wip -new studies

Steven Avery

Administrator
switch host
expand to be part of blog network - use as prototype with my biz stuff too
====

Henry Bradshaw quire observation in 1862 - this is analogous to the trimming issue

"I do not trust palaeography to prove an old date, but I do trust it to disprove such a date.
It is easy to imitate what is antique, but impossible to predict what will be novel." - David R. Smith

"A document is no older than the materials used." - David V. Daniels
Sinaiticus should look similarly as old and decrepit as Alexandrinus. Not young and supple.
SA: The quiet secret of Leipzig and the British Library

Gregory speaks of Porphyry's performances, p. 381 :
"The Imperial Library [at St. Petersburg] contains a large number of fine leaves from valuable manuscripts which Porfiri Uspenski of Kiev cut, tore, stole out of all manner of books in the large Eastern libraries. How coarse and brutal he must have been!" There are some similar collections elsewhere (Tischendorf)

Bring Cuthbert Turner Hermas from BCHF to PBF

The Rise and Fall of Codx Sinaitcius

book order issues various (possibly used in deciding Sinaiticus, might be elswwhere on Pbf)=
The original order of books was: Pauline epistles, Acts of the Apostles, Catholic epistles, Revelation of John, Gospels.[7] The Pauline epistles precede Acts of the Apostles (like in Codex Sinaiticus). This order was changed by a binder: Gospels, Pauline epistles, Acts, Catholic epistles, and Apocalypse

Charles van der Poole writing of the British Library handwave in their 1930s publication:
"Lastly I find it somewhat comical that the charge against a forger was that he was convicted of forgery...that would seem to be more of a proof of his "credentials" ...see pg. 9, second paragraph
Charles points out various difficulties in the Sinaiticus scenarios

forest of errata" - scrivener
the Leipzig folios are notable for their whiteness."
"my opposite opinion is proved correct"
"exceptional"
"though in many respects sharply criticised by eminent Biblical palaeographers." - reference to German edition of when were out Gospels written
Brugsch Pseuod-Sinaiticus sample page
Did Tisch ever publish the palaeography book "N. T. praef"
Facebook group of people and groups
best quotes inviting people to continue research
yahoogroups - finish review of Elliot and post one post in textualcriticism
Worldcat check of notes - New Paltz, Bard etc.
Uwe Topper has a section from the 2001 about Sinaiticus as a forgery. Translate look at 1998 book as well.
forgery refs http://www.nuaccess.northwestern.edu/blog/entries/analysis.html (from Walton - "Pitfalls of Using Science to Authenticate Archaeological Artifacts") Depuydt, etal
Lilia - unusual list of Simonides books in Elliott (did they - do they exist?)
1846 quote from EOD - estimate
Andrew Queen Morton "Sinaiticus Revisited" (EOD)
Peter on LinkedIn with German info
3 German books now available
Arabic info work in progress
"Greek, about 530 BC or modern forgery”.- Getty plaque pic
George Webber Young on hieroglyphics .. hope that he will revisit
Ludwig Traube palaeography

anomalies eg.
What is the explanation as to why there is no Quire 73 between Job (Q72) and Matthew (Q74)?

====

Dioscorides of Vienna comparison .. eg. Tregelles, Disocorides is quite yellowed
https://books.google.com/books?id=SpURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA152

Laurentius - Italian forgery in the 1400s, the time that Vaticanus appears, see the Velezian readings
From the bio of Stewart: ."In Italy the art of forging manuscripts was commonly practised, and indeed, in the time of Laurentius, who founded the Laurentine Library, many MSS. were forged in Italy and were disposed of as documents of a high degree of antiquity. But nothing of this kind was ever practised at Athos. The Italian monks had a direct motive and interest in these forgeries, for their productions obtained a large price and were a constant source of pecuniary profit; but this motive was entirely wanting in Mount Athos, where the monks regarded their manuscripts as the most valuable of their possessions, and guarded them so jealously that travellers were not permitted to view them. Indeed, no amount of money would induce the monks of Mount Athos to part with the libraries they have guarded and,,

Tischendorf calls the text heretical
"and contains many readings which must appear gross heresies in a copy destined as a present to the orthodox emperor"
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA478
=========================

overwriting

"Microscopic study of these folios seems to indicate that it was over writing or a non-original ink that has done the damage sometime after the first writing."
There are pointers that Tischendorf may have been involved in touch-up. More on this separately.

"seeking examples of Tischendorf imitating uncial ... handwriting, lettering clues, like Skeat, etc ,,,one overwriter was clearly rather cursory and sloppy. ... like Tisch. No attempt at beauty Throwing in Arabic prophecies almost sounds like bragging that they know Arabic."
==========================

Tischendorf 75 Arabic leaves
of the Pauline epistles. Tischendorf, shrouding his find in the same secrecy with which he had tried to hide the provenance of the famous codex Sinaiticus, did not tell where he acquired the seventy-five Arabic leaves. Delitzsch stated explicitly, however, that Tischendorf had brought them from a monastery in Egypt and, since it is known not only that the two theologians were in close personal contact with each other but that Delitzsch had seen the leaves in Tischendorf's house, it may rightly be assumed that the latter had, at least to some extent, given away the secret, though he did not reveal the name of the Egyptian monastery.
https://books.google.com/books?ei=gDsFU_7rEKiN1AG384CgDg&id=p5DrAAAAMAAJ&dq=fleischer+sinaiticus+arabic&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=+sinaiticus

"Having all the Leipzig pages is very valuable, since the preservation of the Leipzig pages has long been talked about as a problem." Peter Head 2008
http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2008/07/codex-sinaiticus-on-line-initial.html

Tregelles Golden Ms Compare (simply deceived by Tischendorf?)
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/c.144.a/post-424
with Featherstone and sheet that says could not do

Go over Reader article by William Aldis Write "unscholarly greed of English gold" and more

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

9,000 rubles may also come up in the return of Tischendorf of many of the books.

the 9,000 rubles
Ultimately (the full story is a long one) the Archbishop was appointed, the gift was made, and (after Tischendorf, on the request of the Archbishop, had intervened on their behalf) the return gift which the monks had no doubt always expected was obtained from the Tsar. It consisted of a sum of 9,000 roubles (a substantial price in those days) and a number of decorations.
http://www.katapi.org.uk/GBibleText/Ch3.html

The Czar sent the monastery a silver shrine for St Catherine, 7,000 rubles for the library at Sinai, and 2,000 rubles for the monks at Cairo, along with conferring Russian honorary titles on the monastery authorities. In 1863 the manuscript was published in Leipzig at the Czar's expense, from Tischendorf's meticulously accurate transcript, and preceded by his no less meticulous annotations. " from:​
https://www.umass.edu/wsp/philology/gallery/tischendorf.html

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

"Occasionally, one finds a literary texts paleographically datable two hundred years or more before it's context would indicate. (Schwendner, in Porceedgins of the Helsinki Papyrological Congress, Helsinki, 2004 (Helsinki 2007)"

" NB the use of years for dating and the estimation of the lifespan, so to speak, of a literary papyrus is terribly misleading, unless there is a secure documentary date attached to it (such as a dated document on the back, vel sim.). It gives an impression of precision that is quite beyond our ability to argue for from evidence." Schwendner
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
===============

Who saw the two mss before 2009 ?
(and .. who saw them live from 2000 on, we were told that one person went to 4 places, never identified)

Tischendorf - he in early 1860s prevented the Sinaiticus ms from coming to England and avoided connected the two in writing. He had minimal references to physical condition (see, e.g. few words on 1846 parchment)

Did Skeat & Milne see the German pages in writing Scribes and Correctors? They contrasted sharply Sinaitcius with Alexandrinus vellum

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

Kirsopp Lake

(note: more Kirsopp lake material has been copied in on another thread)
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/c.8.a/post-22

Lake in the photographs of 1912 and 1922 ? Check this .. in 1922 edition we will know. What did Lake say? (1911 is online)

THE VELLUM AND INK
The MS. is written on fine parchment made from the skin of some rather large animal—Tischendorf suggested an antelope, but in view of the manner in which this guess has been copied by successive writers on the text of the New Testament, and the certainty with which much repetition seems to have invested it in their eyes, it is perhaps not unnecessary to point out that there is nothing in the vellum to indicate an antelope rather than any other animal of the requisite size. It varies considerably in thickness: and the thicker leaves, which have generally preserved the writing better than the thin ones, are inclined to a yellowish tint. Many of the leaves are so thin that the writing from the other side is sometimes so plainly visible as to become confusing, and in a few cases the ink has eaten through the vellum so as to leave holes. As a rule, however, the vellum struck me as not quite so thin as that of the Codex Alexandrinus, and to have consequently suffered somewhat less from erosion. 1911 p. xvi

(1922) PREFACE
The following facsimile of the Old Testament text of the Codex Sinaiticus is made from negatives taken at Petrograd and in Leipzig by my wife and myself in the summer of 1913. In both these libraries we were greatly helped by the courtesy of the officials, and in Petrograd by the kindness of the manager of the Kodak Company, who placed at our disposal his magnificent dark room and laboratory.... Kirsopp Lake, Cambridge, MA 1921

Finally, it is perhaps sufficiently curious to deserve mention that Simonides the forger attempted to discredit the experts who had helped to detect his fraud, by claiming that he had himself written the Codex Sinaiticus. and had deceived them all; but the details of this absurd story belong rather to the annals of crime than to the history of palaeography. p. vi
Next, we plan to see if there is any other Lake writing (e.g. at the end of the NT). So far, no such indication.

Lake clearly swallowed the Tischendorf fabrications whole, e.g. from the review article below (maybe direct from above):
He ascertained that the rest of the MS. was in existence; and though he was unable to obtain possession of it, he cherished the hope of returning at some later period and of then being more successful. That in this way Tischcndorf rightly earned the fame of discovering this valuable MS. would be denied by no one ...
The facsimile of the Old Testament text of the Codex Sinaiticus now published is made from negatives taken at Petrograd and in Leipzig by Dr. Lake and his wife in the summer of 1913. The introductory pages are largely identical with those prefixed to the facsimile edition of the New Testament published in 1911. The production of this volume was made possible by the enterprise and devotion of the editors and by the munificence of an anonymous benefactor, who in 1913 made a most liberal gift to the British Academy for the purpose.
The Periodical - Sept, 1922, Volume 8, Issue 116

https://books.google.com/books?id=IL7fAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA22
So even before the 1933 sale, there was a vested interest in accepting authenticity.

Any parchment and colour comments? Did they fudge the pics? (e.g. holes filled in, see Sar M. conversation) They apparently had full access to both, based even simply on the title:

"Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus et Friderico-Augustanus Lipsiensis: The Old Testament : preserved in the Public Library of Petrograd, in the Library of the Society of Ancient Literature in Petrograd, and in the Library of the University of Leipzig, now reproduced in facsimile from photographs ; with a description and introduction to the history of the codex"

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

"The Most Amazing Historical Observation"
- (special article to be prepared) Pull out the c. 1862 published comments about the colouring and how they were never checked, how amazing they would be from someone who did not have first-hand observations.
Yet were 100% accurate to historical observations the finally the ability 2009 to see both mss.

(Also can mention the whole body of coincidences .. Athos, Sinai, age, timing, skill, condition Kallinikos observations and more.. AFTER the basics of the article)

====

Modern writers - look, see, touch

Write:
Similarly did William Andrew Smith or David Parker or Dirk Jongkind physically compare, by touch, the Alexandrinus, Sinaiticus and Bezae? (Dirk Jongkind has not seen Alexandrinus)
Ask each one about Skeat quote comparing Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus.
Get quotes from email about person who went to all 4 spots and yet cannot be determined. -

Timothy Arthur Brown and Amy Myshrall are mentioned as having worked in both locales.
https://books.google.com/books?id=W76qIZLVmF8C&pg=PA180
So far David Parker is not real happy to have them contacted directly, acting as head of ITSEE. New post on British New Testament forum on this general question.

This will be in the section about hack job, first draft, etc.

The dedication, therefore, had been written, and yet we are assured that the work was to have been rewritten, although so carefully executed and upon so valuable a material.
====

One example of what can be sent to Switzerland or Germany friends who know Bible issues

Start getting the 1840s and 1860s Tisch and related comments on condition

Tischendorf - 1864 article to Hilgenfeld
https://books.google.com/books?id=zEcbAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA208

Jene Unterschriften beziehen sicii n?mlich auf die zahlreichen, den B?chern Esra und Esther etwa zu Anfang des 7. Jahrh (von unseren Correctoren Ca und Cb) beigeschriebenen Verbesserungen. Zu dieser Zeit also erschien der cod. Sinaiticus, der noch heutzutage, d. h. 1200 Jahre spater, durch seine Erhaltung auf vielen Schriftseiten in hohem Grade ?berrascht, noch nicht als ein sehr altes 1), wohl aber das Exemplar des Pamphilus

Those signatures relate namely to the many, the books of Ezra and Esther about the beginning of the 7th century beige signed (by our Correctoren Ca and Cb) improvements. At this time, therefore, appeared the cod. Sinaiticus who still nowadays, d. H. 1200 years later, surprised by its conservation on many magazine pages highly, not yet as a very old 1), but probably the copy of Pamphilus

The 1200 years seems to be from the theory of the Ezra and Esther 7th century to his viewing in the 1800s.

Is Tischendorf saying he is surprised by the conservation? needs better German translation.

Similar wording back in 1861
Verhandlungen der 1en (-57en) Versammlung (1861), from 1860
By Verein deutscher Philologen und Schulm?nner
https://books.google.com/books?id=61QFAAAAQAAJ&pg=RA2-PA25

The earliest Tisch description (not from the book, from the review) is on the Tischendorf palaeography thread:

"Der Codex Friderico-Augustanus ... Das pergament.. ?usserst fein und zart und im Ganzen wohl erhalten, "
"The Codex Friderico-Augustanus ...The parchment .. extremely fine and delicate, and on the whole well preserved"

Serapeum - Leipzig, Aug 15, 1847
https://books.google.com/books?id=l4gRAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA225


====

Place more Gavin Moorhead comments online? - compare to (Snapp and BCHF )

About the second reference to a Leipzig cleaning (never referenced by Leipzig). Later it became simply mechanical, like a brush.

Before lasers, and other than the removal of surface dirt, what type of cleaning could conceivably:

a) lighten the colour of vellum
b) remove stains to make the colour one consistency
c) NOT harm the ink

Is there even the slightest historical or physical evidence of such a cleaning? Is it even remotely possible?


====
Minor:
Is the Jurgen Gottschlich book available in PDF?
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator
wip

Tregelles
http://books.google.com/books?id=VPgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA485

Tregelles concludes that Simonides used the

"Additions to the Fourth Volume" of Horne's Introduction
https://books.google.com/books?id=fplqYgEACAAJ
https://archive.org/stream/introductiontocr04horniala#page/774/mode/2up

(even though there is so much in Simonides that is inside knowledge, not covered there, like the 1844 theft) ..

(another interesting point is how Wright circularly attacks Simonides based on the pretensions of the condition of the ms given by Tischendorf, now known to be false by Uspensky and more)

==

The antiquity of the MS. is determined by the application of the same kind of palaeographical arguments as have been used in connection with other MSS., especially the Codex Vaticanus. In fact,the fourth century may be considered as the date previously established as belonging to the previously known portion of this MS.

"But besides the antiquity of the actual ink and vellum of the Codex, the antiquity and character of the text is a subject of important consideration."

And when did Tregelles test, compare, or even discuss, the ink and vellum?

"The value of this will be felt, when it is remembered that some of late have sought to disparage the Vatican IMS. by admitting that it does belong to the fourth century, and then alleging that to that very age pertained the formation of what I have termed the transition text, in which the gospels were assimilated, and what belonged to one writer was introduced into the work of another. This mode of undervaluing the Vatican MS., or any other, is completely and conclusively met, when it is shown that such most ancient documents contradict the transition or mixed text in all the more characteristic points of detail."

So Vaticanus, (even among those who accepted the questionable 4th century) needed a corroboration. They were deathly concerned of Vaticanus being "undervalued" :). As for the "logic" above in regard to contradicting the transition text, you will have to puzzle it out, it is rather unfathomable. (Was he taking lessons from Hort in logic?)

P. 784 has more of the circularity.

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

From the Tischendorf Correspondence (will it be placed in book, unsanitized?, with originals shown as well as copies?), excerpts from Featherstone (the two bombshells are that the 1844 simply came into his possession and Tischenforf fretting about Simonides when rushing en route to Sinai in Jan, 1859 to the red cloth fabric-ation)
=================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
the New Testament as distinct

a) totally different purpose

b) while sufflava, light yellow, it is distinctively lighter than the rest of the CSP

c) every part pristine

d) Ludwig Traube said the scribe of the NT did not do the OT portions

Also the possibility of the OT being a repaired text.

================================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
the Elizabeth Kirkley Best influenced early Wikipedia

Simonides
On 13 September 1862 Constantine Simonides, skilled in calligraphy and with a controversial background with manuscripts, made the claim in print in The Guardian that he had written the codex himself as a young man in 1839 in the Panteleimonos monastery at Athos.[105] [106] Constantin von Tischendorf, who worked with numerous Bible manuscripts, was known as somewhat flamboyant, and had ambitiously sought money from several royal families for his ventures, who had indeed funded his trips. Simonides, whose name may be a synonym mocking Tischendorf, had a somewhat obscure history, as he claimed he was at Mt. Athos in the years preceding Tischendorf's contact, making the claim at least plausible. Simonides also claimed his father had died and the invitation to Mt. Athos came from his uncle, a monk there, but subsequent letters to his father were found among his possessions at his death. While the word 'forgery' has been bandied about among scholars regarding the claims on the Sinaiticus by Tischendorf, perhaps a more accurate rendering would be recollation and 'adjusted' restoration as Simonides, an expert on hieroglyphics which are represented throughout the Sinaiticus. Simonides claimed the false nature of the document in the Guardian in an exchange of letters among scholars and others, at the time. Henry Bradshaw, a British librarian known to both men, defended the Tischendorf find of the Sinaiticus, casting aside the accusations of Simonides. Since Bradshaw was a social 'hub' among many diverse scholars of the day, his aiding of Tischendorf was given much weight. Simonides died shortly after, and the issue lay dormant for many years.[107]
Tischendorf answered in Allgemeine Zeitung (December), that only in the New Testament there are many differences between it and all other manuscripts. Henry Bradshaw, a scholar, contributed to exposing the frauds of Constantine Simonides, and exposed the absurdity of his claims in a letter to the Guardian (26 January 1863). Bradshaw showed that the Codex Sinaiticus brought by Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai was not a modern forgery or written by Simonides. Simonides' "claim was flawed from the beginning".[108] The controversy seems to regard the misplaced use of the word 'fraud' or 'forgery' since it may have been a repaired text, a copy of the Septuagint based upon Origen's Hexapla, a text which has been rejected for centuries because of its lineage from Eusebius who introduced Arian doctrine into the courts of Constantine I and II.

" at Mt. Athos in the years preceding Tischendorf's contact, "

she did go to the Grollier

" may have been a repaired text," ..

a difficult concept , but I am keeping open the possiblity that the provenance of the NT and OT are distinct

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

Similarly Ben Davidson,
From TC-Alternate based on Bible Criticism forum

Who would have been behind the forgery of Sinaiticus? Why would it be desirable to embarrass Tischendorf? The answer is in the Jesuit long-term strategy to maintain control of the Scriptures and discredit Protestant Bible production. The Vatican and the Jesuits had moved from banning the possession and publishing of Bibles and all such 'hereticial' operations, to discrediting and substituting Protestant Bibles with Roman Catholic versions, to even attempting to dethrone Protestant kings and rulers.
It is entirely plausible that the Roman Papacy or the Jesuits would have hired Greek experts like Simonides to forge Greek MSS favourable to Vatican texts, and in competition with the text of Erasmus, Stephens, Beza, and Elziver. One of the first Roman Catholic attempts to derail the Reformation was to publish a Greek NT based on the infamous Codex Vaticanus.
Who else would have access to Vaticanus-like texts, and have the resources to bankroll a large-scale forgery like Sinaiticus? Perhaps Simonides was indeed sent to sabotage Tischendorf. If so, he certainly succeeded, since Tischendorf all but abandoned his 7 previous versions in favor of an 8th edition sporting the Aleph readings. Just what the Vatican wanted. But the Protestants didn't buy it.
It would take another decade to put people like Hort in place to try again with the Vaticanus as the base.
The codex Sinaiticus looks very suspicious, as a sumptuous manuscript looking a lot newer than the more authentically aged Vaticanus. Side by side, Sinaiticus looks hundreds of years newer. Yet it sports a text which, with all its idiosyncrasies, shares an uncannily large number of readings with Vaticanus.


Criticized on BVDB forum
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/5329
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tischendorf 1854 sale of Acts ms to British Museum


A Manuscript - mostly Acts - apparently heisted by Tischendorf and sold to the British Museum in 1854. Possibly from St. Catherine's. Some of this is said to remain in Alexandria, so that could be checked, for the history and a possible source and the thoughts of the library Alexandrian Patriarchat Library. At the very least, it is interesting to look closer at a sample Tischendorf theft.

Natalie Tchernetska is the expert on Tischendorf mss, we can check her paper:

Constantine Tischendorf and his Greek Manuscripts
Natalie Tchernetska
http://www1.uni-hamburg.de/COMST/COMSt_Newsletter_5_2013.pdf

Sometimes, the means by which he obtained the manuscripts were not straightforward: while some manuscripts were donated or sold to him, others, especially fragmentary manuscripts, were apparently stolen. ... It is known that Tischendorf had a tendency to split one manuscript into several parts and offer them to different libraries.... The final outcome of the project will be a monograph dedicated to Greek manuscripts that once belonged to Constantin Tischendorf, including their descriptions and individual histories, and preceded by an introduction on Tischendorf as manuscript collector. An online catalogue of the collection is also envisaged.
and put in an inquiry. Nothing much in the Tischendorf correspondence from Featherstone.

This became a beloved ms in textual criticism, with a high Aland category #, since it is a cursive with Alexandrian readings. (although it does have the pure Bible on 1 Timothy 3:16). (This, coming from Tischendorf would make it a smidgen suspicious. At the very least, he could have been easily conned. The extra added sections in a different hand-writing could be a mild point for authenticity. As for the colophon .. ?)

We are told of collations by Tregelles and Tischendorf and Scrivener.

Minuscule 81
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minuscule_81
The codex was discovered by Constantin von Tischendorf in Egypt in 1853, who took 57 leaves of the codex (Acts of the Apostles) with himself. He sold it to the Trustees of the British Museum in 1854.[3] Now they are located in British Library (Add. 20003) at London. 225 leaves are still in Alexandria, where are held in the Patriarchat Library (59).
PICS ONLINE:
Yellow (not like the CFA) and reasonably consistent (although that could be checked)

Manuscript


Index
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDisplay.aspx?ref=add_ms_20003


Add Ms. 20003 - 1044, Acts of the Apostles (Gregory-Aland 81)
Actus Apostoloru Grace
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_20003_f001r

The quirky element is the various degree of whiter area where are the letters.

And a Quirky Colophon
http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=add_ms_20003_f057r


"the invaluable MS. of the Acts bought from Tischendorf by the British Museum. The readings of the latter had been given (though incompletely) in Tischendorf s own last edition:"
review of Scrivener and Tischendorf
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readb...l_and_Sacred_Philology_1854_v4_1000254365/379
Plain Introduction
Scrivener (1861)
https://books.google.com/books?id=6pOl5kos2O0C&pg=PA198

lo-ti (or p-scr. B. M. Addit. 20003. Thus Tischendorf indicates the most important cursive copy of the Acts (discovered by him in Egypt in 1853), which he sold to the Trustees of the British Museum 1854. It is dated April 20, 1044, Indict. 12, and was written by one John a monk ... Independent collations have been made by Tischendorf (Anecd. sacra et prof. pp. 7, 8; 130—46), by Tregelles, and by Scrivener (Cod. Augiens. Introd. pp. lxviii—lxx). Its value is shown not so much by the readings in which it stands alone, as by its agreement with the oldest uncial copies, where their testimonies coincide.
An Exact Transcript of the Codex Augiensis, a Gr?co-Latin manuscript of S. Paul's Epistles, deposited in the library of Trinity College, Cambridge. To which is added a full collation of fifty manuscripts containing various portions of the Greek New Testament in the libraries of Cambridge ... the British Museum, &c. With a critical introduction by the Rev. Frederick Henry Scrivener. Gr. & Lat
https://books.google.com/books?id=DOFUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR68

(p). Brit. Mus. Additional MS. 20,003. This copy contains only the Acts of the Apostles in a mutilated condition, but it is unquestionably the most valuable cursive MS. of that book yet known. Jt was sold to the British Museum in 1854 by Tischendorf, who seems to have brought it from the East, though on this point we lack information. A slight inspection having satisfied me of its great importance, I collated it with much care and minuteness: I have since learnt that it had previously been collated both by Tischendorf and Tregelles. The latter will no doubt use it for his edition of the Greek Testament. Tischendorf has published his report in the "Anccdota Sacra et Profana," pp. 7, 8; 130-146 ...
============================

Journal of Classical and Sacred Philology (1859)
http://www.forgottenbooks.com/readbo...1000254365/379

"The gems of the present collection are the Leicester MS. of the entire New Testament and the invaluable MS. of the Acts bought from Tischendorf by the British Museum. The readings of the latter had been given (though incompletely) in Tischendorf's own last edition" p. 375
==================================================

Turns out to be in:


Anecdota sacra et profana ex Oriente et Occidente (1855)
Tischendorf
https://archive.org/stream/anecdotasacraet00tiscgoog#page/n24/mode/2up p. 7-8
https://archive.org/stream/anecdotasacraet00tiscgoog#page/n148/mode/2up p. 130-146

With page numbers as given by Scrivener

1872 book facsimile pic
https://books.google.com/books?id=1CHfywEmhYwC&pg=PA44


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

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

MINOR

Does this show up here?
https://books.google.com/books?id=kaM8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA725

Remembrance: I think it is in an Elliott listing, or

Finegan
https://books.google.com/books?id=fIcU1BFiMBgC&pg=PA79

END



HISTORICAL - RESEARCH MINOR NOTES

Earlier search had taken me to:

Mutinensis has a Tischendorf colllation and is an Acts ms. but it had been collated by Scholz and Tregelles, and is in Italy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Mutinensis

His last edition might have been:

Monumenta sacra inedita. v.2 from 1857
https://archive.org/stream/Tischendo...ge/n7/mode/2up
https://books.google.com/books?id=-bpDlA4eQFcC&pg=PA322
http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?i...view=1up;seq=7

However, no Acts in the index.

===========

SA Note on Codex Mutinensis (earlier ms.)
Schulz collation ref, .
An uncial section ref where lacuna spots were filled by minuscule and uncial (check pics, Elliott etc .. could possibly be diff ms.)
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hermas and Barnabas - emphasis on Claromontanus

"Hermas .. Barnabas ... Both these works are included in the list of books of the New Testament contained in the great Codex Claromontanus D of St. Paul's Epistles " - Scrivener, Plain Introduction

Reading 1?2 Peter and Jude: A Resource for Students
edited by Eric F. Mason, Troy W. Martin
https://books.google.com/books?id=8jJyAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA218

This evidence is affirmed by other fourth-century witnesses. Codex Claromontanus, a sixth-century bilingual manuscript of the Pauline Corpus, offers a catalog of writings (with the numbers of their stichoi) that seems to go back to the fourth century.1 Jude is mentioned here after 1-3 John, but?interestingly?before Barnabas, Revelation, Acts, Shepherd of Hermas, Acts of Paul, and Apocalypse of Peter. At least in the Codex Claromontanus itself, some of the writings in the list?Barnabas, Shepherd of 1 Hermas, Acts of Paul, and Apocalypse of Peter?are marked by a short horizontal stroke that perhaps serves to distinguish between universally acknowledged and disputed (or apocryphal?) writings. It is, however, not clear whether this distinction goes back to the original fourth-century catalog or was only added in the later Claromontanus. In any case, it seems to attest another?more open?approach to authoritative Christian writings than Eusebius shows, and it clearly includes the Epistle of Jude among the acknowledged writings.

Evidence of Tradition: Selected Source Material for the Study of the History of the Early Church, the New Testament Books, and the New Testament Canon
Daniel J. Theron
https://books.google.com/books?id=PhhMAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA123

A Handbook to the Exegesis of the New Testament
edited by Stanley E. Porter
https://books.google.com/books?id=hRbgpM6Ff2gC&pg=PA75
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
an incomplete ms? first draft? hack job?

There are a few quotes on this theme.

I received with unfeigned satisfaction your truly valuable transcript of the Holy Scriptures-namely, the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of St. Barnabas and the first part of the pastoral writings of Hermas, bound in one volume, which shall be placed in the library of Mount Sinai, according to your wish. But I exhort you earnestly (if ever by God's will you should return to the sacred Mount Athos) to finish the work as you originally designed it, and he will reward you. Be with me on the 3d of next month, that I may give you letters to the illustrious A. S. Stourtzas, to inform him of your talents and abilities, and to give you a few hints which may prove useful to the success of your plans. I sincerely trust that you were born for the honour of your country. Amen. -
Journal of Sacred Literature
https://books.google.com/books?id=CR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA249


 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Simonides on Sinaiticus palaeography

Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present age. https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA217
You prepared yourself, my dear Sir, for the defence of the Sinaitic Codex by swallowing indiscriminately all the falsehoods concerning its discovery, told by your famous Tischendorf. But what scientific proofs have you to confirm its genuiness. Certainly none: neither do I expect such from you nor from your friend Tischendorf, for neither you nor he possess the true knowledge of Palaeographical Science. You have only Teamed to say at random, this is genuine, and this is spurious, but you do not know the reason. But although I possess many proofs of the spuriousness of the manuscript, I shall keep silent on these for the present. First, because I intend to write a special work on the subject and secondly because the Codex will prove this itself when published and the portion already published partly shows this. https://books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA231
he has proclaimed it as genuine, and as the oldest of all the known Codices in Europe of the Old and New Testaments. Alas for the palaeographical knowledge of such as he! And if, O my son, the sages of Western Europe take knowledge of and criticise matters in the same fashion as Tischendorf, the shallow leader of Leipzig, I must say that no true criticism or sound judgment in antiquarian matters remains there. This manuscript then being thus estimated (as very old) by the German Tischendorf, was snatched away from the monastery, was afterwards transferred to Cairo, and after a few days was lent to Tischendorf, by the mediation of the Russian Consul in Egypt.
Go
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Comments on Palimpsest 2nd century - "Codex Johanneus"


Comments on Palimpsest 2nd century - "Codex Johanneus"


Featherstone "p. 206
Despite the failure of his main goal, he has been rewarded beyond his expectations he is bringing back more than ten very old palimpsests, of which two are particularly valuable, one of the Old, the other of the New Testament. The first, from the 5th as well as the 2d century forms a pendant to the Codex Friderico Augustanus, and he has thought to call it, in honour of Prince Johann, the Codex Johanneus, provided that the Government fulfils his wishes for the future. He hopes to God that he and his wife will prevail in future in their material struggles"

was this a project that was aborted ?

"I assume this is Rahlfs 624 (in St Petersburg), from the 5th and 8th or 9th century. '2nd' must be a typo. In value and antiquity a fifth century MS is a pendant to the Friderico-Augustanus. Through archive.org (I think) you can check for yourself here: Tischendorf, Monumenta sacra inedita 1 p. xx-xxix, 49-138" - Dirk Jongkind

Michael Featherstone
No, i think 'the first' here refers to the first of the ten palimpsests he brought back. A palimpsest is a re-written manuscript, so the re-writing was from the 5th and the original writing (i.e. that which was scratched out and re-written) was from the 2d--at least that is what Tischendorf thought at the time. Surely it was later. But this is why he calls it a pendant to the first part of the Sinaiticus (the Friderico-Augustanus) he had found in 1844. I don't have the letters with me at the moment, but I don't remember that he mentions the idea of calling the palimpsest after the prince again (didn't get the money from the Saxon government--that's why he went to the Russian Tsar for help..-

Voldebing 1903 (Greco-Syrian palimpsest, p. 71 Codex Ephraemi is being discussed)
https://books.google.com/books?id=WDk6AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA69

Fragmenta evang. Lucae et libri Genesis ex tribus codicibus gr. quinti, sexti, octavi saec, uno palimpsesto ex Libya in Museum Britann. advecto, altero celeberrimo Cottoniano ex f lammis erepto, tertio ex Oriente nuperrime Oxonium perlato. Addita sunt et Novi et Veteris Testamenti fragmenta similia nuperrime in codd. sex antiquissimorum reliquiis inventa. Nunc primum etc. **

https://books.google.com/books?id=WDk6AAAAcAAJ&pg=PA71

Ausserdem enth?lt dieser Band noch dreierlei Palimpsestfragmente des Britischen Museums: 1) aus dem Evang. Johannis, vom f?nften oder vierten Jahrhundert,
Moreover, this band contains three Palimpsestfragmente the British Museum: 1) from the Evang. Johannis, from the fifth or fourth century, 2

.... 2) aus der Genesis, womit ein kleines Restchen von wenig Versen vom Codex Friderico-Augustanus oder vielmehr vom Codex Sinaiticus aufgefunden worden, und

Ausserdem enth?lt dieser Band noch dreierlei Palimpsestfragmente des Britischen Museums: 1) aus dem Evang. Johannis, vom f?nften oder vierten Jahrhundert, 2) aus dem Propheten Ezechiel, vom siebenten Jahrhundert, 3) aus dem dritten Buche der K?nige vom f?nften Jahrhunderte, so wie dreierlei andere bei der Ver?ffentlichung noch in des Herausgebers eigenem Besitze, jetzt zu St. Petersburg befindliche Fragmente: 1) aus den Psalmen (141?44), vom f?nften oder vierten Jahrhunderte, 2) aus der Genesis, womit ein kleines Restchen von wenig Versen vom Codex Friderico-Augustanus oder vielmehr vom Codex Sinaiticus aufgefunden worden, und 3) aus dem Evangelio des Matth?us vom siebenten Jahrhundert.

Moreover, this band contains three Palimpsestfragmente the British Museum: 1) from the Evang. Johannis, from the fifth or fourth century, 2) from the Prophet Ezekiel, from the seventh century, 3) from the third book of the kings of the fifth centuries, as three other publication nor private in the publisher's possession, now St. Petersburg contained fragments: 1) from the Psalms (141-44), the fifth or fourth centuries, 2) from the Genesis, which is a small remnant of little verses from the Codex Frederico-Augustanus or rather from the Codex Sinaiticus been found, and 3) the Gospel of Matthew from the seventh century.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Friend of Tischendorf

Friend of Tischendorf

'hitherto a friend of Tischendorfs'
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA489

employed by Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=pAE8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA311

See also how he was employed in St. Petersburg after the controversies

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

https://www.academia.edu/9898013/Mo...d._Iconography_and_Its_Program_Recapitulation

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

Here Simonides in 1859 uses the longevity of Sinaiticus, ironically not publicly seen, to defend the antiquity of parchments he produced with antiquity texts, in disputing with Rhancabes over the longevitiy of mss., waxing poetic about the condition of the unseen and untouched including 2nd century. (Apparently Rhancabes was saying that some of the Simonides mss did not have the proper "look and feel" for the age that Simonides was representing. So there is a type of reverse irony involved.)

As to the time of the duration of the manuscripts, it is to he observed that parchment, as it was prepared among the ancients, was much more durable than any other writing material employed by them. In the Library of the Vatican are manuscripts more than 1500 years old, and in Spain and elsewhere there exist manuscripts of as ancient a date. Moreover, Sir T. Phillipps publicly announced in the Athenaeum (see No. 1536, April 4th, 1857,) that he had in his possession a Latin manuscript 1200 years old, and that it was in a state of complete preservation. M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well as the 1st Book of Hermas, all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago. This MS. is represented to be in excellent condition. From this we may conclude that parchment manuscripts may be preserved for almost an unlimited period, for those that are kept in the Museums, even though they exceed 1000 years, have not lost a single letter. Nor is at all surprising that manuscripts on parchment should have been preserved for so long a time; for it must be admitted to be much more wonderful that the papyrus manuscripts which are so much more fragile than skins, should have come down to our times, well preserved, many of them more than 3000 years old. Those who please may at the British Museum and at Turin see many of them; even this is nothing startling, for corn and many other seeds have been found in Egyptian coffins which have been underground for perhaps 4000 years, and have not in the least lost their germinal powers. Many locks of hair, too, have been found in these coffins, preserved in a most perfect condition till the present day.

The 1857 article is here:

The Athenaeum:
https://books.google.com/books?id=AplTAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA438

Which mirrors this:

Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum in Bibliotheca D. Thom? Phillipps, Bart., A.D. 1837
https://books.google.com/books?id=QFleAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA254

?Quid non audebit Graecia mendax ?"

Combine this with other Simonides answers of convenience, such as Hermas being truncated, in a Simonides thread
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
quires - Henry Bradshaw in Jan of 1863 writing of 1862 visit

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

Added 3-30-2016

Henry Bradshaw in Jan of 1863 writing of 1862 visit


"On the 18th of July last I was at Leipzig with a friend, and we called on Professor Tischendorf. Though I had no introduction but my occupation at Cambridge, nothing could exceed his kindness ; we were with him for more than two hours, and I had the satisfaction of examining the manuscript after my own fashion. I had been anxious to know whether it was written in even continuous quaternions throughout, like the Codex Beza:, or in a series of fasciculi each ending with a quire of varying size, as the Codex Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This, by-the-by, is of itself sufficient to prove that it cannot be the volume which Dr Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos. "
Why quires of varying sizes?
Why a claim that this was contra Simonides?
Was Tischendorf still assigning quire numbers at that time?
What is the first historical reference to the quire numbers?
How identifialble is the handwriting?

"I told him [Simonides] as politely as I could that I was not to be convinced against the evidence of my senses."
=============================

This is simply saving a response to Bill Brown, since CARM will purge the material after some time.

CARM - May 3, 2016
the typewritten material
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthre...nt-Frederico-Augustanus&p=7894204#post7894204

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

One little confusion above is worth a correction, it is a laugher as to how diversions can trump substance. And waste time. Contra the post above, I never claimed to see a typewritten note. Even the censored BVDB forum did not mess up that one. I simply quoted a Wikipedia section, with attribution, which you can see here (also on an FRDB forum this post was quoted by another poster):

[TC-Alternate-list] Sinaiticus-Tischendorf and the Simonides scribal claims, the Uspenski opposition, the integrity issues all around
Steven Avery - Nov 21, 2011
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC-Alternate-list/conversations/topics/4748


The Wikipedia account attempts to absolve Tischendorf on #2 based on 2009 material.

St. Catherine's monastery still maintains the importance of a letter, typewritten in 1844 with an original signature of Tischendorf confirming that he borrowed those leaves. 10] However, recently published documents, including a deed of gift dated 11 September 1868 and signed by Archbishop Kallistratos and the monks of the monastery, indicate that the manuscript was acquired entirely legitimately. This deed, which agrees with a report by Kurt Aland on the matter, has now been published. Unfortunately this development is not widely known in the English-speaking world, as only German- and Russian-language media reported on it in 2009. Doubts as to the legality of the gift arose because when Tischendorf originally removed the manuscript from St Catherine's in September 1859, the monastery was without an archbishop, so that even though the intention to present the manuscript to the Tsar had been expressed, no legal gift could be made at the time. Resolution of the matter was delayed through the turbulent reign of Archbishop Cyril (consecrated 7 December 1859, deposed 24 August 1866), and the situation only formalised after the restoration of peace.
The Wikipedia section was later changed.

This led to a whole discussion on the censored BVDB forum, which you can read here:


BVDB - Nov 22, 2011
Here's a howler for you....
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku.com/topic/5327/Heres-a-howler-for-you


It actually is a decent thread, and the fellow who started the thread pointed out that he wasn't really criticizing me:

Euthymius
"only to point out the problem within the Wikipedia quotation -- a fact that even Avery acknowledged in a different post on the same TC-Alternate list"
For some reason this question became an obsession of one poster on CARM who was barely involved at the time, and it morphed above to my claiming to see a typewritten letter. Which is an obvious fabrication from confusion. It would have helped to read the thread and represent it properly.

I'll save this since it is likely to arise again
, maybe after this is purged from CARM.

Steven Avery


 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
CFA in England in 1865?


There is a report that, after the Simonides controversy quieted down, Tischendorf brought the CFA to London.

(Or perhaps Tischendorf went to soothe down Simonides as well, helping to prepare for his fake death and later employment in the Russian historical archives under a new name.)

What is curious is that there is virtually no mention of what happened when the CFA (or part?) was brought to London. You would think that this would be a major event in those vibrant English journals with tons of discussion and analysis.


The Christian Remembrancer (1866)
Sources of the Greek Text and English Versions
https://books.google.com/books?id=pvUDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA70
https://archive.org/stream/christianrememb12scotgoog#page/n78/mode/2up

"Professor Tischendorf brought the Codex Friderico-Augustanus (an undoubted part of the MS.) to Engliand in 1865, where it was exhibited at London, Oxford, and Cambridge"
So what happened?

Clearly, there should have been lots of questions about the pristine white parchment.
Yet we have not seen one notice from 1865 about these events, other than the above, written way after the fact.


What were the nature of these exhibits?

And was Tischendorf still being coy about the two manuscripts being the same at that late date?

The wording on that article is quite interesting.

Assuming, then, that the Codex Sinaiticus is a genuine affair; assuming, also, that the MS. belongs to about the period (A.D. 340) assigned to it by its learned and fortunate discoverer, we at once discern what a remarkable place it must hold in helping to determine the actual text of the New Testament. And it is encouraging to note how often its readings confirm the previously formed conclusions made by the critical editors—encouraging, because the results of criticism are thereby shown to have a solid ground.
Did there remain a bit of skepticism about the whole affair? Did the writer sniff the "too good to be true" component?

Conjectures as to who was the author include William Scott (an editor) is a possibility, Scrivener is mentioned and I don't recall his writing of himself in the third person, and Benjamin Harris Cowper is a possibility.

 
Top