Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (
Posted: Tue Mar 21, 2017 4:53 pm
Once again - we see where an active imagination and zero knowledge of Bible manuscripts leads.
Investigating the roots of western civilization (ye olde BC&H forum of IIDB lives on...)
https://earlywritings.com/forum/
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
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.
You simply do not know the material.Bill Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pmAs 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?.
See above.Bill Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pmThere 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.
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.Bill Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pmNow - 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 issue of one person writing or a few involved is tiny.Bill Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pmLet'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.
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.Bill Brown wrote: ↑Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:17 pmWell not one paleographer has ever dated it to the 19th century.
The evidence is so NONEXISTENT that you have to edit out the inconvenient parts of the timeline.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.
Yeah, that's why I contributed MOUNDS to your phony time line.....because I don't know the material......yeah, whatever.
An assumption without evidence just like: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.
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 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.
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 Textual critics seem to be very weak on math and probability.
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 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 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 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.
Repeatedly alleging it happened doesn't make it a fact.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.
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 (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.)
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 The issue of one person writing or a few involved is tiny.
Good thing I'm not dependent upon Tischendorf as you are upon Simonides then.....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.
Then why did you EDIT OUT THE PARTS that contradict your assertions? Are you actually this stupid to not think people see this?
1) These are the SAME scholars who exposed 2427 - so your claim is laughable. We have evidence you're not telling the truth here.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.
Another of your bald-faced lies against the evidence.Steven Avery wrote: ↑Mon Nov 13, 2017 12:23 pm There really is no palaeographic analysis of Sinaiticus.
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 Afawk, there has been one millimeter tested of the parchment. Not one bit of the ink.
Remind me again how much experience you have with paleography? WHERE did you study it?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.
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?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?
I also note you cannot do your own work and MUST EXPLAIN ALL THE DIVERGENCES between the two.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?
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 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.
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.