Steven Avery
Administrator
To the extent that the Tischendorf theories of origin of the Sinaiticus ms. were accepted (and there was lots of counterpoint, especially about the 4th century date) Samuel Prideaux Tregelles played an important part. Directly and through his influence on Scrivener, who wrote extensively about the ms., as yellow with age .. without ever having seen even the stained, coloured part of the ms!
Tregelles had a very awkward and strained relationship with Tischendorf, and approached the ms. almost as a supplicant. There is no indication that he saw both parts of the ms. and similarly, we have not seen him talking much about ms. basics, such as the condition of the vellum (see one quote below, which is more like that of Morozov, contra authenticity.)
In this thread we will try to coalesce his various comments.
At least Tregelles did not assign a date at this point. The likely situation: he had not seen the ms. so he could not discuss the actual state of the parchment and ink, he was going by the facsimile, where Tischendorf made his antiquity claims based on internal features, not the materials.
Here Tregelles was close to accepting the Tischendorf date, again with no indication of ever having examined the ms.
Again, we are not told what scholars said what. And Tregelles is waxing poetic about the "undoubtedly, to belong to the fourth century" without any indication that Tregelles has even seen, much less handled and examined, either part of the The Tale of Two Manuscripts. This is not manuscript science, it is simply agitprop.
Plus Tregelles knows nothing about the ms. provenance. When the Simonides assertions of involvement in creating the ms., that actually gave a provenance, came forth, Tregelles has already staked out his position, having seen .. nothing. (Later, in 1862, he saw a bit in Leipsig, under the careful tutelage of Tischendorf.)
Beyond that, Tregelles is giving forth a fabrication, possibly from Tischendorf, that the ms had been sold to the Russian government.
"which has now passed, through purchase, into the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg."
There was only a loan, (itself made under questionable circumstances) and an exchange, or pseudo-purchase, was only made official, after much pressure and finagling, in 1869, many years later.
==========================================
Tregelles? Burgon? Abbott? Who had seen both mss by 1866?
Tischendorf saw both.
Tregelles as well, Vaticanus in 1845, Sinaiticus in 1862. (In his response to Simonides, however, he emphasizes Sinaitcus antiquity. He is quickly put on a yearly stipend by Cureton.)
Burgon saw Vaticanus in Rome, about 1861. I have not seen a reference of his seeing Sinaiticus. Was any part of it taken to England?
Abbott in his 1872 talk about the antiquity of the two mss talks of working off of printed fascimiels.
Noting that few people have seen Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
If Vaticanus is 4th century, and Sinaiticus is much lesser age, then this is not 5th century. Remember, Sinaiticus is supposed to have gone through more use, corrections, rebindings than any other ms.Why would it have less age?
The freshness of the Sinaiticus pages is noted by Morozov, as above, yet in more detail. Also more than the white parchment descriptions of Uspensky and Dobschutz (not referring to the coloured portions.)
Tregelles had a very awkward and strained relationship with Tischendorf, and approached the ms. almost as a supplicant. There is no indication that he saw both parts of the ms. and similarly, we have not seen him talking much about ms. basics, such as the condition of the vellum (see one quote below, which is more like that of Morozov, contra authenticity.)
In this thread we will try to coalesce his various comments.
At least Tregelles did not assign a date at this point. The likely situation: he had not seen the ms. so he could not discuss the actual state of the parchment and ink, he was going by the facsimile, where Tischendorf made his antiquity claims based on internal features, not the materials.
Here Tregelles was close to accepting the Tischendorf date, again with no indication of ever having examined the ms.
Again, we are not told what scholars said what. And Tregelles is waxing poetic about the "undoubtedly, to belong to the fourth century" without any indication that Tregelles has even seen, much less handled and examined, either part of the The Tale of Two Manuscripts. This is not manuscript science, it is simply agitprop.
Plus Tregelles knows nothing about the ms. provenance. When the Simonides assertions of involvement in creating the ms., that actually gave a provenance, came forth, Tregelles has already staked out his position, having seen .. nothing. (Later, in 1862, he saw a bit in Leipsig, under the careful tutelage of Tischendorf.)
Beyond that, Tregelles is giving forth a fabrication, possibly from Tischendorf, that the ms had been sold to the Russian government.
"which has now passed, through purchase, into the Imperial Library at St. Petersburg."
There was only a loan, (itself made under questionable circumstances) and an exchange, or pseudo-purchase, was only made official, after much pressure and finagling, in 1869, many years later.
==========================================
Tregelles? Burgon? Abbott? Who had seen both mss by 1866?
Tischendorf saw both.
Tregelles as well, Vaticanus in 1845, Sinaiticus in 1862. (In his response to Simonides, however, he emphasizes Sinaitcus antiquity. He is quickly put on a yearly stipend by Cureton.)
Burgon saw Vaticanus in Rome, about 1861. I have not seen a reference of his seeing Sinaiticus. Was any part of it taken to England?
Abbott in his 1872 talk about the antiquity of the two mss talks of working off of printed fascimiels.
Noting that few people have seen Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
If Vaticanus is 4th century, and Sinaiticus is much lesser age, then this is not 5th century. Remember, Sinaiticus is supposed to have gone through more use, corrections, rebindings than any other ms.Why would it have less age?
The freshness of the Sinaiticus pages is noted by Morozov, as above, yet in more detail. Also more than the white parchment descriptions of Uspensky and Dobschutz (not referring to the coloured portions.)
Last edited: