Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Ulan
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:26 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:24 am
Actually, that pic above, with the word contiguous and the British Library, was my late night error, since they were using St. Catherine's pages, which were subject to environmental disaster, as the left page.

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

The four actual contiguous pages are on:

Four Contiguous Points
http://www.sinaiticus.net/four%20contig ... oints.html

And here is one:

Image

A difference that is far beyond any lighting issues...
No, you can see the lighting issues very clearly in these images. The London images show a very saturated yellow standard bar, the Leipzig ones a very desaturated and nearly colorless yellow standard bar. It's directly in your face. You just have to look.

But I appreciate that you chose some images with the color bars, so any viewer can see that those images had not been done under the same lighting conditions.
Last edited by Ulan on Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:44 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Ulan
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:35 pm

John T wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:35 am
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:51 am

However, you can easily see how someone may lose their patience and come to the conclusion that they are not dealing with genuine interest but with a nutjob with an agenda (Steven being a KJVonlyist isn't exactly a secret). Then you look closely into the claims this person makes, the claims that fueled the inquiry in the first place, and the natural reaction is to just put a stop to it. The last thing you want in your professional career is to be associated with a band of lunatics.
I can't help but point out the irony of your ad hominem against KJVonlyists (King James Bible only, Christians).

Seems to me the best way to shut them up would be to just go ahead and do the appropriate scientific testing on the Codex Sinaiticus and prove it is not a hoax. ;)

John T
I fail to see the irony. This was not an ad hominem (why do people always misuse that term?), it was an insult. Just for clarification: I don't refer to people who happen to like the KJV - that's perfectly fine. I mean those KJVonlyists who think that the KJV is the one and only authorized version of the Christian Bible and feel the need to go on a crusade against all other translations, because they are from the devil. People like that are crazy.

Ulan
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:40 pm

John T wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:06 pm
Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 11:55 am
So every ****** that comes along with a printed pages from internet websites should dictate where money should be spent in academic departments that have for the most part been subject to budget cuts? Here's my suggestion: get the funds (from a like-minded donor) to pay for the testing from a reputable company and maybe we're on to something. But let's face the facts with regards to where money should be spent, I think this is low on the list of priorities.
You would think a wealthy atheist/mythicist would jump at the chance to prove the Codex Sinaiticus is a fraud just like all of Christianity. Likewise, I have little doubt, there are dozens of post-grad students trying to get their PhD that would salivate at the chance to do modern DNA testing and radiocarbon dating on those pages.

Any other excuses for not seeking the truth? :roll:

John T
Why would an atheist or mythicist spend money on this? Atheists, mythicists, or even Catholics, have no vested interest in proving or disproving a Bible manuscript with a few minor variants from the 4th century. For atheists or mythicists it's too late for any meaningful discussion of how Christianity came into being, and Catholics don't care what translation they use; they are guided by tradition. It's certain subsets of Protestants with their "sola scriptura" ideology who need to find every piece they believe in the text they worship. They are the ones who fear they have something to lose.

Ulan
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 12:24 pm
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:51 am
It's not embarrassing, that's how human beings tick. As you can see from Steven Avery's posts, even in the last answers to me, scientists have shown to be very helpful on first contact. That's because they usually love the field they work in and probably find the question they are asked interesting and worthwhile. However, you can easily see how someone may lose their patience and come to the conclusion that they are not dealing with genuine interest but with a nutjob with an agenda (Steven being a KJVonlyist isn't exactly a secret). Then you look closely into the claims this person makes, the claims that fueled the inquiry in the first place, and the natural reaction is to just put a stop to it. The last thing you want in your professional career is to be associated with a band of lunatics. That's why I suggested that the push for more testing must come from a more neutral party. It may sound counterintuitive, but the activities of the group behind Steven may even prevent people from going along with testing at this point.

Just look at Steve Avery's post above this. Honestly, what would you think of someone who uses that image of two successive online pages as a valid reason for suspicion of any kind. A "normal" person would just assume that the book had obviously fallen apart between those pages, and we still find parts of the Codex nowadays in vastly different locations in the St. Catherine's monastery (last find was 2009). You don't pick the worst example page to judge the parchment, you look for one that didn't fall into a puddle or lay under a leaky roof.
Note that we show a composite image of EVERY page .. check the www.sinaiticus.net site and the cover of David W. Daniels book. So whether we look at individual contighous pages, or every page, you will complain.

Your discourse about the scientists is interesting. Some experts have kept ongoing dialog, but they are under a lot of pressure not to say anything publicly. Plus, the atomistic nature of modern inquiry puts them at a disadvantage, they generally only know about one or two parts of the Sinaiticus authenticity controversy.

Plus, I am not particularly pushing for testing. First, lets have some simple examination. Very few people have handled both sections. Why are they so supple? Why do they lack acid-deterioration? Why does 1845 ink look like ink on parchment that is supposed to be 1000-1500 years older?

There has been a bit of a charade, and some simple discussion and examination will show the real issues. Historical inquiry as well (e.g. The Uspensky translation, the Tischendorf theifts, and how did Simonides have so many "called shots".)

Testing will be wonderful, if it occurs. And I am quite confident that BAM style testing will totally destoy the ink and parchment theories behind the Tischendorf "conspiracy theory".

As for the book falling apart between those pages .. if you study the history, it was all intact as one unit until Tischendorf stole the quires in 1844. And later it is quite clear that Tischendorf disassembled the existing codex.

However, you do not know the history. It is easier to argue for authenticity in ignorance.

Steven
Well, here you show your sleight of hand again. The book wasn't intact when Tischendorf saw it in 1844. He got shown 129 leaves and took 43 with him. One year later, Uspenskij saw 347 leaves and was allowed to take three fragments that had already at that point been used for bindings in other books This proves the book had already fallen apart in 1844, and the monks had now been searching for missing leaves and fragments since they had learned that this book was of historical interest. Before that, they had used the leaves of the book as spare parchment for repairing other books, which has become abundantly clear nowadays. Who knows, it may have been intact when Donati saw it in 1761, but I guess the book was of no use to anyone and thus became a "spare part dispenser" afterwards.

Also, if Tischendorf had stolen those 43 leaves, why did the monks allow him to visit again in 1853, and even gave him another fragment that had been used as a bookmarker? Right, the "stealing" hypothesis fails a basic logic test. He visited the monastery a third time in 1859 (still nobody had objections against letting the "thief" into the library a third time), convinced the monastery to have 347 leaves transferred to Cairo (they obviously gave them voluntarily to the "thief"), worked some time on it and then signed a receipt to have these transferred to Moscow. The receipt contained a clause that the manuscript would be returned on request. In 1862 the facsimile was ready and brought to the tsar's attention. Then diplomatic negotiations started, and the manuscript stayed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for that time. In 1869, the final contract of donation was signed by all parties, including the monastery itself. The main reason for the delay was that the monastery was embroiled in some struggle over the leadership, but in the end, the monks got the leader they wanted, and everything was peachy.

They got some seller's remorse later, but that's a different story. If I remember correctly, part of the payment was some income from agricultural property in what was now the Soviet Union, and I guess everyone knows what happened to church property there. They probably didn't like that they lost part of their payment and the Soviet Union made a few millions by selling their part of the manuscript.

Your version of the story doesn't make a lick of sense. It fails basic checks.

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:41 pm

Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:40 pm
Why would an atheist or mythicist spend money on this? Atheists, mythicists, or even Catholics, have no vested interest in proving or disproving a Bible manuscript with a few minor variants from the 4th century. For atheists or mythicists it's too late for any meaningful discussion of how Christianity came into being, and Catholics don't care what translation they use; they are guided by tradition. It's certain subsets of Protestants with their "sola scriptura" ideology who need to find every piece they believe in the text they worship. They are the ones who fear they have something to lose.
Again, the issue here is not money. Truth is the issue.

There is a lot of learning and inquiry that can be done short of testing. Which is largely a red herring, because the Libraries will likely say no. They have a "priceless" relic, and do not want to be shown to have been fools. An understandable instinct.

e.g. On the whole colour issue, one sheet of Leipzig could be taken to the British Library, and an overlay photograph taken. Simple enough, little cost. All the Leizpig 43 leaves, 86 pages, are the same colour, all you need is one leaf, flesh and skin. (The British pages vary a lot, because of the staining, so you take a few overlays.)

However, the results can be expected to confirm the CSP photographs, and would put attention on what happened between 1844 and 1859. So do not expect Library cooperation.

An individual scholar could do his own similar study, but again, the results quite surely will simply confirm the CSP.

From my end, a key issue is presentation. A simpler write-up, using the material on the PureBIbleForum and Sinaiticus.net and material from David's vids.. And communication with various scholars and experts. All that continues quite nicely.

And if good thoughts and dialog comes forth from the forums, like this one, that is a big help.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:35 pm
This was not an ad hominem (why do people always misuse that term?)
The term is often not understood.

The traditional usage was "to the man" .. allow his arguments to be true. In the internet age the alternate usage "against the man" became very common. And that is often misused. And it often is not a fallacy anyway.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:07 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Ulan
Posts: 1271
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:49 pm

Steven, note that even the Leipzig image you showed yourself somehow doesn't make your point:

Image

Vellum and ink colors look pretty much like in the online London images, not like the online Leipzig images. This shows what slight lighting changes can yield.

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by John T » Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:43 pm

Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 1:35 pm

I fail to see the irony. This was not an ad hominem (why do people always misuse that term?), it was an insult.
I was being charitable.

ad hominem: An argument based on the failings of an adversary rather than on the merits of the case...American Heritage
An ad hominem attack on one's opponent is a tried-and-true strategy for people who have a case that is weak.

Personal insults, like the ones you have been hurling, are one of the lowest forms of ad hominem and the worse is calling your opponent a liar when you know they are not.

Your style of argument if you can call it style is straight out of the book: Rules for Radicals. Not only did you stoop to using ridicule over logic you also used rule 11 and 12.

Try to imagine what you would feel like if I insulted you like that because you are an atheist and all atheists are nut jobs?
Please return to civility and argue the merits without stooping to insults. :(

Let the hate go Ulan, let it go.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9964
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:47 pm

Of all people at this forum John you are without question the most obnoxious ... perhaps after me. But at least I don't engage in this passive-aggressive act that you do. Just admit that you are dick sometimes and move on. Ulan is a very good poster here. Very knowledgeable, very insightful polylinguist. You're just a garden variety asshole like me.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by John T » Thu Aug 02, 2018 4:06 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 3:47 pm
Of all people at this forum John you are without question the most obnoxious ... perhaps after me. But at least I don't engage in this passive-aggressive act that you do. Just admit that you are dick sometimes and move on. Ulan is a very good poster here. Very knowledgeable, very insightful polylinguist. You're just a garden variety asshole like me.
"I know you won't believe me, but the highest form of Human Excellence is to question oneself and others". Socrates

If you find my technique of Biblical Criticism obnoxious, you should question yourself why.

If Ulan can't handle legitimate questions about how to use modern science to properly test the Codex Sinaiticus without insulting people you should question why.

With that I will take a time-out for a while and wait for the arrogant hot heads to cool off a bit.
Perhaps then we can get back to how science can solve this problem.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Aug 02, 2018 5:10 pm

Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm

Well, here you show your sleight of hand again. The book wasn't intact when Tischendorf saw it in 1844. He got shown 129 leaves and took 43 with him.
This is a story that Tischendorf created in 1859. He needed political cover so he created the fanciful "saved from fire, I had permission" story. For which there is not a shred of evidence.

And even though many laugh at the story, (parchment does not burn well, the sheets are in wonderful condition) there are still many dupes today. All this was built on an absurd idea that Tischendorf walked in on a special day of destruction after 1,500 years and saved them from fire.

Why in the world would you believe these tissues of lies? How much of a dupe are you?

Did you know that his supposedly random 43 leaves was actually five quires (3+2), every single leaf? And then a contiguous part of a sixth, a special part with the Esther colophon.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
One year later, Uspenskij saw 347 leaves
And who gave you this number? If you copy errors, as here, you should give the source.

Uspensky did not indicate that Hermas was incomplete, adding more leaves. And his account sounds like a Codex, not loose leaves.

In fact, a weird theory, with no evidence, arose among the authenticists that the Monastery had done a quick rebinding in 1844. In order to account for the Uspensky account.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
and was allowed to take three fragments that had already at that point been used for bindings in other books
There is not one scintilla of evidence that either Tischendorf or Uspensky was "allowed" to take anything in the 1840s. If you are going to spout nonsense, please .. give your source. (And if you use the Russian site as your source, try to avoid being in collusion :) ).

Please read Natalie Tchernetska's "Constantine Tischendorf and his Greek Manuscripts". Theft was normative. Tischendorf even stole a leaf of an Archimedes papyrus. Since the only evidence for what you wrote is accepting the Tischendorf brazen fabrications of 1859, you have proved nothing.

In fact, when Tischendorf wrote to his brother Julius in 1844, he simply said that the leaves from Sinai:

The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as reported in the personal letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
https://www.academia.edu/1123038/The_Di ... ischendorf

He has come into possession of [=ich bin in den Besitzgelangt von] 43 parchment folia of the Greek Old Testament which are some of thevery oldest preserved in Europe

Simple thief's talk.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
This proves....
Nothing about events up to 1845, since you have all the facts wrong.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
Who knows, it may have been intact when Donati saw it in 1761,
Please, don't embarrass yourself further. Read the Donati description.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
Also, if Tischendorf had stolen those 43 leaves, why did the monks allow him to visit again in 1853, and even gave him another fragment that had been used as a bookmarker? ,
:) .. where do you have documentation that the monks gave him anything at all? Where is there a scintilla of evidence that they knew of the 43 leaves? Why do you repeat obvious fabrications?

The monks did not know about the 43 leaves. Tischendorf did not tell them of the missing quires. 40 of the leaves were intact quires. Tischendorf did NOT say where the Codex Friderico-Augustantus came from when he published in in 1846. Even after 1859, for awhile, Tischendorf was cagey about the connection of the Leipzig and St. Petersburg sections.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
Right, the "stealing" hypothesis fails a basic logic test. He visited the monastery a third time in 1859 (still nobody had objections against letting the "thief" into the library a third time), ,
Who said? There was a letter to try to keep him out (that may be 1844). He had accomplices inside, and opponents.

When Tischendorf came in 1859, the 1844 theft was NOT known, and he came with lots of Russian power, officialdom, $ and knew how to spread $ and liquor. That is how he came in for the last theft. Also he was under the patronage of the Tsar Alexander II, so the Monastery had to give him respect.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
convinced the monastery to have 347 leaves transferred to Cairo (they obviously gave them voluntarily to the "thief"), worked some time on it ,
One report from an English esquire in the time, William Leonard Gage, in Sinai, was very different. An interesting study.

However, the most important point is simple, Tischendorf never let it out that the published in 1846 Leipzig pages were from that manuscript. The theft was well hidden. Obviously, no permission had been granted, so the key point was to avoid the connection of 1846 Leipzig heist with that of the 1859 heist. Hidden as long as possible.

Returning to 1859, below, Germanos simply says " Tischendorf, as soon as he put his hands on the book" Germanos was the informant for Cyril the Archbishop-Elect of Sinai, written in Oct 16/28. This is from the Sevcenko paper:

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

"Contrary to our recommendations and to his own promises, Tischendorf, as soon as he put his hands on the book, hastened to spread the news throughout the whole of Cairo, either out of vanity or for some other reason. We also learned that he had beforehand published an article on this subject in an English daily. Since by now people here have no other subject of conversation than the affairs of Sinai, a great outcry arose against the Sinaites for having alienated this manuscript, since Tischendorf announced not that he had borrowed it, but rather that he had taken it for the definite purpose of offering it to the Emperor. Therefore people here are of the opinion that this offering has been arranged by Your Eminence In order that you might acquire the protection of the Russian Embassy there. ... We have been and still are denying all along that the manuscript had been given away, saying that we have sent it back to the monastery...."

The original note was in the German magazine, note English.

=================
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
and then signed a receipt to have these transferred to Moscow. The receipt contained a clause that the manuscript would be returned on request. In 1862 the facsimile was ready and brought to the tsar's attention. Then diplomatic negotiations started, and the manuscript stayed in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for that time. In 1869, the final contract of donation was signed by all parties, including the monastery itself. The main reason for the delay was that the monastery was embroiled in some struggle over the leadership, but in the end, the monks got the leader they wanted, and everything was peachy.
Most of this is irrelevant. Tischendorf was working with "possession is 99%" and simply trying to force some sort of accommodation. You might want to read Sevcenko.
Ulan wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:12 pm
Your version of the story doesn't make a lick of sense. It fails basic checks.
You say this because of great ignorance on your part, and ignoring the actual history. First, get your facts straight, and then try to offer constructive criticism. Learn historical forensics.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Thu Aug 02, 2018 6:11 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply