Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

[Conan]

So Pickering is still dedicated to his argument in favor of the majority text, reflecting the Byzantine tradition (or archetype).

p.79 of the above:

"But what if we were to entertain the hypothesis that the Byzantine tradition is the oldest and that the "Western" and "Alexandrian" MSS represent varying perturbations on the fringes of the main transmissional stream? Would this not make better sense of the surviving evidence? Then there would have been no "Western" or "Egyptian" archetypes, just various sources of contamination that acted in such a random fashion that each extant "Western" or "Egyptian" MS has a different 'mosaic'. In contrast, there would indeed be a "Byzantine" archetype, which would reflect the original. "​

"The mean text of the extant MSS improves century by century, the XIV being the best, because the worst MSS were not copied or worn out by use; whereas the good ones were used and copied, and when worn out, discarded."​

A principal argument on p.78 is:

"In his book Aland's discussion of the transmission of the NT text is permeated with the assumption​

that the Byzantine text was a secondary development that progressively contaminated the pure​

Egyptian ("Alexandrian") text.[2] But the chief "Alexandrian" witnesses, B, A (except e) and ℵ (The​

Text, p. 107), are in constant and significant disagreement among themselves; so much so that​

there is no objective way of reconstructing an archetype. 150 years earlier the picture is the same;​

P45, P66 and P75 are quite dissimilar and do not reflect a single tradition. In A.D. 200 "there was no​

king in [Egypt]; everyone did what was right in his own eyes", or so it would seem."​

[2] K. Aland, "The Text of the Church?", Trinity Journal, 1987, 8NS:131-144 [actually published in 1989], pp. 142-43.​

One incongruity is that it isn't clear if any of the so-termed "Alexandrian" uncials derive from Egypt: the source of perdition according to Pickering, where the copyists "did not know Greek" (which is an assumption that is not proven).

It doesn't matter whether the Alexandrian uncials derive from Egypt or not. Doesn't matter if there from Rome or from Alexandria or from Syria or the capitol of the Byzantine empire. They are what they are. It won't change their Text.

 

[Maestroh]

The project was aborted as a failure, and Kallinikos chided Simonides on that point.

No, it wasn't. Simonides simply lied about that writing as Kallinikos because Simonides/Kallinikos (the same person as you already know) was lying about writing the thing in the first place. That's why he claimed he stopped when the New Finds show the actual author didn’t stop. Like most polemicists not interested in the truth of what actually happened, you blame this on Tischendorf, world class gaslighting and no class argumentation to put it mildly.

Nash. Every week we are finding additional textual evidence that is demonstrating the late date of Sinaiticus.

Not hard to find stuff you can misinterpret when you're not even willing to be evenhanded at the initial stage.

This is an important corroboration to the historical and manuscript evidences.

You mean something that didn't even happen - the so-called project abortion that was nothing but a lie of Simonides - is now evidence???

Do you realize that using the rather lame tactics of "declare and deny" that you have used here, I can prove coffee doesn't even exist? "That's not coffee, that's soda that someone has decided to CALL coffee - and the fact they call it coffee proves I'm right!"

This forum serves its purpose in helping to examine data,

Nah, you're just HERE because you know the embarrassing questions that are quite basic you wouldn't be able to answer were you to stand before a forum of the actual scholars who have worked on this document. Posting here gets you the attention you crave but the safety of no video showing your utter humiliation, which is what you fear most.

while I at the contra harumph and posturing.

The guy holding CONTRAry to scholarship position and posturing gaslights again and accuses others of the very thing he himself is doing.

 

[Unbound68]

@Maestroh wrote:
That's why he claimed he stopped when the New Finds show the actual author didn’t stop.

BAM!

Has this ever been directly addressed and answered by the true "contra" here?

Did I miss it?

Did I miss where he explained how a brand new manuscript ended up with 23,000 variants upon completion?

Did I miss where he explained why Simonides excluded 1 John 5:7 from Sinaiticus?

Did I miss where he explained why so many hands involved in the writing and correcting of Sinaiticus equates to a late manuscript?

Did I miss where he debunked all the current research of the actual scholars in dating various of the correctors to no later than the 7th century?

 

[Unbound68]

Did I miss where he answered the 25+ questions posed by Maestroh numerous times regarding the "team's" knowledge of paleography, knowledge of reading and translating foreign languages, knowledge of handling and photographing manuscripts, and whether a single one of them has ever seen Sinaiticus in person with their own eyes?

The answers to such questions would certainly tell us all --- the guinae pigs of the SART project --- the qualifications that the team members actually possess, or lack completely.

Integrity first!

 

[Maestroh]

BAM!

Has this ever been directly addressed and answered by the true "contra" here?

He gave an embarrassing "non-answer" during the debate with Snapp, basically saying that Simonides wrote it but forgot - but he was very careful to no use the word "forgot" and then feign as if that's not exactly what he said. Snapp rightly called him out for this being "preposterous," which it is.

Did I miss it?

Did I miss where he explained how a brand new manuscript ended up with 23,000 variants upon completion?

He's not very good at answering questions that expose how - to quote Pastor Snapp - PREPOSTEROUS what Avery is alleging is. That's why I keep point out HE KNOWS THIS. Why would he avoid questions that show the obvious except he knows they show the obvious?

This is even more problematic in that what Avery is actually trying to say is that this forging calligrapher used EXPENSIVE parchment for a ROUGH DRAFT to be copied later, truly an insane idea. And his latest argument is to say "this reading in Sinaiticus" comes from another manuscript - which begs the question of why Benedict had to do ANY PREP WORK AT ALL!!!!

He didn't, of course, and Simonides created his own problems by only coming up with that lame excuse after he'd been told "hey, idiot, you obviously have no idea how long collation takes!" Bear in mind that to do this he has to contradict his own biography - and Avery despite the questions on the "False Claims" thread has still not answered the questions of HOW DO YOU KNOW THIS, either. He's simply picked the one that makes it easier to say Simonides wrote it.

Did I miss where he explained why Simonides excluded 1 John 5:7 from Sinaiticus?

Did I miss where he explained why so many hands involved in the writing and correcting of Sinaiticus equates to a late manuscript?

Did I miss where he debunked all the current research of the actual scholars in dating various of the correctors to no later than the 7th century?

You haven't missed anything. He's not very good at answering questions that would require him to say, "Well, I'm wrong about this ridiculous theory I've been espousing for nine years now."

You'd hate it too if you were about to turn 73 and had wasted 12-15% of your life on a lie, particularly the "Golden Years."

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

This is even more problematic in that what Avery is actually trying to say is that this forging calligrapher used EXPENSIVE parchment for a ROUGH DRAFT to be copied later, truly an insane idea. And his latest argument is to say "this reading in Sinaiticus" comes from another manuscript - which begs the question of why Benedict had to do ANY PREP WORK AT ALL!!!!

Prep, correcting?

More like the opposite.

How many years did Benedict supposedly waste on preparation Mr Avery?

How many years did Simonides supposedly waste on preparation Mr Avery?

How many years did Simonides and Benedict (combined) supposedly waste on preparation Mr Avery?

How many years did Benedict supposedly waste on preparation to get to, how many thousand errors?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

This is even more problematic in that what Avery is actually trying to say is that this forging calligrapher used EXPENSIVE parchment for a ROUGH DRAFT to be copied later, truly an insane idea. And his latest argument is to say "this reading in Sinaiticus" comes from another manuscript - which begs the question of why Benedict had to do ANY PREP WORK AT ALL!!!!

The finest quality, phenomenal, exceptionally good parchment...

That was worth one persons entire lifetime of wages...

For an aborted, failed, rough draft?

It's back to front, normal people would save the finest quality parchment for the final product, not a practice manuscript. Just doesn't add up.

 

[Maestroh]

There is more evidence that a cow kicking over a lantern started the Great Chicago Fire than there is Constantine Simonides, Benedict Arnold Hinn, or the Phantom Kallinikides Kallinikos ever even touched Sinaiticus.

 

[Maestroh]

The finest quality, phenomenal, exceptionally good parchment...

That was worth one persons entire lifetime of wages...

For an aborted, failed, rough draft?

It's back to front, normal people would save the finest quality parchment for the final product, not a practice manuscript. Just doesn't add up.

I don’t know if anyone has noticed the Earle of Irony using a variant of a long ago Burgon argument -namely, that this abortion project (did the life of Sinaiticus begin at conception when Eggz Benedict passed a kidney stone and conceived the cockamamie idea?) is around because it was a bad copy and therefore was set aside and not used.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

I'll rephrase that.

How many years, Mr Avery, did Benedict and Simonides supposedly waste on correction to get to, how many thousand errors?

 

[Unbound68]

And did I miss Avery coming clean to his readers and viewers on his complete and real beliefs regarding his theory of a 19th century Sinaiticus?

Does he believe the same conspiritorial nonsense posited by Daniels in his books about Sinaiticus?

Why does he never say so?

Is he afraid of how it would look, were he to lay out his grand conspiracy theory for all to see?

Is he afraid Mr. Snapp and others won't debate him anymore?

Own it, Mr. Integrity!

 

[Steven Avery]

Where does Kallinik-ides "chide" Simoni-kos for aborting his own project "as a failure"?

Here is one of the spots, this is from the James Keith Elliott book, p. 76

For I myself saw him with my own eyes, in February, 1840, writing it in Athos; and, owing to the death of the head of the monastery, he left the work unfinished, and went to Constantinople, taking the Codex with him, which also he delivered to the illustrious patriarch Constantius, and he sent it to the monastery in Sinai by a monk of that house, named Germanus, whose subordinate still lives in Athos to attest the writer. And the partiarch sent the Codex there, in order that the transcript might be compared with other copies of the Old and New Testament, and then be transcribed by the same Simonides, and sacredly presented to the Emperor of Russia, on the part, not of the monastery of St. Pantaleemon, according to the original intention of Benedict, but on the part of the partiarch Constantius. On this account, the hieromonk Callistratus, a wise man, and companion of the same house, undertook the comparison of it, and did compare it with other codices of the same house, by command of Constantius, the patriarch. And he, having partly corrected it, left it in the library awaiting the return of Simonides, the first calligrapher in Greece. He not coming in good time, the work was altogether neglected, and remained in the common library of the monastery for some time: until Dr. Tischendorf (coming to the monastery in Sinai, in May, 1844, and spending some days there, and having examined the MS. carefully and suspecting it to be ancient), tore off a small part of it, privately, and went his way, as if nothing had happened, leaving the rest of it in the position which it had before. He perpetrated this great wrong without scruple. Finally, coming again to the same monastery, he took also the remaining portion of the MS. with the aid of the Russian Consul, on the promise that he would return it. And they both promised to the Bishop of Sinai many and great gifts. which. in my opinion. they will never perform: because, at other times, many such promises were made by a certain Russian archimandrite, named Porphyrius, who took away many MSS. from the monastery of St. Dionysius. in Athos, and from others. and they were never fulfilled.

 

[Steven Avery]

I'll rephrase that.
How many years, Mr Avery, did Benedict and Simonides supposedly waste on correction to get to, how many thousand errors?

Some correction and notation was likely in Athos, some in Constantinople (see above) and some in Sinai.

As an example, I don't think off-hand the Arabic notes are mentioned by Uspensky, if not they could easily have been put in even after 1850.

 

[Steven Avery]

The finest quality, phenomenal, exceptionally good parchment...
That was worth one persons entire lifetime of wages...
For an aborted, failed, rough draft?
It's back to front, normal people would save the finest quality parchment for the final product, not a practice manuscript. Just doesn't add up.

Simple answer, originally it was not planned to be a rough draft.

 

[Conan]

Some correction and notation was likely in Athos, some in Constantinople (see above) and some in Sinai.

As an example, I don't think off-hand the Arabic notes are mentioned by Uspensky, if not they could easily have been put in even after 1850.

No other manuscript in history has that many corrections. Not even close. No other manuscript in history has that many errors. None! No other manuscript in history has a text like Sinaiticus. Simionides could not have afforded the animal skins to have made the uniquely overly large pages. No other manuscript had 4 columns for simonides to copy. Why would simionides have been the worst scribe in history? He wasn't. He was a fraud who faked manuscripts, and had no skill to even copy, nevermind make up a Manuscript like Sinaiticus.

 

[Maestroh]

Some correction and notation was likely in Athos, some in Constantinople (see above) and some in Sinai.

As an example, I don't think off-hand the Arabic notes are mentioned by Uspensky, if not they could easily have been put in even after 1850.

“Let me just keep making up ridiculous things to distract you from the fact that if nobody landed on the moon then THE ENTIRE APOLLO 13 TRAGEDY NEVER HAPPENED!!!!”

 

[cjab]

Some correction and notation was likely in Athos, some in Constantinople (see above) and some in Sinai.

As an example, I don't think off-hand the Arabic notes are mentioned by Uspensky, if not they could easily have been put in even after 1850.

I thought this thread was entitled "Codex Sinaiticus - the facts." You have polluted it with your conspiracy theory. Sad that someone as old as you should engage in this nonsense. Why not start a thread entitled "Codex Sinaiticus - My Grand Conspiracy Theory?" BTW, what about Vaticanus? What's your conspiracy theory as to that? Was it copied by Egyptians who "didn't know Greek" or by Simonides' colleagues, and somehow spirited into the Vatican?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Simple answer, originally it was not planned to be a rough draft.

Not an answer.

This does not address the reality of the manuscript, as Cjab said:

No other manuscript in history has that many corrections. Not even close. No other manuscript in history has that many errors. None! No other manuscript in history has a text like Sinaiticus. Simionides could not have afforded the animal skins to have made the uniquely overly large pages. No other manuscript had 4 columns for simonides to copy. Why would simionides have been the worst scribe in history? He wasn't. He was a fraud who faked manuscripts, and had no skill to even copy, nevermind make up a Manuscript like Sinaiticus.

 

[Steven Avery]

Not an answer.
This does not address the reality of the manuscript, as Cjab said:

Actually cjab is giving an argument for the manuscript being done by novice bumbling scribes at Mt. Athos, including the youth Simonides. They were in over their heads.

There is no explanation for the horrid scribal bumbling, including the duplicate section noted by the three crosses note, if it was a 4th century scriptorium.

 

[Steven Avery]

Some correction and notation was likely in Athos, some in Constantinople (see above) and some in Sinai.
As an example, I don't think off-hand the Arabic notes are mentioned by Uspensky, if not they could easily have been put in even after 1850.

I thought this thread was entitled "Codex Sinaiticus - the facts." You have polluted it with your conspiracy theory.

And I can't help that you do not know the facts. Richard Goesche told Tregelles that the Arabic notes were "very recent". What facts do you have that show these notes were before 1840?

A similar question can be asked about the wacky scribbles, who has shown that that type of writing was used in antiquity?

==========================

Samuel Tregelles in a letter published July 3, 1862 in The Evangelical Quarterly:

"Here and there a later hand has written Arabic notes in the margin, and these Tischendorf imagines are from the same hand that has made some corrections (apparently) in the eighth century: if so this would be an uncommonly ancient piece of Arabic writing: I showed the lithographed facsimile of the page to Dr. Goesche of the Royal Library, Berlin; and he tells me, (what I strongly suspected before) that the Arabic is very recent, also that it is by the hand of some Syrian, being (as I before knew) a liturgical note."

Some Unpublished Letters of S. P. Tregelles Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus, Evangelical Quarterly, 1976 Timothy C. F. Stunt, p. 20

==========================

Richard Gosche (1824-1889)
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gosche

==========================