Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

The trouble with ignorance is that it feels so much like expertise.

In 1999, in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, my then graduate student Justin Kruger and I published a paper that documented how, in many areas of life, incompetent people do not recognize—scratch that, cannot recognize—just how incompetent they are, a phenomenon that has come to be known as the Dunning-Kruger effect. Logic itself almost demands this lack of self-insight: For poor performers to recognize their ineptitude would require them to possess the very expertise they lack. To know how skilled or unskilled you are at using the rules of grammar, for instance, you must have a good working knowledge of those rules, an impossibility among the incompetent. Poor performers—and we are all poor performers at some things—fail to see the flaws in their thinking or the answers they lack.

What’s curious is that, in many cases, incompetence does not leave people disoriented, perplexed, or cautious. Instead, the incompetent are often blessed with an inappropriate confidence, buoyed by something that feels to them like knowledge.

Y'all have seen a case study of Dunning-Kruger effect in Avery's posts here (and everywhere).
 
As I see it this conspiracy is indifferent to the amount of ignorance/incompetence it relies on and perpetuates. The foundation of the KJVO cult lies in the idolatry of a book, just as muslims have substituted the koran and the hadith for God. Paul says:

2Ti 3:13 "But evil men and seducers shall wax worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived."

The KJV cult is the antithesis of Christianity: God never stated his word was confined to the KJV or the Textus Receptus. To pretend so, is to advance a lie, and reduce Christianity to the Islamic conception of religion, which is lacking the Holy Spirit. Avery's co-conspirators - Daniels, Bill Cooper Riplinger and the rest of the KJVO crowd, and even youtube which gives platform space to this conspiracy cult (as well as much other harmful material), are all guilty of the sin of acting so as to deceive others. This also explains their curious affinity with Simonides, and their hatred of modern scholarship.
 
As I said - there’s a reason he’s HERE spouting this nonsense and not before an academic forum.
When the academics and experts are already telling him in emails that he’s wrong and is conducting his “research” exactly backwards, he knows he’d get torn to shreds and be made to look like a fool were he to try to put up a paper on Academia.edu or actually debate them in person.

From the information I’ve seen in the “A-files,” some of the experts to whom he wrote didn’t even bother replying to his nonsense.

Ya, he knows better than to meet them on their own turf with his ignorant and uninformed theories.

I’m pretty sure his little moments in the spotlight with Dr. Snapp on YouTube are as far as he’s willing to go. …..and only because Dr. Snapp was gracious enough to give him a hearing.
 
Simonides, making up and revising his stories as he went along, said in his letter to The Guardian, August 26, 1863, (source Kevin McGrane, Review, Page 69-70) imagined that the Codex Sinaiticus was sitting on a shelf in the rare manuscript library, saying:

"And twice I have seen it myself in the Library of Sinai, first in 1844 and then in 1852...and replaced the book in its original place, and commenced my philological investigations (for there were in that library many valuable manuscripts) and pursuing them with diligence I discovered many things of great importance..."​
Simonides caught himself out here.

Because Uspensky (among other witnesses), who was there between those time's (1844-1852) and studied the manuscript in detail, unambiguously said that the four best Greek manuscripts (and the Sinaiticus Codex, obviously being ranked number 1 to him) were хранятся в настоятельских келлиях "stored in the rector's cells".

Not "the library", on a shelf, as Simonides imagined.


Первое путешествие в Синайский Монастыŕ в 1845 году Архимандрита Порфиря Успенскаго

First trip to the Sinai Monasteries in 1845 Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky
By Porfirij Bischof v. Tschigirin, 1856

[Page 225] Самые лучшие рукописи греческие хранятся в настоятельских келлиях. Их только четыре; но они весьма драгоценны по своей древности, редкости и особенности почерков, по содержанию своему, по изяществу живописных ликов святых и по занимательности чертежей и рисунков. Первая рукопись, содержащая Ветхий Завет неполный88 и весь Новый Завет с посланием апостола Варнавы и книгой Ермы, писана на тончайшем белом пергамине в четвертую долю длинного и широкого листа. Буквы в ней совершенно похожи на церковно-славянские. Постановка их – прямая и сплошная. Над словами нет придыханий и ударений, а речения не отделяются никакими знаками правописания, кроме точек. Весь священный текст [Page 226] писан в четыре и в два столбца стихомерным образом и так слитно, как будто одно длинное речение тянется от точки до точки89. Такая постановка букв без грамматической просодии и такой способ писания священного текста, придуманный александрийским диаконом Евфалием около 446 года по Рождестве Христовом и вскоре покинутый по той причине, что между столбцами оставалось много пробелов на дорогом пергамине, доказывают, что эта рукопись издана была в пятом веке. Она достопримечательна во многих отношениях. В ней усматриваются: особый порядок священных книг, вразумительное изложение Псалтири и Песни Песней, множество разных чтений на полях новозаветного текста и особенное наречие. Историческая часть Ветхого Завета окончена книгами Товит, Юдифь и Маккавейскими; потом следуют Пророчества, и за ними Псалтирь, Притчи, Екклезиаст, Песнь Песней, Премудрость Соломона и книги Сираха и Иова. Далее непосредственно начинается Новый Завет без всякого предисловия. Сперва написаны Евангелия Матфея, Марка, Луки и Иоанна, потом Послания апостола Павла к римлянам, к коринфянам два, к галатам, ефесеям, филипписеям, колоссаям, к солунянам два и к евреям, далее его же Послания к Тимофею, [Page 227] к Титу два и к Филимону; за ними следуют Деяния апостольские, все Соборные послания в нашем порядке и Апокалипсис; а под конец помещены: Послание апостола Варнавы и книга Ермы под названием Ποιμὴν, т.е. «Пастырь».
[Page 225, Footnote 88]: Кроме книг Товит, Юдифь и Маккавейских, утрачены все прочие исторические бытописания и пророчества Иеремии, Иезекииля, Даниила, Осии и Амоса.
[Page 226, Footnote 89]: Смотри снимки между синайскими видами.

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Pervoe_putešestvie_v_Sinajskij_Monasty/hIlCAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA225&printsec=frontcover

[Page 225] The best Greek manuscripts are kept in the rector's cells. There are only four of them; but they are very precious in their antiquity [Or: "because of being ancient" "because of their great age" "because of their being very old"], rarity and peculiarity of the handwriting, in their content, in the elegance of the picturesque faces of the saints and in the amusingness of the drawings and pictures. The first manuscript, containing the incomplete Old Testament88 and the entire New Testament with the Epistle of the Apostle Barnabas and the Book of Hermas, was written on the thinnest [Or: "wafer-thin"] white parchment in the fourth part of a long and wide sheet. The letters in it are completely similar to Church Slavonic. Their setting is straight and solid. There are no aspirations and stresses above the words, and speeches are not separated by any spelling marks, except for periods. The entire sacred text [Page 226] is written in four and two columns in a verse manner and so seamlessly, as if one long utterance stretches from point to point.89 Such a setting of letters without grammatical prosody and such a way of writing the sacred text, invented by the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius around the year 446 after the Nativity of Christ and soon abandoned for the reason that there were many gaps between the columns on expensive parchment, prove [Or: "demonstrate" "confirm" "substantiate" "provide clear evidence"] that this manuscript was published [Or: "issued" "written"] IN THE FIFTH CENTURY. She is remarkable in many ways. In it are seen: a special order of the sacred books, an intelligible presentation of the Psalter and the Song of Songs, many different readings in the margins of the New Testament text, and a special dialect. The historical part of the Old Testament ended with the books of Tobit, Judith and Maccabees; then come the Prophecies, and then the Psalter, the Proverbs, the Ecclesiastes, the Song of Songs, the Wisdom of Solomon, and the books of Sirach and Job. Then the New Testament begins directly without any preface. First, the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were written, then the Epistles of the Apostle Paul to the Romans, to the two Corinthians, to the Galatians, Ephesians, Philippiseians, Colossians, to the Thessalonica two and to the Jews, then his Epistles to Timothy, [Page 227] to Titus two and to Philemon; they are followed by the Acts of the Apostles, all the Epistles in our order, and the Apocalypse; and at the end are placed: the Epistle of the Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas called Ποιμὴν, i.e. "Shepherd".
[Page 225, Footnote 88]: Other than the books of Tobit, Judith, and Maccabees, all other historical writings and prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, Hosea, and Amos have been lost.
[Page 226, Footnote 89]: See pictures between Sinai views.



P.S. Note Simonides favorite sales pitch "I discovered many things of great importance" in his 1863 letter to the Guardian.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
When I need a laugh break, I go to your psychobabb;e.

Says the guy who

1. loses track of what thread he’s posting in

2. loses track of what year a meeting was hosted by Nongbri

3. didn’t know what language he was translating Uspensky from (McGrane pointed that blunder out to you and instead of receiving correction you lied about ever having said it....which led to him outting you with proof from past posts of yours - see below in next post)....yes, I have that whole conversation saved.

4. didn’t know my posts from shoonra’s

5. had no idea what Maestroh was getting at with the Easter blunder in the Lampros catalogue

6. had no idea how to ask a simple question of Dr. Snapp during that debate without taking 3 minutes to do it

7. had no idea how to ANSWER a question asked by Snapp without babbling on and on, conveniently running out of time before any answer could actually be given


....among other things that I go to when *I* need a laugh break.
 
Last edited:
Kevin McGrane, in correspondence with Steven Avery:
I would suggest that before wasting more of your time and everyone else's on following Simonides' lies that Benedict = Basilaeus = Bessarion => Vissarion all the way into another identity theft (as Simonides did by making out Benedict was the hegumen of St Panteleimon) you spend a few years learning some languages, starting with Greek and Russian, and then you will be able to read all the biographical material and see how deceived you have been.

BTW, yours and Daniels' description that Uspensky wrote his papers in Old Slavonic is utterly hilarious. Your Ukrainian translators must have been having a laugh.




Steven Avery:
Does David or I say that Uspensky wrote in Old Slavonic? Or simply that the script is Slavonic and perhaps some words as well (which is what was shared by the translators, the less professional ones in Ukraine did the work in two steps.) There is also a distinction made between Church Slavonic and Old Slavic. If we made a mistake in the description then most definitely we would want to make a correction. Afaik, I have never written that Uspensky wrote his papers in Old Slavonic.



Kevin McGrane:

Steven Avery, CARM forum, April 22, 2016: "Another unusual question was asked about reading the language of Uspensky...What is strange about this is that the SART team is the only one that have translated into English and published the salient Porfiry Uspensky Old Slavonic sections...We use a Slavonic translator, one with the skills that go beyond today's Russian translators"
Steven Avery, Biblical Criticism & History forum, February 6, 2016: "up until today you simply can't read Uspensky in English. (The Old Slavonic of a couple of sentences was placed on a web-site or two and then on Wikipedia, without translation, by the Ukrainian scholar Leszek Janczuk...)
Steven Avery, Fighting Fundamental forum, May 6, 2016 "The sources that have been used for the Codex Sinaiticus research are wide-ranging. As one simple example, this includes our having original finds and translations of the Uspensky and Morozov material, from Old Slavonic and Russian."
David Daniels "I and my fellow researchers, Steven Avery and Mark Michie, wanted to know what Uspensky wrote. But none of us knows Old Slavonic. Thankfully, a missionary to Ukraine, John Spillman, got it translated for us, from Old Slavonic, into Russian, then into English."


I would have to take issue with this laudatory language about 'original finds'. What this 'SART team' really means is that they were ignorant of it. It was inaccessible to THEM because they couldn't read Russian, didn't realize that Russian orthography was different in the nineteenth century, and were conned into believing it was Old Slavonic, and made fools of themselves by repeating such twaddle. Someone must really be having a laugh at their expense since Old Slavonic has been extinct for 900 years. And, if we are to believe Daniels, one of this SART team, their translation was a translation of a translation via a third language, Russian!).
 
To summarize: what is clear from the evidence given below is that without Vaticanus, or some earlier version of the NT in papyri form, such as Chester Beatty papyri 75 (published in 1961), no-one would have been able to fabricate Sinaiticus, which far resembles Vaticanus by a significant margin, more so than any other existing uncial. So any claims about Simonides having Alexandrinus are missing the point: the only source for a potential fabricator of Sinaiticus is Vaticanus, which no-one had access to back in the era of Tischendorf, except Tischendorf himself, who by hook and by crook, managed to copy it under the noses of the papal authorities. Tischendorf didn't publish his version of Vaticanus until 1867 (long after Simonides had claimed to have copied Sinaiticus). Thus we can conclude that neither Simonides nor anyone else had a source from which Sinaiticus could have been produced prior to 1867.

Later that century (1868–1881) the Vatican published a better copy of the codex, but in 1889–1890 a complete photographic facsimile of this manuscript superseded all earlier attempts. Chester Beatty papyri 75 is considered to vindicate Hort's choice to utilize Vaticanus.

________________________


Part of an article by Eldon Jay Epp "Codex Sinaiticus: Mid Nineteenth Century Text-Critical Environment)" p.53 in "Codex Sinaiticus: - New Perspectives on an ancient biblical manuscript"

"Textual critics quickly recognized that the two majuscules, Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, were not so much rivals as complementary witnesses of great importance. It was obvious, of course, that the two manuscripts shared a vast quantity of readings, but also that they differed frequently. Westcott and Hort spent one hundred pages in the second, introductory volume of their edition of the Greek New Testament (1881-81) exploring the complex relationship between the texts in the two manuscripts, treating the matter, however, in highly theoretical terms. They did not offer statistics, and thus we gained no sense of the proportion of agreements and differences. Shortly thereafter, others offered insights into the size and complexity of the Vaticanus-Sinaiticus combination. In 1911, Hutton published a small Atlas of Textual Criticism, assessing the agreement or not of several dozen manuscripts, versions, and patristic writers in 175 variation units of triple readings (excluding Revelation). These were readings, in each group of three, taken as representative of the three basic text-types in vogue at the time, and, for what it is worth, Hutton showed that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus agreed (where both were extant) in 191 of the 175 variants, or 70% of the time.104 In 1914, Hoskier devoted 381 pages to the differences between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the Gospels, but his motivation was vastly different from Hutton’s. Hoskier’s first line in his two-volume set affirms: ‘It is high time that the bubble of codex B should be pricked’ and to ‘sing the Death-song of B as a neutral text’. His obsession was to discredit Codex Vaticanus and Westcott-Hort, and his assumption was that revealing 3,036 differences between the two manuscripts in the Gospels alone would demonstrate that neither codex has a ‘Neutral’ text in Westcott-Hort’s terms, but that both have been revised: ‘I submit’, claimed Hoskier, ‘a vast number of other instances where B has a doctored text, plainly, indubitably doctored’,and, for Hoskieq the same applied to Sinaiticus.

If these two early studies have any validity, the suggestions that issued from them are twofold: differences in a large quantity exist between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but also, if one can extrapolate from Hutton’s percentage of agreement, the two manuscripts agree in a vastly higher number of variant readings. All who have worked with the text will have recognized this reality in most sections of the New Testament. The support of a variant by both provides strong external evidence of an early reading, especially if - in the past century - early papyri join them. On the other hand, frustration arises when Sinaiticus and Vaticanus disagree, requiring close attention to supporting witnesses on both sides and also the full engagement of internal criteria. And this is where complementarity and rivalry reappear. Whenever the two agree in support of a reading, they carry preponderant weight.

Where they disagree, preference might be given by the textual critic to the reading in the otherwise less likely manuscript in the pair. Overall, then, when Sinaiticus and Vaticanus jointly offered their support to a reading, that reading was likely to emerge as the earliest attainable text in its variation unit; when the two manuscripts diverged, internal evidence would play a larger role in the decision. It was well recognized that in such cases Tischendorf was strongly inclined to follow Sinaiticus, as noted, for example, by Milligan, who spoke of ‘the unreasonable amount of dependence placed by Tischendorf in his last edition upon one MS.’ and how that ‘has led him to remodel his text in a direction precisely contrary to that in which he had last been moving’ - ‘he had thrown himself almost exclusively into its arms’. It is clear also that for Westcott-Hort, for whom Vaticanus - on grounds of internal considerations - had been granted superiority, the decision generally would be to follow Vaticanus. Yet, this was not so much a matter of rivalry because the two manuscripts were most frequently in agreement, but more accurately it was a description of the differing characteristics of two close relatives. This stalemate regarding decisions when Sinaiticus and Vaticanus diverge, however, remained for some eighty years, when a breakthrough occurred.

In the same decade that Tischendorf’s transcripts of Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus appeared (1861, 1867), a new factor intervened that would change New Testament textual criticism in significant ways - the discovery and publication of papyri. Tischendorf himself collated B11 (in 1861) and cited it in his eighth critical edition (in 1871), and it was the first New Testament papyrus to be published. Then B3, B4 & B14 (later to be joined with B11) appeared by 1892. Was there acclamation among scholars when these four papyri appeared? Not at all, for two reasons: altogether these papyri contained only some twenty-six leaves with 184 verses of the New Testament, and more important, at the time two were dated in the fifth century (B11 and B14) and and two in the sixth (B3 and B4). None, therefore, predated Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, the two great majuscules that by then dominated text-critical theory and formed the basis for all new editions, including Tischendorf’s eighth and that of Westcott-Hort. Small wonder, then, that the new papyri engendered little excitement. Tischendorf cited B11 (under the symbol 'Q’) only about six times, as did Tregelles,but, understandably, Westcott-Hort cited none. Later the date for B4 was revised, from the sixth to the third century.

Naturally, the papyri gamed serious recognition as many flowed from Oxyrhynchus in 1898 and following, and especially when the Chester Beatty papyri appeared in 1933-17, including B45, B46 and B47, which were followed by the Bodmer papyri, c. 1955-56, especially B66, B72 and B75.

[cont.]
 
Last edited:
[cont.]

These Beatty and Bodmer papyri were early and extensive"' and, intact, had profound impact on New Testament textual criticism as a whole and specifically on Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. Porter examined John in 1961. and Martini assessed Luke in 1966, both demonstrating that the text of B75 dated at the beginning of the third century, was closely similar to that of Codex Vaticanus, written a century and a half later. Due to its smooth and consistent text, Codex Vaticanus long had been viewed as a recension - a scholarly revision and this view had been reinforced bv the discovery of numerous papyri, including 'B45, B46 and B47 in the 1930s and B66 in the 1950s (all dating c. 200 or in the third century). Such early documents showed a far more fluid and ‘mixed’ state of textual transmission than Hort had proposed', thereby revealing no evidence of a text like that of Vaticanus (a 'pure or neutral text' in Hort's terms). This situation led, e.g. Kenyon to conclude that '... the Vatican text represents the result, not of continuous unaltered tradition, but of skilled scholarship working on the best available authorities'.

The discovery and nature of B75 however, changed all that, requiring that the Codex Vaticanus recension theory be abandoned and concluding that there was, after all a straight line of transmission from a text like that of B75 in the very early third century to Vaticanus in the mid- fourth. And what did that say about the status of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and about their interrelationship?

Basically it is rather simple: on the one hand, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, as noted, agree in a percentage of perhaps 70%, leaving something like a 30% disagreement in (variant) readings. In specific statistical analyses in Mark by Hurtado, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus consistently have a higher percentage of agreement with each other than either one has with other major majuscules.

For example, chapter by chapter in Mark, a comparison of majuscules Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, Bezae, Washingtonensis, Coridethianus, and also the Textus Receptus, with each other manuscript in 1,439 variation units, showed that, except for the agreements between Alexandrinus and the Textus Receptus, the highest percentage of agreement is always between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus (averaging 79%). This average is greater than for any other pair by some 30% to 40%. The average agreement for Alexandrinus and the Textus Receptus is 86.8%. In the percentage comparisons among the remaining manuscripts, each with each otheq only 9% (26 out of 285 comparisons) show agreements of 50% or more between pairs. The result is that, among these major majuscules, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are closely related - exceeded only by Alexandrinus with the Textus Receptus, something long recognized.

On the other hand, similar analyses by Gordon Fee in sample sections of John and Luke showed a similar pattern of agreement between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in John 9 (in 51 variation units) and in Luke 10 (in 105 variation units), with 63% and 74% agreement respectively.

In John 1:1-8:38, however, that percentage of agreement fell to a mere 27%, while Sinaiticus in these chapters held a 54% agreement with Codex Bezae. This revealed block mixture in Sinaiticus, where the scribe doubtless shifted to copying a different exemplar, a not uncommon phenomenon. One conclusion, then, was that the text of Codex Sinaiticus cannot be characterized as entirely homogeneous.

In addition, in these test areas, B75 and Vaticanus in John 9 agree 78.4% of the time, and in Luke 10, 94%, while B75 and Sinaiticus agree 62.7% and 72% in John and in Luke, respectively. So B75 becomes the arbiter, indicating that Vaticanus, so far as we have evidence, contains an earlier text overall than Codex Sinaiticus.

Early studies have been described above because they employed methods current in their times (Hutton and Hoskier) or were among pioneer studies of quantitative measure-ment of manuscript relationships (Fee and Hurtado). Broader studies have now come into play, among them the Munster Institute Teststellen (test passages) method that employs 1,000 variation units across the entire New Testament, with full citation of all extant manuscripts containing the various sample variation units. The results are combined for each text or small group of texts, giving the percentage of agreement of each manuscript with every other manuscript for each unit. The comprehensive, final average percentage of agreement between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus was 68%, a figure in the general range of the earlier studies cited - though the methods differ significantly.

Finally, it must never be overlooked that the text of Sinaiticus is close to that of Vaticanus in terms of such measurements of relationships - a closeness not found elsewhere among the majuscules of the fourth and fifth centuries. Of course, the figures for B75 and Vaticanus do run to 94% in the extant passages in Luke and approach 80% in John, but these are extraordinarily high and represent a truly exceptional case. Overall, therefore, it may appear to some that Vaticanus has the edge over Sinaiticus by virtue of its greater textual homogeneity and its close relationship with an early 3rd century witness. It remains, however, tnat we have better knowledge ot Vaticanus because Sinaiticus appeared, but also that we understand Sinaiticus better because of Vaticanus.

Thus, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus share a paramount position among New Testament manuscripts. To be the preeminent manuscript would be a great honour, but to share pre-eminence with another monumental manuscript would be pre-eminently honourable.
 
The average agreement for Alexandrinus and the Textus Receptus is 86.8%.

5th century to 16th century. An outstanding statistic. And remember, when Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree, one or the other will usually go with the Byzantine Text.
 
Some context on Simonides Hermas claims, missing from Avery INC!



Avery quotes this on his blog about Simonides versions of the Shepherd of Hermas:



Pasquale Massimo Pinto [...]
In the aforesaid - first and only - issue of his journal Memnon, Simonides, after a very sharp pamphlet against his opponents Lycurgos and Tischendorf, synoptically compared his various Greek versions of Hermas in an appendix; he also gives minimal dates for each of the four Greek texts presented. Columns 3 and 4 of his synoptic edition each present a palimpsest, the following is stated about the last one (the much-cited Leipzig palimpsest):

“I donated a sheet of this palimpsest to the Imperial Library (kougoi-pofSaoDdicfi [iifDaoOi'iCT]) in Vienna; and if the famous Tischendorf wants to, he should ask these custodians of the libraries, who received the Palimpsest like a precious diamond, especially the wise Herr Karajan, how they think about the matter. I gave this piece as proof of its authenticity, and I gave it to eternally brand Tischendorf's ignorance. It is this 6th-century palimpsest that is incomplete; that's why we made this sacrifice, otherwise I wouldn't have given a line."57


Avery doesn't tell you about what age or where Simonides claims these side by side Hermas copies came from.



It's interesting, and revealing to find out when and where Simonides says he allegedly got these versions of Hermas from.

Here's Simonides words.

I used Google Translate and modified some of it.



Memnon : Archäologische Monatsschrift,
Volume 1, PDF Page 74/101
By Constantine Simonides, 1857


https://books.google.com/books?id=Rh9BAAAAcAAJ&pg=PT19


PDF Page 74/101
Google Translate
ΠΑΡΑΛΛΗΛΙΣΜΟΣ ΧΩΡΙΩΝ ΤΙΝΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΕΡΜΑΙΟΥ ΚΕΙΜΕΝΟΥ,
καὶ μάλιστα τῶν διαφιλονεικουμένων ληφθέντων ἐκ διαφόρων ἀρχαιοτάτων ἀπογράφων,
ΤΩΝ ΠΟΙΜΕΝΙΚΩΝ ΙΕΡΩΝ ΓΡΑΦΩΝ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΙΚΟΥ ΠΑΤΡΟΣ ΕΡΜΑ
πρός τε τὰ ἐκδοθέντα καὶ τὰς ψευδομεταφράσεις.
PARALLELIZATION OF WORDS OF THE HERMATIC TEXT,
and indeed of the disputed ones taken from various ancient copies
[Or: “transcripts”],
OF THE PASTORAL HOLY SCRIPTURES OF THE APOSTOLIC FATHER HERMAS
to the published and pseudo-translations.
Τὸ ἀπόγραφον τοῦτο ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸ Σίναιον ὄρος μονῇ τῷ 1852 ἀνακαλυφθὲν, ἐπὶ παπύρου γέγραπται Αἰγυπτιακοῦ κεφαλαίοις μάλιστα γράμμασι καὶ ἄνευ τόνων καὶ πνευμάτων καὶ κώλων καὶ κομμάτων· ἀπαρτίζε ται δὲ ἐκ σελίδων 277. Ἑκάστη δὲ τῶν σελίδων τετράστηλος οὖσα 52 στίχους ἀριθμεῖ ἑκάστη αὐτῶν· ἔστι δὲ τοῦτο ἔργον τοῦ πρώτου αἰῶνος, ὁ δὲ τοῦτο ἐργασάμενος Καλλίστρατος ἐκαλεῖτο ἐξ Ἀντιοχείας ὁρμώμενος πόλεως.This copy [Or: "transcript"] was discovered in the Mount Sinai monastery in 1852, written on papyrus in Egyptian capitals, in fact, with letters and without tones and spirits and cols and parts; and it consists of 277 pages. And each of the pages is a four-column, so 52 verses are numbered on each of them; and this is a work of the first century, and this is the work of one who was called Callistratus from Antiochia, a bustling city.
(3) Τοῦτο ἐν ῎Αθω ἀνεκαλύφθη· σύγκειται δὲ ἐκ σελίδων 122 διστήλων οὐσῶν, ἑκάστη δὲ τῶν στηλῶν 49 στίχους περιέχει. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο κεφαλαιωδῶς γεγραμμένον· ὁ δὲ τούτου ἀπογραφεὺς Αρτέμιός τίς ἐστιν, Ολύνθιος τὸ γένος, ὃς τῷ 5780 (272 μ.Χ.) έτει Νικηφόρῳ τινὶ ἐδωρήσατο.(3) This was discovered on Athos; it is composed of 122 two-fold pages, and each of the columns contains 49 verses. And this is also written in capitals; and the scribe of this is Artemios, Olynthius the gens, who in 5780 (272 AD) was gifted to Nikephoros.
(γ ) Τὸ παλίμψηστον τοῦτο , ἐν Αθῷ ἀνακαλυφθὲν σύγκειται ἐκ σελίδων ἑπτὰ καὶ ὀγδοήκοντα. Ἔστι δὲ καὶ τοῦτο ἐν κεφα λαίοις μὲν γράμμασι γεγραμμένον, γραφῇ δὲ ἀρίστῃ· ἐποίησε δὲ τοῦτο Νεστώριος τις ἐν τῷ Δ ' , αἰῶνι,(c) This palimpsest, discovered in Athos, consists of eighty-seven pages. And this, also, is written in capital letters, and the writing is excellent; and this, Nestorius composed them, in the 4th century,
( δ) Τοῦτο ἐστὶν αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο περὶ οὗ δ᾽συκοφάντης τῇ τοῦ Κομπᾷ Τισσενδορφίου ὑπαγορεύσει πολλὰ ἐξέμεσε κούφα ληρήματα . Λέγει δὲ οὗτος πρὸς ταῖς ἄλλαις ψευδολογίαις αὐτοῦ καὶ τάδε· ὅτι κατεσκεύασα δῆθεν αὐτὸ κατὰ τὴν ἐν χερσί μου ἐξ ᾿Αθου ἀπογραφήν · ἀλλ ' ἤδη τὶ ἐρεῖ ἡμῖν ὁ κνισσοδιώκτης οὗτος κηφὴν παραδοθείσης καὶ ταύτης τῆς κατ' αὐτὸν πρώτης ἀπογραφῆς καὶ μάλιστα ἐκδοθείσης ὑπὸ τοῦ βορβοροτάξεως Τισσενδορφίου ; συμφωνεῖ γὰρ οὐδόλως αὕτη τῷ παλιμψήστῳ ὡς γε ἐκ τῆς ἀνθιβολῆς τῆς ά. σελίδος καθορᾶται τοῦτο.





Τῆς σελίδος ταύτης ἀπό γραφον καθάπερ καὶ τῶν ἐχομένων αὐτῇ ἔλαβον καὶ ἔχουσι καὶ οἱ πρῶτοι τοῦ Ἑρμᾶ ἐκδόται , ὥστε οὐ δύναται εἰπεῖν τὸ περικάθαρμα οὗτος ὅτι νυνὶ τετεχνούργηκα τοῦτο. Δεῖ δὲ τοὺς ἐκδότας παραβαλεῖν καὶ τὰς λοιπὰς ὅπως βεβαιωθῶσι περὶ τῆς ἀληθείας, καὶ τὸν συκοφάντην στηλιτεύσωσιν , οὐδέποτε γὰρ ἠκούσθη τηλικαύτη συκο φαντεία , οὐδὲ μοχθηρότερος τούτου ἐγεννήθη πώποτε οὐδὲ γεννηθήσεται πέποιθα, ὡς οὐδὲ κακεντρεχέστερος τοῦ Τισσενδορφίου ἄνθρωπος, καὶ περὶ ὧν ἐπαγγέλεται «μαθέστερος . Τοῦ παλιμψήστου τούτου ἐδωρησάμην φύλλον ἓν τῇ ἐν Βιέννῃ Καισαροβασιλικῇ βιβλιοθήκη͵ καὶ εἴπερ βούλεται ὁ κλεινὸς Τισσενδόρφιος ἐρωτησάτω τοὺς ὡς περ, ἀδάμαντα πολύτιμον δεξαμένους αὐτὸ ἐφόρους τῆς βιβλιοθήκης. καὶ μάλιστα τὸν σοφὼν Καραγιάννην, τὶ φρονοῦσι περὶ τοῦ πράγματος. Δέδωκα δὲ τοῦτο πρὸς ἐξέλεγξιν τῆς γνη σιότητος αὐτοῦ, καὶ ἐδωρησάμην πρὸς αἰώνιον στηλίτευσιν τῆς Τισσενδορφείου ἀμαθείας . Ἔστιδὲ τὸ τοῦ ἑκτου αἰῶνος παλίμψηστον τοῦτο ἀτελὲς , καὶ τούτου ἕνεκα τὴν θυσίαν ταύτην ἐποιησάμην , ἄλλως δὲ οὐδὲ στίχον ἐδωρούμην ἀν
(d) This is itself that one, about which, the slanderer [Or: “sycophant,” “calumniator,” “traducer,” “malinger,” “mud slinger,”] (of the [Κομπᾷ]) Tissendorfius, who is the source from which is eminnating a continuous flow of worthless things that are dictated [in the papers]. And among his other falsehoods and so forth, he says: that I allegedly fabricated this according to the copy that I have in my hand from Athos; but what is this persecutor to us, because this is already a surrender, and according to him this is the same as the first copy, and most certainly, this was published by that chatter-box [Or: “rowdy trouble maker”] Tissendorf; for it has been determined that this does not agree with the palimpsest at all, as it arises from out of page A.

Of this page from the writing of Kathaper and of those contained in it they received and have and the first ones of Hermas are published, so that this bastard cannot say that I have now fabricated this. Let the editors compare the others as well, in order to be sure of the truth, and slander the slanderer, for never was heard of such a slanderous slander, no one more vicious than this was born, no one was ever born to believe, as no man more wicked than Tissendorfius is taught, and an angel "who is taught." Of this palimpsest, I donated a leaf to the Caesarian library in Vienna, and if it pleases the secret Tissendorfius, let the treasurers of the library ask about it, as it is adamantly precious. and in fact the wise Karagiannis, his thoughts on the matter. But I gave this to the scrutiny of its genuineness, and I donated it to the eternal civilization of Tissendorfian ignorance. Because the palimpsest of the sixth century is incomplete, and because of that I made this sacrifice, but otherwise I would not donate any verse to
.. Παροράματα τῆς ἐξ ἀριστερῶν σημειώσεως. στίχ . 2. ἀντὶ διεφθαρμένον , ἀκρωπηριασμένον , (στίχ . 3) άνα καλυ φὲν ἀνάγνωθι· διεφθαρμένῳ, ἠκρωτηριασμένῳ, ἀνακαλυφθέντι,
β
.. Consequences of left-handed notation. verse 2. instead of corrupt, mutilated, (verse 3) ana kaly fen annagnothi; corrupted, mutilated, discovered,
b


NOTE: The dates Simonides assigns for his copies.
NOTE: The alleged place obtained/claimed by Simonides.
NOTE: The four column format - mimicking and no doubt mocking the Sinaiticus. Perhaps competition?
NOTE: The claimed uncial lettering.
NOTE: The names of the copyist's.
NOTE: Simonides does not mince words about Tischendorf.
NOTE: Translation editing was done quickly, and may not be totally accurate.
 
Last edited:
Alexandrinus 5th century to Textus Receptus 16th century. An outstanding statistic. And remember, when Vaticanus and Sinaiticus disagree, one or the other will usually go with the Byzantine Text.
And where do Alexandrinus and the Textus Receptus especially differ? In those "socinian passages" so hated by Avery. It's interesting to note that Wettstein, the first would-be publisher of the whole of the Alexandrinus NT, was convicted of heresy by the Swiss reformers just for intending to publish these 'socinian passages'. Shows that people like Avery have been around a long time. Whatever: Avery also has the Byzantine uncials to disparage, beside Sinaiticus & Vaticanus, if he is to defend the Textus Receptus.
_______________

Here is a history of the reception of the Alexandinus Codex into the text-critical world, from the same source as above:

CODEX ALEXANDRINUS: FAMILIARITY BREEDS RESPECT

Attention turns next to Codex Alexandrinus (A = 02, fifth century). Walton’s Polyglot (1655-57) appears to be the first edition to publish readings from this venerable manuscript, which was collated by Alexander Huish for Walton, and the variants were placed prominently in the latter’s fifth volume at the foot of the Greek text. The readings of Alexandrinus therefore occupied a position of priority over those of Codices Bezae, Claromontanus, and thirteen other manuscripts that found a place only later, in Walton’s sixth, supplementary volume, which contained a critical apparatus prepared under the direction of Archbishop James Ussher. Curcellaeus (Etienne de Courcelles), who published a Greek Testament in 1658, knew about both Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Bezae, but decided to reserve their use for a further edition.

The arrival of Alexandrinus in England is well known. This ancient Codex was offered to England ‘in gratitude and appreciation of the valiant services rendered to Patriarch Lucans and the patriarchate of Constantinople by Sir Thomas Roe’, King James I’s representative in Constantinople since 1621. But James died in 1625, so in 1627 it was presented to his successor King Charles I. The manuscript was placed in the English Royal Library, where it was accessible, and in 1757 the Codex passed to the British Museum, and now it is displayed prominently in the British Library. Once in England, the Codex steadily increased in use and prominence, in general contrast to Codices Bezae and Claromonranus.

Not only was Codex Alexandrinus prominent in Walton's Polyglot in the mid-seventeenth century, but John Fell, as noted earlier, included readings from it in his 1675 Greek New Testament. Fell, however, took over readings from Walton and several other sources, not always with knowledge of their original source. John Mill personally collated Alexandrinus for his 1707 Greek New Testament, in which it held the pre-eminent place, especially in the Gospels, where - as already noted - Alexandrinus is the earliest representative of the Byzantine text. In 1709, Christopher Matthew Pfaff published his Critical Dissertation on how ‘genuine readings' can be separated by ‘critical canons’ from ‘spurious’ readings, and where he disagreed with Mill's view that Alexandrinus is superior to Codex Vaticanus. Certainly Pfaff’s judgment of Vaticanus's superiority was far ahead of its time.

In 1716 Bentley recorded his own collation of Alexandrinus into a copy of Fell’s Greek New Testament, and in 1731 he rescued the Codex itself, then in four volumes, from a fire in the Cotton Library - a well-known story, though details vary.

Meanwhile, in 1729, while Wettstein was on trial in Basel concerning his orthodoxy and the continuation of his ministerial office, he affirmed that his propposed Greek New Testament would contain a text of his own selection, with Codex Alexandrinus as its foundation. Prominent and perhaps central in the case against Wettstein were textual variants in six passages (1 John 5:7;

Acts 20:28; 1 Corinthians 10:9, Timothy 3:16; Jude 4; and Hebrews 1:3). These variants stood in opposition to the Textus Receptus and were preferred by Wettstein, but his accusers claimed that, individually and as a group, they represented Arian/Socinian views. To make matters worse for Wettstein, the readings in the ‘received text' of these passages had been employed since the Reformation as proofs of the divinity of Christ. And where were these heretical variants found? All six came from Codex Alexandrinus.

In its hearing report, the Basel Theologians’ Committee thanked God for the Textus Receptus - a prayer that many of us who are searching for the earliest attainable text of the New Testament might not recite with enthusiasm. As a result of the hearing, not only was Wettstein immediately deposed, but an official letter hinted that Wettstein himself had mutilated Codex Alexandrinus by conforming it to Arianism. At that point, Wettstein rather quickly assumed a professorship in Amsterdam (1733), but he continued to defend himself for some fifteen years. His modern biographer declared that ‘Wettstein fought a battle royal for the freedom of textual criticism from dogmatic prejudice, and cleared the ground for future critical enterprise. And all of this because Codex Alexandrinus was available, well known, and widely utilized - even though in large measure distanced from the prevailing text of the day!

To digress for a moment, observe that ecclesiastical censure was not the only risk in biblical studies during this period. It was reported in 1701 that the woman who was to become Richard Bentley's wife hesitated to marry him because he had implied that the authority of the book of Daniel might be in doubt. Nor will Wettstein be thought a hero in every respect. For instance, while Codex Alexandrinus was of first importance to him, he recognized that it had many scribal deficiencies - it was carelessly written, but also showed evidence of scribal ignorance about the content of the manuscript - leading him to suspect that it was copied by a female scribe.

Wettstein, of course, never did publish an independent Greek text, and the printed text in his elegant two-volume edition of 1751-52 was mainly that of the Elzevir 1624 edition because he fell victim to the theory that all of the most ancient Greek manuscripts had been Latinized, rendering them of virtually no use in establishing the genuine text of the Greek New Testament. In 1763, however, Bowyer formed and printed a Greek text from Wettstein’s critical apparatus that ‘represents what our scholar [Wettstein] would have substituted for the ‘Textus Receptus’, if he had dared to follow his own inclinations’. Missed opportunity after missed opportunity began to appear.

In 1786 the text of Codex Alexandrinus finally was published in an elaborate printed edition prepared in the British Museum by Carl Gottfried Woide; another followed in 1860 by B. H. Cowper, and a third by Edward H. Hansell in 1864. Later, the British Museum issued a photographic facsimile in 1879 by Thompson, followed by a reduced facsimile in 1909, with an introduction by Kenyon.

Our sketch so far of the history into which Codex Sinaiticus soon was to emerge shows the prevailing authority of the Textus Receptus alongside and contradictory to an increasing interest in the more ancient manuscripts. Readings from Codex Bezae were cited and appeared in the first criticalbedition worthy of the name in the middle of the sixteenth century, that of Stephanus, the Codex became well known, with available collations and one print facsimile and with some serious attention to its readings and to its text as a whole by the mid nineteenth century. By no means, however, had Codex Bezae come into its own, for it was widely dismissed because of its array of aberrantb readings and, for some, because the Greek text was viewed as secondary to its Latin column.

Codex Alexandrinus was prominent from the mid-seventeenth century on and, in contrast to Codex Bezae, was utilized extensively and commanded high respect. Alexandrinus, of course, had the advantage of containing the entire New Testament, except for a few sizeable lacunae, while Codex Bezae, containing only the Gospels and Acts and the end portion of 3 John, amounted to somewhat more than half of the New Testament. Primary in the ready acceptance of Alexandrinus, however, was the added advantage of a text in the Gospels closely akin to that of the Textus Receptus. Codex Bezae, of course, evinced little affinity with the ‘received text’. Alexandrinus’s advantage in this respect, however, would last only into the mid-nineteenth century, when two additional majuscules came fully into view.
 
Simonides claims of multiple ancient copies and palimpsest manuscripts of Hermas in his failed magazine, "Memnon", published in Munich in 1857 (the year after his arrest and imprisonment in Berlin).


ΚΑΛΛΙΣΤΡΑΤΕΙΟΝ
ἀπόγραφον ( α )
ΑΙ ΠΟΙΜENIΚΑΙ ΓΡΑΦΑΙ ΕΡΜΑ ΑΣΥΓΚΡΙΤΟΥ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΩΕ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥ.

KALLISTRATEION
Copy ( a )
"HOLY SHEPHERDS, A WRITING OF HERMAS FROM THE PEERLESS WORD OF THE LAODICIAN APOSTLE"

Discovery location: Τὸ ἀπόγραφον τοῦτο ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸ Σίναιον ὄρος μονῇ τῷ 1852 ἀνακαλυφθὲν, "this was discovered in the monastery on Mt Sinai in 1852"
Discovery date: 1852
Date written: 1st century A.D./C.E.
Material: Papyrus
Manuscript type: ἀπόγραφον "a copy"
Language: Egyptian (Egyptian Greek?)
Script: Unicial/Majuscule
Format: Four columns, fifty two verses,
Copyist: Καλλίστρατος ἐκαλεῖτο ἐξ Ἀντιοχείας



APTEMEION
ἀπόγραφον ( β )
Ο ΠΟΙΜΗΝ ΕΡΜΑ ΔΟΥΛΟΥ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥ ΙΗΣΟΥ ΧΡΙΣΟΥ

ARTEMEION
Copy ( b )
"THE SHEPHERD HERMAS SERVANT OF THE APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST"
Alternately:
"THE SHEPHERD HERMAS A SERVANT [AND] APOSTLE OF JESUS CHRIST"

Discovery location: Τοῦτο ἐν ῎Αθω ἀνεκαλύφθη "this was discovered at Mt Athos"
Discovery date: 1839-40?
Date written: 272 [3rd century] A.D./C.E.
Material: ?
Manuscript type: ἀπόγραφον "a copy"
Language: Greek?
Script: Unicial/Majuscule
Format: One hundred and twenty two two-fold pages, unspecified amount of columns plural, forty nine verses
Copyist: Αρτέμιός τίς ἐστιν, Ολύνθιος τὸ γένος



ΝΕΣΤΩΡΕΙΟΝ
παλίμψηστον ( γ )
Ο ΠΟΙΜΗΝ ΤΗΣ ΜΕΤΑΝΟΙΑΣ ΕΡΜΑ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥ

NESTORION
Palimpsest ( c )
"THE SHEPHERD OF REPENTANCE HERMAS OF THE APOSTLE"
Alternately:
"THE SHEPHERD, THE REPENTANCE OF HERMAS THE APOSTLE"

Discovery location: τοῦτο, ἐν Αθῷ ἀνακαλυφθὲν "this was discovered at Mt Athos"
Discovery date: 1839-40?
Date written: 4th century A.D./C.E.
Material: ?
Manuscript type: παλίμψηστον "palimpsest"
Language: Greek?
Script: Unicial/Majuscule
Format: Eighty seven pages
Copyist: Νεστώριος



ΤΟ ΠΟΛΥΚΡΟΤΟΝ
Λειψιανὸν παλίμψηστον ( δ )
EPMA ΠΟΙΜΗΝ.

THE POLYCROTON [Or: "THE FAMOUS" "THE WELL KNOWN" "HIGHLY PUBLICIZED"]
Lipsian palimpsest ( d )
"HERMAS THE SHEPHERD"

Fake: "Uranius’ Historia Aegyptiae"

Discovery location: Allegedly among the secret stash on "Mt Athos", but actually stolen from the Monastery of St. Gregory
Discovery date: Allegedly 1852
Date of alleged over-writing: Hermas text written (1457) 15th century A.D./C.E.
Date of alleged under-writing: ? century A.D./C.E.
Material: Parchment?
Manuscript type: Λειψιανὸν παλίμψηστον "Lipsian" Palimpsest
Language: Greek
Script: Cursive/Miniscule and Unical/Majuscule
Format: Four columns
Copyist: ?
Real origin: Torn from the Codex Athous Gregoriou 96 (Lampros 643)
Current location/designation: Deutschland, Leipzig, UB, gr. 09
 
Last edited:
Kevin McGrane, in correspondence with Steven Avery:
I would suggest that before wasting more of your time and everyone else's on following Simonides' lies that Benedict = Basilaeus = Bessarion => Vissarion all the way into another identity theft (as Simonides did by making out Benedict was the hegumen of St Panteleimon) you spend a few years learning some languages, starting with Greek and Russian, and then you will be able to read all the biographical material and see how deceived you have been.

BTW, yours and Daniels' description that Uspensky wrote his papers in Old Slavonic is utterly hilarious. Your Ukrainian translators must have been having a laugh.




Steven Avery:
Does David or I say that Uspensky wrote in Old Slavonic? Or simply that the script is Slavonic and perhaps some words as well (which is what was shared by the translators, the less professional ones in Ukraine did the work in two steps.) There is also a distinction made between Church Slavonic and Old Slavic. If we made a mistake in the description then most definitely we would want to make a correction. Afaik, I have never written that Uspensky wrote his papers in Old Slavonic.



Kevin McGrane:

Steven Avery, CARM forum, April 22, 2016: "Another unusual question was asked about reading the language of Uspensky...What is strange about this is that the SART team is the only one that have translated into English and published the salient Porfiry Uspensky Old Slavonic sections...We use a Slavonic translator, one with the skills that go beyond today's Russian translators"
Steven Avery, Biblical Criticism & History forum, February 6, 2016: "up until today you simply can't read Uspensky in English. (The Old Slavonic of a couple of sentences was placed on a web-site or two and then on Wikipedia, without translation, by the Ukrainian scholar Leszek Janczuk...)
Steven Avery, Fighting Fundamental forum, May 6, 2016 "The sources that have been used for the Codex Sinaiticus research are wide-ranging. As one simple example, this includes our having original finds and translations of the Uspensky and Morozov material, from Old Slavonic and Russian."
David Daniels "I and my fellow researchers, Steven Avery and Mark Michie, wanted to know what Uspensky wrote. But none of us knows Old Slavonic. Thankfully, a missionary to Ukraine, John Spillman, got it translated for us, from Old Slavonic, into Russian, then into English."


I would have to take issue with this laudatory language about 'original finds'. What this 'SART team' really means is that they were ignorant of it. It was inaccessible to THEM because they couldn't read Russian, didn't realize that Russian orthography was different in the nineteenth century, and were conned into believing it was Old Slavonic, and made fools of themselves by repeating such twaddle. Someone must really be having a laugh at their expense since Old Slavonic has been extinct for 900 years. And, if we are to believe Daniels, one of this SART team, their translation was a translation of a translation via a third language, Russian!).

As a reminder.....the founder of the SART team dismisses Elliott's work as "deficient" because, well, he didn't mention a completely irrelevant work from 75 years before he wrote his book (but Elliott DID cite MORE RECENT material contra Farrer).

His "privacy settings" is a bigger screwup than anyone he attacks ever made - especially when you remember his so-called job is...COMPUTERS!!!
 
One of Avery's pals, Bryan Ross, in his work Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Simonides: Understanding How the Text of the Reformation Was Undermined: April 28, 2018, pg. 98, wrote the following:


Codex Sinaiticus Is a 19th Century Creation
  • The parchment and inks have never been chemically texted.
  • 2015—a test of the Leipzig portion (CFA) was scheduled and canceled.
  • Scholars accepted the age and authenticity of the Codex based upon the inexact science of paleography. Which essentially equates to nothing more than Tischendorf’s opinion.
  • During the critical period between 1859 and 1933 when the Codex was accepted as a legitimate ancient witness to the NT text, it was in St. Petersburg, Russia on the back of Europe. Few scholars ever saw it, much less worked with it directly when translating.
  • All scholars had from Codex Sinaiticus were edited readings, editions, and/or facsimilies provided by Tischendorf from his 1862 and 1863 publications.
  • Codex Sinaiticus is not old.


Avery and company must be beside themselves, after receiving the following from James Asch in July of 2022:


DrJames A, PhD <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 15, 4:44 PM
I just watched a Bible teacher I respected, Byran Ross, completely recant his views on Simonides based on something he read from Kevin McGrane, and in looking for the evidence on the recant, I couldn't find it. I haven't been keeping up with the debate for some time because of the pandemic nonsense, but after seeing the "logic" used by McGrane, I'm going to brush up.
I've read a few of Hixson's views on Daniel's book, and it reads like a thesis on Tyranny of the Experts: "He has no expertise in detecting forgeries". So, reject the credibility of someone doing a historical analysis of the evidence because that person doesn't specialize in detecting forgeries (does Hixson and McGrane?) even though that's quite the strawman: none of us that believe that Simonides was the true author of Sinaiticus claim that it's a "forgery", and I believe they critics of the Simonides- Sinaiticus connection are getting away with convincing people that that narrative is bogus by burning down that strawman. Simonides claiming to be the real author of what Tischendorf attempted to present as a discovery of an ancient manuscript is not the definition of a forgery, and I hope pointing this out to the naysayers helps remove that argument from their arsonal.
In Christ,
James A., PhD
 
One of Avery's pals, Bryan Ross, in his work Codex Sinaiticus or Codex Simonides: Understanding How the Text of the Reformation Was Undermined: April 28, 2018, pg. 98, wrote the following:


Codex Sinaiticus Is a 19th Century Creation
  • The parchment and inks have never been chemically texted.
  • 2015—a test of the Leipzig portion (CFA) was scheduled and canceled.
  • Scholars accepted the age and authenticity of the Codex based upon the inexact science of paleography. Which essentially equates to nothing more than Tischendorf’s opinion.
  • During the critical period between 1859 and 1933 when the Codex was accepted as a legitimate ancient witness to the NT text, it was in St. Petersburg, Russia on the back of Europe. Few scholars ever saw it, much less worked with it directly when translating.
  • All scholars had from Codex Sinaiticus were edited readings, editions, and/or facsimilies provided by Tischendorf from his 1862 and 1863 publications.
  • Codex Sinaiticus is not old.


Avery and company must be beside themselves, after receiving the following from James Asch in July of 2022:


DrJames A, PhD <[email protected]> Fri, Jul 15, 4:44 PM
I just watched a Bible teacher I respected, Byran Ross, completely recant his views on Simonides based on something he read from Kevin McGrane, and in looking for the evidence on the recant, I couldn't find it. I haven't been keeping up with the debate for some time because of the pandemic nonsense, but after seeing the "logic" used by McGrane, I'm going to brush up.
I've read a few of Hixson's views on Daniel's book, and it reads like a thesis on Tyranny of the Experts: "He has no expertise in detecting forgeries". So, reject the credibility of someone doing a historical analysis of the evidence because that person doesn't specialize in detecting forgeries (does Hixson and McGrane?) even though that's quite the strawman: none of us that believe that Simonides was the true author of Sinaiticus claim that it's a "forgery", and I believe they critics of the Simonides- Sinaiticus connection are getting away with convincing people that that narrative is bogus by burning down that strawman. Simonides claiming to be the real author of what Tischendorf attempted to present as a discovery of an ancient manuscript is not the definition of a forgery, and I hope pointing this out to the naysayers helps remove that argument from their arsonal.
In Christ,
James A., PhD

McGrane's work is awesome.

He's (by memory) bringing out, not just another review, but a full on book on Simonides. Did anyone else read or hear something to that effect?

Simonides "forgeries" are sooo clumsy you don't have to be an✌️expert✌️as Avery complains.

Dating, mathematics, and chronology (these three combined) are a particularly obvious weakness in Simonides criminal activity and ever shifting narrative.
 
  • All scholars had from Codex Sinaiticus were edited readings, editions, and/or facsimilies provided by Tischendorf from his 1862 and 1863 publications.


1846 - A kind of facsimile edition of the 43 Leipzig leaves of the 'Codex Friderico-Augustanus', was published 1846 in Leipzig by Köhler. This was pointed out to our omniscient friend Mr Avery, by someone who lives in Leipzig, Germany (by memory). He was also invited to go have a look for himself at an existing copy, when Mr Avery kindly rubbished the fact and the person (also from memory - so don't quote me).


  • Codex Sinaiticus is not old.

Anddddd... Steven Avery looks like a teenager 🙄
 
Back
Top