Steven Avery
Administrator
The Revelation of John part of The Holy Bible
David Robert Palmer
https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf
“Hoskier in Volume 1 where he discusses 1678 says that the family of 052 1678 1778 2080 is a very old text type, and he estimates it to be about 50 years older than that of Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ). He gives some examples of where ℵ conflates the reading of the 052 family with that of another line.”
===========
Wow. ... quite unusual that manuscripts from c. AD. 1000-1500 would be considered as an older text than Sinaiticus, which has been theorized as 4th century! Why?
Here is some ms. information of this family.
Hoskier calls these manuscripts the “Patmos group”, but “Athos group” might be more precise.
052 - (Hoskier F) Athos - Panteleimon - 1 chapter extant, 4 leaves - Codex Athous Panteleimon
1678 - (Hoskier 240) Athos, Panteleimon (wrong in Wikipedia) (derived from F, 052, a fuller copy)
1778 - (Hoskier 203) Thessaloniki - Vlatedes Monastery
2080 - (Hoskier 178) Patmos, Greece, monastery of St. John the theologian, wanting between xvii. 1-14 and lacks the end after xxii. 16.
Auxiliary
2020 - (Hoskier 38). Vatican Library, Vat.gr.579, fol. 22-46
The Hoskier pages with this idea of a text anterior to Sinaiticus
Hoskier - Concerning the Text of the Apokalypse
https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/page/727/mode/2up
p. 728 - Apoc 240
Our 240 is nearer to 178 than to 38, but really goes behind them both to a date somewhere in the third century, for besides reproducing practically all the rare readings of 178, it goes to the ancestor of א for many more. If א’s date be 350, our freshly resurrected readings, in agreement alone with א’s first hand, take us directly to the parent of א say to 300 or earlier.
p. 729 - Apoc 240
“xvii.5 ... which seems to make the text of א junior to (ms.) 240 ! ” - p.729
p. 392 - Apoc 119
“א had already conflated … Surely here is a case where we may say that our poor little overlooked XVth cent. junior MS. and its group goes back of and behind א !” -
The main reason for dating the text of this family earlier than Sinaiticus?
Conflations in the Sinaiticus text for which the family mss supply one component, and there are no early manuscripts.
(The corollary is that there are many surprising Sinaiticus agreements, which is consistent with the mss. being connected.)
However, there is a smoother understanding that explains the conflations in a much simpler manner.
Rather than the awkward conclusion that late medieval mss. have a super-early text, before Sinaiticus (!) consider Sinaiticus as a late manuscript, posterior to the family 1678. Then the conflations are a natural textual happenstance!
Are textual theorists allowed to consider with a tabula rasa?
Can they dream the impossible dream?
Hmmmmmm…
==================================
www.facebook.com
Sinaiticus and Revelation conflations The Revelation of John part of The Holy Bible David Robert Palmer https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf “Hoskier in Volume 1 where he discusses 1678 says that the family of 052 1678 1778 2080 is a very old text type, and he estimates it to be about 50 years older than that of Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ). He gives some examples of where ℵ conflates the reading of the 052 family with that of another line.” =========== Wow. ... quite unusual that manuscripts from c. AD. 1000-1500 would be considered as an older text than Sinaiticus, which has been theorized as 4th century! Why? Here is some ms. information of this family. Hoskier calls these manuscripts the “Patmos group”, but “Athos group” might be more precise. 052 - (Hoskier F) Athos - Panteleimon - 1 chapter extant, 4 leaves - Codex Athous Panteleimon 1678 - (Hoskier 240) Athos, Panteleimon (wrong in Wikipedia) (derived from F, 052, a fuller copy) 1778 - (Hoskier 203) Thessaloniki - Vlatedes Monastery 2080 - (Hoskier 178) Patmos, Greece, monastery of St. John the theologian, wanting between xvii. 1-14 and lacks the end after xxii. 16. Auxiliary 2020 - (Hoskier 38). Vatican Library, Vat.gr.579, fol. 22-46 And lets look directly at the Herman Hoskier pages with this idea of a text anterior to Sinaiticus Hoskier - Concerning the Text of the Apokalypse https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/page/727/mode/2up p. 728 - Apoc 240 Our 240 is nearer to 178 than to 38, but really goes behind them both to a date somewhere in the third century, for besides reproducing practically all the rare readings of 178, it goes to the ancestor of א for many more. If א’s date be 350, our freshly resurrected readings, in agreement alone with א’s first hand, take us directly to the parent of א say to 300 or earlier. p. 729 - Apoc 240 “xvii.5 ... which seems to make the text of א junior to (ms.) 240 !” - p.729 p. 392 - Apoc 119 “א had already conflated … Surely here is a case where we may say that our poor little overlooked XVth cent. junior MS. and its group goes back of and behind א !” The main reason for dating the text of this family earlier than Sinaiticus? Conflations in the Sinaiticus text for which the family mss supply one component, and there are no early manuscripts. (The corollary is that there are many surprising Sinaiticus agreements, which is consistent with the mss. being connected in copying.) However, there is a smoother understanding that explains the conflations in a much simpler manner. Rather than the awkward conclusion that late medieval mss. have a super-early text, before Sinaiticus (!) consider Sinaiticus as a late manuscript, posterior to the family 1678. Then the conflations are a natural textual happenstance! Are textual theorists allowed to consider with a tabula rasa? Can they dream the impossible dream?
========
Panteleimon (Russico) monastery, on Mt. Athos, is a special spot in Sinaiticus studies, home base for Benedict and Constantine Simonides, in the alternative production scenario. Any unusual (anachronistic) conflation or textual agreement elements that involve Panteleimon manuscripts should be studied with a tabula rasa!
Yes, there is additional wackiness in Sinaiticus as 4th century Revelation, such as the puzzling idea that it is a precursor to the Andreas and Oecumenius commentaries.
And there have been slip-ups in the Sinairicus Revelation “scholarship”.
. The 4th-century theory leads to lots of misdirection.
=========
Messianic Standpoint -
why is the Sinaiticus Revelation so bad? - e.g. anachronisms that are very difficult for the “consensus” 4th century date?
If textual analysis was not subject to a lemming fallacy, the connections of Sinaiticus Revelation with the Patmos/Athos group (Hoskier 178) would be actively,studied, to look for the vectors of connection.
In the meantime, the SART group will do some studies in that area. We will look at verses where Hoskier said his Group 178 is a component of a Sinaiticus conflation!
Right now, the ones of special interest, using some Hoskier notes, are:
Revelation 9:20
Revelation 17:5
Revelation 22:20
And I am setting up a post for each one of these on PBF:
Revelation conflations in Sinaiticus noted by Hoskier
(Request for ECM info!)
This is a subset of:
all Sinaiticus Revelation anachronistic conflations
all Sinaiticus anachronistic conflations
Jude 1:3 “salvation and life” is an example, and has its own post.
The Eusebian canons also have a conflation, pointed out by Dirk Jongkind. This is discordant with the early date, since it takes time for two distinct canon entries to develop and then combine.
Overall, there are a plethora of Sinaiticus quirks that bewray the early date theory.
As an example, why does the Zurich Psalter connect with Sinaiticus corrector Ca?
Tip of the Sinaiticus anachronism iceberg!
David Robert Palmer
https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf
“Hoskier in Volume 1 where he discusses 1678 says that the family of 052 1678 1778 2080 is a very old text type, and he estimates it to be about 50 years older than that of Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ). He gives some examples of where ℵ conflates the reading of the 052 family with that of another line.”
===========
Wow. ... quite unusual that manuscripts from c. AD. 1000-1500 would be considered as an older text than Sinaiticus, which has been theorized as 4th century! Why?
Here is some ms. information of this family.
Hoskier calls these manuscripts the “Patmos group”, but “Athos group” might be more precise.
052 - (Hoskier F) Athos - Panteleimon - 1 chapter extant, 4 leaves - Codex Athous Panteleimon
1678 - (Hoskier 240) Athos, Panteleimon (wrong in Wikipedia) (derived from F, 052, a fuller copy)
1778 - (Hoskier 203) Thessaloniki - Vlatedes Monastery
2080 - (Hoskier 178) Patmos, Greece, monastery of St. John the theologian, wanting between xvii. 1-14 and lacks the end after xxii. 16.
Auxiliary
2020 - (Hoskier 38). Vatican Library, Vat.gr.579, fol. 22-46
The Hoskier pages with this idea of a text anterior to Sinaiticus
Hoskier - Concerning the Text of the Apokalypse
https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/page/727/mode/2up
p. 728 - Apoc 240
Our 240 is nearer to 178 than to 38, but really goes behind them both to a date somewhere in the third century, for besides reproducing practically all the rare readings of 178, it goes to the ancestor of א for many more. If א’s date be 350, our freshly resurrected readings, in agreement alone with א’s first hand, take us directly to the parent of א say to 300 or earlier.
p. 729 - Apoc 240
“xvii.5 ... which seems to make the text of א junior to (ms.) 240 ! ” - p.729
p. 392 - Apoc 119
“א had already conflated … Surely here is a case where we may say that our poor little overlooked XVth cent. junior MS. and its group goes back of and behind א !” -
The main reason for dating the text of this family earlier than Sinaiticus?
Conflations in the Sinaiticus text for which the family mss supply one component, and there are no early manuscripts.
(The corollary is that there are many surprising Sinaiticus agreements, which is consistent with the mss. being connected.)
However, there is a smoother understanding that explains the conflations in a much simpler manner.
Rather than the awkward conclusion that late medieval mss. have a super-early text, before Sinaiticus (!) consider Sinaiticus as a late manuscript, posterior to the family 1678. Then the conflations are a natural textual happenstance!
Are textual theorists allowed to consider with a tabula rasa?
Can they dream the impossible dream?
Hmmmmmm…
==================================
NT Textual Criticism | # Sinaiticus and Revelation conflations | Facebook
# Sinaiticus and Revelation conflations The Revelation of John part of The Holy Bible David Robert Palmer...
www.facebook.com
Sinaiticus and Revelation conflations The Revelation of John part of The Holy Bible David Robert Palmer https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf “Hoskier in Volume 1 where he discusses 1678 says that the family of 052 1678 1778 2080 is a very old text type, and he estimates it to be about 50 years older than that of Codex Sinaiticus (ℵ). He gives some examples of where ℵ conflates the reading of the 052 family with that of another line.” =========== Wow. ... quite unusual that manuscripts from c. AD. 1000-1500 would be considered as an older text than Sinaiticus, which has been theorized as 4th century! Why? Here is some ms. information of this family. Hoskier calls these manuscripts the “Patmos group”, but “Athos group” might be more precise. 052 - (Hoskier F) Athos - Panteleimon - 1 chapter extant, 4 leaves - Codex Athous Panteleimon 1678 - (Hoskier 240) Athos, Panteleimon (wrong in Wikipedia) (derived from F, 052, a fuller copy) 1778 - (Hoskier 203) Thessaloniki - Vlatedes Monastery 2080 - (Hoskier 178) Patmos, Greece, monastery of St. John the theologian, wanting between xvii. 1-14 and lacks the end after xxii. 16. Auxiliary 2020 - (Hoskier 38). Vatican Library, Vat.gr.579, fol. 22-46 And lets look directly at the Herman Hoskier pages with this idea of a text anterior to Sinaiticus Hoskier - Concerning the Text of the Apokalypse https://archive.org/details/Hoskier-ConcerningTheTextOfTheApokalypse/page/727/mode/2up p. 728 - Apoc 240 Our 240 is nearer to 178 than to 38, but really goes behind them both to a date somewhere in the third century, for besides reproducing practically all the rare readings of 178, it goes to the ancestor of א for many more. If א’s date be 350, our freshly resurrected readings, in agreement alone with א’s first hand, take us directly to the parent of א say to 300 or earlier. p. 729 - Apoc 240 “xvii.5 ... which seems to make the text of א junior to (ms.) 240 !” - p.729 p. 392 - Apoc 119 “א had already conflated … Surely here is a case where we may say that our poor little overlooked XVth cent. junior MS. and its group goes back of and behind א !” The main reason for dating the text of this family earlier than Sinaiticus? Conflations in the Sinaiticus text for which the family mss supply one component, and there are no early manuscripts. (The corollary is that there are many surprising Sinaiticus agreements, which is consistent with the mss. being connected in copying.) However, there is a smoother understanding that explains the conflations in a much simpler manner. Rather than the awkward conclusion that late medieval mss. have a super-early text, before Sinaiticus (!) consider Sinaiticus as a late manuscript, posterior to the family 1678. Then the conflations are a natural textual happenstance! Are textual theorists allowed to consider with a tabula rasa? Can they dream the impossible dream? Hmmmmmm…
========
Panteleimon (Russico) monastery, on Mt. Athos, is a special spot in Sinaiticus studies, home base for Benedict and Constantine Simonides, in the alternative production scenario. Any unusual (anachronistic) conflation or textual agreement elements that involve Panteleimon manuscripts should be studied with a tabula rasa!
Yes, there is additional wackiness in Sinaiticus as 4th century Revelation, such as the puzzling idea that it is a precursor to the Andreas and Oecumenius commentaries.
And there have been slip-ups in the Sinairicus Revelation “scholarship”.
. The 4th-century theory leads to lots of misdirection.=========
Messianic Standpoint -
why is the Sinaiticus Revelation so bad? - e.g. anachronisms that are very difficult for the “consensus” 4th century date?
If textual analysis was not subject to a lemming fallacy, the connections of Sinaiticus Revelation with the Patmos/Athos group (Hoskier 178) would be actively,studied, to look for the vectors of connection.
In the meantime, the SART group will do some studies in that area. We will look at verses where Hoskier said his Group 178 is a component of a Sinaiticus conflation!
Right now, the ones of special interest, using some Hoskier notes, are:
Revelation 9:20
Revelation 17:5
Revelation 22:20
And I am setting up a post for each one of these on PBF:
Revelation conflations in Sinaiticus noted by Hoskier
Revelation conflations in Sinaiticus noted by Hoskier
The Revelation of John part of The Holy Bible David Robert Palmer https://bibletranslation.ws/trans/revwgrk.pdf “Hoskier in Volume 1 where he discusses 1678 says that the family of 052 1678 1778 2080 is a very old text type, and he estimates it to be about 50 years older than that of Codex...
purebibleforum.com
(Request for ECM info!)
This is a subset of:
all Sinaiticus Revelation anachronistic conflations
all Sinaiticus anachronistic conflations
Jude 1:3 “salvation and life” is an example, and has its own post.
The Eusebian canons also have a conflation, pointed out by Dirk Jongkind. This is discordant with the early date, since it takes time for two distinct canon entries to develop and then combine.
Overall, there are a plethora of Sinaiticus quirks that bewray the early date theory.
As an example, why does the Zurich Psalter connect with Sinaiticus corrector Ca?
Tip of the Sinaiticus anachronism iceberg!
Last edited: