Carlini gives more of Tischendorf contra Athous Hermas - Visions iii 3,5 not in Sinaiticus

Steven Avery

Administrator
Antonio Carlini
Costantino Simonidis e il testo del Pastore di Erma
https://www.academia.edu/37673334/Simonides_falsario5_doc

P. 2
1669603812321.png

12 Tischendorf 1856 e Tischendorf in Dressel 1863, iii-iv.
Dressel
https://books.google.com/books?id=lioVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR3

retroversione
1669663092984.png

Possiamo seguire le prime fasi della disputa grazie alle parole stesse di Tischendorf che scrive prima un «Bericht» apparso nel Dresdner Journal, Nr. 30 del 5 Febbraio 1856 27 e successivamente aggiunge una ampia nota (datata Pasqua 1863) alia Praefatio della seconda edizione dei Patres Apostolici di Albert Dressel (Dressel 1863, i-iv). Si puo capire Porigine dell’errore di valutazione critica in cui era caduto Tischendorf. Ci sono effettivamente delle convergenze significative (in particolare apparenti ‘espansioni’ testuali) tra la versione Vulgata e il Codex Athous che ora la critica, alia luce dei successivi ritrovamenti papiracei, giustifica come prova dell’appartenenza dei due testimoni a un filone di tradizione autonomo e nettamente distinto da quello rappresentato, per le Visioni, dal Sinaitico, dal Papiro Bodmer XXXVIII, nonche dalla Palatina e dall' Etiopica.28 Era facile pensare, p. es. che
(GREEK)
di Vis. Ill 3, 5 fosse frutto di retroversione dal latino (versutum esse circa scripturas), soprattutto dopo aver fatto la collazione del Sinaitico che e privo di quella sequenza. Sono anche altre le espansioni testuali che caratterizzano la testimonianza convergente del Codex Athous e della Vulgata. 29 Non si dimentichi poi che la lingua greca di Erma esibisce una serie di latinismi che potevano apparire nati per suggestione di un modello latino. Se dunque su questo punto Tischendorf corresse la sua posizione, inflessibile resto sempre nella condanna dei palinsesti di Erma e di Uranios, dal primo momento che li ebbe sotto gli occhi (il 22 Gennaio 1856), presente
We can follow the first phases of the dispute thanks to the very words of Tischendorf who first wrote a "Bericht" appeared in the Dresdner Journal, Nr. 30 of 5 February 1856 27 and subsequently added a large note (dated Easter 1863) to the Praefatio of the second edition of the Apostolic Patres of Albert Dressel (Dressel 1863, i-iv). One can understand the origin of the error of critical evaluation into which Tischendorf had fallen. There are indeed significant convergences (in particular apparent textual 'expansions') between the Vulgate version and the Codex Athous which now the criticism, in the light of the subsequent papyraceous finds, justifies as proof of the belonging of the two witnesses to an autonomous tradition and clearly distinct from that represented, for the Visions, by the Sinaiticus, by the Papyrus Bodmer XXXVIII, as well as by the Palatine and the Ethiopian.28 It was easy to think, p. ex. that (GREEK) of Vis. Ill 3, 5 was the result of retroversion from the Latin (versutum esse circa scripturas), especially after having made the collation of the Sinaitic which is devoid of that sequence. There are also other textual expansions that characterize the convergent testimony of the Codex Athous and the Vulgate. 29 It should not be forgotten that the Greek language of Hermas exhibits a series of Latinisms that could appear to have been born from the suggestion of a Latin model. Therefore, if Tischendorf corrected his position on this point, I remain inflexible always in the condemnation of the schedules of Hermas and Uranios, from the first moment he had them under his eyes (January 22, 1856), present
1669600026336.png


1669599115075.png

1669598954094.png

Il giudizio di Tischendorf e netto:

«Mein Erstaunen war nicht gering, als ich schon nach wenig Minuten auf beiden Blättern eine Menge paläographischer Eigentümlichkeiten bemerkte, die mir als innere Widersprüche in dem Charakter der Schrift galten. Besonders waren es die Formen des e, des m, des U und vollends die des a, welche ich als solche bezeichnen musste, die mir noch in keiner der vielen ähnlichen von mir gelesenen Handschriften des höchsten Alterthums vorgekommen waren».30

«My astonishment was not small when, after only a few minutes, I noticed a number of palaeographical peculiarities on both sheets, which I considered to be internal contradictions in the character of the writing. In particular, it was the forms of the e, the m, the U and finally the a, which I had to describe as such that I had not yet encountered in any of the many similar manuscripts of the highest antiquity that I had read».30

Lykourgas
http://books.google.com/books?id=3X2B-kaniakC&pg=PA69
1669599792098.png


Il rigetto avveniva dunque per ragioni squisitamente paleografiche e, data l’autoritä di Tischendorf, quel giudizio pesava.31 Come si e visto, anche altre (e piü pesanti) prove erano state portate contro l’autenticità in particolare del palinsesto di Uranio, ma Simon, individuò in Tischendorf il grande nemico che l’aveva screditato anche sul piano tecnico. E allora, a distanza di tempo, alla fine del 1862,


1669599171225.png
 

Attachments

  • 1669663061133.png
    1669663061133.png
    27 KB · Views: 72
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Given as retroversion #28

Compare to Hilhorst
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...is-codicis-bibliorum-sinaitici.93/#post-11785

The first one should be on the retroversion accusation page

20 Tischendorf 1856;
Tischendorf, C.: Hermae Pastor graece ex fragmentis Lipsiensibus instituta quaestione de vero graeci textus Lipsiensis fonte edidit A.F.C. Tischendorf. Ex editione Patrum Apostolicorum Dresseliana centum exemplaribus repetitum, Lipsiae 1856.
https://books.google.com/books?id=9I4wAQAAMAAJ&pg=PR15

This might be a retraction?

Tischendorf in Dressel 1863, xliv-lv («De Henna graeco lipsiensi»).
Dressel, R. M.: Patrum Apostolicorum Opera [...] recensuit atque emendavit [...] R. M. D., editio altera aucta supplementis ad Bamabae Epistolam et Hermae Pastorem ex Tischendorfiana codicis Sinaitici editione haustis, Lipsiae 1863.
https://books.google.com/books?id=_xpWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR44

This is definitely the edition
https://books.google.com/books?id=zEoaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PP7

Since this is after Sinaiticus, 1863, it is surprising that it has two Maximo sections.
p. XLV
https://books.google.com/books?id=zEoaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR45
1669603615481.png
p. LIV
https://books.google.com/books?id=zEoaAAAAMAAJ&pg=PR54
1669603434879.png


See also in post one
12 Tischendorf 1856 e Tischendorf in Dressel 1863, iii-iv.
Dressel
https://books.google.com/books?id=lioVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR3
 
Last edited:
Top