Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

[cjab]

2 Peter 2:15 (AV)
Which have forsaken the right way, and are gone astray,
following the way of Balaam the son of Bosor,
who loved the wages of unrighteousness;

Numbers 22:5 (AV)
He sent messengers therefore unto Balaam the son of Beor to Pethor,
which is by the river of the land of the children of his people,
to call him, saying,
Behold, there is a people come out from Egypt:
behold, they cover the face of the earth,
and they abide over against me:

The true NT Bible word is Bosor, Βοσόρ.

The false NT word is Beor, Βεώρ, a late variant.

Sinaiticus has by the original hand - Beoorsor, Βεωορσορ

A conflation of the two readings.

The evidence here is, once again, Sinaiticus is a late manuscript.

I can't see that it is. You always seem to assume that just because a later variant is prototyped in Sinaiticus, it proves something, but here it proves nothing because the early form Βοσόρ is retained:

Metzger (2005) Textual Commentary on NT (2 Pet 2:15):

"The reading Βοσόρ, a name not found elsewhere (in fact the Chaldee/Aramaic form of Βεώρ), is strongly
supported by almost all Greek manuscripts, and by most early
versions. The reading Βεώρ, found in B 453 VG(mss), SYR (ph) COP(sa),
is the prevailing spelling of the Septuagint. The singular
reading of Βεωορσορ in Sinaiticus is no doubt due to the conflation
of Βοσόρ with a marginal correction -ewp."

 

[Steven Avery]

The attestation of ζωής by 01 (א) shows that the substitution is early.
p.247, The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmission, TOMMY WASSERMAN

Since Sinaiticus has this text ζωής as part of a conflation, the actual original reading in an exemplar, and theorized marginal notes, would have to be significantly earlier. (A point omitted by Tommy Wasserman, perhaps because it would highlight the difficulty of his circular theorizing.)

However, the Sinaiticus Greek reading is an orphan among early mss. and the conflation actually shows up in an Important Mt. Athos uncial manuscript around AD 800, Ψ.

So the Sinaiticus 4th century attempt is extremely difficult. While the conflation variant is simple for the Mt. Athos ms. c. 1840 since Ψ already had the conflation. Thus, there is not even any reason to theorize a scribal error in Sinaiticus, involving a Greek reading for which there is no evidence at the Sinaiticus circularity time.

It will be interesting to notice various other connections of Ψ to Sinaiticus. (Such as has been found for Coislinianus and other manuscripts.) These connections of Ψ and Sinaiticus will help corroborate the powerful late Sinaiticus evidence from Jude 1:3.

 

[cjab]

It will be interesting to notice various other connections of Ψ to Sinaiticus.

Even if there are connections, what could it prove except that Ψ was sourced inter alia from Sinaiticus?

 

[Steven Avery]

Even if there are connections, what could it prove except that Ψ was sourced inter alia from Sinaiticus?

There is no theory among modern Sinaiticus 4th-century proponents that places Sinaiticus in Mt. Athos to be available to help create Ψ.

Plus, many connections are uni-directional. E.g. if Ψ supplies excellently a correction text for a Sinaiticus omission (our first recent study on the ms.) then Ψ cannot be “sourced .. from Codex Sinaiticus” for the supplied text.

Another example is when there are multiple connections between a specific manuscript and a specific Sinaiticus corrector. The idea that Sinaiticus was somehow in hand for the creation of the ms. but was only used by looking for one corrector would have Ockham in anguish.

 

[cjab]

There is no theory among modern Sinaiticus 4th-century proponents that places Sinaiticus in Mt. Athos to be available to help create Ψ.

Yes, but others manuscripts were presumably written at Caesarea that ended up on Mt. Athos, as the scriptorium there seems to have been used for centuries, and Ψ could have been partially sourced from them. There may have been a transportation of manuscripts from East to West at the date of the Islamic invasions in the 7th century.

Plus, many connections are uni-directional. E.g. if Ψ supplies excellently a correction text for a Sinaiticus omission (our first recent study on the ms.) then Ψ cannot be “sourced .. from Codex Sinaiticus” for the supplied text.

I agreed that Ψ was based on additional codices.

Another example is when there are multiple connections between a specific manuscript and a specific Sinaiticus corrector. The idea that Sinaiticus was somehow in hand for the creation of the ms. but was only used by looking for one corrector would have Ockham in anguish.

 

[Steven Avery]

I agreed that Ψ was based on additional codices.

Did you agree that oftentimes the connection between two manuscripts is uni-directional?

E.g. the ms. that is the source manuscript for a homoeoteleuton, with proper line formatting to match the dropped text, cannot be connected as the later manuscript.

You seem to take the position that all connections are bi-directional.

 

[cjab]

Did you agree that oftentimes the connection between two manuscripts is uni-directional?

E.g. the ms. that is the source manuscript for a homoeoteleuton, with proper line formatting to match the dropped text, cannot be connected as the later manuscript.

You seem to take the position that all connections are bi-directional.

No I don't take the position that all connections are bi-directional, but in all their analyses of families of manuscripts (e.g. see Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament), no-one has found any grounds to doubt the conventional dating.

As to 2 Peter, in the classification of manuscripts, 01 (א) & 044 (Ψ) are seen as most closely related (circa 73% agreement) - see p.43 of Relationships among the non-Byzantine manuscripts of 2 Peter, Terry Dwain Robertson; and placed in Group III (also Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament - Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1989).

Group III is an elite group of non-byzantine MSS 01, 02, 044, 5, 33, 1735, and 184 (manuscripts of "a distinctive character with an independent text, . . . particularly important for the history of the text").

In the aforementioned article, 2 Pet 2:15 isn't even mentioned.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Is Simonides "Sinaiticus" text of 1 John 5:7-8 uni-directional?

Mr Avery?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Steven Avery
When you add the actual manuscript puzzles and phenomenal condition and colouring and staining and Hermas and linguistics and tons more including the three crosses note and the colophons and Revelation as an Andreas precursor, we have a slam dunk.

https://forums.carm.org/threads/is-the-worlds-oldest-bible-a-fake.11375/page-30#post-946609

In Simonides earlier story, he both accepted and defended "the phenomenal condition" of the parchment.

A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira,
with a Brief Defense of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts.

Pages 60-63

By Charles Stewart, 1859

“As to the time of the duration of the manuscripts, it is to be observed that parchment, as it was prepared among the ancients, was much more durable than any other writing material employed by them. In the Library of the Vatican are more than 1500 years old, and in Spain and elsewhere there exist manuscripts of as ancient a date. [Page 61] Moreover, Sir T. Phillipps publicly announced in the Athenaeum (see No. 1536, April 4th, 1857,) that he had in his posession a Latin manuscript 1200 years old, and that it was in a state of complete preservation. M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well a the 1st Book of Hermas, all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago. This MS. is reptesented to be in excellent condition. From this we may conclude that parchment manuscripts may be preserved for almost an unlimited period, for those that are kept in the Museums, even though they exceed 1000 years, have not lost a single letter. Nor is at all surprising that manuscripts on parchment should have been preserved for so long a time; for it must be admitted to be much more wonderful that the papyrus manuscripts which are so much more fragile than skins, should have come down to our times, well preserved, many of them more than 3000 years old. Those who please may at the British Museum and at Turin see many of them; even this is nothing startling, for corn and many other seeds have been found in Egyptian coffin which have been underground for perhaps 4000 years, and have not in the least lost their germinal powers. Many lock of hair, too, have been found in these coffins, preserved in a most perfect condition till the present day.* There can be no reasonable doubt as to the extraordinary durability of parchment, neither can it be questioned that at a very early period in the world's history skin of various kinds both prepared and otherwise were used for the purposes of writing. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider any further...”

https://archive.org/details/1859-bi...nstantine-simonides-stewart/page/n33/mode/1up​

Notice Simonides says, "all of which were written in the 2nd Century", which creates difficulty, because, wasn't the Shepherd of Hermas first created in the same century?

 

[Steven Avery]

As to 2 Peter, in the classification of manuscripts, 01 (א) & 044 (Ψ) are seen as most closely related (circa 73% agreement) - see p.43 of Relationships among the non-Byzantine manuscripts of 2 Peter, Terry Dwain Robertson; a

Thanks, this is a good find, confirming my gut feeling to date that Codex Athous Lavrensis, (Ψ 044) is a fertile manuscript for finding textual connections that were used in the production and correction of Sinaiticus! And the manuscript being from Mt. Athos is clearly a plus in that analysis.

 

[Steven Avery]

No I don't take the position that all connections are bi-directional, but in all their analyses of families of manuscripts (e.g. see Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament), no-one has found any grounds to doubt the conventional dating.

Have you found any scholar who has looked at the specific textual connections of various manuscripts to Sinaiticus with that concern in mind?

Clearly, if all analysis starts with the presupposition that Sinaiticus is 4th century, that precludes any allowance for doubt.

 

[Steven Avery]

Revelation 17:4 (AV)
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour,
and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls,
having a golden cup in her hand
full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Sinaiticus adds a conflation phrase that is in late minuscules:

"and (the fornication) of the earth".

πορνιας αὐτῆς καὶ τῆς γῆς

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

This conflation is included in the section from Wilbur Pickering,
The Identity of the NT Text - Appendix D
Conflation or Confusion

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

Once again, powerful evidence that Sinaiticus was written long after the 4th century.

 

[cjab]

Have you found any scholar w nioteho has looked at the specific textual connections of various manuscripts to Sinaiticus with that concern in mind?

Clearly, if all analysis starts with the presupposition that Sinaiticus is 4th century, that precludes any allowance for doubt.

No. I note that by your reckoning we have Codex Claromontanus (latin), Codex Alexandrinus (printed edition), the Zosima 1821 Moscow Bible, 3 unknown manuscripts, and now the Codex Athous Lavrensis as well, suggested as being collated and copied by Simonides in less than a year, and for what reason?

Any textual critic would tell you that the compliexity of such a task is absurd. When are you going to wake up and smell the coffee?

 

[Steven Avery]

No. I note that by your reckoning we have Codex Claromontanus (latin), Codex Alexandrinus (printed edition), the Zosima 1821 Moscow Bible, 3 unknown manuscripts, and now the Codex Athous Lavrensis as well, suggested as being collated and copied by Simonides in less than a year …

The preparation project was by Benedict (Bissarion of Symi) over many years. And I carefully explained that in the recent James Snapp debate, and made sure Bill Brown included the full section, which he had omitted in order to falsely accuse. So there is no difficulty having many manuscripts and editions involved.

Also this is covered well in the second David Daniels book on Sinaiticus, "Who Faked the World's Oldest Bible?”

Some manuscripts were used in correction rather than the original text.

And, interestingly, some of these connections are in regular Sinaiticus scholarship, left up in the air due to the mistaken 4th century presupposition.

 

[Steven Avery]

When are you going to wake up and smell the coffee?

That question can go to the Sinaiticus Authenticity Defenders.

Herb tea is an alternative.

The textual analysis is the beginning of the end.

 

[cjab]

The preparation project was by Benedict (Bissarion of Symi) over many years. And I carefully explained that in the recent James Snapp debate, and made sure Bill Brown included the full section, which he had omitted in order to falsely accuse. So there is no difficulty having many manuscripts and editions involved.

Also this is covered well in the second David Daniels book on Sinaiticus, "Who Faked the World's Oldest Bible?”

Some manuscripts were used in correction rather than the original text.

And, interestingly, some of these connections are in regular Sinaiticus scholarship, left up in the air due to the mistaken 4th century presupposition.

Conspiracy theory built on conspiracy theory. I've read Elijah Hixon's unpublished review of David W. Daniels, Is the “World’s Oldest
Bible” a Fake? Ontario, CA: Chick Publications, 2017, and it is scathing. He doesn't recommend it (a corruptor of pure minds I imagine).

I'll need to check out this

. Could be amusing.

That question can go to the Sinaiticus Authenticity Defenders.

Herb tea is an alternative.

The textual analysis is the beginning of the end.

Funny how the text suddenly "aged." What sort of miracle brought that on? Don't tell me: another uncle of his supplied an "aging potion."

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So there is no difficulty having many manuscripts and editions involved.

The only problem is, you are busying yourself CREATING alibi's for Simonides which Simonides himself has rejected...

Like for example, phenomenal condition...

Example, Simonides says the parchments were "prepared many centuries ago", you invent the "a few" centuries ago alibi...

And so on...

You are the myth-maker extraordinare...

 

[Maestroh]

Conspiracy theory built on conspiracy theory. I've read Elijah Hixon's unpublished review of David W. Daniels, Is the “World’s Oldest
Bible” a Fake? Ontario, CA: Chick Publications, 2017, and it is scathing. He doesn't recommend it (a corruptor of pure minds I imagine).

I'll need to check out this

. Could be amusing.


Funny how the text suddenly "aged." What sort of miracle brought that on? Don't tell me: another uncle of his supplied an "aging potion."

It was hilarious to watch David Daniels lie on camera and the DBS hypocritically suddenly pretend doctrine doesn’t matter.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Have you found any scholar who has looked at the specific textual connections of various manuscripts to Sinaiticus with that concern in mind?

Clearly, if all analysis starts with the presupposition that Sinaiticus is 4th century, that precludes any allowance for doubt.

Obviously not...

because...

They don't have the presupposition that the Sinaiticus is not a 4th century manuscript...

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The preparation project was by Benedict (Bissarion of Symi) over many years.

A rehearsed story, he'd been using to dupe people for ages before he took revenge on Tischendorf...

His favorite fake manuscript sales pitch...

Along with the "important matters" line...???

It's all there in his sale's catalogues (books)...and in his victims accounts as well...

Your making up stuff to cover his inconsistencies and straight out, bald faced, recalcitrant lying...