spots in Revelation with ununsual readings unexpected in Athos 1840

Steven Avery

See discussions in TRA Facebook with Luke Carpenter

helge evensen

great discussion and debate, a pioneering one at that.... there was one caller who asked Steven about Sinaiticus in Rev.11, in which chapter there is one reading (or more) that presumably isn't in the MSS available to Simonides but only found afterwards in papyrus 47, discovered after the 19th century (?)... for how could Kallijnikos or Simonides have been the originators of a reading first discovered in a papyrus in the 20th cent. ? ... but isn't that a little narrow-minded thinking? how is this a real problem? that they, in 1839-40 (?) had access to or knowledge of a reading which today is otherwise found only in P47? so they couldn't possibly have had that reading? so no MSS have disappeared that were available or extant in 1839? ... besides, aren't some readings copied/written by scribes just accidental,... maybe not so in this case though, it depends on what type of variant in Rev.11 it was referred to... but it may be relevant to mention that it was asserted by textual scholars who tried to diminish Harry Sturz' findings, re. some "distinctly" Byz. readings in the papyri, that some of the minor ones may have been "accidental"... so if a textual scholar thinks these may be accidental, would the same scholar deem the agreement between Simonides the scribe's copying and P47 as inconceivable ?? or would the textual scholar continue to "tin-foil-hat" those who think that is a possibility or even a probability ? (if accidental agreement is possible in the case of the reading in question in Rev.11) ... or even the probability of a MS no longer extant or known, but which was extant or available in 1839-40 ...? (independent of whether or not one is defending or rejecting the authenticity of codex Sinaiticus,... and btw, the codex should be tested, by more than one "party", independently, if possible, verified by both sides, not just by those who want this codex to be a genuine ancient MS....) - the circumstance that a work is a forgery, does not mean that it cannot have drawn from extant sources! the codex is after all a copy of the NT !

Pure Bible

Pure Bible

Good points, Helge, although the specifics of any claims can be checked out. In fact, Revelation has a number of special elements. Revelation 4:8 even has a special youtube by Michael Swift correctly seeing the eight holies in Sinaiticus as a later Orthodox octoechos tweak, and totally inconsistent with 4th or 5th century Sinaiticus claims. HB4cHmzhojc In our discussion I pointed out the wild theory, circular to the false 4th century "deeply entrenched scholarship" that Sinaiticus was somehow a precursor to the Andreas commentary. The correct understanding is that the Andreas commentary was a source available to Benedict on Mt. Athos. If you put Revelation into the search engine (titles) you will find good stuff. Our first pass on these textual variant Revelation questions with Luke Carpenter is on: Textus Receptus Academy - Revelation 11:17-18 - Luke Carpenter - Alexandrinus The post from Luke and everybody during the debate are not available, I hope they show up. He may bring it up in Confessional Bibliology or the James Snapp group, or somewhere. You were part of a great comments section during the discussion.

The World's Oldest Bible is a Relic