Other Facebook thread
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/posts/1571570382934845/
See
PBF
is the Tischendorf Hermas of 1856 a more important Sinaiticus comparison than Athous Grigoriou 96 from Simonides
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-grigoriou-96-from-simonides.5786/#post-24455
But we will plan on putting the whole thread here!
Pure Bible
Bryan Ross ·
Steven Avery do you have access to a digital copy of the Tish. 1862 facsimile? If so can you please share the link?
Steven Avery
This was multi-volume, omitting the CFA (!) if I remember. I'll let you know in a bit, I am pretty sure it is not online. At one time George Kiraz was planning to do a reprint.
Stay tuned.
Bryan Ross
See the image on page 316 of Daniels' book.
Steven Avery
p. 316 is the 1856 Hermas, which is our other discussion.
Some, maybe all, of the 1856 Hermas is online:
https://books.google.com/books/about/Hermae_Pastor.html..
Steven Avery
I sent you Prolegomena of the 1862 4-Volume, not sure if partial or full. The 4-volumes are in numerous libraries.
Bryan Ross
Steven Avery thank you for the files. I appreciate you locating them for me. How do these help explain the answer to my other question? Is there a way for me to contact Daniels directly?
Steven Avery
I think my second explanation was pretty close, Simonides 1855 was a hybrid, Greek and Latin-->Greek. Tischendorf worked with the seized pages from Simonides to create/edit/compile the 1856, which only lacked the Greek for the last page.
Tischendorf wanted all the original accusations off the table, ergo the retraction, later around 1859, in Latin, in double-speak. .
That seems to fit what Daniel said as far as I can tell.
David W. Daniels .. send him a note, also Chick Publications. However he will see this in a while, probably within an hour or three.
Steven
Steven Avery
""In Chapter 17 I already told about the Shepherd of Hermas, which very largely matched the copy of Hermas that Simonides published, and that Tischendorf himself edited, in 1856."
Ok, Simonides published 1855, not 1856. That could be unclear as is, but the 1856 is the purer Simonides text, published by Tischendorf.
David can explain whether there is a situation where the Sinaiticus and its corrections can be connected to one of the editions more directly, as happened in Barnabas.
I conjectured, based on Grenfell-Hunt, that Sinaiticus corrections were used in the purer Simonides 1856 text. That makes sense chronologically. However, it would take some special examination.
Steven Avery
I call it 1855, but here it is 1856
Rudolph Anger and Wilhelm Dindorf,
Hermae Pastor. Gracce primum ediderunt et interpretationem veterem Latinam ex codicibus (Leipzig: Hinrichs, 1856).
Stanley Porter
https://books.google.com/books?id=QhCdBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA38
Steven Avery
"11
The reasons for the genuineness of the Simonidean text and refutations of the objections, are given in Anger’s Preface, and in Nachtriigliche Bemerkun-gen zu Hermas von Rudolph Anger und Wilhelm Dindorf: Three Parts : Leipzig 1856-58."
This was after Donaldson was explaining that both editions fall to the Latinization accusation. I just found the note interesting, that they were debating this after the Tischendorf edition.
Donaldson
https://books.google.com/books?id=YnUeAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA311
Bryan Ross
Should we continue discussing here or go back to the other thread where I originally asked the question?
Steven Avery
Here is fine, it is only two intermixed
Steven Avery
Hermae pastor: Graece primum ediderunt et interpretationem veterum latinam
Anger - Dindorf (original Simoindes edition)
https://books.google.com/books?id=QEVMAAAAYAAJ&pg=PP5
Same
https://catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/008408813
Simonide is usually without the "s" in the preface. So this seems to be the original Simonides-Anger-Dindorf edition.
Steven
Steven Avery
The Hermas questions began on the sister thread
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1571629849595565/
Steven Avery
This could be enhanced, including more web book data.
Hermas and Barnabas resources and timeline
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php...
Bryan Ross
Since becoming aware of this issue it has been my understanding that Anger & Dindorf purchased that Athos text of Hermas from Simonides. This text was originally hailed as the most ancient Greek copy possibly even the original. Its antiquity was disputed by Tischendorf on account of the Greek grammar, Latinisms, and possibly a few other particularities.
When Tischendorf absconded with the bulk of Codex Sin. in 1859 he realized that Hermas was contained in the Codex and that the same arguments he used to argue against the antiquity of the Athos edition applied to the Hermas in Codex Sin. as well. In other words, unless he reversed course on the Athos edition he would be arguing against the antiquity of the Codex he was now seeking to pass off as an ancient 4th Century Uncial Codex. So, covertly Tischendorf admitted that he had been mistaken about the Athos edition as a way of saving his enterprise with Codex Sin.
Now on page 316 of "Is the World's Oldest Bible a Fake?" Brother Daniels states the following:
"In Chapter 17 I already told about the Shepherd of Hermas, which very largely matched the copy of Hermas that Simonides published, and that Tischendorf himself edited, in 1856.
Did you get that? That 1856 Shepherd of Hermas, that Tischendorf edited, Simonides' text, is basically the same as the one in Codex Sinaiticus." (316)
This makes it sound like Simonides and Tischendorf published the same text of Hermas in 1856. Why would Tischendorf has criticized his own work before making off with the bulk of the Codex in 1859? It doesn't make any sense.
So either Daniels has further information about the relationship between Simonides & Tischendorf before 1859 that is not sufficiently explained in the book or the statement on page 316 is wrong. Another option maybe that the sentence is poorly worded and gives the reader the wrong impression.
It makes sense that Tischendorf would have sought to promote his own edition of Hermas (1856) over and against the Athos edition produced by Anger & Dindorf and purchased from Simonides. Therefore, he criticized the Athos edition as means of extolling the superiority of his own edition. It does not however make sense that Tischendorf would have criticized his own edition before 1859 when he had no reason to.
Steven Avery
What would be helpful is getting the exact wording of the 1857 "medieval retranslation" comment and see if he only puts it to the Anger-Dindorf and not his later (Simonides seized) edition.
He might still want to take the accusation off the table, if he realized that the distinction was not so clear-cut, as claimed by Donaldson.
David's sentence is a bit vague, because of the two edition complexities.
==============
To start, this review by A. Pierson of Dressel and the Tischendorf 1857 (what, not 1856? other places the two are put as 1856 together) Hermas I think is helpful in parsing the original accusation.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Nw4EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA56
Accedit Hermae Pastor ex fragments graecis Lipsiensisus, instiluta quaestione de vero ejus textus fonle, auctore const, tischendorf, Lipsiae, J. C. Hinrich, 1857, 672 pgg.
https://books.google.com/books?id=Nw4EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA47
Simonides
https://books.google.com/books?id=Nw4EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA56
Bryan Ross
Steven Avery I hope you know that I am not angry here. I am just seeking clarification.
Steven Avery
Understood. This has helped get some of the info that we did not have before.
Overall,
I would like more on the accusation and retraction documented. In addition to that Hermas fragment book by Tischendorf above, there is stuff in the actual Dressel Apostolic edition and even a bit in the Literary Chruchman.
"De Herma Patrs Apostolici" by Tischendorf is in the Dressel 1857 edition Prolegomena as pointed out by J. Armitage Robinson here:
https://archive.org/stream/collationofathos00lamp...
This next is on the previous PBF page
Steven Avery
"But the great novelty of the volume is the Greek text of Hermas, edited by Tischendorf. Our readers are aware that Rudolf Anger and Dindorf published the Greek text of Hermas from a MS. furnished by Simonides, and that before they could bring out the volume of annotations which they promised, and their subscribers had paid for, the affair of Simonides took a somewhat unpleasant turn ! However, it is with Tischendorf, and not with Dindorf, that we are now concerned. Tischendorf’s account of the matter, if we rightly understand his statements, which are by no means so clear as they might be, is the following. He states that the moment he saw the Uranius he pronounced it a forgery, but that Simonides, in the case of Hermas, had gone to work in a different manner. He had three genuine leaves of a MS. of the Greek text of Hermas, which came from a monastery on Mount Athos, and he had transcribed the rest of the MS. in that monastery. But
the MS. which he gave to Anger and Dindorf for publication was not that transcript, which he kept for himself, as a source of future fraud, but a fresh copy made from it, and
he had made alterations in this copy. But
Tischendorf, who never saw the falsified copy, has been favoured with the original draught of it, which Simonides is said to have copied from the MS. on Mount Athos, and from these materials he has constructed his text.
His opinion is. that the MS. is of the fourteenth century, (Prolegomena, De Hermae Gr. Lips. Fonte, p. Iv. note,) and that the Greek is not the original Greek text of the treatise, but a mediaeval translation from the Latin. Into this question, and the arguments adduced for it, we cannot enter here. Nor can we fail to observe that the very name of Simonides casts a doubt upon the whole matter, and that this doubt will not he cleared up until the remainder of the Greek MS. shall have been inspected in Mount Athos. Tischendorf speaks most confidently of his own power of detecting forgeries, and his familiarity with MSS.; and hit reputation on these points is deservedly pre-eminent; but after the figure which Anger and Dindorf have already made on this occasion, not to mention the other German scholars, who wore equally deceived, our confidence in the acuteness of the literary detectives on the Continent is rather shaken.
Literary Churchman (1857)
March 7, 1857
https://books.google.com/books?id=gc4FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA81
So it looks like Tischendorf was attacking his own edition as being 14th century and including medieval translation.
==============================
Bryan Ross
Steven Avery I disagree with your reading of this piece from the Literary Churchman. Yes, it acknowledges that Tisch. wrote his own edited his own copy of Hermas but is also very clear that his comments of a critical nature were directed at Hermas published by Anger & Dindorf which they purchased from Simonides not his own volume.
Steven Avery
.
=====
..
"But Tischendorf, who never saw the falsified copy, has been favoured with the original draught of it, which Simonides is said to have copied from the MS. on Mount Athos, and from these materials he has constructed his text. His opinion is. that the MS. is of the fourteenth century, (Prolegomena, De Hermae Gr. Lips. Fonte, p. Iv. note,) and that the Greek is not the original Greek text of the treatise, but a mediaeval translation from the Latin."
.
=====
.
This is one continuous thought. He is saying that even though it is Greek (not back-translated by Simonides)
.
"Tischendorf ... constructed his text.. 14th century .. medieaval translation from Latin"
The context was the text of Tischendorf. He was not making claims that he really had an antiquity Greek, simply a more consistent Greek ms. than what Simonides had pasted together from Greek and Latin sources. He claimed that now you had the Athous ms. (page missing at end, though.)
.
NOTICE that the Prolegomena that confirms this is his edition Hermae Gr. Lips Fonte. You can go to p. 55 of that edition.
Patrum apostolicorum opera : Textum ad fidem codicum et Graecorum et Latinorum, ineditorum copia insignium adhibitis praestantissimis editionibus, recensuit atque emendavit, notis illustravit , versione latina passim correcta, prolegominis, indicibus inst (1857)
Dressel
https://books.google.com/books?id=ggib8P8vzXIC&pg=PR55
This note is the pic. If in doubt, puzzle the Latin out.
Bryan Ross
Sorry
Steven Avery I am just not seeing it at this point. I will do some work on the Latin as you suggest.
Steven Avery
Keep in mind that Tischendorf never wanted Sinaiticus Hermas connected with any 1850s Hermas. The Sinaiticus one was supposed to be antiquity, and if it was matched up with a previously published Hermas text, the connections would look even more suspicious.
He never makes any claims like "I did a 4th century Hermas" from Athos.
Puzzle out the Latin, I am confident that it will help.
You can be pretty sure that he knew about Sinaiticus Hermas. Remember, Uspensky reported on it, and it was in the codex that Tischendorf mangled when he pulled out 5 quires. He was looking ahead to the later unique Sinatiicus claim.
Steven
Bryan Ross
Sorry
Steven Avery I am just not seeing it at this point. I will do some work on the Latin as you suggest.
Steven Avery
Keep in mind that Tischendorf never wanted Sinaiticus Hermas connected with any 1850s Hermas. The Sinaiticus one was supposed to be antiquity, and if it was matched up with a previously published Hermas text, the connections would look even more suspicious.
He never makes any claims like "I did a 4th century Hermas" from Athos.
Puzzle out the Latin, I am confident that it will help.
You can be pretty sure that he knew about Sinaiticus Hermas. (SA: 2026 - unclear) Remember, Uspensky reported on it, and it was in the codex that Tischendorf mangled when he pulled out 5 quires. He was looking ahead to the later unique Sinatiicus claim. (
Steven
Steven Avery
Let me know if you want to look at the flip side, the 1860 Notitia and 1863 Dressel Apostolic retractions. This was something that was emphasized by Chris Pinto, quite properly, although not always with exactitude. Also, James Donaldson sort of chuckled about the weird language of his retraction.
====================
When we do look at the 1862 4-volume, I am curious to see exactly how Tisch handled the CFA. By that time, it was understood that the CFA was Sinaiticus, although Tisch had avoided stating the connection. I don't think the text was in the 4-volume facsimile. Also interesting would be notes, like on the colophons, and on Hermas and Barnabas, chapter headings. After the 1863 Tisch got into some wild disputes about the dating and doctrines, with Hilgenfeld and Uspensky and one or two others.
PeterJulie Heisey
Is
David W. Daniels seeing all these questions/issues?
Brother
Peter, I'm doing my best, on my cell phone. I'm on a short vacation with my wife, to relax for a bit before continuing in the study. I'll see what I can do, but my wife wants me to take a break. God bless you!
Steven Avery
I'll point him over again.
I put the Literary Churchman description up on the PBF, sort of assuming my analysis for now.
Tischendorf 1860 Hermas retraction - Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici
Tischendorf was accusing his own Simonides-seized Hermas - thus he had to retract to try to protect the similar Sinaiticus
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php...
Note that the thread has the 1860 retraction and decent information on the 1863,
Steven Avery
Bryan Ross
Steven Avery The statements that I am
questioning on page 316 do not match what is presented on
pages 144-156 in Chapter 17. Chapter 17 presents in detail what my understanding has been the whole time. The two paragraphs on page 316 and your statements here in the forum seem to suggest other wise.
Steven Avery
ok, I will read 144-156, planned for next hour
Steven Avery
This ended up answered on the sister thread:
https://www.facebook.com/.../permalink/1571629849595565/...
