Sinaticus problematicus

[houston]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Transl.: "Let the others tell us what to think. No need to get uppity and think YOU might need to examine the claims put before you."

I don’t read his posts since I learned he claimed to be a descendant of George Washington.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

No, I simply said that it is especially difficult for the textual criticism religionists to simply consider the evidences. That is a fact that I have observed, and is one of the reasons I often publish the forum conversations.

One scholar wrote that the difficulty of the modern scholars would be that they have "deeply entrenched scholarship."

Individually, however, each case is distinct. Some textual criticism people might really consider the evidences. Some Reformation Bible defenders might be skeptical of there being an authenticity issue.

Until I knew the evidences, which really came a few years after the 2009 CSP, I defended Sinaiticus authenticity, listing a few points that I thought were strong. I was being faithful to what I knew and understood at the time.

Steven

Steven, Sinaiticus to be a forgery they didn't even work that hard. Look, if you were going to make a fake piece of artwork wouldn't you painstakingly try to make an identical copy of the original? Yet, with the Sinaiticus it is an absolute mess. Really, it is a mess.

My wife acquired the Sinaiticus volumes which were perfect photocopies of the original. You can see pages and pages of clear mistakes. It is riddled with errors. My question is this, if you were going to counterfeit 100.00 bills, would you even try to get it perfect? Or would you just scribble out something?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by houston

I don’t read his posts since I learned he claimed to be a descendant of George Washington.

[houston]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

You ok?

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by houston

You ok?

No.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Transl.: "Let the others tell us what to think. No need to get uppity and think YOU might need to examine the claims put before you."

Exactly. And applies here perfectly.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

My wife acquired the Sinaiticus volumes which were perfect photocopies of the original.

Actually not. The 86 white Leipzig pages were given a “sensitive adjustment” to mask their colour clash with the 90% of the ms. from the British Library. Tampering to hide the history. They were made = yellowish.

We are talking of the 2011-2012 Hendrikson edition, done in collaboration with the British Library, with a hefty price tag.

Your other point I’ll plan on getting to shortly.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Sinaiticus to be a forgery they didn't even work that hard. Look, if you were going to make a fake piece of artwork wouldn't you painstakingly try to make an identical copy of the original? Yet, with the Sinaiticus it is an absolute mess. Really, it is a mess. ... You can see pages and pages of clear mistakes. It is riddled with errors. My question is this, if you were going to counterfeit 100.00 bills, would you even try to get it perfect? Or would you just scribble out something?

Simonides said the original purpose was a replica edition, not a forgery. A teenager, Simonides, was one of the scribes. Itacisms, homoeoteleutons and various errors were abundant.

The low scribal quality fits the Athos production as more sensible than if it were a fourth century scriptorium.

Steven

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Simonides said the original purpose was a replica edition, not a forgery. A teenager, Simonides, was one of the scribes. Itacisms, homoeoteleutons and various errors were abundant.

The low scribal quality fits the Athos production as more sensible than if it were a fourth century scriptorium.

Steven

Bro, we aren't taking about low scribal quality, we are talking group of manuscripts which are riddled with mistakes. Emphasis on "riddled."
But, that isn't the only thing, there are clear erasures, and corrections. This wasn't the work of one scribe in the 1800s.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Bro, we aren't taking about low scribal quality, we are talking group of manuscripts which are riddled with mistakes. Emphasis on "riddled."

We are saying the same thing. John William Burgon is superb in going over the degree of corruption. Scribal and textual corruption. Scribal corruption = mistakes.

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

But, that isn't the only thing, there are clear erasures, and corrections. This wasn't the work of one scribe in the 1800s.

Of course not. That is why it is good to study the actual history.

The Athos group was headed by Benedict. And included Kallinikos, Simonides and others. (Two of the names written on the manuscript match up with Athos folks mentioned by Simonides)

The Spyridon Lamprou 1895 and 1900 Mt. Athos catalog publication confirms that the three gentlemen above were working on mss in Mt. Athos in that critical time around 1840-41. Benedict had been working on this project for years. David W. Daniels is likely the only gentleman in the US who is strong on this history. In Europe there was a Simonides conference in 2014 in Vienna, and there is a greater awareness of his impact, but the textual criticism crew are still uninformed.

Simonides pointed out that he used the Moscow Bible of 1821 as one of his sources, and that would be for the OT part. Thus, it should be possible to see scribal features that connect the Moscow Bible with the Sinaiticus ms. in a source-->target relationship. This is one current project, while the official textual criticism scholars have done .. nothing. zzzzz

Steven