James Donaldson criticism of Bryennius ( Bryennios ) discovery of Hierosolymitanus 54 - and of Tischendorf!

Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Theological review [ed. by C. Beard]., Volume 14 (1877)
James Donaldson (1831-1915)
https://books.google.com/books?id=W0EEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA35

1768911205689.png



Bryennios (1833-1914-18)
en.wikipedia.org

Philotheos Bryennios - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org

1973 - finds Barnabas
overlooked the Didache in 1873
finds it in 1885
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
Light, however, has at length come from the East. Philothcus Bryeunius, Metropolitan of Serrac, came upon a manuscript written in A.I). 1056, containing not only the two Epistles of Clement, but a complete copy of the Epistle of Barnabas, along with the Epistles of Ignatius and the “Doctrine of the Twelve Apostles.” He describes the Library in which he found it as the Library at Fanari of Constantinople, belonging to the Patriarchal Metochion* of Jerusalem.

We have given nearly all the information in regard to this manuscript which Bryennius has vouchsafed to impart to us. He does not say anything of the history of the Library or of the manuscript. He supplies us with no external testimony to its antiquity. He mentions the fact that he was aided in the collation by his illustrious friend, the Metropolitan of Korytzas, Dorotheus Evclpis. We have to trust entirely to the honour of these two Greek clergymen for the fact that a really genuine manuscript has been found, and to internal evidence. We cannot think that this is an entirely satisfactory method of procedure. When a manuscript is discovered, all the external testimony that can be adduced should be adduced. In this particular case we are met with a puzzling circumstance.

Gebhardt and Harnack state that a catalogue of this Library was prepared by Betlimanti in 1815, and exists in Pertz’s Archiv, but no mention is made of our Codex. Was it in the Library then ? Still more unsatisfactory is the absence of such external testimony when so important a Codex as the Sinaiticus is concerned. Tischendorf rescued a portion of this manuscript from the waste-basket in 1844. In 1853 he could hear nothing of it. In 1850 he accidentally found it in the possession of the steward, the most complete copy of the Old and New Testament in existence, with the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hernias. Could not the monks state its history during the period of 1844 to 1859? Could they not have detailed the efforts they made to gather the scattered fragments together ? Could not the steward have told when he became the custodian of the work ? All this information would be exceedingly interesting in itself and very valuable for posterity. This generation may have perfect confidence in Bryennius and Tischendorf. But circumstances might arise at a long subsequent period which might awaken doubts as to the genuineness of the manuscripts. The appeal to internal evidence may prove to be unsatisfactory. And then what is there? It might well be urged that if a Tischendorf were inclined to forge a manuscript, he had unrivalled opportunities of so doing. No one was so well versed in manuscripts as he. None knew so well as he all the forms of the letters, all the mistakes of copyists, all the various readings. And it might also be said that there is no guarantee that the terrible results of a discovery of such a practice would be sufficiently deterrent. Chatterton was not deterred. Constantine Simonides was not deterred. Nor were these influenced by a base love of gain, but an eager desire to shew their power. A fascination was upon them which blinded them to all consequences. We cannot therefore but think it a grave error both in Tischendorf and Bryennius that they have not adduced external testimony to the history of their manuscripts.

In the case of the Epistles of Clement, the internal evidence entirely in favour of the genuineness of the manuscript ... And lastly, Mr. Bensly has found a Syriac translation of the two Epistles, which guarantees satisfactorily the genuineness of the Constantiuopolitan Codex.

The slight glance at the edition of Bryennius brings prominently before us the uncertainty of the work of the critic when be labours without sure foundation. The various editors, from Junius downwards, have tried to fill in the lacunae of the Alexandrian Codex. In many instances it was impossible to go wrong, for only two or three letters had to be filled in. But whenever there was a larger space, they have almost invariably missed the right word, even though there could be no doubt of the sense. We shall take the seventh chapter of the first Epistle as a specimen. The larger blanks are these:

1768912565893.png


No critic conjectured the first, second and sixth. Junius was right with the fourth and fifth. Tischendorf was right with the third. No one suggested the exact form of the seventh, though Bleek conjectured

1768912754880.png


Critics are very fond of suggesting how larger gaps should be filled up. There was one leaf absent from the first Epistle. This blank was deemed an appropriate receptacle for such fragments as were attributed to Clemens ltomanus. Only one of these passages is found in the newly-discovered manuscript Every critic attributed one other fragment at least to this Epistle, and some assigned more than one.

There was a dispute in regard to the length of the complete second Epistle. Professor Lightfoot argued from the Stichometria of Nicephorus that ahout five-sixths of the whole Epistle had been lost. Gebhardt thought this calculation wrong, and believed it to he nearer the trutli that only one leaf had been lost, as in the first Epistle. Neither of them was correct, though Gebhardt was nearer the truth. The editors have made twenty chapters of the Epistle, twelve out of the old and eight out of the new ; and this division gives a good idea of the proportion of the new matter to the old.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery

Steven Avery

Administrator
did James Donaldson write about the Epistle Barnabas in Jerusalem Codex 54 after it’s publication c. 1883?

Yes, James Donaldson did write about the Epistle of Barnabas in Jerusalem Codex 54, and his commentary became a focal point in a larger, intense debate regarding the authenticity of early Christian texts.

Donaldson's engagement with the Epistle of Barnabas and the Codex unfolded across different phases:

1. The Pre-Discovery Era (1867)

Long before Philotheos Bryennios found Codex Hierosolymitanus 54, Donaldson—alongside Alexander Roberts—translated and evaluated the Epistle of Barnabas for the Ante-Nicene Christian Library (1867). In his early writings, Donaldson was highly critical of the work itself, disparaging the text for its "absurd and trifling interpretations of Scripture". [1]

2. Post-Didache Publication (1885 and After)

Following Bryennios’s monumental 1883 publication of the Didache, Donaldson and Roberts updated their scholarship to include the new Eastern discoveries. In the 1885 edition of the Ante-Nicene Fathers series (Volume 1), they integrated the text of the Epistle of Barnabas alongside structural historical overviews of the Jerusalem Codex. [1]

3. Donaldson's Critical Legacy on the Text

What makes Donaldson's writing on the Epistle of Barnabas distinct in the post-1883 period is how he used it to question the text-critical consensus of Western scholarship: [1]
  • The Bryennios vs. Tischendorf Debate: Donaldson was deeply skeptical of the absolute authority Western scholars gave to Constantin von Tischendorf's 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus (which also contained a version of Barnabas). [1, 2]
  • Exposing the "Latinisms": Donaldson noticed that certain phrases and vocabulary in the Sinaiticusversion of Barnabas looked suspiciously "Latinized" rather than organically Greek. When Bryennios published the text of Barnabas from the 11th-century Jerusalem Codex, Donaldson analyzed it heavily to see if this "true Greek" text exposed errors or artificial elements in the older Sinaiticus manuscript. [1, 2]
  • Methodological Critique: Even after the Didache's success, Donaldson reiterated his frustration that Bryennios supplied almost no information about the library or the physical history of the codex, giving Westerners nothing but a transcription to analyze. [1]

Ultimately, Donaldson used the release of the Barnabas and Didache sections to remind the academic world that just because a manuscript was ancient did not mean it was immune to manipulation or scribal blending. [1]

Would you like to examine the specific textual differences Donaldson noticed between the Jerusalem Codex and Codex Sinaiticus, or look into the overall reception of the Didache by other British scholars in the mid-1880s?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top