Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

[ficino]

So you think Sinaiticus is a fake, or that parts of it are, I gather.

[Steven Avery]

So you think Sinaiticus is a fake, or that parts of it are, I gather.

Strong evidences point to Sinaiticus being a modern manuscript. And for the most part, the dating of the origin of the manuscript is seen as one unit (allowing the two part distinction between what left Sinai as white parchment and pristine in 1844 and what left in 1859 yellowed and stained.) Alternatives are difficult, due to the interrelationships of quires, books and pages and scribes.

And the evidence is that it was tampered to make it look old. So in that sense it would likely be a fake, whether its original purpose was designed to deceive or not.

There are scenarios where Sinaiticus could be absolutely proven to be a fake or absolutely proven to be authentically ancient. And I do not disallow either possibility.

To give an example. For awhile some claimed that the New Finds, with various fragments, was a sealed room from the 1700s. Similarly there was a claim, second or third hand, that the ancient catalog contained Sinaiticus. And there was a claim that Vitaliano Donati had written of the ms in the 1700s. If any of those had panned out, the theory of 1800s creation would be disproven. However, they all fell by the wayside.

With the New Finds there were some Sinaiticus fragments used as book bindings. However, those could be bindings made in 1700 or earlier, or in 1845-1850. If that could be determined, it would be strong evidence one way or another. The 1700s would disprove 1800s creation, 1845-1850 would add to the manipulation evidences.

My position is that the evidence today points to inauthenticity. And that careful studies, discussion, analysis and research could help pin down the issues with far greater clarity.

To give an example, it would be very fine for some true papyrology and codicology experts to be involved, who do not have New Testament insitutional and prestige ties and whose views of book history are not based on a presumption that Sinaiticus was manufactured in the 4th century.

And similarly it would be very fine for classical scholars to examine the Hermas and Barnabas evidences.

Right now there is a wall of silence and denial about powerful evidences.

One scholar who has written on early Christian manuscripts wrote to me:

As for how we "know" Sinaiticus is from the 4th century, this is actually something I have wondered myself, but this dating seems too deeply entrenched in the scholarship of early Christianity to have a rational discussion about it.

This is similar to what was shared from David Trobisch.

The only way to break down the wall is to make the evidences pubic, in a fact-finding manner. Then let others interact. And maybe even the scholars will catch up to the discussion.

Steven

[Ulan]

Historically, Sinaiticus was used as a buttress to the new Westcott and Hort theories behind their 1871 and 1881 GNT recension. The Batman of Vaticanus was a partner to the Robin of Sinaiticus. Together they were the W-H textual Dynamic Duo. If Robin turns out to be a shill of the Joker, Gotham City will need a reexamination of its crime-busting approach. Now, to be fair, Hort's theories are pretty much defunct anyway, whatever the actual situation with Sinaiticus. However, the residue of the theories still casts a heavy hand on NT textual circles.

Well, you obviously start from foregone conclusions. Good luck with trying to convince anyone that all Alexandrian-type manuscripts are false.

It doesn't really matter one way or the other. The long ending of Mark is dead in the water. These manuscripts are just proof to what had already been pretty much clear before that. The Comma Johanneum is also clearly counterfeit. I'm not sure why these KJV fans are chasing a phantom. It's extraordinarily silly.

Even a 6th century origin doesn't change anything about this. Codex Fuldensis from mid-6th century doesn't care about long or short endings of Mark, it just uses a Diatessaron. It also proves that the sentence by Paul that women have to be quiet in church is counterfeit. It's a lost battle.

But there are lots of silly battles about minutiae like these fought on religious boards. I have to think about the fight over "Junia" or "Junias". The KJV got at least that point right. It's not bad, given the late material they had to work with, but it definitely has to be reworked.

[Steven Avery]

I'll be very happy to go into textual issues, including various variants, on a thread or forum where that is the topic. I only briefly shared my perspective because of the inquiry, not to start a different discussion. I will point out that the claim of a presuppositional approach is a common misrepresentation, For decades, 15-20 years,
modern versions were my Bible, until I studied the textual issues.

[Steven Avery]

Today I had the neat opportunity to discuss in person Codex Sinaiticus parchment color and condition with one of the world-class experts on the physical parchment characteristics. We discussed the DSS studies. Issues like the degree of color change in storage and how tests might be able to determine whether tea or lemon juice was used to colour-age a manuscript, aware of the techniques used for artificial aging.

Interestingly, part of Sinaiticus is planned to have it's first actual manuscript conditions studies within about a year. There is a real awareness that Sinaiticus has not had any real scientific examination. And it was refreshing to talk to a scholar who was well aware of institutional bias problems.

And I learned that there is a similar materials analysis bumping against "expert" dating issue. Involving the minor prophets "LXX" scroll. The actual physical materials support a significantly later date than the current pseudo-consensus.

[Ulan]

I'll be very happy to go into textual issues, including various variants, on a thread or forum where that is the topic.

No, I'm fine, as those textual issues are settled. Codex Fuldensis is also white, by the way. It's from the 540's. So, being white doesn't preclude old age.

[Steven Avery]

Agreed that white parchment can stay white a long time. Although there are various tests that can confirm the antiquity. An expert is up on the various parchnent materials and nature, including colour reactivity.

Codex Fuldensis has a very fine provenance. If we accept that in 1844 Codex Sinaiticus was white and pristine (perhaps similar to Fuldensis) one key issue is when did the bulk of the Sinaiticus manuscript become yellow and stained? And why and how this occurred.

Was this caused by an enhanced aging before 1859? As was specifically accused at the time. Or was this some real messy ms handling in Russia or London? Do we have other examples of such radical change in short-term storage, outside disastrous situations like the Pushkin Archive fire?

The auxiliary issue is how the pristine white 1844 section tests out. A manuscript and inks can be white parchment and pristine and young.

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

Textual issues settled? A fine discussion, on the forums so designed.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

In earlier pages, there is a quote-snippet from Scrivener. However the full quote is very helpful, since it indicates that the yellow condition of the manuscript was an element in the age considerations.

Historically, this is very important as well. Just about the only potentially theoretically tenable explanation for the white parchment CFA compared to the stained yellow parchment bulk of Sinaiticus is that something about conditions or handling of the manuscript in St. Petersburg or London caused a substantive, radical deterioration of the parchment (note that this is more a potential theoretical explanation of a color change, it does not give any explanation for the extensive staining.)

Yet here we have Scrivener telling us, possibly simply using the writings of Tischendorf, that Sinaiticus was quite the yellow ms in the 1860s.

A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus (1864)
Scrivener
http://books.google.com/books?id=v-JUmBD5zIcC&pg=PP38

"Nor, in estimating its date, must we forget the quality of the material on which it is written, or its present look and condition. The vellum leaves, now almost yellow in colour, are not only the largest, but among the finest and smoothest yet known ; if not quite so thin as those of the Codex Claromontanus of St. Paul's Epistles, the skins of none but the very oldest documents can be compared to them in beauty"

hmmm .. if yellow in colour is a sign of age, then what of the white parchment of Codex Frederico-Augustanus? And was the rest of the ms. was yellowed, aged, in a manner not taking 1500 years. Done in the special 15 years (1844-1859).

Pass the lemon-water please.

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

(Remember, that Ernst von Dobschütz in 1910 saw a white parchment manuscript, however he was close to Leipzig, thus he was describing the CFA.)

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

Sidenote: From memory: some time in the 1860s, I believe Tischendorf brought some leaves of the manuscript, apparently the CFA, to London. This was after the Simonides controversies. At the moment I only remember a reference to that, and it would be quite interesting to find an account.

It is clear that Scrivener considered Tischendorf a no-show in the Simonides controversies, and considered Tischendorf somewhat unbalanced (my word) and relied on the support of Tregelles for accepting the Sinaiticus antiquity position, not being impressed with the Tischendorf writings (the Tischendorf apologetic writings, contra Hilgenfeld, Uspensky, Simonides and an anonymous writer, are untranslated in German, reading or skimming those articles would be a great field for anyone German fluent).

Christian Remembrancer
The Great Vatican Manuscript of the Holy Bible
Scrivener
http://books.google.com/books?id=2_UDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA428

Of Tischendorf's animus, we fear, the least said the better: but those who remember the circumstances of that period, when Constantine Simonides was claiming to be the actual writer of Codex א, and Tischendorf's strange silence was lending some plausibility to his pretensions, will be of opinion that he could not well have done a wiser thing than to submit the suspected document to the examination of a most competent judge, who could have no prejudice in favour of its discoverer.

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

Here is an example of a brief account of one of the Tischendorf apologetic articles:

The British and Foreign Evangelical Review and Quarterly (1864)
Biblical and Miscellaneous Intelligence
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yw4EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA428

Dr Tischendorf, in addition to former attacks upon the character and credit of his great Codex Sinaiticus, proceeding from the Archimandrite Porfiri Uspenski in Russia, and from Simonides in London, has recently had to repel another assault from one of his own countrymen, an anonymous writer in one of the church journals of Saxony. The tone of this attack appears to have been unduly personal and bitter against the meritorious editor, and to have roused him to an equally undue degree of excitement. The title of his pamphlet in reply is sufficiently significant on this point—"Weapons of Darkness against the Sinai-Bible." The brochure is censured for its extreme tone; but it is acknowledged that Tischendorf has again successfully vindicated both the originality of his discovery, and the high value of the manuscript. It were well if the indefatigable and justly celebrated critic would take a hint from these repeated attacks upon him to be a little less self-asserting than is his wont—a foible and fault of which an author is sure, sooner or later, to be disagreeably reminded by one or other of his fellows.

As an example, you can find online:

The earlier 1863 writing, directed contra Simonides and Uspensky is given as

Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel - Assaults Upon the Sinai-Bible.
Consantine Von Tischendorf
http://www.glaubensstimme.de/doku.php?i ... inai-bibel
http://books.google.com/books?id=577FhUUliFQC
https://archive.org/details/dieanfechtungen00tiscgoog

The second one is:

Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel (1863)
Constantine Tischendorf
http://www.grundtexte.de/index.php?opti ... oad&id=163
http://books.google.com/books?id=rd1UAAAAcAAJ
http://books.google.com/books?id=LRAoni3tdN4C

Afaik, the best summary of these writings is at:

The American Presbyterian and Theological Review (1866)
Theological and Literary Intelligence
http://books.google.com/books?id=-mvUAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA192

He replied sharply in 1863 to the impudent claim of Simonides, in a pamphlet, entitled "Assaults on the Sinai MS.;" and there too refuted the theory of the Russian Archimandrite, Porphyry Uspenski, that the Codex had a heretical origin. In another pamphlet, "Weapons of Darkness against the Sinai Bible," 1863, he replied to an anonymous writer in the Sächsisches Kirchenblatt, who assigned the MS. to the 6th century. Hilgenfeld also tried to bring it down to the 6th century ; Tischendorf replied to him in the Tübingen Zeitschrift 1864.

Afaik, none of this material, those opposed to some of the Tischendorf claims or his defense, have been subject to modern examination. (Assaults, from an HTML edition, is easy enough to put through google translate)

Here is a bit more from the above, not the Tischendorf back-and-forth, simply addition 1860s scholarship on Sinaiticus.

But while this MS. is generally conceded to belong to the fourth century (e. g. by Weizsäcker on the Epistle of Barnabas, 1863 ; and by Tobler in an essay on the Epistle to the Hebrews in Hilgenfelds's Zeitschrift), several recent writers put it below the Vatican MS. as an authority, on account of its evident carelessness and numerous mistakes. Thus, Prof. Buttman, in Hilgenfeld's Zeitschrift, 1864, examines it carefully and finds in the Gospels alone some 360 plain errors or mistakes. Dr. Bömel, in a work on the Galatians, Francfort, 1865, comes to a kindred result, and says, that Tischendorf himseIf, in the last edition of his New Test., in the part on Matthew, i. to xvi. 23, "adopts the Sinaitic reading against the Vatican in 130 places, but the Vatican against the Sinaitic in 164 places." The above is condensed from the Neue Evang. Kirchehzeitung. The editor of the Journal of Sacred Literature (April, 1865), Mr. Cowper, assigns the Sinai Codex to the 4th century, and a Coptic origin.

Frequently, going through French, German or Russian material sheds light on the history missing in the English. As an ironic example, in one French translation of Tischendorf we see a reference to the liquor he used with the Sinai monastery folks, conveniently translated more benignly in English.

Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Christian Remembrancer (1863)
Imperial Edition of the Codex Sinaiticus
http://books.google.com/books?id=rPQDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA374

II. Parchment, Ink, Corrections, &c. of the MS.—
The parchment is generally 'sufflava' in colour, thin, and smooth, although of course the leaves vary; some are worm-eaten.

Novum Testsamentum Graece - Ex Sinaitico Codice (1865)
https://archive.org/stream/Tischendorf. ... 9/mode/2up

Membrana codicis non tam alba quam sufflava est,
magnaque ubique laevitate et subtilitate, quamvis singula folia
satis inter se differant.

Sufflavus - yellowish
https://en.glosbe.com/la/en/sufflavus

Not white, yellowish. Historically, that essentially eliminates the possibility that the manuscript was like the Codex Friderico-Augustanus when it got to St. Petersburg. It had already become yellow.

Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

David W. Daniels of Chick Publications produced a video that highlights the "white parchment" and "yellow with age" anomaly.

Who Darkened Sinaiticus?
David W. Daniels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJUusrUcE_o

The question is a very good question, and cuts to the heart of the Sinaiticus authenticity issues.

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

On a related sidenote, the old FRDB forum had had an interesting Nov 2011 thread.

Is Codex Sinaiticus a Forgery After All?
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=308716

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

Steven Avery