KJV Tampering as a precursor to Sinaiaticus Fraud

[Secret Alias]

Blind leading the blind.

[andrewcriddle]

Houghton (2011) on Scribal Habits
Nazaroo
http://homoioteleuton.blogspot.com/2011 ... abits.html

‘Houghton also notes the findings of Schmidt and Holmes, regarding the unlikelihood of coincidental but identical readings by independent copyists”

Some references that should be interesting on homoeoteleuton studies.

It goes on to say But this can be very misleading, as a large number of significant cases of homoeoteleuton involve extensive segments of duplicate strings of letters, allowing sometimes hundreds of different line alignments and 'situations' which would generate identical outcome-texts even though the scribes skipped at different places.

Andrew Criddle

[Steven Avery]

That note from Nazaroo does not apply to the Sinaiticus homoeoteleutons under examination.

[ebion]

Here are a couple of reasons why the Athos production is more sensible than St. Catherine’s.

PS: Please clarify for me: Constantius was the Patriarch of Constantinople? Who was the Patriarch of Jerusalem (who I think at the time lived in Constantinople)? There may be 2 Patriarchs in on this, plus the one in Rome.

Also bear in mind Simondes dealings with the Patriarch are unrelated to Tiscenduper's later dealings
with the Patriarch; in all likelihood they will not even be the same person. And Bryennios' Codex in 1873 was later under a different Patriarchy: the Patriarch of Jerusalem .

According to WickedPaedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constanti ... tantinople

Constantius II (Greek: Κωνστάντιος; 1789–1859) served as Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople during the period 1834–1835.

Before his election as Ecumenical Patriarch in 1834, he had been Metropolitan bishop of Veliko Tarnovo. He wasn't particularly educated, nor did he have administrative skills. So, the next year he had to resign

In his letter to the Guardian he says he gave the Codex to Constantius in 1841.

For the record, here's the list of Patriarchs around that timeperiod:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_e ... tantinople

243. Constantius I (1830–1834)

On July 23, 1833, the Church of Greece declared itself autocephalous. It was followed by the Romanian Orthodox Church in 1864, the Bulgarian Exarchate in 1872, and the Serbian Orthodox Church in 1879, thus reducing the territorial extent of the Ecumenical Patriarchate's jurisdiction.

1834–1923:
244. Constantius II (1834–1835)
245. Gregory VI (1835–1840)
246. Anthimus IV (1840–1841)
247. Anthimus V (1841–1842)
248. Germanus IV (1842–1845)
249. Meletius III (1845)
250. Anthimus VI (1845–1848)

Anthimus IV (1848–1852), restored
Germanus IV (1852–1853), restored
Anthimus VI (1853–1855), restored 1st time

251. Cyril VII (1855–1860)
252. Joachim II (1860–1863)
253. Sophronius III (1863–1866)

Gregory VI (1867–1871), restored
Anthimus VI (1871–1873), restored 2nd time
Joachim II (1873–1878), restored

254. Joachim III (1878–1884)
255. Joachim IV (1884–1887)
256. Dionysius V (1887–1891)
257. Neophytus VIII (1891–1894)
258. Anthimus VII (1895–1896)

In 1841 "Anthimus V" was Patriarch and "Constantius II " was ex-Patriarch by 6 years, There's no mention of Sinai in the WickedPaedia description of "Constantius II" so I'm a little confused. Simondies explicitly refers to Constantius as Patriarch in 1841 timeframe. WickedPaedia could be wrong.

[Steven Avery]

"Sinaiticus scholarship," if you are familiar with it, misled many scholars, precisely in your view, how?

The main problem was that it quickly had an established date of 4th century, without examining the manuscript. This led to scholars unable to consider what would be more reasonable textual relationships. (Also the material sciences were forced to revamp their theories.)

To give one example, it was noted that the Zurich Psalter matches extremely well with one Sinaiticus corrector. An interesting phenomenon. With a tabula rasa you would clearly consider the possibility that the Psalter, or any sister manuscript, was used directly for the Sinaiticus corrections. However, that possiblity, by far the most Ockham-friendly attempt, has not even been mentioned in the scholarship. Simply because of the errant "consensus" dating of Sinaiticus.

This surprising cohesion of the Zurich Psalter and the Sinaiticus corrector was clearly mentioned by Karl Bernhard Moll (1805-1878) in 1869, who did the Psalms in the Lange editions.

"Its readings show more agreement with the Cod. Alex, than with the Cod. Vat., and often confirm those of the Aldine and Complutensian texts. The relation which it exhibits to one of the correctors of the Cod. Sinait. is worthy of special attention. "


Tischendorf had recently published the Psalterium Turicense, and had alluded to the connection.

Monumenta sacra inedita.
Vol. IV. of the Nova Collectio, 1869, the Psalterium Turicense, i
https://books.google.com/books?id=L_JBAAAAYAAJ&pg=PR5

Inprimis vero memoratu dignum est, saepissime illum cum uno ex correctoribus codicis Sinaitici conspiare, eum dico qui in commentariis Ca mihi dictus est.

"In the first place it is worthy of mention, that very often I glimpsed him with one of the correctors of the Sinaitic codex, I mean the one who was mentioned to me in the commentaries of Ca."

Around 1900 Swete pointed this out.

"Zurich Psalter ... The readings of this MS. are in frequent agreement with Codex Alexandrinus, and to a still more remarkable extent with the second corrector of Codex Sinaiticus" - Henry Barclay Swete

Others generally followed Swete.
The most recent was an Italian publication in 2007, by Edoardo Crisci et al.

Edoardo Crisci, Christoph Eggenberger, Robert Fuchs, Doris Oltrogge: Il salterio purpureo Zentralbibliothek Zürich, RP 1.
In: Segno e testo. 5, 2007.
https://www.researchgate.net/publicatio ... Zurich_RP1

The "special attention" still awaits. However, it is likely to show that the Zurich Psalter was in fact used for Sinaiticus corrections, which is uncomfortable for the "consensus" narrative!

[Maestroh]

That note from Nazaroo does not apply to the Sinaiticus homoeoteleutons under examination.

For the record, this guy didn't examine ANY of this for a very good reason - he can't read it at all. He also doesn't seem to notice the differences, we're just supposed to ignore those.

[Maestroh]

It is not plausible that any forger in the 19th century could create that codex.

Hi Stephen!

Why not?

Note, it may have been designed as a replica rather than a forgery, but that does nor change the “why not” question.

It is true that there would to be some textual savvy involved.

What Steven Avery means here is, "I'm just making it up as I go but whoo hoo KJV!"


Hint: you don't transcribe a replica OR a forgery HURRIEDLY onto PARCHMENT in eight months with easily discernible multiple authors.

[Maestroh]

Simplistic thinking.

As opposed to a complicated conspiracy theory like a guy who thinks six moon landings were faked...

(See e.g. the confirmation that came forth in 1900 mentioned by Farrer).

1) No confirmation of anything came forth
2) do you REALLY think there were zero developments regarding Aleph in the last 120 years?

Tischendorf was a liar

Not only was Simonides a liar but Farrer - whom YOU BROUGHT INTO THIS CONVERSATION - SAID Simonides was a liar in the very source you're trying to say is confirmation.

and invented fanciful cover stories, like the "saved from fire" nonsense.

Yet you take his "testimony"?

Nope.

Not a single person living believes Sinaiticus is a 4th century document "because Stone Cold said so" and this only reveals your own limitations on the subject, nothing else.

[Maestroh]

You are confused.
I happily defended Sinaiticus authenticity, giving various reasons, until the evidence forced a new evaluation.

This presupposition argument is typical nonsense, and should never be trusted.

Everyone works with presuppositions.......it's just you want us all to ASSUME the KJV is "the Word of God" and work from that wrong starting point.

[Maestroh]

Some Qumran manuscripts, among others 1650+ years old, are quite clearly readable.

Can you turn pages as if they were like new?

Have they avoided yellowing with age?

(At least one manuscript came out of the jar whitish, but quickly yellowed, according to Ira Rabin.)

Ira Rabin ALSO holds to the codex being old and not from the 19th century, but I can't imagine why this guy would HIDE information like that....