Zosimas 1821 Moscow Bible discussions on Facebook - Sirach and NIck Sayers

Steven Avery · May 20, 2023

Steven Avery · May 21, 2023

some Facebook supporters with special sets of skills - and pizazz helps
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...-special-sets-of-skills-and-pizazz-helps.719/

Nick Sayers
Alexander Thomson
Alan Stewart
more

Brett Mahlen
I would be glad to help.

Steven Avery · May 21, 2023

DriveHQ

PBF Summary
Make sure we have good SImonides and early summary

BCHF

Evseev

BDVB
David Daniels
Snapp

Steven Avery · May 21, 2023

Textus Receptus Assembly (2019)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/475654453280422/

Nick Sayers
Bryan Ross I should be finished comparing the first 2 chapters of Sirach tomorrow.
Bryan Ross I would say Aleph has been copied from the 1821 edition.
Steven Avery I have more written out, but will focus on comparison in what I have posted here first.
I am working on the 1821, just typing some of the text in digital form so it can be compared easily.

Nick Sayer
Sinaiticus has εμπιϲτευει but it is corrected to ἐμπιστευθήσεται. - the 1821 reading!

Nick Sayers
Verse 7 is completely omitted in Sinaiticus. The verse is omitted from ; to ; indicting the ; may have been in what B was copied from. It is the entire verse 7, nothing more or less.

Nick Sayers
So Verse most of verse 5 is missing from Sinaiticus, but so far, none of the 44 consecutive words are different from the 1821, which is remarkable.

Nick Sayer
So far the only actual difference besides omissions is the reading in verse 10 - ἶδε for εἶδε while Sinaiticus has the epsilon and the final nu with ειδεν.
This book below says such readings are insignificant:
Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence
Daniel W. Wallace
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=838A8BDUI5kC&pg=PA114
It is far too close to the 1821 to be coincidence.

Steven Avery
Bryan, ... We should have a good general answer withing two weeks or a month. Remember, just a couple of spots of highly unusual connection (and there are various types of connections, including things like shared errors and homoeoteleuton or almost identical text) is enough to write a paper and make a claim.
We are basically close to 100% confident that the evidences are there, some has been seen and there is work to do.
As for Kevin McGrane, there are a couple of spots where he makes good points (including possibly Barnabas 1843) and there are other spots where he is WAY off base, such as the Simonides-Kallinikos connection in Sypridon Lambrou Catalog in 1841 (we have a paper on that.) His theory is something like 600 AD. I would be happy to review all that with you.

Steven Avery
Can anything good come out of Facebook?
Yes, in terms of Sinaiticus studies.
David Daniels, myself, and others including Mark Michie have used Sinaiticus (and Messenger) as a base of our studies. In fact, the whole colour discovery involved our discussions on a special Sinaiticus group (still there.)
Zosimas is simply a continuation of the beneficial aspects of "Social" scholarly collaboration.

In the context of our project, any difference will have to be considered, even those that are textually "insignificant".
Over the next few weeks, maybe extended to a month or two or three, I believe we will be able to collate amazing evidences (this is also based on some discoveries back in 2017.) Nick has already made a superb contribution, just starting at a quasi-random spot from a url.
We may want to work for one collaborative paper. in publication, combining various skills and contacts and resources. (Greek reading and fluency skills, writing, publication, sharing, credentials, experience.) We may want to work for one collaborative paper, as the ideal method.
Perhaps I will set up a Zosimas collaboration group right here on Facebook, as well as on the Pure Bible Forum (which is still shaking out the change from vBulletin to Xenforo.)
As to public or private, not sure yet, maybe both. On the Pure Bible Forum, I am able to make sections private easily, while still having the public writing.
The bottom line is that Zosimas was used for sections of Sinaiticus, so the data is there, we just have to find it and organize it and share

.
Granted, we have to seek to be objective, sometimes the "facts on the ground" cry out!
Note: you do not have to be AV or TR to contribute to this project, in various ways. I have a number of contacts who have written and edited books who agree on the basics that the evidence supports Simonides & Company on Mt. Athos (the Russico Ramblers) making Sinaiticus. Generally they are not dyed-in-the-wool corruption version supporters, they hold a variety of positions on the pure Bible text.

Even without errors in Zosimas to match in this section, my sense is that we are getting a level of textual agreement, and homoeoteleuton, that is breaking the probability bank!

.
Your thoughts welcome!

Nick Sayers
A can’t yet figure out how to do circumflex on the ou / ȣ.
What seems rather amazing is that Sinaiticus agrees with the 1821 EXACTLY, in these three verses, except for where the printed ou / ȣ, which could seem to indicate that if someone was copying the 1821, they became slightly confused, and in what looks like the original hand, corrected it to match the 1821 exactly.

Steven Avery
Zosimas
https://books.google.com/books?id=-YpDAAAAcAAJ&pg=RA3-PA138

Interpretacija Svetega Pisma
edited by Jože Krašovec
https://books.google.com/books?id=SZKtAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA310
"The edition worked out by the German J. Grabe, based mainly on the Origenis Hexaplorum and on A, published in Oxford (1703-1720). This LXX edition was the basis for the Moscow edition (1821), approved by the Holy Synod of the Moscow Patriarchate and published at the expense of the Greek Zosimas Brothers."

Steven Avery · May 21, 2023

Textus Receptus Assembly (2021)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/859008994944964/
Timothy Berg - Nick Sayers and Elijah Hixson (2020)
https://business.facebook.com/timot...06596529511&reply_comment_id=2668549439848560

Textus Receptus Assembly (2023)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1366323874213471/
Zosimas Navigation Page and Facebook Discussions

IOSCS - International Organization for Septuagint and Cognate Studies (2018)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1569061813331911/permalink/2176192915952128/

NT Textual Criticism (2013)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...=574703872616617&comment_tracking={"tn":"R9"}

Pure Bible (2019)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/2470496753042199/
Ammonian and Eusebian sections
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/posts/1960160574075822/

Steven Avery · May 22, 2023

Elijah Hixson
Nick, I checked your comparison of Sinaiticus and the 1821 Zozimas Bible, and you didn't even transcribe the 1821 printed text accurately because you failed to distinguish between a printed ligature for σθ and a θ, which are distinct in print (v. 4, v, 14, and v. 17), you marked a nomen sacrum as a difference (v. 3), which it is not, you mark ει/ι as a difference (which is isn't) at vv. 12, 24, 29 but not at v. 3, you wrongly highlight κ and κ as a difference in v. 30, you wrongly report that 01 is missing a ν in v. 34 (which it does not because it is written as a supralinear line; which is something most people learn on their first day ever reading a manuscript), you didn't mark 2 differences in v. 36 (a final sigma and an ο/ω), and you failed to mention any of the corrections in 01 that affect the text, of which I count about 15. That's not an exhaustive treatment either, just what I saw from glancing through your transcriptions and spot checking.
That means that in the space of 36 short verses, only one of which is longer than a single line of text in your transcription, if we ignore the nomen sacrum one and only count the one ει/ι variations you didn't mark instead of the three you shouldn't have marked (that is to say, to put your work in the best light possible by ignoring some things that others might call mistakes), you made 23 mistakes. In 36 short verses. That's almost 2 mistakes for every three verses.
You'll have to do better than that if you want your opinion to count for anything when you say someone else is accurate.

Nick Sayers
Actually Elijah, the purpose of my doc being there is to be openly examined and criticised, it is simply an eyeball of what I could put together so as others could glance through and critique as you have done. I only made it a doc seeing FB typing tends to make comparison hard. It is like I copied a thread into a word doc.
I found on the Sinaiticus website, two different written texts, one when the picture appeared and another doc like page with different text. So if there is a diff in Aleph, it is the work of the staff at The codex website. So the rookie error about the nu, is actually just copied from their site, so perhaps you may want to contact them over it. Thus why I included pics of both docs - to be further examined and cleaned up by me and Steve.
I have simply highlighted anything I saw including Nomina Sacra, and I am not sure why is that an issue? Also, I simply highlighted ANY difference I could see, on my phone in bed at about 2 in the morning. Sorry if you were expecting a massive and thorough collation, I actually thought only myself and Steven were remotely interested in the comparison, and was awaiting his reply and expecting it to be detailed like yours. In the thread, you can see me comparing chapter 1 and how loosely I was doing it.
I sent the 1821 Greek to my two workers in Pakistan and they copied out the Greek, as I didn’t have time to do it. I briefed it and put it in parallel form to be looked at as a template for Steven and myself to work on.
So your “gotcha” type comment is like a government inspector examining the food you just made, and proclaiming it is not cooked properly, when it is not even half finished working on it and also it was an experiment dish you were working on.
I also had similar critiques of my Rev 16:5 article even when I emailed it out to folks with the caveat “this is unfinished and filled with basic typos and errors” and yet had people email back mad saying “you have basic typos and errors in it” and I was like, hmmmmk.

But I didn’t put a caveat on the comparison on my tiny new fb group in a thread with mostly two people interacting on it, so I excuse you for thinking I had thoroughly collated a text and not just helped Steven, because he asked, on a Facebook thread. As mentioned in our previous discussions, I am a layman with limited time. If I somewhere made out that this was a finished product or a complete collation, I am sorry to mislead you, but I can’t see anywhere I have stated that.
But thanks for contributing your time to look at it, and when I or we get time, those points will be noted.

Nick Sayers
I will just quickly comment on your critique, because it seems several people have liked your post, which could give the erroneous idea that it was some type of official doc and not just something just above a late night fb thread, converted to a doc to just keep the formatting.
You said:
“...Nick, I checked your comparison of Sinaiticus and the 1821 Zozimas Bible, and you didn't even transcribe the 1821 printed text accurately because you failed to distinguish between a printed ligature for σθ and a θ, which are distinct in print (v. 4, v, 14, and v. 17)...”
The guys in Pakistan spent a while on the text, but were not aware of the σθ distinction. Something to look at for future reference. I was surprised and excited they saw the ST Sigma Tau connection which does look like a Sigma.
You said:
“...you marked a nomen sacrum as a difference (v. 3), which it is not...”
I actually don’t know exactly what Steven and crew looking for, so I highlighted any difference. It should be obvious that the comparison is looking for where Simonides copies the 1821, so ANY difference could be a clue. He tends to abbreviate. Unless you though I was comparing texts for similar content and not for writing style.
You said:
“...you mark ει/ι as a difference (which is isn't) at vv. 12, 24, 29 but not at v. 3,...”
Thanks I will check it when I get time.
You said:
“...you wrongly highlight κ and κ as a difference in v. 30,
Thanks I will check it when I get time.
You said:
“...you wrongly report that 01 is missing a ν in v. 34 (which it does not because it is written as a supralinear line; which is something most people learn on their first day ever reading a manuscript),...”
And as mentioned earlier, the Aleph part was copied from the official website, so it may be good to get onto those guys about that.
And again, I am simply trying to note everything. Big or small.
You said:
“...you didn't mark 2 differences in v. 36 (a final sigma and an ο/ω),...”
By verse 36, it was probably 3 in the morning, in bed, on my phone.
You said:
“...and you failed to mention any of the corrections in 01 that affect the text, of which I count about 15. That's not an exhaustive treatment either, just what I saw from glancing through your transcriptions and spot checking....”
The corrections are not mentioned by the staff at the codex website, and you may want to contact those guys about that. I was a bit annoyed that half way though I realised their doc was different to the text on the main page, and thought to write to them, perhaps you may like to.
“You said:
“...That means that in the space of 36 short verses, only one of which is longer than a single line of text in your transcription, if we ignore the nomen sacrum one and only count the one ει/ι variations you didn't mark instead of the three you shouldn't have marked (that is to say, to put your work in the best light possible by ignoring some things that others might call mistakes), you made 23 mistakes. In 36 short verses. That's almost 2 mistakes for every three verses.
You'll have to do better than that if you want your opinion to count for anything when you say someone else is accurate...”
I think I will let people travel to the thread and read it for themselves to see the context of your critique.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/475654453280422/

Elijah Hixson
Nick Sayers Thanks for the clarification. Glad to help clean up the comparison.
But wait, you're saying you *didn't* check the 1821 text yourself, and you *didn't* check the manuscript images yourself, but copied in text from the website, but you reported it as the text of Sinaiticus despite knowing that there were two different texts?
Yes, you say rookie mistake and "I am a layman with limited time," but that does not prevent you from making very confident assertions. It seems a bit disingenuous that you speak as an authority on these matters so often, but when I challenge that here, you hide behind "I'm a layman with limited time" or "rookie error" defences.
You could have simply described everything as you did it as a very incomplete and rough draft and left it at that, and I won't have much of a response here. But you didn't. It's really, really difficult to take you seriously with a "well I'm just a layman" defence if you won't hear correction when you're wrong in other areas, but you dogmatically proclaim them (like a refusal to stop misrepresenting Ehrman's influence, Cyprian and the CJ, nomina sacra at Rev. 16:5, etc.). And publishing books does tend to shift you a little outside the ability to claim 'just a rookie', because you're representing yourself as an authority on the matter when you do. When I was just a rookie, I listened to people when I did something wrong. And I did plenty of things wrong, and I still do, and I still look for people who can tell me where my argument doesn't hold up. I am struggling to remember a single time we've interacted when you've had that posture *until* I bring up something that you can't dispute and are forced to admit that you were wrong about—only at that point are you just a rookie, not an expert, just a regular guy, etc. Maybe I'm just forgetting things; I sincerely apologize if I am and you normally adopt this posture in discussions.
If you're really just a rookie, then why examine whether Sinaiticus is copied from the 1821 Moscow edition, when not a single manuscript specialist (that I have ever come across) thinks it is a recent production? Most rookies are usually willing not to put in effort trying to question *unanimous* agreement at least *until* once they've learned enough to be sufficiently competent that they can no longer be considered a rookie (this, incidentally, is a difference between textual criticism and creation/evolution—there are loads and loads of scientists who reject evolution so it's not unanimous despite what the media tells you, but I don't know a single manuscript specialists who accepts an 1800s date of Sinaiticus). I've spent a lot of time reading up on fakes and forgeries recently, and a big part of identifying them is spending time with the real article—if you're just a rookie to the point of needing to copy in the website's text to save time instead of just reading the manuscript itself, might it be a better exercise to spend your time getting familiar with other genuine manuscripts, looking at how they're made, how letters are formed, how corrections are made, etc.? Then you will be in a much better position to evaluate the genuineness of Sinaiticus. It's very hard to believe that you really think you're just a rookie deep down, because I know a lot of rookies, and you certainly don't carry yourself like one.

Nick Sayers
I will just quickly respond
You said:
“...But wait, you're saying you *didn't* check the 1821 text yourself, and you *didn't* check the manuscript images yourself, but copied in text from the website, but you reported it as the text of Sinaiticus despite knowing that there were two different texts?...”
I found out there were two seperate texts on their website near long the end of my work on the doc, due to a glaring error I saw, and was mad about it. But continued with the main text not hero site, as that didn’t have the obvious error in it.
All info put into the doc is for examination, like when you do a puzzle, putting the sky pieces all in one pile. Not that the puzzle is complete.
You said:
“...Yes, you say rookie mistake and "I am a layman with limited time," but that does not prevent you from making very confident assertions. It seems a bit disingenuous that you speak as an authority on these matters so often, but when I challenge that here, you hide behind "I'm a layman with limited time" or "rookie error" defences...”
Obviously in any field there are things people are good and bad at. Some people will assume anyone good on a computer knows how to put a computer together or can make a website for example, but there are so many sub fields that it it rather silly to assume a guy who can do programming can run a PHP server for example. So when I state I am a rookie, I am being honest with my evaluation of myself. In my fb thread, Steven asked for some help, I offered my 2 cents, but openly say and admit I don’t know much. But if you were asking me about projects I have worked on for years, then I wouldn’t say that. I have no formal training in anything. I failed high school and have no academic qualifications.
You said:
“...You could have simply described everything as you did it as a very incomplete and rough draft and left it at that, and I won't have much of a response here. But you didn't...”
I am sorry I didn’t give the response you were hoping for. I will try to keep them as brief as
possible, so as to not trigger others in this way.
You said:
“...It's really, really difficult to take you seriously with a "well I'm just a layman" defence if you won't hear correction when you're wrong in other areas, but you dogmatically proclaim them (like a refusal to stop misrepresenting Ehrman's influence, Cyprian and the CJ, nomina sacra at Rev. 16:5, etc.)...”
As I mentioned, I am good on things I am good at and bad on things I am bad at. It is a category error to claim I am bad at what I am good at, just because I said I am bad at what I am bad at. So if I can drive a truck well that doesn’t mean I can drive a tractor. And if I drive a tractor poorly, that doesn’t mean I can’t drive a truck.
You said:
“...And publishing books does tend to shift you a little outside the ability to claim 'just a rookie', because you're representing yourself as an authority on the matter when you do. When I was just a rookie, I listened to people when I did something wrong. And I did plenty of things wrong, and I still do, and I still look for people who can tell me where my argument doesn't hold up...”
So would you put a fb thread comparison of two Greek texts on par with the book I have published? Again, being able to cook a steak, doesn’t automatically mean I can cook a
duck. Not does my inability to cook a duck mean that I cannot cook a steak.

Nick Sayers
You said:
“...I am struggling to remember a single time we've interacted when you've had that posture *until* I bring up something that you can't dispute and are forced to admit that you were wrong about—only at that point are you just a rookie, not an expert, just a regular guy, etc. Maybe I'm just forgetting things; I sincerely apologize if I am and you normally adopt this posture in discussions...”
I think anyone who reads the FB thread you are criticising will see that I was saying things like:
“Ok, so I just looked at three verses tonight”
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/permalink/475654453280422/
Anyone can see for themselves that if you are claiming that we were doing a complete and through collation you are greatly mistaken. It is rather obvious.
You said:
“...If you're really just a rookie, then why examine whether Sinaiticus is copied from the 1821 Moscow edition, when not a single manuscript specialist (that I have ever come across) thinks it is a recent production? Most rookies are usually willing not to put in effort trying to question *unanimous* agreement at least *until* once they've learned enough to be sufficiently competent that they can no longer be considered a rookie (this, incidentally, is a difference between textual criticism and creation/evolution—there are loads and loads of scientists who reject evolution so it's not unanimous despite what the media tells you, but I don't know a single manuscript specialists who accepts an 1800s date of Sinaiticus)...”
Actually, I was simply responding to Steven who asked:
“Greetingsl!
There is a project I want to mention that involves a Greek manuscript and a book edition of the Bible.
We are looking for at least one person skilled in reading Greek from two sources, and then comparing the sources textually to help determine if there is a source-target relationship. If you read Greek easily, and have a smidgen of textual understanding, you can learn by doing.
There is a special element of probability analysis involved in evaluating what is found, if you appreciate that fine art, excellent, but statistical estimations are an auxiliary part of the project.
One text is the good old Codex Sinaiticus, often given a very curious date of the 4th century, sometimes 6th or 7th. Yet with powerful evidence that the manuscript was produced in the 1800s.
The other text is the Zosimas Moscow Greek Bible, produced in 1821 as an offshoot of the John Ernest Grabe (1666-1711) line of Codex Alexandrinus editions.
Constantine Simonides repeatedly asserted in the 1860s that this Zosimas Bible was one of the sources used for the production of "Codex Simoneidos". As far as we know, not one person checked out the claim. There was a little curt dismissal because the NT of Zosimas is a TR text. Fair enough, however what about the OT and Apocrypha? Might not Zosimas have been a source in some of those books?
The project is aided by the fact that the Zosimas Bible has a correction section in the back. So it is possible to see if oddball and unlikely errors from the Zosimas text were copied into Sinaiticus. And then corrected, perhaps matching the correction section! And there are a number of elements that can show textual relationship between source-target, such as homoeoteleuton and matching sections. Especially since in normal textual theory these are highly distinct texts, in terms of time and locale and the conjectured provenance of Sinaiticus.
Anyone working on this project should put aside personal preferences as to Sinaiticus history, and simply look at it as a fascinating academic research project. And there is a budget to help the project along!
Clearly, there is a possibility of a ground-breaking paper resulting from these studies.
Anyone interested can simply contact me here, publicly or privately (Messenger.)
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY”
It is pretty clear that I just put my hand up and was doing what I could do to help. My reasons are that I want to know if there are any links to Aleph being a fraud. I didn’t realise that I had to have all the credentials to put some verses into a comparison. I just know that Avery worked on this, and perhaps I could help. I have always told people to read all sides of the story behind Sinaiticus before making conclusions about it. I am not sure what is wrong with that. If you contacted me and said, “Hey Nick, I am going through Codex Bezae and want to compare it to another manuscript” I would probably do it. I know Archaic Mark was proven a fake by comparing editions (and eventually chemical testing) so I felt I could help in some way.
You said:
“...I've spent a lot of time reading up on fakes and forgeries recently, and a big part of identifying them is spending time with the real article—if you're just a rookie to the point of needing to copy in the website's text to save time instead of just reading the manuscript itself, might it be a better exercise to spend your time getting familiar with other genuine manuscripts, looking at how they're made, how letters are formed, how corrections are made, etc.? Then you will be in a much better position to evaluate the genuineness of Sinaiticus. It's very hard to believe that you really think you're just a rookie deep down, because I know a lot of rookies, and you certainly don't carry yourself like one...”
Thanks for the advice. I never really thought of going into that type of detail, but I know that working with manuscripts firsthand is the best way to learn. In the doc I simply aligned all of the pictures and put the texts side by side. Sort of like helping putting out chairs on an auditorium of asked. I just aligned them. I have no idea who will sit on them, or if I put an extra chair on a row, let alone what the person will preach on there. I just simply helped when asked. I am always open to learn more.
As I alluded to, I may be able to build a chair, but that doesn’t mean I can put 20 chairs in a straight line. And because I cannot put 20 chairs in a straight line, does not mean I cannot build a chair.

Elijah Hixson
Nick Sayers , "I am sorry I didn’t give the response you were hoping for. I will try to keep them as brief as
possible, so as to not trigger others in this way."
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poisoning_the_well
Again, if you admit that you aren't good at some things and are just a rookie, etc., then that does call into question your own ability to assess whether or not Steven is accurate upon examination, and that would be the case regardless of what your goals were for the 01/1821 Moscow Bible comparison.
If you just put up a rough draft, then you just put up the rough draft and you could legitimately call me wrong for criticising it, but again, that's not what you did, you defended the inaccuracies as a rough draft but also hid behind 'I'm just a rookie". A brilliant rhetorical move, I admit. It sets me up to look like I'm the overbearing bully 'scholar' and you're just the poor helpless layman who just wants to do good and just can't help it. But I've always though you were much more brilliant at rhetorical moves than most. You can throw in words like "trigger" and the like to show your readers what they should really think about anyone who questions you—subtle, because you're good enough at it not to do it too much.
Let the reader evaluate your posts and comments and the posture you often take toward those who disagree with you and see if they are convinced that you really think you're a rookie and a layman in these discussions.

Steven Avery
Nick Sayers -
"I actually don’t know exactly what Steven and crew looking for, so I highlighted any difference. It should be obvious that the comparison is looking for where Simonides copies the 1821, so ANY difference could be a clue. He tends to abbreviate. Unless you though I was comparing texts for similar content and not for writing style."
And I will just comment on this first.
You are right to highlight any difference. Then certain types of "natural, expected" equivalent differences can be separated from true textual differences. An important point for our studies looking ahead.
And to be precise, it is the Athos (Panteleemon or Russico Monastery) scribes, under Benedict, who, in some areas of the text, worked with Zosimas. Likely not Simonides.
Elijah Hixson
"...and you failed to mention any of the corrections in 01 that affect the text, of which I count about 15."
Generally Sinaiticus corrections are less important, unless they relate in some way to the text (or correction) of Zosimas. Generally, by the time of a Sinaiticus correction, Zosimas would be out of the picture.
If I understand Elijah properly .
Thanks, Nick and Elijah.

Steven Avery
Elijah Hixson - ", then why examine whether Sinaiticus is copied from the 1821 Moscow edition, when not a single manuscript specialist (that I have ever come across) thinks it is a recent production?"
There are a number of folks involved in the Zosimas project. The contributions of Nick are most welcome.
Simonides declared again and again that Zosimas 1821 was a source text used in the production of Sinaiticus c. 1840. This is clearly a sensible possibility at Athos, since Zosimas was in a sense the premier Greek Orthodox text of the day.
And clearly this likely involves OT and maybe Apoc sections, not NT where Zosimas simply has a TR text.
Without going into detail, it looks like the Simonides claim is accurate.
How many of your "manuscript specialists", even going back to 1862-3, when this Zosimas claim (and many other incredible claims now verified as true) was made public ....
have even done a minimal check of Zosimas with a comparison to Sinaiticus?
In round numbers. (Let's consider 0 a round number.)

END OF NICK-ELIJAH-STEVEN ZOSIMAS DISCUSSION
==================================

Elijah Hixson
Steven Avery No need to. Just like there's no need to carbon date it. Too many other things in that very large manuscript that would be too difficult to fake convincingly and sustainably throughout. A good way to be able to spot a manuscript anomaly is to spend a lot of time with real ones. How many people on the Zosimas project have spent any time with real manuscripts? Edited them, prepared transcriptions for projects, etc.?

Steven Avery
Elijah Hixson -
"I've spent a lot of time reading up on fakes and forgeries recently, and a big part of identifying them is spending time with the real article—"
Elijah,
Until 2009, there was hardly anybody in the Bible world that had spent time with even one section of Sinaiticus. And hardly anybody other than Tischendorf who was in a position to compare the light white parchment unstained Leipzig section with the coloured and stained Russia-English section.
What you think happened has never happened. And now the textual world has shoveled themselves into a corner, and find it difficult to admit the obvious, that Sinaiticus is c. 1840.
The Zosimas point from Simonides was one of many superb research points he gave, for those who study the history. Your teammates are reprobate in not doing the study. Ironically, they are still being hoodwinked by the Tischendorf facsimile.

Steven Avery Elijah Hixson - "Too many other things in that very large manuscript that would be too difficult to fake convincingly and sustainably throughout."

This was the claim of James Snapp. However, it was simply a multiplication of nothings, and every point was covered, with many actually against his position.

Elijah Hixson
Steven Avery "Until 2009, there was hardly anybody in the Bible world that had spent time with even one section of Sinaiticus." That's simply not true though. The Lakes' photographic facsimile was available, and you get regular references to the hands in palaeography handbooks. There was also a whole Cambridge PhD written on the manuscript pre-2009. Simply claiming that nobody looked at it isn't enough, and even if that were the case, everybody is looking now. And the difference in colour that you perceive doesn't prove what you claim. We've been over this again and again. The color standards in the images themselves prove that they weren't taken in identical conditions.

Steven Avery
Elijah Hixson - a photographic facsimile is not the manuscript.
Please - Textual Logic 101
Before
“Spending time with the real article”
Now
We had some fuzzy pictures.
Text Comparison and Digital Creativity: The Production of Presence and Meaning in Digital Text Scholarship (2010)
https://books.google.com/books?id=wt95DwAAQBAJ&pg=PA177
The article by David Parker should help you realize how the scholars were conned by Tischendorf and the Lake black and white pics were of little help.

Elijah Hixson
Steven Avery A photographic facsimile is enough to reveal problems in the handwriting that point to forgery.
I don't understand the problem here. Simonides lied. Like he did other times. Why is that so hard for people (who almost always have no experience with real manuscripts to know what signs of forgery actually look like) to accept?

Steven Avery
Elijah Hixson - "A photographic facsimile is enough to reveal problems in the handwriting that point to forgery."
Materials, parchment and ink, can never be examined in a picture to remotely the same degree as in person, and with the ability to do BAM-style testing (the German group that worked on the DSS and was planning Leipzig Sinaiticus in 2015 ... until the tests were canceled. Cold feet.)
Here is an example.
=============
Codex Friderico-Augustanus 1845 ink next to theorized 600 AD ink
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/palaeographic-puzzles-and-the-tischendorf-plug-in-the-date-game.591/#post-1230
There does not seem to be real deterioration in the ink from the supposed 350 AD till the Leipzig ink of 1850. Obviously the Lake facsimiles would be poor for this. Even the CSP pictures are simply a start.
=============
Elijah Hixson
"I don't understand the problem here. Simonides lied. Like he did other times. Why is that so hard for people (who almost always have no experience with real manuscripts to know what signs of forgery actually look like) to accept?"
You simply are ignorant of the history.
The whoppers in this history were told by Tischendorf. He took out and stole the 5+ quires in 1844. He lied about saving parchment from fire. Nothing he said about the Sinaiticus history can be trusted. The Uspensky account shows that all his 1844 claims of loose leaves were false.
And there is no provenance until 1844, which fits perfectly with the Simonides account.
The Simoindes history of this account fits the actual "facts on the ground" 100x better than the Tischendorf history. He likely exaggerated at points, as with his own part in the endeavour, and was loose with dates, but overall his account fits the evidences.
Simonides and Kallinikos actually called the 1844 theft, and the colouring and staining of the post-Leipzig section, and the bumbling Greek of Tischendorf, and various other elements, to a "T",
He also gave one major well-known source for the endeavour, the Zosimas Bible, which is only really being carefully checked in 2020. Certain elements can show textual dependency for areas of the text.
Study the history.

Steven Avery
It is true that a photograph could possibly immediately prove that a replica or forgery is a late production. (However, it could not prove authenticity, especially for a ms. under suspicion.) Or the photographs could provide evidence that the ms. was produced at a specific time and place, or by specific people.
Close looks at places like the spot shown above could be sufficient. Especially if it were followed by non-destructive scientific testing, even if only of the one leaf.
After all, the ms. is in “phenomenally good condition” (Helen Shenton, British Library) for its supposed age, and the colour anomaly is accepted by the British Library.
Provenance is key.
E.g. This ms. was in the private hands of Tischendorf in 1859 in Cairo for months. (It is reported that he trimmed the edges as well). This is in addition to his earlier connections at the monastery.
Oh, in Cairo Tischendorf, with friends, was supposedly copying the ms. However, there is no report that anybody ever saw this copy, nor do we hear anything from the German friends who happened to be excellent in Greek, per Tischendorf.
Thus, any spots or pages that were simply too obvious could be removed or blotted.
The parchment and ink were major problems. e.g. The Russian scientist Morozov c. 1915 easily saw the ms. could not possibly be even close to the Tischendorf age.
The way that Tischendorf duped the scholars of his years was clever and simple, he pointed everyone, including Scrivener and even Russian and German scholars, to his published facsimile edition. Crafty.
Modern scholarship is all built around the supposed antiquity, they avoid any testing of parchment and ink. The 2015 planned tests were cancelled. The owners are not anxious to have their libraries shown to have been conned.

Steven Avery · Jun 24, 2023

Gottingen Ziegler Logos -

Henry Adeney Redpath (1848–1908) should be compared?

Steven Avery · Jun 25, 2023

Steven Avery · Jun 25, 2023

Steven Avery · Jun 25, 2023

Steven Avery · Jun 30, 2023

Grabe Breitinger Apparatus

Table of Contents

Ecclesiasticus : the Greek text of Codex 248 - Sirach

Textual Commentary
https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticusgr00hart/page/89/mode/1up

Abbreviations
https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticusgr00hart/page/n15/mode/1up

Bibliography

Greek text begins
https://archive.org/details/ecclesiasticusgr00hart/page/n21/mode/1up

Steven Avery · Jun 30, 2023

The Hebrew Old Testament was divided into verses by a Jewish rabbi by the name of Nathan in A.D. 1448.

Verses

=====================
Alexandrinus -

Obadiah
drop caps - sporadic not verses
large capital letters that go into margin

4 back sections Sirach

Steven Avery · Jun 30, 2023

Alexandrinus Obadiah - Quirky Sections

Steven Avery · Jun 30, 2023

Sinaiticus and Zosimas
Sirach

Steven Avery · Jun 30, 2023

Verse 5 in Sirach
Zosima followed Grabe (Alexandrinus Sinaiticus Vaticanus all omit)
Grabe a bit smaller
No speical note on Zosima
checking back

Steven Avery · Jun 30, 2023

Vaticans on left
Alex on right

Steven Avery · Jun 30, 2023

Sirach we look at
1:5 inclusion in Zosima not Sinaiticus
1:7 inclusion in Zosima (10 words) not Sinaiticus

================================================
2:5 Sinaiticus has line at bottom of first column
εν νοϲοιϲ και πενια · επ αυτω πεποιθωϲ γεινου

Translation and Apparatus
https://sites.google.com/site/literaltranslationofthebible/wisdom-of-sirach

sick and poor, I am convinced of this
(afawk, this is nowhere but Sinaiticus it is a gloss not a textual correction)
possibly it is in a Latin text or commentary

In Vaticanus
(Do Vaticanus accents look 800 years later

In Zosimas also in , same as Vaticanus
Accidental omission due to moving from one column to another in Sinaiticus

Swete

The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint

books.google.com

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

2:9

2:11

Zosimas 1821 Moscow Bible discussions on Facebook - Sirach and NIck Sayers

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Attachments

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

Steven Avery

Administrator

The Old Testament in Greek according to the Septuagint