Sinaiticus - authentic antiquity or 1800s production?

[Ransom]

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.

Well, I would say that the actual librarian of the monastery, and Nikolas Sarris, a Ph.D. candidade and conservator who was part of the team that digitized Sinaiticus, would be in a position to know whether the book dated from the 18th century. They know which monks did the binding, and can also inspect the other books they bound to see if there are any other fragments hidden inside them.

Steven Avery, on the other hand, has not been to. The British Library, has not seen Sinaiticus firsthand, has not been to St. Catherine's Monastery, has not seen the 18th century book in question, has not looked at the fragment discovered in its binding, and has not compared it to Sinaiticus to see if it was originally part of the same codex.

What Steven Avery has done is sit in his La-Z-Boy and look at pictures on the Internet, and using a raft of weasel words like "the evidence points strongly" (how would Avery know, since he has not examined the evidence firsthand?) , "we can be confident" (who's we, Stevie? You and your little coffee-klatch of SART ignoramuses?),"evidences that deserve solid consideration" (it already has, Stevie, by actual experts in the field). And on the basis of his weasel wording, Stevie the word merchant declares himself the expert over actual researchers in the field who are personally handling the physical evidence.

It is to laugh.

Avery, you are an ignoramus, a windbag, a dilettante, a poser, and a fraud.

I hereby propose that we change the name of your team of know-nothings from SART to FART, in honour of the fact that all your posturing has produced no knowledge, only a smelly volume of hot gas.

 

[Walt]

The topic question itself is a false dichotomy; those are not the only two options; it may be authentically old, but with corrupted text.  Whether or not it is a production from the 1800s doesn't much matter to me, since I don't acknowledge its authority.

 

[bgwilkinson]

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

Thank-you. Many of my friends of a lifetime are completely reavaluating everything Bro. Hyles ever taught in the light of scripture.

It's very disappointing indeed.

 

[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

Thank-you. Many of my friends of a lifetime are completely reavaluating everything Bro. Hyles ever taught in the light of scripture.

It's very disappointing indeed.

This is a good thing.



earnestly contend

 

[Walt]

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

Thank-you. Many of my friends of a lifetime are completely reavaluating everything Bro. Hyles ever taught in the light of scripture.

It's very disappointing indeed.

It is always a good practice to evaluate all teaching in the light of Scripture.  It is a pity that more people didn't do it back then.

 

[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

Thank-you. Many of my friends of a lifetime are completely reavaluating everything Bro. Hyles ever taught in the light of scripture.

It's very disappointing indeed.

It is always a good practice to evaluate all teaching in the light of Scripture.  It is a pity that more people didn't do it back then.

Nicolaitan doctrine led to retardation.

earnestly contend

 

[Steven Avery]

Well, I would say that the actual librarian of the monastery, and Nikolas Sarris, a Ph.D. candidade and conservator who was part of the team that digitized Sinaiticus, would be in a position to know whether the book dated from the 18th century. They know which monks did the binding, and can also inspect the other books they bound to see if there are any other fragments hidden inside them.

This all relates to one of the ifs, the original date of binding, where the circumstantial evidence as described so far points to the 1700s. 

If you have any quotes from these gentlemen relating to original binding compared to repairs and reinforcement, simply share the quotes.  (One of the ifs.)  My understanding is that repairs and reinforcement of bindings was a common occurrence, and the fact that the text was visible would support that possibility.  Along with the New Finds being an 1840s-1850s dump zone and Uspensky running into bookbinding material.

As for your insults .. ho-hum .. you simply do not know the evidences, and try a silly game.  Since my goal is to work with and understand the evidences, I simply  at your animus, since it is irrelevant.

Thanks.

Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

The topic question itself is a false dichotomy; those are not the only two options; it may be authentically old, but with corrupted text.  Whether or not it is a production from the 1800s doesn't much matter to me, since I don't acknowledge its authority.

We know the Sinaiticus text is corrupted, whatever the date.  And worthless for textual studies. That is not the issue that we are studying. 

Authentic antiquity refers to the date of production.  Clearly it is a hack job and scribally and textually corrupt, whenever created.  However, if it was produced in the early centuries, meant as a Bible of sorts, then it is authentic antiquity.

With a spot of nuance, either the ms. was created from the 4th to 7th century, or it was created in the 19th century.  That is a valid dichotomy.

Help that splains.

Steven Avery 

 

[Ransom]

This all relates to one of the ifs, the original date of binding, where the circumstantial evidence as described so far points to the 1700s.

And given that the "eyewitness" testimony testifying to Sinaiticus being a fake is presented by professional liars like Constantine Simonides, I'd say the circumstantial will carry the day.

If you have any quotes from these gentlemen relating to original binding compared to repairs and reinforcement, simply share the quotes.  (One of the ifs.)

Um, no. The onus rests upon you to present any evidence contradicting the circumstantial evidence that the book containing a fragment of Sinaiticus was bound in the 1700s. Got any? Present it.

Otherwise, I'm going to employ plain reason, and again assume the null hypothesis: that a piece of Sinaiticus bound into a book in the 18th century renders the Constatine Simonides forgery theory a silly thing.

The burden of proof is you you and the FART (Forgery Authenticity Research Team).

My understanding is that repairs and reinforcement of bindings was a common occurrence, and the fact that the text was visible would support that possibility.  Along with the New Finds being an 1840s-1850s dump zone and Uspensky running into bookbinding material.

Which, being interpreted, means: Avery thinks "could be" means "was."

 

[Steven Avery]

When eyewitness testimony gives testimony that could only be given by people involved in the situation,  that testimony is extremely relevant.  Even if the reputation of the person is checkered.

Here is an example.  Tischendorf lied repeatedly about his Sinaiticus finding.  (Pathological liar seems to fit well here, like a presidential candidate.)  He lied about 1844 and about 1859.  He deceived in his facsimile by leaving out the most basic evidence. He deceived for years by not publicly connecting the Leipzig and St. Petersburg fragments.  These palaeology related deceptions are actually far more important than the bogus loan that gets so much attention.

This does not mean that the various Tischendorf  testimony is worthless, it still has great value as part of the historical forensics.  It helps us connect the dots.    When we see that he does lie,  it also helps us understand that the motives should be examined.  Also when he wrote the wild 1863 books "Assaults" and "Weapons of Darkness" that show that he had motives other than scientific examination.

In fact, the solid report is that Simonides ended up working in the Tischendorf Russian home base of St. Petersburg after he dropped out of site with the "greatly exaggerated" report of his passing.  And his work was on the Russian historical archives!  hmmmm ....  How did this happen if Tischendorf was the good guy and Simonides the bad guy in this historical scenario?

With Simonides, the historical evidence and imperative totally supports his involvement with the ms.  This is the only consistent explanation of the series of events.

And his involvement also explains the huge piles of coincidences, like being in the right place in the right time with the right skills and connections from 1840 into the 1850s.  (Something he could not go back and change if he was simply accusing Tischendorf for spite.) And his putting out Hermas and Barnabas before the great Sinaiticus finds.  Remember, on that one Tischendorf actually retracted his linguistic accusation against the Simonides Hermas because it would hurt his own Sinaiticus Hermas.  Read Donaldson.  See the classic quote from Tischendorf "my opposite opinion is proved correct"!   

In fact, the major opponents of the Simonides claim at the time, Bradford and Scrivener (who did give the Tischendorf absence, not bringing the ms for examination, special note) actually had to come up with the theory that Simonides had simply confused two manuscripts.

The involvement of Simonides is the only explanation of the many "called shots" about the manuscript, Sinai and Tischendorf, such as noting the 1844 theft and the colouring of the manuscript and the sureness that there was no "ancient catalogues" that supported Sinaiticus.

And the Simonides involvement also explains the "phenomenally good condition" of the manuscripts. Morozov had no problem seeing that Tischendorf had snookered the Europeans about the condition, and that it was only a few hundred years old.

The Simonides involvement also explains the colouring of the ms. between 1844 and 1859 that was missed until the 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project.

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

Since the circumstantial case of ms 2289 is far from proof of a 1700s fragment, it is silly to ask for proof in either direction.  The best you can do is ask for a solid evaluation of the evidences. 

And that has to include what we know about the New Finds in general, what we know about the Uspesnky and Brugsch fragments, and what we know about rebinding and repair of mss in Sinai.  This is an area where I  will agree that it will be good to work on searching out all the available evidences.

Steven Avery

 

[bgwilkinson]

This impresses me as mere speculation and wishful thinking trying to prove a false premise.

 

[Steven Avery]

Just to be clear, I wrote in support of Sinaiticus authenticity as late as 2013, until the studies of the new evidences, especially what became available through the Codex Sinaiticus Project.

And I grant that if a person has not looked at the evidences, it is easy to call it just speculation, etc.

 

[Ransom]

That's a lot of hot air just to cover up the fact that you have zero evidence for the fragment of Sinaiticus being used to repair a book in the 19th century, Avery.

 

[bgwilkinson]

I am having such a hard time being interested in what seems like a bunch of idle speculation.

When you put up the chicken.com web site you really shot yourself in the foot.

My advise to you is do not let people know you are connected to the KJVO cult.

You might get some more interest.

 

[Steven Avery]

I am having such a hard time being interested in what seems like a bunch of idle speculation.
When you put up the chicken.com web site you really shot yourself in the foot.

Actually we have had an excellent response to the two web sites.

Codex Sinaiticus Authenticiy Research
http://www.sinaiticus.net/

Sinaiticus - authentic antiquity or modern?
http://www.purebibleforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65

Which give the urls to other discussion points, such as the :

Bible Criticism and History Forum
Facebook and Yahoogroup forums
youtubes on the colouring and also the BBC on the ms.

And much more. 

We simply let the evidence speak, and the evidence is totally clear that the Sinaiticus manuscript is a young manuscript. There are two major parts, one of which was artificially coloured between 1844 and 1859.  This you can easily see compliments of the Codex Sinaiticus Project and was noted at the time, but never checked for verification until recently.

All of which is 100% consistent with Sinaiticus being produced in the 1800s.

The Codex Sinaiticus Project has played an extremely helpful role in putting the pieces together.  The British Library has been rather forthcoming in discussion (allowing that authenticity is the elephant in the living room) while the Leipzig group has been totally mum.  Leipzig had planned physical tests on Sinaiticus for April, 2015 .. those tests were cancelled.  As an example of the British Library, Helen Shenton said that the manuscript was in "phenomenally good condition" .. which matches the Morozov analysis, that it was very young and flexible.  He said it could not be more than 600 years old, after handling the St. Petersburg ms.

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

For the emphasis of Scott, as I've pointed out, the evidence is clear that the New Finds area was an active area in the 1840s-1850s.  This can be seen by the overlap of Uspensky and Tischendorf material with New Finds material (and even overlap with sections that were a primary point of contention in the Simonides controversies, Genesis 24 and Hermas.  Note that Uspensky supports Hermas being complete originally, and thus the New Finds being a dump zone after the controversies of 1856, which led to the Tischendorf retraction.)

The Uspensky bookbinding related fragments ("book repair" per Parker) similarly are consistent with activity in the bookbinding realm in the 1840s.  The Genesis bookbinding material from Uspensky is contiguous to the New Finds Genesis material.

Thus if the ms 2289 fragment is Sinaiticus, two of the key questions is what is the terminus ante quem of the binding and whether the book was subject to later action after the initial binding .  The book has no internal notes that are referenced as being from to the binders or anybody in the monastery.  A full analysis correlates all the available information, including what we know of the New Finds today. 

(The fact that these contiguous and salient sections of the New Finds to Uspensky and Tischendorf and Simoindes fragments and controversy has not been highlighted in the Sinaiticus literature is a deficiency easily corrected by simply studying the manuscript history.)

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

Steven Avery

 

[Twisted]

We simply let the evidence speak, and the evidence is totally clear that the Sinaiticus manuscript is a young manuscript.

No doubt.  Good work.

 

[Ransom]

No doubt.  Good work.

Actually, since the only people who believe Codes Sinaiticus is a 19th-century forgery are KJV-onlyists on the lunatic fringe, it is clear that in fact there is a lot of doubt about Avery's favourite conspiracy theory.

 

[Twisted]

...the only people who believe Codes Sinaiticus is a 19th-century forgery are KJV-onlyists on the lunatic fringe

Is that aimed at me?  I'll have you know I was a lunatic long before I ever heard of Sinaiticus.

 

[Maitriser]

In the interest of accuracy, these so-called Sinaiticus researchers have never even be in the same room with the manuscript much less handled it. And yet amazingly enough, they can come up with some incredible claims. But incredible claims require incredible evidence - and none of these guys is up to that task.

Number of people who have ever actually handled Aleph who think it is a 19th century document: zero.

 

[Steven Avery]

Sinaiticus Coincidences? - David W. Daniels - Feb, 2017

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_4WdDG-smU

17 minutes. Watch and enjoy. Your feedback welcome.