Sinaticus problematicus

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Are you saying that Constantine Simonides had created the entire codex?

No. He was one of the scribes. See what I said above about the team on Mt. Athos on post #50.

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

The Athos group was headed by Benedict. And included Kallinikos, Simonides and others. (Two of the names written on the manuscript match up with Athos folks mentioned by Simonides)

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

also can you tell me why he included commentary in Arabic? What was his reason for adding commentary in Arabic in Revelation?

That commentary, also in Isaiah and two words in Zechariah, a few notes, was likely put in while the manuscript was sitting around St. Catherine's in Sinai after 1840, where Arabic was common.

Afaik, the Arabic was not mentioned by Uspensky, who saw the codex in 1845 and 1850. So it was likely put in between 1850 and 1859. The Arabic scholar Gosche said they were "very recent".

Samuel Tregelles
"Here and there a later hand has written Arabic notes in the margin, and these Tischendorf imagines are from the same hand that has made some corrections (apparently) in the eighth century: if so this would be an uncommonly ancient piece of Arabic writing: I showed the lithographed facsimile of the page to Dr. Goesche of the Royal Library, Berlin; and he tells me, (what I strongly suspected before) that the Arabic is very recent, also that it is by the hand of some Syrian, being (as I before knew) a liturgical note."

Some Unpublished Letters of S. P. Tregelles Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus, Evangelical Quaterly, 1976 Timothy C. F. Stunt, p. 20

Richard Gosche
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Gosche

Originally Posted by Evang.Benincasa

Also why is it not Arabic Christian commentary, but Islamic?

From my studies, just as likely to be Christian, although there is the Fatamid mosque at St. Catherines. It could simply be s passage from an Arabic text was written to note the parallel.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sinaiticus has Islamic Arabic commentary in the manuscript? That suggests a lot of things... What's the official story, I wonder? And, what does it say?

See right above. I could try to track down the "official story".

Anyway, for now, here is a page or two from Revelation with the major note.

Codex Sinaiticus - Arabic - Revelation - f327b - scribe a - q90-3-v -
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/ma...v&zoomSlider=0

Codex Sinaiticus - Arabic - Revelation - f328a - scribe a - q90-4-r - 2nd part -
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manusc...r&zoomSlider=4

Originally Posted by Esaias

Wait - are you saying the Sinaiticus text was derived (in part?) from the Russian Synodal text? Or are you referring to a copy of Sinaiticus located in Moscow? Or...???

The OT of Sinaiticus was derived in part from the 1821 Zosimas edition, the Moscow Bible, which itself was derived largely from Codex Alexandrinus, albeit a bit circuitously through the Grabbe edition. This Zosimas Moscow Bible source was stated clearly and specifically by Simonides, and never checked by the scholars. Thus in general in the Old Testament, Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus are close allies. Our chief researcher on this study lives in England.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Let us for the sake of the discussion, yield that there was clear and evident coloration, done in the mid to late 1800's, to make one look older, or more "yellowish" as you wrote in a later post.

So what? All that proves is that coloration occurred. It does not prove the codex is a forgery, hence circumstantial evidence..

This is extremely strong evidence that Sinaiticus is not an authentic 4th century manuscript.

First, why did the ms. not yellow over 1500+ years of supposed ongoing heavy use, century after after century? (This question should be asked about the Leipzig section, now that we know that it is white parchment and unstained. The materials tests planned for 2015 were canceled.)

Second, this is strong evidence that the ms. was being presented with unclean hands. The colouring was done to give an appearance of age.

As David said, when we were discussing this issue:

Why stain what you think to be the treasure of a lifetime, the oldest and best ms in history?

It's like the guy who got a gold medal, and was so excited that he went out and had it bronzed!

Originally Posted by votivesoul

The presence of errors, homoeoteleutons, Simonides' testimony, and etc. do NOT prove forgery. They are mere circumstantial evidences, which do not generate facts outside of themselves, no matter how much you or anyone else may want to infer.

Therefore, your assumptions about Sinaiticus are premature. This is Piltdown Man, but in reverse.

You really are not aware of how non-authentic mss are exposed and analyzed. Are you familiar with Archaic Mark, ms. 2427, that was a Category 1 ms for decades, in support of the Critical Text? It is now considered to be a forgery, based on circumstantial evidence. Also, are you aware that many criminals are convicted based upon circumstantial evidence?

Originally Posted by Esaias

So what? People color a text to make it look older (?) and this is not strong evidence of forgery? If nothing else, it proves the "manuscript experts" are just as fraud-prone as any other segment of society.

Exactly.

Originally Posted by Esaias

Meaning they are on the same credibility level as "some guy making YouTube videos".

Actually, in this case, a much lower credibility level.

Rarely do we get a better evidence than seeing the BEFORE and AFTER of the colouring and staining of the manuscript, visible since 2009.

Originally Posted by Esaias

The guy is a conservator, meaning his expertise is methods of conserving (preserving, repairing) books and manuscripts. What qualifications does he have to speak authoritatively on the issue of "identifying archeological and paleographical forgeries"?

He can make contributions. Generally, though, they are at the employ of the library, and their terms of employment do not include making a big issue about parchment or ink or binding or other anomalies that might point to non-authenticity.

And we have made it a point to reach out to conservators, photographers, library officials, parchment specialists, colour experts and others that have direct manuscript contact.

Originally Posted by Esaias

So, anybody making videos on YouTube is to be discounted?

Please keep in mind that David and the SART team has done a lot more than videos on YouTube. We actually have been involved with a lot of original research, including the translation of Uspensky into English, manuscript studies, historical digging, and the provenance and linguistics and context of the Barnabas 1843 edition from Simonides these last three years. As well as putting up a couple of very informative web sites, the ongoing contacts with scholars and writers, and David has his first book on the topic out.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

Rarely do we get a better evidence than seeing the BEFORE and AFTER of the colouring and staining of the manuscript, visible since 2009.

A colouring and staining that matches to a “T” the specific historical account published in 1862-64, referring to colour staining tampering done at St. Catherines in the 1850s.

We can see all 86 1844 BEFORE and the 600+ AFTER from 1859. They can be viewed individually, at each side-to-side point, and in a composite pic.

Steven

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

So what? People color a text to make it look older (?) and this is not strong evidence of forgery? If nothing else, it proves the "manuscript experts" are just as fraud-prone as any other segment of society.

Meaning they are on the same credibility level as "some guy making YouTube videos".

We're guessing at motives here. While it may seem the most likely reason for a coloration, we cannot say, because we don't have the proof to make a stronger case, hence circumstantial. Direct evidence creates its own facts. Circumstantial evidence causes one to have to infer facts. That's what I'm getting at. It's the same thing Creationist accuse of Evolutionists of doing: using circumstantial evidence to create de facto claims.

Plus, I never said the coloration was for certain. I only yielded it for the sake of the discussion to help explain the difference between direct and circumstantial.

Also, making videos on youtube doesn't validate or invalidate anyone's credibility. Please don't focus on that part of my statement. Focus rather on "some guy". To Steven, I am sure Daniel comes across as the very height of scholarship, worthy of commendation, and etc.

But how come know one has ever heard of him? Outside of his relationship to chick.com, in the wide world of Biblical scholarship, he's a nobody, same as you and me. Does he ever present at any of the many scholarly conferences and symposiums or is he published in any peer reviewed journals? I mean, one book of his argues that Jesus did not use the Septuagint as His Bible:

https://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1441.asp

From the website:

Other critics say, “Jesus and the Apostles used the Septuagint, and the Septuagint had the Apocrypha. So we must use the Apocrypha.”

That sounds convincing but this claim is bogus. A search of all sources, using modern technology, finds no evidence of the Septuagint being the Bible of the Apostles. It first appeared in the years after Christ died. It has only survived to this day because the fables of the Apocrypha support some of the unbiblical dogmas of Roman Catholicism.

How do you feel about him now?

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

The guy is a conservator, meaning his expertise is methods of conserving (preserving, repairing) books and manuscripts. What qualifications does he have to speak authoritatively on the issue of "identifying archeological and paleographical forgeries"?

And would he really go around handling the codex and put his entire career and reputation on the line if he was convinced it was barely 150 years old, instead of over 1,600?

The fact is, and this was my point here: he has actual contact with the codex. He is part of a team of actual scholars who have direct and constant access to the codex.

Compare this to merely making youtube videos, creating websites, and publishing a book while not having any direct, first-person access.

I've never owned a motorcycle, have no idea how to ride one, but I sat on a couple in my life, and drove one down a driveway once, and I can read lots of materials and make videos and maybe write a book about them, but between me and Evang.Benincasa, who are you going to trust if and when you want to buy one or already have one and are trying to fix it?

It is in that spirit that my comments are made. I hope that helps.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

This is extremely strong evidence that Sinaiticus is not an authentic 4th century manuscript.

First, why did the ms. not yellow over 1500+ years of supposed ongoing heavy use, century after after century? (This question should be asked about the Leipzig section, now that we know that it is white parchment and unstained. The materials tests planned for 2015 were canceled.)

Second, this is strong evidence that the ms. was being presented with unclean hands. The colouring was done to give an appearance of age.

Manuscripts discolor for lots of reasons, and can do so in a relatively short amount of time. Secondly, since the codex was broken up into pieces and shipped off to more than one location, it stands to reason that if one part of the codex was treated better, or conserved with more efficiency, than the other part, the part that yellowed was likely not cared for as well. Pictures taken of the codex and put online in 2009 have no way of answering otherwise, such as you want them to. There are two different facing of the parchment: skin and flesh sides, each demonstrating their own degradation characteristics.

You really are not aware of how non-authentic mss are exposed and analyzed. Are you familiar with Archaic Mark, ms. 2427, that was a Category 1 ms for decades, in support of the Critical Text? It is now considered to be a forgery, based on circumstantial evidence.

There were early critics of Archaic Mark who didn't buy it as legit, who thought it was a 19th century reproduction. The reason it wasn't disproved for decades was because 1.) it wasn't made widely available for scholarly scrutiny until 2006, at which point Carlson was able to make his case. And his case is and was quite sound, but more than that, guess what? 2.) it underwent proper testing that sealed the deal.

But Steve, you have all this on your purebibleforum.com site:

http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...c-Mark-ms-2427

So much for "circumstantial evidence". It was even stated back in the late 80's that the type of ink used for some of the illustrations didn't exist until at least 1704, so, yes, contrary to your claims, Archaic Mark had its detractors throughout a large part of its life, and their detractions were based in direct, not circumstantial, evidence. You should know that, too, as your forum proves.

Also, are you aware that many criminals are convicted based upon circumstantial evidence?

Yes. Red herring, however.

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

There were early critics of Archaic Mark who didn't buy it as legit, who thought it was a 19th century reproduction. ... It was even stated back in the late 80's that the type of ink used for some of the illustrations didn't exist until at least 1704, so, yes, contrary to your claims, Archaic Mark had its detractors throughout a large part of its life, and their detractions were based in direct, not circumstantial, evidence. You should know that, too, as your forum proves.

Sinaiticus apparently had its detractors from the get go as well. Including a well known antiquities dealer who claimed responsibility for it.

[Praxeas]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

I do wonder if any of our readers would like to comment on, or discuss, the evidences that Sinaiticus is actually an 1800s production.

Steven Avery

Such as?

[Esaias]

Originally Posted by Praxeas

Such as?

Page 1, please.

[Praxeas]

Yeah I partly caught up