TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Grrrrr
Has any of your crowd even seen Sinaiticus in real life?
We have a 1000x more access to the manuscript and the history than the men who worked off of the Tischendorf facsimile and the lies of his account.
Not quite sure what point you are making by your complaint that people were duped by the Sinaiticus facsimiles, as everyone from Bradshaw to Scrivener to everyone else who has examined and handled the manuscript in person has had no doubts as to its authenticity.You mean a leaf through a glass some distance away?
Not the SART principles.
Not quite sure what point you are making by your complaint that people were duped by the Sinaiticus facsimiles, as everyone from Bradshaw to Scrivener to everyone else who has examined and handled the manuscript in person has had no doubts as to its authenticity.
the opinions of several scholars and technicians who have actually handled and studied the Siniaticus.
Simonides with Kallinikos ... knew the two sections
Sorry, meant to name Kirsopp Lake rather than Scrivener.You give two names, and even there, with Scrivener, there is no evidence that he examined and handled even one section of the manuscript.
Due to its extraordinary circumstances, it is critical to compare the 1844 and 1859 sections. Very few people are known to have examined and handled the sections, so the “consensus” scholarship conclusion was a sham.
===========
If the scholars in 1862-63 had insisted on manuscript access as necessary, the whole Sinaiticus claim of Tischendorf would have quickly blown up.
Tischendorf bowed out of the German Oriental Society appearance, which similarly have ended the controversy.
They lied straight faced that Hermas was not finished (you know it's a lie)...
They DID NOT KNOW both sections...They DID NOT KNOW that Hermas was a complete book...
I am not sure whom I am supporting here but the Sinaiticus* has only a part of the text of the Shepherd of Hermas, starting at the beginning, Vision I,i,1 and going to Mandate IV,iii,6. In the Loeb Classical Library edition (transl. by Kirsopp Lake) this is pages 6 to 85, out of a total text that goes to page 305. In the Goodspeed translation this is pages 101 to 128 out of total that goes to page 201. Lake lists the later manuscripts that help complete the Shepherd.
* My apologies for repeatedly misspelling Sinaiticus.
I am not sure whom I am supporting here but the Sinaiticus* has only a part of the text of the Shepherd of Hermas, starting at the beginning, Vision I,i,1 and going to Mandate IV,iii,6. In the Loeb Classical Library edition (transl. by Kirsopp Lake) this is pages 6 to 85, out of a total text that goes to page 305. In the Goodspeed translation this is pages 101 to 128 out of total that goes to page 201. Lake lists the later manuscripts that help complete the Shepherd.
* My apologies for repeatedly misspelling Sinaiticus.
Since Kirsopp Lake's photographic facsimile Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (which is now online in its entirety) in the early 20th century, all scholars have had access to the true representation of Sinaiticus, i.e. for over a century now
I'm not interested in those arguments, which are worthless due to climatic variations and because a common origin of the two sets of pages is proven.Do the Kirsopp Lake black-and-white photographs show the colour distinction between the 1844 Leipzig and the 1859 St. petersbutg pages?
Do they show the inconsistent colouring and staing of the 1859mpages?
a common origin of the two sets of pages is proven.
I don't recognize any "massive colour, consistency and stain distinctions." But 180 years is a long time. Damp can destroy an old book in just a few years, which may have previously survived 400 years in the dry. Same with parchment vis-a-vis discoloration, I should imagine.Exactly. Common origin.
So after 1500 years they should agree as one aged, yellowed, brittle manuscript.
Yet the SAD (Sinaiticus Antiquity Defenders) claim that the massive colour, consistency and stain distinctions all occurred in the 180 years at the tail end.
I don't recognize any "massive colour, consistency and stain distinctions." But 180 years is a long time. Damp can destroy an old book in just a few years, which may have previously survived 400 years in the dry. Same with parchment vis-a-vis discoloration, I should imagine.