Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
andrewcriddle
Posts: 2037
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 12:36 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by andrewcriddle »

Solo wrote:
andrewcriddle wrote:In the passage at the beginning of 1 Corinthians 13 we can see for example that in verse 3 Sinaiticus reads that I may be be burned while Claromontanus reads that I may glory.
Andrew Criddle
Hi Andrew,
Are you saying that the Claromontanus in 1 Cor 13:3 uses a verb different than “kauchomai” from Sinaiticus ? I can’t make out the word in the rendition of the page that you provided for Claromontanus. Many thanks.

Best, Jiri
I'm sorry I confused the meanings of the two verbs. Sinaiticus has καυχήσωμαι to glory with the Alexandrian tradition while Claromontanus has καυθήσομαι to be burned with the Western and Byzantine tradition. (To be accurate Byzantine has καυθησωμαι with the same meaning)

Thanks for querying this.

Andrew Criddle

EDITED TO ADD I've corrected the spelling of the form in Sinaiticus omicrom replaced by omega.
Last edited by andrewcriddle on Fri Mar 17, 2017 12:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steven Avery
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Steven Avery »

I'm planning on travelling tomorrow, Dutchess County, NY to Asheville. However, we plan to have the 2nd Claromontanus-->Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton publication ready by Sunday or Monday.

Stay tuned. :)

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

One little note.

In the 1800s theory of Sinaiticus creation, the scribe of Sinaiticus compiled a text from multiples sources. One which would be Claromontanus. This has been shown to be the method of Simmonides in the 1843 Barnabas and the 1856 Shepherd of Hermas, and was covered in one video (I'll add the url later.) This methodology would contribute to the large number of scribal errors, and would also explain localization affinities. (This is from the founder of the homoeoteleutons, W. R. Meyer, with some tweaking and writing changes by yours truly.)

Steven
Solo
Posts: 156
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 9:10 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Solo »

andrewcriddle wrote: I'm sorry I confused the meanings of the two verbs. Sinaiticus has καυχήσομαι to glory with the Alexandrian tradition while Claromontanus has καυθήσομαι to be burned with the Western and Byzantine tradition. (To be accurate Byzantine has καυθησωμαι with the same meaning)

Thanks for querying this.

Andrew Criddle
Thanks for clarifying this, Andrew. I always wondered about the older rendition of this verse ("glorying") which appears pretty far removed from "burning".

Best,
Jiri
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 1481
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Steven Avery wrote:In the 1800s theory of Sinaiticus creation, the scribe of Sinaiticus compiled a text from multiples sources. One which would be Claromontanus.
And with this theory you can explain all problems very easily.

That's fantastic!

;)
Maestroh
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Maestroh »

Just notice his ENTIRE enterprise is based on this gratuitous assumption. (I get a laugh watching this guy careen around trying to make evidence say something that it doesn't).
Steven Avery
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Steven Avery »

Kunigunde Kreuzerin wrote:And with this theory you can explain all problems very easily. That's fantastic! ;)

Actually, yes, the use of multiple manuscripts as sources is one very important element of the explanation. Although the production of Sinaiticus is a bit of a puzzle box, in all theories of creation. (Look at the CSP and notice how many elements are simply left unexplained.) David Daniels is putting out a new series of short videos that really help understand the dynamic of the 1840s and 1850s, which led to the 1859 "find" of a pristine New Testament by Tischendorf, in a bit of a "too good to be true" manner.

Right now, we have published the only known homoeoteleuton connecting two extant manuscripts, in terms of Bible mss. As such, it is a "textbook case" of the phenomenon. (Homeoeoteuton is generally only spoken in the context of viewing the resulting, or target, mss.) The next publication will be the 2nd Claromontanus-->Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton. Stay tuned!

Why didn't the textual experts find this phenomenon? Simple, they were not looking. They "knew" that Sinaiticus is 4th century. So they wrote all sorts of interesting, and often arcane, studies on the text. And missed a basic, elementary relationship connecting Sinaiticus and another major manuscript.

======

On another front, we have more information for readers and researchers about the creation of the 1843 Barnabas edition by Simonides (which used multiple manuscripts in a similar manner, as did his manuscript of Hermas in 1856.)

That Hermas was the edition where Tischendorf ended up retracting his attack against the Simonides text, due to his need to publish the similar Sinaiticus Hermas. Oops. The Barnabas publication was the edition referenced by James Donaldson (he argued that linugistically the Sinaiticus Hermas and Barnabas were not at all 4th century) that mostly dropped out of sight until we dug up (credit here to Chris Pinto) the history in the last few years. Including the review in the Smyrna Star of the East in 1843. This is a publication that the Sinaiticus-Tischendorf conspiracy theorists (one name for the Tischendorf story of saving a 1500-year-old manuscript by being at the convent at the very day it was being burned) had claimed did not exist! Facts can be such stubborn things.

Why have not our textual experts discussed and analyzed the 1843 Barnabas edition? Good question. It does help understand the puzzle box of Sinaiticus.

Incidentally, the 1843 Barnabas and the 1856 Hermas show that simply crying "Simonides was a liar, so I am covering my ears", or "Simonides was a forger, so I am not looking at anything he wrote", is a juvenile reaction. These were serious publications. Simonides could play loose with his mix of Greek and Latin manuscripts, but the editions themselves were important for their texts. The Barnabas edition was more forthright about the mss used (possibly because of the earlier date.) Yet even with Hermas, you had the amazing phenomenon of Tischendorf attacking the text, followed by a quieter and very awkward retraction when it was time for his Hermas find to be brought to the world.

======

On this forum, that, however, will be better on the white parchment thread. Or, even better, a new, more general, Sinaiticus history thread. One that is more about the history of the 1840s and 1850s, when Simonides "coincidentally" published Hermas and Barnabas before the great Sinaiticus discover of ... Hermas and Barnabas!

This is planned after my travel today. :)

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Mon Mar 20, 2017 2:17 am, edited 9 times in total.
Maestroh
Posts: 153
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Maestroh »

I'll just remind everyone: there's a reason this nonsense is being posted HERE and not presented in any sort of scholarly forum....and it isn't because of how GOOD it is.

(Wonder why our boy Stevie won't point out the DIFFERENCES between these two manuscripts, often in verses around the alleged anomaly he cites? As James Snapp said recently when asked how we know Sinaiticus did NOT come from Claromontanus, the truth is we know this by something called "common sense."
Steven Avery
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Steven Avery »

Is "common sense" the same thing as "received wisdom from the experts"?
hmmm... let's apply a little common sense to the mountain of Sinaiticus "coincidences" :) .

=======
Facebook - NT Textual Criticism (James Snapp group)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextu ... 438154685/

David Inglis
" homeoteleuton....in how many cases have exemplars been identified in which the alignment of the text can be seen to have possibly been the cause of the homeoteleuton,
i.e. where the same letters at the beginning or ending of two lines matches text that is missing in another ms?"

James Snapp
".... I don't know how many cases there are overall -- hundreds, no doubt! "
.
We will look forward to James listing 100, or 10. Or whatever he can find.
This next from Clark was in my support pages to the homoeoteleuton #1
The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts – (1914)
Albert Curtis Clark
https://archive.org/stream/primitivetex ... 9/mode/2up

When we have two MSS, one which is known to be a transcript of the other, and we can compare
the copy with the model, we find actual instances of such omissions. In the vast majority of
cases however, we have only the copy, not the model also.
================

Actually, this BCHF forum is generally more insightful than the textual forums. And less circular (i.e. not trapped by presuppositions.)
Thus the feedback is far more helpful for refinement and tweaking and considering, as the feedback is not simply reactive (knee-jerk).

And the homoeoteleuton information has in fact been placed in some major textual spots. And is planned for more shortly.

Keep in mind, as well, that only the first of five h.ts have been placed online. The second is planned for Monday or Tuesday.

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

Here was the earlier James Snapp limited commentary (this NTSW forum accepts my posts, unlike Snapp's forum.)

New Testament Scholarship Worldwide
Sinaiticus Problematicus
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1519498 ... 777119804/

However I have not seen the "common sense" remark.

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

The method of Simonides was to work with multiple manuscripts, not single exemplars. Thus, in the intro to the 1843 Barnabas six distinct manuscripts are referenced (I'm checking the number.) There is a similar multiple ms. usage in Hermas by Simonides. So there is no expectation that Claromontanus was a 100% exemplar. However, producing five, visible, tangible direct homoeteleutons shows Claromontanus was definitely in play in the production of Sinaticius.
(This is from the founder of the homoeoteleutons, W. R. Meyer, with significant tweaking and writing changes by yours truly.)

In the c. 840s theory of the creation of Sinaiticus (Simeonides), the scribe(s) of Sinaiticus was compiling text from multiples sources. One which would be Claromontanus. This has been shown to be the method of Simonides in the 1843 Barnabas and the 1856 Shepherd of Hermas, and was covered in the videos. This methodology would contribute to the large number of scribal errors, and would also explain localization affinities.
These two vids go into that methodology.

Does Simonides' story make sense?
https://youtu.be/lipGKbHhAkw

The Sinaiticus Smoking Gun,
https://youtu.be/OmfGK1CtMSI


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

And while I try to avoid getting in the way of the discussion, there are two quotes that are really incredible.

One I can't find right now, the learned Tommy Wasserman emphatically declared that there would never be a peer-review paper on Sinaiticus authenticity.
.. (Perhaps, true, we do not know the future ... and is such a paper really needed?)

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

The second one gave me my laugh of the year.
My shadow, Bill Brown, see posts above, weighed my intellect:
Anti-Avery forum
http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.yuku ... nsense-SBL

"let's face it, the guy isn't exactly a Rhodes scholar anyway"
Now, I don't normally think in terms of epitaphs .. but this one is definitely a possibility!

Maybe tweaked a bit: "Not exactly a Rhodes scholar!".

Now.. back to Sinaiticus!

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

Steven
Steven Avery
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Sinaiticus Coincidences

Post by Steven Avery »


"Coincidences" abound, everywhere :) e.g.

The colour of the 1844 and 1859 sections just happens to coincidentally match the colouring-tampering attributed to Tischendorf in the 1850s by Kallinikos. A perfect BEFORE and AFTER match. The Sinaiticus 1859 St. Petersburg pages (later to England) are coloured and stained in a manner that is 100% consistent to the tampering and darkening the ms in the period 1850-1859, and has no other sensible explanation. The Codex Friderico-Augustanus 1844 Leipzig pages are pristine, fine snow-white parchment, consistent with leaving Sinai before the staining and not matching either the Tischendorf-Scrivener colour description, or the known colouring of mss by age. Both sections are in a condition that belies any idea that the manuscript could have had 1000-1500 years of heavy use in tbe 1500 year period. The Tischendorf conspiracy theory scenario has lots of scribal use and correction over the centuries, as well as movement from place to place. These unexplained colour anomalies are all supposedly simply coincidental happenstance.

The Sinaiticus ms. just coincidentally is in "phenomenally good condition" (Helen Shenton, BL) with easy-peasy page turning. While ancient heavily-used mss. from 1500+ years ago have to be handled with super-caution.

Kallinikos just coincidentally knew other various details of the ms. (e.g. the 1844 theft, the 1859 bogus-loan would never be returned, the bumbling Greek of Tischendorf) elements that simply were not known at the time.

Simonides, Benedict and Kallinikos are just coincidentally shown in the Lambros catalogs of 1895-1900 to be working together in Athos c. 1840. Exactly the time stated for the collaborative efforts on the Sinaiticus ms.

Hermas just happens to coincidentally have been published by Simonides in Greek in 1856 before the 1859 Sinaiticus publication by Tischendorf.
(The ending of Hermas, which became very problematic to Tischendorf after the 1856 Simonides publication, is the one large section thrown into the back room, and is in the 1975 New Finds.) Tischendorf even retracted allegations against the 1856 Hermas of Simonides because, as James Donaldson points out, the accusations had validity, and shows at least sections of the Sinaiticus Hermas (this also applies to Barnabas) to be long after the 4th century.

Barnabas just happens to coincidentally have been published in Greek by Simonides in Smyrna in 1843. Before the 1859 Sinaiticus publication by Tischendorf. And there are solid links between the 1843 Simonides Barnabas text and the 1859 text, the discovery of the supposed first Greek Barnabas by Tischendorf.

Simonides in England, 2,300+ miles away, was confident that Sinaiticus had no actual pre-1840 provenance, and coincidentally there was none. No history at the monastery, no catalog, no earlier explorer discovery. The ms.only has "poof provenance". (The claim made of an "ancient catalog" affirming the ms was simply bogus, and Simonides knew it was bogus.)

The homoeoteleutons just coincidentally show Sinaiticus being made using a ms dated from hundreds of years after its own supposed creation, Claromontanus And that manuscript, and its unusual daughter mss, were located in our prime locales - Paris, Mt. Athos and St. Petersburg - in the period before Sinaiticus poofed into a Tischendorf discovery in 1844.

This was pulled from a shorter version in a post above on this page (where I removed the shorter version, a bit accidentally).

This is also important enough conceptually to have its own thread, since it gets into key issues of historical probability and reconstruction (an area where historians and journalists and lay researchers can be stronger than textual criticism experts who work with lots of presuppositional baggage).

And the virtual impossibility, and absurdity, of the Simonides claim being made without direct personal connections to the Sinaiticus/Simeonides manuscript.
If the claims of Simonides to have been involved in the manuscript were simply an ad hoc retribution attempt against Tischendorf, for the Simonides-Tischendorf-Hermas battle:
.. how did Simonides arrange the history of the previous 20 years so successfully to confirm the elements of the story?

Steven
Steven Avery
Posts: 644
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (

Post by Steven Avery »

Hi BCHF,

The second Claromontanus-->Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton is now ready for your study and consideration!
These hts can effectively can end any controversy about whether Sinaiticus is a 4th century manuscript.

The picture below is from the paper below.

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

1 Cor 2:14-15 - Paper by W. R. Meyer
https://app.box.com/s/4bwxnlvbqzcugckh8wwem2lpx39yf5jk

Codex Sinaiticus Authenticity Research - Homoeoteleuton - Text Omitted because of Similar Endings
http://www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton.html

pic of ht2.png
pic of ht2.png (653.48 KiB) Viewed 10861 times
Thanks for your consideration! This forum is the first place that this is posted. :)

Steven
Post Reply