sense-line homoeoteleutons fit with Claromontanus as source for Sinaiticus

Steven Avery

Administrator
This was a rather amazing discovery.
Right in the sweet spot of the textual critics.


Codex Sinaiticus Authenticity Research
Homeoteleuton - Text Omitted Because Of Similar Endings
http://www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton.html


The web page gives a nice picture of what and occurred
And this leads to a number of pages, which right now focus on four cases. (There are more.)


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

homoeoteleuton textbook case ( 1 Corinthians 13:1-2) – W. R. Meyer
https://app.box.com/s/jnbxtg8et442xtsobklq8k830bwpyvnw

homoeoteleuton’s layman’s guide – Steven Avery
https://app.box.com/s/teozkmv0ifshfwdjne4vsgkmjlzjs4sn


discovery of homoeoteleutons – W.R. Meyer
A discovery of apparent homoeoteleutons in the Codex Sinaiticus (x)

https://app.box.com/s/2k4ihkp6op1appn4fw5egvsiw2kw01v2

1 Corinthians 2:14-15
https://app.box.com/s/4bwxnlvbqzcugckh8wwem2lpx39yf5jk

2 Corinthians 4:17
https://app.box.com/s/pf5eukn01i54q2sn2qzul88rr3u19y5o

Galatians 2:8
https://app.box.com/s/glglw14e41yehi0cs518f8ml4g3g954u

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

Forums

Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2936&start=20


=================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
NT sense-lines considered to be a sixth-century phenomenon

Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (1980)
Jack Finegan
https://books.google.com/books?id=fIcU1BFiMBgC&pg=PA40


§40. Codex Claromontanus (DP), in Paris, contains the thirteen Pauline Letters, then the so-called Canon Claromontanus, which will be described momentarily, and after that, probably added later, the Letter to the Hebrews. Again, the manuscript is bilingual, with the Greek on the left and the Latin on the right, and the pages are written colometrically, with twenty-one lines on the page (for sample pages of Greek and Latin, see Vogels, Specimina, Pis. 20-21). In this case the Latin is relatively independent of the Greek, and has been shown to be for the most part identical with the Latin text used by Lucifer of Cagliari in Sardinia in the fourth century (Souter p. 26). The so-called Canon Claromontanus, which stands in this manuscript immediately after the Letter to Philemon, is an incomplete list of the books of the OT and the NT, together with the number of lines in each. Written here in Latin, the list may go back to a Greek original of around A.D. 300. In its NT portion the list is reproduced in Souter pp. 194f. Reference in the Canon to the number of lines in a book is with the Latin word versus ...
So now, New Testament science will have to theorize that sense-lines, generally seen as a late Greek-Latin diglot phenomenon, occurred much earlier in the Greek transmission line. However, the "scholars" have been so busy trying to shore up Sinaiticus authenticity that they showed no interest in the textual phenomenon of these homoeoteleutons!

Sidenote:
The Canon Claromontanus may have helped guide the Sinaiticus book order.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Galatians 5 sense-lines, similar in Claromontanus to Sinaiticus

James Snapp highlights the sense-line colometric spacing of Claromontanus here:

Tuesday, February 14, 2017
Envy and Murder in Galatians 5

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2017/02/envy-and-murder-in-galatians-5.html

...
When considering whether copyists, in verse 19 and in verse 21, were likely to enlarge the list, or to shrink it, we should first be aware of the phenomenon known as colometric formatting. In some manuscripts, when the copyists encountered lists of names or other quantities which tended to begin or end in similar ways, they stopped aligning the right edge of the text-column, and used a verse-like format instead.

In some manuscripts, the entire text is written in sense-lines, like poetic verse (each measure is called a cola). (The stichoi-count in such manuscripts was not intended to represent the total number of lines, but of 16-syllable clusters, or
something like that.) As a result, much of the space in the right half of the column or columns of text is empty. There are not very many such manuscripts, probably because this format wasted so much space. The format was used more frequently in the genealogies (in Matthew 1 and Luke 3), in the Beatitudes, and in lists such as this one in Galatians 5.

Let’s take a look at one of the few surviving manuscripts in which the entire text is written in colometric format:
Codex Claromontanus, from the mid-400’s. In Codex Claromontanus, in Galatians 5, sometimes a line is occupied by just one, two, or three words. In the text of Galatians 5:19 in Codex Claromontanus, the term “adultery” (μοιχια, usually spelled μοιχεία) appears on the same line as the preceding words. This format could elicit the loss of the word, if a scriptorium-master, after reading aloud to the copyists, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are” jumped to the first indented item. In two minuscule manuscripts that have a somewhat special text of the Pauline Epistles, 330 and 2400, μοιχεία was initially omitted but was re-inserted after ἀκαθαρσία (uncleanness) as the third item in the list, as if such a mistake was made, but was almost immediately detected.

Galatians 5:19b-21
in Codex Claromontanus (06)

The colometric format had the advantage of making lists easy to read, if one could follow along with one’s finger or with a bookmark. On the other hand, if a copyist skipped a line – which could easily happen, when several terms in a list ended in the same combination of letters – it would be difficult to detect, since the text of a list, though shorter, would still make sense.

Let’s take a look at one of the few surviving manuscripts in which the entire text is written in colometric format:
Codex Claromontanus, from the mid-400’s. In Codex Claromontanus, in Galatians 5, sometimes a line is occupied by just one, two, or three words. In the text of Galatians 5:19 in Codex Claromontanus, the term “adultery” (μοιχια, usually spelled μοιχεία) appears on the same line as the preceding words. This format could elicit the loss of the word, if a scriptorium-master, after reading aloud to the copyists, “Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are” jumped to the first indented item. In two minuscule manuscripts that have a somewhat special text of the Pauline Epistles, 330 and 2400, μοιχεία was initially omitted but was re-inserted after ἀκαθαρσία (uncleanness) as the third item in the list, as if such a mistake was made, but was almost immediately detected.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Facebook - Pure Bible
Bryan Ross discussion
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1331450363613516/

===================
Good Morning Steven Avery. I spent a lot of time reviewing Sinaiticus.net since we spoke yesterday. I have a question about the "Homeoteleuton" Page. Are the readings discussed on that page unique to Codex Claromontanus or are the also found in the TR and its supporting MSS? If they are not unique to Codex Claromontanus it seems to me that defenders of Sinaiiticus would reply by saying that Codex Claromontanus does not have to be the source and therefore argue that their 4th century date is still valid. I would curious to know your thoughts on this question. Thanks.
Steven Avery Claromontanus --> Sinaiticus homoeoteleutons

Remember the issue is not the specific reading, the issue is that the lines in the source manuscript have to end with specific matching letters at the end of two lines that are in the same column.

(The specific precise letter-by-letter reading and the matching of local variants is significant, but that is a really techie area that requires special attention, and a scribe could easily make minor changes and errors, and can be working with multiple exemplars in an area, so it really has not been the major emphasis of study.)

And in general, the homoeoteleutons are "sense-lines" meaning that they are matching phrases (at the end of the line) not just random box-style source text. This makes a homoeoteleuton that makes "sense" very easy.

If you read Rohan's papers, you will see that these hts are sense-line. That means that Sinaiticus made sense, there was not gibberish, even before the correction. After the correction, you have the full filled-out scripture.

Sense-line manuscripts are not even extant from before the 6th century, and that is only in the Western diglot manuscripts. The idea that they existed in the 200s (or very early 300s) in Alexandria or Caesarea is highly unlikely, and itself would overhaul scribal and textual theory.

Not only that, you would have an amazing coincidence that, again and again, the unknown 3rd century manuscript matches the formatting of the manuscript that is the "fact on the ground" 6th century Claromontanus (or its sister manuscript.) This is not just the formatting of the text, it is also some auxiliary features (e.g. a short line after the homoeoteleuon in #1. In #4 there was a really neat auxiliary feature, if I remember as well.)

How did the unknown supposed exemplar match the formatting of Claromontanus so closely? You are talking centuries away, totally different styles of manuscripts (Claromontanus is a diglot) and totally different locales.

Coincidence and probabilities analysis are a general weak area of the textual critics today. (Take a look at the pic now on the top of this forum.)

The defenders of Sinaiticus authenticity have not really dealt with any of these issues. They just look for diversion responses.

Steven

Bryan Ross Good Morning Steven Avery,

I have been pondering your response since Sunday when you wrote it. I am still stuck on the following point. Are there examples of Homeoteleuton in Byzantine MSS for the same verses exemplified in Codex Claromontanus (I Cor. 13:1-2, 2:14-15, II Cor. 4:17). Are you absolutely sure that Codex Sinaiticus could not have obtained these Homeoteleuton from another source?


We have very few examples of homoeoteleuton in two extant mss, where the gap in one matches up to the text-lines in another.

The Primitive Text of the Gospels and Acts – (1914)
Albert Curtis Clark
https://archive.org/stream/primitivetextofg00clar...
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.

And I have not seen any such cases shown, generally ht is discussed only from the vantage of the target manuscript, and an unknown source text. One major exception is 2427, Archaic Mark, which was shown to be forgery because the Buttmann printed text lined up in various ways, including homoeoteleutons.

Now we can see clearly that Sinaiticus was copied from a sense-line mansucript, helping lead to the abundance of hts that are not gibberish.

Why has this not been studied and discussed earlier? I will conjecture. Since sense-line manuscripts are thought to be a later phenomenon (they “waste” precious parchment) it was just overlooked. Even though it was, looking back, rather obvious for many Sinaiticus omissions.

This could lead to an interesting study that looks at, e.g. 50 large phrase and verse and section omissions in Sinaiticus, emphasis on the ones with the corrections in the manuscript, and see to what extent they are sense-lines.

Defenders of Sinaiticus authenticity will always reply with one hand-wave or another, as well as misdirection. We have to work with the “facts on the ground”.

They indicate, extremely strongly, that Claromontanus or its unusual sister manuscript with the same formatting, was the exemplar for Sinaiticus.

To try to theorize a totally different manuscript, from a totally different region (e.g. Alexandria vs. Sardinia) and a totally different time (200s vs. 500s) having, again and again, the exact same formatting as Claromontanus, is simply a very difficult theory.

When you have extremely unlikely circumstances, you can still argue that the unlikely possibility is “valid”, in the sense that it could conceivably happen.

It is valid to theorize that the sun will come up green tomorrow. That does not mean we should seriously consider the probability.

It would help, for those claiming authenticity, if even one homoeoteleuton that matches Sinaiticus was found from some other manuscripts. Even Byzantine manuscripts from 1000 AD. While that would not help the 350 AD theory much, at least it would make a tiny lessening of the Claromontanus uniqueness.

Right now we have a solid cluster from Claromontanus that fits with it being a source in that area of Sinaiticus. This is an extremely strong evidence that:

a) The sense-line exemplar(s) of Siinaiticus includes later manuscripts. No NT sense-line manuscripts are known before about 600 AD.

b) Claromontanus or its sister was directly used in Sinaiticus

All we claim is that this is yet another extremely strong evidence that Sinaiticus is not an antiquity manuscript. And an extremely strong evidence that Sinaiticus was actually written in the 1800s.

Steven


Tischendorf with Clarmontanus c. 1840 in Paris

I have been working a bit on the timeline. If Tischendorf had active access to the Claromontanus ms. before 1841, then that is strong prima facie evidence that he was actually involved in preparing the Sinaiticus NT - either directly or by passing information down south to the Russico Rustlers (Simonides and crew). A bit amazing, perhaps hard to believe and accept, but it is our responsibility to follow the evidence, and the homoeteleutons are shouting very loud.

Here are some notes about the timeline, also helpful will be "Tischendorf in Paris" from the Tischendorf biography.

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

"If, on the other hand, competent judges decide that Professor Tischendorf is mistaken about this host of correctors, this will much shake our confidence in his conclusions with regard not only to the Codex Sinaiticus, but to other similar editions, about which he has laboured, certainly, with no small assiduity, as, for instance, the Codex Claromontanus."

Claromontanus was one of the major occupations of Tischendorf, published in 1852

Christian Remembrancer (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rPQDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA399

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

Does this Latin indicate that he was working on Claromontanus in 1841 or earlier ?

Codex Claromontanus; Sive, Epistulae Pauli Omnes. Graece Et Latine (1852)
Prologomena - Tischendorf - p. 36
https://books.google.com/books?id=dO1RAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR36

This Latin can help with the Tischendorf timeline.

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

Gregory - Textkritik - p. 105-109 (German)
https://books.google.com/books?id=aiR-vKx_uQ0C&pg=PA108

PIC OF GERMAN BELOW - 1840 and 1841 referenced

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

Tregelles in Horne (1860)
https://books.google.com/books?id=vS4XAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA192

Tischendorf used the ms in his 1849 GNT and there are some early notes from Tisch mentioned by Tregelles, and then the 1852 facsimile edition (note also p. 193, charged with Latinizing)

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

Modern Claromontanus bibliography that was helpful in tracking this down

Epp
https://books.google.com/books?id=eJMDCwAAQBAJ&pg=PA38

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

CONNECTIONS

Tischendorf working on Claromontanus in 1840 with the homoeoteleutons becomes a smoking gun that somehow he was also involved in the New Testament preparation, either directly or in some sort of Simonides collaboration

We have to follow the evidence. These are preliminary.

The first NT reference for Sinaiticus NT is Uspensky in 1845, written in 1856. This means that NT work could have gone on fairly late in the day, well after Tischendorf worked closely with Claromontanus.

Your thoughts ?

TWO TISCHENDORF LATIN PICS ON FACEBOOK CAN BE BROUGHT HERE[/QUOTE]

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

Steven Avery

Textual Mechanic had a reasonable page on Sinaiticus notes:
https://www.facebook.com/thetextualmechanic/posts/1519690218124037

He took my additions about other quotes, but when it came to my writing questioning the Tischendorf-declared dates for those writings, like a true dupe, Timothy N. Mitchell

Timothy Mitchell
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=511350094

, another modern textual criticism dupe, simply deletes it.

This is NOT Facebook "Timothy Mitchell"
https://www.facebook.com/timothy.mitchell.378?fref=ufi

Timothy would prefer his readers be totally ignorant of textual science issues, if they bump up against the sacred cow of Tischendorf's discovery of Sinaiticus. Not one word about how those supposed 12th century dates were assigned.

I would have to reconstruct my post, in the first one I simply asked if there was any science behind the 12th centruy dating available from David Parker or Timothy Mitchell. Even that was deleted! Showing that Timothy is very fearful of searching analysis.

And in a later post I pointed out that Tischendorf was far from a disinterested party in the 1860s in any determinations involving the scribes and materials of Sinaiticus. As most readers here fully understand!


And a good spot for asking (in your own words) about the claimed dates of the margin notes would be:

New Testament Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/11404207692/permalink/10154756668857693/

The forum is a little political, so if you ask, try not to mix it in with AV or TR stuff.

2014 - we were beginning inquiry:

PureBible
EMPHASIS Dionysius, Hilarion, Theophylact and medieval and Arabic writings
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/573020982789795/
 
Last edited:
Top