TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
You omit to say, that it will tell you everything you need to know, if it's a match. ??
Codex Sinaiticus - the facts
- Thread starter cjab
- Start date
You omit to say, that it will tell you everything you need to know, if it's a match. ??
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Apparently Simonides wanted to terminus ante quem his step parents ?
I do not know the reliability of this story that Simonides tried to kill his parents. For all I know, it could have been an invention of his own bragging.
I suggested that we analyze Sinaiticus without regard to any of the stories of its provenance. Gossip about Simonides or Tischendorf is a pointless diversion.
I suggested that we analyze Sinaiticus without regard to any of the stories of its provenance. Gossip about Simonides or Tischendorf is a pointless diversion.
You should stop promoting yourself into a biblical scholar. It's embarrassing when you do this. Moreover, it's wrong for you to foster unqualified and manifestly unprovable statements on the unsuspecting general public that are contrary to the views of the entire academic establishment. You do realize that you are opposed by every academic scholar of authority? It's statements like these, devoid of any rationale except what aroses from the overweening vanity and hubris of the KJVO club, that disclose the wanton intellectual dishonesty of your dead-beat project that is long past its sell-by date, and should be officially recognized by every branch of Christianity as an idolatrous cult.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Hilgenfeld emended the text, as he tells you, so it is NOT a reflection of the Latin manuscripts. He was likely confused by the false date of Sinaiticus and wanted to line up the Latin closer to the supposed 4th-century Greek. In later editions Hilgenfeld published the text correctly and says specifically that magna is the reading of the Latin Vulgata manuscripts.
Cecconi is essentially the same as the standard Latin text.
Cecconi is simply capitalizing after a colon.
So there are no significant variants in the Latin L1 Vulgata manuscripts.
==========================
Plus, you can see the continual connection of the two words, great and tribulation, no name, in the Latin text.
magna ecce tribulatio - Hilgenfeld emendation to magno
magnas tribulationes
magnam tribulationem
==========================
There was no person Maximo in the original Hermas.
Last edited:
Were you there to verify this, or is this your conjecture? Do you have an "original Hermas" to show us? In fact the text with "Maximo" makes a lot more sense in its context, than the vulgata with an otherwise meaningless allusion to "great tribulation."
"All evidence indicates a nonelite Greek-speaking context
with limited literary education. Hermas belongs to
"the common people" of the city. The language and
structure of the text are characteristic of a predominantly
oral culture, in which paratactic aggregations, repetitions,
and images from everyday life are common and do
not distract, but rather strengthen the medium of communication."
"The text arose over the course of some
years, with several editions, in a milieu and from a mind
in which oral communication was the norm.
ution. That process was in its early stages in the early
second century as the church began to foster economic
interdependence within its own ranks. This is precisely
what was not happening with those perceived as wealthy
who refused to associate with other Christians for fear
their patronage would be presumed upon."
"Nonelite does not necessarily mean economically
poor, however. The terminology for poverty in ancient
Mediterranean languages has little correspondence with
modern understandings of poverty, but has rather to do
with maintenance of the status and honor, however limited,
that the family claims to possess; without sufficient
economic means, the family cannot maintain its claimed
honor status. The church increasingly began to function
as an economic unit, paralleling and eventually replacing
the household as primary center of economic distrib-
ution. That process was in its early stages in the early
second century as the church began to foster economic
interdependence within its own ranks. This is precisely
what was not happening with those perceived as wealthy
who refused to associate with other Christians for fear
their patronage would be presumed upon."
Shepherd of Hermas
A Commentary
by Carolyn Osiek
Edited by
Helmut Koester
1999
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You should stop the embarrassing blah-blah.
Plus you should retract your error claiming that the L1 Vulgata text is not consistent on this point.
Tischendorf was correct on Maximo being a retro-version.
Are you upset that I am complimenting the Tischendorf linguistic analysis?
And continue to confirm his accuracy on this point.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You should simply accept Carolyn Osiek on the dates of the Latin versions, Vulgata and Palatine.
Note though that there were many editions based on the L1 text before 1873.
You still have not given any sensible explanation for why the Vulgata manuscripts have magna, great tribulation, the sensible and consistent text, and not Maximus. These manuscripts are consistent and they represent a translation originally made very close to the original Greek Hermas.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
What's embarrassing about his post?
Can't be more embarrassing than your "square" script to "squar-ISH" script backtracking within a matter of a few posts, betraying your ignorance of even the fundamental's of the Greek alphabet and the shape of it's unchangeably ROUND letters, such as Theta, Omicron, Omega, Phi etc which was the main characteristic of the text that stood out to Vitaliano over a hundred years before Simonides MASSIVE U-TURN on the Codex Sinaiticus and daring to claim he actually wrote it.
- Constantine Simonides 1859, Codex Sinaiticus stance "M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well as the 1st Book of Hermas, all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago."
- Constantine Simonides 1862, Codex Sinaiticus stance "First I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of pastoral writings of Hermas ... because the parchment ran short..."
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Sinaiticus and Simonides
By James Snapp Jr.
Part Three
Ten More Reasons Why Sinaiticus Was Not Made By Simonides
Page 18, Reason 20
"Pages from Near the End of the Shepherd of Hermas in Codex Sinaiticus Are Extant. When Simonides wrote his letter for The Guardian
in 1862, he very clearly stated he concluded it with "the first part of the pastoral writings of Hermas", but his work then ended "because the supply of parchment ran short." Such a description plausibly interlocked with what one could discern at the time about the contents of Codex Sinaiticus by reading Tischendorf's description of it. At the time, only the first 31 chapters of the text of Hermas were known to be extant in Codex Sinaiticus; that is all that Tischendorf had recovered from Saint Catherine's Monastery. However, in 1975, when the "New Finds" were discovered, they included damaged pages from Hermas, to be specific, from chapters 65-68 and chapters 91-95. The Shepherd of Hermas has a total of 114 chapters. In no sensible way can Simonides' statement that he wrote "the first part" of Hermas and stopped there
be interlocked with the existence of pages containing the 95th of its 114 short chapters."
Emphasis added by me
https://www.academia.edu/32044905/Sinaiticus_and_Simonides
By James Snapp Jr.
Part Three
Ten More Reasons Why Sinaiticus Was Not Made By Simonides
Page 18, Reason 20
"Pages from Near the End of the Shepherd of Hermas in Codex Sinaiticus Are Extant. When Simonides wrote his letter for The Guardian
in 1862, he very clearly stated he concluded it with "the first part of the pastoral writings of Hermas", but his work then ended "because the supply of parchment ran short." Such a description plausibly interlocked with what one could discern at the time about the contents of Codex Sinaiticus by reading Tischendorf's description of it. At the time, only the first 31 chapters of the text of Hermas were known to be extant in Codex Sinaiticus; that is all that Tischendorf had recovered from Saint Catherine's Monastery. However, in 1975, when the "New Finds" were discovered, they included damaged pages from Hermas, to be specific, from chapters 65-68 and chapters 91-95. The Shepherd of Hermas has a total of 114 chapters. In no sensible way can Simonides' statement that he wrote "the first part" of Hermas and stopped there
be interlocked with the existence of pages containing the 95th of its 114 short chapters."
Emphasis added by me
https://www.academia.edu/32044905/Sinaiticus_and_Simonides
- Constantine Simonides 1859, Codex Sinaiticus stance "M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well as the 1st Book of Hermas, all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago."
- Constantine Simonides 1862, Codex Sinaiticus stance "First I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of pastoral writings of Hermas in capital letters (or uncial characters) in the style known in calligraphy as [GREEK] (amphidexios). The transcription of the remaining Apostolic writings, however, I declined, because the parchment ran short..."
NOTE: In both the Biographical Memoir (BM) and his September 3rd, 1862 Letter to the Guardian newspaper (GL) Simonides only has knowledge of the existence of "the first book of" (BM) or "the first part of" (GL) Hermas within the Sinaiticus manuscript.
Last edited:
On the contrary: you maintain a misleading premise that Tischendorf's initial premise was largely based on a "linguistic analysis". It wasn't but was mainly motivated bya contextual analysis of Simonides' manuscript assessed against the Palatine (Simonides being a known forger) from which Palatine version it was speculated to have been copied from. In 1863, Tischendorf withdrew his analysis & allegations completely and expressed ignorance as to whether the Greek or the Latin came first. Hence you are once again misleading everybody.
I told you TEN YEARS AGO to go learn Greek, too, but you never did.
Jonathan Borland and Dr. Barry Hofstetter told you the exact same thing.
"In the mouth of two or three witnesses" apparently has little affect on Fake Moon Landing Dude.
So maybe just maybe in the future learn to stop giving advice when you refuse to take it.
As I already covered and YOU conveniently avoided, maximw was known before Christ was ever born and thus this nonsense of yours "IT HAD TO BE THIS WAY" is refuted.
The end.
We'll note you had nothing to say except to go full Queens NARC right back to assertions of debunked bunk.
The obvious reason why magna appears in the Vulgata version is because the Latin translator didn't realize "maximw" was a name (it wasn't capitalized and doesn't appear elsewhere) and so assumed it meant "great/greatest" in the context, as it may mean in Latin, and so translated it as "magna", combining it with tribulation. The Vulgata is a fairly liberal translation, I understand. Hence the need for the Palatine.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Then why does Tischendorf support his analysis by linguistics?
Where does Tischendorf express ignorance of whether the Greek or the Latin came first?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
And as I already asked you, are you claiming that Hermas was speaking to a gentleman from 200 years earlier?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
More TNC nonsense, post after post on nothing.
And I told you that I would give the quotes when my main puter was back up, it needed a new power supply.
==============================
A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus (1864)
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=CNmOa7HaS6EC&pg=PA10
==============================
The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: And Other Critical Essays (1872)
On the comparative antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts of the Greek Bible
by Ezra Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=SpURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA152
==============================
An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1914)
Henry Barclay Swete revised by Richard Rusden Ottley
https://books.google.com/books?id=R-U7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA130
==============================
The Fourth Gospel: A History of the Textual Tradition of the Original Greek Gospel (1976)
Victor Salmon
==============================
Copying Early Christian Texts: A study of scribal practice (2016)
by Alan Mugridge
https://books.google.com/books?id=N_v1zQPNpFwC&pg=PA225
==============================
Here is the list of writers describing SInaiticus as round letters.
==============================
Also generally, the uncials are called square letters.
The Biblical Review (1916)
Matthew B. Riddle
https://books.google.com/books?id=8EsmAQAAIAAJ&pg=PA252
==============================
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
That is simply not true.
It is very possible for a script to be used over centuries. You would need a person very familiar with Arabic scripts.
It can help you with a terminus post quem.
e.g. if the Sinaiticus script is a close match to an AD 1400 manuscript, it would be wrong to claim an 1840 terminus post quem.
Ahhh, the same as the amount of scholars who describe Sinaiticus as a 19th century manuscript (btw, none of the men you provided via your Google search of “square” and “script” and “Sinaiticus” believed your 19th century composition nonsense either).
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Individual viewpoints. They are welcome to their opinion.
Vitaliano described a Bible, that especially caught his attention - the same Bible - that caught Uspensky's number 1 attention, and Tischendorfs number 1 attention, and later Simonides attention, avarice, and jealousy.
What other Bible would there have been at St Catherine's, that would have stood out from all the other Bible's "in particular"?
The answer is obvious. You're just in denial.
It's been testified by the real Kallinikos of St Catherine's (against Simonides lies), the St Catherine's Librarian of the time, and others that it was in the ancient catalogues as well.
Part of it was pasted into a book cover over a hundred years before, as well...
See also:
SIMONIDES CODEX SINAITICUS STANCE
MASSIVE U-TURN
MASSIVE U-TURN
- Constantine Simonides 1859, Codex Sinaiticus stance "M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well as the 1st Book of Hermas, all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago."
- Constantine Simonides 1862, Codex Sinaiticus stance "First I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of pastoral writings of Hermas in capital letters (or uncial characters) in the style known in calligraphy as [GREEK] (amphidexios). The transcription of the remaining Apostolic writings, however, I declined, because the parchment ran short..."
NOTE: In both the Biographical Memoir (BM) and his September 3rd, 1862 Letter to the Guardian newspaper (GL) Simonides only has knowledge of the existence of "the first book of" (BM) or "the first part of" (GL) Hermas within the Sinaiticus manuscript.