describing the scribal blunderama

[Steven Avery]

Burgon

Tischendorf - many obvious blunders

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

CARM = Ropes and Hilgenfeld
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-36#post-979267
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-39#post-986386

The Acts of the Apostles: The text of Acts, by J.H. Ropes (1926)
James Hardy Ropes (1866-1933)
https://books.google.com/books?id=8HTLwvfUpSkC&pg=PR48

Codex Sinaiticus is carelessly written, with many lapses of spelling due to the influence of dialectal and vulgar speech, and many plain errors and crude vagaries. Omissions by homeoteleuton abound, and there are many other careless omissions. All these gave a large field for the work of correctors, and the manuscript does not stand by any means on the same level of workmanship as B.

Common knowledge.

The scribal blunderama was also pointed out by Adolf Hilgenfeld (1823-1907) as described in the Theological Review:

The Theological review [ed. by C. Beard]., Volume 1 (1864)
https://books.google.com/books?id=QUAEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA220

p. 214
Undue weight, in his opinion, has been attached by the editor to the beauty and form of the uncial characters. An un-theological friend well versed in palaeography, whose opinion he asked, drew from an inspection of the writing the same conclusion at which Hilgenfeld had arrived through another process,—viz. that the MS. could not be older than the sixth century. It is curious to notice how learned and ingenious men deduce opposite inferences from the same data. The text of this Codex of the New Testament is disfigured by constant mis-spellings, and abounds in violations of all the laws of flexion and syntax.

p. 220
"hasty transcript by ignorant and incompetent scribes, whose astounding blunders have caused endless troubles to its numerous correctors . It abounds in omissions ; which can only be ascribed to haste, as this is not a usual fault in the worst manuscripts. Hilgenfold has given a list of these. Some blunders, resulting obviously from the same cause, are scarcely credible.

...

Judging from the instances alleged by Hilgenfeld, which have been taken from all parts of the New Testament, and which we have in every instance carefully verified by a reference to the original text, we should say that the Sinaitic text is generally very corrupt, abounding with extraordinary violations both of grammar and of sense. We have rarely turned to a single passage referred to by Hilgenfeld, without finding in the context some other example of corruption.

 

[Steven Avery]

Burgon
Revision Revised p. 318

The Revision Revised

books.google.com

 

[Steven Avery]

Journal of Sacred Literature (1865)
The Codex Sinaiticus
https://books.google.com/books?id=RGktAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA109

CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/kjvo-sinaiticus-debate-review-fake-or-real.12826/page-7#post-987189

Here the blundering scribal mess was noted.

Against these three points in favour of the early date claimed for the Codex Sinaiticus may be mentioned (1) the enormous number—20 or 30 on almost every page—of the most extraordinary violations both of grammar, sense, and spelling in the various readings. ... It is quite inconceivable how such constant blunders could have been made by the copyists of Alexandria, so famed for their skill in the fourth century. The Vat. and Alexandrian MSS. are nearly free from mistakes of this kind. p. 109