Constantine Tischendorf

The Life and Work of a 19th Century Bible Hunter

Stanley E. Porter

• Publisher: T&T Clark
• Year: 2014
• Print ISBN: 9780567658029
• eBook ISBN: 9780567658005
• Edition: 1
• Topic: Theology & Religion
• Subtopic: Biblical Studies

Constantin von Tischendorf was a pioneer. He existed in an age when biblical studies as we know it was being formed, when the quest for forgotten manuscripts and lost treasures was being undertaken with no less zeal and intrigue than it is today. It was Tischendorf who found, and preserved, the oldest extant version of the complete bible that we know of, the so-called Codex Sinaiticus, which he discovered in poor condition at St Catherine's Monastery at the foot of Mount Sinai, in 1846. With the discovery of the Codex Tischendorf, and others, was to take the study of biblical texts further than ever before, through linguistic methods, and attention to the most ancient sources available. In many ways Tischendorf was a father figure of the modern Historical Critical Method. In this short biography, Stanley E. Porter, himself one of the most respected scholars of the New Testament and Koine Greek currently writing, gives a portrait of Tischendorf's life and work, together with an annotated republication of Tischendorf's influential work on the Gospels. Published to celebrate Tischendorf's bicentenary, in 2015, this volume will be a must for those seeking to understand how the study of biblical manuscripts began, and to understand the man who discovered the oldest version of the bible as we know it.

PART ONE

Introduction and context

Biblical scholars of today cannot help but realize that German biblical and ancient world scholars have had a fundamental and enduring influence on the development of their field of study, even if their influence today is not what it was last century or even in the nineteenth century. Nevertheless, a number of nineteenth-century German scholars continue to be mentioned in contemporary New Testament (and related biblical) scholarship—even if they are mentioned more than they are actually read. Names come to mind such as the philosopher Georg Friedrich Hegel for his influence on Ferdinand Christian Baur, and Baur because of his influence on much of our later understanding of the growth and development of the New Testament;² Friedrich Schleiermacher for his “invention” of the field of hermeneutics, including his later influence upon Martin Heidegger and then Rudolf Bultmann, as well as his views on authorship of certain New Testament books;³ Wilhelm De Wette, the controversial polymath and recipient of a fairly recent major intellectual biography;⁴ Heinrich August Wilhelm Meyer, mostly because of the continuing commentary series that he instigated and is still referred to by his name, even in later editions; David Friedrich Strauss for his fundamental role in shaping (if not actually instigating) what has become known as the quest for the historical Jesus, and who will appear later in this account in a significant way;⁵ and William Wrede for his work on both Jesus in the Gospels and Paul as the second founder of Christianity;⁶ to name a few of the most important and still significant ones.⁷

Constantine Tischendorf is not usually included among this number. For example, to select just a couple of fairly popular and easily accessible reference works at random from my shelves, Robert Grant and David Tracy’s A Short History of the Interpretation of the Bible does not even mention Tischendorf,⁸ and Donald McKim’s Historical Handbook of Major Biblical Interpreters does not include an entry on Tischendorf, even though it does include a substantial article on another German scholar known primarily for textual criticism, Johann Jakob Griesbach.⁹ Even John O’Neill’s excellent technical work focused upon “thinkers” concerned with the “Bible’s authority” does not include Tischendorf, but he does include Kant, Hegel and Nietzsche, along with a number of other important biblical scholars.¹⁰

Such was not always the case, however. In the translator’s preface to Tischendorf’s popular When Were Our Gospels Written?, a book to which I will return and that is reprinted within this volume, because it contains the story of Tischendorf’s discovery of Codex Sinaiticus, the translator begins as follows: “The name of Dr Constantine Tischendorf is too well known to need any introduction to the English reader. As a critic and decipherer of ancient manuscripts he was without a rival, and to his other services in this important department of sacred literature he added one which, alone, would reward the labour of a lifetime, in the discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript…”¹¹ The translator then notes that this volume on the writing of the Gospels “attracted great attention on its publication.”¹² The work is concerned with “arguments for the genuineness and authenticity of our Gospels” and providing “proof of the genuineness of our Gospels.” This was a very important concern of Tischendorf and, to a large extent, motivated much of his scholarly activity throughout the course of his academic life.

If indeed Tischendorf is known very widely at all today, it is with reference primarily to three areas. The first is as the controversial discoverer of the Sinai codex. There has been speculation for about a hundred years that Tischendorf, rather than securing through legitimate channels the transfer of the codex from St Catherine’s Monastery at the base of Mt Sinai to Russia, absconded with it through underhanded means. I will return to this serious accusation below, because I believe that a lot of misunderstanding and unnecessary false characterization surrounds the events surrounding the Sinai codex. The second area of Tischendorf’s possible renown is as the great—arguably the greatest—discoverer of manuscripts of the ancient world, especially biblical manuscripts and in particular New Testament manuscripts such as Codex Sinaiticus. It is well recognized, at least among many scholars, that one of Tischendorf’s major purposes was to find and edit ancient manuscripts. In this area, he is virtually unrivalled, even to this day. The third area for which Tischendorf is still often recognized is as a textual critic. Karl Lachmann, Brooke Foss Westcott and F.J.A. Hort, however, all receive more attention than does Tischendorf in the development of textual criticism, rather than his being granted the status that he, I believe, rightly deserves, as I will discuss further below. It is only occasionally and possibly then fourthly, but still even rarely, that Tischendorf receives recognition as a New Testament scholar and theologian—which he was to a degree that is virtually always overlooked. Some of this neglect is no doubt because of a palpable divide seen to exist between lower criticism (where Tischendorf is given a place, or perhaps put in his place) and higher criticism (where he is not allowed a place) in the minds of many scholars.¹³ The major emphasis of New Testament studies over the last 200 years has clearly been upon higher criticism. However, what is often overlooked, even in the best English treatment of Tischendorf that I have found to date,¹⁴ is that his palaeographical and text-critical ambitions grew directly and unequivocally out of his higher-critical concerns, especially as these were realized in his study of the Gospels. I will also discuss this further below.

In the light of the controversy surrounding the discovery of the Sinai codex—not necessarily concerning later controversy over its ownership and possession, but its discovery at all and how this took place—it is not surprising that a number of scholarly works mention Tischendorf in relationship to the field of New Testament palaeography and textual criticism. Virtually all of the introductions to textual criticism give at least some recognition to Tischendorf and his work in this area, first with reference to the discovery of Sinaiticus and then with regard to his being a palaeographer and textual critic. I use the word “virtually” because mention of Tischendorf is not even universal among textual critics. In his lengthy introduction to the text of the New Testament in the classic edition of the Cambridge History of the Bible, J. Neville Birdsall does not mention Tischendorf in the essay, even when he discusses the basis of modern textual criticism, but he does mention Westcott and Hort at length, as might legitimately be expected.¹⁵ Nevertheless, this is an exception. However, Tischendorf, though often mentioned, is often consigned to a few comments about his discovery of Codex Sinaiticus and production of his eighth edition of the Greek New Testament, which to this day remains a standard text-critical reference work, and which will be discussed in more detail below.

It is only in recent times that there has been something of a revival of interest in Tischendorf for more than the controversy regarding Sinaiticus or his palaeographical and text-critical accomplishments—where even these are often underplayed. There are numerous reasons one can conjecture for this continuing and ongoing neglect. Besides the residual ascendancy of higher criticism over lower, there are several other factors to note. These might well include the far less emphasis upon Greek language study in contemporary theological education, the cloud of doubt that still hangs over Tischendorf’s head regarding Codex Sinaiticus, the perception (now shown to be inaccurate) that there is little evidence from Tischendorf himself to draw upon in pushing discussion of his exploits forward,¹⁶ the biblically relatively conservative conclusions he arrived at in his own theological positions, and, perhaps most importantly, the strong theological motivation that stood behind and in fact motivated all of his scholarly work, whether textual or otherwise. As a result of a lack of first-hand examination of Tischendorf and his work, there persists a number of misperceptions regarding the man and his accomplishments. However, with the restoration of a unified Germany and renewed access to the University of Leipzig and its Tischendorf holdings, there has been a renewed interest in Tischendorf himself.¹⁷ In this short monograph, I cannot attempt to deal with all of the issues above in great depth. Instead, I wish to pursue some of the issues raised above in the light of some of this recent discussion, in an attempt to arrive at a better understanding of the life and work of Constantine Tischendorf.

---

² Baur’s major work on Paul has fairly recently been reprinted in English translation as Ferdinand Christian Baur, Paul the Apostle of Jesus Christ: His Life and Works, His Epistles and Teachings; A Contribution to a Critical History of Primitive Christianity (trans. Allan Menzies; 2 vols.; London: Williams and Norgate, 1873–75; 2nd edn, 1876; repr. 2 vols. in 1; Peabody, MA: Hendrickson, 2003 [1845; 2nd edn, 1866–67]). Most of his fundamental essays remain untranslated to this day.

³ For a brief assessment of Schleiermacher, see Stanley E. Porter and Jason C. Robinson, Hermeneutics: An Introduction to Interpretive Theory (Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 2011), 24–33.

⁴ See John W. Rogerson, W.M.L. de Wette, Founder of Modern Biblical Criticism: An Intellectual Biography (JSOTSup 126; Sheffield: JSOT Press, 1992), which book I had the privilege of working on as Senior Academic Editor of Sheffield Academic Press from 1991–1992. Admittedly, as Rogerson points out, de Wette himself had been long-neglected, from soon after his death in 1847 until the late twentieth century.

⁵ For the place of Strauss within this development, see Stanley E. Porter, Criteria for Authenticity in Historical-Jesus Research: Previous Discussion and New Proposals (JSNTSup 191; Sheffield: Sheffield Academic Press, 2000), 31–6. See also my “An Introduction to Constantine Tischendorf’s When Were Our Gospels Written?” in Part 2 for further discussion.

⁶ Wrede himself was widely neglected, with his book on the messianic secret only being translated into English in 1971. Many of his works remain untranslated.

⁷ To state the obvious, individuals are not born and do not die precisely according to the turns of the centuries, so (for example) even though Schleiermacher was born in the mid-eighteenth century, his influential work took place in the nineteenth. There are a number of other scholars who could be mentioned in the list above who were born ...

Table of contents

• Cover
• Title Page
• Contents
• Foreword
• PART ONE
• PART TWO
• PART THREE
• Index
• Copyright