Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (Art)

7/30/2019 Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (Art)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/tischendorf-and-the-codex-sinaiticus-art 1/16

G R E E K O R T H O D O X T H E O L O G I C A L R E V I E W 53:1-4 2008

Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticusi

The Saga Continues*

MICHAEL D . PETERSON

Libraries around the world share the problem of how tosafeguard their treasures from an ever-growing number of

threats. In the case of the library of St. C athe rine's M onastery

at Mount Sinai, in the mid-nineteenth century the most in-

sidious threat was political intrigue. Because of international

political machinations, St. Catherine's irretrievably lost one

of its most valuable treasures, the Codex Sinaiticus. It is a

case whose ramifications are heatedly discussed to this day.Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Tischendorf (1815-1874),

commonly known as Constantin von Tischendorf (the "von"

was added later), was the principal in the affair. He was a

gifted and ambitious New Testament scholar of German

Lutheran persuasion, who pitted himself against David

Friedrich Strauss (1808-1874), Ferdinand Christian Baur

(1792-186 0), and the T ubingen School - all at their height

of infiuence in the 184O's. Tischendorf believed that the one

effective antidote to Strauss and to T ubingen and its impiou s

ilk was to compile and publish a critical edition of the New

Testament based on the most pristine resources. Therefore,

after having surveyed the great Bible manuscripts located

throughout Europe, he set out in 1844 to uncover the forgot-

ten manuscripts of the libraries of the Middle East. His itin-

* This article was initially published in The Church and the Library:



126 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

erary included Alexandria, Cairo, Sinai, Jerusalem, Patmos,

Constantinople, and Athens.

It was in the Monastery of St. Catherine's, Sinai thatTischendorf stumbled upon tbe document tbat was to estab-

lisb bis fame in tbe world of biblical scbolarsbip. He de-

scribed the discovery in his popular account:

It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St.

Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches.

In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of

May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall alarge and wide basket full of old parchments; and the

librarian [Kyrillos], who was a man of information, told

me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time ,

had been already committed to the fiâmes. What was my

surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable

number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek,

which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I

had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed meto possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about

forty-three shee ts, all the more readily as they w ere destined

for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession

of the rem ainde r The too lively satisfaction which 1 had

displayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value of

this manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah

and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religious

care of all such remains which might fall in their

What Tischendorf brougbt out of Sinai was a collec-

tion of 43 leaves from a fourtb century uncial codex of the

Septuagint version of the Old Testament. The text contains

part of I Chronicles and Jeremiah, and all of Nehemiah and

Esther. When he returned to Saxony he refused to disclose

the provenance of the fragments for fear, he claimed, that

others might snatch up the remaining parts of tbe codex. He



Peterson: Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus 127

he published the texts in 1846 as a deluxe facsimile edi-

tion. However exemplary Tischendorf's story may seem,

doubts still remain. His account of rescuing the fragments

from the flames has always elicited strong support for their

removal from St. Catherine's, but the story may be con-

trived. According to J.K, Elliott in Codex Sinaiticus and the

Simonides Affair.

One detail that was given about the finding of Codex

Frederico-Augustanus was that it was found in a rubbish

basket. A letter published in The Guardian on 27 May 1863from the Revd. J. Silvester Davies one-time chaplain to the

British Consul in Alexandria ... quotes a monk of Sinai w ho

... 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, [scholars] wondered, that a manuscript known

in the library catalogue would have been jettisoned in the

rubbish basket.-^

Indeed, the 43 parchment leaves were in suspiciously good

condition for something consigned to the trash.-*

In 1853, Tischendorf retumed to St. Catherine's but was

unable to gain access to the fragments he had left behind. He

retumed a third time in late January 1859, under the patron-

age of Tsar Alexander II of Russia. This time he was success-

ful beyond expectation, as he recounted in Codex Sinaiticus:

After having devoted a few days in turning over the

manuscripts of the convent, not without alighting here

and there on some precious parchment or other, 1 told

my Bedouins, on the 4* February, to hold themselves in

readiness to set out with their dromedaries for Cairo on the

7*, when an entirely fortuitous circumstance carried me at

once to the goal of all my desires. On the afternoon of thisday I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent



128 G O TR 53:1-4 2008

former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, have

read a Septuagint" - i.e. a copy of the Greek translation

made by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down fromthe comer of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrapped

in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover,

and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very

fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of

the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the

New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of

Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas. Full of joy,

which this time 1 had the self-command to conceal fromthe steward and the rest of the community, I asked, as if in

a careless way, for permission to take the manuscript into

my sleeping chamber to look over it more at leisure. There

by myself I could give way to the transport of joy which

1 felt. I knew that I held in my hand the most precious

Biblical treasure in existence - a docum ent whose age and

importance exceeded that of all the m anuscripts which I had

ever examined during twenty years' study of the subject."

Tischendorf asked permission to take the codex to St .

Cather ine 's s is ter monastery in Cairo where he could get

assistance copying the text. The sacristan Vitalios refused.

"Tischendorf therefore now embarked on tbe remarkable

piece of duplicity wbicb was to occupy bim for tbe next de-

cade, which involved the careful suppression of facts and

the systematic denigrat ion of the monks of Mount Sinai ."^

As a last resort , Tischendorf requested to make an appeal to

the abbot , wbo was in Cairo on bis way to Constant inople

to participate in tbe election of a new archbisbop. Tbe elec-

tion was a sensitive issue because tbe Patriarcb of Jerusalem

opposed Cyri l , tbe candidate favored by tbe abbots . I t was

an ideal polit ical opportunity for Tischendorf 's purposes,

given that be bad tbe support of tbe influential RussianOrtbo dox ruler, A lexand er I I . Tiscbendorf, accom panied



Peterson: T ischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus 129

Cairo and was able to persuade the gathered abbots to allow

him to copy the manuscript in Cairo. Sheik Nasser rushed

back to St, Catherine's and in a remarkable twelve days wasback with the codex. Tischendorf was allowed to take eight

leaves at a time to his Cairo quarters, where he had the as-

sistance of two G erman nationals, a doctor and a pharm acist,

who had knowledge of Biblical Greek. It took the trio two

months, through M arch and April, to copy and proofread the

transcription. There were 110,000 lines from the original

scribes, to which Tischendorf added 12,000 lines made bysubsequent correctors.

Once the project was completed, he departed Cairo until

the end of July, at which time he redoubled his efforts to

obtain the codex on behalf of the Russian Tsar. Tischendorf

came up with the proposal that the Tsar would support the

cause of Cyril, the popular candidate for archbishop, if in

retum the monks deeded the codex to the Russians. Theydid not agree to the plan but did allow him to borrow the

codex for a period of time to produce a facsimile edition at

St. Petersburg, projected for publication by autumn 1862, in

time for the 1,000-year anniversary of the Russian monar-

chy. Through much trial and perseverance Tischendorf man-

aged to com plete the project jus t after Easter 1862. The final

publication was an exact reproduction of the original and

consisted of 1,232 copies of four folio volum es each, the first

copies of which were presented to the Tsar and Tsarina at

Tsarkoe-Selo in early October 1862. The original codex was

exhibited in the Imperial Public Library in St. Petersburg.

Through the murkiness of political waters the codex re-

mained in St, Petersburg and became known as Codex

Sinaiticus Petropolitanus after the title of Tischendorf's fac-

simile edition. The Russian govemment finally resolved theloan quandary in 1869 by regularizing the status to dona-



130 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

It is still there. So just how did a treasure on loan from St.

Catherine's to the Tsar of Russia through the agency of

Constantine Tischendorf end up as a permanent possessionof the British Museum? In particular, by what authority did

Tischendorf present the codex to the Tsar when the codex

was not his to present? Before attempting to resolve some

of these very complex issues, it might be helpful to consider

a certain blind spot in Tischendorf's character that could

prompt this unusual d ilemm a.

At this juncture it would be remiss not to interject a fewwords about Tischendorf's attitudes, shared by many of

his scholarly contemporaries, toward non-Western societ-

ies. Several writers have commented on his caustic opin-

ion of Middle Eastem Orthodox Christians. Specifically,

James Bentley had some very sobering observations on

Tischendorf's feelings about the monks of St. Catherine's:

Religious life on Mount Sinai, said Tischendorf, "hasdeteriorated into a daily burden of prescribed and

ungraciously observed devotions, and to a meager bill of

fare according to detailed rules for fast days." Soon he

was attributing to the monks positive hypocrisy over their

religious way of life. The awkward truth is that this great

German Christian scholar soon grew to hate the monks

of Mount Sinai to an astonishing degree. Only eight days

after he had arrived at the monastery of St. Catherine, hewrote to Angelika, "Oh, these monks! If I had the military,

strength and power, I should be doing a good deed if 1 threw

this rabble over the walls. It is sad to see how man can

carry his baseness and wretchedness into the lofty grandeur

of this mountain world." He continually described them as

"ignorant." The Greek servant they provided for him was

a "half-witted fellow." Their library was "a poor place, to

which no-one in the monastery paid much attention." Thenew room in which they kept some of their books and




from them their greatest treasure.^

OnApril 16 ,19 93 , the German B iblical scholar Kurt Alanddelivered a pub lic lecture to defend Tischendorf's reputation

from people like Bentley. In fact, Aland was particularly sen-

sitive to criticisms leveled at Tischendorf by Ihor Sevcenko

in his "New D ocuments on Constantine Tischendorf and the

Codex Sinaiticus" (1964). Although he had originally intend-

ed to talk about the course of New Testament textual criti-

cism in the 150 years since the appearance of Tischendorf's

first edition of the Greek New Testament, he altered his ap-

proach after coming across transcriptions of Tischendorf's

letters to his wife from the period 1859-1869. In Aland's

opinion, these letters prove beyond a doubt that Tischendorf

had acted honorably in the Sinaiticus affair. Some critics -

among them J.N. Birdsall, J.K. Elliott, F. Neirynck - find

Aland's argument on Tischendorf's behalf to be reasonably

convincing. In general, however, most have reserved theirjudgm ent about Aland's conclusions. Birdsall stated:

No final udgment can be given in the reading of this lecturealone. In addition to the other materials, the whole corpusof these recently discovered letters [from Tischendorf tohis spouse] will need to be assessed. The lecturer speaksof "coming upon" them {vorfand) in a typewritten copy.

Of the originals and any previous history, such as even theprovenance of the modern copy, he says nothing in thislecture. A preliminary impression alone can be registered... I bring away the conviction that Aland has made at leasta prima facie case for Tischendorf's defence [sic]. Yet,without further access to Sevcenko's indictment, or themany other relevant documents at first- and second-hand, itwould be premature to register any final assessment of thisdelicate and sensitive historical issue.^

Then again, even the combative and defensive tone of



132 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

"sondern auch das negative bei T ischendorfs Gegnern, "

"dass seine Sevcenko Argumentation sich als von falschen

Vorausetzungen ausgehend wie sein Resultat als irrig erwi-esen haben" u.s.w.) Aland wants to wrap up the Sinaiticus

controversy once and for all in Tischendorf's favor. To

that end, he concluded his defense with a quote from

Tischendorf's unwavering supporter, C.R. Gregory (1846 -

1917): "It gives me great pleasure to be able to say that in no

instance (not just in the case of the Codex Sinaiticus) have I

found any indication that Tischendorf behaved dishonestly."Gregory then goes on to call on all Christian scholars to give

Tischendorf his proper exalted place, and to put a stop to all

those who treat him with mocking, contempt, and slander -

to which Aland responds Amen.*

Sevcenko's argument in "New Documents on Constantine

Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus" is more dispassion-

ate, less single-minded, and better documented. The occa-sion for the essay is the rediscovery, by Sevcenko in 1960,

of several documents at St. Catherine's that contradict what

Sevcenko refers to as the "vu lgate" or conventional version

of the Sinaiticus story as presented by Tischendorf's sup-

porters. "The docum ents about to be presented in this article

indicate, to my satisfaction at least, that the vulgate story

offers a too schematic and partly incorrect version of the

events and that the conventional image painted in that story

is not a portrait of the real Tisc hendorf'"

The most important item he uncovered is Tischendorf's

holograph note, written on September 28, 1859, in Greek,

promising to return the codex to St. Catherine 's. It is a docu-

ment that Tischendorf conveniently omitted from his version

of the story:

I the undersigned, Constantin von Tischendorf, now on




the letter of His Excellency [the Russian] Ambassador [to

Turkey] Lobanov, has delivered to me as a loan an ancient

manuscript of both Testaments, being the property of theaforesaid monastery and containing 346 folia and a small

fragment. These 1 shall take with me to St. Petersburg in

order that I may co llate the original at the time of publication

of the manuscript.

This manuscript has been entrusted to me under the

conditions stipulated in the aforementioned letter of

Mr.Lobanov, dated September 10, 1859, Num ber 510. Thismanuscript I promise to return, undamaged and in a good

state of preservation, to the Holy Confraternity of Mount

Sinai at its earliest request.^"

Tbe "conditions stipulated" by Lobanov referred to in

Tiscbendorf's promissory receipt are tbat, "I declare tbat in

supporting tbis desire [for tbe loan of tbe codex] of Monsieur

Tiscbendorf, I declare that, if it is judged possible to agreeto tbis, tbis manuscript remains tbe property of tbe confra-

temity of Mount Sinai, until sucb time as tbe superior in tbe

name of tbat confratemity bas officially offered it to His

Imperial Majesty. It goes witbout saying tbat if unforeseen

circumstances prevent tbe confraternity from putting tbis

into effect, the manuscript would be returned witbout fail."^^

If tbe terms of the agreement appear to be perfectly straigbt-forward, tbe follow-up was most certainly not.

To unravel tbe vulgate position's support of Tiscbendorf,

Sevcenko proposed four questions: "(1) Wbat were tbe

exact conditions under wbicb Tiscbendorf received tbe

Sinaiticus on September 28, 1859? (2) By wbat autbority

did Tiscbendorf offer tbe Sinaiticus to tbe Tsar in 1862, if

tbe official donation of tbe manuscript occurred in 1869?

(3) Wby did tbis act of donation require a whole decade to



134 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

act of donation, while Callistratus, his successor and enemy,

who had nothing to do w ith the negotiations o f 1859, did?"^^

Aland dismissed Sevcenko's four questions out of hand be-cause the argument proceeds from false assumptions and,

therefore, the results are erroneous." Is Sevcenko's argu-

ment really so misguided?

To the contrary, Sevcenko's argum ent is compelling for the

very reason that it counters the narrow, defensive, yet wor-

shipfully elevated view of the vulgate version - and Aland

is very much a subscriber to the vulgate school. Gregoryand Aland, as the earliest and latest representatives of the

vulgate position, verge on hagiolatry whenever they discuss

Tischendorf. Tischendorf as the ideal German scholar is very

much a mark of the vulgate school as a whole. Sevcenko is

obnoxious to Aland because he painstakingly and deliber-

ately takes Tischendorf to task in the process of answering

the four questions. Sevcenko's answers expose Tischendorf

as human and flawed: "as a brilliant, erudite, quick-minded,

devoted, resourceful person, but, also as a vain, cantanker-

ous, and, on occasion, unfair man."^"*

Briefly to summarize Sevcenko's findings: Tischendorf's

promissory receipt (quoted above) provides the answer

to the first question, Tischendorf formally borrowed the

Sinaiticus from St, Catherine's and promised to retum it.

"But Tischendorf was a careful negotiator. The Sinaiticus -

so the receipt states - was to be entmsted to him under the

terms outlined in Prince Lobanov's letter of September 10

(partly quoted above). In this letter, the Russian A mbassador

did say that, from what he had heard, the monks intended

to present the manuscript to the Tsar."^^ However, Lobanov

heard that it was to be donated to the Tsar from Tischendorf

himself - hardly a disinterested party. The leaders of Sinainever formally promised to donate the codex. In addition,




that the monks ever intended to donate the Sinaiticus to the

Tsar. Thus, by extension, Tischendorf had no right to donate

the codex. These documents also explain why, for politicalexigency, after a ten-year period the Tsar finally made token

restitution and thus more or less legitimized a "donation"

of the Sinaiticus under the rule of Archbishop Callistratus,

some years after the deposition of the ill-favored Cyril. One

must peruse the docum ents to do justice to Sevcenko's argu-

ment.

Yet, for all the conviction of their arguments, Aland andSevcenko remain at an impasse. Aland allowed one witness

to speak about the Sinaiticus affair: Tischendorf himself,

largely through selections from letters to his wife and quotes

from his brief work (92 pages), Sinaibibel {IS1\). Aland was

never neutral on the subject of Tischendorf He presented no

objectively independent witnesses because he believes that

Tischendorf's character and conduct are inherently unassail-able and require no outside substantiation. Sevcenko, on the

other hand, fully admitted that his evidence is incomplete.

He categorically stated that a comprehensive account of the

Sinaiticus affair will have to rely, among other things, on

a published edition of Tischendorf's correspondence with

his wife (which is not yet available), on Archbishop Cyril's

correspondence with Tischendorf, on Porfirij Uspenskii's

account of Tischendorf and the Sinaiticus (Uspenskii was

the author of a pamphlet that condemned the Sinaiticus as

heretical), on the correspondence of Am bassador Prince N.P.

Ignat'ev (the Russian am bassador to the Sublime Porte, who

in 1868 was a negotiator with St. Catherine's for the codex)

with Archimandrite Antonin, as well as on the evidence al-

ready made available in Sevcenko's "New Documents." "In

addition, this account would have to draw upon materialsthat perhaps still slumber in diverse archives relating to the



136 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

Mediterranean and the Balkans in the fifties and sixties of

the [nineteenth] century, it must have left some traces in dip-

lomatic or governm ental records."^^ Sevcenko without ques-tion does the better job of placing the Sinaiticus affair in the

deeper context of contemporary issues. East and West.

Another murky chapter in the Tischendorf saga is connect-

ed to the recently auctioned Archimedes palimpsest. The pa-

limpsest was made by a Greek Byzantine copyist in the tenth

century and contains several works by Archimedes, including

the only known copy of "Method of Mechanical Theorems"and "On Floating Bodies." Sometime around the twelfth or

thirteenth centuries, the decision w as made to use the parch-

ment for the text of a prayer book. Accordingly the old text

was scrubbed off, the leaves were cut in half and rotated 90

degrees, and the text of the euchologion was copied onto the

parchment. At some point the manuscript was deposited in

the Greek Orthodox monastery ofSt.

Savas near Jerusalem.From there it was transferred to the Jerusalem Patriarchate

library in the early 19th century, then to the nearby Church of

the Holy Sepulchre, and finally to the Sepulchre 's M etochion

(sister house) library in Constantinople sometime before

1844. It was in Constantinople in 1899 that the paleogra-

pher and Byzantinist Athanasios Papadopoulos-Karameus

catalogued it. In 1907 Archimedes's text was translated (as

far as legibility would allow) and published by J.L. Heiberg.Christies of New York sold the Codex at auction on October

29, 1998 to an unidentified buyer for over $2,000,000 - to

the great disappointment of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, who

still claimed ownership - while the scientific community

hailed the recovery of Archimedes's texts as a major event.

The manuscript is lacking one leaf. In 1844, Tischendorf,

on his first hunt for manuscripts in the Middle East, man-




Patriarch of Jerusalem. There is no mention of a stray m anu-

script leaf, either as gift or purchase.

I now w ent direct with the proffered introduction to the

patriarch of Jerusalem. The bishop only was at home, a

man of considerable intellectual activity, and not deficient

in literary attainments. We went through the catalogue

of the library together; but precisely of the manuscripts

there was no account. After this he allowed me to inspect

the library myself, and permitted me to make any use of

the manuscripts I found. They were thirty in number, butthey were altogether without any especial interest, with the

exception of a palimpsest upon mathematics.^^

In his Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf mentioned that upon

his return home to Leipzig in January 1845, "I handed over

to the Saxon Government my rich collection of Oriental

manuscripts, in return for the payment of all my traveling

expenses. I deposited in the library of the University ofLeipzig, in shape of a collection, which bears my name, fifty

manuscripts, some of which are very rare and interesting."^*

For whatever personal reasons, Tischendorf retained the pa-

limpsest leaf for himself.

In 1876, Tischendorf's heirs sold the leaf, along with 43

other leaves from as many individual manuscripts, to the

Cambridge University Library. Interestingly enough, neither

Tischendorf nor subsequent scholars were able to attribute au-

thorship to the palimpsest text until Nigel Wilson of Lincoln

College, Oxford University, identified it in 1983. He realized

that it was an extract from Archimedes's "On the Sphere and

the Cylinder," and that it belongs to the Archimedes palimp-

sest between folios 2 and 3. There are those who are con-

vinced that Tischendorf did not come by the leaf honestly.

The Greek mathematician Michael Lambrou stated that inall probability Tischendorf stole not just the palimpsest leaf,



138 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

ings with St. Catherine's - not to mention the Jerusalem

Patriarch's Metochion library in Constantinople, among oth-

ers - because the definitive study on Tischendorf has yet to

be written. One has to imagine, nevertheless, that the verdict

will be a complex one. Of course, it is possible to rational-

ize a mixed verdict with the jaundiced or euphemistic view

that, as some Biblical scholars see it, he was just one more

plunderer in an age of plunderers - and at least this plunder

resulted in scholarly advance. Librarians are not likely to be

so dismissive, for reasons that are obvious and very close tohome.

NO T E S

^ Constantin Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus: the Ancient Biblical Manu-

script Now in the British Museum. Tischendorf's Story and Argument

Related by Himself, 2"'' impression of the 8* ed. (London: Lutterworth

Press, 1934), p. 24.

^ James Keith Elliott, Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair: an Ex-

amination of the Nineteenth Century Claim That Codex Sinaiticus Was

Not an Ancient Manuscript (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Pa-

tristic Studies, 1982), (Analekta Vlatadon, 33), p. 16.

^ James H. Charlesworth, foreword. Secrets of Mount Sinai: the Story of

the World's Oldest Bible - Codex Sinaiticus, by James Bentley (Garden

City, New York: Doubleday, 1986), pp. 87-88.

" Tischendorf, op. cit., pp. 27-28.

^Bentley, op. c/'/.,p. 95.

*/6/i/., pp. 84-85.

'' J.N. Birdsall, "Review of Kurt Aland's Konstantin von Tischendorf

(1815-1874): Neutestamentliche Textforschung Damals und Heute,"

Journal of Theological Studies (1997), n.s. vol. 48, pp. 229-230.

* Kurt Aland, Konstantin von Tischendorf (1815-1874): Neutestamentli-

che Textforschung Damals und Heute (Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 1993).

(Sitzungsberichte der Sachsischen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu



Peterson: Tischendorf and the C odex S'maitkus 139

Codex Sinaiticus," Scnp/onwrn, vol. 18 (1964), pp. 55-80, Reprinted in

the author's Byzantium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture (Cambridge,

Massachusetts: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute; Napoli: IstitutoUniversitario Orientale, 1991), p, 191.

^°/è/W,,p. 61,fti.28.

" Bentley, op. cit., p. 97.

^̂ Sevcenko, op. cit., p. 58.

^̂ Aland, op. cit., p. 35.

^'' Sevcenko, op. cit., p. 80.

' 5 / è / r f ,p , 61 .

^^ Ibid, p. 75.

'^ Constantine Tischendorf, Travels in the East, trans, from the Ger-

man W.E. Shuckard (London: Printed for Longman, Brown, Green, and

Longm ans, 1847), p. 274.

'* Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus: the Ancient B iblical Manuscript, p. 24,

^' M ichael Lam brou, "Re: [HM ] Archimedes Palimpsest," Internet mes-

sage at http://sunsite.utk.edu/math_archives/,http/hypennail/historia/

jul99/0034,html, 3,

Other sources:

Caspar Rene Gregory, "Tischendorf," Bibliotheca Sa cra, vol, 33 (Janu-ary 1876), pp, 153-193.

Ludwig Schneller, Search on Sinai: the Story of Tischendorf's Life and

the Search for a Lost M anuscript, trans. Dorothée Schroder (London:

Epworth Press (Edgar C, Barton), 1939),



Copyright of Greek Orthodox Theological Review is the property of Holy Cross Orthodox Press and its content

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.

Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (Art)

Documents

Transcript of Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (Art)