Steven Avery
Administrator
Wip
Tischendorf - Vorworte zur Sinaitischen Bibelhandschrift zu St. Petersburg (1862) Uspensky - MacDonald - zerrissener und verderbter
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
p. 42
1 Porphyrius states (vol. 1, p. 225 fgg.) that the Greek letters of the manuscript are very similar to the Slavonian characters; furthermore that the text was written stichometrically, in which he concludes that the manuscript was written in the 5th century, because Euthalius introduced stichometric writing around the year 446, but its use was soon abandoned. He also lists the order of the individual books. Regarding the text of the Psalms, he mentions that the word dayaina, written in red on a special line, is often inserted to help understand the song and that the 2nd Psalm is connected to the 1st. He expresses a particular interest in the interludes inserted into the text of the Song of Songs, which create a true dialogue. In the language of the manuscript he finds the Alexandrian dialect, in that it comes in forms like nuoua and the »éqɛiz. are held before consonants. According to him, the text of the New Testament is of a special kind, probably from private use or perhaps from the catechetical school at Alexandria; but at the same time it was corrected according to the general text of the orthodox church. For this very reason he attaches particular value to the manuscript because it shows that the ecclesiastical text was the same at all times.
This representation of the Archimandrite Porphyrius demonstrates some good knowledge. What he says about the close contact between the writing and the Slavonian is, of course, unsuitable for characterizing our handwriting, since the Slavonian characters are closest to the Greek ones of the 8th and 9th centuries, from which they were borrowed, but these are in almost everyone Letters differ from those of the Codex Sinaiticus. He was also mistaken in saying that the first psalm was connected to the second, which would be of great interest. And his most important claims, that the manuscript was written according to the spelling of Euthalius and therefore dates from the 5th century, and that the text of the Orthodox Church was added to the original, "private" text in a contemporaneous hand, are all incorrect . The manuscript in no way follows the Euthalian system, but the application of it would not justify the acceptance of the composition in the 5th century. But of those corrections on which he bases the special value of the manuscript, some are probably at the same time, the ones that are particularly evident Omissions are added; those that Porphyrius primarily considered, such as Matt. 9, 10; 9, 14. John 1, 28; 6, 24, were written several centuries later. Finally, the text that some like of Hermas had been sought in vain for so long, and he of course did not know that the entire first part of the Epistle to Barnabas in the original language was considered lost until now: how else could he have neglected to at least make a copy of it for the sake of Christian literature to enrich it. But apart from this and everything else, I must express my joy that a Russian archimandrite has recorded in a Russian work one of the first reports of the great gem that was to come to Russia through my hand.1
I left Egypt in mid-October and came to St. Petersburg at the beginning of November. Here the emperor himself, together with his illustrious wife, honored the old written documents that I had brought with me from the Orient on his high mission, not only for a fleeting external inspection, but also for the most gracious interest and the most precise study. His Imperial Majesty was so pleased with the entire collection that, according to his wish and command, a public everyone the others, recorded in the manuscript, often follow readings of the text from the Orthodox Church; But more often and especially in very important places, e.g. B.Marc. 16, 9 fgg. John 5, 3 and 4; 7, 53. fgg. 1 Tim. 3, 16 (only a hand from the 12th century corrected the last place), he offers no mediation with the latter at all, and he often even expressly expresses a difference from it. Of course, it should not be forgotten that in these investigations the learned archimandrite came up with very difficult questions, where the assessment of the text of our oldest monuments belongs.
===============
1 In addition, we must also give a learned English major a place among those who have become aware of the manuscript. Tregelles commented on an excerpt from my "Notitia", which he published in the "Additions" to the biblical introduction, as follows: A little later (after Porphyrius), perhaps, Major Macdonald described a very ancient Ms. which he had seen at Mount Sinai, containing the New Testament in early uncial characters, which he stated distinctly to be attributed to the 4th century. He adds that Macdonald also mentioned the destruction of old manuscripts by fire by the monks. (Maj. Macd. also mentioned the manner in which the monks destroyed by fire ancient Mss.) an accessible exhibition of the same was held for two weeks. With the special favor of Baron von Korff, this exhibition took place in the rooms of the Imperial Public Museum. library instead; The notables of Petersburg as well as the simple man of the people honored her there with a very numerous visit. The Sinaitic Bible manuscript shone as the pearl of all these treasures; His Majesty was responsible for ensuring that they were published as quickly and appropriately as possible with the Emperor himself, and he deigned to entrust it to me. The fact that this great witness of divine truth, whom God's grace has preserved from ancient times down to our own times, and whom it has so wonderfully rescued from all the storms that have hit the written documents over the course of more than a thousand years, is no longer true would no longer be withheld from science and the church, that seemed to be a duty against the Christian world. When I now consulted with myself as to what form of publication should be proposed to the imperial government, I held to three leading points of view as decisive. Above all, such an edition had to be created which would represent the old writing in its original form as faithfully as possible; then the illustrious noble Lord, on whose behalf I acted, demanded that the external appearance of the work be worthy of him, and finally the expectation and excitement of all those scholars who are devoted to a serious study of the sacred text had to be satisfied as soon as possible become. After careful consideration, it seemed to me most advisable to make three suggestions, which I placed with confidence in the hands of the Minister of Education von Kowalevsky, a resolute patron of science. On his expert advice, the Emperor approved the plan I preferred, which to a certain extent was in the middle between the other two.
1 Porphyrius gibt an (Bd. 1. S. 225 fgg.), dass die griechischen Buchstaben der Handschrift den slavonischen Schriftzeichen sehr ähnlich seien; ferner dass der Text stichometrisch geschrieben sei, indem er daraus die Abfassung der Handschrift im 5. Jahrhundert folgert, weil Euthalius ums Jahr 446 die stichometrische Schreibweise eingeführt habe, ihre Anwendung aber bald wieder aufgegeben worden sei. Er verzeichnet ferner die Reihenfolge der einzelnen Bücher. Vom Texte der Psalmen erwähnt er dass oft das Wort dayaina, auf besonderer Zeile roth geschrieben, zum Verständnisse des Gesanges eingefügt und dass der 2. Psalm mit dem 1. verbunden sei. Ein besonderes Interesse spricht er für die dem Texte des Hohenliedes eingefügten Zwischensätze aus, wodurch ein wahres Zwiegespräch hergestellt werde. In der Sprachweise der Handschrift findet er die Alexandrinische Mundart, insofern das in Formen wie nuoua, und das » éqɛiz. vor Consonanten festgehalten werde. Der Text des Neuen Testaments ist nach ihm von besonderer Art, wol aus Privatgebrauch oder vielleicht aus der katechetischen Schule zu Alexandrien herstammend; derselbe sei aber gleichzeitig nach dem allgemeinen Text der rechtgläubigen Kirche corrigirt worden. Ebendeshalb misst er der Handschrift einen besonderen Werth bei, indem sie bezeuge, der kirchliche Text sei zu allen Zeiten derselbe gewesen.
Diese Darstellung des Archimandriten Porphyrius beweist manche gute Kenntnisse. Was er von der nahen Berührung der Schrift mit der slavonischen sagt, ist freilich ungeeignet zur Charakterisirung unserer Handschrift, da die slavonischen Schriftzeichen den griechischen des 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts, von denen sie entlehnt sind, am nächsten stehen, diese aber fast in jedem Buchstaben von denen des Codex Sinaiticus abweichen. Auch hat er sich in der Angabe geirrt, dass der erste Psalm mit dem zweiten verbunden sei, was von grossem Interesse wäre. Und seine wichtigsten Behauptungen, dass die Handschrift nach der Schreibweise des Euthalius verfasst sei und deshalb aus dem 5. Jahrhundert stamme, sowie dass dem eigenthümlichen, dem „,Privat"-Texte von gleichzeitiger Hand der Text der orthodoxen Kirche beigeschrieben sei, sind sämmtlich unrichtig. Die Handschrift nämlich folgt keineswegs dem Euthalischen System, die Anwendung desselben würde aber auch noch nicht zur Annahme der Abfassung im 5. Jahrhundert berechtigen. Von jenen Correkturen aber, worauf er den besonderen Werth der Handschrift basirt, sind wol einige gleichzeitig, die namentlich offenbare Auslassungen ergänzen; die von Porphyrius aber vorzugsweise in Betracht gezogenen, wie zu Matth. 9, 10; 9, 14. Joh. 1, 28; 6, 24, sind mehrere Jahrhunderte später geschrieben. Der Text endlich, den die einen wie
des Hermas so lange schon vergeblich gesucht worden, und dass der ganze erste Theil des Barnabasbriefes in der Originalsprache bis jetzt für verloren gegolten, hat er natürlich nicht gewusst: wie hätte er es sonst unterlassen können, wenigstens davon Abschrift zu nehmen, um die christliche Literatur damit zu bereichern. Doch abgesehen davon und von allem anderen muss ich meine Freude darüber aussprechen, dass gerade ein russischer Archimandrit in einem russischen Werke eine der ersten Nachrichten von dem grossen Kleinode niedergelegt hat, das durch meine Hand nach Russland kommen sollte.1
Mitte October verliess ich Aegypten, Anfangs November kam ich nach St. Petersburg. Hier würdigte der Kaiser selbst mit seiner hohen Gemahlin die alten Schrifturkunden, die ich in seinem hohen Auftrage aus dem Oriente mitgebracht, nicht nur einer flüchtigen äusserlichen Betrachtung, sondern des gnädigsten Interesses und der genauesten Kenntnissnahme. Seine kaiserliche Majestät erfreute sich so sehr an der ganzen Sammlung, dass zufolge seines Wunsches und Befehls eine öffentliche Jedermann
die andern in die Handschrift eingetragen, schliesst sich wol öfters Lesarten des Textes der orthodoxen Kirche an; bei weitem öfter aber und gerade bei sehr wichtigen Stellen, z. B. Marc. 16, 9 fgg. Joh. 5, 3 und 4; 7, 53. fgg. 1 Tim. 3, 16 (an der letzten Stelle hat erst eine Hand des 12. Jahrh. corrigirt), bietet er gar keine Vermittlung mit dem letzteren, ja er prägt häufig sogar eine Verschiedenheit von demselben noch ausdrücklich aus. Hierbei ist freilich nicht zu vergessen, dass der gelehrte Archimandrit bei diesen Untersuchungen auf sehr schwierige Fragen verfallen ist, wohin die Beurtheilung des Textes unserer ältesten Denkmäler gehört.
1 Porphyrius states (vol. 1, p. 225 fgg.) that the Greek letters of the manuscript are very similar to the Slavonian characters; furthermore that the text was written stichometrically, in which he concludes that the manuscript was written in the 5th century, because Euthalius introduced stichometric writing around the year 446, but its use was soon abandoned. He also lists the order of the individual books. Regarding the text of the Psalms, he mentions that the word dayaina, written in red on a special line, is often inserted to help understand the song and that the 2nd Psalm is connected to the 1st. He expresses a particular interest in the interludes inserted into the text of the Song of Songs, which create a true dialogue. In the language of the manuscript he finds the Alexandrian dialect, in that it comes in forms like nuoua and the »éqɛiz. are held before consonants. According to him, the text of the New Testament is of a special kind, probably from private use or perhaps from the catechetical school at Alexandria; but at the same time it was corrected according to the general text of the orthodox church. For this very reason he attaches particular value to the manuscript because it shows that the ecclesiastical text was the same at all times.
This representation of the Archimandrite Porphyrius demonstrates some good knowledge. What he says about the close contact between the writing and the Slavonian is, of course, unsuitable for characterizing our handwriting, since the Slavonian characters are closest to the Greek ones of the 8th and 9th centuries, from which they were borrowed, but these are in almost everyone Letters differ from those of the Codex Sinaiticus. He was also mistaken in saying that the first psalm was connected to the second, which would be of great interest. And his most important claims, that the manuscript was written according to the spelling of Euthalius and therefore dates from the 5th century, and that the text of the Orthodox Church was added to the original, "private" text in a contemporaneous hand, are all incorrect . The manuscript in no way follows the Euthalian system, but the application of it would not justify the acceptance of the composition in the 5th century. But of those corrections on which he bases the special value of the manuscript, some are probably at the same time, the ones that are particularly evident Omissions are added; those that Porphyrius primarily considered, such as Matt. 9, 10; 9, 14. John 1, 28; 6, 24, were written several centuries later. Finally, the text that some like of Hermas had been sought in vain for so long, and he of course did not know that the entire first part of the Epistle to Barnabas in the original language was considered lost until now: how else could he have neglected to at least make a copy of it for the sake of Christian literature to enrich it. But apart from this and everything else, I must express my joy that a Russian archimandrite has recorded in a Russian work one of the first reports of the great gem that was to come to Russia through my hand.1
I left Egypt in mid-October and came to St. Petersburg at the beginning of November. Here the emperor himself, together with his illustrious wife, honored the old written documents that I had brought with me from the Orient on his high mission, not only for a fleeting external inspection, but also for the most gracious interest and the most precise study. His Imperial Majesty was so pleased with the entire collection that, according to his wish and command, a public everyone the others, recorded in the manuscript, often follow readings of the text from the Orthodox Church; But more often and especially in very important places, e.g. B.Marc. 16, 9 fgg. John 5, 3 and 4; 7, 53. fgg. 1 Tim. 3, 16 (only a hand from the 12th century corrected the last place), he offers no mediation with the latter at all, and he often even expressly expresses a difference from it. Of course, it should not be forgotten that in these investigations the learned archimandrite came up with very difficult questions, where the assessment of the text of our oldest monuments belongs.
===============
1 In addition, we must also give a learned English major a place among those who have become aware of the manuscript. Tregelles commented on an excerpt from my "Notitia", which he published in the "Additions" to the biblical introduction, as follows: A little later (after Porphyrius), perhaps, Major Macdonald described a very ancient Ms. which he had seen at Mount Sinai, containing the New Testament in early uncial characters, which he stated distinctly to be attributed to the 4th century. He adds that Macdonald also mentioned the destruction of old manuscripts by fire by the monks. (Maj. Macd. also mentioned the manner in which the monks destroyed by fire ancient Mss.) an accessible exhibition of the same was held for two weeks. With the special favor of Baron von Korff, this exhibition took place in the rooms of the Imperial Public Museum. library instead; The notables of Petersburg as well as the simple man of the people honored her there with a very numerous visit. The Sinaitic Bible manuscript shone as the pearl of all these treasures; His Majesty was responsible for ensuring that they were published as quickly and appropriately as possible with the Emperor himself, and he deigned to entrust it to me. The fact that this great witness of divine truth, whom God's grace has preserved from ancient times down to our own times, and whom it has so wonderfully rescued from all the storms that have hit the written documents over the course of more than a thousand years, is no longer true would no longer be withheld from science and the church, that seemed to be a duty against the Christian world. When I now consulted with myself as to what form of publication should be proposed to the imperial government, I held to three leading points of view as decisive. Above all, such an edition had to be created which would represent the old writing in its original form as faithfully as possible; then the illustrious noble Lord, on whose behalf I acted, demanded that the external appearance of the work be worthy of him, and finally the expectation and excitement of all those scholars who are devoted to a serious study of the sacred text had to be satisfied as soon as possible become. After careful consideration, it seemed to me most advisable to make three suggestions, which I placed with confidence in the hands of the Minister of Education von Kowalevsky, a resolute patron of science. On his expert advice, the Emperor approved the plan I preferred, which to a certain extent was in the middle between the other two.
1 Porphyrius gibt an (Bd. 1. S. 225 fgg.), dass die griechischen Buchstaben der Handschrift den slavonischen Schriftzeichen sehr ähnlich seien; ferner dass der Text stichometrisch geschrieben sei, indem er daraus die Abfassung der Handschrift im 5. Jahrhundert folgert, weil Euthalius ums Jahr 446 die stichometrische Schreibweise eingeführt habe, ihre Anwendung aber bald wieder aufgegeben worden sei. Er verzeichnet ferner die Reihenfolge der einzelnen Bücher. Vom Texte der Psalmen erwähnt er dass oft das Wort dayaina, auf besonderer Zeile roth geschrieben, zum Verständnisse des Gesanges eingefügt und dass der 2. Psalm mit dem 1. verbunden sei. Ein besonderes Interesse spricht er für die dem Texte des Hohenliedes eingefügten Zwischensätze aus, wodurch ein wahres Zwiegespräch hergestellt werde. In der Sprachweise der Handschrift findet er die Alexandrinische Mundart, insofern das in Formen wie nuoua, und das » éqɛiz. vor Consonanten festgehalten werde. Der Text des Neuen Testaments ist nach ihm von besonderer Art, wol aus Privatgebrauch oder vielleicht aus der katechetischen Schule zu Alexandrien herstammend; derselbe sei aber gleichzeitig nach dem allgemeinen Text der rechtgläubigen Kirche corrigirt worden. Ebendeshalb misst er der Handschrift einen besonderen Werth bei, indem sie bezeuge, der kirchliche Text sei zu allen Zeiten derselbe gewesen.
Diese Darstellung des Archimandriten Porphyrius beweist manche gute Kenntnisse. Was er von der nahen Berührung der Schrift mit der slavonischen sagt, ist freilich ungeeignet zur Charakterisirung unserer Handschrift, da die slavonischen Schriftzeichen den griechischen des 8. und 9. Jahrhunderts, von denen sie entlehnt sind, am nächsten stehen, diese aber fast in jedem Buchstaben von denen des Codex Sinaiticus abweichen. Auch hat er sich in der Angabe geirrt, dass der erste Psalm mit dem zweiten verbunden sei, was von grossem Interesse wäre. Und seine wichtigsten Behauptungen, dass die Handschrift nach der Schreibweise des Euthalius verfasst sei und deshalb aus dem 5. Jahrhundert stamme, sowie dass dem eigenthümlichen, dem „,Privat"-Texte von gleichzeitiger Hand der Text der orthodoxen Kirche beigeschrieben sei, sind sämmtlich unrichtig. Die Handschrift nämlich folgt keineswegs dem Euthalischen System, die Anwendung desselben würde aber auch noch nicht zur Annahme der Abfassung im 5. Jahrhundert berechtigen. Von jenen Correkturen aber, worauf er den besonderen Werth der Handschrift basirt, sind wol einige gleichzeitig, die namentlich offenbare Auslassungen ergänzen; die von Porphyrius aber vorzugsweise in Betracht gezogenen, wie zu Matth. 9, 10; 9, 14. Joh. 1, 28; 6, 24, sind mehrere Jahrhunderte später geschrieben. Der Text endlich, den die einen wie
des Hermas so lange schon vergeblich gesucht worden, und dass der ganze erste Theil des Barnabasbriefes in der Originalsprache bis jetzt für verloren gegolten, hat er natürlich nicht gewusst: wie hätte er es sonst unterlassen können, wenigstens davon Abschrift zu nehmen, um die christliche Literatur damit zu bereichern. Doch abgesehen davon und von allem anderen muss ich meine Freude darüber aussprechen, dass gerade ein russischer Archimandrit in einem russischen Werke eine der ersten Nachrichten von dem grossen Kleinode niedergelegt hat, das durch meine Hand nach Russland kommen sollte.1
Mitte October verliess ich Aegypten, Anfangs November kam ich nach St. Petersburg. Hier würdigte der Kaiser selbst mit seiner hohen Gemahlin die alten Schrifturkunden, die ich in seinem hohen Auftrage aus dem Oriente mitgebracht, nicht nur einer flüchtigen äusserlichen Betrachtung, sondern des gnädigsten Interesses und der genauesten Kenntnissnahme. Seine kaiserliche Majestät erfreute sich so sehr an der ganzen Sammlung, dass zufolge seines Wunsches und Befehls eine öffentliche Jedermann
die andern in die Handschrift eingetragen, schliesst sich wol öfters Lesarten des Textes der orthodoxen Kirche an; bei weitem öfter aber und gerade bei sehr wichtigen Stellen, z. B. Marc. 16, 9 fgg. Joh. 5, 3 und 4; 7, 53. fgg. 1 Tim. 3, 16 (an der letzten Stelle hat erst eine Hand des 12. Jahrh. corrigirt), bietet er gar keine Vermittlung mit dem letzteren, ja er prägt häufig sogar eine Verschiedenheit von demselben noch ausdrücklich aus. Hierbei ist freilich nicht zu vergessen, dass der gelehrte Archimandrit bei diesen Untersuchungen auf sehr schwierige Fragen verfallen ist, wohin die Beurtheilung des Textes unserer ältesten Denkmäler gehört.
Last edited: