Steven Avery
Administrator
===========================
Sister Threads - Traffic Cop
Hilgenfeld and the German date debate of the 1860s
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.194
===========================
This is an area that has barely been noticed by those accepting authenticity as an early manuscript. The powerhouse teaming up of Tischendorf, with backing from some German scholars (e.g. Wieseler) and the Westcott-Hort positioning pushed hard for the early date. Thus it became a "consensus" with minimal discussion of the reasons for or against.
Very, very few individuals, even up to 2009, had ever seen the Tale of Two Manuscripts. (ie. seen photos that accurately showed the colour, or had seen the German and Russian->English sections with their own eyes.) Very few knew the Hermas history with the Tischendorf retraction, or the Donaldson linguistic arguments. And the 1843 Barnabas of Simonides was totally hidden from view until recently.
Quotes and references are planned to be added here.
=================================
Porphyrius Uspensky (1804-1885)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyrius_(Uspensky)
It would be very helpful to read all the material from Uspensky, yet even from what we have he did not accept the fourth century date, leaning more to 500 AD. One element was believing that Euthalian elements from after 460 AD were used in the styles and sectioning. (This may be sense-line sections.) Later, he may have noted the parchment differences.
Adolf Bernhard Christoph Hilgenfeld (1823-1907)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Bernhard_Christoph_Hilgenfeld
Hilgenfeld is one of the very top German scholars, and he had a few reasons for seeing a later date.
Karl August Julius Hoffmann, (1812-1869)
http://www.deutsche-biographie.de/sfz33133.html
Referenced by Gardthausen
James Donaldson (1831-1915)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Donaldson_(classical_scholar)
You can see hints of authenticity questioning from Donaldson, as he placed his linguistic questioning as supporting, at the earliest, the Hilgenfeld date of around 600s. In addition the church writing editions would report the Barnabas 1843 edition of Simonides as "Sinaitic Barnabas".
David J. Trobisch
http://trobisch.com/david/wb/pages/curriculum-vitae.php
A friend of his on the forums reported a few times, reliably, that Trobisch questioned the 4th century date, thinking maybe 200-300 years later. Since Trobisch, like many, has connections with the material put out by the British Library (e.g. he spoke at the 2009 conference with a paper on Codex Sinaiticus and the Formation of the Christian Bible published) and the Critical Text textual establishment as a whole (part of the Nestle-Aland new edition group) a public statement from Trobisch questioning the fourth century date would be welcome and surprising, but unlikely. When the authenticity question was posed, according to the report from his friend, he deferred from any particular response and may not have considered it an issue. Here is one example:
So why doesn't Trobisch say this publicly? You would think it would be a helpful, yet fairly harmless, scholastic observation. Yet in the heated politics of the Critical Text, that could make him a type of heretic. Maybe he would not be invited to write articles for the British Library conferences and books. Note that exposing the 4th century textual criticism palaeographic date as being political would clearly allow more consideration that the Sinaiticus manuscript is simply not an ancient document.
=================================
Keep in mind that seeing that the 400s date has real problems is also a support for an overall authenticity questioning. And that the historic use of the manuscript by Westcott and Hort required the early date assignment.
Gardthausen will take a careful read, he reported Donaldson and Hoffman.
We should also look at the Tischendorf replies, one book is easily available in German.
Tischendorf was also countering some arguments from an anonymous writers and the authenticity question raised by Simoindes.
==================================
Sister Threads - Traffic Cop
Hilgenfeld and the German date debate of the 1860s
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.194
===========================
This is an area that has barely been noticed by those accepting authenticity as an early manuscript. The powerhouse teaming up of Tischendorf, with backing from some German scholars (e.g. Wieseler) and the Westcott-Hort positioning pushed hard for the early date. Thus it became a "consensus" with minimal discussion of the reasons for or against.
Very, very few individuals, even up to 2009, had ever seen the Tale of Two Manuscripts. (ie. seen photos that accurately showed the colour, or had seen the German and Russian->English sections with their own eyes.) Very few knew the Hermas history with the Tischendorf retraction, or the Donaldson linguistic arguments. And the 1843 Barnabas of Simonides was totally hidden from view until recently.
Quotes and references are planned to be added here.
=================================
Porphyrius Uspensky (1804-1885)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyrius_(Uspensky)
It would be very helpful to read all the material from Uspensky, yet even from what we have he did not accept the fourth century date, leaning more to 500 AD. One element was believing that Euthalian elements from after 460 AD were used in the styles and sectioning. (This may be sense-line sections.) Later, he may have noted the parchment differences.
Adolf Bernhard Christoph Hilgenfeld (1823-1907)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Bernhard_Christoph_Hilgenfeld
Hilgenfeld is one of the very top German scholars, and he had a few reasons for seeing a later date.
Karl August Julius Hoffmann, (1812-1869)
http://www.deutsche-biographie.de/sfz33133.html
Referenced by Gardthausen
James Donaldson (1831-1915)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Donaldson_(classical_scholar)
You can see hints of authenticity questioning from Donaldson, as he placed his linguistic questioning as supporting, at the earliest, the Hilgenfeld date of around 600s. In addition the church writing editions would report the Barnabas 1843 edition of Simonides as "Sinaitic Barnabas".
David J. Trobisch
http://trobisch.com/david/wb/pages/curriculum-vitae.php
A friend of his on the forums reported a few times, reliably, that Trobisch questioned the 4th century date, thinking maybe 200-300 years later. Since Trobisch, like many, has connections with the material put out by the British Library (e.g. he spoke at the 2009 conference with a paper on Codex Sinaiticus and the Formation of the Christian Bible published) and the Critical Text textual establishment as a whole (part of the Nestle-Aland new edition group) a public statement from Trobisch questioning the fourth century date would be welcome and surprising, but unlikely. When the authenticity question was posed, according to the report from his friend, he deferred from any particular response and may not have considered it an issue. Here is one example:
So why doesn't Trobisch say this publicly? You would think it would be a helpful, yet fairly harmless, scholastic observation. Yet in the heated politics of the Critical Text, that could make him a type of heretic. Maybe he would not be invited to write articles for the British Library conferences and books. Note that exposing the 4th century textual criticism palaeographic date as being political would clearly allow more consideration that the Sinaiticus manuscript is simply not an ancient document.
=================================
Keep in mind that seeing that the 400s date has real problems is also a support for an overall authenticity questioning. And that the historic use of the manuscript by Westcott and Hort required the early date assignment.
Gardthausen will take a careful read, he reported Donaldson and Hoffman.
We should also look at the Tischendorf replies, one book is easily available in German.
Tischendorf was also countering some arguments from an anonymous writers and the authenticity question raised by Simoindes.
==================================
Last edited:
