The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

[Maestroh]

More silly and sick absurd and even almost humorous personal attacks, simply because you are stuck now defending the James White blunder.

I didn't say anything about you at all in that post.

However, since your conscience was clearly guilty enough for you to launch this projection, maybe you should listen to your conscience.

 

[Steven Avery]

Can't even admit a typo?

Sure, done above.

The obsession of contras with obvious typos is quite interesting.

 

[Steven Avery]

Once again, everyone here including you knows you messed up.

YOU said he gave no examples.
He gave TWO.
So you're wrong.
And I've not even defended the 1,000 examples.
I've just pointed out you're wrong to say he gave none.
apparently, it's too difficult for you to even admit.

Those two are NOT papyri examples, one has no papyri, the other has tons of other evidence so there is no case to support the James White bogus claim.

They both have no merit anyway, even as non-papyri attempts.

So, for the quotes I gave directly from James White, and James Snapp referencing White, about the papyri,
James White gave ZERO examples.

Try to follow the actual conversation.

 

[Maestroh]

White had numerous quotes,

You've given none.

Given your track record just in this post, nobody believes you.

and some had THOUSANDS of places from papyri.

He also gave two examples - and you still insist he gave none.

Even if you limit it to papyri, he gave ONE, and you still insist he gave none.

So again - none of us believe someone whose credibility just in this thread is nonexistent to say nothing of your years of
wrong information posted.

I gave you one carefully transcribed quote, and the audio is still up so anyone can check.

I documented your error here, too, and instead of admitting it, you're attacking White.

but not calling his show for some reason.....

See also James Snapp
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...onides-regarding-sinaiticus.11880/post-910095

I don't care.

You need to quit trying to change the subject from your error to someone else's alleged error and simply be a mature adult and admit you got it wrong.

You said he gave no examples, he gave two.

So you're wrong.


The end.

 

[Steven Avery]

You've given none.

Wrong, totally wrong.
Read the thread, so far twice:

James White in the Chris Pinto debate:

"there are literally thousands of places where Sinaiticus contains readings confirmed by later discoveries, discoveries unknown even in Scrivener's time, in the papyri, that would have been completely unknown to Simonides or anyone living in his day. To attribute these readings to mere chance is of course inconceivable."

Yes, there are papyri on John 1:18 but there is lots of other evidence identical to the Sinaiticus text, so John 1:18 does not confirm this quote even minimally.

There are ZERO examples from James White (or the posters here) that support this quote about thousands of readings.

Read the lying quote from James White carefully.
Do not substitute another quote, that is charlatan posting.

 

[Maestroh]

Those two are NOT papyri examples,

You just admitted he gave examples - and yes, John 1:18 is as noted.


Thanks for admitting you were wrong.

 

[Steven Avery]

Reality
White indicated TWO.
And now Steven Avery is flopping every direction like a fish out of water to not say "I was wrong."

False.
There were no verses given from James White that matches the big lie.

James White false claim:

"there are literally thousands of places where Sinaiticus contains readings confirmed by later discoveries, discoveries unknown even in Scrivener's time, in the papyri, that would have been completely unknown to Simonides or anyone living in his day. To attribute these readings to mere chance is of course inconceivable."

Matthew 14:30 does not work.
John 1:18 does not work.
(Whatever White was thinking.)

The Revelation verses of P47, mentioned by Joseph Schmid, have come up with nothing, based on my sampling from the apparatus.

Ok, I am partly repeating post 79, but it is so fundamental that it bears repeating.

We have multiple contras here embracing the false words of James White.

Are there ANY verses that match the claim from James White? They would have to be more than a simple omission of text. And if there was only one or two out of 8,000 NT verses it would be a very minor evidence, simply a scribal faux pas. Thus White repeatedly claimed "thousands". Showing that he is a textual idiot.

James White insisted on "thousands" and it was a key argument in the debate.
And some of the contras here are still duped!

 

[Steven Avery]

Although Mr. Avery-Spencer has hijacked the thread to share his personal animus with James White

Not at all.
This false claim from James White was a major part of the debate.

The fact that multiple contras here are still duped by the James White lie shows that it was fundamental.

 

[Steven Avery]

Maestroh said:
During the White-Pinto debate starting at 1.00.27
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5-KY-_7--Y?t=3678

James White was truly a textual idiot in his commentary on John 1:18.

Above I showed you various evidences from LaParola, many missed by James White.
Other manuscripts on Mt. Athos were surely possible.
And Benedict likely had at least the Vaticanus collations.
And the early church writers who used "only begotten God" would be well known to Benedict.

Watch Johann David Michaelis (1717-1791) writing, decades before the work on Athos, this was in German and English. Without any papyri considerations he was giving the "only begotten God" text a push.

Introduction to the New Testament (1802)
Johann David Michaelis
https://archive.org/details/introductiontone21mich/page/392/mode/2up

While it is a corruption, the issues are often confused. Here that is not the issue, it is simply that there was no difficulty for Benedict and Simonides to be using the text put into Codex Simoneidos.

Which just shows the James White ignorance and your confusion.

John 1:18 (AV)
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

The reading in Sinaiticus has lots of support outside the papyri.

Here is LaParola. The papyri are split among two variants, "begotten God" and "the begotten God" both of which have lots of sources at the time that Benedict prepared Simoneidos.

1:18 (Münster)

μονογενὴς θεὸς] p66 ‭א* B C* L pc syrp syrh(mg) geo2 Diatessarona Valentiniansaccording to Irenaeus Valentiniansaccording to Clement Ptolemy Heracleon Origengr(2/4) Ariusaccording to Epiphanius Apostolic Constitutions Didymus Ps-Ignatius Synesiusaccording to Epiphanius Cyril1/4 WH NRtext Nv NM

ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς] p75 ‭א2 33 pc copbo Theodotusaccording to Clement(1/2) Clement2/3 Origengr(2/4) Eusebius3/7 Serapion1/2 Basil1/2 Gregory-Nyssa Epiphanius Cyril3/4

ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς] (see John 3:16; John 3:18; 1John 4:9) A C3 E F G H K Wsupp X Δ Θ Π Ψ 063 0141 f1 f13 28 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 Byz Lect ita itaur itb itc ite itf itff2 itl vg syrc syrh syrpal arm eth geo1 slav Theodotusaccording to Clement(1/2) Theodotus Irenaeuslat(1/3) Clement1/3 Tertullian Hippolytus Origenlat(1/2) Letter of Hymenaeus Alexander Eustathius Eusebius4/7 Hegemonius Ambrosiaster Faustinus Serapion1/2 Victorinus-Rome Hilary5/7 Athanasius Titus-Bostra Basil1/2 Gregory-Nazianzus Gregory-Elvira Phoebadius Ambrose10/11 Chrysostom Synesius Jerome Theodore Augustine Nonnus Cyril1/4 Proclus Varimadum Theodoret Fulgentius Caesarius John-Damascus Ps-Priscillian ς NRmg CEI ND Riv Dio TILC
μονογενὴς υἱὸς θεοῦ] itq (copsa? θεὸς) Irenaeuslat(1/3) Ambrose1/11(vid)

ὁ μονογενὴς] vgms Diatessaron Jacob-Nisibis Ephraem Cyril-Jerusalem Ps-Ignatius Ps-Vigilius1/2 Nonnus Nestorius

 

[Conan]

Not at all.
This false claim from James White was a major part of the debate.

The fact that multiple contras here are still duped by the James White lie shows that it was fundamental.

Wrong, wrong , wrong. You are the one who falsely accused me of using White. I came to my conclusions independant of him. However he is correct, simonides could not have forged Codex Sinaiticus, because he could not anticipate all of those ancient readings.

 

[Conan]

http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/index.html

egeneto en Bethania p66, 01*, H(c). We know simionides did not have access to p66. I doubt he had access to the corrector of H. So how did simonides anticipate the readings of manuscripts that were discovered and collated after he was dead? Answer, he couldn't have. Codex Sinaiticus is a genuine 4th century manuscript who's reading agrees with a very early 3rd century manuscript. Case closed.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Showing that he is a textual idiot. ... still duped!

And your a textual (Text-Crit) expert?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

James White was truly a textual idiot

Your speech is quite abusive.

 

[Steven Avery]

Your speech is quite abusive.

Can you defend the James White absurd, ridiculous claim?

"there are literally thousands of places where Sinaiticus contains readings confirmed by later discoveries, discoveries unknown even in Scrivener's time, in the papyri, that would have been completely unknown to Simonides or anyone living in his day. To attribute these readings to mere chance is of course inconceivable."

This is not just wrong, not just false, but it shows an abysmal ignorance of the topic.

 

[Steven Avery]

http://www.willker.de/wie/TCG/index.html

egeneto en Bethania p66, 01*, H(c).

You are not giving the Willker correct url, or the verse number.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Can you defend the James White absurd, ridiculous claim?

"there are literally thousands of places where Sinaiticus contains readings confirmed by later discoveries, discoveries unknown even in Scrivener's time, in the papyri, that would have been completely unknown to Simonides or anyone living in his day. To attribute these readings to mere chance is of course inconceivable."

This is not just wrong, not just false, but it shows an abysmal ignorance of the topic.

So you think it's ok to call someone an "idiot" on this forum?

 

[Shoonra]

I am inclined to believe the quotation from James White. I don't know about "thousands" of places where Sinaiticus is confirmed by papyri discovered subsequently, but I'll surely admit to hundreds. And, yes, I'll admit to being an idiot, but I've been well treated on this forum.

 

[Conan]

You are not giving the Willker correct url, or the verse number.

John 1:28. Go to the url. Then on the right on the textual commentary of the Gospels click on JOHN. It will download. Scroll to John 1:28. It clearly shows the deviant word order of p66, 01, and H(c).

 

[Conan]

I am inclined to believe the quotation from James White. I don't know about "thousands" of places where Sinaiticus is confirmed by papyri discovered subsequently, but I'll surely admit to hundreds. And, yes, I'll admit to being an idiot, but I've been well treated on this forum.

Certainly White is correct. Mr Avery is only denying truth again.

 

[Steven Avery]

John 1:28. Go to the url. Then on the right on the textual commentary of the Gospels click on JOHN. It will download. Scroll to John 1:28. It clearly shows the deviant word order of p66, 01, and H(c).

John 1:28 (AV)
These things were done in Bethabara beyond Jordan, where John was baptizing.

So you think it needs a wonderful exemplar to simply swap the order of a preposition and a name ?
No change in even a single letter.

Normal word order
ἐν Βηθανίᾳ ἐγένετο - in Bethany done

εγενετο εν βηθανια - CSP - done in Bethany

Laparola -
(p66 ‭א* ita itb ite itr1 ἐγένετο ἐν Βηθανίᾳ)
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=50&rif2=1:28

CSP page (there is also a correction)
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=36&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Reversing the place of a preposition and noun can occur accidentally easily, whether direct copying or dictation, no special exemplar needed.