Tischendorf ducks the English trip

Steven Avery

Administrator
WIP

PBF Update
Simonides documentation from 1865 to 1890
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.658

Journal of Sacred Literature
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA496

"All this time, too, the real test of the genuineness of the Codex Sinaiticus is neglected. The public were assured that in May Tischendorf was to be in London, armed with a portion at least of his great Codex. I have waited in England hoping to have the opportunity of meeting him, face to face, to prove him in error; but May has come and gone, and the discoverer has not appeared." - Simonides


Scrivener went into this as well, maybe others

Here is the Literary Churchman:


In the following year Tischendorf published a pamphlet "Die Anfechtungen der Sinai Bibel" (Leipzig 1863) which begins with what The Literary Churchman review of 1st July 1863 [said was] "a flippant tirade against Simonides" which is "mere banter and ridicule and does not advance anything in the shape of legitimate argument against Simonides". The Literary Churchman in fact had been proposing throughout the controversy that the two men meet. For example in its issue of 16th January, 1863 we read:


We venture to propose at once that Dr. Tischendorf be invited to meet M. Simonides, and challenge him to the proof of his "authorship" of the now supposed "Sinaitic MS".We are willing to be of any use in convening a meeting on the subject, if MM. Tischendorf and Simonides will inform us of their desire to effect it. We shall be glad to receive communications at once from all who can assist us in bringing matters to an issue.
But this came to nothing. Elliott p. 34
Again. I seriously assert (as Mr. Bradshaw seems to think I am jesting on this grave subject) that I wrote the Codex, to portions of which Tischendorf has given the names of Friderico - Augustanus and Sinaiticus; and I challenge him to produce these Codices in London. I will meet him there at any time he may appoint, and in a public meeting of literary men assembled for the purpose it shall be once and for ever decided whether he or Simonides has spoken truly.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vvgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA485
Mr. Davies shirks my query about Tischendorf: when is he coming? Elliott, p. 113, July,. 1863
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tischendorf in London in 1865 - Royal Society of Literature

Pure Bible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1516781261747091/

Tischendorf in London in 1865 with the CFA 1844 Leipzig section

Here is a little bit about the Tischendorf trip to London in 1865, a partial second-hand report. Apparently he brought the 1844 heist, the Codex Frederico Augustanus, or part of it, to the Royal Society of Literature. (His letters show that he also brought his facsimile for the other part, avoiding the colour and staining clash being obvious.)

The Journal of sacred literature, p. 108-109
April, 1865
Codex Sinaiticus
https://books.google.com/books?id=6PgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA108
https://archive.org/stream/journalorscared00cowpgoog#page/n122/mode/2up

There is a second part beginning on p. 161-174
https://books.google.com/books?id=6PgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA108
https://archive.org/stream/journalorscared00cowpgoog#page/n174/mode/2up

And this I will try to give a review.

Benjamin Harris Cowper, quoting John Medows Rodwell in the Churchman (is this the Literary Churchman?, no it is likely The Churchman's shilling magazine and family treasury) , makes some excellent points about the ms., questioning the Tischendorf antiquity claims.

John Medows Rodwell
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Medows_Rodwell

Most of the pro-antiquity arguments are irrelevant since the ms. was a replica or forgery, and they are features that could very easily have been incorporated as part of the replica process.

However, it would be very interesting to find any more material about this 1865 visit to London.

Note that this is after Simonides had left London, which seems to be 1864. And I conjecture that Tischendorf had made an agreement with Simonides, since he shows up (recognized by Tregelles!) in St. Petersburg a couple of years later, working on the Russian historical archives (!). Why would you hire an accused forger to work on your historical archives? .. hmmm.

(Some additional material about Simonides in those years might be in Russian or Italian, I'll try to share more on this separately.)

A longer article could be checked to see if the white parchment and pristine condition of the leaves is mentioned. (And what about Scrivener, was he there?)

p. 108-109 above


Codex Sinaiticus.—It affords us pleasure to introduce here from the pages of the Churchman, some observations by the Rev. J. M. Rodwell, on a subject elsewhere treated in this number of J. S. L. --

* A very interesting meeting was held at a special stance of the Royal Society of Literature, the Right Rev. the Lord Bishop of St. David’s in the chair, for the inspection of the original “Codex Sinaiticus,” * which was kindly brought for exhibition by the discoverer. Dr. Tischendorf, after a few introductory remarks by the Right Rev. Chairman, gave a long description in French of the circumstances under which he was led to the discovery of the MS. in the convent of St. Catherine, and of the manifold difficulties which he was enabled successfully to overcome. He also defended the manuscript against those who on various grounds impugned the extreme antiquity which he claims for it, and concluded by re-asserting the statement embodied in his printed dedication to the lovers of Christian truth throughout the world, that this MS, is ‘ultimae antiquitatis Christianae monumentum.’ There certainly are, it must be admitted, many signs in it of nn extremely early date, e. g.

(1) the order in which the Books of the New Testament are arrayed: viz., after the Gospels, the Epistles of St. Paul, with that to the Hebrews, interposed between 2 Thess. and the Pastoral Epistles and Philemon; theu the Acts; then the Catholic Epistles; lastly, the Revelation.

(2) The annexation of the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas, to which may have been added, where a few pages are now wanting, cither the Epistles of St. Clement or the Apocalypsis Petri. These contents, and, to a certain extent, their arrangement, are those adopted by Eusebius, and it was not till the Council of Laodicca a.d. 364, and of Carthage a.d. 397, that these last-mentioned works were excluded from the Christian Canon.

(3) The fact that there are four columns upon each page instead of three columns, as in the ‘ Codex Vaticanus.’ This circumstance may be taken as pointing to a time when the Codex had recently superseded the voluraen or roll, to which a MS. in the form of the ‘ Codex Sinaiticus’ would bear a closer resemblance. The same criterion of antiquity may be observed in the AEithiopic MSS. in the British Museum, where the number of columns on a page, and the larger size of the characters, is a certain mark of increasingly remote antiquity. Against these three points in favour of the early date claimed for the 'Codex Sinaiticus’ may be mentioned


(1) the enormous number—20 or 30 on almost every page—of the most extraordinary violations both of grammar, sense, and spelling in the various readings. These are of such a nature as to lead to the conclusion that these barbarisms are due to a period when the art of caligraphy had so declined that the MS. was made after dictation by a scribe imperfectly acquainted with Greek, and trusting to his ear, rather than to his eye, or to his knowledge. It is quite inconceivable how such constant blunders could have been made by the copyists of Alexandria, so famed for their skill in the fourth century. The Vat. and Alexandrian MSS. are nearly free from mistakes of this kind.

(2) The seeming alterations of the text in favour of Monophysite opinions, which were at their climax about a.d. 530, the time when the Convent of St. Catherine was founded. We allude to the reading (Grk) in John i. 18, and the omission of (Grk) before (Grk) in Luke ii. 50, instead of in wisdom and favour with God, the Cod. Sin. reads in the wisdom and in the grace of God. In Matt. xiii. 54, instead of Nazareth, his own country, we find a reading which implies that it only seemed to be his country, or was equivalent to his country. In Mark i. 1, the words Son of God are omitted from the first clause of the sentence; a similar theological bias may be detected in the various readings of John xvi. and xvii. Dr. Tischendorf does not appear to us to have disposed of these objections in his allusions thereto at p. xxxix. of his preface to the smaller quarto edition.

(3) The note which has been added, apparently in the same handwriting as that of the original transcriber at the end of Esther, which says that the Cod. Sinait. ‘had been collated with a most extremely ancient (Grk) copy, which had been corrected by the hand of the Holy Martyr Pamphilus.’ Now, as Pamphilus was martyred about 294, and Tischendorf claims the date of a.d. 350 for his MS., it would seem that the expression, most extremely ancient, implies the lapse of a longer interval between the collation referred to in the note and the original transcript of Pamphilus. Half a century will certainly not satisfy that expression; two or three centuries would be much nearer the mark. The question concerning the age of this undoubtedly ancient, but, perhaps, not most ancient MS., must be considered quite unsettled.

The question still awaits a full discussion and final settlement; nor will anything, in our judgment, better conduce to this result than a careful analysis and classification of the various readings. Should it ultimately be proved, which we suspect to be the case, that the Cod. Sin. is a copy made in the latter part of the sixth century, at the very earliest, of some more ancient text; it will still, through shorn of a claim which would place it in a superior rank to any other existing MS., afford valuable, though only secondary, aid in settling the text of the New Testament.”

* Or rather of the “ Codex Fridcrico-Augustanus,” which forms a part of the Sinaitic MS.—Ed. J. 8. L.

#3 is one of the colophons

====================================

Christian Remembrancer (1866)
New Testament: Greek Text and English Version
https://books.google.com/books?id=TyJGVF0TJgYC&pg=PA70
https://archive.org/stream/christianrememb12scotgoog#page/n78/mode/1up/


These editions of the entire MS., together with the collations made by Volbeding and Gerhardts, by Mr. Hansell and by Mr. Scrivener, have made the Sinaitic text of the New Testament accessible to all. We may add, that all competent judges appear now to acquiesce in the genuineness of this document. Professor Tischendorf brought the Codex Friderico-Augustanus (an undoubted part of the MS.) to England in 1865, where it was exhibited at London, Oxford, and Cambridge; and no one could entertain a doubt that those venerable vellum leaves, inscribed with their beautiful simple characters, were a real article and no forgery. It may be added, that Simonides has been for some time silent, and as the onus of proving the Sinaitic MS. to be his own manufacture rests with him, we may reasonably infer that, in the absence of all proof, his bare assertions will simply go for nothing.

====================================

The Journal of sacred literature,
April, 1865
Codex Sinaiticus
https://books.google.com/books?id=NyE2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA162

... On the other hand the Sinaitic Codex is coming to be better understood. The phenomena connected with it were too numerous and too peculiar to be closely investigated and carefully weighed in a short time. Scarcely any one here had seen any portion of the manuscript, not even that first discovered and called the Friderico-Augustanus. Under the circumstances men had to wait, and although fully convinced by the evidence at their disposal that the MS. was genuine, and very ancient, they were not prepared at once to express an opinion as to its true age, and the character and value of its text. Thanks, however, to the aid supplied by Dr. Tischendorf, light is gradually intensifying, and before long we expect the scholars, of this nation at least, to arrive at a generally accepted conclusion. Dr. Tischendor's conclusion was reached long ago, but with characteristic caution, our countrymen paused in order to reflect upon the matter for themselves. Some of them thought it very probable that the manuscript was of about the time of Justinian, who founded the monastery in Mount Sinai, where the volume was discovered. Opinions not very dissimilar were formed by some of the German critics. There were some who believed that Dr. Tischendorf was right in fixing the date before the end of the first half of the fourth century. Nor can we wonder at this: that eminent scholar has had unequalled opportunities of judging of the age of ancient documents, and has almost an instinctive perception of their character. But there were some who doubted as to both the opinions referred to; and as occupying a middle ground, they merited attention. They thought it somewhat older than Justinian’s time, and younger than that of Constantine. Upon the whole, nobody except the discoverer seemed very decided as to the actual date; probably because they considered —as Sir Frederick Madden observed on an occasion to be referred to again—that we have so few documents in Greek which claim to belong to the period claimed for this. They also considered that the question was critical as well as palaeographical, and required a study of the text of the book, as well as of its writing and other external peculiarities.

Dr. Tischendorf has himself come forward in the most liberal manner to facilitate the solution of the problem in two ways: he has brought among us the Codex Friderico-Augustanus,—the only portion at his disposal,—and he has given those who could avail themselves of it ail opportunity not only to see this manuscript, but to confer with him and together upon the subject. Let us very briefly mention the circumstances.

On Feb. 15 of the present year a meeting was convened at the rooms of the Royal Society of Literature, when many gentlemen who take an interest in such matters were in attendance. The chair was occupied by the Bishop of St. David’s, Dr. Thirlwall, who delivered a very appropriate address, chiefly congratulatory, but exhibiting hearty sympathy with the main business. A very different feeling evidently prevailed from that which characterized a meeting in the same place exactly two years previously to meet Simonides, chiefly on the subject of the same Codex Sinaiticus. On the last occasion Dr. Tischendorf exhibited the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, which some may need to be reminded contains part of the Old Testament from the same volume as the Codex Sinaiticus, but discovered much earlier. This is a noble fragment upon large vellum, the leaves of which are thin and time-worn. The ink is of a pale iron-brown colour, except the frequent corrections, which are darker. There are four columns of writing upon a page, so that at each opening eight columns are visible. The characters are ancient uncials of an excellent type, and doubtless of a pure and well-developed period of caligraphic art. The pages are ruled with parallel and horizontal lines by a blunt instrument which has left the marks indented in the skin. We may suppose that, in accordance with common custom, these lines were drawn and the sheets written before the book was bound. The corrections have been made since, and would seem, from a too brief inspection, to be some centuries later than the text, as may be inferred not only from the colour of the ink, but from the different type of uncial represented by them. It was but natural that we should look rather anxiously for the celebrated note at the end of the Book of Esther. The shorter one at the end of Esdras we barely saw. The longer one has been frequently copied and translated, but it will bear to be referred to again. It will not be necessary, we suppose, to copy the Greek, but we will give our rendering of it, and say a word or two about the original. Was this note penned by the scribe who wrote the manuscript or part of it; or by a later reviser, corrector, or collator? If it is a prima manu, it is impossible to believe that the manuscript is so ancient as its discoverer supposes. (continues)

These are also available in French (which has the liqueur reference on p. 208).

Memoire sur la Decouverte et L'Antiquite du Codex Sinaiticus -
http://books.google.com/books?id=nUFOAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA204
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Great Vatican Manuscript (Scrivener) quote on Tischendorf not coming to England in a timely fashion

There is also a Scrivener quote referencing Tisch not arriving in a timely manner, published Oct, 1867.

The Great Vatican Manuscript of the Holy Bible (1867)
http://books.google.com/books?id=2_UDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA428

(I pegged this as Scrivener per Miller and maybe more
https://archive.org/stream/cu31924096083328#page/n103/mode/2up )
And more especially Scrivener himself -
https://books.google.com/books?id=1MMtAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA87

...Tischendorf’s animus, we fear, the least said the better: but those who remember the circumstances of that period, when Constantine Simonides was claiming to be the actual writer of Codex (Aleph), and Tischendorf’s strange silence was lending some plausibility to his pretensions, will be of opinion that he could not well have done a wiser thing than to submit the suspected document to the examination of a most competent judge, who could have no prejudice in favour of its discoverer. p. 428
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
was Simonides in Liverpool when Tischendorf was around Cambridge?

Wip

=====================

CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...-catalogue-s-plural.14121/page-7#post-1213698

Simonidis in 1964 «apparently left England hastily» . (from Canfora referencing Farrer)

Farrer p. 65
https://books.google.com/books?id=4lgLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA62
Simonides appears to have left England somewhat hurriedly in 1864, nor is it known what became

Do you remember?

Lilia in Genius, p. 123
The last dated document from England is a letter from Liverpool of March 31, 1865, in which he wrote about his plans to marry an English woman, named Miss Morland.49
49 British Library, Additional 42502 A, f. 110.

Was Simonides in Liverpool when Tischendorf make his belated trip over with the CFA?

Elliott p. 37
Tischendorf's visit to England was delayed until 1865 by which time it is unlikely Simonides was still in the country.

It was written up in the April 1865 Journal of Sacred Literature.

The answer is yes.

Meetings with Remarkable Manuscripts: Twelve Journeys into the Medieval World (2017)
Christopher de Hamel
https://books.google.com/books?id=piw8DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA24
On the day he signed and dated his attribution, Thursday, 9 March 1865, he was in Cambridge to accept an honorary LLD from the university.
... Archimandrite Justin Sinaites, librarian of the monastery of Saint Catherine on Mount Sinai, where Tischendorf is remembered today not as a hero but as the double-crossing purloiner of their greatest treasure, the fourth-century Greek Codex Sinaiticus.
Many who see the manuscript exhibited now either venerate it piously, or laugh at its credentials, often with the Puritanical scorn still reserved for a supposed relic of any saint.

So this fits very well with a quid pro quo.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
McGrane .. on the 1865 trip
https://www.academia.edu/37556820/A...iled_background_of_the_discovery_of_the_Codex

We consider that B.H. Cowper was well qualified to know what he was talking
about, and we add that Tischendorf exhibited the Leipzig leaves together with
fragments of Codex Sinaiticus from Uspensky’s personal collection (which Uspensky
had removed in 1845 and 1861) not only to the ‘many gentlemen who take an
interest in such matters’ at the Royal Society of Literature, but to the country’s finest
scholars at the universities of Oxford and Cambridge,252 and to many scholars at the
British Museum,253 all places having large collections of ancient manuscripts with
experts thereat.

252 In a letter to his wife Angelika from Cambridge on March 10 he described visiting several colleges,
where he displayed the Leipzig leaves, and that he was awarded an honorary doctorate. He also
received an honorary doctorate from the University of Oxford on March 16.


253 Writing to his wife Angelika from London on February 9, 1865 he details the great interest of the large crowd of officials and scholars who examined the Leipzig leaves, the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, at the British Museum. Writing to Angelica again on February 12 he relates the
continued great interest in the Leipzig leaves and the fragments of the Codex that he had borrowed from Uspensky.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Featherstone
London 2 February 1865
p. 523
He has been to the British Museum, where he was well received by Sir Frederick
Madden who is still in charge; Tischendorf worked till around 4. He made mention
of the exhibit of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus; everyone was pleased, but wanted
to know how difficult it was to gain entry. To-morrow he will bring the MSS he
wants to offer for sale to the British Musuem.

All has gone according to wish. Thanks be to God who always protects him, whether
under the beautiful sky of Egypt or in the London fog.

34
He visited Guizot who said that his works were some of the most important of the
century.
p. 517
His cousin Harold will send Tischendorf's wife 128 rh as payment for one exemplar
of the Codex.
Paris 15 December 1864
p. 518
He thinks to leave on Monday; but if Napoleon III will receive him on Monday, he
will stay another day.
The day before yesterday (Tuesday) he went with Seebach to see the minister of
education; and with Seebach's help it appears that the minister will buy 5 exemplars
of the Codex at 600 frcs. each.
Paris 16 December 1864
p. 521
The minister of education has told him he will buy four exemplars for his ministry
and one for the imperial home ministry. What a Christmas gift! (as compared to the
nasty business of the Leipzig bookdealer).
From the minister's son (who followed behind his papa), Tischendorf learnt that the
minister had not had the opportunity to arrange his audience with the emperor.
So he leaves on Monday.
London 2 February 1865
p. 523
He has been to the British Museum, where he was well received by Sir Frederick
Madden who is still in charge; Tischendorf worked till around 4. He made mention
of the exhibit of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus; everyone was pleased, but wanted
to know how difficult it was to gain entry. To-morrow he will bring the MSS he
wants to offer for sale to the British Musuem.
All has gone according to wish. Thanks be to God who always protects him, whether
under the beautiful sky of Egypt or in the London fog.

London 9 February 1865
p. 526
35
The Codex Frederico-Augustanus has arroused great interest in the British Museum:
on the first day there was a great crowd of officials and scholars; there is much talk of
him and the Codex. He has agreed to give a public lecture on the Codex Sinaiticus in
the Royal Society [of Literature, see next letter below] , in the presence of London
élite society.
London 12 February 1865
p. 528
The Trustees of the British Museum have allocated 85 pounds (about 570 rh) for the
purchase of the old parchment MSS which Tischendorf has (rather contemptuously)
kept at home in a drawer. He is pleased. He gives his wife 10 rh as a gift, for her
recovery from her nursing [of their son Immanuel].
p. 529
The Codex Friederico-Augustanus and the old pieces from the Codex of Porfirij have
become the object of great interest. He will give his lecture in the Royal Society of
Literature next Wednesday at 8:00. He has more than fifty invitations to Oxford and
Cambridge. If only he succeeds in this lecture attended by archbishops, bishops, high
lords and other nobles! He will speak in French, but there will be a summary in
English.
17 February 1865
p. 532
His MS collection has arrived safely; from the payment for it he will send 500 rh in
English notes.
The lecture was not so well attended as expected (because of the cold). But the
applause was great.
p. 533
He was invited to dinner by the Lord Bishop of Lonndon, whose wife received him
graciously and immediately introduced him to Mrs Gladstone, the PM's wife. There
were over 100 people invited. The bishop introduced him to some 30-40 persons,
including the minister Gladstone. Tischendorf wore his star and smaller medals,
which drew attention, especially from the ladies.
London 19 February 1865
p. 536
His lecture at the Royal Society has been printed for the members of the Society
(some 200).
But the sale of the Sinaiticus exemplars is not progressing. Fleischer has done harm
by selling three exemplars to an unknown acquaintance for 100 rh. These have
evidently reached London and have been sold for 20 pounds, which has affected
Tischendorf's pricing.
p. 537
He will be going in the evening to the dean of Westminster, D. Stanley; and then to
the Gladstones (Mrs Gladstone had invited him when they were at dinner with the
bishop of London).
To his great sadness Tischendorf has learnt that the grand duchess [Constantine] is
deathly ill in Goslar

doctorate


p. 544
The 'orator publicus' proclaimed that he had performed many promotions to the
doctorate, but none so happily as this one. He spoke of Tischendorf's many works, in
particular the Sinaiticus, which shone forth, despite all intrigues – Simonides was
referred to under the term 'Grecia mendax.'
 
Top