Steven Avery
Administrator
Discussions of examining the manuscript.
Last edited:
scholars and palaegraphers who did, or did not, examine Sinaiticus from 1844 to 2009
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/2254877134599274/
Steven Avery
James William Sheffield - however, there is no indication that John Burgon saw or handled either section of the ms.
- wonderful question.
Definitely Constantine Tischendorf examined both sections!
Also Kirsopp Lake c. 1910 for his photography, was at both the Russian and Leipzig pages.
After that, in the critical period from 1845 to 2009, there are no confirmed scholars, palaeographers or individuals known to have examined both sections.
Scrivener wrote a book on it, without seeing or touching any part of the manuscript.
Two scholars, questionable on objectivity and approach, saw at least some of the Russian pages at a very early time, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875), and Henry Bradshaw (1831-1886)
No record of the actual palaeographers, like Edward Maunde Thompson (1840-1929) and Victor Emil Gardthausen (1843-1925), actually seeing any part of the mansucript.
The general idea pushed by Tischendorf had been - "simply use my facsimile edition", which, however, carefully hid fundamental aspects. (As did the 2011 Hendrickson facsimile edition!) Adolf Hilgenfeld (1823-1907) objected to this approach, one problem was the $$ involved. Clearly a book about a manuscript is NOT the same thing as inspecting parchment, ink, codicology, etc.
Even the Russian scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946), who disputed the possibility that it could be very old, apparently was only working with the Russian pages. Morozov commented on how the Tischendorf placement of the bulk of the manuscript in Russia, away from European cultural centers, unreachable for European scholars, was deliberate in order to keep the plot going.
Afawk, Porfiry Uspensky never saw the German pages, and has a very pithy comment on the record about it not being an old manuscript, although he has other earlier comments that did see it as old.
And what Constantine Simonides created and saw is part of the big debate!
If the scholars in the midst of the 1860s controversies had insisted on inspecting the two sections, I doubt if Sinaiticus would have cut muster as from antiquity.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/2254877134599274/
Steven Avery
James William Sheffield - however, there is no indication that John Burgon saw or handled either section of the ms.
- wonderful question.
Definitely Constantine Tischendorf examined both sections!
Also Kirsopp Lake c. 1910 for his photography, was at both the Russian and Leipzig pages.
After that, in the critical period from 1845 to 2009, there are no confirmed scholars, palaeographers or individuals known to have examined both sections.
Scrivener wrote a book on it, without seeing or touching any part of the manuscript.
Two scholars, questionable on objectivity and approach, saw at least some of the Russian pages at a very early time, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875), and Henry Bradshaw (1831-1886)
No record of the actual palaeographers, like Edward Maunde Thompson (1840-1929) and Victor Emil Gardthausen (1843-1925), actually seeing any part of the mansucript.
The general idea pushed by Tischendorf had been - "simply use my facsimile edition", which, however, carefully hid fundamental aspects. (As did the 2011 Hendrickson facsimile edition!) Adolf Hilgenfeld (1823-1907) objected to this approach, one problem was the $$ involved. Clearly a book about a manuscript is NOT the same thing as inspecting parchment, ink, codicology, etc.
Even the Russian scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946), who disputed the possibility that it could be very old, apparently was only working with the Russian pages. Morozov commented on how the Tischendorf placement of the bulk of the manuscript in Russia, away from European cultural centers, unreachable for European scholars, was deliberate in order to keep the plot going.
Afawk, Porfiry Uspensky never saw the German pages, and has a very pithy comment on the record about it not being an old manuscript, although he has other earlier comments that did see it as old.
And what Constantine Simonides created and saw is part of the big debate!
If the scholars in the midst of the 1860s controversies had insisted on inspecting the two sections, I doubt if Sinaiticus would have cut muster as from antiquity.
Steven Avery
Administrator
the British Library allowed only four scholars to inspect the Codex Sinaiticus leaves in 25 years!
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-the-codex-sinaiticus-leaves-in-25-years.645/
"The oldest Bible in the world is kept in Leipzig like a treasure. It is so valuable that nobody can see the parchment"
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...luable-that-nobody-can-see-the-parchment.726/
Alexander Schick said similarly about the current manager in the deleted thread.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-the-codex-sinaiticus-leaves-in-25-years.645/
"The oldest Bible in the world is kept in Leipzig like a treasure. It is so valuable that nobody can see the parchment"
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...luable-that-nobody-can-see-the-parchment.726/
Alexander Schick said similarly about the current manager in the deleted thread.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
March 15, 2024
CARM
who (scholars, palaeographers, photographers, others) saw and handled the two Sinaiticus sections between 1845 and 2009?
https://forums.carm.org/threads/who...aiticus-sections-between-1845-and-2009.18820/
In 1844, 43 leaves went to Leipzig.
In 1859, 347 leaves went to St. Petersburg (although there were in Leipzig c. 1861-62 as part of the book printing process)
A pseudo-consensus early production date (4th century, or 5th-6th) on Sinaiticus was reached with very little physical access to the manuscript.
Due to the unusual history of the manuscript, and the need to check about the colouring and staining accusation, it was imperative for the scholars to see and compare the two sections! The colouring and staining would only touch the 1859 pages, while the 1844 stayed a consistent pale white.
Also direct access was necessary to check parchment flexibility or brittleness, deterioration and ink-acid reaction, preferably with scientific methodologies.
==============================================
who (scholars, palaeographers, photographers, others) saw and handled the two Sinaiticus sections between 1845 and 2009?
Constantine Tischendorf examined both sections!
Kirsopp Lake (1872-1946) for his photography c. 1910, for his 1912 and 1922 books, was at both the Russian and Leipzig sites.
Beyond that, in the critical period from 1845 to 2009, there are no confirmed scholars, palaeographers or individuals known to have examined both sections.
Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (1813-1891) wrote a book on Sinaiticus, without seeing or touching any part of the manuscript.
John William Burgon (1813-1888) wrote extensively on its corrupt text, but is not known to have seen the manuscript.
Two scholars, saw at least some of the Russian pages at an early time:
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875)
Henry Bradshaw (1831-1886)
Tregelles commented that if it was seen as a modern production, it would have been intended to deceive.
His interaction and comments and his difficult relationship with Tischendorf are all quite interesting.
Tischendorf did bring some 1844 Leipzig pages to London in 1865, and spoke in French.
Reports on this visit are sketchy.
No record of the actual palaeographers, like:
Ludwig Traube (1861-1907)
Edward Maunde Thompson (1840-1929)
Victor Emil Gardthausen (1843-1925)
Theodor Birt (1852-1933)
actually seeing any part of the manuscript.
The general idea pushed by Tischendorf had been:
"simply use my facsimile edition"
which, however, carefully hid fundamental aspects.
(As did the 2011 Hendrickson facsimile edition!)
Adolf Hilgenfeld (1823-1907) objected to this approach, one problem was the $$$ involved. And clearly a facsimile book about a manuscript is NOT the same thing as inspecting parchment, ink, codicology, etc.
Even the Russian scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946), who disputed the possibility that Sinaiticus could be very old, apparently was only working with the Russian pages. Morozov commented on how the Tischendorf placement of the bulk of the manuscript in Russia, away from European cultural centers, unreachable for European scholars, was deliberate in order to keep the plot going.
Porfiry Uspensky (1804-1885) who saw the 1859 pages in Sinai in his 1845 and 1850 visits, afawk never saw the German pages. And Uspensky has a very pithy comment in 1865, in a letter to Tischendorf about Sinaiticus not being an old manuscript. Although he has other earlier comments that did see it as old. There is additional commentary from Uspensky unpublished.
And what Constantine Simonides created and saw is part of the big debate!
The German Oriental Society planned in late 1861 to inspect both sections of the manuscript, but suddenly the globe-trotter par excellence, traveller extraordinaire, Constantine Tischendorf, became sick and could not make the train journey. hmmmmm.
===================
Certain scholars, often with British Museum connections, would see the 1859 pages after they arrived in Britain, likely including:
Arthur Surridge Hunt (1871-1934)
Frederic George Kenyon (1863-1952)
Harold Idris Bell (1879-1967)
And the major book writers:
Herbert John Mansfield Milne (1888-1965)
Theodore Cressy Skeat (1907-2003)
No record of any of these seeing the Leipzig leaves.
===================
If the scholars in the midst of the 1860s controversies had insisted on actually inspecting the two sections before coming to any conclusions, Sinaiticus would likely have not cut muster as an ancient manuscript.
===================
CARM
who (scholars, palaeographers, photographers, others) saw and handled the two Sinaiticus sections between 1845 and 2009?
https://forums.carm.org/threads/who...aiticus-sections-between-1845-and-2009.18820/
In 1844, 43 leaves went to Leipzig.
In 1859, 347 leaves went to St. Petersburg (although there were in Leipzig c. 1861-62 as part of the book printing process)
A pseudo-consensus early production date (4th century, or 5th-6th) on Sinaiticus was reached with very little physical access to the manuscript.
Due to the unusual history of the manuscript, and the need to check about the colouring and staining accusation, it was imperative for the scholars to see and compare the two sections! The colouring and staining would only touch the 1859 pages, while the 1844 stayed a consistent pale white.
Also direct access was necessary to check parchment flexibility or brittleness, deterioration and ink-acid reaction, preferably with scientific methodologies.
==============================================
who (scholars, palaeographers, photographers, others) saw and handled the two Sinaiticus sections between 1845 and 2009?
Constantine Tischendorf examined both sections!
Kirsopp Lake (1872-1946) for his photography c. 1910, for his 1912 and 1922 books, was at both the Russian and Leipzig sites.
Beyond that, in the critical period from 1845 to 2009, there are no confirmed scholars, palaeographers or individuals known to have examined both sections.
Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener (1813-1891) wrote a book on Sinaiticus, without seeing or touching any part of the manuscript.
John William Burgon (1813-1888) wrote extensively on its corrupt text, but is not known to have seen the manuscript.
Two scholars, saw at least some of the Russian pages at an early time:
Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875)
Henry Bradshaw (1831-1886)
Tregelles commented that if it was seen as a modern production, it would have been intended to deceive.
His interaction and comments and his difficult relationship with Tischendorf are all quite interesting.
Tischendorf did bring some 1844 Leipzig pages to London in 1865, and spoke in French.
Reports on this visit are sketchy.
No record of the actual palaeographers, like:
Ludwig Traube (1861-1907)
Edward Maunde Thompson (1840-1929)
Victor Emil Gardthausen (1843-1925)
Theodor Birt (1852-1933)
actually seeing any part of the manuscript.
The general idea pushed by Tischendorf had been:
"simply use my facsimile edition"
which, however, carefully hid fundamental aspects.
(As did the 2011 Hendrickson facsimile edition!)
Adolf Hilgenfeld (1823-1907) objected to this approach, one problem was the $$$ involved. And clearly a facsimile book about a manuscript is NOT the same thing as inspecting parchment, ink, codicology, etc.
Even the Russian scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946), who disputed the possibility that Sinaiticus could be very old, apparently was only working with the Russian pages. Morozov commented on how the Tischendorf placement of the bulk of the manuscript in Russia, away from European cultural centers, unreachable for European scholars, was deliberate in order to keep the plot going.
Porfiry Uspensky (1804-1885) who saw the 1859 pages in Sinai in his 1845 and 1850 visits, afawk never saw the German pages. And Uspensky has a very pithy comment in 1865, in a letter to Tischendorf about Sinaiticus not being an old manuscript. Although he has other earlier comments that did see it as old. There is additional commentary from Uspensky unpublished.
And what Constantine Simonides created and saw is part of the big debate!
The German Oriental Society planned in late 1861 to inspect both sections of the manuscript, but suddenly the globe-trotter par excellence, traveller extraordinaire, Constantine Tischendorf, became sick and could not make the train journey. hmmmmm.
===================
Certain scholars, often with British Museum connections, would see the 1859 pages after they arrived in Britain, likely including:
Arthur Surridge Hunt (1871-1934)
Frederic George Kenyon (1863-1952)
Harold Idris Bell (1879-1967)
And the major book writers:
Herbert John Mansfield Milne (1888-1965)
Theodore Cressy Skeat (1907-2003)
No record of any of these seeing the Leipzig leaves.
===================
If the scholars in the midst of the 1860s controversies had insisted on actually inspecting the two sections before coming to any conclusions, Sinaiticus would likely have not cut muster as an ancient manuscript.
===================
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
A true palaeographical assessment of the manuscript in the 1800s would have to physically evaluate these accusations by manuscript examination!
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...g-of-the-manuscript-kallinikos-simonides.490/
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...g-of-the-manuscript-kallinikos-simonides.490/