms the evidence of the Latin origin. And that I have not even now written quite "open-heartedly" about this passage

has its reason in the protection of that friend of the anonymous, from whose side these words are linked to an irresponsible game. Possibly the anonymous does not know. About the other "corruptions" is the recently published 2nd edition of Dressel's PP. apost. to read. Of course, I never intended to make a "favorable impression" on the anonymous and those like him, and I didn't aim here either; what I write is often in front of everyone's eyes, and is represented by me everywhere.