Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

This can be now be seen quite nicely online.

Homoeoteleuton - Text Omitted because of Similar Endings
Codex Claromontanus - Codex Sinaiticus
http://www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton.html

You will see two additional papers there to download:

homoeoteleuton textbook case
http://www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton ... 20case.odt

homoeoteleuton layman's guide
http://www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton ... 0guide.rtf

Interestingly, the stichometric list with Claromontanus includes Barnabas and Hermas, and places Jude after 1-2-3 John.

A third paper from our researcher is expected to be up shortly explaining how he found this scribal connection.

Steven

Steven Avery wrote:A third paper from our researcher is expected to be up shortly explaining how he found this scribal connection

homoeoteleuton discovery - W. R. Meyer
https://app.box.com/s/2k4ihkp6op1appn4fw5egvsiw2kw01v2
(plus we added a bit about other mss.)

Normally this forum is the leader of the pack (vroom, vroom).

To help you out, there is now a reasonably solid 2-page discussion on another forum.

Sinaiticus homoeotelutons show Claromontanus as a source doc used by the Aleph scribe
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/2 ... eph-scribe

ADDED:
Error corrected below by Andrew Criddle.
Please bypass.

========

(irrelevant errant, relating to another forum, removed)

One possible problem with using omission by homoeoteleuton as evidence for a relation between manuscripts is that this sort of error is peculiarly likely to occur independently.
See scribal leaps

Andrew Criddle

Steven Avery wrote:There were two pages here, with especially superb questions and contributions from Athanasius.
I actually saw them five minute ago, with a note that the thread was closed (that note is no longer here.)

Would the moderators be so kind as to place those posts back online. Athanasius asked the best questions (some others were ok as well) and I attempted to respond, and now that can no longer be seen.

Thanks!

Steven

you may be looking for this thread http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/2 ... 8e924b2c4c
which is on a quite different forum.

Andrew Criddle

Yes, thanks for the correction. A little mix-up. Nothing was deleted, and the admins there are in conference .

And those two pages on another good forum are highly recommended, especially after looking over the ms evidence.

Steven

andrewcriddle wrote:One possible problem with using omission by homoeoteleuton as evidence for a relation between manuscripts is that this sort of error is peculiarly likely to occur independently.

I'm not sure what you mean when you say that a homoeoteleuton (or something that gives the appearance of an h.t) will occur "independently". What happened in Sinaiticus was clearly a homoeoteleuton caused by miscopying another manuscript, and the evidence shows that it was subject to quick correction. Thus it was dependent on misreading a source manuscript.

What is extremely unusual with Claromontanus and Sinaiticus is that you can see the model and the target are both extant, and they have a number of corroborating factors that mitigate strongly against this being simply an oddball coincidence. With some other manuscript hundreds of years earlier in another locale having the exact same 300 consecutive letters in the section, and the exact same line length element that created the h.t. (to give two major aspects, there are more, and there are more h.t between the two mss.)

My suggestion is to spend a little time going over the two manuscripts and the support writing.

==============

Oh, I am familiar with Royse, and appreciate his work, however if you feel there is something that specifically relates to analyzing this Claromontanus-Sinauticus connection, please give a clear explanation of how some particular aspect of his studies apply. In fact, please let me know if he ever even finds a case where the homoeoteleuton can be seen, involving two extant manuscripts. Such is rare (putting aside ms 2427 and the Buttmann edition, mentioned by Meyer) and I would appreciate any examples where we can see this occurring.

Thanks!

Steven

JW:
As I previously indicated Sinaiticus probably has better supporting evidence for early then any other Manuscript due to the layers of editing it contains which evidence progressively later readings. Not that it's needed but Sinaiticus also tends to agree with the early papyrus readings and provides cumulative early evidence with all of its early Difficult Readings. In addition it has a huge number of singular readings as documented by Peter Head:

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/v13/Head2008.pdf

The many singular readings are further evidence that Sinaiticus' exemplar was older than any known Manuscript.

Regarding Steven's related apologistic attempts, I have to confess that I do find them amusing. Like reading the Funnies back when there were newspapers. If I had a Forum, instead of sending this type of Thread to "Elsewhere" I would send it to the Funnies section.

Bonus material for Solo = Note that Sinaiticus has loads of abbreviations and special symbols evidencing that original GMark likewise did.


Joseph

Figures Don't Lie But Liars Figure. A Proportionate Response to the Disproportionate Response Claim (Gaza)

Joe, you are talking about soft evidences, that tend to be circular. And have to be compared to hard evidences, such as the historical record, the condition of the manuscript and the textual evidence of the homoeoteleutons. As a general rule, hard evidences trump soft.

Singular readings tend to be nothing but scribal blunders, which fits the 1800s production scenario better than the 300s.

Let's take the Claromontanus section. If the papyri have the same reading as Claromontanus, they will also have the same reading as Sinaiticus. The papyri tend to be rather wild, covering multiple "texttypes" (Aland properly pointed out that this usage is a bit anachronistic) and are often able to be argued in multiple directions.

If you have not looked carefully at the homoeoteleutons, I do not think you really have anything substantive to contribute on this thread. They show clearly that the fourth century date for Sinaiticus is untenable.

Please come back when you have taken a look. Thanks!

Steven