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.
The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus
- Thread starter Maestroh
- Start date
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
Well-known member
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
You've given none.
Given your track record just in this post, nobody believes you.
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 documented your error here, too, and instead of admitting it, you're attacking White.
but not calling his show for some reason.....
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
Well-known member
Wrong, totally wrong.
Read the thread, so far twice:
James White in the Chris Pinto debate:
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.
Last edited:
You just admitted he gave examples - and yes, John 1:18 is as noted.
Thanks for admitting you were wrong.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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!
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
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.
Last edited:
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.
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.
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
Well-known member
And your a textual (Text-Crit) expert?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Your speech is quite abusive.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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
Well-known member
You are not giving the Willker correct url, or the verse number.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
So you think it's ok to call someone an "idiot" on this forum?
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.
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).
Certainly White is correct. Mr Avery is only denying truth again.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
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.