Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Maestroh
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Maestroh » Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:53 pm

Once again - we see where an active imagination and zero knowledge of Bible manuscripts leads.

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Mar 23, 2017 6:16 am

Here is the 2nd homoeoteleuton (previous page) with the sections made clear by Mark Michie.
Michie2 Reduced 651.jpg
Michie2 Reduced 651.jpg (109.57 KiB) Viewed 2489 times
Travelling to Atlanta and Phoenix-Tucson!
I'll try to get the third one up this weekend or Monday!

Maestroh
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Maestroh » Mon Apr 03, 2017 9:40 am

For those of you who missed it - it's over, not that it ever had any strengths in the first place.

Dr Tommy Wasserman - an ACTUAL scholar with an ACTUAL PhD who has done ACTUAL work with Sinaiticus (as opposed to Steven Avery, who cannot read Greek OR Russian but insists upon posting snipe hunts all over the Internet, including here) - has refuted this whole line of nonsense. It is over, and Avery needs to spend the next couple of years going to all the sites he's posted such nonsense and concede he is wrong. Arrogance will not permit this, but he is still wrong.

In responding to the convoluted nonsense posted here, Wasserman states:


I hope it is clear enough to you by now that the *one* example of a homeoteleuton (Heb 1:8) in Sinaiticus that I cited makes it apparent that the exemplar of Sinaiticus had a different word order there than what is found in Claromontanus. I will not spend more time on that issue, you can check all the rest of the places if you want (see previous message). The whole idea that Sinaiticus is a copy of Claromontanus, which has a very different text in general, not only in these few places where scribal leaps occur, will make it apparent how absurd the claim is.

As for the equally crazy idea that Simonides copied Sinaiticus, I don’t know where to start… but let me just also mention that another fragment of Sinaiticus has rather recently been found in the binding of Sinai Greek 2289. The binding of the book is dated to the early 18th century. You can read about it in detail in Nikolas Sarris’ thesis Classification of finishing tools in Greek bookbinding: establishing links from the Library of St Catherine's Monastery, Sinai, Egypt. PhD thesis, University of the Arts London, 2010, in section 3.6 (group 57), pp. 202-233 (esp. 224-26; and image on p. 215). The thesis is made avaialble here (the pertinent section is found in vol. 2): http://ualresearchonline.arts.ac.uk/6143/

Perhaps Simonides, who lived a century later, also managed to forge Sinai Greek 2289 and incorporate a page from Sinaiticus inside the binding and hide it to make this mystery even greater. . . .We will see what clever explanation is offered.


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

In other words, these scholars Avery has dismissed as "dupes" because of something he thinks was significant in 2009 was refuted in 2010, and Avery in all his incompetent research never bothered to read the data published, pushing ahead instead with his wishful thinking.

Folks, THIS is why EXPERTISE matters in these issues. Anyone with a copy of NT Abstracts was aware of these publication data years ago. Why wasn't Avery aware of this? Very simple: he doesn't the first thing about HOW to do competent BIBLICAL research. He is a 67-year old computer programmer, whom I don't think even finished college at Cal and who CANNOT even read the NT in its original language - and yet he thinks he should be taken seriously as a biblical researcher.

And spare me the notion that pointing out an individual does NOT possess relevant scholarly acumen constitutes a 'personal attack.' It does not. In fact, not possessing scholarly means itself is a logical fallacy (ad verecundiam). Pointing this TRUTH out about Avery merely demonstrates the incompetence of the person making the argument - and his lack of knowledge of the subject is WHY he makes the egregious errors he makes (along with his KJV Onlyism serving as a motivational fallacy for his research in the first place).

So instead of a long, flowery filibuster or red herrings that don't answer the evidence as it exists - simply answer the rebuttal.

It's over, Avery. Of course, the rest of us knew it was over, and kudos to Wasserman for having the patience to at least be nice enough to not rip you the way he should have. He very gently pointed out your lack of knowledge.

I think you have some boards to go apologize to for your nonsense now - not that it will happen as such requires character.

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Apr 04, 2017 7:02 pm

Since this thread is designed to be on the homoeoteleutons, the better place for the Tommy Wasserman discussion involving S.2289 is:

Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus
viewtopic.php?p=67248#p67248

Steven

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:03 am

Two new homoeoteleutons that are 100% consistent with Claromontanus as a source ms. for Sinaiticus are now placed online.

You can see these two at:

Codex Sinaiticus Homoeoteleutons
http://www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton.html

3. 2 Corinthians 4:17
4. Galatians 2:8

You can see the section pic, and then there are links to the papers with more details.

3. 2 Corinthians 4:17 - https://app.box.com/s/pf5eukn01i54q2sn2qzul88rr3u19y5o
4, Galatians 2:8 - https://app.box.com/s/glglw14e41yehi0cs518f8ml4g3g954u

And as a reminder, the explanation of the history of these discoveries is here:

A discovery of apparent Homoeoteleutons in the Codex Sinaiticus
W. R. Meyer
https://app.box.com/s/2k4ihkp6op1appn4fw5egvsiw2kw01v2

Steven

Maestroh
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Maestroh » Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Wed Apr 19, 2017 7:03 am
Two new homoeoteleutons that are 100% consistent with Claromontanus as a source ms. for Sinaiticus are now placed online.

You can see these two at:

Codex Sinaiticus Homoeoteleutons
http://www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton.html

3. 2 Corinthians 4:17
4. Galatians 2:8

You can see the section pic, and then there are links to the papers with more details.

3. 2 Corinthians 4:17 - https://app.box.com/s/pf5eukn01i54q2sn2qzul88rr3u19y5o
4, Galatians 2:8 - https://app.box.com/s/glglw14e41yehi0cs518f8ml4g3g954u

And as a reminder, the explanation of the history of these discoveries is here:

A discovery of apparent Homoeoteleutons in the Codex Sinaiticus
W. R. Meyer
https://app.box.com/s/2k4ihkp6op1appn4fw5egvsiw2kw01v2

Steven


So far, we continue to have zero evidence of anything.

As far as Claromontanus - well, the problem that Avery has not yet even bothered to think about is this: IF Simonides used Claromontanus (as Steven Avery Spenser alleges) then: a) why did he never claim that he did; and b) why did he never produce the sudden evidence 150 years ago that would have vindicated his version of events?

There is simply no reason whatsoever for this to be the case. Simonides could have put Tischendorf forever out of business and vindicated his own name if this were true. There is literally only ONE reason why Simonides never made this claim: because he never used Claromontanus (well, okay, two) and he never wrote Sinaiticus.

Now - can we please have some actual EVIDENCE supporting a 19th century date rather than these delusions of fantasy that smack of doing drugs while listening to "Dark Side of the Moon"?


Let's face it: Simonides lied. He lied about his sources, he lied about writing it, and Avery will even admit he lied about being the sole author of the manuscript. Simonides himself said the age of the manuscript would be apparent at once to a skilled paleographer. Well not one paleographer has ever dated it to the 19th century.

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm

Bill Brown wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pm
So far, we continue to have zero evidence of anything.
You may not know how to look at all the various evidences, you may close your eyes, but the evidences themselves of Sinaiticus being 1800s are massive.
Bill Brown wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pm
As far as Claromontanus - well, the problem that Avery has not yet even bothered to think about is this: IF Simonides used Claromontanus ... then: a) why did he never claim that he did; and b) why did he never produce the sudden evidence 150 years ago that would have vindicated his version of events?.
You simply do not know the material.

Most of the collation was done by Vissarion (Benedict), Simonides would not necessarily know all the sources.

There is in fact also a possibility that Tischendorf was involved, directly or indirectly, since he coincidentally worked directly on Claromontanus in 1840. The fact that Claromontanus has a sister ms, Sangermanensis, has always been a bit unusual, and that puzzle may be related to our Sinaiticus situation.
Bill Brown wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pm
There is simply no reason whatsoever for this to be the case. Simonides could have put Tischendorf forever out of business and vindicated his own name if this were true. There is literally only ONE reason why Simonides never made this claim: because he never used Claromontanus (well, okay, two) and he never wrote Sinaiticus.
See above.

Textual critics seem to be very weak on math and probability. These multiple precise homoeoteleutons are astounding. There are few known cases where we have visual h.t. from two extant mss, and when it was noticed in ms 2427 (Archaic Mark using a printed edition) it was part of determining that a ms. was inauthentic.

As it stands, this is one of a number of smoking guns pointing to Sinaiticus not being an antiquity ms. Normally, finding such a potential new relationship between two mss would get our textual criticism view all interested and excited, but because they have so much deeply entrenched scholarship involved in Sinaiticus being 4th century, all they want to do is shut their eyes.
Bill Brown wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pm
Now - can we please have some actual EVIDENCE supporting a 19th century date rather than these delusions of fantasy that smack of doing drugs while listening to "Dark Side of the Moon"?
The colouring of the Russian section, while the German section was a pristine white, and both are in "phenomonally good condition" supplies tons of evidence, even before we go into many other evidences covered.

(Including the colouring being called by Kallinikos! including Donaldson on the linguistics. Including the homoeoteleutons. Including the coincidences about Simonides and the mss at Athos at precisely the right time. And much more.)
Bill Brown wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pm
Let's face it: Simonides lied. He lied about his sources, he lied about writing it, and Avery will even admit he lied about being the sole author of the manuscript. Simonides himself said the age of the manuscript would be apparent at once to a skilled paleographer.
The issue of one person writing or a few involved is tiny.

If a little fudginess about events 20 years earlier is important, than everything that Tischendorf said must be rejected, since he boldly and brazenly lied about supposedly saving the ms. from fire, when he actually simply stole the 43 leaves in 1844.

A true historian looks at ALL the evidences.
Bill Brown wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pm
Well not one paleographer has ever dated it to the 19th century.
There has been a lemming acceptance of Tischendorf supplied analysis. Until the last few years, hardly anybody in the world had actually seen the two sections, and definitely not at the same time.

There really is no palaeographic analysis of Sinaiticus. Afawk, there has been one millimeter tested of the parchment. Not one bit of the ink.

And palaeography based on handwriting is NOT time-symmetrical. All scripts can be used at a later time. This is a key element of determining authenticity. And of dupes being fooled.

Steven

Maestroh
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Maestroh » Thu Apr 12, 2018 3:03 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
You may not know how to look at all the various evidences, you may close your eyes, but the evidences themselves of Sinaiticus being 1800s are massive.
The evidence is so NONEXISTENT that you have to edit out the inconvenient parts of the timeline.

Close my eyes? I'm not the one looking at a computer screen thousands of miles away and deciding the moon landing must be fake.

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
You simply do not know the material.
Yeah, that's why I contributed MOUNDS to your phony time line.....because I don't know the material......yeah, whatever.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
Most of the collation was done by Vissarion (Benedict), Simonides would not necessarily know all the sources.
An assumption without evidence just like:
Kallinikos the Phantom
Your alleged staining
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
There is in fact also a possibility that Tischendorf was involved, directly or indirectly, since he coincidentally worked directly on Claromontanus in 1840. The fact that Claromontanus has a sister ms, Sangermanensis, has always been a bit unusual, and that puzzle may be related to our Sinaiticus situation.
It has a different text-type and has nothing to do with it but in light of your previous dissembling on Petzer, your ignorance on Colbertinus, and the fact you actually thought there was a typewritten note about Sinaiticus at the time the typewriter didn't even exist.... (yes folks - he REALLY did. If he denies it, I'll post it here).
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
Textual critics seem to be very weak on math and probability.
Which has nothing to do with reading Greek, knowing scribal habits, and paleography so who cares? Incidentally, Stephanus Averius Spenserius his own self cannot even read Sinaitcus so take that into account when determining truth here.

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
These multiple precise homoeoteleutons are astounding. There are few known cases where we have visual h.t. from two extant mss, and when it was noticed in ms 2427 (Archaic Mark using a printed edition) it was part of determining that a ms. was inauthentic.
Yes, the VERY same textual critics you just attacked above did that. Wanna know who didn't? KJV Onlyists.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
As it stands, this is one of a number of smoking guns pointing to Sinaiticus not being an antiquity ms. Normally, finding such a potential new relationship between two mss would get our textual criticism view all interested and excited, but because they have so much deeply entrenched scholarship involved in Sinaiticus being 4th century, all they want to do is shut their eyes.
Yes, the same scholars who told the truth about 2427 so you can pontificate about it all suddenly got dumb. Sure, I get it.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
The colouring of the Russian section, while the German section was a pristine white, and both are in "phenomonally good condition" supplies tons of evidence, even before we go into many other evidences covered.
Repeatedly alleging it happened doesn't make it a fact.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
(Including the colouring being called by Kallinikos! including Donaldson on the linguistics. Including the homoeoteleutons. Including the coincidences about Simonides and the mss at Athos at precisely the right time. And much more.)
Your grasping the security blanket of redundancy is a typical habit of the ignorant who - lost for anything constructive to say - just start shouting louder and pounding the table harder.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
The issue of one person writing or a few involved is tiny.
Simonides being a liar is not a big issue? Ok, I'll remember that when you apply a different standard to Tischendorf.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
If a little fudginess about events 20 years earlier is important, than everything that Tischendorf said must be rejected, since he boldly and brazenly lied about supposedly saving the ms. from fire, when he actually simply stole the 43 leaves in 1844.
Good thing I'm not dependent upon Tischendorf as you are upon Simonides then.....
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
A true historian looks at ALL the evidences.
Then why did you EDIT OUT THE PARTS that contradict your assertions? Are you actually this stupid to not think people see this?
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
There has been a lemming acceptance of Tischendorf supplied analysis. Until the last few years, hardly anybody in the world had actually seen the two sections, and definitely not at the same time.
1) These are the SAME scholars who exposed 2427 - so your claim is laughable. We have evidence you're not telling the truth here.

2) You haven't seen them, either - you're looking at a picture on a computer.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
There really is no palaeographic analysis of Sinaiticus.
Another of your bald-faced lies against the evidence.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
Afawk, there has been one millimeter tested of the parchment. Not one bit of the ink.
Which means your claim that it was altered is unsubstantiated....(you never think these things through)
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm
And palaeography based on handwriting is NOT time-symmetrical. All scripts can be used at a later time. This is a key element of determining authenticity. And of dupes being fooled.
Remind me again how much experience you have with paleography? WHERE did you study it?

Oh that's right.....you never have......

Steven Avery
Posts: 416
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

can Claromontanus have received the homoeteleuton from Sinaiticus?

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:14 pm

Bill Brown, since this is the homoeoteleuton thread, have you come up to the speed that homoeoteleutons are not flippable, symmetrical, reversible?

The last time you wrote on this, you asked how would I know that the homoeoteleuton was not the other way? With Sinaiticus as the earlier text and Claromontanus as the later. That was a little puzzling, as you have apparently been studying textual criticism for some years.

Is that something you would like to correct here?

Steven

Maestroh
Posts: 56
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: can Claromontanus have received the homoeteleuton from Sinaiticus?

Post by Maestroh » Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:08 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:14 pm
Bill Brown, since this is the homoeoteleuton thread, have you come up to the speed that homoeoteleutons are not flippable, symmetrical, reversible?
Have you come up to speed with the fact that everyone is onto the fact that you just make up your rules for stuff as you go along?
- your erroneous claim about Greek grammar in 1 John 5:7 (you cannot read it and the wise course of action is to not comment)
- your erroneous claim about Sinaiticus being colored
- this insanity you've posted here with your own made up rules
Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:14 pm
The last time you wrote on this, you asked how would I know that the homoeoteleuton was not the other way?
I also note you cannot do your own work and MUST EXPLAIN ALL THE DIVERGENCES between the two.

You've now had a couple of years. Did you work on it?

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:14 pm
With Sinaiticus as the earlier text and Claromontanus as the later. That was a little puzzling, as you have apparently been studying textual criticism for some years.
Remind us all again how much Greek you've had and how many manuscripts you've collated?
Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 9:14 pm
Is that something you would like to correct here?
There's nothing to correct. It's talking above your pay grade and apparently demanding too much of you to explain ALL the additional material in Claromontanus.

Now - since you like to point fingers and demand correction.....do you want to correct your edited timeline where you took out all of the inconvenient information that contradicts your Sinaiticus is late fantasy?

I simply ASKED you a question. You couldn't answer it except with made up rules that you came up with.

(And until the day the guy who allegedly discovered this for you puts his professional reputation on the line publicly and SAYS this....we know there's nothing. Fact is your claims were refuted earlier in this thread so.....why the continued clueless condescension?)

Post Reply