Stains to artificially age the yellowed appearance of parchment can involve liquids like lemon juice, herbs, tea or coffee. Sinaiticus has never been tested.
Why would anyone need to test it when YOU already claim to know it was chemically altered?
Stains to artificially age the yellowed appearance of parchment can involve liquids like lemon juice, herbs, tea or coffee. Sinaiticus has never been tested.
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.
Any time there is an analysis that directly connects specific Sinaiticus corrections to a manuscript, (or a family of manuscripts), there is a considerable probability that the manuscript, or a sister manuscript, was in fact used in making the Sinaiticus corrections.
And while this phenomenon has been noted in various spots in Sinaiticus, I have never heard of it occurring in any other of the ‘Great Uncials’ even in one spot.
Afaik, this Sinaiticus correction pattern, connecting to a specific source manuscript, was only noted recently, coming out of our studies.
Each case previously had only been noted individually.
If there was only one case, you could, with difficulty, have a theory that Sinaiticus and the source manuscript intersected during centuries of travels. Similar is cjab in post #103. An example of the difficulties would involve dating the corrections, since now the terminus post quem of the corrections must be after the production date of the source manuscript. And this can clash with previous correction date theory.
With multiple manuscript connections, in a variety of OT and NT and Apocrypha books, the intersection theory falls to pieces.
He's basically now taking up in favor of Hort's genealogical method.
All of this word salad operates under the preposterous assumption that Simonides had access to all this stuff as if CSNTM had manuscripts online in 1844.
He claimed - and reproduced in his FIRST letter claiming authorship - to have a letter from Constantius dated August 13, 1841.
All he had to do to prove his version of events was produce this letter.
He never did. He never even tried to forge that one.
Why did he never produce an eyewitness?
Because he was lying.
Why would anyone need to test it when YOU already claim to know it was chemically altered?
Yes but it proves nothing, as written in 1841, and is just a generic reference or letter of good will. What it proves is that no-one from the Orthodox church was prepared to give Simonides another reference. It was his only one: he was out of favor with Orthodoxy, and he tried to pretend otherwise by peddling this reference everywhere.Provenance is always a legitimate concern, both for Sinaiticus and for Simonides. That was why the 1849 Symais printing of the letter of recommendation from Anthimos is such a helpful corroboration of the 1859 Memoir. It was written when it would have been trivially easy to refute, and no objection came forth.
Nope. Each case is different, e.g. some are of manuscripts in Mt. Athos, some involve printed editions. So they would be available to Benedict in his decade plus of preparation.
Some sources are more available to Tischendorf, e.g. he would be totally aware of the exemplar in Coislinianus that was very possibly used for the Sinaiticus colophon.
Ironically, Coislinianus is New Testament colophon, while Sinaiticus took the same idea into the Old Testament and Apocrypha.
This distinction of different parts of the Bible alone is quite suspicious.
And, to their credit, a number of scholars have had a healthy skepticism about the Sinaiticus colophons.
Colophon exemplars may have been available to Benedict as well.
Provenance is always a legitimate concern, both for Sinaiticus and for Simonides. That was why the 1849 Symais printing of the letter of recommendation from Anthimos is such a helpful corroboration of the 1859 Memoir. It was written when it would have been trivially easy to refute, and no objection came forth.
I would like to see the letters from the Australian studies of the Forging Antiquity Project, especially Simonides and Hodgkin. To see if this issue of the Constantius letter came up. That would be of great assistance. Meanwhile, I generally do not use this as an evidence, due to the provenance concern. However, the scholars who have access to that type of literature could be of much greater assistance. (I wrote again to one yesterday.)
Yes but it proves nothing, as written in 1841, and is just a generic reference or letter of good will. What it proves is that no-one from the Orthodox church was prepared to give Simonides another reference. It was his only one: he was out of favor with Orthodoxy, and he tried to pretend otherwise by peddling this reference everywhere.
We will note for the record that - for quite obvious reasons - you didn't address the letter Simonides claimed to have but never produced.
As you're 73 years old, you've already wasted 13% of your time on this planet on this speculative nonsense.
You are the one who is "humorous". You don't understand the scholarship. Your in the dark. You don't even know that it is an ancient manuscript.Currently, the last couple of days, we are studying the accents in Sinaiticus and looking at some wacky writing. The "scholarship" on the accents is quite humorous.
You don’t see what a moronic statement that is, do you?I pointed out that we may well have more information in unpublished letters
You are the one who is "humorous". You don't understand the scholarship.
... in these same early pages of Matthew accents and breathings have been carefully supplied, quotations from the Old Testament marked with arrow-heads (and, in the earlier cases, the name of the book as well), and a number of corrections in a minute hand designated by Tischendorf B or B1 (see below, p. 45) inserted. The Old Testament quotation-marks cease after the third page (N.T. 2), the accents and breathings in the middle of the fifth (N.T. 3, col. 3, 1. 10), but the so-called B-Ba corrections continue for some pages further and gradually merge into A’s more usual hand.
I pointed out that we may well have more information in unpublished letters,
including one being held back by the Aussie project. And that the letter has a provenance issue and therefore I do use it as an argument. So clearly I did address the letter.