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/
" 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?"
".... 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
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?
The Sinaiticus Smoking Gun,
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:
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!