The PuritanBoard - View Single Post

DTK · #48 (**permalink**) 02-22-2007, 01:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by armourbearer

Perhaps you haven't had to listen to some of the ignorant remarks I have been privy to. If so, you would understand my natural inclination to see your evaluation as classic over-exaggeration. Since the leisureliness of my statement appears offensive to you, I will retract it and replace it with a quotation -- quotations from authorities usually meet with academic approval.

I'm not interested in some of the ignorant remarks to which you've listened. It is excusable for a laymen to make such mistakes, but not for one who should know better, but is unwilling to investigate that claim beyond Burgon. Following the incident that Tischendorf observed of the burning of mss., Sinaiticus was discovered on his revisit to the monastery.

Quote:

Bruce M. Metzger: In 1853 Tischendorf revisited the monastery of St. Catharine, hoping to acquire other portions of the same manuscript. The excitement which he had displayed on the occasion of his discovery during his first visit had made the monks cautious, and he could learn nothing further about the manuscript. In 1859 his travels took him back once more to Mount Sinai, this time under the patronage of the Czar of Russia, Alexander II. The day before he was scheduled to leave he presented to the steward of the monastery a copy of the edition of the Septuagint which he had recently published in Leipzig. Thereupon the steward remarked that he too had a copy of the Septuagint, and produced from a closet in his cell a manuscript (i.e., codex Sinaiticus) wrapped in a red cloth. There before the astonished scholar’s eyes lay the treasure which he had been longing to see. Concealing his feelings, Tischendorf casually asked permission to look at it further that evening. Permission was granted, and upon retiring to his room Tischendorf stayed up all night in the joy of studying the manuscript—for, as he declared in his diary (which as a scholar he kept in Latin), quipped dormire nefas videbatur (‘it really seemed a sacrilege to sleep’)! He soon found that the document contained much more than he had even hoped; for not only was most of the Old Testament there, but also the New Testament was intact and in excellent condition, with the addition of two early Christian works of the second century, the Epistle of Barnabas (previously known only through a very poor Latin translation) and a large portion of the Shepherd of Hermas, hitherto known only by title.
The next morning Tischendorf tried to buy the manuscript, but without success. Then he asked to be allowed to take it to Cairo to study; but the monk in charge of the altar plate objected, and so he had to leave without it. Bruce M. Metzger, The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and Restoration, third, enlarged ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1992), pp. 43-44.

You have tried to reduce Rich's honest questions directed to you as if they lead to doubt and confusion over both the text and canon, instead of engaging them in a meaningful way. I guess jokingly dismissing his inquiries is a sign of piety to you, but it has yet to offer him anything but you own bias for a particular text. Burgon was a very godly man, but his critical remarks for Tischendorf's discovery doesn't make for the best reporting of history. Sinaiticus was not recovered from a waste-paper basket, and yes I have his books on my shelf, but it doesn't mean that he got his "facts" right. And you would serve yourself well to look beyond Erasmus and Burgon, instead of trying to argue that Rich's faith in the text and canon of Holy Scripture lies in the hands of men.

You can do better than this.

DTK