Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - St Catherine's manuscripts Catalogue(s) plural

[cjab]

Thanks, you proved you need vision help!

And we can see why Hixson did NOT show the actual manuscript pages.

Anyway, I thank you for bringing the Elijah Hixson absurdity to my attention.

And the dupes give cover for the libraries, who sense the truth and will not allow any objective scientific testing.

You're proved yourself a devoted conspiracy theorist. Coloring Sinaiticus ranks alongside faked moon landings on the asininity scale.

 

[Steven Avery]

Coloring Sinaiticus …

… is simply the historical accusation made publicly in 1862-63, which could not be verified until the 2009 hi-res color photos of the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It should have been checked by viewing and handling and testing leaves of the two sections in the 1860s.

It would have been absurd to make such an accusation …. except Simonides knew it was true.
An historical imperative. Similar to knowing there was no provenance.

Would Simonides have coloured the manuscript if he had not abandoned the project?
It is the well-known method for trying to give an appearance of age.

 

[cjab]

… is simply the historical accusation made publicly in 1862-63, which could not be verified until the 2009 hi-res color photos of the Codex Sinaiticus Project. It should have been checked by viewing and handling and testing leaves of the two sections in the 1860s.

It would have been absurd to make such an accusation …. except Simonides knew it was true.
An historical imperative. Similar to knowing there was no provenance.

Would Simonides have coloured the manuscript if he had not abandoned the project?
It is the well-known method for trying to give an appearance of age.

Again you're in la-la land - it's so difficult to hold any kind of rational conversation with you. How did Siniaticus end up in the New Finds room? Your Simonides theory is already proven to be untrue. You've lost. Get over it.

Simonides said there was no intention to deceive, because in this case he wanted to make Tischendorf out to be a fool. Coloring certainly ranks as deception, and doubtless something Simonides had tried on occasions with small pieces of parchment. One thing you can't do is quote Simonides, as his own words precluded it.

And we don't need to have recourse to such a theory: both CFA and Sinaiticus were in Leipzig with Tischnedorf in the summer of 1862 and witnessed by Bradshaw and Tregelles. They could all see that it was but one Codex.

 

[cjab]

However, there is not really any Latin Tobit that can be noted as directly derived from that Greek.

So you repudiate the scholars. I told you not to do it, as you are unqualified.

"The Vetus Latina (Old Latin) is a translation of the long version, Codex​

Sinaiticus or a very closely related Greek original. [20]"​

​

"[20] Hanhart (1984: 11–14); Fitzmyer (1995a: 662–63). The way names are translated​

of names into Latin is a strong indication a Greek original. See Moore (1996: 61)."​

[from Tobit in Siniaticys/Littmann].

We know that Jerome's Tobit is tosh, as a slapdash translation by Jerome of a Hebrew translation of an Aramaic manuscript.

We know the Vetus Latina was translated from the Greek, because of its use of Graecized names, rather than Hebrew names.

We know that the Vetus Latina is not a direct translation of Sinaiticus, because it fills in lacunae of Sinaticus, but it is definitely from the same Greek recension as Sinaiticus. We also know Siniaticus isn't a translation of the Vetus Latina, because in the Vetus Latina, first, Tobit and his son have the same name, Tobias. Second, Raguel's wife has the same name as Tobit's wife, Hannah ("Tobit, A New Translation and Commentary", Carey A Moore, 1996, p.61). Thirdly the Greek of Sinaiticus resembles the Greek of the short recension in many places.

 

[Steven Avery]

"The Vetus Latina (Old Latin) is a translation of the long version, Codex Sinaiticus or a very closely related Greek original. [20]"

This is obviously a circular construction, dependent on Sinaiticus being 4th century, so it is an irrelevant argument when the issue is the date of Sinaiticus. There is no text that is a closely related Greek original, that is a hypothetical conjecture, based again on Sinaiticus being 4th century.

The very fact that Sinaiticus is essentially an orphan manuscript in terms of its Greek recension, would, in a solid analysis, be used as an indication that it is a late manuscript.

And clearly the scholars have disagreed, since you ignored what Fitzmyer wrote.

"[20] Hanhart (1984: 11–14); Fitzmyer (1995a: 662–63). The way names are translated of names into Latin is a strong indication a Greek original. See Moore (1996: 61)."​

An "indication" but using names to determine source language is often iffy scholarship, as we have seen in the New Testament in discussions of Hebrew and Aramaic, Mark in Latin, the Hebrew Matthew, etc. Names can be modified as well in the textual transmission.

We would have to have Moore's actual arguments to try to run with this.

Plus there is no one size fits all. There could have been Vetus Latina manuscripts that came from Aramaic or Hebrew and some that came from Greek.

 

[Steven Avery]

The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit
By Francis M. Macatangay
https://books.google.com/books?id=7zDLjpuzVeoC&pg=PA50

"The Vetus Latina, which closely follows the Sinaiticus"

Why would the Vetus Latin "follow" Sinaiticus, since the true Greek LXX manuscripts are the short recension Greek manuscripts with wide support, starting with Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Venetus. When you understand that Sinaiticus was put together in the 1800s, the textual chronology fits excellently.

Again, circularity is the key to the modern "deeply entrenched" Sinaiticus scholarship.

Very little is definite in Tobit scholarship, not even the original language.

p. 17
There are scholars who believe that Greek Tobit descended from Hebrew Tobit.42 Others think that it is more likely that Aramaic is the original language of Tobit even though definitive proof for it is non-existent.” In the end, it is doubtless difficult, if not herculean, to ascertain based on lexical criteria which language first gave expression to the story of Tobit since all that the Qumran fragments confirm is the fact that Hebrew and Aramaic were the two commonly spoken languages which could have easily exerted mutual influence over each other during the time of Tobit's writing.44

Greek could have arisen from Hebrew.
Jerome tells us his Latin arose from Aramaic to Hebrew.

Sinaiticus is like a sore thumb in the way of the scholarship, since it is given a false date.

p. 18
Three factors may in fact account for the variety or fluidity of the Tobit textual traditions: a) the different manuscripts may reflect the transmission of the story in its diverse telling and retelling, a prominent feature in an oral culture,47 b) its non-canonical status allowed early copyists and translators to have a freer approach in translating and transmitting Tobit, perhaps similar to the attitude of Jerome when he did the Vulgate translation of Tobit,48 and c) the variety of Greek versions may simply point to a certain dissatisfaction with the first translation.49 No matter, the various manuscripts substantially preserved and stuck to the entirety of Tobit's story.

Also the mistaken dating of one of the Greek versions.

p. 4
In light of the discovery of the Tobit fragments at Qumran, a couple of recent works on the texts of Tobit have also been published. Under the direction of Joseph Fitzmyer, Vincent Skemp compared the Vulgate of Tobit with its other ancient textual witnesses. Michaela Hallermayer, in her detailed 2008 study of the textual traditions of Tobit under Armin Schmitt, concluded, among other things, that Tobit's original language is Semitic and that the Sinaiticus is closer but not equivalent to its Semitic Urtext.

(1999) 92-103. SKEMP, Vincent, The Vulgate of Tobit Compared with Other Ancient Witnesses (SBLDS 180), Atlanta 2000.

 

[cjab]

p. 4

In light of the discovery of the Tobit fragments at Qumran, a couple of recent works on the texts of Tobit have also been published. Under the direction of Joseph Fitzmyer, Vincent Skemp compared the Vulgate of Tobit with its other ancient textual witnesses. Michaela Hallermayer, in her detailed 2008 study of the textual traditions of Tobit under Armin Schmitt, concluded, among other things, that Tobit's original language is Semitic and that the Sinaiticus is closer but not equivalent to its Semitic Urtext.

Thank's for confirming what I indicated above.

In fact a lot of scholars say that the original language is Aramaic.

Per Mischaella Hallermayer, p. 177, footnote 983, "According to Zimmermann, the text of the Codex Sinaiticus goes back to a Hebrew text, but this is a translation of an Aramaic text; cf. ibid., Tobit 37.139-149."

This is, sort of, affirmed by Fitzmyer:

But also "Fitzmyer concedes, however, that there is in fact no compelling evidence for assuming an Aramaic source of the Hebrew narration of Tobit." [986]

[986] "See Fitzmyer, Fragments 670: "... it seems most likely to me, even though there is no real proof for it." Ibid. 672, Fitzmyer formulates less carefully: "... the original form of the story of Tobit must be sought in Aramaic, and in an Aramaic from which neither Jerome's Vg nor the medieval Aramaic version has been derived.".

So: Ararmaic --> Hebrew --> Greek (Siniaticus recension) --> Vetus Latina.

 

[Steven Avery]

So: Ararmaic --> Hebrew --> Greek (Siniaticus recension) --> Vetus Latina.

There are connections between the Tobit of the Vetus Latina, the Syriac, the Hebrew and Sinaiticus. Sinaiticus often has surprising Hebrew connections. The Hebrew is very possibly from an Aramaic source. The exact connections are for discussion and analysis and the dating of Sinaiticus will be a major factor. One big question, a player to be named later, is weighing Old Latin, Syriac and Hebrew affinities with Sinaiticus. Tischendorf’s quote stands strong on this matter. There are Old Latin mss. like Regius in the mix.

The truly ancient Greek “LXX” manuscripts are all connected textually, Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Venetus the core uncials, with many cursives a-following. And there is a minor intermediate recension of late Greek cursive manuscripts, in a sense later hybrids.

Jerome’s Vulgate Latin edition from Aramaic—>Hebrew—>Latin is a bit of a quirky wild card in this mix.

The most interesting Greek connection with Sinaiticus is Vatopedi 319. Not surprisingly this fragment of 3+ chapters fits well as a significant Sinaiticus source, with a strong textual affinity. And is on Mt. Athos.

Why are Vatopedi 319 and Sinaiticus so close textually? Would Vatopedi 319 have had more text in the 1800s? Does it fit well as a translation from one of the source languages? Is the text drop in Sinaiticus chapter 4 a scribal drop copying from 319 or was it a deliberate doctrinal decision? These are some of the areas of study.

 

[cjab]

Why are Vatopedi 319 and Sinaiticus so close textually?

Because they come from the same G2 recension.

Would Vatopedi 319 have had more text in the 1800s?

May be Simonides stole the rest?

Does it fit well as a translation from one of the source languages? Is the text drop in Sinaiticus chapter 4 a scribal drop copying from 319 or was it a deliberate doctrinal decision? These are some of the areas of study.

Sinaiticus is flawed, it is true.

But there's not much scope for progression here re your Simonides thesis, so you may as well give up.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Do you have one skilled manuscript and ink source that says that the St. Petersburg manuscript deteriorated significantly and became darker, yellow with age, and stains and brush marks, in its 70-75 years in St. Petersburg? Any ink-acid reaction?

Focus on the highlighted darker, yellow with age.

A perceived color difference.

Two PDF's by Kevin McGrane below:

Is David W. Daniels' "Codex Sinaiticus Evidence" a Fake?
By Kevin McGrane, 2018

https://www.academia.edu/37612776/Is_David_W_Daniels_Codex_Sinaiticus_Evidence_a_Fake


And the complementary work:


A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex
By Kevin McGrane, 2018

https://www.academia.edu/37556820/A...iled_background_of_the_discovery_of_the_Codex



These links can also be found on this dedicated thread.

https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...-simonides-parchment-color-differences.14083/​

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

the manuscript is in phenomenally good condition and we saw the beautiful easy-peasy quire handling and page turning in the videos from the 1933 newsreel and the 2011 BBC Beauty of Books. All the 1859 Ruski pages.

The binding was falling apart.

​

 

[Steven Avery]

The binding was falling apart.

By “binding” are you referring to any residual threads holding one quire to another?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

the manuscript is in phenomenally good condition and we saw the beautiful easy-peasy quire handling and page turning in the videos from the 1933 newsreel

Remember Steven!

Pliny said the following for a reason!

Natural History
Book 13, Chapter 70, Section 21

"BY WHICH [i.e. PARCHMENT] THE IMMORTALITY OF MAN IS ENSURED"
​

The Romans knew the phenomenal durability of parchment!

Which you obviously don't...

Flexibility and age is not necessarily a problem.

THE BIRTH OF THE CODEX

COLIN H. ROBERTS
and
T.C. SKEAT

LONDON. Published for THE BRITISH ACADEMY
by THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS
(C) 1987 reissue [1983] The British Academy

Chapter 2
PAPYRUS AND PARCHMENT
Pages 7-9

"REMAINS FLEXIBLE INDEFINITELY UNDER NORMAL CONDITIONS, DOES NOT DETERIATE WITH AGE"

http://ccat.sas.upenn.edu/rak/courses/735/book/codex-rev1.html​

 

[Steven Avery]

A perceived color difference.
Two PDF's by Kevin McGrane below.

Are you endorsing Kevin McGrane’s idea that the perceived difference was caused by brightening and cleaning reagents used in Leipzig around 1850?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

By “binding” are you referring to any residual threads holding one quire to another?

Spine stitching technically.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Are you endorsing his idea that the perceived difference was caused by brightening reagents used in Leipzig?

No.

Where did I say "brightening reagents"? = No where!

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

By “binding” are you referring to any residual threads holding one quire to another?

My wording doesn't change the fact that he manuscript was falling apart at the stiching.

​

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Looking at the picture, wouldn't you agree, that the parchments are

• Very large...
• Thin...
• Square shaped...

​

Hmmm...

Vitaliano Donati, 1761

“Atti della Reale Accademia delle scienze di Torino”
Volume 8, 1873
Page 482

T. 2, p. 27: “In questo monastero ritrovai una quantita grandissima di Codici membranacei, molti de’quali sono riposti in una Libreria, ed altri alla rinfusa in un pessimo magazzino. Quasi tutti sono membranacei per la maggior parte greci ; vi sono molti Santi Padri, ed Espositori Biblici, vari Codici di vite de’Santi, aleuni Storici, e pochi scrittori d'altre materie; ve ne sono alcuni che mi sembrarono anteriori al settimo secolo, ed in ispecie una Bibbia in membrane bellissime, assai grandi, sottili, e quadre scritta in carattere rotondo e hellissimo; conservano poi in Chiesa un Evangelistario greco in caraltere d'oro rotonda, che dovrebbe pur essere assai antico. Oltre i Codici Greci ne hanno moltissimi altri di Arabi, Soriani, Caldei, Illirici, Etiopi, ed in altre lingue; non ne vidi perd alcuno di latino. Fra i detti Codici osservai alcuni trattati greci di musica antica, e molti volnmi lunghissimi per uso liturgico.”

Vitaliano Donati, 1761

“Proceedings of the Royal Academy of Sciences of Turin”
Volume 8, 1873
Page 482


Book 2, Page 27: “It was in this monastery that I found the largest quantity of parchment codices, many of which are kept hidden away in a library, and others are loose in a jumble in a atrocious warehouse facility. Almost all of them are parchments, for the greatest part, Greek ones ; there are many Saints, Fathers, and Biblical expositors, various codices of the lives of the Saints, a few historians ; and a few writers on other subjects. Some of which, and not a few of them, looked to me to be older than the seventh century, and there was one Bible in particular, on [Lit., "in"] the most beautiful, extremely large, thin, square shaped parchments, which is written in the most beautiful round characters ; then they keep in the Church a Greek Evangelistry in golden round characters, that one also is supposed to be very ancient. Apart from the Greek Codices, they didn't appear to have a great variety of other languages, though there are some different ones in Arabic, Syrian, Chaldean, Illyrian, Ethiopian ; and I didn't see a wisp of any Latin ones either. Between the said Codices, I observed a few Greek treatises on ancient music, and many volumes, extremely long ones, for liturgical use...”



​

 

[Steven Avery]

Spine stitching technically.

Without an actual spine?

If there was no spine, no binding, it would seem like residual threads would be a good way to describe.

The binding cannot fall apart when there is no binding.

 

[Steven Avery]

No.
Where did I say "brightening reagents"? = No where!

You are recommending Kevin McGrane, and he has the reagent theory.

Here is an example from the Bill Cooper paper.

... Modem day conservators would be horrified at treatments that parchments were subjected to in former times, which in some cases have permanently damaged the documents.253 But we can suggest good reasons why the same treatment was not performed on the leaves recovered in 1859. Firstly, conservation of the leaves was not the responsibility of the same party and would have attracted different methods; secondly, the use of aggressive chemicals was reduced with the lapse of time; thirdly, having witnessed the deleterious effects of reagent on the leaves recovered in 1844 (especially on the flesh side), the leaves recovered in 1859 would certainly not be subjected to the same treatment. p. 111-112