Results 1 to 4 of 4

Thread: where are the supposed distinctive 700 AD corrections in 1 Chronicles 2 Esdras and Esther?

  1. Default where are the supposed distinctive 700 AD corrections in 1 Chronicles 2 Esdras and Esther?

    Thread with related material:

    two copies of Chronicles is evidence that work was done on the manuscript in Sinai


    You can see normal-looking corrections.

    Often simply stuff like omitted text or homoeoteleutons that would have been corrected at the time of production.

    e.g.- the homoeoteleuton

    By official Sinaiticus theory, the colophons were written about 700 AD.
    Yet the colophons say that when they were written lots of corrections were done.
    So we should see these corrections in 1 Chronicles, 2 Esdras and Esther. And the script would be very different than corrections from centuries earlier.

    Plus the script should NOT match the script of the homoeoteleutons, since those would have been done at the time of production.

    They would have to be in a noticeably different and later hand than the mass of corrections that were done at the time of production.

    Where are the (missing) 700 AD corrections?

  2. Default

    If the colophons are simply a fabrication, if there are no actual corrections that reflect the claim ... that is a major hitch for Sinaiticus Theory

    Then someone put them on deliberately to support an ancient manuscript theory, an appearance of age.

    Who would do that before the 1800s?
    In Sinaiticus theory, the ms. has been sitting in Sinai since about 700 AD. Once the manuscript was landed, it would make no sense to add such a false colophon, they are added to give an appearance of age.

    With Sinaiticus, that would mean the 1840-1845 period.

  3. Default Alexandrinus - the Thecla note

    The classic controversy of this type involves Codex Alexandrinus and notes about Thecla, which may have been a forgery put on to enhance the perceived antiquity and value. This is planned for review later.


    Horne - Tregelles (1877)
    It received the name of Alexandrinus from its having been brought by Cyrillus from Alexandria to Constantinople; and an Arabic subscription of comparatively modern, but still not recent, date (mentioning that the MS. was said to have been written with the pen of Thecla the martyr), is some proof of its having been preserved in Egypt.
    The Early Christian Book (CUA Studies in Early Christianity) (2007)

    Encyclopaedia Britannica - (1875)

    A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hand (2014)
    William Andrew Smith
    A couple of sections include Thecla discussion

    The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism
    A colophon attributes it to Thecla, working in the time of Saint Paul (I), but this colophon is clearly a later forgery; it may have been written by a Thecla, but not that Thecla.

    Catalogue of Western Manuscripts in the Old Royal and King's Collections (1921)
    4 b) states (according to a Latin translation appended in the hand of Dr. Richard Bentley, Royal Librarian in 1693-17 24) that the MS. was written b Thecla the Martyr; and a Latin note (f. 2) by Cyril Lucar Patriarch of ...

    Guardians of Letters: Literacy, Power, and the Transmitters of Early Christian Literature (2000)
    Kim Haines-Eitzen
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 07-16-2018 at 07:12 AM.

  4. Default

    David Parker- should we believe the colophon?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts