Sinaiticus - authentic antiquity or 1800s production?

[Ransom]

This was simply unavailable till the studies of the last few years.

And yet if you merely skim the posts on the so-called Pure Bible Forum, you'll see that Avery frequently links to items on Google Books.

By "unavailable," Avery apparently means "published in books and available for at least 100 years."

And this is why Avery is a mere armchair archaeologist. He has not examined Sinaiticus. He has done no work in actual paleography or textual criticism. He merely searches Google for old secondary or tertiary sources, and presents his conclusions as though they are something new, original, or groundbreaking. It's pseudoscholarship.

 

[bgwilkinson]

What I still don't understand is how a guy that does't read Greek, pretends to be knowledgeable and apparently has never studied any Uncial manuscripts himself can pretend to be in the least bit knowledgeable in palaeography.

 

[Steven Avery]

Anyone who actually looks through the two websites will see the diversions in the posts above. 

e.g. The sources that have been used for the Codex Sinaiticus research are wide-ranging. 

As one simple example,  this includes our having original finds and translations of the Uspensky and Morozov material, from Old Slavonic and Russian. 

Another example, afawk we are the only group that has actively used the Codex Sinaiticus Project images for research, with incredible finds. They invited everyone to work with their material, we did so, and the results are a major part of the studies.  e.g. Take a look at the contiguous points, the composite pics, the comparison with other mss.

So we will see if anyone here wants to actually begin to grapple with and address the situation concerning the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus.  So far, with one exception, the response has been posturing.

I'll look forward to seeing if there are posts from those actually involved, or interested in, the topic.

As for palaeography, that is addressed in the purebibleforum posts. I am happy to have a discussion about the existing situation with Tischendorf Sinaiticus palaeography, and especially the problem with the fact that declarations were made without access to the sections of the manuscript.  "Palaeography" even has more than one definition, with tension because of conflicting usages.

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

e.g. The sources that have been used for the Codex Sinaiticus research are wide-ranging.  And, again as one simple example,  includes our having original finds and translations of the Uspensky and Morozov material, from Old Slavonic and Russian.

So when I said "secondary or tertiary sources,"it turns out you are also incapable of dealing with Slavonic or Russian sources in the original, and must rely on translation, so they are in fact tertiary or quaternary sources.

That armchair must be pretty deep and comfy.

Another example, afawk we are the only group that has actively used the Codex Sinaiticus Project images for research, with incredible finds.

I imagine that "as far as we know" isn't very far at all.

What evidence do you have that you are even close to "the only group that has actively used the Codex Sinaiticus Project images for research"?  I rather doubt that any "finds" you might discover from digital images of the codex (as opposed to inspecting it in person as a real paleographer might) are all that "incredible."

I'll bet your armchair has one of those nifty levers on the side to recline it, right? All the better to do your "research" with from the comfort of your own laptop.

I am happy to have a discussion about . . . especially the problem with the fact that declarations were made without access to the sections of the manuscript.

. . . said Avery, without a hint of irony or self-awareness.

 

[Steven Avery]

Scott, you are very confused about what is a primary source.  The books by Uspensky and Morozov are primary sources, in Slavonic and Russian and in English translation.  Translation does not make a primary source into a secondary source (or tertiary or whatever nonsense you were plying.)

This type of posturing from you, in ignorance, is why your posts are only a diversion.  You post only to be contrary, not to share and learn, iron sharpeneth.

To give an example, Dirk Jongkind send a note thanking us for the Uspensky material, and noting that he would have liked to have that information available in writing his book.  That was an edifying and constructive note. 

I'm seeing if any of the posters here similarly like to learn about the topic.

Steven

 

[bgwilkinson]

Ok, I looked at your blog.

You are one confused puppy.

I'll go with Dan Wallace who has hands-on experience.

When you can actually read Greek Uncials you should try again.

I have no hope you will bother to learn Greek, which is not that hard.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Ok I just looked at your .net link.

You cit stuff from chicken.com site, they are so far from the truth they wouldn't know it if it shallowed them.

See you're still hanging with the KJVOs.

Just more false presuppositions and circular reasoning.

Do not waste your time with that stuff.

 

[prophet]

Ok, I looked at your blog.

You are one confused puppy.

I'll go with Dan Wallace who has hands-on experience.

When you can actually read Greek Uncials you should try again.

I have no hope you will bother to learn Greek, which is not that hard.

Sorry, Daniel Wallace has no credibility with a lot of people.
Same with James White.

I'm not trusting anyone.
I wanna see the evidence myself.

Anytime I'm reading someone's research, and I find leaps if logic/bias, I write them off.

I may still read their work, as a resource, but I would never endorse them.

No wonder you were duped by Hyles, you have a bent towards setting up men as authorities.

earnestly contend

 

[bgwilkinson]

I learned that from Bro. hyles, it's hard to shake.

 

[Ransom]

Scott, you are very confused about what is a primary source.  The books by Uspensky and Morozov are primary sources, in Slavonic and Russian and in English translation.  Translation does not make a primary source into a secondary source (or tertiary or whatever nonsense you were plying.)

Well, that depends on the quality of the translation, the extent to which the translator inserted his own opinions or bias into the translation, and the use to which the translation is put.

Until I see evidence that your "research" has a modicum of objectivity or actual scholarship, and that you're not merely pursuing a laughable and discredited conspiracy theory because it bolsters your existing biases, I'll reserve the right to decide whether your "translation" is a primary or secondary source, thanksverymuch.

 

[prophet]

I learned that from Bro. hyles, it's hard to shake.

Understandable.

I pray you have God's wisdom, in all of your decisions.

earnestly contend

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is a quote we just got today from the 1914 book of the Russian scientist,  Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov  (1854-1946) who handled the St. Petersburg ms.

Sinaiticus parchment sheets are very flexible as I have already said, by this simple material examination it can't be dated earlier than 600 years from this date.

This goes well with  the "phenomenally good condition" quote of Helen Shenton in 2009.

And what we see in the BBC video.

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

Looks like that sneaky Constantine Simonides stole the KJV-onlyists' time machine for some of his forgery hijinks.

Nikolas Sarris spotted a previously unseen section of the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates from about AD350, as he was trawling through photographs of manuscripts in the library of St Catherine's Monastery in Egypt. . . .

Mr Sarris, 30, chanced upon the fragment as he inspected photographs of a series of book bindings that had been compiled by two monks at the monastery during the 18th century. . . .

Only a quarter of the fragment is visible through the book binding but after closer inspection, Father Justin [the monastery librarian] was able to confirm that a previously unseen section of the Codex had indeed been found. The fragment is believed to be the beginning of Joshua, Chapter 1, Verse 10, in which Joshua admonishes the children of Israel as they enter the promised land.

[Source]

That's pretty devious, you know. I mean, forging an ancient Bible codex, and then taking a piece of it back to the previous century and getting it bound into a book . . .

 

[Steven Avery]

And  I discuss the interesting Nikolaos Sarris fragment on the purebibleforum.

New Finds as an 1840-1850s Sinaticius work or dump zone
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?p=559

And there is a related type of research thread:

evidences that could demonstrate authenticity
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=138

Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

And  I discuss the interesting Nikolaos Sarris fragment on the purebibleforum.

So? We're discussing it here.

Avery, how did a piece of an alleged 19th-century Bible manuscript forgery come to be bound into a book in the 18th century?

 

[Steven Avery]

There is no real evidence that the fragment (which may well be Sinaiticus material)  was bound in the 18th century, rather than simply being some of the frequent rebinding and repair material in the 19th century.

The evidence is very clear, from the various overlapping Tischendorf and Uspensky items, that material in the New Finds was active usage material in the 1840s and 1850s. 

Uspensky similarly heisted some fragment(s) that was said to be utilized in bookbinding. Stanley Porter has it as:

"Archimandrite Porfiri Uspensky ... two different visits to the monastery in 1845 and 1850, and that most likely he had been given some pages of it that had already been divided up for use as bookbinding. "

Porter, Stanley E. - Constantine Tischendorf: The Life and Work of a 19th Century Bible Hunter, p. 34

The overlapping material is explained in detail in the purebibleforum article.

 

[Ransom]

There is no real evidence that the fragment (which may well be Sinaiticus material)  was bound in the 18th century, rather than simply being some of the frequent rebinding and repair material in the 19th century.

There is no evidence whatsoever that the book was rebound or repaired in the 19th century using a fragment of Sinaiticus, otherwise you would have presented it.

There is, on the other hand, strong circumstantial evidence that the fragment of Sinaiticus was bound into a book in the 18th century.

Your use of argumentum ad ignorantiam is yet another of your sophistries.

 

[Steven Avery]

I've read the Nikolaos Sarris and Nicholas Pickwoad descriptions carefully. They seem as consistent with repair just as much as original binding (which may have been 1700s, that is a circumstantial part as well, so I compliment you on including circumstantial in your description.) 

And the circumstantial evidence is strong that this type of repair and use of parchment was an ongoing activity in Sinai, and that New Finds material was material that had active use in the 1840s-50s.

We are always attempting to get more details and would be happy to publish information from any involved source. |

If it could be shown that this was definitely a Sinaiticus fragment (see the Brugsch fragment discussion), that the book was definitely bound in the 1700s and that the fragment was definitely part of the original binding, this would be a definite evidence that this Joshua part of Sinaiticus was pre-Simonides. 

There are a lot of qualifications and ifs  

 

[Ransom]

They seem just as consistent with repair just as much as original binding (which may have been 1700s, that is circumstantial).

Confusing "could be" with "is" was Chris Pinto's failure in his debate with James White. Your weasel words ("seem just as consistent") do the same.

If a 19th-century repair job "seems just as consistent" with the physical evidence as the null hypothesis (that it was bound into the book in the 18th century, as generally believed), then there's no reason to switch from the null hypothesis to the Simonides forgery hypothesis, is there?

We are always attempting to get more details and would be happy to publish information from any involved source.

As long as said information doesn't mitigate your conspiracy theory, anyway.

Avery, how did a piece of an alleged 19th-century Bible manuscript forgery come to be bound into a book in the 18th century?

 

[Steven Avery]

Once again (you may have overlapped posting):

If it could be shown that this was definitely a Sinaiticus fragment (see the Brugsch fragment discussion), that the book was definitely bound in the 1700s and that the fragment was definitely part of the original binding, this would be a definite evidence that this Joshua part of Sinaiticus was pre-Simonides. 

There are a lot of qualifications and ifs .

===

Since  the evidences point strongly to Sinaiticus being a recent manuscript and the 1859 section being artificially coloured,  we can be  confident that the ifs are the controlling factor here.  Much like it was clear that the ancient catalogues would never actually be produced.  However, the New Finds in general and the Sarris fragment specifically do remain as evidences that deserve solid consideration.

The defenders of Sinaiticus authenticity should try to understand that the modern manuscript understanding means that there was a lot of mangling and tampering with the manuscript, especially in the 1850s.  (We even have the evidence that the edges were trimmed by Tischendorf, eliminating notes.) And this mangling was specifically pointed out in the early 1860s brouhaha.  Such mangling and tampering created discards, and some will end up in  the dump zone, including the embarrassing to Tischendorf Hermas section.  Such parchment discards are the most natural material to be used in binding repairs and reinforcement.