Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Jan 07, 2016 3:50 pm


Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus Part 2
David W. Daniels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ZZim_NLapA


A must see. It is a follow-up to :


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


Best, do #1 first. However, if you want the short-cut, simply view Part 2, it will work as a standalone.

Shortly, there is planned be a backup website with the images.

Our earlier discussion:


Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017


Steven Avery

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by DCHindley » Thu Jan 07, 2016 7:07 pm

Citing a video by Jack Chick is a little discouraging, Steven.

Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Jan 07, 2016 9:46 pm

You might want to actually see the video before giving your ho-hum genetic fallacy response :).

The video is by David W. Daniels, who works with Chick Publications, who has been looking closely at these issues.
And has had a lot more insight than the textual expert-shmexperts, who have been so dense that they did not even
notice the colour distinction.

If you want something "discouraging", it would be why a few layman/amateurs had to discover and research something
that is glaringly obvious :) and cuts right to the heart of all age and authenticity questions.

Steven

User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 2726
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by DCHindley » Fri Jan 08, 2016 7:33 pm

Steven Avery wrote:You might want to actually see the video before giving your ho-hum genetic fallacy response :).

The video is by David W. Daniels, who works with Chick Publications, who has been looking closely at these issues.
And has had a lot more insight than the textual expert-shmexperts, who have been so dense that they did not even
notice the colour distinction.
Oh my! It may be fallacious but there is a certain truth to the saying "consider the source". Jack hates everybody who is NOT a KJV only born-again "bible believing" Christian.

Don't get me wrong, I used to be one myself for about a decade, and had delighted in reading and passing out Chick tracts, although even then I felt he was over the top about Catholic priests and nuns all being child molesting and/or torturing devil worshippers under the leadership of the whore of Babylon. Oh c'mon.

So, when a guy standing among the book stacks at a local library starts lecturing me by holding a bible open but facing the ceiling before him, which he periodically lifts up into view and then lowers below our view, all the while talking about the evil deceptions of Codex Sinaiticus, I am sorry but I just can't help but tune it out.

DCH

Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:21 pm

the local library? please. Anyway, David is far more knowledgeable on the Sinaiticus manuscript problems than your fav
people and you only hurt your own learning curve by playing the gf card.

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

Here is the pic David used in the video (it was new to me) that shows the full monte.
Can you find what went to Leipzig, the "white parchment" (Uspensky, 1845 visit) manuscript that was the full manuscript in 1844.

Image

The simple question is:

What caused the manuscript that was "wonderfully fine snow-white parchment" (Ernst von Dobschütz in Halle near Leipzig, 1910) to be yellow with age by 1862?
i.e. The mass that had not been heisted from Sinai in 1844.

Note: the image above is showing in firefox, but not my Chrome browser or Android so far, so I will include it also the other way, as an attachment.

Steven Avery
Attachments
full body.jpg
full body.jpg (70.53 KiB) Viewed 5447 times

User avatar
toejam
Posts: 753
Joined: Sun Apr 06, 2014 1:35 am
Location: Brisbane, Australia

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by toejam » Sat Jan 09, 2016 2:24 pm

Can't this be simply explained by the fact that pages age at different rates and in different ways depending on the environment they're kept in and the regularity of their use? I have lots of my own drawings from about 15 years ago. Some I've kept in a storage box deep in the cupboard, and others just in a folder that gets regular usage. The tint of the pages are different. They've aged in different ways and at different rates. I'm sure this is the case whether we're talking paper or parchment. If some of Sinaiticus' pages were taken to different places around Europe for some period of time (even just a few years) and handled by different people in different ways, shouldn't we expect to find some variation in aging to be noticeable when they're brought back together?

The guy in these videos seems more motivated by his disdain for the conclusions drawn about the Greek Text when accepting Sinaiticus as a 4th century text than purely a disinterested curiousness. He clearly has a lot personally invested in this. His little spiel about how we can trust that God preserved his word in the King James Bible shows that, despite his protestation, he very much does have a horse in the race. He shows all the hallmarks of a denialist conspiracy theorist.
My study list: https://www.facebook.com/notes/scott-bignell/judeo-christian-origins-bibliography/851830651507208

Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

pages age at different rates?

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Jan 10, 2016 11:45 am

Hi toejam,

Interesting thoughts. And I disagree about the horse in the race, based on my own experience. To me the Sinaiticus ms. is a textual trash manuscript, since I am very familiar with its scribal (as contrasted to textual) disaster situation (read Burgon, Tischendorf's "many obvious blunders" and more.). And I was disinterested in the whole question, even writing cautiously against the non-authenticity argument in 2011. However, research compelled me to be more active, as the "facts on the ground" became clearer and clearer. Now, I would just simply like the truth to be told. And the conspiracy of silence among the textual experts-shmexperts to be broken. There you have the real "conspiracy".

There are a couple of problems with your theory of differing storage. which is similar to the grabbag of ideas that was thrown out in the British Library response.

1) the same distinction that exists today existed at the time the manuscript was published in 1862, and the ensuing decades, until today. This is clear from quotes from Uspensky, Scrivener, Dobschutz and others.

2) there is no reason to think that a supposedly heavily-used white parchment (unaged) manuscript would be heartily accepted as 4th century, an idea that was pushed very aggressively by Tischendorf. There is no other such white parchment ancient manuscript, (even more so when you consider the century-by-century heavy usage theorized) and ultimately that physical dissonance would be questioned as more rigorous examination insisted upon. (When Leipzig got close to doing planned material tests in April, 2015 on the German portion the idea was kaboshed before anything began.) At first, Tischendorf did not even directly link the two mss (see the Literary Churchman, July 16, 1859), however since they were contiguous text, they had to be connected. The shell game from that point on would be to emphasize the mass of the ms. in Russia, and later England, since that was "yellow with age".

3) while storage conditions could explain some degree of colouring, there is nothing known with storage that would go with the increasing stains that are in the coloured area. Other than something like a storm, of which there is no historical indication. There is no indication that Uncle Joe would take out the manuscript for his morning brew and vodka, with shaky hands.

4) there is no known distinction in storage conditions, that idea is all conjectural, and there is no history of anybody noting colour changes, either darkening or whitening

5) the evidence is strong that the British Library actually doctored the colour in the 2010 book. At that time nobody had publicly pointed out the distinction, clearly they were concerned to give an even colour appearance, since in a book the differences would be glaring (as they are in our combined photo).

6) the person who handled the manuscript created major fabrications and lies about the procurement and had a very checkered reputation. As an example, Baron von Bunsen is reported to have said "that man [Tischendorf] will do anything for money". We know of various ms. thefts by Tischendorf, including a leaf from the Archimedes Palimpsest and, apparently, a leaf from the Codex Ephraemi, and more. The Sinaiticus heists of 1844 and 1859 also have all the earmarks of theft. A paper by Natalie Tchemetska touches, a bit gingerly, on this theft problem. Beyond that, there are various suspicious circumstances in that era, such as the assertion from Hort in 1853 that "...Tischendorf will supply rich materials" and oddities in the papal visits. The vain-glorious self-promotion of Tischendorf was commented upon even by friends, e.g. Phillip Schaff, a textual supporter, referred to "his personal vanity and overfondness for his many and well-earned titles (covering ten lines on the title-pages of some of his books...)".

7) there would be an obvious motive to colour the manuscript. The official history is a pastiche of rather blatant fabrications (sometimes called myths, like the saved from burning and the red cloth), so when you reject the storyline that has no corroboration, you end up with lots of means, motive and opportunity. There was an unusual period where Tischendorf had full usage of the ms. in Cairo with two very lightly-identified Germans, who happened to know Greek.

8) the specific accusation was made at the time. And the person who made the accusations, Kallinikos, clearly knew Tischendorf and what had occurred at the monastery and pointed out the problems. He specifically highlighted that this colouring occurred. (Along with corroborating elements such as Tischendorf's bungling Greek speech, and the clear declaration, at an early day, that the pseudo-loan would never be returned, and the mangling of the ms, which matches the difference from what Uspensky saw to what was brought out.)

9) there are numerous, and totally independent of the colouring, compelling corroborative indications that the Sinaiticus ms was not a 4th-century creation. Including the Barnabas and Hermas textual "coincidence" histories of Simonides and the linguistic arguments of James Donaldson on those two texts. And there is no provenance for the manuscript before the 1840s, no monastery record, no catalog, no notice, no nuttin, poof provenance. And the arguments for authenticity are "soft", of the nature of .. "how could such and such accomplish this particular task and create that particular text." A variety of potential probative authenticity arguments, like the "ancient catalog", have poofed away. Oh, the evidences, including the Tischendorf family correspondence, clearly point to Simonides claiming involvement in the manuscript before it was known publicly, before the supposed red cloth discovery. Which acts as yet another singular powerful support of Simonides involvement in the creation of the ms.

Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery on Tue Jan 12, 2016 9:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Jan 12, 2016 7:32 am

Steven Avery wrote:5) the evidence is strong that the British Library actually doctored the colour in the 2010 book. At that time nobody had publicly pointed out the distinction, clearly they were concerned to give an even colour appearance, since in a book the differences would be glaring (as they are in our combined photo).
A reference to:

Codex Sinaiticus, Facsimile Edition.
Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC. PO Box 3473, Peabody, Massachusetts 01961-3473
ISBN 978-1-59856-577-5 (facsimile edition with reference guide)
Published in Great Britain by The British Library 96 Euston Road London NW1 2DB
ISBN 978-0-7123-4998-7 (facsimile edition with reference guide)

Published by agreement with the British Library Board, National Library of Russia, monastery of Mount Sinai (Saint Catherine's), and Leipzig University Library. (2010)

The printed facsimile of Codex Sinaiticus is based on the digital photographs taken as part of the Codex Sinaiticus Project at The British Library in London by Laurence Pordes, at Leipzig University Library by Elisabeth Fritsch-Hartung, at St Catherine's Monastery in Sinai by Michael Phelps and Father Justin and at the Institute of Oriental Manuscripts in St Petersburg by Svetlana Shevelchinskaya. The images, taken according to agreed technical standards, were processed to represent faithfully the actual appearance of the pages and were minimally reduced in size by approximately 5%. This reduction was essential to bring the pages down to the maximum size which could be bound by machine. The processing of the images required sensitive adjustments, since the appearance of the parchment and ink varied somewhat between the leaves at the four libraries and from page to page, owing to many factors, including the difference of the absorption of the ink on the 'flesh side' and the 'hair side' of the animal skin. p.5


Apparently they thought that the light-coloured white CFA pages needed a (ironic expression) "sensitive adjustment".

Steven Avery

Maestroh
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Maestroh » Fri Aug 16, 2019 4:42 am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4WA6V4S4xp8


A look at this video from last month's Dean Burgon Society shows how truly pathetic these attempts are and remain. These folks simply cannot defend this nonsense.


First, I walked into a meeting of fundamentalist doctrinal purists and quoted Waite's book about exposing heresy. Then I asked Daniels about the heresy (from the DBS viewpoint) of Avery himself. Daniels then gives a politician's answer, that he hasn't spoken with Avery about it.

That's NOT a denial, however......and Daniels DOES know about it, but he didn't volunteer that information because, well, that's who he is.

Secondly, they cut me off and then edited the question I asked the next day.

Simonides says very clearly he saw this alleged color change in 1852.

Why then do these folks claim Tischendorf did it in, well, a vague period of time?


Reality? These folks don't know what they're talking about and are living proof of Dunning-Krueger.

Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Sat Aug 17, 2019 5:58 pm

Thanks for bumping this up.

Earlier, was told about your comedy act, and look forward to the replay.

Post Reply