Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
John Doe
Posts: 1
Joined: Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:39 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by John Doe » Mon Oct 28, 2019 2:45 am

Maestroh wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:25 pm
perseusomega9 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:02 am
You could have just as easily as posted this which precedes your link
https://brentnongbri.com/2019/09/22/pal ... ifference/
Avery has spent years citing Nongbri's studies on papyri dating and then falsely applied them to suggest that Nongbri is saying the date of Sinaiticus is up for some sort of debate and is from the 19th century.

I wrote Nongbri years ago, and he believes no such thing. Avery knows it, too.

But he subscribes to a peculiar notion that just so long as he HIDES information rather than tells you a blatant falsehood, he's not actually lying.

As Robert Louis Stevenson noted, however, "The cruelest lies are often told in silence."
Well, not to start our negatively on this forum, but as soon as I saw the name Steven Avery on here—I verbally said “Oh nooo, not him!”

As you likely already know, you’re absolutely wasting your time to try and reason with him.

Anyway, glad to be a member here and look forward to gleaning from this site.

Steven Avery
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Revelation 4:8 - eight Holies in Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Feb 26, 2020 4:47 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:44 pm
Journal of Sacred Literature
Miscellanies
https://archive.org/details/journalsacr ... /page/n229

Constantine Simonides c. Dec 16, 1862

"Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present age. But I may just note that my uncle Benedict corrected the MS. in many places, and as it was intended to be re-copied, he marked many letters which he purposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle, I can, of course, point out ; as also those of Dionysius the caligraphist."
-Rev 4-8 AV
And the four beasts had each of them six wings about him;
and they were full of eyes within: and they rest not day and night,
saying, Holy, holy, holy, Lord God Almighty, which was, and is, and is to come.


Sinaiticus here has eight holies with the last four Holies having dots over the words. (The fourth one is a bit clumsy overall.)
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscrip ... omSlider=0
Revelation 4-8.jpg
Revelation 4-8.jpg (29.58 KiB) Viewed 10480 times

This 8-repeat does not fit well at all with a 4th century ms. Other New Testament mss. with more than three holies do not appear for c. 500+ years, looking at the extant Greek mss.

Yet the Octoechos musical formulation would be very well known to Simonides, especially due to the writings of Chrysanthos of Madytos ( c. 1770-1846),

Juan Hernandez
https://www.academia.edu/13710418/Codex ... Apocalypse
smaller.jpg
smaller.jpg (44.62 KiB) Viewed 10480 times

pic with many holies 8 .jpg
pic with many holies 8 .jpg (23.29 KiB) Viewed 10481 times

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Joseph D. L. » Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:02 pm

This 8-repeat does not fit well at all with a 4th century ms. Other New Testament mss. with more than three holies do not appear for c. 500+ years, looking at the extant Greek mss.
This is a really fallacious statement since our earliest known manuscripts of Revelation is missing the relevant passage altogether prior to Sinaiticus.

Steven Avery
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:16 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 8:02 pm
This is a really fallacious statement since our earliest known manuscripts of Revelation is missing the relevant passage altogether prior to Sinaiticus.
The fallacy is in your court, since this is an overall manuscript reference, so one being lacuna in Revelation does not affect the other mss. like Alexandrinus. The statement also includes all languages.

Plus you are circular in taking the wild early Sinaiticus date, which is precisely what the 8 Holies is another evidence against.

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Joseph D. L. » Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:37 pm

The fallacy is in your court, since this is an overall manuscript reference, so one being lacuna in Revelation does not affect the other mss. like Alexandrinus. The statement also includes all languages.
So we can know a priori what the manuscripts that have this and the surrounding passages outright missing originally read?

Even still, so what? Discrepancies between manuscripts, even Sinaiticus, are common.
Plus you are circular in taking the wild early Sinaiticus date, which is precisely what the 8 Holies is another evidence against.
That's not how a circular argument works, and you certainly haven't explained how this is indicative of an early date, while you maintain above dubious arguments for a later dating for Sinaiticus. That is circular thinking.

Steven Avery
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:10 pm

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:37 pm

Even still, so what? Discrepancies between manuscripts, even Sinaiticus, are common.
True, lots of small differences. The eight Holies is a rather major discrepancy, and fully consistent with the Octoechos, written about in the time of Simonides. There is no real historical support for expanding the Holies until hundreds of years later than the modern 300s guess.

However, supporters of the Sinaiticus 300s myth will always change manuscript science and textual history to match their presupposition that Sinaiticus is fourth century.

User avatar
Ben C. Smith
Posts: 7462
Joined: Wed Apr 08, 2015 2:18 pm
Location: USA
Contact:

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Ben C. Smith » Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:24 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:10 pm
The eight Holies is a rather major discrepancy, and fully consistent with the Octoechos, written about in the time of Simonides.
Can you please clarify the relationship between the 8 holies in Revelation 4.8 Sinaiticus and the Octoechos, which refers to the 8 modes?
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ

User avatar
Joseph D. L.
Posts: 994
Joined: Sat Nov 11, 2017 2:10 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Joseph D. L. » Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:12 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:10 pm
True, lots of small differences. The eight Holies is a rather major discrepancy, and fully consistent with the Octoechos, written about in the time of Simonides. There is no real historical support for expanding the Holies until hundreds of years later than the modern 300s guess.
But there is a religious significance for eight, though.

Revelation 3:4 is a iteration of Isaiah 6:3. An eight-fold holy discrepancy is not unusual, or unexpected.
However, supporters of the Sinaiticus 300s myth will always change manuscript science and textual history to match their presupposition that Sinaiticus is fourth century.
You're poisoning the well.

Steven Avery
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:38 am

Ben C. Smith wrote:
Mon Mar 02, 2020 3:24 pm

Can you please clarify the relationship between the 8 holies in Sinaiticus and the Octoechos, which refers to the 8 modes?
There are two elements in play.

If the Octoechos is the source for the eight holies, it is highly unlikely to be an early source.The eight-mode system only has its beginnings around the time of John of Damascus (see the reference for Pseudo-John of Damascus on the page). The dots on the extra Holies would also reflect this type of source, Simonides said that they were meant for illumination in the planned later draft.

Another possibility was simply the scribe having a good time adding Holies. (Highly unlikely.) Since there are late mss. with other numbers. Once again, though, this is a phenomenon that begins around 1000 AD.

Steven Avery
Posts: 572
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:44 am

Joseph D. L. wrote:
Tue Mar 03, 2020 1:12 am

But there is a religious significance for eight, though.
is a iteration of Isaiah . An eight-fold holy discrepancy is not unusual, or unexpected.
Do you have any examples of texts being adjusted based on this "not .. unexpected" significance?

And if you do, are they from a much later Byzantine era than the supposed writing of Sinaiticus?

===========

As to poisoning the well, simple facts can show that the well has problems. eg. When you try to discuss the "phenomenally good condition" of Sinaiticus, normal manuscript science is suspended, since the presumption of a 4th century Sinaiticus most be true, to the supporters of the Sinaiticus 300s myth.

btw, we know have the 1933 Newsreel of the Sinaiticus condition. Amazing condition, as in the BBC video. This is on a Brent Nongbri blog page.

Plus , we see that the 1933 Sinaiticus had intact squires, corroborating the history that Tischendorf in 1844 simply stole five intact quires, plus part of a sixth.

Post Reply