Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

three crosses scriptorium note - Tischendorf says by the third hand

Post by Steven Avery »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:57 pm Does this imply that you accept the hypothesis that it is dated to the 4th .
If Ulan accepts the three crosses note as a scriptorium note, which is clearly true, the 4th-century date is off the table.

Tischendorf, 1850 LXX, Charles Short 1853 English translation
“what is found written by the third hand at the bottom of the fourth leaf, with the sign of a triple cross affixed.”

”ex iis intelligitur quae tertia manu exeunte folio quarto adscripta reperiuntur, signo cruces ter apposito”
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Ulan »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:57 pm
Ulan wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:54 amFurthermore, any hypotheses assuming a forgery after late antiquity and before modern times lack any motive.
Does this imply that you accept the hypothesis that it is dated to the 4th century?
I'm no paleographer, but the paleographic reasoning why this is considered a 4th century manuscript sounds solid to me. I think Nongbri suggested it could also be 5th century, so there's that. Anything later doesn't make much sense, given how writing evolved during that time frame.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:57 pm Whenever a manuscript like this is "discovered", the more ancient it is, the more valuable it is to various extremely wealthy parties. So a commercial motivation is quite viable IMO.
That's what I covered with "modern times". Before that time, old mansucripts weren't highly sought after, especially if they were hard to read like Sinaiticus. There weren't many people in the West that could read Greek, anyway. Manuscripts like Codex Ephraemi or Vaticanus came to the West after the fall of Constantinople 1453, and with it the final end of the old Roman Empire. The influx of scholars from the East then jumpstarted the Renaissance and with it the interest in old manuscripts. However, there were still Renaissance scholars that threw originals away after copying them, because they still followed the old habit to see those old books as garbage. Why keep a damaged and hardly readable original, if you have a new and perfectly readable copy? To move on from this mindset took quite a while.

This is why I consider your assumption of a 14th century forgery untenable. While the church had whole forgery factories, those actually came with the appropriate motivation, like land ownership, special rights vs. the rulers, dominion over other entities, which is generally stuff that made the church lots of money.

Why Tischendorf or Simonides didn't forge it has been thoroughly elaborated countless times on this forum.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:57 pm IMO the BL has abrogated its professional obligation which should be to send a few samples to the scientists in the radiocarbon lab.
"Professional obligation" to whom? Nobody in academia doubts the provenance or dating of the manuscripts. From that point of view, there's no need to investigate this. Nevertheless, the BL agrees that radiocarbon dating should be done at some point, but better on fragments that don't contain much text, like have been found in St. Catherine's Monastery. As far as I heard, that's still planned.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: three crosses scriptorium note - Tischendorf says by the third hand

Post by Ulan »

Steven Avery wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 4:01 am If Ulan accepts the three crosses note as a scriptorium note, which is clearly true, the 4th-century date is off the table.
No, that's false. Codex Sinaiticus is seen as a manuscript that has seen margin notes over the course of several centuries. This means notes like the one you mention show how long this manuscript has been in use and that it's very old.

And then there's the issue that scriptorial signs are not necessarily of a fixed nature.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: three crosses scriptorium note - Tischendorf says by the third hand

Post by Steven Avery »

Ulan wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:46 am No, that's false. Codex Sinaiticus is seen as a manuscript that has seen margin notes over the course of several centuries. This means notes like the one you mention show how long this manuscript has been in use and that it's very old.

And then there's the issue that scriptorial signs are not necessarily of a fixed nature.
You will have to unpack the last sentence.

The point about the Three Crosses Note is that it makes no sense after the manuscript was kicking around for hundreds of years, the decision of what is superfluous and the noting of the double pages is exactly what is expected in the scriptorium, with source materials in hand. The note was almost surely designed as a "please try to fix this" note. Or a "sigh, we tried."

As I point out above, Tischendorf noted this as one of the original hands. I think he was accurate and honest on that point.
The date of the note serves as a terminus post quem for the writing of Sinaiticus.
Last edited by Steven Avery on Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:26 am, edited 4 times in total.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Steven Avery »

Ulan wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:45 am I'm no paleographer, but the paleographic reasoning why this is considered a 4th century manuscript sounds solid to me. I think Nongbri suggested it could also be 5th century, so there's that. Anything later doesn't make much sense, given how writing evolved during that time frame.
I agree that a theory of c. AD 700 does not make much sense. Once you have the later terminus post quem, you have to consider the possibility of an 1840s production as more sensible than AD 700.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: three crosses scriptorium note - Tischendorf says by the third hand

Post by Ulan »

Steven Avery wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 7:12 am The point about the Three Crosses Note is that it makes no sense after the manuscript was kicking around for hundreds of years, the decision of what is superfluous and the noting of the double pages is exactly what is expected in the scriptorium, with source materials in hand. The note was almost surely designed as a "please try to fix this" note. Or a "sigh, we tried."

As I point out above, Tischendorf noted this as one of the original hands. I think he was accurate and honest on that point.
The date of the note serves as a terminus post quem for the writing of Sinaiticus.
The note with the three crosses on the duplicate page is attributed to the corrector "pamph" by the official site, dated to the 7th century.

Note that not all of Tischendorf's hypotheses regarding the text are accepted nowadays.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery simply lied about reality during that debate.

And he got clobbered. But don't take my word it. And don't waste 90 minutes of your life watching his boring droning and Old Man Yells At Cloud fundie tactics. I've cut it down to save time.

Watch this fundamentalist Oneness heretic LIE:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_LwsVqJGqs0


In the original cut:
1:06:32 - "the idea that this was a one man procedure was not even "really" stated by Simonides


This statement is 100% false.

"First, I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas.." (9/3/1862 Simonides' first letter)

"I know that I wrote 1,205 pages in eight months and ceased from the work only because the skins failed.." (Simonides 1/21/1863)


Avery either does not know this or he's saying something he knows isn't true.
1:07:35 - "gave himself a little bit more credit than he deserved"

The only way a person can give himself more credit than he deserved for a group project is to claim he did it all by himself, which is exactly what you claim he DID NOT say. You contradicted yourself in less than 65 seconds.

It should be noted Simonides NEVER ONCE said "this was a group project."

OTHER EXAMPLES
I openly proclaim, both before the all-seeing God and before men; and further, I protest to you Messrs. Editors, that this is a genuine work of the indefatigable Simonides. For I myself saw him with my own eyes in February 1840, writing in Athos, and owing to the death of the head of the monastery he left the work unfinished (First Letter of Kallinikos the Phantom, 10/16/1862)

"the Codex thou wrotest at Athos, some 22 years ago (Kallinikos letter dated 11/9/1861 because it was backdated)


Steven Avery simply went into a "debate" and lied incessantly and without shame - because that's who he is.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Maestroh »

Since this yutz whined on CARM "you edited it out" (lying but whatever), here it is.

He actually commits 8-9 lies here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_y5Lg__Lu1A
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Ulan wrote: Wed Dec 07, 2022 5:45 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:57 pm
Whenever a manuscript like this is "discovered", the more ancient it is, the more valuable it is to various extremely wealthy parties. So a commercial motivation is quite viable IMO.
That's what I covered with "modern times". Before that time, old mansucripts weren't highly sought after, especially if they were hard to read like Sinaiticus. There weren't many people in the West that could read Greek, anyway. Manuscripts like Codex Ephraemi or Vaticanus came to the West after the fall of Constantinople 1453, and with it the final end of the old Roman Empire. The influx of scholars from the East then jumpstarted the Renaissance and with it the interest in old manuscripts. However, there were still Renaissance scholars that threw originals away after copying them, because they still followed the old habit to see those old books as garbage. Why keep a damaged and hardly readable original, if you have a new and perfectly readable copy? To move on from this mindset took quite a while.

This is why I consider your assumption of a 14th century forgery untenable. While the church had whole forgery factories, those actually came with the appropriate motivation, like land ownership, special rights vs. the rulers, dominion over other entities, which is generally stuff that made the church lots of money.
The church industry has always been in the business of "acquiring" manuscripts. For example in 1513 CE John de Medici (Pope Leo X) increased the price of rewards to persons who procured new MS. copies of ancient Greek and Roman works.

How old is Sinaiticus? IDK. Nobody "knows". But I do know that C14 can provide an independent and scientific answer that question.

Leucius Charinus wrote: Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:57 pm IMO the BL has abrogated its professional obligation which should be to send a few samples to the scientists in the radiocarbon lab.
"Professional obligation" to whom? Nobody in academia doubts the provenance or dating of the manuscripts. From that point of view, there's no need to investigate this.
A professional obligation to conduct 21st century based independent and scientific enquiries. Dogma is a dangerous authority. Access to independent additional evidence is often of great assistance. The sky is not going to collapse if Sinaiticus is a thousand years younger than currently thought. But it should wake us up a little further.

Included among the aims and objectives of the Project
Codex Sinaiticus Online was a provision:

To undertake research into the history of the Codex . . . , to commission
an objective historical narrative based on the results of the research
which places the documents in their historical context ...."


https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/history.aspx

Scientific C14 dating directly and explicitly accords with this provision.
Nevertheless, the BL agrees that radiocarbon dating should be done at some point, but better on fragments that don't contain much text, like have been found in St. Catherine's Monastery. As far as I heard, that's still planned.
That's not what I have heard about Sinaiticus. I have written to the BL on their policy for or against the C14 dating of Sinaiticus and they reject it because miniscule samples of material will be destroyed. The codex is being treated as if it were some type of inviolable "Holy Relic". It isn't. It's historical evidence. I posted the email exchange with the BL in one of these Sinaiticus threads. If you'd like to see it and can't find it let me know.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Ulan »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:05 amThe church industry has always been in the business of "acquiring" manuscripts. For example in 1513 CE John de Medici (Pope Leo X) increased the price of rewards to persons who procured new MS. copies of ancient Greek and Roman works.
That's exactly what I said: Interest in old manuscripts awoke during the Renaissance, so Renaissance popes fit the bill. I also mentioned the influx of Greek scholars and manuscripts after the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:05 am
Nevertheless, the BL agrees that radiocarbon dating should be done at some point, but better on fragments that don't contain much text, like have been found in St. Catherine's Monastery. As far as I heard, that's still planned.
That's not what I have heard about Sinaiticus. I have written to the BL on their policy for or against the C14 dating of Sinaiticus and they reject it because miniscule samples of material will be destroyed.
Indeed. As I said, the plan is to use the stuff at St. Catherine's monastery, some of which is in a condition nobody will miss the samples. Obviously, the decision when and how those samples are processed is not in the responsibility of the BL.

But to address this again:
Leucius Charinus wrote: Wed Dec 14, 2022 4:05 amA professional obligation to conduct 21st century based independent and scientific enquiries. Dogma is a dangerous authority. Access to independent additional evidence is often of great assistance. The sky is not going to collapse if Sinaiticus is a thousand years younger than currently thought. But it should wake us up a little further.
Does any scholar doubt that this is a manuscript from the 4th century, except Nongbri's assessment that it could also be 5th? No. So no, as nobody of any knowledge in this field doubts the provenance of the manuscript, there is no professional obligation to investigate this further. Nobody after late antiquity wrote in this way.

Really, the issue is that anyone peddling these second millenium theses for the manuscript fails to provide any reasoning why anyone would do such an expensive and laborious effort to produce such a large manuscript in the style of the 4th century. It costs a ton of money, takes months if not years to write, and after that, someone has to fake the correction history. The BL manuscript alone has 15,000 corrections from different centuries. Faking centuries of correction history would add a lot of time to the task. The forgery hypothesis just doesn't make any sense at all.
Last edited by Ulan on Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:40 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Post Reply