KJV Tampering as a precursor to Sinaiaticus Fraud

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Secret Alias
Posts: 18022
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: KJV Tampering as a precursor to Sinaiaticus Fraud

Post by Secret Alias »

Blind leading the blind.
Posts: 2780
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: hootleuton studies

Post by andrewcriddle »

Steven Avery wrote: Wed Feb 07, 2024 12:38 pm Houghton (2011) on Scribal Habits
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
Posts: 977
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: KJV Tampering as a precursor to Sinaiaticus Fraud

Post by Steven Avery »

That note from Nazaroo does not apply to the Sinaiticus homoeoteleutons under examination.
Last edited by Steven Avery on Wed Feb 14, 2024 5:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Posts: 396
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2023 11:32 am

Re: A Vatican-Jesuit conspiracy involved with Sinaiticus:the S&H+V con job

Post by ebion »

ebion wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 10:54 am
Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 08, 2024 3:02 am 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.

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
Posts: 977
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: the black hole of Sinaiticus scholarship due to the faux consensus date

Post by Steven Avery »

Steven Avery wrote: Sun Feb 04, 2024 6:04 pm
StephenGoranson wrote: Fri Feb 02, 2024 2:11 pm "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

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!
Post Reply