Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

HERMAE PASTOR. GRAECĊE,
PRIMUM EDIDERUNT
ET INTERPRETATIONEM VETEREM LATINAM
EX CODICIBUS EMENDATAM ADDIDERUNT

RUDOLPHUS ANGER
ET
GUILIELMUS DINDORF,
PROFESSORES LIPSIENSES.
1856

In the above (Latin doc.)

You do realize, I hope, that this Greek edition has "great tribulation", and not "say to Maximus".

Is this your position as to the correct text?

Pastor graece: Quae textum graecum continet. Par prior, Volume 1 (1856)
https://books.google.com/books?id=y4f9ENLqmX0C&pg=PA9
 
Very strange.

And yet, here is what the Hermas-Athos expert, Spyridon Lampros, wrote:

A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas (1888)
Spyridōn Paulou Lampros
https://books.google.com/books?id=b2daAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR7

three leaves of a paper MS. from Mount Athos, very closely written in a hand of the fourteenth century ... The text thus obtained was immediately published by Anger and Dindorf who edited it with scrupulous exactness from the three original leaves and the apographon of Simonides.

So you have to be careful! :)
 
And yet, here is what the Hermas-Athos expert, Spyridon Lampros, wrote:

A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas (1888)
Spyridōn Paulou Lampros
https://books.google.com/books?id=b2daAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR7



So you have to be careful! :)
Easily explained: the Simonidis 'apographon' (transcript) includes the first four of the ten leaves of Hermas. So Vision II does not form part of the Codex Leipzig (the three original leavers), The sly fellow Simonidis stole the inner leavers, not the outer leaves of the Mt. Athos manuscript. And as Lampros says, the Leipzig apographon published by Anger had been corrected from the copy made on Mt Athos with the old Latin and quotations directly from the Greek fathers, per Tischendorf's observations.

But as Anger does cl;early distinguish the Codex Leipzig from the apographon of Simonides, what he says about the apographon can be discarded, and what he says about the Codex Leipzig can be retained.
 
Last edited:
Easily explained: the Simonidis 'apographon' (transcript) includes the first four of the ten leaves of Hermas. So Vision II does not form part of the Codex Leipzig (the three original leavers), The sly fellow Simonidis stole the inner leavers, not the outer leaves of the Mt. Athos manuscript. And as Lampros says, the Leipzig apographon published by Anger had been corrected from the copy made on Mt Athos with the old Latin and quotations directly from the Greek fathers, per Tischendorf's observations.

But as Anger does cl;early distinguish the Codex Leipzig from the apographon of Simonides, what he says about the apographon can be discarded, and what he says about the Codex Leipzig can be retained.

However , Spyridon Lampros is saying the three original leaves (which sound like 1-2-3 of 10) were used in Anger-Dindorf, as distinct from the apographon.

You are trying to make the case that the original Greek leaves brought to Germany were not 1-2-3. Fair enough. Can you show that in the history, stated by Lampros, Kirsopp Lake or anybody? If they say that, they will tell you the numbers of the leaves.
 
"quam utrum in Latinis an in Graecis primum aliquis instituerit ambiguum est."

Praefatio, patrum apostolicorum opera / dressel / 1863.

This is a discussion of one variant, where Tischendorf asserts ambiguity.
The authenticity discussions are elsewhere in the edition.

Here is the Maximus discussion from Tischendorf in that 1863 edition.

Patrum apostolicorum opera: textum ad fidem codicum et graecorum et latinorum, ineditorum copia insignium, adhibitis praestantissimis editionibus (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=lioVAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR54

And I will plan on placing in a separate post information on Tischendorf's Hermas retraction, which began with his letter to Falkenstein in April, 1859, which was quoted in Notitia in 1860.

As soon as he saw Sinaiticus, Tischendorf knew he had to cover his backside and throw sand on his earlier linguistic arguments.
 
This is a discussion of one variant, where Tischendorf asserts ambiguity.
The authenticity discussions are elsewhere in the edition.
I'm not clear what Tischendorf is asserting. Sometime he says the Greek Athos codex must have come from the Latin, but othertimes he says that Latin vice is to be sought amongst ancient Greek codexes:

On Page LIV

"Quod vix dubito quin Graecus codex cum tot aliis e Latino assumserit: nisi quod origo Latini huius vitii in vetustioribus Graecis quaerenda est."

"That I scarcely doubt that the Greek codex, together with so many others, took it from the Latin; except that the origin of this Latin vice is to be sought in the more ancient Greeks."

"Authenticity" isn't the right word. He's just making suppositions.
 
However , Spyridon Lampros is saying the three original leaves (which sound like 1-2-3 of 10) were used in Anger-Dindorf, as distinct from the apographon.

You are trying to make the case that the original Greek leaves brought to Germany were not 1-2-3. Fair enough. Can you show that in the history, stated by Lampros, Kirsopp Lake or anybody? If they say that, they will tell you the numbers of the leaves.
Quae si cum ambitu totius libri conferuntur, codicem integrum folia decem comprehendisse apparet, quattuor quae antecederent foliis Lipsiensibus, intermedia duo, unum post ultimum folium Lips. positum, in quo illa, quae nunc deficiunt, perscripta essent, vix unius illa paginae spatium excedentia.

Page 2 of Anger's preface
 
And I will plan on placing in a separate post information on Tischendorf's Hermas retraction, which began with his letter to Falkenstein in April, 1859, which was quoted in Notitia in 1860.

As soon as he saw Sinaiticus, Tischendorf knew he had to cover his backside and throw sand on his earlier linguistic arguments.

In his first writing after officially seeing Sinaiticus, even in early 1859. Tischendorf was already running away from his linguistic arguments.
See the 1860 Notitia footnote here (Cahira I can not explain) which points back to an earlier German writing.

Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici : accedit catalogus codicum nuper ex oriente Petropolin perlatorum,
item Origenis Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis, partim nunc primum partim secundum atque emendatius edita (1860)
Constantine Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=4Ac4AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA45

1 Lipsiensem textum in universum non veteris cuiusdam Latinorum interpretis esse, ut antea existimaveram, sed ex ipso Graeco fonte derivatum, iam primis litteris mense Martio anno 1859 de invento codice Cahira in patriam missis declaravi Cf. supra p. 10 not 1. Quam in rem haec ibi scripta sunt:

„Von dem Hirten des Hermas brachte bekanntlich Simonides einen fast vollständigen griechischen Text nach Leipzig, theils in einer von ihm auf dem Athos gemachten Abschrift, theils auf drei Papierblättern aus dem 15. oder 14. Jahrhundert Nachdem dieser Text zuerst im December 1855 in einer sehr unglucklichen Entstellung herausgegeben. bald darauf auch von mir in genauerer Fassung wiederholt worden war, erhoben sich nicht geringe Zweifel darüber, ob er wirklich aus dem Alterthume stamme oder in der Hauptsache eine mittelalterliche Rückübersetzung aus dem Lateinischen enthalte. Ver allen anderen vertrat ich selbst die letztere Ansicht. Hierüber ist nunmehr durch die Handschrift, die gerade tausend Jahre älter ist als die Leipziger Blätter, volle Klarheit gewonnen; ich freue mich mittheilen zu konnen, dass der Leipziger Text nicht aus mittelalterlichen Studien, sondern aus dem alten Originaltexte hergeflowen ist. Meine entgegengesetzte Behäuptung hat sich aber insofern bewährt, als der Leipziger Text an vielen Corruptionen und auch an solchen leidet, dir ohne Zweifel aus mittelalterlicher Benutzung des lateinischen Textes, herstammen."

Here is what I got out of Google:

I already declared in the first letter sent to the country in March, 1859, about the discovery of the Cairo codex, that the Lipsian text was universally not that of an old Latin translator, as I had previously thought, but derived from the Greek source itself. Cf. above p. 10 note 1. In that matter these things are written there:

"As is well known, Simonides brought an almost complete Greek text of the shepherd of Hermas to Leipzig, partly in a copy made by him on Mount Athos, partly on three sheets of paper from the 15th or 14th century. After this text first appeared in December 1855 in a very unfortunate disfigurement published. soon afterwards was also repeated by me in a more precise version, no small doubts arose as to whether it really came from antiquity or whether it mainly contained a medieval translation back from Latin. To everyone else, I myself took the latter view. This has now been fully clarified by the manuscript, which is just a thousand years older than the Leipzig sheets; I am pleased to be able to announce that the Leipzig text did not come from medieval studies, but from the old original text. However, my contrary assertion has proven itself insofar as the Leipzig text suffers from many corruptions and also from such, which undoubtedly stem from the medieval use of the Latin text."

You can see the German in the Falkenstein letter:

Leipziger zeitung (April 17, 1859)
Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=O...q=" bekanntlich Simonides einen fast"&f=false

Presumably it is in other places too, Cf. above p. 10 note 1.
Now you can read some of this in English, from Benjamin Harris Cowper, however he made an important error in his translation.

Journal of Sacred Literature - July 1859
quoting the Leipziger Zeitung - April 17, 1859
Tischendorf from Cairo to Von Falkenstein - March 15, 1859.
https://books.google.com/books?id=ExU2AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA394

Simonides confessedly brought a very perfect Greek text to Leipzig, part copied by him from a MS. at Mount Athos, and part upon three paper leaves of the fourteenth or fifteenth century. After this text was published in December 1855, and repeated soon after by me more accurately, considerable doubt arose about it, whether it was really ancient or a mediaeval translation from the Latin. I especially opposed the last view, (see below, this is claimed to be a Cowper mistranslation) and my opinion is confirmed by these leaves', at least 1000 years older, shewing that the Leipsig text had been derived from the original, but is corrupt, and that in consequence of a mediaeval use of the Latin.

The Literary Churchman (probably the editor, I have not checked who that is yet) gave a good summary and pointed out the translation error

The Literary Churchman (July 16, 1859)
Tischendorf's Recent Discovery
https://books.google.com/books?id=t84FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA258

Dr. Tischendorf then, goes on to state that this MS. comprises, besides this perfect copy of the New Testament, two other treatises of great value. These are the epistle ascribed to Barnabas, although not really written by him, in a more perfect condition than that in which it is found elsewhere. All the Greek MSS. hitherto known—and they are of a late date—are deficient in the beginning, having lost the first five chapters, which have been hitherto known only from the bad Latin translation. The other treatise is the Greek of the "Pastor" of Hermas. Dr. Tischendorf, it will be remembered, published in the Patres Apostolici of Dressel a Greek copy of the Hermas, from the MS. obtained through Simonides. Of this edition we gave an account at the time, stating the opinion of Tischendorf as to the text, which he considered to be a mediaeval re-translation from the Latin. 'lit. Church., vol. iii. No. .5.) He informs us now that this is not the case, but that the published text represents the original Greek. But he considers that there was, nevertheless, some ground for his suspicion in the numerous corruptions of the text, some of which arose from the use of the Latin text in the middle ages. ...

[Since the above article was in type, we have had an opportunity of reading Mr. Cowper's translation of the letter of Tischendorf, in the "Journal of Sacred Literature." We believe he has mistaken one paragraph completely. He makes Tischendorf declare that he opposed the notion that the Greek text of Simonides is a mediaeval translation. If our memory--for we have returned the letter to Messrs. W. and N. —does not deceive us, Tischendorf says exactly the contrary. At all events, such was the fact. Here are his own words in Dressel's book :—Quae cum ita sint, nullus dubito quin Simonideis fragmentis Graecum textum nacti simus eum, quo quis aetate media vertens Latinamdeperditam Graecum ipsius, qui sertur Hermae;, compensare studuerit. Words cannot be plainer. We have omitted a sentence of Tischendorf, in which he appears to identify the new MS. with the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, but his expressions are very ambiguous. Mr. Cowper has translated it, as relating to this MS. without any hesitation. We do not see whether he alludes to this or some other discovery. Time will shew.]

The Literary Churchman adds some warnings about the Tischendorf antiquity claims for the ms.

For ourselves, we will only say that we must be content to suspend our opinion until we have further information, without, in the meantime, entirely acceding to the statements of Dr Tischendorf as to the antiquity of the MS. He is, as we all know, the first authority in such matters, but in the first warmth of delight at so great a discovery we feel it possible that his enthusiasm may in some degree have warped his judgment. That a wonderful discovery in regard to Biblical criticism has been made, there can be no doubt; whether the MS. will eventually prove to be as old and as valuable as Dr. Tischendorf now believes it to he, must be ascertained by the result.
 
In 1860 The Literary Churchman had a continuation of the discussion, with an interesting note:

The Literary Churchman: A Critical Record of Religious Publications, Volume 6 (1860)
Professor Tischendorf and the New MS.
https://books.google.com/books?id=0s4FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA14

We will only add to this account a circumstance which confirms the doubt which we expressed. whether the new MS. would eventually answer all the expectations which Tischendorf formed from it on a first inspection. We are enabled to assure our readers that Sir F. Madden , a man of more sober judgment than Tischendorf, and of great experience and sagacity in these matters, is firmly persuaded, from the form of the letters, that the Codex Frederico-Augustanus cannot be older than the sixth century. It will be remembered that Tischendorf considers the new MS . and the Frederico-Augustanus to be parts of the same MS. If Sir F. Madden is right, the new MS. is two centuries later than Tischendorf believes it to be, though still a MS. of great antiquity, and of extraordinary value. It will not escape notice that the description of the ovation of Tischendorf at Dresden is thoroughly German.

Many scholars rejected the unscholarly (maniacal might be a good word) push of Tischendorf for a 4th century date, since there were so many counter-evidences that "prove too much" against the 4th-century theory.
 
In Memnon, there are various texts that are either Hermas, or auxiliary texts related to Hermas, some in Greek and some in Latin.

How have you made your determination of what is fake?

Thanks!

How do you determine what is fake?

You'll eventually SEE some of my methodology in this regard Mr Avery, at the right time (when I see fit) and in the right place.
 
So Simonides could be discussing the mangling of the ms., including damage from the Tischendorf cut-outs, the losing of the covers, et al.

Or Simonides could be thinking of the later discovery of the staining.

So I would agree that staining before 1853 would be unlikely.

Or Simonides is simply lying again to frame Tischendorf.

Lying to cover the mistakes in his previous lies.

Oh.

Did we forget to mention the...



MASSIVE U-TURN!!!!!!!!!!!

By C
onstantine Simonides in 1862




"A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts."

"M. Tissendorf also lately discovered
in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well a 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. ... There can be no reasonable doubt as to the extraordinary durability of parchment, neither can it be questioned that at a very early period in the world's history skin of various kinds both prepared and otherwise were
used for the purposes of writing. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider any further...”

https://archive.org/details/1859-biographical-memoir-of-constantine-simonides-stewart/page/n33/mode/1up



Let's not forget that 😉
 
I defended Sinaiticus as authentic in 2011.
Still, I was cautious with my wording and changed my position as more information came forth.

Similarly, the idea of some staining before 1852 is possible, but unlikely. As my wording was imprecise, and I was going back and forth on the questions involved (I have been on other studies rather than Hermas recently) I apologise.

You also said you were (effectively) prejudiced against the Codex Sinaiticus already - prior to your Simonidian conversion, saying you viewed the Codex Sinaiticus as a "blunderama" text.

Revealing your preconceived prejudices...

Prior to your accepting Simonides (the serial liar and patricidal maniac) as your canon of truth...
 
I defended Sinaiticus as authentic in 2011.
Still, I was cautious with my wording and changed my position as more information came forth.

Similarly, the idea of some staining before 1852 is possible, but unlikely. As my wording was imprecise, and I was going back and forth on the questions involved (I have been on other studies rather than Hermas recently) I apologise.

You mean you made a Simonidian slip...
 
T
Or Simonides is simply lying again to frame Tischendorf.

Lying to cover the mistakes in his previous lies.

Oh.

Did we forget to mention the...



MASSIVE U-TURN!!!!!!!!!!!

By Constantine Simonides in 1862




"A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts."

"M. Tissendorf also lately discovered
in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well a 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. ... There can be no reasonable doubt as to the extraordinary durability of parchment, neither can it be questioned that at a very early period in the world's history skin of various kinds both prepared and otherwise were
used for the purposes of writing. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider any further...”

https://archive.org/details/1859-biographical-memoir-of-constantine-simonides-stewart/page/n33/mode/1up



Let's not forget that 😉
The above and the1852 thing Avery simply will not deal with.
 
Back
Top