PDA

View Full Version : Please educate me re Tischendorf



ISalzman
08-28-2009, 06:53 PM
I'm new to Tischendorf. I always assumed him to be a "Textus Receptus" guy, if you will. But I was studying Matthew 18:15, which has a variant there. The NA27 critical edition reads:

Ἐὰν δὲ ἁμαρτήσῃ [εἰς σὲ] ὁ ἀδελφός σου

The eis se is considered doubtful, as indicated by the parentheses. When you open up Tischendorf's critical apparatus, he renders the verse without the eis se, and comments that several manuscripts (such as Sinaiticus) lack support for it (if I properly understand the Latin "sine" to mean "without"). What's the deal here? Is Tischendorf Textus Receptus or not? Grateful for any information. Thanks.

Irving

Adelphos
08-28-2009, 08:08 PM
I'm new to Tischendorf. I always assumed him to be a "Textus Receptus" guy, if you will... What's the deal here? Is Tischendorf Textus Receptus or not?

Tischendorf was about as far from being Textus Receptus as the West coast is from the East. After Tischendorf "discovered" Sinaiticus Aleph, he aborted his common sense and his critical thinking abilities completely and followed "his" manuscript in every case where it was possible to do so without being absolutely, utterly absurd. That's why his apparatus is also heavily biased, but it is still far more comprehensive and useful than NA27/UBS4.

ISalzman
08-28-2009, 08:38 PM
Tischendorf was about as far from being Textus Receptus as the West coast is from the East. After Tischendorf "discovered" Sinaiticus Aleph,

Sinaiticus and Aleph are one and the same, are they not? I've never heard the manuscript refered to as "Sinaiticus Aleph" before. Usually, I hear people speak of Sinaiticus or Aleph and understand them to be one and the same. Right?

he aborted his common sense and his critical thinking abilities completely and followed "his" manuscript in every case where it was possible to do so without being absolutely, utterly absurd.

Glad you're not overly emotional about it.:o



That's why his apparatus is also heavily biased, but it is still far more comprehensive and useful than NA27/UBS4.



Do you know the approximate date of Tischendorf's apparatus? And what significant manuscript finds and textual witnesses were discovered since Tischendorf departed the scene? Thanks in advance for your responses.

Adelphos
08-28-2009, 08:43 PM
Do you know the approximate date of Tischendorf's apparatus? And what significant manuscript finds and textual witnesses were discovered since Tischendorf departed the scene? Thanks in advance for your responses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tischendorf

as well as Google.

ISalzman
08-28-2009, 08:45 PM
Thank you, Scott.

ISalzman
08-28-2009, 08:57 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tischendorf



Fascinating article, by the way! I just read it.

Adelphos
08-28-2009, 10:57 PM
I didn't see your other question, so with regard to that...

Sinaiticus, Aleph, Sinaiticus Aleph, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Sinaiticus Aleph, Codex Aleph, are all names that have been used to describe this manuscript.

Even though Aleph agrees more with the TR than it does Vaticanus, and even though Vaticanus agrees more with the TR than it does Sinaiticus, nevertheless they are both manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate flavor, for the Critical Text of today is nothing but the Latin Vulgate Text of yesteryear renamed, the same Latin Vulgate text that the Reformers, Puritans, and Great Awakeners rejected. And yes, they were aware of every signinficant variant that we are aware of today. That is the nature of the textual issue in a nutshell, i.e., the Textus Receptus replaced the Latin Vulgate during the era of the Reformers, Puritans, and Great Awakeners, and now the Latin Vulgate has regained its ascendancy and has replaced the Textus Receptus among most professing Christians.