Steven Avery
Well-known member
it is humorous when you give two contradictory arguments, without even noticing.
=============
Did you find any P47 and Sinaiticus significant agreements?
Are you watching Alexandrinus and the Athos Revelation mss?
Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - the Benedict identity fraud/theft
- Thread starter TwoNoteableCorruptions
- Start date
it is humorous when you give two contradictory arguments, without even noticing.
=============
Did you find any P47 and Sinaiticus significant agreements?
Are you watching Alexandrinus and the Athos Revelation mss?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
One of the reasons for the devaluing, beyond all the corruptions, is how it awkwardly connects to the Andreas and Oecumenius commentaries, which are interesting but far from the autographic text.
These commenataries are circa 300 years after Sinaiticus was written and when the Christian world had become Orthodox. They can have little direct bearing on Siniaticus. Another point is that the number of Revelation papyri & manuscripts was probably far fewer that other NT books, so it is going to be far more difficult to work out what was going on with the detail of the Revelation Text than with other NT books.
Not contradictory if P47 is the only Revelation manuscript close to Sinaiticus.it is humorous when you give two contradictory arguments, without even noticing.
Are you looking for material to put on your WWW site? If so you might want to consult
Josef Schmid, ‘Der Apokalypsetext des Chester Beatty Papyrus ?47’, Byzantinisch-Neugriechische Jahrbücher
11 (1934) 81–108.
who undertook a thorough examination of ?47 and concluded it, and Origen also (although the "Origin" work may be the "Scholia in Apocalypsin" wrongly attributed to Origin a century ago), represent one of two alternative early text forms of Revelation, with the Sinaiticus form being the oldest on record.
Later Sinaiticus correctors seems to have revised the Sinaitic text towards the form adopted by Andreas.
Obviously see Peter Malik's work on P47 also (various books and articles), but he is rather prolix and long winded, but is a useful source of references. E.g.
The Corrections of Codex Sinaiticus and the
Textual Transmission of Revelation: Josef Schmid Revisited ,New Test. Stud. 61 pp. 595-614 © Cambridge University Press, 2015
P.Beatty III (?47): The Codex, Its Scribe, and Its Text, New Testament Tools, Studies and Documents, Vol 52.
A Fresh Look at P.Beatty III (?47) Towards an Integrative Study of an Early Christian Codex.
The articles related to or by Josef Schmid are probably the most relevant to your question.
Last edited:
Also check out Elliott, "A Short Textual Commentary on the Book of Revelation and the “New” Nestle," Novum Testamentum 56 (2014) 68-100.it is humorous when you give two contradictory arguments, without even noticing.
=============
Did you find any P47 and Sinaiticus significant agreements?
Are you watching Alexandrinus and the Athos Revelation mss?
"In Revelation most text-critics pay lip service to the “reliability” of A.02 C.04 over against P47/ Sinaiticus (as far as the so-called Alexandrian witnesses are concerned) or in 046, 051, 052 plus minuscules for the Byzantine witnesses. (The majority text itself is frequently divided.) But if we study the texts produced by the different critics it can readily be demonstrated how erratically their respective manuscripts are treated." p. 71.
Eg. p.77Rev 9:12-13,
12: Ἡ Οὐαὶ ἡ μία ἀπῆλθεν· ἰδοὺ ἔρχεται ἔτι δύο Οὐαὶ μετὰ ταῦτα.
13: Καὶ ὁ ἕκτος ἄγγελος ἐσάλπισεν· καὶ ἤκουσα φωνὴν μίαν ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων κεράτων τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ χρυσοῦ τοῦ ἐνώπιον τοῦ Θεοῦ,
Variants here concern punctuation as well as the author’s usage:
- μετα δε ταυτα και 0207
- μετα ταυτα. Και A.02 P.025 1611 1841 MajA
- και 2053
- και μετα ταυτα 046
- Μετα ταυτα και 1006 1854 2329 2351 MajK
- μετα δε ταυτα και 0207
- μετα ταυτα P47 א 2344
- om. μετα ταυτα 2053
The initial και of v.13 was moved to precede μετα ταυτα by 046 or omitted
by P47 א 2344. Elsewhere in Revelation μετα ταυτα (or μετα τουτο)
begins a sentence or clause and therefore these words could stand first
here as being consistent with this book. The only exceptions to this practice
are 1:19; 4:1(sec.) which are different as in those contexts the phrase
refers to specific items. But the text in Nestle28 is that of A.02, a reading
which is also in accord with the author’s way of introducing angels previously
mentioned, see 8: 8, 10, 12; 9:1 i.e. with simple και at the beginning.
We are thus left with a dilemma!
Eg. p.79
Rev: 14:3
Nestle
καὶ ᾄδουσιν ᾠδὴν καινὴν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων· καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο μαθεῖν τὴν ᾠδὴν εἰ μὴ αἱ ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες, οἱ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς.
Majority Greek Text
καὶ ᾄδουσιν ὡς ᾠδὴν καινὴν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θρόνου καὶ ἐνώπιον τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων καὶ τῶν πρεσβυτέρων καὶ οὐδεὶς ἐδύνατο μαθεῖν τὴν ᾠδὴν εἰ μὴ αἱ ἑκατὸν τεσσεράκοντα τέσσαρες χιλιάδες οἱ ἠγορασμένοι ἀπὸ τῆς γῆς
ως A.01 C.04 1006 1841 2042 MajA
omitted. P47 א P.025 (= TR) (as in Nestle25) (P.025 = Codex Porphyrianus, an uncial manuscript dated to 9th century).
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Peter Malik gives the one reasonably clear explanation of the history of the connection of Sinaiticus with the Andreas and Oecumenius commentaries, discussing how the scholarship developed. And a bit of referencing to the very muddy palaeography involved. He works with the material from Bousset, Schmid and Hernandez and even brings in Amy Myshrall. He also neatly lists many of the corrections that create this wonderful textual puzzle, all caused by the faux dating of the text of Sinaiticus.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
First, there are only two papyri with more than about 10 verses of Revelation.
Among the five that have little text, only P24 is said to be connected, and that is to Sinaiticus, P47 and P18, so actually, you have 3 papyri vaguely in the Sinaiticus group.
P115 is the one in the Alexandrian and Ephraimi group.
So your original statement does not really fit the facts on the ground.
And I wonder where you got the little convergence and good convergence idea.
You're the one who needs to start coming up with explanations for your bogus twaddle about Sinaiticus being modern, which is really just a libel on countless Christians whom you despise.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You don’t want to say your source for the little and good convergence?
It’s fine if it was your mistaken extrapolation, no harm, no foul.
However, if you had a source at the time, we could give it an examination and contact the author.
I don't think Barabara Aland aged 86 would value your communication.
The sentiment came from Aland & Aland, The Text of the New Testament, 2nd Edn, p.50.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
This thread is about Benedict.
It is not about Sinaiticus variants.
Start another thread for that please.
I have no problem with either of you discussing it, just keep these discussions tidy and on the topic of the thread please. Thanks.
It is not about Sinaiticus variants.
Start another thread for that please.
I have no problem with either of you discussing it, just keep these discussions tidy and on the topic of the thread please. Thanks.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Metzger in his
The Text of the New Testament, Second Edition has:
https://books.google.com/books?id=lA4WAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA55
p47. The third Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus of the New Testament, designated p47 ... In general the text of p47 agrees more often with that of codex Sinaiticus than with any other, though it often shows a remarkable independence.
Somehow the Aland to you emphasis and conclusions changed quite radically!
Aland isn't Metzger.Metzger in his
The Text of the New Testament, Second Edition has:
https://books.google.com/books?id=lA4WAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA55
p47. The third Chester Beatty Biblical papyrus of the New Testament, designated p47 ... In general the text of p47 agrees more often with that of codex Sinaiticus than with any other, though it often shows a remarkable independence.
Somehow the Aland to you emphasis and conclusions changed quite radically!
And no, they didn't change quite radically, or at all, Mr. Master of Invention:
"The same question is raised by Codex Alexandrinus (A). Its text in the Gospels
is quite poor (differing only slightly from the Majority text). But beginning with
Acts its quality changes remarkably: in Acts it is comparable to Β and Aleph, while
in Revelation it is superior to Aleph and even p47"
What I could have added however, was an observation by Elliott, which is that scholars pay "lip-service" to this synopsis today:"In Revelation most text-critics pay lip service to the “reliability” of A.02 C.04 over against P47/ Sinaiticus (as far as the so-called Alexandrian witnesses are concerned) or in 046, 051, 052 plus minuscules for the Byzantine witnesses. (The majority text itself is frequently divided.) But if we study the texts produced by the different critics it can readily be demonstrated how erratically their respective manuscripts are treated."
Which is to say, it is by no means the case that Sinaiticus is deemed NOT authoritative per se. Sometimes the Sinaiticus rendering is preferred, especially if in common with P47.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The new thread is:
Revelation textual features that are difficult for the common Sinaiticus early dating
https://forums.carm.org/threads/rev...for-the-common-sinaiticus-early-dating.16816/
Revelation textual features that are difficult for the common Sinaiticus early dating
https://forums.carm.org/threads/rev...for-the-common-sinaiticus-early-dating.16816/
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Thankyou.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
yw.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Farmakidis.
Page 34
"Thus the self-determination of Greece was considered the only way for development. So the confrontation between the two teams in Symi was very tough. We must note that the confrontation was about active participation and not about helping the revolution in other ways. The expansion of the conflict will last until 1863. Benediktos Rossos and Prokopios Dendrinos, chased by the Turks, go to Mount Athos in 1820 and after the revolution there (1821-22), to Poros. Benedict becomes [Greek ηγούμενος] abbot [Or: "Hegumenos"] of the Monastery of Ag. Panteleimonos. Benedict resides in the Monastery of Zoodochos Pigi of Poros, from 1822 until the end of 1825 at least. Benediktos and Procopius were later appointed by Kapodistrias, as teachers at the Great School of Spetses (1828 – July 1830)
and then (October 1830), at the Priestly School of Poros..."
Farmadikis via Avery
ο ιεροδιάκονος Βενέδικτος Ρώσιος (Σπιαχιός,
γεννήθηκε στη Σύμη το 1760
και απεβίωσε στο Άθω, στις 28.5.1840
"the hierodeacon Benediktos Rossios (Spiachios,
born in Symi in 1760
and died in Athos, on 28.5.1840)"
"Thus the self-determination of Greece was considered the only way for development. So the confrontation between the two teams in Symi was very tough. We must note that the confrontation was about active participation and not about helping the revolution in other ways. The expansion of the conflict will last until 1863. Benediktos Rossos and Prokopios Dendrinos, chased by the Turks, go to Mount Athos in 1820 and after the revolution there (1821-22), to Poros. Benedict becomes [Greek ηγούμενος] abbot [Or: "Hegumenos"] of the Monastery of Ag. Panteleimonos. Benedict resides in the Monastery of Zoodochos Pigi of Poros, from 1822 until the end of 1825 at least. Benediktos and Procopius were later appointed by Kapodistrias, as teachers at the Great School of Spetses (1828 – July 1830)
and then (October 1830), at the Priestly School of Poros..."
Farmadikis via Avery
ο ιεροδιάκονος Βενέδικτος Ρώσιος (Σπιαχιός,
γεννήθηκε στη Σύμη το 1760
και απεβίωσε στο Άθω, στις 28.5.1840
"the hierodeacon Benediktos Rossios (Spiachios,
born in Symi in 1760
and died in Athos, on 28.5.1840)"
Where's the official record specifically from the Pantelemion Monastery on Mt. Athos of a Ἱεροδιάκονος Hiero-Deacon (as distinguished from a Ἱερομόναχος Hiero-Monk who BTW cannot become a Hegumen in a coenobitic monastery, see below) in the 1820's?
Kevin McGrane in his review showed a picture of the official letter from Constantius confirming Gerasim as the Hegumen in 1833.
https://www.academia.edu/37556820/A...iled_background_of_the_discovery_of_the_Codex
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
Page 61, Footnote 146:
"In any case, a hierodeacon was not permitted to be a hegumen of a coenobitic monastery in Eastern Orthodoxy, such as the Panteleimon monastery on Athos: a hegumen was required to be an ordained priest." {Emphasis added}
https://www.academia.edu/37556820/A...iled_background_of_the_discovery_of_the_Codex
A monk who is an ordained priest is a (Ἱερομόναχος) Hiero-Monk.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiero...αχος,,Orthodox Church and Eastern Catholicism.
Not a (Ἱεροδιάκονος) Hiero-Deacon.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hierodeacon
Steven Avery
Well-known member
These are complex questions, and Kevin McGrane does not give any reference.
So I would take it with a grain of salt, noting also that sometimes it is an elected office.
The next post shows you that McGrane's bravado was ill-placed, and his unsourced claims unreliable.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Why a 1831 confirmation letter if he was hegumen uninterrupted from 1822?
(C'mon TNC, did you really miss that???)
Kevin McGrane - "continuously from 1821 until his death in 1875."
Nicholas Fennel, Russian Monks on Mount Athos: The Thousand Year History of St Panteleimon's (2021)
"He (Gerasimos) was elected abbot upon his return to St Panteleimon Monastery in 1830"
Plus Gerasimos returned to Athos from Morea (Peloponnese peninsula in southern Greece) in 1830.
So it looks like there were some significant errors by Kevin McGrane.
btw, McGrane used an earlier book by Nicholas Fennel:
Nicholas Fennell:
Parfeny Aggeev and Russian Pilgrimage to Mount Athos in The Monastic Magnet: Roads to and from Mount Athos (2008)
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So now that we have some of the Kevin McGrane errors corrected, this looks like it might be accurate. Understanding that more checking would be helpful.