Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

[Maestroh]

Actually, this has been one of a number of projects and interests.

As you've done nothing but quote people, you have contributed zero.

However, it is going extremely well, thank you.

I never asked you how it was going.
I told you precisely what you're doing.

Currently, the last couple of days, we are studying the accents in Sinaiticus

An individual who can't read Greek claims to be studying Greek accents.......

and looking at some wacky writing. The "scholarship" on the accents is quite humorous.

Nah, what's humorous is your level of contradiction, often in the same post.

 

[Steven Avery]

> Bill Brown:
> An individual who can't read Greek claims to be studying Greek accents.......

Sure, teamwork, iron sharpeneth, in tandem with a gentleman who has solid Greek skills.
He explains the techie stuff, and I find out how the Sinaiticus scholarship has been handled over the years.
And we discuss the findings.

Have you looked at the accents in Sinaiticus?
Fascinating.

 

[Steven Avery]

Accents section was in italics, I added bold.

The Christian Remembrancer (July 1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=jvoDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA196

—the various corrections the primitive text has received from different hands, with inks of many various shades, and at different times, yet even the latest before breathings and accents came into use—all these facts, taken together, with nothing considerable to set in the opposite scale, concur in persuading Tischendorf that the middle of the fourth century is, for this venerable Codex, a date, if not certain, yet far from improbable, and, at any rate, neither futile nor glaringly extravagant.

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

To be sure we do not leave him out, this section is in:

Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair,
An Examination of the nineteenth century claim that Codex Sinaiticus was not an ancient manuscript
James Keith Elliott, p. 21, prefaced with:

In the meantime the paper is only able to repeat what Tischendorf himself published. In its next issue (July 1863) The Christian Remembrancer reports:

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

No discussion of the accents in Sinaiticus. ... oops.

Yet the lack of accents is given as a major argument for antiquity.

hmmmm .. time for a reexamination

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

 

[Steven Avery]

EDITED BY MOD

You are totally confused.
So you make a typical false accusation of lying.

You did not include my quote, so you could falsely accuse.

First, Tischendorf never gave his reasons for his Sinaiticus handwriting dating, a point made by Milne and Skeat.

“In no case does he give any details of the characteristics of the various hands he professed to identify, and we must assume that, in the main, he was guided solely by the general appearance of the script” (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, Milne and Skeat 1938 p.18).

Second, handwriting alone can never accurately give a terminus ante quem date for a document. Any handwriting can be copied years later, or 1500 years later. However, no one can write in a future script.

Third, Tischendorf had a rigged horse in the race, in Sinaiticus, and his dating arguments were far from objective.

Milne & Skeat were making a comment about how Tischendorf did not support his dates with script analysis. Joseph Verheyden quoted Milne & Skeat on this as well.

Joseph Verheyden calls it a "fairly disturbing comment"

"They had the summary preceded by the fairly disturbing comment"

Lire demain - Reading Tomorrow (2013)
Read, Write and Correct: the Scribe and the Perfect Text
3. Of Scribes and Correctors
https://books.google.com/books?id=EbtYKIc0_Q4C&pg=PA460

 

[Steven Avery]

Skeat has studied their handwriting.

Do you know what they wrote?

Have you looked at the accents in Sinaiticus?

 

[cjab]

No discussion of the accents in Sinaiticus. ... oops.

Cut the BS. How many accents are there, where are they, who put them in, and what are you concluding from them?

 

[Steven Avery]

Cut the BS. How many accents are there, where are they, who put them in, and what are you concluding from them?

You folks are a little touchy.

One false accusation of lying.
One vulgarity.

Looks like you know nothing on the topic.
Have you looked at the manuscript?
Do you have any idea of the scholarship positions?

 

[cjab]

You folks are a little touchy.

One false accusation of lying.
One vulgarity.

Looks like you know nothing on the topic.

More BS then.

 

[Steven Avery]

Not at all. I am just showing that the contras are incapable of discussing the accents. They have not looked at the manuscript, and have no quotes to give and defend.

I’ll wait and see if any of them can make a sensible comment.
We have three failures so far.

==========

Remember, this is supposed to be one of the major proofs of Sinaiticus antiquity (as in post #763), so the contras should be able to expound their position with verve and zest!

Are they so engrossed in “orange man bad” that they know nothing of the manuscript?

==========

Keep in mind that supposed proofs can work in two directions. An example. The contras dug up quotes that the young Simonides wrote with itacisms and solecisms, fitting Sinaiticus perfectly. Thanks! The scribal blunders also fit with an 1800s Greek stumbling over early Greek forms.

==========

 

[cjab]

Not at all. I am just showing that the contras are incapable of discussing the accents. They have not looked at the manuscript, and have no quotes to give and defend.

I’ll wait and see if any of them can make a sensible comment.
We have three failures so far.

You've yet to show there are any accents in the original Sinaiticus codex. So why should we discuss an allegation of yours that is so far lacking even prima facie evidence?

Are you asking us to go through every page of Sinaiticus looking for accents? I've no intention of doing so. Many have testified that there are none.

==========

Remember, this is supposed to be one of the major proofs of Sinaiticus antiquity (as in post #763), so the contras should be able to expound their position with verve and zest!

Are they so engrossed in “orange man bad” that they know nothing of the manuscript?

==========

Keep in mind that supposed proofs can work in two directions. An example. The contras dug up quotes that the young Simonides wrote with itacisms and solecisms, fitting Sinaiticus perfectly. Thanks! The scribal blunders also fit with an 1800s Greek stumbling over early Greek forms.

==========

By the testimony of Lykourgos, a witness of the highest repute, Simonides had no paleography skills in uncials in 1855, let alone in his youth.

 

[Steven Avery]

Are you asking us to go through every page of Sinaiticus looking for accents? I've no intention of doing so. Many have testified that there are none.

Yes, that is true.
Let's allow that some of these writers simply omitted the important limitation to the original writer. An important, but understandable, omission.

Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (1980)
Jack Finegan

"There are no accents or breathings." p. 133

Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography (1981)
Bruce Metzger

Sinaiticus is written in a simple and dignified ‘Biblical uncial’ hand, the letters being free from ornamental serifs. There are no accents and breathing marks.

The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations (2008)
Peter M Head

8. Throughout the New Testament of Sinaiticus the words are written continuously in the style that comes to be called “biblical uncial” or “biblical majuscule”. The parchment was prepared for writing lines, ruled with a sharp point. The letters are written on these lines, without accents or breathings. A variety of types of punctuation are used: high and middle points and colon, diaeresis on initial iota and upsilon, nomina sacra, paragraphos: initial letter into margin (extent of this varies considerably). We shall return to these features in relation to Mark’s Gospel shortly.

So can we trust the palaeographic analysis of Jack Finegan, Bruce Metzger and Peter Head, and many others?

Remember, this is a key argument for antiquity - no accents.

 

[christ_undivided]

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.

What exactly is this suppose to mean?

Gobbledygook....

 

[Conan]

Yes, that is true.
Let's allow that some of these writers simply omitted the important limitation to the original writer. An important, but understandable, omission.

Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (1980)
Jack Finegan


Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography (1981)
Bruce Metzger


The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus: Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations (2008)
Peter M Head


So can we trust the palaeographic analysis of Jack Finegan, Bruce Metzger and Peter Head, and many others?

Remember, this is a key argument for antiquity - no accents.

Their talking about the original hands. Accents came with later correctors. You are confused. After all these years you still don't know even the basics about the manuscript.

 

[christ_undivided]

You folks are a little touchy.

One false accusation of lying.
One vulgarity.

Looks like you know nothing on the topic.
Have you looked at the manuscript?
Do you have any idea of the scholarship positions?

Playing wounded..... Typical nonsense from you.

Maybe you prefer "pisseth against the wall".......

 

[Maestroh]

The simple truth that one manuscript can copy into another's text or corrections is not "Hort's genealogical method". In fact, in this context Hort does not even discuss a manuscript being used for corrections in another manuscript.

You've never read Hort at all.

And lest he again come back with his redundant "you just make stuff up" false allegation:

In 2013 - before he got sidetracked by the lying forger Simonides and his illegitimate offspring (Chris Pinto), Avery went with:

The following is, I believe, also the
implied yet afaik unstated Hortian genealogical theory.
But as one poster pointed out on July 18, 2013:

If it's "unstated", how did Avery quote it word-for-word from Griesbach, who tells us plainly that he found it plainly stated (in Latin) in Bengel's Critical Apparatus? But of course, I understand that Avery means that while others (including Griesback and Bengel) stated it, Westcott and Hort didn't, as far as Avery knows. Well, why doesn't Avery know that Westcott and Hort DID state it? Avery either hasn't read Westcott and Hort's introduction to The New Testament in the Original Greek, or he has forgotten what is written there. Either way, he should have looked there before confessing online that as far as he knows, Westcott and Hort never actually stated one of the most important foundational principles of their theory of textual criticism! For lo! They DID plainly state that principle; they DID NOT merely "imply" it. From the book just mentioned, pages 39-46:


Again, I don't need lectures or "this is the little bit I think I know" sentence fragments from someone who never read the work and doesn't understand it anyway.

 

[Maestroh]

You are not aware of the history.

I'm aware that you cherry pick parts of Simonides's CLAIMS about history, but you don't know the history, either.

Why didn't William Aldis Wright and the Investigative Clowns follow up on his clearly stated words from Simonides about men alive that were involved with the manuscript in the early 1840s.

Because it wasn't their job to DISPROVE his claims, it was his job to PROVE them.


You literally have this backwards.

And again - you're pretending Simonides DID NOT CLAIM TO WRITE IT HIMSELF when he most certainly did.


It is not their job to chase phantoms.

This includes Anthimos IV, and John Prodromus, and others.

We know that Anthimos and Simonides had a falling out, so what was needed was an independent inquiry.

You're upset because folks didn't waste time leaving England to go traipsing across the world to Mt Athos to find people that there's no evidence actually existed????

 

[Steven Avery]

Their talking about the original hands. Accents came with later correctors. You are confused. After all these years you still don't know even the basics about the manuscript.

Read more carefully, I actually allowed that they are talking about only the original hands.

Let's allow that some of these writers simply omitted the important limitation to the original writer. An important, but understandable, omission.

 

[Steven Avery]

You're upset because folks didn't waste time leaving England to go traipsing across the world to Mt Athos to find people that there's no evidence actually existed????

Anthimos did not exist????

Come back when you understand the basics.

They did most of the inquiries by correspondence.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Meanwhile, I generally do not use this as an evidence, due to the provenance concern.

That's a keeper folk's ?

However, the scholars who have access to that type of literature could be of much greater assistance. (I wrote again to one yesterday.)

They probably would, if you didn't insult them all over the internet, either behind their back, or by your belligerent and abrasive writing style.

And probably because your dilettante reputation precedes you.

 

[Steven Avery]

Playing wounded..... Typical nonsense from you.
Maybe you prefer "pisseth against the wall".......

Why the posturing ?

I just noted that Conan falsely accused me of lying, regarding Milne and Skeat.
And, as usual among contras, he did not offer correction or apology.