TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Sez who?
Codex Sinaiticus - the facts
- Thread starter cjab
- Start date
Sez who?
No one desperately needs or needed Sinaiticus. You are deceived just as much as Hort here. No, my mistake. You are deceived much more than Hort about Codex Sinaiticus.
The one who claimed he penned the 4th Century Codex Sinaiticus is The charlatan .
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Hort said that Tischendorf would find “rich materiala.”
Vaticanus without Sinaiticus would never succeed in pulling off the Revision con.
Not only did they combine for the absurd neutral text theory, a fill-in was needed where Vaticanus was missing books.
He found and collated more manuscripts than anyone. Hort was right.
They didn't pull off a con. The Revised Version sometimes went with Westcott and Horts Text. They did not always go by it. Many times they rejected the Westcott and Hort Text.
Again, you have been captured by Westcott and Hort to believe silly things. You are far more silly than they were. In others words, although they were wrong in their theories, they were more right about all Codexes than you are. Neither of you could see the underlying Byzantine Text of Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. You are more of an enemy of the Bible and people than a friend.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Only one ms. had a major impact on the Westcott-Hort recension
- Sinaiticus.
You would have a hard time finding one variant decided by Amy other Tischendorf discovery or theft. I’m
I have previously mentioned Volume 2 of the W&H NT. In it, Hort makes it clear that variants from the TR were very seldom accepted when only Sinaiticus supported them, but that variants from Sinaiticus had to be supported by other ancient mss and versions. I do not blieve that W&H's methods and choices were "silly things", they essentially rebuilt the Greek NT by starting with the oldest of then-known witnesses. The subsequent discoveries of the Oxyrhyncis papyri and other resources tend to support W&H.
Yes I understand. What I had written was for an "onlyist". A response to his ridiculous fantasy about Codex Sinaiticus.
Yet not many people today endorse W&H's "western non-interpolations". I think, without trying to be mean or insulting, they believed in a Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus agreement like KJVOnlyist believe in the KJV. Do not get me wrong, back in their day not many advancements had been brought about and any of us would naturally only gather the oldest first. And just how many manuscripts can a hand full of people look at. I would have made the same mistakes and they or their students swayed me after their time.
But with the exception of p75 I think the Papyrus shows a different story completely. Studies have been done that show scribes were far more likely to loose text than to add. Hort of course had no access to this modern information. Same with eye skip. Not much was known back in their day. But our day it is coming to light. Many of the agreements of S/V are ancient shared errors going back to the 2nd Century (eye skip). Early errors if you will. They also dismissed the Byzantine Manuscripts for reasons that don't hold up today.
Last edited:
OTOH, given the extensive correction of homoiotéleuton omissions by Scribe D in Sinaiticus, it cannot be assumed that the homoiotéleuton omissions went uncorrected. This still leaves a vast number of differences between Sinaiticus and the Byzantine text type.
Yes, I was referring to agreements between Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that were errors in haplography. Westcott and Hort's neutral text.
Your link gave examples of "homoiotéleuton omissions" in Sinaiticus in a way that wasn't convincing, given so many had already been corrected by the scribes themselves.
Not quite sure what you mean by "agreements between Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus that were errors in haplography."
The agreements of Codexes Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were highly valued as the original or neutral text by Westcott and Hort and even those later like Metzger, the Alands. Almost to the point of how kjvonlyist regard the KJV.
Some of these agreements are errors of haplography between the 2 4th century Majuscules. In other words, these agreements in the Westcott and Hort Text are not the original text, but errors.
Last edited:
You don't think they were real?
Later scribes.
Shared errors by ancestors of Vaticanus/Sinaiticus.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Many learned Bible texr scholars through the centuries wrote about how easy was text dropping, how difficult adding.
But can you prove this, rather that conjecture it? First it comes with an unlikely assumption that writers didn't check their work for errors, which seems unlikely given the financial cost of production.
Anyone can conjecture: proof is a different matter. OTOH what is alleged of the Byzantine text type is an early and yet conscionable effort to standardize and stylize the bible, much like the Koran was revised long after its original texts were first written (it ended up as an amalgamation).
Deliberate stylization seems to be lacking from the uncials, which is presumably why they are so highly rated by CT scholars.
Last edited:
No evidence that Scribe D was a "later" scribe ( I think). He was an original member of the production team.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
No evidence that all the homoeoteleutons are all Scribe D.
E.g. if you look at the corrections that match the Zurich Psalter, you will find a good number of homoeoteleutons, and you will find the correction made by a later corrector, not an original scribe, sometimes called corrector Ca, supposed to be around AD 600. (from memory)
On the New Testament corrections, I would have to do a special study.
Here are two, (I only checked three) from the Claromontanus-Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton matches.
1 Corinthians 2:14-15 - corrector S1
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&verse=14&zoomSlider=0
Galatians 2:8 - corrector S1
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...&book=40&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0
All the standard theories of Sinaiticus corrections are a bit on the wacky side, however, for your discussion I am working with the "scholarship" dates!
Last edited:
Perhaps they are not as wacky as your human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning.
Again, as to the Codex Sinaiticus New Testament, all S1 corrections were done in the production phase by one of the production scribes. These should be distinguished from C correctors, who later revised the NT manuscript. It is therefore construed that upon completion, the Sinaiticus NT at least was almost completely free of homoeoteleutons.No evidence that all the homoeoteleutons are all Scribe D.
E.g. if you look at the corrections that match the Zurich Psalter, you will find a good number of homoeoteleutons, and you will find the correction made by a later corrector, not an original scribe, sometimes called corrector Ca, supposed to be around AD 600. (from memory)
On the New Testament corrections, I would have to do a special study.
Here are two, (I only checked three) from the Claromontanus-Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton matches.
1 Corinthians 2:14-15 - corrector S1
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&verse=14&zoomSlider=0
Galatians 2:8 - corrector S1
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...&book=40&chapter=2&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0
All the standard theories of Sinaiticus corrections are a bit on the wacky side, however, for your discussion I am working with the "scholarship" dates!
As to the Old Testament, I haven't studied it much. It may not have been as thoroughly checked as the NT.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
And I don't think you really checked.
Here are the first three Revelation omissions (often homoeoteleutons) with corrections.
Revelation 4:3 ... ca
Revelation 4:5 ... ca
Revelation 5:1 .. ca
There are homoeoteleuton errors in Rev 4:3/4:4. and Rev 4:5/4:6. May be Revelation wasn't checked to the same extent as the rest of the NT. May be it was this feature of partial error correction that led either Skeat or Amy Myshrall (can't remember who exactly) to conclude that the Codex Sinaiticus had been abandoned in the scriptorium for 200 years or so. May be Sinaiticus's Book of Revelation wasn't seen to be worth correcting, as not a good copy (as I recall it has a somewhat different provenance to other NT books).
Last edited: