Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Sinaiticus conflation variant - Jude 1:3

Post by Steven Avery »

Jude 1:3 (AV)
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation,
it was needful for me to write unto you,
and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith
which was once delivered unto the saints.

Sinaiticus has a conflation of the two variants::
Sinaiticus -> ”salvation and life” - σωτηρίας καὶ ζωῆς

Salvation - σωτηρίας - the well supported common text

Life - ζωῆς - is only in a couple of late minuscules, 1505 from … Mt. Athos, and 1611 now at the Athens library
(source, LaParola apparatus.)
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php ... &rif2=2:15

Salvation and life, the Sinaiticus text - is in one other majuscule, Ψ (psi) (044) from Mt. Athos.

Codex Athous Lavrensis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Athous_Lavrensis

In our studies we will find Ψ having additional interesting connections with Codex Sinaiticus (Simoneidos).

hmm …

And any attempt to support the Sinaiticus conflation as early, (e.g. 4th century) is extremely difficult and unlikely.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Sinaiticus conflation variant - Recelation 17:4

Post by Steven Avery »

Revelation 17:4 (AV)
And the woman was arrayed in purple and scarlet colour,
and decked with gold and precious stones and pearls,
having a golden cup in her hand
full of abominations and filthiness of her fornication:

Sinaiticus adds a conflation phrase that is in late minuscules:

"and (the fornication) of the earth".

πορνιας αὐτῆς καὶ τῆς γῆς

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

This conflation is included in the section from Wilbur Pickering,
The Identity of the NT Text - Appendix D
Conflation or Confusion

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

Once again, powerful evidence that Sinaiticus was written long after the 4th century.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Ulan wrote: Mon Dec 19, 2022 1:40 am Yes. Did my statement in any way question this?

What I referred to was that even C-14 dating only gives a range of possible dates. As the question among people from the field is whether the document is from the fourth or the fifth century, it may not be able to distinguish between those possibilities. Even the typical date ranges given (and often not mentioned in popular publications) of 80 years or so often only have a 1σ confidence interval, which is just above the "two thirds likely" confidence.
I am aware of the behavior of the C14 calibration curve over the 3rd, 4th and 5th centuries.
Nongbri wrote:One of the frustrating things about the fluctuations of carbon-14 levels is reflected in the wiggle in the calibration curve that occurs during the third and fourth centuries CE. This dip has become more pronounced in IntCal20 with a higher peak and a lower trough, which means that the usefulness of AMS analysis remains very limited for distinguishing between material dating to the third century CE and material dating to the fourth century CE.

Image

https://brentnongbri.com/2020/08/23/a-n ... nuscripts/
That's the reason why the interest in these measurements is low.
Are you aware of any survey supporting this assertion? AFAIK Nongbri's interest in these measurements is not low.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus conflation variant - Jude 1:3

Post by Steven Avery »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Dec 20, 2022 10:30 pm Jude 1:3 (AV)
Beloved, when I gave all diligence to write unto you of the common salvation,
it was needful for me to write unto you,
and exhort you that ye should earnestly contend for the faith
which was once delivered unto the saints.

….

Salvation and life, the Sinaiticus text - is in one other majuscule, Ψ (psi) (044) from Mt. Athos.

Codex Athous Lavrensis
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Athous_Lavrensis

In our studies we will find Ψ having additional interesting connections with Codex Sinaiticus (Simoneidos).

hmm …

And any attempt to support the Sinaiticus conflation as early, (e.g. 4th century) is extremely difficult and unlikely.
The terminus post quem of a conflation cannot be earlier than the terminus post quem of its latest component.

Mt. Athos is especially important because the Panteleimon (Russico) monastery is the spot where the Codex Sinaiticus (Simoneidos) was produced, as the principle alternate to the Tischendorf fantasy discovery fable.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

atomistic scholarship

Post by Steven Avery »

While I continue the project to show many textual and linguistic and palaeographic evidences that Sinaiticus is much later than the 4th-century dates (overall supporting the 1800s creation), I want to share a bit about why this is missed by modern scholars.

It is the atomistic nature of modern scholarship. Fields of study are largely circumscribed by the paper du jour. Perhaps a particular Sinaiticus book and a particular corrector and specific scribal features. There are no equivalents of renaissance scholars or polymaths, who can neatly integrate the wide range of disciplines and data.

Each individual paper is done with the presupposition of the ultra-dubious consensus scholarship of Sinaiticus as 4th century. Then the anomalies may be seen, the puzzle may be mentioned, but some sort of explanation is given or the problem is simply shrugged off.

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

As a simple example, many have commented on the unexpected sophistication of the formatting and rubrications of the Song of Songs (Canticles, Song of Solomon) in Sinaiticus. And this sophistication is counter-posed to the bumbling scribal aspect of Sinaiticus. Based on the general nature of these features, what is seen in Sinaiticus should be much later than 4th century, and the Sinaiticus formatting and rubrication is akin to late medieval Latin texts. However, the person working on the Song of Songs, or the rubrications, simply accepts the faux consensus scholarship, and tries to put the square peg in the round hole.

A similar dynamic is seen in the Hermas and Barnabas linguistics, such as the Tischendorf-led attack on Maximo in the Athous Codex as indicating a later retro-version from the Latin. Where the concern from Westcott and Hort was that the problems noted would "prove too much" (i.e. would shake the needed ultra-early date.)

In some cases, like the conflations where one component has lacks the early Greek manuscript evidence, the Sinaiticus problems have simply been missed. The question has not been asked, until late 2022 :) .

And these three are only the tip of the iceberg.

Oftentimes, the actual "science" will even change to match the new data of Sinaiticus. Ink is now thought to be able to stay on parchment for 1700 years without a significant ink-acid reaction. This new "science" is based on the Sinaiticus Experience.

As this thread unfolds, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, we will see this same dynamic of atomistic scholarship missing the forest for the twigs, again, and again, and again.

Now, for background, on the Song of Songs, even beginning as far back as the 1860s, this was questioned as a concern for the 4th-century date by Benjamin Harris Cowper (1822-1904). So that dating concern is unusual as one of the few features that was directly mentioned as challenging the Tischendorf date. For a couple of years, and unanswered.

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

As for how we "know" Sinaiticus is from the 4th century, this is actually something I have wondered myself, but this dating seems too deeply entrenched in the scholarship of early Christianity to have a rational discussion about it. - anonymous scholar
Last edited by Steven Avery on Sun Dec 25, 2022 7:19 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: atomistic scholarship

Post by mlinssen »

Steven Avery wrote: Sat Dec 24, 2022 6:08 pm While I continue the project to show many textual and linguistic and palaeographic evidences that Sinaiticus is much later than the 4th-century dates (overall supporting the 1800s creation), I want to share a bit about why this is missed by modern scholars.

It is the atomistic nature of modern scholarship. Fields of study are largely circumscribed by the paper du jour. Perhaps a particular Sinaiticus book and a particular corrector and specific scribal features. There are no equivalents of renaissance scholars or polymaths, who can neatly integrate the wide range of disciplines and data.

Each individual paper is done with the presupposition of the ultra-dubious consensus scholarship of Sinaiticus as 4th century. Then the anomalies may be seen, the puzzle may be mentioned, but some sort of explanation is given or the problem is simply shrugged off.

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

As a simple example, many have commented on the unexpected sophistication of the formatting and rubrications of the Song of Songs (Canticles, Song of Solomon) in Sinaiticus. And this sophistication is counter-posed to the bumbling scribal aspect of Sinaiticus. Based on the general nature of these features, what is seen in Sinaiticus should be much later than 4th century, and the Sinaiticus formatting and rubrication is akin to late medieval Latin texts. However, the person working on the Song of Songs, or the rubrications, simply accepts the faux consensus scholarship, and tries to put the square peg in the round hole.

A similar dynamic is seen in the Hermas and Barnabas linguistics, such as the Tischendorf-led attack on Maximo in the Athous Codex as indicating a later retro-version from the Latin. Where the concern from Westcott and Hort was that the problems noted would "prove too much" (i.e. would shake the needed ultra-early date.)

In some cases, like the conflations where one component has lacks the early Greek manuscript evidence, the Sinaiticus problems have simply been missed. The question has not been asked, until late 2022 :) .

And these three are only the tip of the iceberg.

Oftentimes, the actual "science" will even change to match the new data of Sinaiticus. Ink is now thought to be able to stay on parchment for 1700 years without a significant ink-acid reaction. This new "science" is based on the Sinaiticus Experience.

As this thread unfolds, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, we will see this same dynamic of atomistic scholarship missing the forest for the twigs, again, and again, and again.

Now, for background, on the Song of Songs, even beginning as far back as the 1860s, this was questioned as a concern for the 4th-century date by Benjamin Harris Cowper (1822-1904). So that dating concern is unusual as one of the few features that was directly mentioned as challenging the Tischendorf date. For a couple of years, and unanswered.
What I have focused on in the past year or two is the abbreviation for ⲓⲥ / ⲭⲥ and the underlying elaboration of it via ⲓⲏⲥⲟⲩⲥ (only present once in https://ccdl.claremont.edu/digital/iiif ... efault.jpg, the first line of Melchizedek: Jesus the XS) and either ⲭⲣⲏⲥⲧⲟⲥ (abundantly present all over the Nag Hammadi Library in all kinds of forms, including ⲭⲥ-ness, ⲭⲣⲥ-ness and Chrestos-ness) or ⲭⲣⲓⲥⲧⲟⲥ (never present in any text ever although it starts to appear in peripheral texts around the 3rd / 4th CE, slowly gaining the upper hand around 500 CE)

According to Traube almost without exception all Greek MSS use ⲓⲥ and ⲭⲥ; minor exceptions can be found in fragmentary MSS such as P. Oxy. II 208 (TM 61630) p. 56-57, P. Oxy IV 654 (TM 6284, one of the three Thomas copies) p. 56-57, P. Oxy II 209 p. 61-62, P. Oxy II 210 p. 58-59, P. Oxy. III 405 (TM 61317) p. 61-62; Codex Sinaiticus has a handful of exceptions e.g. Rom 7:4 p. 66-71; Codex Vaticanus has ⲭⲣⲥ once p. 66-67, just like Codex Alexandrinus has Ezekiel 16:4 p. 72-73; the great and grand exception to all these is Codex Bezae that uses only ⲓⲏⲥ and ⲭⲣⲥ p. 78-79; all Greek MSS ever exclusively limit themselves to ⲓⲥ and ⲭⲥ alone.
The Latin tradition invariably uses ⲓⲏⲥ ⲭⲣⲥ, literally transcribing the Greek letters of which two are completely meaningless in Latin

Now, what does Sinaiticus have?

Codex Sinaiticus:

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 1&verse=26 (Acts 11:26) - χρηϲτιανουϲ
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 6&verse=28 (Acts 26:28) - χρηϲτιανον
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 4&verse=16 (1 Peter 4:16) - χρηϲτιανοϲ
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 2&verse=18 (1 John 2:18, both counts) - αντιχριϲτοϲ https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... 2&verse=22 (1 John 2:22) - αντιχριϲτοϲ
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... =4&verse=3 (1 John 4:3) - αντιχριϲτου
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... =1&verse=8 (2 John 1:7) - αντιχριϲτοϲ

The juxtaposition of χρηϲτιανοϲ and αντιχριϲτοϲ is odd, of course - but we see Christ-xyz appearing in the Latin tradition, and Bezae is a beautiful demonstration of that:
https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/755 says χρειστιανοι (line 6 from the bottom) whereas the Latin on the next page says Christianoi.
So why does Sinaiticus appear to be much earlier, using even the Greek ETA - and yet drops the Latinised form in the much later Acts?

Vaticanus agrees with Bezae:

https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1403 Left column, from the bottom, line 5: χρειϲτιανουϲ (Acts 11:26)
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1426 Left column, from the top, line 11: χρειϲτιανον (Acts 26:28)
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1437 Right column, from the bottom, line 12: χρειϲτιανοι (1 Peter 4:16) 15
Codex Vaticanus and "antiChrist":
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1442 Right column, from the bottom, line 12: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (1 John 2:18)
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1443 Left column, from the top, line 11: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (1 John 2:22)
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1444 Middle column, from the bottom, line 14: αντιχρ[ε]ιϲτου (1 John 4:3).
https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209/1446 Middle column, from the bottom, line 3: αντιχρειϲτοϲ (2 John 1:7)

For a good fake I'd have expected Sinaiticus to follow both these, in order not to arouse suspicion. Alexandrinus employs Christiani, by the way, and is the earliest codex in that way
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

abbreviations and nomina sacra

Post by Steven Avery »

Interesting info, mlinssen. Thanks!

We have been meaning to look more into Sinaiticus abbreviations, many of which are not nomina sacra and are quite unusual. We will pay special attention to your studies and any resources you suggest.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Scribal signs in all traditions: Coptic, Greek, Latin

Post by mlinssen »

Steven Avery wrote: Sun Dec 25, 2022 7:50 am Interesting info, mlinssen. Thanks!

We have been meaning to look more into Sinaiticus abbreviations, many of which are not nomina sacra and are quite unusual. We will pay special attention to your studies and any resources you suggest.
You're welcome Steven. I think you'll find useful two papers of mine in that regard, where quite a bit of info is stashed away in the footnotes. Unsure whether the main topics at hand will be of interest to you, but like I always say: analysis and conclusions are two different things, and either one can be useful even when the other is entirely not

https://www.academia.edu/89583617 - Philip demonstrates origins and direction of dependence of all ligatures, and the provenance of Chrest-xyz vs Christ-xyz

https://www.academia.edu/84288595 - an overview of all NHL ligatures for IS and XS including leaf and line number for every single entry

More than most important however are what I have labelled "typical xtian scribal signs": ü, ï, apostrophe and line-ending superlinear replacing Nu: these are what run like a red thread through every single Coptic, Greek and Latin text that link the Chrestian and Christian tradition, and while we find the superlinear in e.g. Greek and Coptic magical papyri, the rest is absent there.
They start with Thomas and are present in even later medieval writings regardless of the language - I haven't yet traced when they stop

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/sear ... &x=49&y=13 is a handy search function, and as you can see these signs get applied across both NT as well as "OT", they really are a trademark of xtian writings regardless of text or topic. Needless to say, no one really knew the function of these although the line-ending Nu evidently was evident ;) and finds its continuation in the Latin via the m, and Bezae is a helpful demonstration there:

http://epapers.bham.ac.uk/1664/1/Bezae-Latin.xml

As you can see in Bezae as well as Sinaiticus, whereas the Coptic employs the apostrophe as marker between identical consonants (on a purely coincidental 50-50 basis, unlike the completely false and inaccurate research by Layton was meant to suggest), the Greek / Christians used it to end "Judaic names" be they places or persons

To the best of my knowledge there is little to no research on all these, and I hope to be wrong there - but these little signs are the greatest and grandest testimonies to all of xtianity, and I use them in a similar way that they used tax evasion to indict Al Capone - the apostrophe in Thomas' cunning wordplay of ⲥⲁⲃ`ⲃⲁⲧⲟⲛ when he says In case you don't make be Fast to the World you will not fall to the reign of king; in case you don't make be the Sabbath Father's-day you will not behold the father (freely interpreted the word there while the Interactive says sABBAth) even gets copied by the Greek, and the transcription of Grenfell & Hunt https://archive.org/details/cu319240292 ... 5/mode/1up is a lot more legible than the papyrus itself https://iiif.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/iiif/mir ... df724.json

I use these scribal signs to distinguish "real LXX" from mere Greek translations, as it is absolutely mind boggling how truly venerated they apparently were. Their application was as uncertain and loose as that of the ligatures, but it would almost seem like a scribe would lose a finger for every MS delivered that didn't copy at least a handful from its source

Last but not least: it wouldn't apply to your project at hand I think, but do note that very early ligatures either don't have a covering superlinear at all, or only a partial one - and Thomas naturally is a fine example there, but have you ever observed all staurograms next to all stirograms?

viewtopic.php?p=146851#p146851

Perhaps the length of the superlinears can aid you as well - and like these pictures, the way in which letters are relatively ornamented also speaks to their "level of maturity"; do note the toddler-like doodles of the Greek in this regard, compared to the proudly decorated Coptic where the basis of the underlying Ti is readily apparent - but that is just basic philology perhaps
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by mlinssen »

And viewtopic.php?p=132096#p132096 can be viewed as a demonstration of some kind, and possibly is the earliest MS in Greek that has a try out with the Tanakh, but it neatly sums up all scribal habits

A little further up in the thread are more links, etc - but this specific Chester Beatty collection by Keynes is a gem when it comes to cross examining plates and transcriptions and their peculiarities
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

connecting the Shem-tob Hebrew Matthew and Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery »

Just putting the fascinating abbreviations aside for a bit, I will share one of the more quirky scribal connections.

George Eulan Howard (1935-2018) showed nine spots where he thought the Shem-tob Hebrew Matthew had agreements with Sinaiticus singular readings (all were singular in Greek, five had some support in Egyptian versions.) One involved simply a kai, so really is of little use, five were agreement in omission and three were agreement in text, when the Hebrew text is brought to Greek and compared.

The theory of George Howard was that the 4th-century Sinaiticus was agreeing with an ancient Hebrew text that was a precursor to the extant Hebrew Matthew. However, an alternate theory would be that the Athos producers of Sinaiticus had the Hebrew Matthew in hand and it was used for a number of variants.

Now, we are looking at a number of fascinating Greek-on-Greek manuscript connections for the Athos Sinaiticus manuscript production. Each one takes some time to prepare the data :). As well as the scribal features, like looking at the abbreviations. As well as the Sinaiticus conflations, linguistic issues, and much more.

And I would not push this Hebrew Matthew one up, except in a corroborative, and research, role.

Since this forum is up on many of the outlier theories of the New Testament text, I thought I would share this one, as we have been checking some of the data and groundwork.
Post Reply