Latin editions from Germany
Hermae Pastor Graece Ex Fragmentis Lipsiensibus Instituta Quaestione De Vero Graeci Textus Lipsiensis Fonte (1856) (German Edition)
https://play.google.com/books/reade...sec=frontcover&output=reader&hl=en&pg=GBS.PP7 (text visible online)
Patrum Apostolicorum Opera - Hermas (1857)
Tischendorf medieval retranslation accusation
In 1857 Allard Pierson (1831-1896) gave a German review of the Dressel Apostolic Fathers edition on p. 47-63. And had a section on the Hermas edition of Tischendorf, listed on the title page as:Quae cum ita sint, nullus dubito quin Simonideis fragmentis Graecum textum nacti simus eum, quo quis aetate media vertens Latina deperditam Graecum ipsius, qui sertur Hermae;, compensare studuerit....
Thus on p. 55-56 we have the most germane part.Accedit Hermae Pastor ex fragmentis graecis Lipsiensibus, instituta quaestione de vero ejus textus fonte, auctore Const. Tischendorf.
[h=1]Godgeleerde en wijsgeerige opstellen, Volume 1[/h]https://books.google.com/books?id=y61pAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA56
‘ Quae cum ita sint, nullus dubito quin Simonideis fragmentis Graecum textum nacti simus eum, quo quis aetate media vertens Latina deperditum Graecum ipsius qui fertur Hermae compensare studuerit. Quo de interprete iam subtilius viderint alii. Non deerunt quidem qui etiam tot argumentorum coniunctorum vim subterfugiant.... Poterunt illi coniicere textum fragmentorum Lipsiensium, antiquissimus quum sit, ex Latinis, i. e. ineptissime illatis nonnullorum codicum Latinorum apertis vitiis, subinde esse corruptum. Quam coniecturam cum similibus omnibus concedamus aliis. Nobis vero de ipsa re, quemadmodum exposuimus, tantopere persuasum est, ut argumentorum plus alferre supersedeamus. Invenient plura qui Palatinum codicem, haud leve editionis P. P. A. A. Dresselianae ornamentum 2), nec neglectis iis quae praeterea ex Latinis codicibus prolata sunt proferenturque, cum Graeco textu Lipsiensi contulerint.” Waar-bij Tischendorf in een noot voegt: “Hunc ipsum passim ex Graeco textu nostro corrigi posse non mirum est. Graecus enim interpres quum codicem Simonideum — id quod ipsa vitiorum, quibus tria folia saeculi XIV. laborant, frequentia docet — tum codicem Palatinum aetate anteit. Correctionis talis exemplum est Vis. III. 9. “Quando ergo operas matris earum servaveris,omnes poteris videre.” Scribendum est consultis Graecis:------- servaveris omnes, poteris vivere.
Eandem in rem haud scio an ea quoque converti queant quae libro Pastoris Hermae in codice indeque etiam in Simonidis apographo praeposita leguntur. Leguntur illa quidem mirum in modum corrupta; quod magnam certe partem ex imperitia fluxit Simonidis in legendis primis maxime codicis sui foliis persaepe lapsi. Ceterum ab eo textu, quem editor princeps ex falsato Simonidis apographo hausit et in prolegomenis pag. IX conatus est restituere, magnopere differt verum apographum. Nihilominus ut iam vidit editor princeps, clarum est illud, codicis notam vel potius prologum vel maxime ab eo pendere loco hist. eccl. Euseb. (III. 3), ubi Pastoris Hermae mentio fit. Illa vero verba interpres Latini textus ad significandam libri a se Graece vertendi antiquitatem gravitatemque aptissime labori suo praeponere poterat. Quae (supra) de Graecitate Hermae Lipsieusis diximus, vim suam minime eo amittunt quod unum vel alterum ex iis quae “Latina potius quam Graeca esse” significavimus, apud Graecos non inauditum est. Hoc enim si esset, unde tandem haberet Graecus Hermae Latini interpres sermonis patrii non ignarus?
(this goes on with linguistics, this might be easier text than any original Tischendorf)
Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici : accedit catalogus codicum nuper ex oriente Petropolin perlatorum,
item Origenis Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis, partim nunc primum partim secundum atque emendatius edita (1860)
Patrum apostolicorum opera (1863)
The retraction is here on p. 45-46. Tischendorf had accused the Simonides Hermas, but found that embarrassing when it was time to publish the Sinai Hermas. The arguments made by him against the authenticity of the Simonides text could be adducible against Sinaiticus authenticiy.
Journal of Sacred Literature - July 1859
Leipziger Zeitung - April 17, 1859
Tischendorf from Cairo to Von Falkenstein - March 15, 1859.
The Scottish scholar James Donaldson noted this problem.Simonides confessedly brought a very perfect Greek text to Leipzig, part copied by him from a MS. at Mount Athos, and part upon three paper leaves of the fourteenth or fifteenth century. After this text was published in December 1855, and repeated soon after by me more accurately, considerable doubt arose about it, whether it was really ancient or a mediaeval translation from the Latin. I especially opposed the last view, (see below, this is claimed to be a Cowper mistranslation) and my opinion is confirmed by these leaves', at least 1000 years older, shewing that the Leipsig text had been derived from the original, but is corrupt, and that in consequence of a mediaeval use of the Latin.
Then we have the New Finds of 1975, showing that the Codex Sinaiticus had in fact been the full text.
Would the Sinaiticus controversies give him a motive for truncating the text?
Uspensky saw Hermas in 1845, likely the full text, there was no indication that it was just the first sections.
A solid 1859 summary
The Literary Churchman
The Literary Churchman adds some warnings about the Tischendorf antiquity claims for the ms.Dr. Tischendorf then, goes on to state that this MS. comprises, besides this perfect copy of the New Testament, two other treatises of great value. These are the epistle ascribed to Barnabas, although not really written by him, in a more perfect condition than that in which it is found elsewhere. All the Greek MSS. hitherto known—and they are of a late date—are deficient in the beginning, having lost the first five chapters, which have been hitherto known only from the bad Latin translation. The other treatise is the Greek of the "Pastor" of Hermas. Dr. Tischendorf, it will be remembered, published in the Patres Apostolici of Dressel a Greek copy of the Hermas, from the MS. obtained through Simonides. Of this edition we gave an account at the time, stating the opinion of Tischendorf as to the text, which he considered to be a mediaeval re-translation from the Latin. 'lit. Church., vol. iii. No. .5.) He informs us now that this is not the case, but that the published text represents the original Greek. But he considers that there was, nevertheless, some ground for his suspicion in the numerous corruptions of the text, some of which arose from the use of the Latin text in the middle ages. ...
[Since the above article was in type, we have had an opportunity of reading Mr. Cowper's translation of the letter of Tischendorf, in the "Journal of Sacred Literature." We believe he has mistaken one paragraph completely. He makes Tischendorf declare that he opposed the notion that the Greet text of Simonides is a mediaeval translation. If our memory--for we have returned the letter to Messrs. W. and N. —does not deceive us, Tischendorf says exactly the contrary. At all events, such was the fact. Here are his own words in Dressel's book :—Quae cum ita sint, nullus dubito quin Simonideis fragmentis Graecum textum nacti simus eum, quo quis aetate media vertens Latinamdeperditam Graecum ipsius, qui sertur Hermae;, compensare studuerit. Words cannot be plainer. We have omitted a sentence of Tischendorf, in which he appears to identify the new MS. with the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, but his expressions are very ambiguous. Mr. Cowper has translated it, as relating to this MS. without any hesitation. We do not see whether he alludes to this or some other discovery. Time will shew.]
And a bit about how the loan-purchase-ownership question was seen at the time.For ourselves, we will only say that we must be content to suspend our opinion until we have further information, without, in the meantime, entirely acceding to the statements of Dr Tischendorf as to the antiquity of the MS. He is, as we all know, the first authority in such matters, but in the first warmth of delight at so great a discovery we feel it possible that his enthusiasm may in some degree have warped his judgment. That a wonderful discovery in regard to Biblical criticism has been made, there can be no doubt; whether the MS. will eventually prove to be as old and as valuable as Dr. Tischendorf now believes it to he, must be ascertained by the result.
================================================Persons who are usually very well informed on such matters have inferred, on what grounds we do not know, that the MS. itself has been purchased by the Emperor of Russia. We can only state that we do not see any grounds for such anopinion in the letter of Dr. Tischendorf. He promises to transcribe and publish the MS. under the patronage of the Emperor of Russia; this appears to be all for which his letter gives any authority
The Shepherd of Hermas, tr. with an intr. and notes by Charles Holland Hoole (1870)
The Church Review, Volume 13 (1871)Hermas... The Greek original disappeared, and it was long known only in a Latin version. But a few years ago a Greek version of the greater part of Hermas was discovered by Simonides in Mount Athos. This is now called the Codex Lipsiensis.1 The character of the discoverer caused it at first to be regarded with suspicion, and it was asserted by Tischendorf that it was in reality not the Greek original, but a translation from the Latin version into Greek, executed in the middle ages. The recently discovered Codex Sinaiticus, however, was found to contain a considerable portion of a Greek version of Hermas substantially the same as that of the Codex Lipsiensis and as the Codex Sinaiticus can hardly be put at a later date than 520 A.D., it can scarcely be doubted that the Greek version which it contains is the original of Hermas, as it cannot be supposed that the Greek version had then disappeared. The style of the Greek too is, on the whole, what might have been expected from the supposed date and authorship : Hellenistic, not entirely free from grammatical errors, by no means equal in power and dignity to the books of the New Testament, but simple and intelligible, and well adapted for popular reading.
... 1 Tischendorf has retracted his objections to the Greek text of the Codex Lipsiensis since the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus; Hilgenfeld and Canon Westcott accept the Greek as genuine. But it is attacked at length by Mr. Donaldson in his History of Christian Literature and Doctrine, vol. i. p. 309.
The Sinaitic Codex of the Bible
"We conclude this portion of our inquiry with a reference to the light, thrown by the the Sinaitic Hermas upon the Greek text of Simonides, which Dr. Tischendorf now admits to have been a copy from the original, modified by a Latin Version, and not a medieval Greek retranslation of the Latin, as he supposed. This is important, because it relieves poor Simonides of one of the many sins laid to his charge."
Bibliotheca Sacra (1876)
Caspar René Gregory
Gregory was a solid supporter of Tischendorf, in a sense his protege.This was followed by a contest about the text which Simonides had used for his Hermnas. Tischendorf insisted at first that it was a text made by retranslation from the Latin; but after he found the part of Hermas in the Sinaitic manuscript, he at once said that the text used by Simonides was from the original Greek, though corrupted by use of the middle age Latin text.
History of the Christian Church, Volume II: Ante-Nicene Christianity. A.D. 100-325
This all leads into the analysis of the Scottish scholar, James Donaldson.The older editions give only the imperfect Latin Version, first published by Faber Stapulensis (Par. 1513). Other Latin MSS. were discovered since. The Greek text (brought from Mt. Athos by Constantine Simonides, and called Cod. Lipsiensis was first published by R. Anger, with a preface by G. Dindorf (Lips. 1856); then by Tischendorf, in Dressels Patres Apost., Lips 1857 (p.572-637): again in the second ed. 1863, where Tischendorf, in consequence of the intervening discovery of the Cod. Sinaiticus retracted his former objections to the originality of the Greek Hermas from Mt. Athos, which he had pronounced a mediaeval retranslation from the Latin (see the Proleg., Appendix and Preface to the second ed.).... The texts from Mt. Athos and Mt. Sinai substantially agree.
James Donaldson says that much of the opposition raised by Tischendorf is in fact adducible to the Sinaiticus ms, that linguistically the Hermas and Barnabas mss are not from the antiquity time supposed.
And the related questions regarding the history of the 1843 Barnabas publication.