Freethought & Rationalism Archive

stephan huller · 11-18-2011, 01:45 PM

Jiri,

This is a very interesting study. Thanks for passing it along. Just reading it now.

Stephan

stephan huller · 11-18-2011, 02:00 PM

Quote:

The point made above that Sinaiticus has many readings of Vaticanus brings up another issue: a forger typically uses an exemplar to create the forgery.

Another curiosity http://apostolicbible.com/mountsinai.pdf

One of the arguments used in favour of the theory that the manuscript was written in Egypt is the sporadic occurrence in it, both in the text itself and in the earlier cor-rections, of an omega of very curious shape. (⟒ as against the usual w). This very rare form is found in one or two papyri from Egypt, notably in Papyrus 28 of the John Rylands Library, Manchester, but, apart from a few instances in the Codex Vaticanus, it appears to be unknown elsewhere. Now in 1839-40, the Codex Vaticanus was locked away and inaccessible to scholars in the Vatican Library, and the papyri in question were buried in the sands of Egypt. Whence then could Simonides have obtained it? Or what object could he have in inventing so strange a form?

stephan huller · 11-18-2011, 02:44 PM

The fact that Vaticanus was locked up c. 1839 - 40 is asserted and may well be true. Yet I did notice that the text was publicly circulating before that time:

Quote:

The "modern period" in the history of Vaticanus begins when Napoleon returned to Paris with the codex in his possession. In 1815 he returned it to the Vatican where it has remained since, but while it was in Paris the manuscript the manuscript received scholarly examination by Hug for apparently the first time in the modern age.14 Hug's examination was followed by a frustrating period of difficulty for scholars wishing to examine the manuscript. Concerning the Vatican library and Vaticanus Metzger states, "[Authorities of the library put continual obstacles in the way of scholars who wished to study it in detail."15 This did not, however, completely stifle progress. This did not, however, completely stifle progress. Beginning in 1843 with Tischendorf, a number of scholars performed examinations of Vaticanus, but it was not until the further work of Tischendorf in 1866, followed by the production of a photographic facsimile in 1890 by Giuseppe Cozzs-Luzi that real progress on the manuscript could begin [Textual Critical Sigla in Vaticanus http://books.google.com/books?id=SQ0...rs%22&f=false]

Simonides claimed that he wrote Sinaiticus in 1839 - 40. But even if he were only 15 in 1839 Simonides does not see that this causes any difficulty with this claim:

Quote:

Still you wonder and say, " How was it possible for a mere child, under fifteen years of age, to produce such a large MS. ?" (I was really nearly twenty years old.) I equally wonder at Hermogenes from Tarsus, who at fifteen composed his ... [here is the rest]

Got to run ...

stephan huller · 11-18-2011, 02:52 PM

Here is the timeline for the discovery, immediately after Vaticanus was examined by Tischendorf:

Quote:

In 1844, during his first visit to the Monastery of Saint Catherine, Leipzig archaeologist Constantin von Tischendorf claimed that he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. He said they were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery",[77] although this is firmly denied by the Monastery. After examination he realized that they were part of the Septuagint, written in an early Greek uncial script. He retrieved from the basket 129 leaves in Greek which he identified as coming from a manuscript of the Septuagint. He asked if he might keep them, but at this point the attitude of the monks changed. They realized how valuable these old leaves were, and Tischendorf was permitted to take only one-third of the whole, i.e. 43 leaves. These leaves contained portions of 1 Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah, and Esther. After his return they were deposited in the Leipzig University Library, where they still remain. In 1846 Tischendorf published their contents, naming them the 'Codex Friderico-Augustanus' (in honor of Frederick Augustus).[78] Other portions of the same codex remained in the monastery, containing all of Isaiah and 1 and 4 Maccabees.[79]
In 1845 Archimandrite Porfirij Uspenskij (1804–1885), at that time head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem and subsequently Bishop of Chigirin, visited the monastery and the codex was shown to him, together with leaves which Tischendorf had not seen.[n 5] In 1846 Captain C. K. MacDonald visited Mount Sinai, saw the codex, and bought two codices (495 and 496) from the monastery.[80]

The codex was presented to Alexander II of Russia In 1853 Tischendorf revisited the Monastery of Saint Catherine to get the remaining 86 folios, but without success. Returning in 1859, this time under the patronage of Tsar Alexander II of Russia, he was shown the Codex Sinaiticus. He would later claim to have found it discarded in a rubbish bin. (However, this story may have been a fabrication, or the manuscripts in question may have been unrelated to Codex Sinaiticus: Rev. J. Silvester Davies in 1863 quoted "a monk of Sinai who... stated that according to the librarian of the monastery the whole of Codex Sinaiticus had been in the library for many years and was marked in the ancient catalogues... Is it likely... that a manuscript known in the library catalogue would have been jettisoned in the rubbish basket." Indeed, it has been noted that the leaves were in "suspiciously good condition" for something found in the trash.[n 6]) Tischendorf had been sent to search for manuscripts by Russia's Tsar Alexander II, who was convinced there were still manuscripts to be found at the Sinai monastery. The text of this part of the codex was published by Tischendorf in 1862:

Vorkosigan · 11-18-2011, 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Solo

Simonides' claim he forged the codex himself[/url] . He said that the ancient-looking manuscript was cimmissioned at Mount Athos as a present to the Czar but that the idea was abandoned and he later gave it to the patriarch Constatinus. Apparently, the patriarch turned it over to the monastery in Mount Sinai where Simonides said he had found it some time later.

In a sober estimate, the account given by Simonides makes the probability close to nil that he created one or more copies at the Sinai monastery as a poison pill for the eventuality that his plot against Tischendorf should backfire.

I never said that he created it as a poison pill. It might later have been used for that purpose. Just because he later used it against Tischendorf does not mean it was originally conceived that way. And surely no account of the document's origins from Simonides can be believed. Note that the post above this suggests that Tischendorf also lied about the document's origins.

Quote:

That's great, Vork, except for one small, piddly detail. In none of the examples that you give the find advertized itself as fraud with a known con artist stepping boldly forward to claim it as his own work.

Forgers seldom do that, so what? I'm just noting how forgeries often work. Of course each case has its own idiosyncratic details!

Quote:

There is no issue here. As I pointed out to Carlson on 'forger's tremor': this type of argument is a demonstrably false syllogism which borrows a parallel to some superficially similar facet of a proven case as a way of proving an unknown motive or circumstance in an unrelated case.

No, I believe you've completely misunderstood. To increase the change of acceptance and reduce the chance it will be attacked and they will be found out, forgers typically follow the pattern found in an extant, accepted work -- the way that the Hitler diary forger used extant day by day accounts of Hitler's activities. I'm not "proving" anything, simply noting how forgers behave.

Vorkosigan

stephan huller · 11-18-2011, 03:02 PM

What about Tischendorf as the forger or at least the ringleader?

Vorkosigan · 11-18-2011, 03:39 PM

What is needed is really an organized effort to have Codex S looked at from every angle.

Vorkosigan

stephan huller · 11-18-2011, 03:46 PM

It just seems to me to be utterly incredible that Tischendorf is allowed to see Vaticanus for the first time since it was reacquired by the Vatican and then a few months later stumbles upon the papers at Sinai which ultimately lead him to another one of a kind codex with many shared features with Vaticanus

stephan huller · 11-18-2011, 04:30 PM

I have concluded that Andrew's citation of those fragments discovered in 1975 at St Catherines really don't hold much weight in the discussion. Apparently fragments in the garbage led Tisch to the manuscript and more fragments were discovered by independent witnesses in 1845 and 1846 so the 1975 discovery is really a feature of the text known and established by Tisch himself (ie bits of text found in the monastery). As Tisch was the first to discover this feature he could be the one who planted them as a means of establishing that the MS belonged there

stephan huller · 11-18-2011, 07:43 PM

Something to unwind with over the weekend ...

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

11-18-2011, 01:45 PM	#21
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Jiri, This is a very interesting study. Thanks for passing it along. Just reading it now. Stephan

11-18-2011, 03:02 PM	#26
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	What about Tischendorf as the forger or at least the ringleader?

11-18-2011, 03:39 PM	#27
Vorkosigan Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Barrayar Posts: 11,866	What is needed is really an organized effort to have Codex S looked at from every angle. Vorkosigan

11-18-2011, 03:46 PM	#28
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	It just seems to me to be utterly incredible that Tischendorf is allowed to see Vaticanus for the first time since it was reacquired by the Vatican and then a few months later stumbles upon the papers at Sinai which ultimately lead him to another one of a kind codex with many shared features with Vaticanus

11-18-2011, 04:30 PM	#29
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	I have concluded that Andrew's citation of those fragments discovered in 1975 at St Catherines really don't hold much weight in the discussion. Apparently fragments in the garbage led Tisch to the manuscript and more fragments were discovered by independent witnesses in 1845 and 1846 so the 1975 discovery is really a feature of the text known and established by Tisch himself (ie bits of text found in the monastery). As Tisch was the first to discover this feature he could be the one who planted them as a means of establishing that the MS belonged there

11-18-2011, 07:43 PM	#30
stephan huller Veteran Member Join Date: Jun 2010 Location: seattle, wa Posts: 9,337	Something to unwind with over the weekend ...

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.