Steven Avery
Administrator
Carm post
https://forums.carm.org/threads/dav...sky-and-tischendorf.17264/page-3#post-1492100
On one end, if Uspensky saw the whole Hermas, the discard to the New Finds happened in the Tischendorf years, likely due to his textual embarrassment, that Sinaiticus could be sunk by the Athous Hermas linguistic, textual similarities.
The Tischendorf Dump is not consistent with an ancient manuscript.
And other New Finds dumps were also delicate, like the 1 Chronicles duplicate section and the Genesis fragment in the acrostics controversy.
This might also allow the conclusion that Simonides said what was convenient about the “first part” of Hermas, using the Tisch lingo. No biggy, other than putting a question mark on supposed pre-1859 docs with the phrase.
(Also there is the possibility of stopping and later continuation of the manuscript, this would come into play if there were parchment, ink or codicology differences between the New Finds and 1859 Hermas..I am happy to put that aside in evaluation.)
So I would say the first part, Tischendorf dumping what was inconvenient from the manuscript, is the super-big element. There is no scenario where that should occur with a truly ancient manuscript.
Along with the confirmation of the New Finds accessibility as a dump room between 1844-1859.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/dav...sky-and-tischendorf.17264/page-3#post-1492100
On one end, if Uspensky saw the whole Hermas, the discard to the New Finds happened in the Tischendorf years, likely due to his textual embarrassment, that Sinaiticus could be sunk by the Athous Hermas linguistic, textual similarities.
The Tischendorf Dump is not consistent with an ancient manuscript.
And other New Finds dumps were also delicate, like the 1 Chronicles duplicate section and the Genesis fragment in the acrostics controversy.
This might also allow the conclusion that Simonides said what was convenient about the “first part” of Hermas, using the Tisch lingo. No biggy, other than putting a question mark on supposed pre-1859 docs with the phrase.
(Also there is the possibility of stopping and later continuation of the manuscript, this would come into play if there were parchment, ink or codicology differences between the New Finds and 1859 Hermas..I am happy to put that aside in evaluation.)
So I would say the first part, Tischendorf dumping what was inconvenient from the manuscript, is the super-big element. There is no scenario where that should occur with a truly ancient manuscript.
Along with the confirmation of the New Finds accessibility as a dump room between 1844-1859.