Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticusi the Saga Continues*

GREEK ORTHODOX THEOLOGICAL REVIEW 53:1-4 2008

Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticusi The Saga Continues*

MICHAEL D. PETERSON

Libraries around the world share the problem of how to safeguard their treasures from an ever-growing number of threats. In the case of the library of St. Catherine's Monastery 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 (1792-1860), and the Tubingen School - all at their height of infiuence in the 184O's. Tischendorf believed that the one effective antidote to Strauss and to Tubingen and its impious 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: 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 that Tischendorf stumbled upon tbe document tbat was to estab- lisb bis fame in tbe world of biblical scbolarsbip. He described 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 a large 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 me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up possession of the remainder 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 collection 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 deposited tbe Sinaitic fragments in tbe University of Leipzig library, 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 edition. 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 1863 from the Revd. J. Silvester Davies one-time chaplain to the British Consul in Alexandria ... quotes 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, [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 this day I was taking a walk with the steward of the convent in the neighbourhood, and as we retumed, towards sunset, he begged me to take some refreshment with him in his cell. Scarcely had he entered the room, when, resuming our 128 GOTR 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 from the 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 from the 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 document whose age and importance exceeded that of all the manuscripts which I had ever 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 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 decade, which involved the careful suppression of facts and the systematic denigration 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 Constantinople to participate in tbe election of a new archbisbop. Tbe election was a sensitive issue because tbe Patriarcb of Jerusalem opposed Cyril, tbe candidate favored by tbe abbots. It was an ideal political opportunity for Tischendorf's purposes, given that be bad tbe support of tbe influential Russian Ortbodox ruler, Alexander II. Tiscbendorf, accompanied by tbe Bedouin Sbeik Nasser, beaded off to Cairo to in- tercept the abbot. After a seven-day joumey be arrived at Peterson: Tischendorf 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 was back with the codex. Tischendorf was allowed to take eight leaves at a time to his Cairo quarters, where he had the assistance of two German nationals, a doctor and a pharmacist, who had knowledge of Biblical Greek. It took the trio two months, through March 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 by subsequent 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. They did 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 complete the project just after Easter 1862. The final publication was an exact reproduction of the original and consisted of 1,232 copies of four folio volumes 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 facsimile edition. The Russian govemment finally resolved the loan quandary in 1869 by regularizing the status to donation. 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 of Constantine Tischendorf end up as a permanent possession of 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 dilemma. At this juncture it would be remiss not to interject a few words about Tischendorf's attitudes, shared by many of his scholarly contemporaries, toward non-Western societ- ies. Several writers have commented on his caustic opinion 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, "has deteriorated 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, he wrote 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." The new room in which they kept some of their books and manuscripts was "pathetic." It was perhaps this hatred of these despised monks that enabled Tischendorf to steal Peterson: Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus 131

from them their greatest treasure.^ On April 16,1993, the German Biblical scholar Kurt Aland delivered a public lecture to defend Tischendorf's reputation from people like Bentley. In fact, Aland was particularly sensitive to criticisms leveled at Tischendorf by Ihor Sevcenko in his "New Documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus" (1964). Although he had originally intended 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 their judgment about Aland's conclusions. Birdsall stated: No final judgment can be given in the reading of this lecture alone. In addition to the other materials, the whole corpus of these recently discovered letters [from Tischendorf to his spouse] will need to be assessed. The lecturer speaks of "coming upon" them {vorfand) in a typewritten copy. Of the originals and any previous history, such as even the provenance of the modern copy, he says nothing in this lecture. A preliminary impression alone can be registered ... I bring away the conviction that Aland has made at least a prima facie case for Tischendorf's defence [sic]. Yet, without further access to Sevcenko's indictment, or the many other relevant documents at first- and second-hand, it would be premature to register any finalassessmen t of this delicate and sensitive historical issue.^ Then again, even the combative and defensive tone of Aland'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 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 dispassionate, less single-minded, and better documented. The occasion 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 "vulgate" or conventional version of the Sinaiticus story as presented by Tischendorf's sup- porters. "The documents 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 Tischendorf'" 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 document that Tischendorf conveniently omitted from his version of the story: I the undersigned, Constantin von Tischendorf, now on mission to the Levant upon the command of Alexander, Autocrat of All the Russias, attest by these presents that the Holy Confraternity of Mount Sinai, in accordance with Peterson: Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus 133

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 the aforesaid monastery and containing 346 folia and a small fragment. These 1 shall take with me to St. Petersburg in order that I may collate 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, Number 510. This manuscript 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 agree to tbis, tbis manuscript remains tbe property of tbe confratemity 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 be delivered by tbe monks? (4) How is one to explain tbe circumstance that Cyril, the Archbisbop of Sinai, wbo let Tiscbendorf 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 because the argument proceeds from false assumptions and, therefore, the results are erroneous." Is Sevcenko's argument really so misguided? To the contrary, Sevcenko's argument 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. Gregory and 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 Ambassador 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 Sinai never formally promised to donate the codex. In addition, Sevcenko found five more documents at St. Catherine's in 1960 that conclusively refute any claims by Tischendorf Peterson: Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus 135 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 political exigency, 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 documents to do justice to Sevcenko's argument. Yet, for all the conviction of their arguments, Aland and Sevcenko 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 Ambassador Prince N.P. Ignat'ev (the Russian ambassador 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 already made available in Sevcenko's "New Documents." "In addition, this account would have to draw upon materials that perhaps still slumber in diverse archives relating to the affairs of the Near East. The struggle for the Sinaiticus was both 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 of the [nineteenth] century, it must have left some traces in dip- lomatic or governmental records."^^ Sevcenko without question 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 palimpsest 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 was made to use the parchment 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 of St. 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 Metochion (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- aged to view the text and somehow remove one of its leaves. In his Travels in the East, Tischendorf gave a dispassionate account of his visit at Constantinople to the library of the Peterson: Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus 137

Patriarch of Jerusalem. There is no mention of a stray manuscript leaf, either as gift or purchase. I now went 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, but they 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 of Leipzig, 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 palimpsest 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 palimpsest 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 in all 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 Jerusalem Patriarch's Metochion library in Constantinople, among others - 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 to home.

NOTES

^ 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 Leipzig. 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 in the author's Byzantium and the Slavs in Letters and Culture (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard Ukrainian Research Institute; Napoli: Istituto Universitario 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, and Longmans, 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 and the 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.