Sinaticus problematicus

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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.

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

Are you saying that Constantine Simonides had created the entire codex? When he was a teenager? Remarkable, also can you tell me why he included commentary in Arabic? What was his reason for adding commentary in Arabic in Revelation?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

We disagree. However, on this question of Sinaiticus authenticity, it is just the genetic fallacy once again.

The issue is the massive evidence that shows that Sinaiticus was an 1800s creation, starting with the amazing BEFORE and AFTER colouring that any layman can see and understand.

For those enmeshed in the false religion of textual criticism, it might be a bit more difficult to see and understand. However, really there is no reason why they should struggle.

Steven

See, this is the issue.

Let us for the sake of the discussion, yield that there was clear and evident coloration, done in the mid to late 1800's, to make one look older, or more "yellowish" as you wrote in a later post.

So what? All that proves is that coloration occurred. It does not prove the codex is a forgery, hence circumstantial evidence.

The presence of errors, homoeoteleutons, Simonides' testimony, and etc. do NOT prove forgery. They are mere circumstantial evidences, which do not generate facts outside of themselves, no matter how much you or anyone else may want to infer.

Therefore, your assumptions about Sinaiticus are premature. This is Piltdown Man, but in reverse.

[Evang.Benincasa]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

See, this is the issue.

Let us for the sake of the discussion, yield that there was clear and evident coloration, done in the mid to late 1800's, to make one look older, or more "yellowish" as you wrote in a later post.

So what? All that proves is that coloration occurred. It does not prove the codex is a forgery, hence circumstantial evidence.

The presence of errors, homoeoteleutons, Simonides' testimony, and etc. do NOT prove forgery. They are mere circumstantial evidences, which do not generate facts outside of themselves, no matter how much you or anyone else may want to infer.

Therefore, your assumptions about Sinaiticus are premature. This is Piltdown Man, but in reverse.

Now that is interesting.

Yet, still looking to find out why the Arabic commentary. Also why is it not Arabic Christian commentary, but Islamic?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Now that is interesting.

Yet, still looking to find out why the Arabic commentary. Also why is it not Arabic Christian commentary, but Islamic?

You mean this:

[votivesoul]

Who would you believe?

A guy on youtube making videos, or this man:

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

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

Wait - are you saying the Sinaiticus text was derived (in part?) from the Russian Synodal text? Or are you referring to a copy of Sinaiticus located in Moscow? Or...???

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

See, this is the issue.

Let us for the sake of the discussion, yield that there was clear and evident coloration, done in the mid to late 1800's, to make one look older, or more "yellowish" as you wrote in a later post.

So what? All that proves is that coloration occurred. It does not prove the codex is a forgery, hence circumstantial evidence.

The presence of errors, homoeoteleutons, Simonides' testimony, and etc. do NOT prove forgery. They are mere circumstantial evidences, which do not generate facts outside of themselves, no matter how much you or anyone else may want to infer.

Therefore, your assumptions about Sinaiticus are premature. This is Piltdown Man, but in reverse.

So what? People color a text to make it look older (?) and this is not strong evidence of forgery? If nothing else, it proves the "manuscript experts" are just as fraud-prone as any other segment of society.

Meaning they are on the same credibility level as "some guy making YouTube videos".

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Who would you believe?

A guy on youtube making videos, or this man:

The guy is a conservator, meaning his expertise is methods of conserving (preserving, repairing) books and manuscripts. What qualifications does he have to speak authoritatively on the issue of "identifying archeological and paleographical forgeries"?

[Esaias]

So, anybody making videos on YouTube is to be discounted?

The Development of Caroline Miniscule:

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Are you saying that Constantine Simonides had created the entire codex? When he was a teenager? Remarkable, also can you tell me why he included commentary in Arabic? What was his reason for adding commentary in Arabic in Revelation?

Sinaiticus has Islamic Arabic commentary in the manuscript? That suggests a lot of things... What's the official story, I wonder? And, what does it say?