Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

cjab said:
Maximo is a Latinism, deriving from the Latin name "Maximus". There is no need to "explain the magna" in the Vulgata, which clearly uses a different Greek version to Sinaiticus, or else was a liberal translation wide of the mark. Maximo is also found in Hermas Bodmer Papyri XXXVIII, as well as in the Mt. Athos Hermas, and so its dissemination was widespread in the Levant in Greek manuscripts.
Click to expand...

And this is precisely why Tischendorf and Donaldson said that the Athous Hermas involved a later Latin retroversion of Maximo from the Palatine.

If the original Greek was the name Maximo, you still have not explained how the early Latin Vulgata has the name magna.

Which is a far more sensible original reading, since it does not create a fantasy person, and magna fits perfectly in the context.
 
Unbound68 said:
He has no skill with Latin.
He has no skill with French.
He has no skill with German.
He has no skill with Russian.
He has no skill with Greek.

Despite not knowing any of those languages, you will find him daily offering excerpts from whatever 19th century works he can find to cherry pick for his cause.

He has no skills in any foreign language, but he thinks Google Translate gives him proficiency in all of them.
Click to expand...
I don't believe he knows etymology.
 
Steven Avery said:
Actually we are careful about assumptions. Often the connections are noted in the scholarship, but they only consider possible explanations that match the presupposition that Sinaiticus must be 4th century. Or they do not give explanations to get an airing.

There are cases where you look for controls.

e.g. Does Vaticanus, Bezae or Alexandrinus have any similar relationships to extant manuscripts?

So: if the correctors of Sinaiticus match one manuscript, you want to go through it variant by variant, and you want to consider various possible explanations. Longer omissions in Sinaiticus are especially interesting, especially if they may be homoeoteleuton.

A person could theorize that the Sinaiticus manuscript was in some foreign land, like Mt. Athos, and the corrections in Sinaiticus, but not the text, were used in the making of the new manuscript. That ultra-difficult theory can be compared with the far simpler, Ockham-friendly conclusion that the manuscript was actually used for the Sinaiticus corrections.
Click to expand...
You're lost in this. I don't care about the pedigree of Sinaiticus. I do care about methods. You have no functioning methodology to criticize anything and you refuse to deal with that fact. If you are dealing with Latin manuscripts, you have a far more complicated "equation". I question your skills to properly evaluate anything concerning Latin manuscripts.
 
Steven Avery said:
And this is precisely why Tischendorf and Donaldson said that the Athous Hermas involved a later Latin retroversion of Maximo from the Palatine.

If the original Greek was the name Maximo, you still have not explained how the early Latin Vulgata has the name magna.

Which is a far more sensible original reading, since it does not create a fantasy person, and magna fits perfectly in the context.
Click to expand...
Care to quote them saying this?

You don't get to speak for them.
 
Steven Avery said:
you still have not explained how the early Latin Vulgata has the name magna.
Click to expand...
I don't have to explain it. Who says I should? May be someone didn't like the name Maximus and thought it would be a good idea to substitute a "great tribulation" as per Rev 7:14.
 
cjab said:
I don't have to explain it. Who says I should? May be someone didn't like the name Maximus and thought it would be a good idea to substitute a "great tribulation" as per Rev 7:14.
Click to expand...

Which is strong evidence against Maximo as the original Greek reading.
 
Steven Avery said:
Actually we are careful about assumptions. Often the connections are noted in the scholarship, but they only consider possible explanations that match the presupposition that Sinaiticus must be 4th century. Or they do not give explanations to get an airing.

There are cases where you look for controls.

e.g. Does Vaticanus, Bezae or Alexandrinus have any similar relationships to extant manuscripts?

So: if the correctors of Sinaiticus match one manuscript, you want to go through it variant by variant, and you want to consider various possible explanations. Longer omissions in Sinaiticus are especially interesting, especially if they may be homoeoteleuton.

A person could theorize that the Sinaiticus manuscript was in some foreign land, like Mt. Athos, and the corrections in Sinaiticus, but not the text, were used in the making of the new manuscript. That ultra-difficult theory can be compared with the far simpler, Ockham-friendly conclusion that the manuscript was actually used for the Sinaiticus corrections.
Click to expand...
Sinaiticus has never been at Mt. Athos. There is no existing manuscript like it on this planet. The later correctors were definitely Byzantine. Sinaiticus/Vaticanus common, way back ancestor shares many cases of eye skip.
 
Conan said:
Sinaiticus has never been at Mt. Athos. There is no existing manuscript like it on this planet. The later correctors were definitely Byzantine. Sinaiticus/Vaticanus common, way back ancestor shares many cases of eye skip.
Click to expand...

This old article bears on the non-existent Athos exemplar:


The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record
Volume 3
1863

Page 232, Paragraph 4/5 (beneath the line) through to Page 234.

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/_/gnstAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=0

See after: "Sir, - Mr Hodgkin seems to imagine..."
​

I strongly suspect Mr. Avery is hoping people won't actually read the Contra (counter arguments against) Simonides articles of the time.

NOTE: Has Simonides "copy" with the 2nd Esdras and end of Esther note about Pamphilus, that he lamely spoke of, ever been found at Mt Athos? He testified "they had" ("they" being Mt. Athos) "a copy".
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
The original Greek text is unrecoverable. That's the only conclusion that can be drawn by the scholars.
Click to expand...

You give us an unusual theory that by c. AD 200 there were two competing Greek texts, one that translated to magna and one that translated to Maximo.

You have an alternate theory that a 4th-centuy Palatine text back-translated back to the Greek Maximo text in Sinaiticus.

Both are your private weak attempts.
 
Steven Avery said:
It was explained to you, but the non-Christian rants caused the thread to be deleted.
Click to expand...
YOU’RE the one who insulted and then got your feelings hurt and complained when someone responded to you in kind.

And I wasn’t aware that the forum rules allowed you to question someone’s salvation or membership in Christ’s Church.

You have repeatedly called Maestroh a non-Christian. Is that allowed here? Just wondering.

Be sure, your OWN sins will find you out.
 
Steven Avery said:
You give us an unusual theory that by c. AD 200 there were two competing Greek texts, one that translated to magna and one that translated to Maximo.
Click to expand...
NO. I gave the general scholarly consensus that the original Greek text of hermas is unrecoverable. However, as to Maximo, the evidence from the Greek manuscripts is that Maximo is the correct rendition, largely due to the Palatine following the extant Greek manuscripts.
 
Donaldson "A Critical History of Christian Literature Vol 1", p310: "The Palatine accounts well for the origin of Maximo in the Sinaitic Greek, but it is not possible to account for the common 'magna' if Maximo has been orignally in the Greek."

The flaw in this nonsensical argument by Donaldson is straightforard to grasp: how did "Maximus" get into the Palatine if it wasn't originally in the Greek? To which Donaldson has no answer. And the "Palatine" has got to account for the origin of Maximo in multiple Greek manuscripts which all differ from one another in other respects (as inferred by Donaldson) which is even more improbable.

It's not surprising that no-one credits Donaldson's fallacious logic today.
 
cjab said:
NO. I gave the general scholarly consensus that the original Greek text of hermas is unrecoverable. However, as to Maximo, the evidence from the Greek manuscripts is that Maximo is the correct rendition, largely due to the Palatine following the extant Greek manuscripts.
Click to expand...

So if there were not two or more editions in the Greek, as you earlier implied, how did we get the consistent Vulgata text of magna as early as AD 200? This is in all the Vulgata manuscripts.

And who is this Maximo? And why did he disappear in the Vulgata?
 
cjab said:
Donaldson "A Critical History of Christian Literature Vol 1", p310: "The Palatine accounts well for the origin of Maximo in the Sinaitic Greek, but it is not possible to account for the common 'magna' if Maximo has been orignally in the Greek."

The flaw in this nonsensical argument by Donaldson is straightforard to grasp: how did "Maximus" get into the Palatine if it wasn't originally in the Greek? To which Donaldson has no answer. And the "Palatine" has got to account for the origin of Maximo in multiple Greek manuscripts which all differ from one another in other respects (as inferred by Donaldson) which is even more improbable.

It's not surprising that no-one credits Donaldson's fallacious logic today.
Click to expand...

Maximus got into the Latin by the simple mix-up of two similar words in the Latin.

So the nonsense is your posturing. The "multiple Greek manuscripts" is ... two.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Like "Maximo" proves it all...
How does one variant equate to victory?
Click to expand...

It is one strong evidence, unique in that it was even highlighted by Constantine Tischendorf!

It goes well with MANY strong textual evidences, as well as the historical imperatives, manuscript condition, colouring and staining, etc.
 
Steven Avery said:
Maximus got into the Latin by the simple mix-up of two similar words in the Latin.
Click to expand...
Nonsense. You are being driven by your predilection for conspiracy theories to make bogus assertions.

All scholars today with only very few exceptions such as Donaldson, i.e. from Zahn ("Der Hirt des Hermas") in 1868 onwards, accept that Maximus is the preferred reading. You may have a friend in Paolo Cecconi who thinks the Old Latin version of Hermas retains importance, but I can't at present find any comment from him on the Maximus issue. However he accepts that different versions of the text must have been in circulation.

Maximus and magna are not similar words. Rather it is likely that someone decided, like you, that they didn't like the name Maximus, as it was otherwise unknown, and changed it (deliberately) to magna. But this change was wrong, given that Grapte and Hermas and Eldad, and Modad are also unknown. Moreover it did not entail a single word modification, as you suggest, but a sequence of word changes, indicating motive as opposed to accident. What seems inconcievable is that anyone would have inserted "Maximus" if the original text had read "magna." A change to magna is the most likely explanation, as per Hoole (below).

The Old Latin "magna" is discordant with most other language versions, including Palatine, Greek and Æthiopic.

Hoole: p171, "The Shepherd of Hermas," 1870,
"Maximus is an unknown person. The name had disappeared
from the Latin versions ..... The name Maximus is
found in the Codex Sinaiticus, in the Codex Lipsiensis, and in
the Æthiopic version " [and in Bodmer Papyri XXXVIII]

Per Carolyn Osiek (Shepherd of Hermas - A Commentary) "Maximus (v. 4), unknown
to us but undoubtedly an infamous object of shame in Hermas' community, is sarcastically single out for a
stinging taunt, and is the shining example of what not to do."

HERMAS LE PASTEUR, INTRODUCTION, TEXTE CRITIQUE, TRADUCTION ET NOTES, Robert Joly, Paris 1958
p.29 "The clergy, however, has its role to play in the announced penance: Hermas the leader, it is he who will make her known, who will exhort to repentance. And ecclesiastical reconciliation? There is no doubt that Hermas attests to this. Maxim[us], to whom he addresses himself in 7, 4, can only be a reinstated lapsus. The apostates of which he often speaks are in the same situation, but Hermas does not mention any rite, any precise ceremony of reconciliation."

"Der Hirt des Hermas," Theodor Zahn, 1868, also accepts Maximus is member of Hermas's household. p.376.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
So if there were not two or more editions in the Greek, as you earlier implied, how did we get the consistent Vulgata text of magna as early as AD 200? This is in all the Vulgata manuscripts.

And who is this Maximo? And why did he disappear in the Vulgata?
Click to expand...
Presumably the Vulgata manuscripts were sourced from an orignal translation. That we don't have answers doesn't give you a license to make unprovable conjectures as if they were fact. Greek was the lingua franca of the early church. No-one knows who Hermas or Grapte were, either. What is so objectionable about your approach is that it is non-scientific, and motivated by an animus promoting a wild conspiracy theory (even KJVO), rather than the cause of objective truth. This is why you will fail in your endeavours. Sinaiticus Hermas has been labelled by scholars as an attempt to establish an authoritative Greek text, which is why is differs from other Greek texts. It is considered not to represent a single Greek manuscript. The idea that Sinaiticus is just a translation from the Palatine finds no support amongst any scholars today. Prove me wrong.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top