CARM discussion on Sinaiticus debate - removed, losing some good discussion

[Steven Avery]

CARM
letter to 4Him

December 28, 2022
Hi ____,

Unfortunately, a good discussion on a thread called:

KJVO Sinaiticus Debate Review: Fake or Real
https://forums.carm.org/threads/kjvo-sinaiticus-debate-review-fake-or-real.12826/

at least 10 pages, was simply eliminated, without warning. (I would have saved the good stuff.) There was some absurd stuff on the thread, accusations of narcissism etc. but deleting the thread deleted a lot of good writing.

Can it be restored?
Permanently or temporarily?

Thanks!
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Where specifically is your claim of superseding scholarship on Donaldson? Please do not simply throw out a bunch of names that are not relevant to the question.

Thanks!
The question is one of Latinisms in general, and their localization. Thus for example, it might have been said that Ίσδραηλίτης is a latinism specific to Sinaiticus, but for sporadic evidence of its existence elsewhere in Egypt:

"The second spelling is that of Ίσδραηλίτης for ’Ισραηλίτης, which
is found in Sinaiticus in eight cases out of nine where it occurs,
and which is found elsewhere only in Vaticanus, in the Old Latin, and in some papyri and other monuments from Egypt. Milne and
I discussed this in Scribes and Correctors (pp. 66—7), where we
quoted two inscriptions from Asia Minor in which the similar form Ίσδραηλίτης is found, and concluded that the argument was therefore not decisive."

In this field, there are many issues that cannot be instantly resolved due to lack of evidence. Scholars focus on those that can be. Donaldson maintained that his was only a conjecture, and never to be relied on as "proof" which is what you are wanting to do.

It's your job to prove why anyone would have translated a 5th century Palatine Latin document into Greek in the Levant, when it was clear from people like Tertullian that Hermas was widely read in the Greek in his day.


Steven Avery said:
As an ad hoc project moved along by an elderly gentleman and a newbie teenager, it makes sense. We even have the correspondence discussing the aborted, unfinished project.
Can you show another teenager as ever having attempted such a massive project? And exactly how did this teenager get hold of words like "Ίσδραηλίτης?"

 

[Steven Avery]

Steven Avery said:
Any Sinaiticus texts which show evidence of a retro-version translation from the Palatine tend to falsify the Sinaiticus fourth-century date. Yes, there is more to it, but that aspect should be crystal clear.
Yes but how do you know that the Palatine wasn't itself translated from a Sinaiticus-like Greek text?
Until you can give an accurate assessment of why the Palatine contains what it contains, how do know which was translated from which?

Steven Avery said:
So Hermas is one of many important textual elements.
You are missing the point that no early manuscripts of Hermas exist, and due to the fragmentary nature of the Sinaiticus Hermas, it seems likely that the writers of Hermas did not have good manuscripts from which to work from. It is possible that by the date of Sinaiticus, and in a Greek world given over to the encratic heresies, Hermas was fast losing status.

Steven Avery said:
Your "personal ends" comment is typical contra nonsense. Unless you want to claim that the Dindorf and Tischendorf linguistic and dating attacks on the Athous manuscript should not be taken seriously, because they were blinded by personal ends.
It's relevant because for most scholars, the issues with Hermas are auxilliary and only one factor to be considered amongst many others. But you are intent on making it a criticial issue as to dating. It can't be, if only due to the chaotic state of the manuscript evidence.