Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

christ_undivided said:
Notice the "only interested" comments. More "Weasel words" from Avery
Click to expand...

As I said, you do not understand the issue.
Here you give confirmation of your lack of understanding.

The times when a thousands number is spelled out can not tell us anything about old or new abbreviations.

It is said that abbreviations are only in 1 Maccabees. Likely true. And even there in 1 Maccabees the spelling motif is commonly used. And those are irrelevant to our study.
 
Steven Avery said:
As I said, you do not understand the issue.
Here you give confirmation of your lack of understanding.

The times when a thousands number is spelled out can not tell us anything about old or new abbreviations.

It is said that abbreviations are only in 1 Maccabees. Likely true. And even there in 1 Maccabees the spelling motif is commonly used. And those are irrelevant to our study.
Click to expand...

So you're research scrounging again.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
So you're research scrounging again.
Click to expand...

Note that I shared a lot of information here about the thousands abbreviations, and there are more pics and information on PBF.

The scholarship from Skeat to Nongbri has been spotty, e.g. they said only 1 Maccabees and now cjab says also 4 Maccabees has an abbreviation. Plus often the actual spots are spotty, with overwrites, corrections, scrunched letters, etc. that are not so easy to identify. And the corrector identifications from the CSP are helpful but cannot be relied upon without checking, even putting aside their dates that have no real palaeographic backing, generally just passed down from Tischendorf.

We did put aside the studies on the abbreviations to concentrate on the question of the Zurich Psalter being used to correct Sinaiticus.

Sometimes cjab is actually very good on collaboration.

===========================================
Milne and Skeat on the Tischendorf palaeography dating

"The account of the hands given by Tischendorf, Prolegomena, pp. 8-8*, is repeated almost verbatim in two later publications, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, 1863, p. xxi, and Novum Testamentum Graece ex Sinaitico Codice, 1865, p. xxx. 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” (Milne and Skeat 1938:18).
Click to expand...

Joseph Verheyden calls it a "fairly disturbing comment"

===========================================
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
The scholarship from Skeat to Nongbri has been spotty,
Click to expand...

The gall of this guy!

If they're spotty, what are you?


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 118
Paragraph 3-4
Footnote 272


"This is also a major thrust of bloggers such as ‘Steven Avery’ (= Steven Avery Spencer), who make the same fundamental mistake. Fortunately ‘Steven Avery’ has come to realize that Uspensky saw the ‘white parchment’ leaves at Mount Sinai in 1850 as well as 1845, so he has had to tailor his account to make the distressing start after 1850. The Codex returned to St Petersburg from Leipzig in 1862 and Uspensky was in St Petersburg from 1861 to 1865. He would surely have noted if any tampering had taken place since his last sight of it in 1850.
Uspensky had much to say about Codex Sinaiticus after its first arrival in St Petersburg in 1859, and also wrote about it, but none of it relates to any suggestion of tampering in his lifetime. There were thousands of witnesses to its state in 1859 because it was on public display for two weeks in St Petersburg late that year, and also was exhibited in Warsaw. It was seen by many eminent men of government, including heads of state, as well as scholars who would be familiar with Uspensky’s descriptions of the Codex in his two volumes of travels to Sinai and Egypt, published in 1856, and his colour plates of samples of the Codex (produced in 1850), published in 1857. S.P. Tregelles had ample opportunity to comment as he was in Leipzig in 1850 and 1862 and saw the leaves recovered in 1844 and 1859.

We nowhere hear of any question about alleged discrepancies in colour.
It appears that observers in the mid-nineteenth century fully understood that ‘white parchment’ was a type not a present colour attribute."

https://www.academia.edu/37556820/A...iled_background_of_the_discovery_of_the_Codex​
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
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
"This is also a major thrust of bloggers such as ‘Steven Avery’ (= Steven Avery Spencer), who make the same fundamental mistake. Fortunately ‘Steven Avery’ has come to realize that Uspensky saw the ‘white parchment’ leaves at Mount Sinai in 1850 as well as 1845, so he has had to tailor his account to make the distressing start after 1850.​
Click to expand...

Thanks for posting the quirky Kevin McGrane.

Where did I ever say that the colouring was before 1850?

What “fundamental mistake” did I make?

Or is it all a fabrication?
 
Raised this point with Steven on another thread.

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
If Simonides was alive and in court today, he would be asked by the prosecution to point to a specific shade of yellow on a color chart, like used in Kevin McGrane's works for example.​
Click to expand...

Avery replies with

Steven Avery said:
Simonides could simply point to the CSP pictures.​
Click to expand...

I replied

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
And what specific color yellow on the CSP color charts would he point to Mr Avery?​
Click to expand...

We await his answer!

Get the CSP color charts out Avery!
 
Last edited:
cjab said:
I just noted one insertion by Corrector Cb in 4 Maccabees 4:17, but its an insertion, not a correction.
Click to expand...

Confirmed.
Good info, thanks, but it is a correction to 3,000, new abbreviation, since it was a correction, space was a consideration, spelling it out would have been difficult.

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...lioNo=2&lid=en&quireNo=42&side=r&zoomSlider=0

368784171_231747209384776_852082858251371169_n.png


Brenton
4 Maccabees 4:17
who had made a covenant,
if he would give him this authority,
to pay yearly three thousand six hundred and sixty talents.

Update should go to Brent Nongbri!
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
As I said, you do not understand the issue.
Here you give confirmation of your lack of understanding.

The times when a thousands number is spelled out can not tell us anything about old or new abbreviations.

It is said that abbreviations are only in 1 Maccabees. Likely true. And even there in 1 Maccabees the spelling motif is commonly used. And those are irrelevant to our study.
Click to expand...
Just admit you want to control the conversation. I'm not the issue. You are.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
There were thousands of witnesses to its state in 1859 because it was on public display for two weeks in St Petersburg late that year, and also was exhibited in Warsaw.
Click to expand...

We have not seen a single report about these displays.
So we cannot mind-read the non-existent reports.

It is critically important to remember (and craftily omitted by Kevin McGrane) that at this time there was ZERO public acknowledgement that this was the Codex Fridirico-Augustanus (CFA) manuscript in Leipzig. Tischendorf was hiding that information. So none of these "thousands of witnesses" could know to try to compare the very different coloration.

Which would have blown the whole charade.
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
It was seen by many eminent men of government, including heads of state, as well as scholars who would be familiar with Uspensky’s descriptions of the Codex in his two volumes of travels to Sinai and Egypt, published in 1856, and his colour plates of samples of the Codex (produced in 1850), published in 1857.
Click to expand...

How could this be well known?
Tischendorf claimed he did not know about the Uspensky Sinai books even in 1859!

Or was Tischendorf lying yet again, as part of his con?

After all, Uspensky had published in 1857 a 1 Corinthians 13 fragment, hand transcribed, blowing the Tischendorf NT discovery to smithereens.

So Tischendorf pretended ignorance of the Uspensky books.

And the idea that people were comparing carefully the colour in the Uspensky hand-transcribed plates in a book with Sinaiticus in front of them is nonsense.

And McGrane’s idea that they analyzed the 1856 book reference to “white parchment” is similarly total nonsense.
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
S.P. Tregelles had ample opportunity to comment as he was in Leipzig in 1850 and 1862 and saw the leaves recovered in 1844 and 1859.​
Click to expand...

If we have no comments from Tregelles about the CFA, the colophons, the three crosses note, etc. we really don’t know what he saw or thought about the lighter colour section.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
How could this be well known?
Tischendorf claimed he did not know about the Uspensky Sinai books even in 1859!

Or was Tischendorf lying yet again, as part of his con?

After all, Uspensky had published in 1857 a 1 Corinthians 13 fragment, hand transcribed, blowing the Tischendorf NT discovery to smithereens.

So Tischendorf pretended ignorance of the Uspensky books.

And the idea that people were comparing carefully the colour in the Uspensky hand-transcribed plates in a book with Sinaiticus in front of them is nonsense.

And McGrane’s idea that they analyzed the 1856 book reference to “white parchment” is similarly total nonsense.
Click to expand...

Post a proper link to where exactly you actually took the quotation from one of my posts.

You've divorced it from its proper context.

And don't think for one second everyone has forgotten that we're waiting for your CSP colour chart yellow choice...??
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top