What we have is a "head of the SART team" post. These are the words of Steven Avery Spenser:
Sinaiticus authenticity is a multi-orbed study.
Let's first go over some of the areas involved in the Sinaiticus authenticity studies. The following tends to be far too much for atomistic scholars who specialize in only one or two realms. One of the pitfalls of our current Academy. It also makes the peer review and Journal route virtually irrelevant, especially as we are talking about "deeply entrenched scholarship" that makes a fresh review almost impossible by the textual Academy.
WORK IN PROCESS - COME BACK PLEASE IN A FEW DAYS
==================================
Historical Forensics and Probability and Coincidence:
The historical imperative, the analysis of who said what when, and how did they know, is a major part of Sinaiticus authenticity. Suffice to say,textual critics are generally very weak in all these areas.
Forgery Evidences
Linguistics
Tischenforf accusation against Hermas reinforced by Donaldson, also including Barnabas
Truth and Psychology
Fabrication of accounts
Forgery "skills"
Speaking what is convenient
Vain-glorious pretensions for lucre and position
Historical Analysis
The "called shots" of Kallinikos
The Lamprou catalog verifying the placement of Simonides, Benedict and Kallinikos.
Insights of Morozov as a polymath
The Hiding of the manuscript by Tischendorf
The separation of the two wildly different spots.
Textual Criticism
Direct Textual Dependencies (e.g, Zosimas to Sinaiticus OT)
Homoeoteleutons
Text-Types.Specific Variants
Bible Manuscript Analysis
Colophons
Forgery Analysis
Provenance
the Before and After evidence of the two manuscripts
"phenomenally good condition"
Palaeography
a) writing styles
b) determining an overall date range and probability
Institutional ossification
the libraries do not want the manuscript studied for material science. This became clear in 2015 when Leipzig canceled the studies planned by the prestigious BAM. The British Library, while more communicative, use "scholarship consensus" as their main excuse to avoid any material testing.
Scholarship Consensus -
this becomes the excuse for ossification and also can be a wedge against any actual studies, due to "deeply entrenched scholarship". The gatekeepers at the Journals have their own problems involving the vaunted "peer review" - which can be done by individuals with little background and skill in most of the topics.
Materials Sciences
Parchment
Bookbinding
Ink analysis
Colour analysis
Stain Analysis
================================
Presuppositional Bias and "Deeply Entrenched Scholarship"
The creation of arguments based on a "muplitiplication of nothings."
Sinaiticus authenticity is a multi-orbed study.
Let's first go over some of the areas involved in the Sinaiticus authenticity studies. The following tends to be far too much for atomistic scholars who specialize in only one or two realms. One of the pitfalls of our current Academy. It also makes the peer review and Journal route virtually irrelevant, especially as we are talking about "deeply entrenched scholarship" that makes a fresh review almost impossible by the textual Academy.
WORK IN PROCESS - COME BACK PLEASE IN A FEW DAYS
==================================
Historical Forensics and Probability and Coincidence:
The historical imperative, the analysis of who said what when, and how did they know, is a major part of Sinaiticus authenticity. Suffice to say,textual critics are generally very weak in all these areas.
Forgery Evidences
Linguistics
Tischenforf accusation against Hermas reinforced by Donaldson, also including Barnabas
Truth and Psychology
Fabrication of accounts
Forgery "skills"
Speaking what is convenient
Vain-glorious pretensions for lucre and position
Historical Analysis
The "called shots" of Kallinikos
The Lamprou catalog verifying the placement of Simonides, Benedict and Kallinikos.
Insights of Morozov as a polymath
The Hiding of the manuscript by Tischendorf
The separation of the two wildly different spots.
Textual Criticism
Direct Textual Dependencies (e.g, Zosimas to Sinaiticus OT)
Homoeoteleutons
Text-Types.Specific Variants
Bible Manuscript Analysis
Colophons
Forgery Analysis
Provenance
the Before and After evidence of the two manuscripts
"phenomenally good condition"
Palaeography
a) writing styles
b) determining an overall date range and probability
Institutional ossification
the libraries do not want the manuscript studied for material science. This became clear in 2015 when Leipzig canceled the studies planned by the prestigious BAM. The British Library, while more communicative, use "scholarship consensus" as their main excuse to avoid any material testing.
Scholarship Consensus -
this becomes the excuse for ossification and also can be a wedge against any actual studies, due to "deeply entrenched scholarship". The gatekeepers at the Journals have their own problems involving the vaunted "peer review" - which can be done by individuals with little background and skill in most of the topics.
Materials Sciences
Parchment
Bookbinding
Ink analysis
Colour analysis
Stain Analysis
================================
Presuppositional Bias and "Deeply Entrenched Scholarship"
The creation of arguments based on a "muplitiplication of nothings."
