the grapevine which concerned Tischendorf about Simonides en route to St. Catherine's in 1859

[Steven Avery]

The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as Reported in the Personal Letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
By J. M. Featherstone
https://www.academia.edu/1123038/Th...he_personal_letters_of_Konstantin_Tischendorf

Trieste, 10 January 1859 p. 278
He departs for the East amidst preparations for war.Alexandria, 17 January 1859 p. 281 The Prussian consul and Russian consul [from Cairo] are old acquaintances of Tischendorf. The Russian vice-consul in Alexandria tells Tischendorf that during the past year the Russian consulate has done much in favour of the Sinai monastery :Good preparation ! All correspondence from the Synod in Petersburg goes through the Russian vice-consulate, and there is nothing to arouse suspicion. The goal of his journey is known at least here in Alexandria, but there is no connexion here with the monastery. He has heard again of the stories told by Simonides. He is in a hurry to go to Cairo and then further on to his goal.

Note: there may be more in Tischendorf letters, the letters afaik have never been published.

Tischendorf created a big myth that the 1859 "discovery" of the New Testament on that trip was all a big surprise.

Tischendorf had to pretend to be ignorant of the publications by Uspensky, including the 1 Corinthians fragment.
Uspensky had seen the full manuscript in 1845 and 1850.

And why would Tischendorf have been so excited about the visit, just some more LXX?

Tischendorf was quite crafty in his fabrications.

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

Alexander Schick picture of the Tischendorf letters
https://www.academia.edu/13046745/Tischendorf_und_die_älteste_Bibel_der_Welt_Die_Entdeckung_des_Codex_Sinaiticus_im_Katharinenkloster_Tischendorf_and_the_search_for_the_oldest_bible_in_the_World_The_discovery_of_the_Codex_Sinaiticus_in_St._Catherinemonastery_Hammerbrücke_2015_ISBN_9783935707800_

 

[cjab]

Tischendorf created a big myth that the 1859 "discovery" of the New Testament on that trip was all a big surprise.

Tischendorf had to pretend to be ignorant of the publications by Uspensky, including the 1 Corinthians fragment.
Uspensky had seen the full manuscript in 1845 and 1850.

And why would Tischendorf have been so excited about the visit, just some more LXX?

Tischendorf was quite crafty in his fabrications.

Nothing so deceitful as contrasted with Simonides who went to the expense of fabricating an edition of Barnabas in Greek, published at Smyrna in 1843, which as you yourself has noted, was exposed as a forgery in The Athenaeum, Issues 2514-2539 - Jan, 1876. The 1843 date is nothing short of absurd.

Tischendorf had good reason to believe there was more to the manuscript than the LXX, as no Christian LXX ever existed without a NT.

 

[Steven Avery]

Tischendorf had good reason to believe there was more to the manuscript than the LXX, as no Christian LXX ever existed without a NT.

You are mind-reading nonsense that was never written by Tischendorf.

Tischendorf knew of the New Testament from multiple sources, in addition to what he had seen in the bound volume, just like Uspensky.
Check the report on Major MacDonald from Tregelles.

Then of course the publications from Uspensky, years before the trip, which helped inspire the Russian support for the trip. There was even politics about who would make the trip back!

Then all the special efforts to go back, based on what the Russians knew, who easily read Uspensky and saw the Corinthians fragment.

Tischendorf simply lied, because he wanted to make up a fake discovery narrative. Tischendorf wanted to dupe people for awhile, yet some are still duped 160 years later!

And he was concerned about Simonides, probably because of what he had heard in Sinai and Constantinople.

 

[cjab]

You are mind-reading nonsense that was never written by Tischendorf.

Tischendorf knew of the New Testament from multiple sources, in addition to what he had seen in the bound volume, just like Uspensky.
Check the report on Major MacDonald from Tregelles.

Then of course the publications from Uspensky, years before the trip, which helped inspire the Russian support for the trip. There was even politics about who would make the trip back!

Then all the special efforts to go back, based on what the Russians knew, who easily read Uspensky and saw the Corinthians fragment.

Tischendorf simply lied, because he wanted to make up a fake discovery narrative. Tischendorf wanted to dupe people for awhile, yet some are still duped 160 years later!

Of course he knew it was there. That's how he managed to persuade the Russians to finance his very expensive expedition. Do you think he pretended to them he was going fishing? He may have been economical with the truth to third parties. Of course he was. That's what the records of Tregelles et al. disclose. It's not anything new. He didn't divulge his secrets to the English especially, and with all that Russian money at stake, why would he? If he had failed, he would have been severely embarrassed.

And he was concerned about Simonides, probably because of what he had heard in Sinai and Constantinople.

He knew what Simonides was capable of, in the way of pilfering documents from Greek Orthodox libraries. And he likely believed that Simonides would be desperate to get his hands on the Codex before himself. What inquiries Simonides had made is unclear, but he had a brother in Alexandria, or at least who was there in 1856, and possibly furnished Simonides with connections. He may even have made inquiries on his behalf, if he was still there. Rumors to that effect may have reached Tischendorf.

 

[Steven Avery]

Of course he knew it was there.

So now you agree that the whole Tischendorf discovery story of the New Testament surprise with the red cloth was one big lie. One which he repeated year after year.

And all his claims that Tischendorf did not know of the Uspensky New Testament writing was also a big lie.

You are making some progress. I do not think you ever acknowledged this earlier.

 

[cjab]

So now you agree that the whole Tischendorf discovery story of the New Testament surprise with the red cloth was one big lie. One which he repeated year after year.

It was a discovery, in that he had never laid eyes on it before.

And all his claims that Tischendorf did not know of the Uspensky New Testament writing was also a big lie.

Where does he claim not to have known of the Uspensky discovery?

You are making some progress. I do not think you ever acknowledged this earlier.

 

[Steven Avery]

Where does he claim not to have known of the Uspensky discovery?

Scrivener has the info:

A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Testament (1864)
https://books.google.com/books?id=v-JUmBD5zIcC&pg=PP17

Before quitting this part of our subject, it is right to state that the manuscript must have been inspected by two persons at Mount Sinai during the interval between its being first seen by Tischendorf in 1844 and its removal from the convent in 1859. In 1845 or 1846 the Russian Archimandrite Porphyrius examined it, observed that the New Testament formed a part of it, and published a tolerable account of its contents and the character of its text at St. Petersburg in 1856. This book, being written in the Russian language, was unknown to Tischendorf until it was shown to him at Constantinople in August 1859, by Prince Lobanow, the Russian embassador there. - p. is-x

Notice that Tischendorf was pushing the phony date right from the beginning in 1844.

Again, a little later than Porphyrius, Major Macdonald glanced at what seems to be the same copy :-it was kept wrapped up in a cloth: there were several columns on each page (three at least, perhaps four), and it was affirmed by the monks that the manuscript, which opened at some part of the New Testament, was of the fourth century, the very date which Tischendorf in 1844 had taught them to assign to it.

 

[cjab]

Scrivener has the info:

A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Testament (1864)
https://books.google.com/books?id=v-JUmBD5zIcC&pg=PP17



Notice that Tischendorf was pushing the phony date right from the beginning in 1844.

As I understand it, it was tsar Alexander II of Russia who was convinced there were still manuscripts to be found at the Sinai, and who chose Tischendorf over Uspensky to try to retrieve the manuscript. You understand that Tischendorf only went because he was sponsored by the Russian Government, who was also sponsoring St. Catherines? Tischendorf's world was definitely Russian at that time.

 

[Steven Avery]

Scrivener has the info:

A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Testament (1864)
https://books.google.com/books?id=v-JUmBD5zIcC&pg=PP17

And here is another element of the Tischendorf lies about the Sinai history of he manuscript.

The Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 33 (1876)
Caspar Rene Gregory
https://books.google.com/books?id=iwgXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA176

After publishing his new Eastern travels in 1802, Tischendorf brought out in 1863 a hand-edition of the Codex Sinaiticus, and two pamphlets in defence of the Sinaitic manuscript, one in February and the other in August. The first opposed English and Russian attacks. Simonides, who still kept on with his manuscript forgeries and sales, came out in the Guardian with the announcement that he had, himself, written the Codex Sinaiticus. And Porphyrius Uspenski, a Russian archimandrite, charged the Codex Sinaiticus with heresy. In February 1863 Tischendorf answered these two with a storm of ridicule and sharp speeches. He reminded the manuscript forger of the facts which showed him to have been utterly ignorant of the manuscript before its discovery, and he not only charged the archimandrite with not having seen the book, but also made it plain that the alleged heresy found no hold in it at all. The second was against an anonymous writer in a church paper. The anonymous personage was furnished with dates, figures, and facts, generously seasoned with Tischendorf s too ready sarcasm, and finally the full quotation of Rev. iii. 17, 18, was commended to him, — a passage which, it was added, stood unchanged in the Sinaitic manuscript.

 

[cjab]

And here is another element of the Tischendorf lies about the Sinai history of he manuscript.

The Bibliotheca Sacra, Volume 33 (1876)
Caspar Rene Gregory
https://books.google.com/books?id=iwgXAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA176

It's most unlikely that Tischendorf charged Uspensky with not having seen the book (perhaps with not having read it) as he rather charges Uspensky with having used his 1860 "Notitia” (Information) on the Sinai manuscript: (Tischendorf, Konstantin von: Notitia editionis codicis bibliorum Sinaitici auspiciis imperatoris Alexandri II. susceptae.)

This is a link to his 1863 pamphlet Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel (I assume it is one of those pamphlets you alluded to) englished as "The trials of the Sinai Bible." You might want to open it in Google Chrome, or whatever, to use an automatic translation tool from German. In it Tischendorf says:

"Where did Pyophyrius get this sum of horrific information? Not from my copy of the codex itself; because on January 24th he wrote to me (tanquam re bene gesta) “à Son Eminence”: “Mon cher ami” – “De gràce dites-moi quand sera publié Votre édition du codes Sinaitique en miniature? Avec impatience je desire l'acheter, parce que je n'espère point procurer isi ni même voir l'edition brilliante que you avez dedié(e) à notre Auguste Empereur”. So without just waiting for an insight into the text, which has already been published or is at least available in two hundred copies at the Petersburg Ministry of Education, a condemnation of it? Now he has at least drawn from my often-mentioned “Notitia” from 1860, where all the passages he considered are listed with the exception of one verse that was skipped. It was precisely this “Notitia” that was used and discussed not only by the orthodox English without any idea of the horrors discovered, but also by Pius IX. responded to the transmission of the same with a warm hand letter of thanks and congratulations to me; Indeed, even the learned Parisian Jesuits, who in their Etudes de théologie et d'histoire discuss the évenément scientifique d'une si haute gravité in great detail, sensed nothing and saw nothing. So how did the sharp-eyed Russian come to his terrible discovery in his lonely cell in the Nevsky Monastery?"​

​

Incidentally, he also alludes to Simonides's own record of having visited Sinai in 1852

" But this loss, which unfortunately escaped the Symian artist of all trades during his own presence at the Sinai in 1852, as well as the friends present at the Sinai in that earlier happy month of May,"​

​

which I assume to be mere sarcasm.

​

​

 

[Steven Avery]

What I found most interesting in the Simonides discussion in Assaults was the attempt by Tischendorf to justify his backflips on the Hermas retroversion question.

 

[cjab]

What I found most interesting in the Simonides discussion in Assaults was the attempt by Tischendorf to justify his backflips on the Hermas retroversion question.

No idea what book you're referring to. You'll need to make your posts more lucid if they are to be understood. Are you referring to Tischendorf's 1863 preface to Patrum Apostolorum Opera LIPSIAE 1863?

 

[Steven Avery]

No idea what book you're referring to. You'll need to make your posts more lucid if they are to be understood. Are you referring to Tischendorf's 1863 preface to Patrum Apostolorum Opera LIPSIAE 1863?

Nope, but I had the two 1863 books mixed up.

Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel (1863)
Weapons of Darkness against the Sinai Bible
Constantine Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=LRAoni3tdN4C&pg=PA15



"Bemantelt" ist hierin allerdings eins, namlich, daB gerade an einer der 2 Hauptstellen, aus denen ich den lateinischen Ursprung herleitete, die Sinaihandschrift das ZeugniB des lateinischen Ursprungs bestatigt. Und daB ich Uber diese Stelle: πανούργος εἶ περὶ τὰς γραφάς sogar jetzt nicht ganz "offenherzig" geschrieben, hat seinen Grund in der Schonung desjenigen Freundes des Anonymus, von dessen Seiten sich an diese Worte ein unverantwortliches Spiel anknlupft. Moglicherweise kennt es der Anonymus nicht. Ueber die weiteren "Corruptionen" ist zunachst die kurzlich erschienene 2. Aufl. der Dressel’schen PP. Apost. nachzulesen. Auf den "gunstigen Eindruck" beim Anonymus und Seinesgleichen habe ichs freilich nie und auch hier nicht abgesehen; was ich schreibe, liegt often vor Jedermanns Augen, und wird von mir allenthalben vertreten.

This is Visions III.3
versuta te esse circa scripturas in the Palatine Latin

However this is not one of the Tischendorf attacks on the Athous ms.

 

[cjab]

Nope, but I had the two 1863 books mixed up.

Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel (1863)
Weapons of Darkness against the Sinai Bible
Constantine Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=LRAoni3tdN4C&pg=PA15

View attachment 5249

"Bemantelt" ist hierin allerdings eins, namlich, daB gerade an einer der 2 Hauptstellen, aus denen ich den lateinischen Ursprung herleitete, die Sinaihandschrift das ZeugniB des lateinischen Ursprungs bestatigt. Und daB ich Uber diese Stelle: πανούργος εἶ περὶ τὰς γραφάς sogar jetzt nicht ganz "offenherzig" geschrieben, hat seinen Grund in der Schonung desjenigen Freundes des Anonymus, von dessen Seiten sich an diese Worte ein unverantwortliches Spiel anknlupft. Moglicherweise kennt es der Anonymus nicht. Ueber die weiteren "Corruptionen" ist zunachst die kurzlich erschienene 2. Aufl. der Dressel’schen PP. Apost. nachzulesen. Auf den "gunstigen Eindruck" beim Anonymus und Seinesgleichen habe ichs freilich nie und auch hier nicht abgesehen; was ich schreibe, liegt often vor Jedermanns Augen, und wird von mir allenthalben vertreten.

This is Visions III.3
versuta te esse circa scripturas in the Palatine Latin

However this is not one of the Tischendorf attacks on the Athous ms.

Are you denying that the Leipzig text (even if admitted as based on the original Greek text and yet written 1000 years later than the Sinaiticus text) was corrupted by medieval Latin, as Tischendorf says?

Can you prove him wrong?

Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel

books-google-co-uk.translate.goog

 

[Steven Avery]

Are you denying that the Leipzig text (even if admitted as based on the original Greek text and yet written 1000 years later than the Sinaiticus text) was corrupted by medieval Latin, as Tischendorf says?

Can you prove him wrong?

https://books-google-co-uk.translat...=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en-US&_x_tr_pto=wapp

The Tischendorf position is confused and self-contradictory.

In 1856 Tisch attacked about 10 spots in the Athous manuscript, about 4 of which are also in Sinaiticus.

(We will put aside the more expansive analysis of James Donaldson, that has more in Sinaiticus, and also touches on Barnabas.).

Saying seven years later there is one other spot, not in the original Tischendorf argument, where Athous and Sinaiticus have a different text is just a diversion. Far from evidence that Tischendorf had actually blundered in his original arguments, or that the Athous and Sinaiticus texts differed at the spots he pointed out.

========

After 1859 Tischendorf needed convoluted and even deceptive argumentation to reverse his earlier position in a back-flip. He understood, as Donaldson pointed out, that the late date he claimed for the Athous manuscript could sink his Sinaiticus dating claims.

======

1864 - James Donaldson linguistic questioning of Sinaiticus Barnabas and Hermas antiquity p 306-311

A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine: From the Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council, Volume 1
(1864)
James Donaldson
https://books.google.com/books?id=tMlDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA308

"almost all of the arguments that were adduced against the Athos manuscript are adducible against the Sinaitic"... "against the genuineness of the newly discovered text"

 

[cjab]

The Tischendorf position is confused and self-contradictory.

In 1856 Tisch attacked about 10 spots in the Athous manuscript, about 4 of which are also in Sinaiticus.

(We will put aside the more expansive analysis of James Donaldson, that has more in Sinaiticus, and also touches on Barnabas.).

Saying seven years later there is one other spot, not in the original Tischendorf argument, where Athous and Sinaiticus have a different text is just a diversion. Far from evidence that Tischendorf had actually blundered in his original arguments, or that the Athous and Sinaiticus texts differed at the spots he pointed out.

========

After 1859 Tischendorf needed convoluted and even deceptive argumentation to reverse his earlier position in a back-flip. He understood, as Donaldson pointed out, that the late date he claimed for the Athous manuscript could sink his Sinaiticus dating claims.

======

1864 - James Donaldson linguistic questioning of Sinaiticus Barnabas and Hermas antiquity p 306-311

A Critical History of Christian Literature and Doctrine: From the Death of the Apostles to the Nicene Council, Volume 1
(1864)
James Donaldson
https://books.google.com/books?id=tMlDAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA308

I am slightly confused with the part Simonides played here. Wasn't he involved in all kinds of tricks: making various copies of Hermas, tailoring one to impress Anger and Dindorf, harmonized with ancient fathers, and with the Latin Text? And then he produced a palimpseste of Hermas with the original copy he made at Athos? What was going on here?

 

[Steven Avery]

I am slightly confused with the part Simonides played here. Wasn't he involved in all kinds of tricks: making various copies of Hermas, tailoring one to impress Anger and Dindorf, harmonized with ancient fathers, and with the Latin Text? And then he produced a palimpseste of Hermas with the original copy he made at Athos? What was going on here?

We really want to focus on:

1) 1855 Anger-Dindorf edition of Hermas from Simonides

2) 1856 Tischendorf attacks on that edition as late (repeated in 1857 and 1863 editions). There were updates to that edition involving Tischendorf or Simonides but I do not see them relevant to this chronology.

3) 1859 Sinaiticus similarity

4) 1860-1863 Tischendorf’s bumbling retractions of (2) that ignored the substance of his arguments

Then comes James Donaldson, which should be addressed separately, especially as he also includes his Barnabas study.

What has yet to be done is to simply review the Tischendorf attacks and see if they apply to the Sinaiticus text, and an evaluation of their strength. At the moment we are working on correcting some issues of the Ca corrector in Revelation, but we are trying to squeeze in this Tischendorf accusation review.

It is clear that this has not been done in the existing scholarship. The scholarship often gets diverted by side-issues, like the theory that Hermas was written in Latin.

Side-issues with Simonides, like the Memnon texts and the palimpsest, do not really have an effect on the Tischendorf accusation-retraction studies, unless Simonides gives us his discussion on the specific Tischendorf accusation, which might occur with Maximo.

 

[cjab]

We really want to focus on:

1) 1855 Anger-Dindorf edition of Hermas from Simonides

2) 1856 Tischendorf attacks on that edition as late (repeated in 1857 and 1863 editions). There were updates to that edition involving Tischendorf or Simonides but I do not see them relevant to this chronology.

3) 1859 Sinaiticus similarity

4) 1860-1863 Tischendorf’s bumbling retractions of (2) that ignored the substance of his arguments

Then comes James Donaldson, which should be addressed separately, especially as he also includes his Barnabas study.

What has yet to be done is to simply review the Tischendorf attacks and see if they apply to the Sinaiticus text, and an evaluation of their strength. At the moment we are working on correcting some issues of the Ca corrector in Revelation, but we are trying to squeeze in this Tischendorf accusation review.

It is clear that this has not been done in the existing scholarship. The scholarship often gets diverted by side-issues, like the theory that Hermas was written in Latin.

Side-issues with Simonides, like the Memnon texts and the palimpsest, do not really have an effect on the Tischendorf accusation-retraction studies, unless Simonides gives us his discussion on the specific Tischendorf accusation, which might occur with Maximo.

Yes, but before you engage with Tischendorf, you have to do with the following statement in APOSTOLIC FATHERS II by Kirsopp Lake (1965 reprint)

"The text of this MS was copied on Mt. Athos by​

the celebrated forger Simonides, who brought back​

with him the three leaves now at Leipsic, and later​

on was collated rather hastily by Georgandas, but​

it is very difficult to read, and both the copy of​

Simonides and the collation of Georgandas are very​

inaccurate."​

​

Lake obtained access to the original Athos leaves, and was able to see Simonides' errors. Now that is worth investigating. Tischendorf wasn't working with the authentic Hermas, but with a version corrupted by Simonides. How therefore can he be judged?

 

[cjab]

So the copy of Hermas Simonides sold to Leipzig was worthless (a deliberate Simonides corruption) but he had in his possession his original copy of the manuscript, which the police found after his arrest in 1856. These facts were established by Prof. Lambros in 1883, and a copy of the Athos Hermas done, but it was inadequate as a copy of a copy. Not until 1905 was the actual Hermas found and "photocopied" at Athos by Lake.

Given that the Anger Dindorf edition had been corrupted by Simonides, then Tischendorf's attacks on this edition could well have been justified.

Facsimiles of the Athos fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas : Hermas, 2nd cent : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

27

archive.org

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes, but before you engage with Tischendorf, you have to do with the following statement in APOSTOLIC FATHERS II by Kirsopp Lake (1965 reprint)

"The text of this MS was copied on Mt. Athos by​

the celebrated forger Simonides, who brought back​

with him the three leaves now at Leipsic, and later​

on was collated rather hastily by Georgandas, but​

it is very difficult to read, and both the copy of​

Simonides and the collation of Georgandas are very​

inaccurate."​

​

Lake obtained access to the original Athos leaves, and was able to see Simonides' errors. Now that is worth investigating. Tischendorf wasn't working with the authentic Hermas, but with a version corrupted by Simonides. How therefore can he be judged?

Has zero effect where Sinaiticus and Athous agree on a text that provides evidence of being late, medieval. post- Palatine. This is all covered in Tischendorf followed by Donaldson.

Also true for your next post about finding the 10th page.