Steven Avery
Administrator
Wilhelm Friedrich Rinck (1793-1854)
http://books.google.com/books?id=f6g8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA802
p. 289-290
However, not all critics accepted an early dating of Vaticanus. Some held a more conservative option by dating it to a later period.185 The most extreme position was proposed by Wilhelm Friedrich Rinck in his review of Tischendorf’s first Greek New Testament edition. In contrast to Hug’s fourth-century dating, Rinck suggested dating the Vatican manuscript to the seventh century.186 Such a controversial proposal was based on several observations. First, the handwriting of Vaticanus and Basilensis (E 07), according to Rinck, was strikingly similar. Since the latter was usually dated to the eighth century, he believed that Vaticanus had been copied around the same time or at most several decades earlier.187 Second, Rinck thought that Birch’s opinion on the originality of accents and breathings should not be excluded without hesitation, and that even if the diacritics has been added at a later stage, it cannot be used to support the antiquity of the manuscript. For there were majuscules without accents and breathings composed in the seventh or later centuries.188 Third, he pointed out two main deficiencies found in Hug’s arguments: first, the lack of the Eusebian Canons and the Euthalian Apparatus could not intrinsically lead to a dating before the time of Euthalius but could have been due to other reasons such as geographical differences; second, the missing phrase ‘in Ephesus’ (Eph 1:1) could not be used as the main proof for supporting the manuscript as a product before the time of Basil.189 All in all, Rinck concluded that we should better date Vaticanus to the seventh century at the earliest.190
185. For instance, Reuss considered that the manuscript perhaps belongs to the fifth century in the first edition of his introduction to the history of the New Testament text (Geschichte, p. 158). But in his later editions he turned to the fourth-century dating.
186. Rinck, review of von Tischendorf, NTG, especially pp. 547–552. On Rinck (1793–1854), see a brief biographical account in Pick, ‘Rinck’. Tischendorf’s New Testament editions and his involvement with B 03 will be discussed in the next chapter.
187. Rinck, review of von Tischendorf, NTG, pp. 547–548. Interestingly, he actually refers to Hug’s own description on the hand of E 07 and its dating, but then refutes Hug’s proposed dating of B 03; cf. Hug, Einleitung 1 (1821), pp. 280–282.
188. Rinck, review of von Tischendorf, NTG, pp. 548–549. He refers to de Montfaucon to support his argument. In fact, Rinck also dates other majuscules to centuries much later than scholarly consensus: the examples he gives here are A 02, D 05, and L 019, which—according to him were
copied in the ninth century.
189. Rinck, review of von Tischendorf, NTG, pp. 549–551. Rinck also points out that Hug himself acknowledges the reading of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ was added by the first hand in the margin, thus suggesting that the original scribe must have known this reading.
190. Textual similarity with D 05 is also raised as a side argument for such a later dating. For Rinck, that Greek-Latin bilingual was probably written in the seventh century, thus making his proposal for dating B 03 around the same period even more plausible. The seventh-century dating of D 05 seems to have been based on Tischendorf’s opinion in his first edition (‘It is believed to be written in the beginning of the seventh century’ [‘Scriptus putatur ineunte sec. VII’—von Tischendorf, NTG (1841), p. lxxv]). Yet, modern textual critics (including Tischendorf himself at a later stage) tend to date D 05 much earlier, for instance Parker (Codex Bezae, p. 30) proposes to date it around 400 CE. In a later contribution Rinck somewhat modifies his view, but he still retains his suspicion of Hug’s early dating of B 03; see Rinck, ‘Beitrag’, pp. 400–401.
NOT Heinrich Wilhelm Rinck (b 1822-1881)
===========================================
p. 313-314
At the outset, our manuscript is touched upon in an 1844 article replying to Rinck’s review of his first Greek New Testament edition.29
29. von Tischendorf, ‘Neuer Beitrag’. For Rinck’s review and his late dating of B 03, see my discussion in § 6.4.1 above.
As a response to the reviewer’s opinion that the Vatican manuscript should be dated to as late as the
seventh century, Tischendorf devotes considerable space to palaeographical
comparison. Yet, instead of focusing on Vaticanus, his attention is mostly given
to the hand of Codex Basilensis (E 07), employed by Rinck as the main argument
for the late dating of Vaticanus.30 For Tischendorf, the hands of these two majuscules
are not comparable, and Basilensis clearly belongs to a much later age,
probably in the eighth century. As for the hand of Vaticanus, he mentions it in
passing while addressing the common scribal tendency to compress letters at
the end of a line. Here a reference to his eyewitness account in Rome is given:
In den Uncialcodd. finden sich nicht selten am Ende der Linie verkleinerte Schriftzüge.
Diese haben, wie schon erwähnt, im Codex E eben die spätere zusammengedrückte
Form. Dasselbe geschieht auch in den so eben angezogenen Uncialevangelistarien.
Etwas Aehnliches könnte man von den Codd. ABCD (sowohl
Cantabrigiensis als Claromontanus) muthmaßen, und man hat es schon gemuthmaßt.
Allein von diesen allen, ohne Ausnahme des Codex Vaticanus (denn am 10.
März 1843 11 1/2 Uhr Morgens habe ich dieses μυστήριον mit meinen Augen gesehen;
wenig Tage später fand es Lambruschini angemessen, selbst meinen Blick in den Index
zu setzen), kann ich das Gegentheil versichern. Niemals wird in den kleinen
Endbuchstaben die alterthümliche Form sich selber untreu.31
30. von Tischendorf, ‘Neuer Beitrag’, pp. 477–483. He examined E 07 in Basel for a few weeks in
January 1843 (cf. p. 478).
31. von Tischendorf, ‘Neuer Beitrag’, p. 483 (emphasis original). The dating of E 07 is given later
in p. 486.
p. 546
Pick
‘Rinck’
Pick, Bernhard. ‘Rinck, Wilhelm Friedrich’. CBTEL Sup. II (1889): p. 802a.
p. 575
Rinck
Review of von
Tischendorf, NTG
Rinck, Wilhelm Friedrich. Review of Constantin von Tischendorf, Novum
Testamentum Graece. Textum ad fidem antiquorum testium recensuit
brevem apparatum una cum variis lectionibus Elzeviriorum, Knappii,
Scholzii, Lachmanni subiunxit argumenta et locos parallelos indicavit commentationem
isagogicam notatis propriis lectionibus edd. Stephanicae tertiae
atque Millianae, Matthaeianae, Griesbachianae praemisit … (Leipzig:
Köhler, 11841). TSK 15 (1842): pp. 537–556.
Rinck
‘Beitrag’
Rinck, Wilhelm Friedrich. ‘Ein Beitrag zur Feststellung der Grundsätze der
neutestamentlichen Textkritik’. TSK 19 (1846): pp. 400–408.
http://books.google.com/books?id=f6g8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA802
p. 289-290
However, not all critics accepted an early dating of Vaticanus. Some held a more conservative option by dating it to a later period.185 The most extreme position was proposed by Wilhelm Friedrich Rinck in his review of Tischendorf’s first Greek New Testament edition. In contrast to Hug’s fourth-century dating, Rinck suggested dating the Vatican manuscript to the seventh century.186 Such a controversial proposal was based on several observations. First, the handwriting of Vaticanus and Basilensis (E 07), according to Rinck, was strikingly similar. Since the latter was usually dated to the eighth century, he believed that Vaticanus had been copied around the same time or at most several decades earlier.187 Second, Rinck thought that Birch’s opinion on the originality of accents and breathings should not be excluded without hesitation, and that even if the diacritics has been added at a later stage, it cannot be used to support the antiquity of the manuscript. For there were majuscules without accents and breathings composed in the seventh or later centuries.188 Third, he pointed out two main deficiencies found in Hug’s arguments: first, the lack of the Eusebian Canons and the Euthalian Apparatus could not intrinsically lead to a dating before the time of Euthalius but could have been due to other reasons such as geographical differences; second, the missing phrase ‘in Ephesus’ (Eph 1:1) could not be used as the main proof for supporting the manuscript as a product before the time of Basil.189 All in all, Rinck concluded that we should better date Vaticanus to the seventh century at the earliest.190
185. For instance, Reuss considered that the manuscript perhaps belongs to the fifth century in the first edition of his introduction to the history of the New Testament text (Geschichte, p. 158). But in his later editions he turned to the fourth-century dating.
186. Rinck, review of von Tischendorf, NTG, especially pp. 547–552. On Rinck (1793–1854), see a brief biographical account in Pick, ‘Rinck’. Tischendorf’s New Testament editions and his involvement with B 03 will be discussed in the next chapter.
187. Rinck, review of von Tischendorf, NTG, pp. 547–548. Interestingly, he actually refers to Hug’s own description on the hand of E 07 and its dating, but then refutes Hug’s proposed dating of B 03; cf. Hug, Einleitung 1 (1821), pp. 280–282.
188. Rinck, review of von Tischendorf, NTG, pp. 548–549. He refers to de Montfaucon to support his argument. In fact, Rinck also dates other majuscules to centuries much later than scholarly consensus: the examples he gives here are A 02, D 05, and L 019, which—according to him were
copied in the ninth century.
189. Rinck, review of von Tischendorf, NTG, pp. 549–551. Rinck also points out that Hug himself acknowledges the reading of ἐν Ἐφέσῳ was added by the first hand in the margin, thus suggesting that the original scribe must have known this reading.
190. Textual similarity with D 05 is also raised as a side argument for such a later dating. For Rinck, that Greek-Latin bilingual was probably written in the seventh century, thus making his proposal for dating B 03 around the same period even more plausible. The seventh-century dating of D 05 seems to have been based on Tischendorf’s opinion in his first edition (‘It is believed to be written in the beginning of the seventh century’ [‘Scriptus putatur ineunte sec. VII’—von Tischendorf, NTG (1841), p. lxxv]). Yet, modern textual critics (including Tischendorf himself at a later stage) tend to date D 05 much earlier, for instance Parker (Codex Bezae, p. 30) proposes to date it around 400 CE. In a later contribution Rinck somewhat modifies his view, but he still retains his suspicion of Hug’s early dating of B 03; see Rinck, ‘Beitrag’, pp. 400–401.
NOT Heinrich Wilhelm Rinck (b 1822-1881)
===========================================
p. 313-314
At the outset, our manuscript is touched upon in an 1844 article replying to Rinck’s review of his first Greek New Testament edition.29
29. von Tischendorf, ‘Neuer Beitrag’. For Rinck’s review and his late dating of B 03, see my discussion in § 6.4.1 above.
As a response to the reviewer’s opinion that the Vatican manuscript should be dated to as late as the
seventh century, Tischendorf devotes considerable space to palaeographical
comparison. Yet, instead of focusing on Vaticanus, his attention is mostly given
to the hand of Codex Basilensis (E 07), employed by Rinck as the main argument
for the late dating of Vaticanus.30 For Tischendorf, the hands of these two majuscules
are not comparable, and Basilensis clearly belongs to a much later age,
probably in the eighth century. As for the hand of Vaticanus, he mentions it in
passing while addressing the common scribal tendency to compress letters at
the end of a line. Here a reference to his eyewitness account in Rome is given:
In den Uncialcodd. finden sich nicht selten am Ende der Linie verkleinerte Schriftzüge.
Diese haben, wie schon erwähnt, im Codex E eben die spätere zusammengedrückte
Form. Dasselbe geschieht auch in den so eben angezogenen Uncialevangelistarien.
Etwas Aehnliches könnte man von den Codd. ABCD (sowohl
Cantabrigiensis als Claromontanus) muthmaßen, und man hat es schon gemuthmaßt.
Allein von diesen allen, ohne Ausnahme des Codex Vaticanus (denn am 10.
März 1843 11 1/2 Uhr Morgens habe ich dieses μυστήριον mit meinen Augen gesehen;
wenig Tage später fand es Lambruschini angemessen, selbst meinen Blick in den Index
zu setzen), kann ich das Gegentheil versichern. Niemals wird in den kleinen
Endbuchstaben die alterthümliche Form sich selber untreu.31
30. von Tischendorf, ‘Neuer Beitrag’, pp. 477–483. He examined E 07 in Basel for a few weeks in
January 1843 (cf. p. 478).
31. von Tischendorf, ‘Neuer Beitrag’, p. 483 (emphasis original). The dating of E 07 is given later
in p. 486.
p. 546
Pick
‘Rinck’
Pick, Bernhard. ‘Rinck, Wilhelm Friedrich’. CBTEL Sup. II (1889): p. 802a.
p. 575
Rinck
Review of von
Tischendorf, NTG
Rinck, Wilhelm Friedrich. Review of Constantin von Tischendorf, Novum
Testamentum Graece. Textum ad fidem antiquorum testium recensuit
brevem apparatum una cum variis lectionibus Elzeviriorum, Knappii,
Scholzii, Lachmanni subiunxit argumenta et locos parallelos indicavit commentationem
isagogicam notatis propriis lectionibus edd. Stephanicae tertiae
atque Millianae, Matthaeianae, Griesbachianae praemisit … (Leipzig:
Köhler, 11841). TSK 15 (1842): pp. 537–556.
Rinck
‘Beitrag’
Rinck, Wilhelm Friedrich. ‘Ein Beitrag zur Feststellung der Grundsätze der
neutestamentlichen Textkritik’. TSK 19 (1846): pp. 400–408.
Last edited: