|
Post by stevenavery on Apr 18, 2017 5:19:05 GMT
The questions raised about the Nicholas Sarris fragment are at least a reasonable inquiry [textualcriticism] Claromontanus --> Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton #3 - 2 Cor 4:17 Tommy Wasserman - April 2 beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8675This is as far as Bill Brown got. This forum works on bursts of posts every few days, or a week or more. And the response points out that Tommy Wasserman was grossly overstating the scholarship. [textualcriticism] S.2289 fragment - coincidences abound! Steven Avery - April 6 beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8676In his next post, you can see Wasserman running backwards and he acknowledges there is no real scholarship on the fragment. [textualcriticism] S.2289 fragment - coincidences abound! Tommy Wasserman - April 11 beta.groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8681By the time you got through the posts, you find out that there is no real scholarship on the fragment. You can not find even a transcription, much less yet an overlay. Visually, it does not look very convincing, but who can tell? Justin makes a very clear, scholarly and proper point about also looking closely at the Brugsch fragments. Fragments which were at one time thought to be Sinaiticus. Wasserman says that it will be hard to do much more with the parchment, in a non-destructive manner, which is understandable. However, we do not even have any real scholarship even on what is visible! Simply a very conservative report written by Justin and an enthusiastic report by Nikolas Sarris, which is ironic because they are put in the same article in the 2009 book. Wasserman had craftily omitted the actual ultra-conservative report, and Bill Brown was duped. Without a transcription, without the letter count that you could see with a transcription, without measurements, without an overlay, without a comparison with the Brugsch fragments (see Justin's paragraph), there simply is not much there. And I would definitely allow that this is a potential evidence. Since the evidence that Sinaiticus is 1800s is multifold, corroborative and definite, it would make an interesting puzzle of "dueling impossibilities" if this did actually seem to be Sinaiticus. However, right now that is neither here nor there. ======================== The trick of the Sinaiticus authenticity position is the art of misdirection. This was begun by Tischendorf, by essentially ignoring and misrepresenting the physical condition of the two sections in Leipzig and St. Petersburg. And then pointing people to the facsmile edition. This was continued even in the 2011 Hendrickson edition, but the availability of the Codex Sinaiticus Project blew it wide open. If you research the colour tampering, the white parchment, the super-ink, the phenomenally good condition, the lack of provenance, the homoeoteleutons, and the historical imperative with the amazing coincidences, Simonides publishing Barnabas and Hermas, you can easily and clearly understand that Sinaiticus is a recent production. Steven
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Apr 20, 2017 5:01:51 GMT
The questions raised about the Nicholas Sarris fragment are at least a reasonable inquiry Based on what I've seen from you so far, I'm going to assume you're a KJV-Onlyist.
|
|
|
Post by stevenavery on Apr 20, 2017 16:53:39 GMT
The questions raised about the Nicholas Sarris fragment are at least a reasonable inquiry Based on what I've seen from you so far, I'm going to assume you're a KJV-Onlyist. I'm pretty open about my pro-AV position. It is not particularly relevant here, since I was quite happy with Sinaiticus as just a junk, corrupt manuscript (see John William Burgon and Herman Hoskier). when I supported its authenticity up to 2013. And the fellow who really pioneered the inquiry, Chris Pinto, has a more general Received Text position. There is very little in the Sinaiticus discussions that relate to the AV. Other than conclusions that end up showing some additional real problems in how the textual critics do manuscripts. Steven
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Apr 21, 2017 3:07:11 GMT
Based on what I've seen from you so far, I'm going to assume you're a KJV-Onlyist. I'm pretty open about my pro-AV position. Yeah but it's more than just pro-KJV, isn't it? It's hardcore KJVO. The last drop of your dwindling credibility just disappeared down the toilet. Your opposition to Sinaiticus is clearly motivated by the threat it presents to the KJVO position. I have never met a KJV Onlyist who accepted Sinaiticus.
|
|
|
Post by stevenavery on Apr 21, 2017 22:21:41 GMT
Congratulations on giving a textbook example of falling headlong into the genetic fallacy.
==========
Plus mixing two totally different issues.
1) Sinaiticus is an oddball corrupt text (well known from Burgon and Hoskier, who were not AV defenders, and the Sinaiticus text even has significant differences even from Vaticanus in 3000 spots just in the Gospels. Clearly it can not be a pure or reliable or accurate text, by any standard, even if you winked at the obvious blunders, by any standard at all.
2) Sinaiticus is an 1800s creation.
All TR and AV defenders and many eclectics assert accept (1). It is simple logic. The idea that it is a "reliable manuscript" is simply illogical, a laugher.
While (2) is based on very specific evidences that became abundantly clear after 2009. People can see that from a variety of different positions. It is an evidentiary and historical analysis. Those who can not deal with the evidence revert to a modern ad hominem attempt, with the attendant genetic fallacy.
Steven
|
|
|
Post by evangelion on Apr 22, 2017 1:43:25 GMT
Congratulations on giving a textbook example of falling headlong into the genetic fallacy. I don't think you understand what the genetic fallacy is. Dean Burgon was absolutely an AV defender; the entire KJVO movement can be traced to his whacky ideas. The rest of your post is just nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by wraggy on Apr 22, 2017 14:14:45 GMT
Edward Hills was a fan of Burgon too. I remember Dean William Burgon being described as the last great defender of lost causes. I probably still have both Hills and Burgon packed away in a box with other old books somewhere.
|
|
|
Post by stevenavery on Apr 24, 2017 3:25:21 GMT
Dean Burgon was absolutely an AV defender. In the limited comparative sense that he considered the Westcott-Hort recension as producing a vastly inferior edition. And was using faux textual principles. However, Burgon wanted to change the AV text in hundreds of places. His actual position was a bit of an unclear hybrid, one where he would tend to Greek Byzantine Majority readings over the Received Text behind the AV. You can see this clearly in: A Textual commentary upon the Holy Gospels: Largely from the use of materials, and mainly on the text, left by J.W. Burgon: Matthew 1-14 (1899) Edward Miller catalog.hathitrust.org/Record/100872413Burgon was 100% right about the abject corruption of Sinaitcius. However, he could only work off the Tischendorf facsimile. Today we have the evidence that shows that Sinaiticus was in fact an 1800s production. e.g. the BEFORE and AFTER colouring. The homoeoteleutons. The condition of the white parchment in Leipzig. And the historical imperative from simply studying the Sinaiticus controversies. Steven
|
|
|
Post by maestroh33 on Jul 22, 2017 18:39:45 GMT
When you are dealing with childish reactive posting, it is generally designed to make a phantom point, with hubris, then run, then acknowledge nothing. I treat you as a child for the simple reason you continue to repeat the same long ago refuted nonsense over and over. Like a child desperately believing a big, fat man in a red suit with white beard came down your chimney and left presents – you hold to utter delusions and pretend to be doing scholarship. You cannot read Greek. You cannot collate a manuscript. You cannot read French (more on this and your monumental blunder in a moment) You do not even know the entire Greek alphabet. And yet you post on subjects you literally know nothing about except how to spin a good yarn. There is no "complaining" involved. This is simple research and study, logic and sense.
But you can’t do research on something you don’t even know the basics. This is called argumentum ad verecundiam, as I’ve told you for years and you don’t stop doing it. Plus what is the absurdity of "predates the monastery by two centuries"?You seriously don’t know what’s being said here? It’s kind of introductory level stuff. Any record at any time before 1840 at the St. Catherine's Monastery would be a powerful evidence.
You pretend here online among the others to be driven by evidence. And yet you write garbage like this in your private, censored forum: www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1383085408450011/“New Testament books are pre-70 AD, Gospels are c. 40-45 AD” You have ZERO evidence of this, and only someone who has never sat down with a Greek synopsis (or like yourself has a hidden agenda) would argue that Luke was the first written gospel. When you deal with what are purported to be ancient items, provenance is a key element. But it isn’t the ONLY element, either. Is it? Nope. As Snapp informed you years ago, a manuscript can’t exactly be discovered BEFORE it’s discovered. If we applied your argument here to every single manuscript then we would have no ancient ones at all. How do you know that it really comes from point A, and has been there a long time?Historical agnosticism is the cry of the ignorant. You are naively pretending that if we don’t know something 100% then we know it 0%, an absurd either/or fallacy to put it mildly. What if it was strategically placed more recently?Ah, appealing to a conspiracy theory!!!! And how could Simonides even consider making the claim of being involved in the production of Sinaiticus (supposedly a petty pique in irritation against Tischendorf) if a simple catalogue entry or traveler report was likely to prove him wrong? Why would Richard Nixon engage in Watergate knowing he had a taping system in the White House? Furthermore, you’re not being honest with your readers here. Simonides did not claim he “was involved” with it – he claimed he did the ENTIRE THING himself with minimal assistance from his dead uncle, who allegedly made the corrections. In fact, we know that even you don’t believe Simonides did it by himself. On January 3, 2016, Steven Avery Spenser (his real name, which he hides from the world while pretending to be honest and transparent) wrote the following on his self-validating forum: www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?120-what-of-Sinaiticus-by-Simonides&highlight=Simonides“In the late manuscript theory, Simonides would almost have to be one of the scribes. Clearly, he did not do all the text” The problem for your theory is that he claimed otherwise. Over and over throughout his arrogant boasting, Simonides over and over says he did this manuscript all by himself in a very short period of time. Now let’s turn your dubious question around – why would Simonides claim he did it all by himself when the evidence is so obvious that even a dilettante such as yourself who cannot even read it realizes that Simonides had to be lying? See – anyone can play that game. These would be third-party, independent evidences, which are a different type of evidence than words internal to the manuscript. (Such as the Pamphilius colophons, claiming antiquity, which could simply have been placed using the Coislinianus exemplar.)Ah, but where are the third party independent evidences supporting Simonides? Oh that’s right, there are none!!! Just a finely woven tale of nonsense. Lets take the catalogue issue. In point of fact, when the Simonides claims became public, Simonides was rebutted specifically by a reference to the supposed fact that Sinaiticus could be found in the ancient catalogues. This was potentially a strong argument, except that it was bogus then and is still bogus now, in 2017, with all the research at St. Catherine's. There has never been a trace of Sinaticus found in any monastery library catalogue before the later 1800s. You continue to reference irrelevancies. There’s also no evidence Simonides himself wrote it, which you keep claiming. Here are extracts showing how central this claim was in the contentious 1860s claims and counter-claims.Yes, let’s pretend link by argument is a form of scholarly engagement. Let’s pretend nothing has been written since 1860 on the subject shall we. This kind of turning in a plagiarism of the World Book Encyclopedia for a grade may have been acceptable in Queens back in the 1950s, but I would hope you would have moved on to a higher level of actual scholarship. Now, a person defending authenticity could say .. "oops, this looks like an honest error, perhaps there was no catalogue" or "perhaps the manuscript was in a special place, and did not make it into catalogues".But this doesn’t prove anything now, does it? Nope. You’re assuming you can impose modern standards on long ago things. Fair enough, albeit a bit weak. However, only a person devoid of the ability to discuss logically and properly (in this case, Bill Brown) would call the point "absurd". I appreciate your ad hominem as it tells from whence you come, though as you’ve engaged me on this before, you know full well that I can make you look far more foolish with actual evidence, be it your insanely stupid blunder about claiming Colbertinus as an Old Latin witness for 1 John 5:7 (because you had not even bothered to read introductory works), your misquoting of a French source in your favor because you don’t read French, or your repetitive one-note blaring about Greek solecisims when you – by your own admission – cannot even read the language. Note that the difference is that you did nothing but insult me while I proved your scholarly ineptitude. Your credibility gap has now reached Grand Canyon levels. Notice how Bill Brown is the master of the throwaway junk point.Note how Avery, who hides his real name and his lack of training, insults someone pointing out his ineptitude. He writes something silly in one minute, aggressively and with insults, and it will take maybe an hour to properly scholastically show the truth of the matterIf it takes an hour to show the truth then it most likely is a detailed production in spin as opposed to truth. In this case, I did not mind, because putting these quotes together is a fine study on its own account. Simply remember his technique when you see the reactive posting. Thanks! So far you’ve been corrected multiple times by the persons on this board, so I’m guessing you have a far greater reality deficit than I ever dreamed. This is also why I request readers to tell me if there is a point, among the counterpoints, that you really consider salient. Then we can go into it, iron sharpeneth.Well, let’s now use some common sense and demolish his Claromontanus theory once and for all shall we. Not that he will not have a convoluted gymnastic explanation but let’s just use our brains. Steven Avery Spenser, the Trinity denying/non-Greek reading/KJV Onlyist who has been banned from multiple sites due to his inability to get along or even disagree charitably, has informed us he has settled an age-old argument – he has somehow now been able to prove that Simonides used Claromontanus as one his manuscripts to write Sinaiticus. Now we must ask the OBVIOUS question……why didn’t Simonides simply claim to have used Claromontanus and produced his materials? If this were true then the entire argument would have been over and Simonides would have gained his revenge against Tischendorf. All he had to do was say, “I used Claromontanus in these spots,” and that would have been it. Why didn’t he say this? For the obvious reason – because he didn’t use Claromontanus. Avery Spenser is claiming something that not even Simonides himself was stupid enough to try to claim. But let’s go one better. In his September 3, 1862 letter to “The Guardian,” Simonides quotes from a letter he claims is from Constantius the patriarch thanking him for his gift of Sinaiticus. But where was this alleged letter ever brought forth? THIS would have been the ironclad proof for HIS position that Avery Spenser demands. But it was never brought forth because – wait for it – it never actually existed. Simonides CLAIMED this letter was given him by Constantius, but he never showed it to anyone trying to put the story together. Why? Because it didn’t exist. These are base-level problems with the contention of Avery Spenser. Indeed, in both cases Simonides would have blown Tischendorf’s credibility off the face of the earth forever. But he didn’t produce either Claromontanus or the letter because he was lying, plain and simple. He was lying about writing it all by himself as even Avery Spenser’s theory has to admit. Avery dismisses the alleged earlier sightings of the manuscript with the old “they may have been mistaken.” Fine and dandy, but you don’t get to merely assume inauthenticity and then not deal with its problems, either, and this cannot be done. No reputable scholar of the last century has seen this thing as a 19th century forgery – whether liberal or conservative theologically (remember, we’re being told that’s suddenly important when we’re talking dating the books of the NT). The simple fact is that Simonides is a liar, and Steven Avery Spenser of the phony name is a non-scholar who really shouldn’t even be given the time of day by those involved in manuscript research. He does not possess skills that would net him even an undergrad degree in languages, knows nothing of textual criticism, nothing of paleography, and makes basic first-week associate degree level mistakes that would embarrass anyone with even minimal scholarly competence. 1) Avery Misquotes a French Source forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/early-church-fathers/48743-vulgate-prologue-to-the-canonical-epistles?p=2266174#post22661742) Avery First Claims Colbertinus is an OL witness then takes months to admit his error forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/king-james-only/60053-old-latin-ms-support-of-the-heavenly-witnesses?p=2821519#post2821519As Yoda might say, “The unscholarly nonsense is strong in this one.”
|
|
|
Post by maestroh33 on Jul 22, 2017 18:44:59 GMT
Congratulations on giving a textbook example of falling headlong into the genetic fallacy. I don't think you understand what the genetic fallacy is. Dean Burgon was absolutely an AV defender; the entire KJVO movement can be traced to his whacky ideas. The rest of your post is just nonsense. You're correct. He has no earthly idea of actual logical fallacies, and the post is incoherent. Pay attention to his constant misdirection. He will weave in and out and try to reference 2009 and then work his way back to quotes in 1860 if he thinks they'll support him. If I had a seminary student with this level of incoherence, I'd have him sent for a psych evaluation.
|
|
|
Post by maestroh33 on Jul 22, 2017 18:45:49 GMT
Based on what I've seen from you so far, I'm going to assume you're a KJV-Onlyist. I'm pretty open about my pro-AV position. It is not particularly relevant here, since I was quite happy with Sinaiticus as just a junk, corrupt manuscript (see John William Burgon and Herman Hoskier). when I supported its authenticity up to 2013. And the fellow who really pioneered the inquiry, Chris Pinto, has a more general Received Text position. There is very little in the Sinaiticus discussions that relate to the AV. Other than conclusions that end up showing some additional real problems in how the textual critics do manuscripts. Steven You assume correctly. And an ignorant one at that.
|
|
|
Post by stevenavery on Nov 15, 2017 4:13:09 GMT
First, lets take the genetic fallacy. What we have had here is:
"You believe the Authorized Version is the pure word of God, therefore what you say about Sinaiticus must be wrong"
This is classic genetic fallacy, quite obviously.
============
In point of fact, I largely rejected the Sinaiticus theories for some years, even while embracing the AV. It did not really matter to me one way or another, since Sinaiticus was obviously, textually and scribally, very corrupt. I have read Burgon and others.
So I thought Chris Pinto made some interesting historical points at first, but not enough for serious questioning. I saw he was being treated unfairly, so decided to try to follow the issues. At this time, the full range of evidences we have now was not available. And I am involved with the textual forums, where there has long been a presumption of Sinaiticus authenticity, so I was slow to change my position.
Probably the first key event that changed this was the fact that we could actually see online the colouring of the ms. How the 1844 Leipzig ms. was pristine, unstained white, while the 1859 St. Petersburg section was a stained yellowish. And I knew that this fit exactly what had been alleged in 1863.
Later, many other powerful evidences of the 1800s creation became available.
=============
Most of Bill Brown's posts are so childish, I will simply go on with the Sinaiticus information here, if there is a culture of interest. Time is quite valuable, we just came back from a month in Israel (lots of real Nazareth research and connections.)
Steven
|
|
|
Post by stevenavery on Nov 15, 2017 4:42:39 GMT
Let's get to the one section of actual Sinaiticus interest rather than whining and blah-blah. "incoherent" lol somehow now been able to prove that Simonides used Claromontanus as one his manuscripts to write Sinaiticus. Bill Brown simply does not know the history. Most of the collation and prep work was done by Vissarion (Benedict). Thus Simonides would not know all the specific ins and outs of development. David W. Daniels has been doing superb research on Vissarion and the related figures of the times. Now we must ask the OBVIOUS question……why didn’t Simonides simply claim to have used Claromontanus and produced his materials? If this were true then the entire argument would have been over and Simonides would have gained his revenge against Tischendorf. All he had to do was say, “I used Claromontanus in these spots,” and that would have been it. Why didn’t he say this? For the obvious reason – because he didn’t use Claromontanus. Avery Spenser is claiming something that not even Simonides himself was stupid enough to try to claim. Possibly, if he had the materials handy to show the homoeoteleutons and if he had been involved in that part of the ms. prep. However, he probably did not even know that Claromontanus was part of the prep work. Plus, the contras would simply say "coincidence, who cares" as our head-in-the-sand crew does today. One gentleman who did have full access to Claromontanus in 1840 was Tischendorf, right in the key time for Sinaiticus development. There may have been some direct, or indirect, involvement. Plus there is a sister ms. Sangermanensis, that may have been utilized. Vissarion was quite learned and had many years of research and labour involved. The homoeoteuleutons are an incredible evidence. We rarely see such a relationship between any two manuscripts. It is incumbent for us to deal with the actual evidences, the facts on the ground. The only real solid explanation for the actual physical evidence is that Claromontanus, or a sister ms with the same layout, was used in the creation of Sinaiticus. As for supposed petty revenge against Tischendorf, that is really a dumb attempt to ascribe a motive. Even Scrivener would not buy that one (he was fairly close to the UK situation and tried to write about Sinaiticus without ever having seen the ms.) and Scrivener thought that Simonides might have mixed up two mss. If there was not some involvement, the Simonides story would unravel in 10 minutes. There would simply be a verifiable history, some provenance for the ms, even going back to 1830, and Simonides would simply look foolish. However, he knew there was no such provenance since the ms arrived in Sinai after 1840, not 500 or 700 AD. Thus, Simonides knew that it was impossible for the ms to show up in any monastery catalog. But let’s go one better. In his September 3, 1862 letter to “The Guardian,” Simonides quotes from a letter he claims is from Constantius the patriarch thanking him for his gift of Sinaiticus. But where was this alleged letter ever brought forth? THIS would have been the ironclad proof for HIS position that Avery Spenser demands. But it was never brought forth because – wait for it – it never actually existed. Simonides CLAIMED this letter was given him by Constantius, but he never showed it to anyone trying to put the story together. Why? Because it didn’t exist. Does Bill Brown have some source to provide verification that the letter was never shown to anybody? Plus, have the London and Liverpool archives been checked? Clearly it would not necessarily be considered ironclad proof. e.g. It could be claimed to be a forgery (as occurred with the whole 1843 Barnabas edition and the Star of the East review!). Or it could be said that two mss were confused. In fact, this was the basic position of Scrivener. He felt that Simonides had been involved with a ms. much as he said, but that Sinaiticus was a different ms. Thus, those trying to defend the authenticity of Sinaticus would simply use a fallback position. The letter is given online here: The Journal of Sacred Literature - Oct, 1862 books.google.com/books?id=ybYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA249Constantius as the patriarch on the island of Antigonus has been confirmed by David W. Daniels, and will be in forthcoming videos and books. Note this section: Note: there are notes in the ms. with the name Dionysius. Plus one with the name of Hilarion. Notice that Simonides actively encouraged contact with these individuals. The fix was in by the contras however, and there is no indication whatsoever that William Wright and the Tischendorf partisans ever made any attempt to contact, e.g. Constantius or Prodromos. These are base-level problems with the contention of Avery Spenser. Indeed, in both cases Simonides would have blown Tischendorf’s credibility off the face of the earth forever. But he didn’t produce either Claromontanus or the letter because he was lying, plain and simple. He was lying about writing it all by himself as even Avery Spenser’s theory has to admit. Actually, he did acknowledge the participation of others in writing the ms. There is almost always a small degree of fudginess in describing collaborations. And we have the auxiliary amazing corraboration of his account when in 1895 and 1900 the Spyridon Lambrou catalog of mss at Athos showed that Benedict, Kallinikos and Simonides were all working on mss at Athos c. 1840! An amazing "coincidence". How did Simonides know in 1840 that there were would be a dispute in 1863 involving a ms that poofs into being right after 1840? Avery dismisses the alleged earlier sightings of the manuscript with the old “they may have been mistaken.” No, there are no actual solid sightings of the manuscript, period. The first sighting of Sinaiticus in the public arena, was Uspensky in 1845, that he wrote up in 1856. When Tishcendorf dumped the pristine white 43 leaves he had stolen (only in 1859 did he make up the creative fabrication that they were saved by fire) at the Leipzig library, where they came from was not indicated. In fact, from what I have seen so far, even after 1859 Tischendorf tried for a few years to avoid the connection between the St. Petersburg ms and the Leipzig section in his writings. Why? Well, for one thing, they look very different. Fine and dandy, but you don’t get to merely assume inauthenticity and then not deal with its problems, either, and this cannot be done. No reputable scholar of the last century has seen this thing as a 19th century forgery – whether liberal or conservative theologically (remember, we’re being told that’s suddenly important when we’re talking dating the books of the NT). Of course, nobody is assuming authenticity. As you well know, I took the opposite view for a year or two. It was only the continuing cascading of massive evidences that changed my position. As for the "problems", I think they have been dealt with quite nicely, thank you. Keep in mind that the key argument from Bill Brown is that Simonides was a forger, and a liar. If a forger, that would simply supply him with a "special set of skills" for the replica (or forgery) ms Sinaiticus. As for lying, what he says about Sinaiticus stands up generally very well to scrutiny. Of course, he may have been fudging the original motives, which might not have been as pristine as he indicated. One thing is very clear, his words about Sinaiticus in the 1840s are far more reliable than the blatant and brazen lies of Tischendorf. And he knew quite a bit of inside news about the monastery and the manuscript and Tischendorf (he could not speak Greek, he stole the ms, he coloured the ms.) As for the scholars, they got duped by Tischendorf, who lied about the history of the ms. he stole. It happens. Then they got entrapped by their own "deeply entrenched scholarship" (Malcolm Choat). After 2009, we had the ability to unravel the deception. Even then, it took the historian/journalist sense of Chris Pinto to encourage examination. Chris brought up the issue even without knowing, or having, the massive evidences now available. He did not know that the pages turn smoothly as the ms is in "phenomenally good condition", that they have no grime on the edges after a supposed 1500 years of heavy travel and monastery use, that Morozov said that they could not possibly be of ancient use, that the colouring was easy to see just like Kallinikos had accused and that we have a BEFORE and AFTER in Leipzig and England, that Donaldson had shown that linguistically it was a later production, that the Simonides 1843 Barnabas could be verified, that the Uspensky account unravels more Tischendorf lies even beyond the self-aggrandizing "saved from the fire", that Sinaiticus has homoeoteluetons from Claromontanus, and much more. Chris just dealt with the historical sense, and hit the target perfectly! (He did know the James Anson Farrer study of 1907 and the coincidence of Hermas and the Tischendorf retraction of his accusation on Hermas and a bit more.) Steven
|
|