KJV Tampering as a precursor to Sinaiaticus Fraud

[Steven Avery]

For example, a fine textual scholar, Tommy Wasserman, already responded to and countered your apparently misleading characterization, assuming he was accurately quoted, in this very forum, BC&HF. And you replied there the next day. So, unless you forgot, what you wrote above is quite false.

Do you understand a bit about homoeoteleutons?

Tommy Wasserman
"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."

Hebrews 1:8 is not one of the "hits". Apparently Wasserman thought that we were claiming that every Pauline Epistle homoeoteleuton in Sinaiticus came from Claromontanus. No such claim was ever made. The four that we documented completely is the starting point. One would be a surprise.

Then he cut and ran, rather than trying to consider probabilies, likelihoods, other analogies, etc.

[Steven Avery]

The fellow who tried to shill for Wasserman, often vulgar, does not even understand that homoeoteleuton is a one-way phenomenon. Source—>Target. He argued that Siniticus could have been the Source ms. and Claromontanus the target.

So his posting is skewed and worthless.

[andrewcriddle]

homoeoteleuton is a type of error that is particularly likely to occur independently.

Andrew Criddle

[Steven Avery]

homoeoteleuton is a type of error that is particularly likely to occur independently.
Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,

It is very rare that we have extant source and target manuscripts that match for a particular homoeoteleuton.

Yet Claromontanus has four that are extremely well documented, where the formatting fits perfectly with Claromontanus as the source for Sinaiticus. In a sound textual world, this would receive special interest and close study. The only reason it has not is that the possibility that Claromontanus (or a sister manuscript) might precede Sinaiticus does not fit the pseudo-consensus narrative.

Thus, hand-waving.

[Steven Avery]

homoeoteleuton is a type of error that is particularly likely to occur independently.
Andrew Criddle

btw, Andrew, I think I do understand your point.

If there is one homoeoeleuton that matches between two manuscripts, yes, that could be just an accidental quirk, that the formatting and line lengths fit to a "T".

When there are multiple matches, then there is a pattern, and there would appear likely, probabilistically, that there is a connection. It may be direct, or it could include intermediate manuscripts and steps.

[Steven Avery]

Dup

[Steven Avery]

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.

[ebion]

One native Greek biographer of Constantine Simonides takes the position that he was covering for the monastery, in its cooperation with Tischendorf.

Fascinating - I didn't know that. If you have a citation for that it would be be a most welcome addition. because it buttresses ebion's theory. If you look at Simonides letter to the Guardian he's much more gracious than he could have been. The idea of covering for the monastery's cooperation with Tischendorf fit's with ebion's theory: the monastery would not do anything without the blessing, in advance, by the Patriarch, and everyone would cover for the slightest wiff of it.

And I agree that direct cooperation in such a venture between the Patriarch and the Vatican (Jesuits) is a difficult theory. However, Jesuits are not the most transparent group!

It's not just the typical lack if transparency of the Jesuits: there were 2 cardinals at the Vatican fawning/aiding-and-abetting the young Lutheran, plus more than one private audience with Pope. This is a key part of ebion's theory: he's looking beyond Codex Simonides and has his eyes on Vaticanus as well. We cannot rule out that Tischenduper, who was later fawned over by the 2 cardinals who were the past and present heads of the most secret library in ecclesiastical history, was actually studying Vaticanus for a lunar year. With no visible means of support at a time he was supposedly broke...

Anyone should smell the stench of the enterprise, especially when you see the beautiful condition of the supposedly ancient, supposedly heavily used century-by-century manuscript.

The stench of the Simonides enterprise turns putrid when the stinking Codex Simonides is combined with Vaticanus: the S&H+V con job. Without which there would be no "New" bibles of the 1880s onwards.

And the visual 1844 and 1859 differences that match the Simonides-Kalliniikos colouring accusation, which was hidden until 2009. And there is the no-provenance element.

Plus all of the other coincidences.

However, many are entranced by the deeply entrenched Sinaiticus scholarship.

I think it's more than that: it is a coordinated establishment push to lay the foundations to argue that all the bibles in the world needed rewriting right away, in spite the putrid stench.And I've never met a Churchian pastor or priest who has the slightest idea of it, or the slighest inkling to look into it.

[Steven Avery]

Fascinating - I didn't know that. If you have a citation for that it would be be a most welcome addition. because it buttresses ebion's theory. If you look at Simonides letter to the Guardian he's much more gracious than he could have been. The idea of covering for the monastery's cooperation with Tischendorf fit's with ebion's theory: the monastery would not do anything without the blessing, in advance, by the Patriarch, and everyone would cover for the slightest wiff of it.

The Simonides biography is by Nikolaos Farmakidis..
More planned later.

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

The strong textual expertise of Benedict and friends along with the manuscript resources of the Athos monasteries was an integral part of the production.

The Simonides account of the Athos manuscript activity involving Simonides, Benedict and Kallinikos was verified in the 1895 and 1900 catalogue of Athos manuscripts bySpyridon Lambrou.

The Simonides account of the time with Constantius in 1841 was recently corroborated by an independent source outside of the Sinaiticus element.

Elements like this serve to corroborate the essentials of the Simonides account.

[ebion]

The Simonides biography is by Nikolaos Farmakidis..
More planned later.

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

I take that as given due to the facts that we have elucidated in this thread. To summarize for other readers:

1. The Codex Simonides was created at Mt. Athos, which is under the authority of the Patriarch of Constantinople (there are 5 original Patriarchates: Jerusalem Constantinople Antioch Alexandria and Rome. In the early years, Nicea the head Patriarch was at Constantinople. In later years, the patriarch of Jerusalem lived in Constantinople because of Muslims.)
2. Simonides was a lay person and was paid by the Patriarch for his work.
3. Simonides conveyed the original Codex to the Patriarch, or to his house on an island.
4. Simonides at the same time published in Greek some of the works he was working on.
5. The Patriarch had previously been the Bishop of Ste. Katherines.
6. The Patriarch asked that the Codex be sent to Ste. Katherines.
7. The Codex was written as a replica to maybe be presented to the Tsar of Russia as a gift/present/quid-pro-quo, so until Tischenduper shows up later after a year at the Vaticant, there is nothing untoward, just the creation of a valuable replica/present.
8. The above summary is exactly what Simonides always said, including in print.

(Feel free to make any additions or corrections.)

Can you give us a point-summary of the 2 other major finds in the affair Barnabas and Hermas so the readers of the thread can get an idea of the overlap between S and H and Simonides role in the overlap? I remind the reader that S and H are presented to the public as unrelated, with no mention of Simonides. I'm sure the readers would value it, as would I as I remain confused on the timelines.

And is there any indication that the monks of the Siani Monastery was complicit in helping Tischenduper hide texts inconvienient to the S&H+V con job?

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.