Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticusi The Saga Continues*€¦ · MICHAEL D. PETERSON ... Friedrich...

GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 53:1-4 2008

Tischendorf and the Codex SinaiticusiThe Saga Continues*

MICHAEL D . PETERSON

Libraries around the world share the problem of how tosafeguard their treasures from an ever-growing number ofthreats. In the case of the library of St. Catherine's Monasteryat Mount Sinai, in the mid-nineteenth century the most in-sidious threat was political intrigue. Because of internationalpolitical machinations, St. Catherine's irretrievably lost oneof its most valuable treasures, the Codex Sinaiticus. It is acase 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 agifted and ambitious New Testament scholar of GermanLutheran persuasion, who pitted himself against DavidFriedrich Strauss (1808-1874), Ferdinand Christian Baur(1792-1860), and the Tubingen School - all at their heightof infiuence in the 184O's. Tischendorf believed that the oneeffective antidote to Strauss and to Tubingen and its impiousilk was to compile and publish a critical edition of the NewTestament based on the most pristine resources. Therefore,after having surveyed the great Bible manuscripts locatedthroughout 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:Studies in Honor of Rev. Dr George C. Papademetriou, ed. Dean Papa-demetriou and Andrew J. Sopko, (Somerset Hall Press, Boston, 2005),pp. 75-92. Reprinted with permission.

125

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 ofMay, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall alarge and wide basket full of old parchments; and thelibrarian [Kyrillos], who was a man of information, toldme that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time,had been already committed to the fiâmes. What was mysurprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerablenumber of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek,which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that Ihad ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed meto possess myself of a third of these parchments, or aboutforty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destinedfor the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possessionof the remainder The too lively satisfaction which 1 haddisplayed had aroused their suspicions as to the value ofthis manuscript. I transcribed a page of the text of Isaiahand Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take religiouscare 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 theSeptuagint version of the Old Testament. The text containspart of I Chronicles and Jeremiah, and all of Nehemiah andEsther. When he returned to Saxony he refused to disclosethe provenance of the fragments for fear, he claimed, thatothers might snatch up the remaining parts of tbe codex. Hedeposited tbe Sinaitic fragments in tbe University of Leipziglibrary, naming tbem Codex Frederico-Augustanus in trib-ute to his patron, Frederick Augustus II of Saxony. Then,

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 fragmentsfrom the flames has always elicited strong support for theirremoval from St. Catherine's, but the story may be con-trived. According to J.K, Elliott in Codex Sinaiticus and theSimonides Affair.

One detail that was given about the finding of CodexFrederico-Augustanus was that it was found in a rubbishbasket. A letter published in The Guardian on 27 May 1863from the Revd. J. Silvester Davies one-time chaplain to theBritish Consul in Alexandria ... quotes a monk of Sinai who... stated that according to the librarian of the monasterythe whole of Codex Sinaiticus had been in the library formany years and was marked in the ancient catalogues ...Is it likely, [scholars] wondered, that a manuscript knownin the library catalogue would have been jettisoned in therubbish basket.-̂

Indeed, the 43 parchment leaves were in suspiciously goodcondition for something consigned to the trash.-*

In 1853, Tischendorf retumed to St. Catherine's but wasunable to gain access to the fragments he had left behind. Heretumed 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 themanuscripts of the convent, not without alighting hereand there on some precious parchment or other, 1 toldmy Bedouins, on the 4* February, to hold themselves inreadiness to set out with their dromedaries for Cairo on the7*, when an entirely fortuitous circumstance carried me atonce to the goal of all my desires. On the afternoon of thisday I was taking a walk with the steward of the conventin the neighbourhood, and as we retumed, towards sunset,he begged me to take some refreshment with him in hiscell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our

128 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

former subject of conversation, he said: "And I, too, haveread a Septuagint" - i.e. a copy of the Greek translationmade by the Seventy. And so saying, he took down fromthe comer of the room a bulky kind of volume, wrappedin a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover,and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those veryfragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out ofthe basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, theNew Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle ofBarnabas 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 ina careless way, for permission to take the manuscript intomy sleeping chamber to look over it more at leisure. Thereby myself I could give way to the transport of joy which1 felt. I knew that I held in my hand the most preciousBiblical treasure in existence - a document whose age andimportance exceeded that of all the manuscripts which I hadever examined during twenty years' study of the subject."

Tischendorf asked permission to take the codex to St.Catherine's sister monastery in Cairo where he could getassistance copying the text. The sacristan Vitalios refused."Tischendorf therefore now embarked on tbe remarkablepiece of duplicity wbicb was to occupy bim for tbe next de-cade, which involved the careful suppression of facts andthe systematic denigration of the monks of Mount Sinai."^As a last resort, Tischendorf requested to make an appeal tothe abbot, wbo was in Cairo on bis way to Constantinopleto participate in tbe election of a new archbisbop. Tbe elec-tion was a sensitive issue because tbe Patriarcb of Jerusalemopposed Cyril, tbe candidate favored by tbe abbots. It wasan ideal political opportunity for Tischendorf's purposes,given that be bad tbe support of tbe influential RussianOrtbodox ruler, Alexander II. Tiscbendorf, accompaniedby tbe Bedouin Sbeik Nasser, beaded off to Cairo to in-tercept the abbot. After a seven-day joumey be arrived at


Cairo and was able to persuade the gathered abbots to allowhim to copy the manuscript in Cairo. Sheik Nasser rushedback to St, Catherine's and in a remarkable twelve days wasback with the codex. Tischendorf was allowed to take eightleaves at a time to his Cairo quarters, where he had the as-sistance of two German nationals, a doctor and a pharmacist,who had knowledge of Biblical Greek. It took the trio twomonths, through March and April, to copy and proofread thetranscription. There were 110,000 lines from the originalscribes, to which Tischendorf added 12,000 lines made bysubsequent correctors.

Once the project was completed, he departed Cairo untilthe end of July, at which time he redoubled his efforts toobtain the codex on behalf of the Russian Tsar. Tischendorfcame up with the proposal that the Tsar would support thecause of Cyril, the popular candidate for archbishop, if inretum the monks deeded the codex to the Russians. Theydid not agree to the plan but did allow him to borrow thecodex for a period of time to produce a facsimile edition atSt. Petersburg, projected for publication by autumn 1862, intime for the 1,000-year anniversary of the Russian monar-chy. Through much trial and perseverance Tischendorf man-aged to complete the project just after Easter 1862. The finalpublication was an exact reproduction of the original andconsisted of 1,232 copies of four folio volumes each, the firstcopies of which were presented to the Tsar and Tsarina atTsarkoe-Selo in early October 1862. The original codex wasexhibited 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 CodexSinaiticus 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-tion. In 1933, the Soviet govemment, in dire need of cash,sold the codex to the British Museum for 100,000 pounds.

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 ofConstantine Tischendorf end up as a permanent possessionof the British Museum? In particular, by what authority didTischendorf present the codex to the Tsar when the codexwas not his to present? Before attempting to resolve someof these very complex issues, it might be helpful to considera certain blind spot in Tischendorf's character that couldprompt this unusual dilemma.

At this juncture it would be remiss not to interject a fewwords about Tischendorf's attitudes, shared by many ofhis 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 onTischendorf's feelings about the monks of St. Catherine's:

Religious life on Mount Sinai, said Tischendorf, "hasdeteriorated into a daily burden of prescribed andungraciously observed devotions, and to a meager bill offare according to detailed rules for fast days." Soon hewas attributing to the monks positive hypocrisy over theirreligious way of life. The awkward truth is that this greatGerman Christian scholar soon grew to hate the monksof Mount Sinai to an astonishing degree. Only eight daysafter 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 threwthis rabble over the walls. It is sad to see how man cancarry his baseness and wretchedness into the lofty grandeurof this mountain world." He continually described them as"ignorant." The Greek servant they provided for him wasa "half-witted fellow." Their library was "a poor place, towhich no-one in the monastery paid much attention." Thenew room in which they kept some of their books andmanuscripts was "pathetic." It was perhaps this hatred ofthese despised monks that enabled Tischendorf to steal


from them their greatest treasure.̂

On April 16,1993, the German Biblical scholar Kurt Alanddelivered a public lecture to defend Tischendorf's reputationfrom people like Bentley. In fact, Aland was particularly sen-sitive to criticisms leveled at Tischendorf by Ihor Sevcenkoin his "New Documents on Constantine Tischendorf and theCodex 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'sfirst edition of the Greek New Testament, he altered his ap-proach after coming across transcriptions of Tischendorf'sletters to his wife from the period 1859-1869. In Aland'sopinion, these letters prove beyond a doubt that Tischendorfhad acted honorably in the Sinaiticus affair. Some critics -among them J.N. Birdsall, J.K. Elliott, F. Neirynck - findAland's argument on Tischendorf's behalf to be reasonablyconvincing. In general, however, most have reserved theirjudgment about Aland's conclusions. Birdsall stated:

No final judgment 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 ofAland's presentation may be enough to give one pause (e.g.,"750 Jahre andauernden ehrabschneidenden Angriffen, "

132 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

"sondern auch das negative bei Tischendorfs Gegnern, ""dass seine Sevcenko Argumentation sich als von falschenVorausetzungen ausgehend wie sein Resultat als irrig erwi-esen haben" u.s.w.) Aland wants to wrap up the Sinaiticuscontroversy once and for all in Tischendorf's favor. Tothat end, he concluded his defense with a quote fromTischendorf's unwavering supporter, C.R. Gregory (1846 -1917): "It gives me great pleasure to be able to say that in noinstance (not just in the case of the Codex Sinaiticus) have Ifound any indication that Tischendorf behaved dishonestly."Gregory then goes on to call on all Christian scholars to giveTischendorf his proper exalted place, and to put a stop to allthose who treat him with mocking, contempt, and slander -to which Aland responds Amen.*

Sevcenko's argument in "New Documents on ConstantineTischendorf 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 whatSevcenko refers to as the "vulgate" or conventional versionof the Sinaiticus story as presented by Tischendorf's sup-porters. "The documents about to be presented in this articleindicate, to my satisfaction at least, that the vulgate storyoffers a too schematic and partly incorrect version of theevents and that the conventional image painted in that storyis not a portrait of the real Tischendorf'"

The most important item he uncovered is Tischendorf'sholograph 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 versionof the story:

I the undersigned, Constantin von Tischendorf, now onmission to the Levant upon the command of Alexander,Autocrat of All the Russias, attest by these presents thatthe Holy Confraternity of Mount Sinai, in accordance with


the letter of His Excellency [the Russian] Ambassador [toTurkey] Lobanov, has delivered to me as a loan an ancientmanuscript of both Testaments, being the property of theaforesaid monastery and containing 346 folia and a smallfragment. These 1 shall take with me to St. Petersburg inorder that I may collate the original at the time of publicationof the manuscript.

This manuscript has been entrusted to me under theconditions stipulated in the aforementioned letter ofMr.Lobanov, dated September 10, 1859, Number 510. Thismanuscript I promise to return, undamaged and in a goodstate of preservation, to the Holy Confraternity of MountSinai at its earliest request.^"

Tbe "conditions stipulated" by Lobanov referred to inTiscbendorf's promissory receipt are tbat, "I declare tbat insupporting tbis desire [for tbe loan of tbe codex] of MonsieurTiscbendorf, 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 tbename of tbat confratemity bas officially offered it to HisImperial Majesty. It goes witbout saying tbat if unforeseencircumstances prevent tbe confraternity from putting tbisinto 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 tbeexact conditions under wbicb Tiscbendorf received tbeSinaiticus on September 28, 1859? (2) By wbat autboritydid Tiscbendorf offer tbe Sinaiticus to tbe Tsar in 1862, iftbe official donation of tbe manuscript occurred in 1869?(3) Wby did tbis act of donation require a whole decade tobe delivered by tbe monks? (4) How is one to explain tbecircumstance that Cyril, the Archbisbop of Sinai, wbo letTiscbendorf bave tbe manuscript in 1859, did not issue the

134 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

act of donation, while Callistratus, his successor and enemy,who had nothing to do with the negotiations of 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 argument is compelling for thevery reason that it counters the narrow, defensive, yet wor-shipfully elevated view of the vulgate version - and Alandis very much a subscriber to the vulgate school. Gregoryand Aland, as the earliest and latest representatives of thevulgate position, verge on hagiolatry whenever they discussTischendorf. Tischendorf as the ideal German scholar is verymuch a mark of the vulgate school as a whole. Sevcenko isobnoxious to Aland because he painstakingly and deliber-ately takes Tischendorf to task in the process of answeringthe four questions. Sevcenko's answers expose Tischendorfas 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'spromissory receipt (quoted above) provides the answerto the first question, Tischendorf formally borrowed theSinaiticus 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 theterms outlined in Prince Lobanov's letter of September 10(partly quoted above). In this letter, the Russian Ambassadordid say that, from what he had heard, the monks intendedto present the manuscript to the Tsar."^^ However, Lobanovheard that it was to be donated to the Tsar from Tischendorfhimself - hardly a disinterested party. The leaders of Sinainever formally promised to donate the codex. In addition,Sevcenko found five more documents at St. Catherine's in1960 that conclusively refute any claims by Tischendorf


that the monks ever intended to donate the Sinaiticus to theTsar. Thus, by extension, Tischendorf had no right to donatethe codex. These documents also explain why, for politicalexigency, after a ten-year period the Tsar finally made tokenrestitution 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. Onemust peruse the documents 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 witnessto speak about the Sinaiticus affair: Tischendorf himself,largely through selections from letters to his wife and quotesfrom his brief work (92 pages), Sinaibibel {IS1\). Aland wasnever neutral on the subject of Tischendorf He presented noobjectively independent witnesses because he believes thatTischendorf's character and conduct are inherently unassail-able and require no outside substantiation. Sevcenko, on theother hand, fully admitted that his evidence is incomplete.He categorically stated that a comprehensive account of theSinaiticus affair will have to rely, among other things, ona published edition of Tischendorf's correspondence withhis wife (which is not yet available), on Archbishop Cyril'scorrespondence with Tischendorf, on Porfirij Uspenskii'saccount of Tischendorf and the Sinaiticus (Uspenskii wasthe author of a pamphlet that condemned the Sinaiticus asheretical), on the correspondence of Ambassador Prince N.P.Ignat'ev (the Russian ambassador to the Sublime Porte, whoin 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." "Inaddition, this account would have to draw upon materialsthat perhaps still slumber in diverse archives relating to theaffairs of the Near East. The struggle for the Sinaiticus wasboth lay and ecclesiastical; affected as it was by the Eastem

136 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

Mediterranean and the Balkans in the fifties and sixties ofthe [nineteenth] century, it must have left some traces in dip-lomatic or governmental records."^^ Sevcenko without ques-tion does the better job of placing the Sinaiticus affair in thedeeper 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 tenthcentury and contains several works by Archimedes, includingthe only known copy of "Method of Mechanical Theorems"and "On Floating Bodies." Sometime around the twelfth orthirteenth centuries, the decision was made to use the parch-ment for the text of a prayer book. Accordingly the old textwas scrubbed off, the leaves were cut in half and rotated 90degrees, and the text of the euchologion was copied onto theparchment. At some point the manuscript was deposited inthe Greek Orthodox monastery of St. Savas near Jerusalem.From there it was transferred to the Jerusalem Patriarchatelibrary in the early 19th century, then to the nearby Church ofthe Holy Sepulchre, and finally to the Sepulchre's Metochion(sister house) library in Constantinople sometime before1844. It was in Constantinople in 1899 that the paleogra-pher and Byzantinist Athanasios Papadopoulos-Karameuscatalogued it. In 1907 Archimedes's text was translated (asfar as legibility would allow) and published by J.L. Heiberg.Christies of New York sold the Codex at auction on October29, 1998 to an unidentified buyer for over $2,000,000 - tothe great disappointment of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, whostill claimed ownership - while the scientific communityhailed 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-aged to view the text and somehow remove one of its leaves.In his Travels in the East, Tischendorf gave a dispassionateaccount of his visit at Constantinople to the library of the


Patriarch of Jerusalem. There is no mention of a stray manu-script leaf, either as gift or purchase.

I now went direct with the proffered introduction to thepatriarch of Jerusalem. The bishop only was at home, aman of considerable intellectual activity, and not deficientin literary attainments. We went through the catalogueof the library together; but precisely of the manuscriptsthere was no account. After this he allowed me to inspectthe library myself, and permitted me to make any use ofthe manuscripts I found. They were thirty in number, butthey were altogether without any especial interest, with theexception of a palimpsest upon mathematics.^^

In his Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf mentioned that uponhis return home to Leipzig in January 1845, "I handed overto the Saxon Government my rich collection of Orientalmanuscripts, in return for the payment of all my travelingexpenses. I deposited in the library of the University ofLeipzig, in shape of a collection, which bears my name, fiftymanuscripts, 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 43other leaves from as many individual manuscripts, to theCambridge University Library. Interestingly enough, neitherTischendorf nor subsequent scholars were able to attribute au-thorship to the palimpsest text until Nigel Wilson of LincolnCollege, Oxford University, identified it in 1983. He realizedthat it was an extract from Archimedes's "On the Sphere andthe 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,but all 43 others gathered on his expedition.'^

In many ways, the jury is still out on Tischendorf's deal-

138 GOTR 53:1-4 2008

ings with St. Catherine's - not to mention the JerusalemPatriarch's Metochion library in Constantinople, among oth-ers - because the definitive study on Tischendorf has yet tobe written. One has to imagine, nevertheless, that the verdictwill be a complex one. Of course, it is possible to rational-ize a mixed verdict with the jaundiced or euphemistic viewthat, as some Biblical scholars see it, he was just one moreplunderer in an age of plunderers - and at least this plunderresulted in scholarly advance. Librarians are not likely to beso dismissive, for reasons that are obvious and very close tohome.

NOTES

^ Constantin Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus: the Ancient Biblical Manu-script Now in the British Museum. Tischendorf's Story and ArgumentRelated by Himself, 2"'' impression of the 8* ed. (London: LutterworthPress, 1934), p. 24.

^ James Keith Elliott, Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair: an Ex-amination of the Nineteenth Century Claim That Codex Sinaiticus WasNot 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 ofthe World's Oldest Bible - Codex Sinaiticus, by James Bentley (GardenCity, 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 zuLeipzig. Philologisch-Historische Klasse; Bd. 133, Hft. 2), p. 36.^ Ihor Sevcenko, "New Documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the

Peterson: Tischendorf and the Codex S'maitkus 139

Codex Sinaiticus," Scnp/onwrn, vol. 18 (1964), pp. 55-80, Reprinted inthe 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/rf,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, andLongmans, 1847), p. 274.

'* Tischendorf, Codex Sinaiticus: the Ancient Biblical Manuscript, p. 24,^' Michael Lambrou, "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 Sacra, vol, 33 (Janu-ary 1876), pp, 153-193.Ludwig Schneller, Search on Sinai: the Story of Tischendorf's Life andthe Search for a Lost Manuscript, 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 Sinaiticusi The Saga Continues*€¦ · MICHAEL D. PETERSON ... Friedrich...

Documents

Transcript of Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticusi The Saga Continues*€¦ · MICHAEL D. PETERSON ... Friedrich...