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

[Ulan]

I understand you are critical of the claims of discoloration. You may have a point. IDK.

That's not a question of believing or one of authority, but you can see for yourself that the whole color issue is a bogus claim. The online manuscript of Sinaiticus gives you all the tools needed to decide that for yourself. Steven either doesn't understand what the available information means or chooses to willfully misrepresent it. Take your pick. As for the underlying issue, there's no question open: his thesis is wrong.

Where it gets annoying are the constantly resurfacing claims certain manuscripts had no damage or blemishes. He probably just hopes people forget that this has been shown to be wrong.

What about the claims related to the editorial additions to the Song of Songs?

That's just the next sow that gets driven through the village, as they say in my language. Steven conveniently "forgets" certain aspects of textual history. For example, the underlying assumption, the MT text was somehow older or more authoritative than the LXX text* is simply wrong. It sometimes is, but there are enough cases of obvious later alterations to keep the text relevant for more "modern" Judaism or to expunge obvious mentions of the assembly of gods or the sons of God, which had been no issue in henotheistic or monolatric times. The other point is that, according to current scholarship, Codex Sinaiticus contains many thousands of corrections and commentaries that are dated to span more than half a millennium. That some editor of later centuries wrote over text that was turning illegible is normal.

*This doesn't touch on the LXX as an "Old Testament", which is obviously a later development, but the underlying different text families that are already discernible in the Red Sea Scrolls. Jewish text canon isn't that old, either.

[Steven Avery]

His infrequent posts contain questions. While some are answered many are not. Radiocarbon C14 dating will provide the final answer. I understand you are critical of the claims of discoloration. You may have a point. IDK. What about the claims related to the editorial additions to the Song of Songs?

Hi Leucius, I took a little break from posting, more involved in textual studies, especially where the Sinaiticus text or corrections have connections to specific manuscripts. And we have the silly season childish insult stuff like Bill Brown above, and the nonsense of "terrible yellow" from Ulan. However, I do hope to give some more attention in the weeks ahead, using the body of substantial posting on this forum.

Thanks for noticing the Song of Songs study. Nobody can really explain the advanced, sophisticated formatting and rubrications of the dialog of the Song of Songs, which only matches the style of later Latin manuscripts. They can only offer extremely low probability (impossible) conjectures of how that occurs in Sinaiticus if it is 4th century. An honest approach would say that the advanced formatting points to Sinaiticus being c. AD 1000 or later.

A similar example of a feature that is impossible to explain under current theories is the three crosses note. Clearly, this is a scriptorium note, made to spur either correction or egg-on-face acknowledgement. Tischendorf understood it that way. The idea that it was composed centuries after production is essentially absurd. However, the Sinaiticus palaeography insists on this absurdity. Everything falls apart if the note is placed as part of the 4th century production. No difficulty at all in the 1800s production theory.

A third example of impossibility nonsense in current theories is the attempt to connect Sinaiticus text and/or corrections with the Andreas and Oecumenius Revelation commentaries. As a type of precursor. This makes zero sense, and really makes for a terminus post quem of c. AD 650.

A fourth example of a highlight that should raise enormous suspicions is the simple fact of every verse, letter and word being neat and readable in the New Testament. While the Old Testament is said to be in tatters and wear from 1500 years of supposed hot, dry climate use before the Tischendorf extractions. This is a "too good to be true" aspect, as if it was planned for special New Testament use. This combines with the amazing youthful flexibility of the parchment to bewray any claims of 4th century production.

Once it is admitted that the 4th century push makes no sense, it is very difficult to start arguing for c. AD 700 or 1000. You are discarding all of Sinaiticus palaeographic "science" and the 1840s production starts becoming the most sensible.

Steven

[Leucius Charinus]

Thanks for noticing the Song of Songs study. Nobody can really explain the advanced, sophisticated formatting and rubrications of the dialog of the Song of Songs, which only matches the style of later Latin manuscripts. They can only offer extremely low probability (impossible) conjectures of how that occurs in Sinaiticus if it is 4th century. An honest approach would say that the advanced formatting points to Sinaiticus being c. AD 1000 or later.

Somewhere I read that these "rubrics" are present in writings of the Post Nicene Fathers of the late 4th and 5th century but I cannot find the source atm (You may have posted these earlier). However even if this is the case it seems to move Sinaiticus to the 5th century at the very earliest. I am interested to learn more on this. The presence of this stuff in Greek and Latin manuscripts of the middle ages is a problem to be resolved IMHO.

Once it is admitted that the 4th century push makes no sense, it is very difficult to start arguing for c. AD 700 or 1000. You are discarding all of Sinaiticus palaeographic "science" and the 1840s production starts becoming the most sensible.

I do not out rightly reject such a late date. The fact remains that if we were able to place back upon the table of evidence all the manuscript forgeries undertaken by the church [industry] but which have over the centuries been openly recognised as fraud and forgeries we would be staring at a mountain of fraudulent "evidence". The Pseudo-Isidore forgeries are just one example of this. There are no English translations available of these forged documents - over a hundred letter exchanges between Ante-Nicene and Post Nicene "Bishops" or "Fathers".

C14 of Sinaiticus is the sure way forward. There is a stack of papyri for C14 testing out of sight alongside the bindings. But the British Library seems determined to treat this codex as an inviolable "holy relic". This attitude is ideological and not logical.

[Ulan]

C14 of Sinaiticus is the sure way forward. There is a stack of papyri for C14 testing out of sight alongside the bindings. But the British Library seems determined to treat this codex as an inviolable "holy relic". This attitude is ideological and not logical.

With such a statement you just ignore the reasoning put forward by the BL. As you said, there's much papyrus material available for testing outside of the bound parts of the book. That's the material tests will most likely be done on, but it's nothing the BL has any say over, as they don't own those parts of the manuscript.

The reasons why a 19th century date for the manuscript is out of the question, anyway, have been stated often enough, so there's no reason to repeat those.

Or in other words: I see the "ideological attitude" somewhere else than on the BL's side.

[Leucius Charinus]

C14 of Sinaiticus is the sure way forward. There is a stack of papyri for C14 testing out of sight alongside the bindings. But the British Library seems determined to treat this codex as an inviolable "holy relic". This attitude is ideological and not logical.

With such a statement you just ignore the reasoning put forward by the BL.

I don't think I have. Here is my recent email exchange. I have footnoted the paragraphs. Apologies if I have posted this before.

BRITISH LIBRARY REQUEST:

From: "peter B"
Sent: 1/11/21 11:28 PM
To: peter T (BL)
Subject: Future C14 dating of Codex Sinaiticus?

Dear Peter,

I am wondering whether the British Library perhaps will, at some time in the future, consider C14 dating Codex Sinaiticus in order - to obtain through an independent scientific method, information concerning the correct century of this ancient manuscript, and whether the date from radiocarbon will agree with or call for modification of existing date estimates based on other methods such as paleographic dating.

I obtained your email address from Codex Sinaiticus - Contact

Kind regards

Peter B

***************************************
RESPONSE FROM BL:

Following is the response recently received from the BL re: C14 plans

2/9/21 11:25 PM
From
:
Peter T. (BL)
To: prfbrown

Dear Mr Brown,

Thank you very much for your message and interest in this manuscript and please accept my apologies for replying with such a delay.

We are all aware of the ongoing doubts and concerns about the dating of this extraordinary manuscript. However, the British Library does currently have no plans to undertake C14 dating of the Codex Sinaiticus, nor has it to my knowledge or as recorded undertaken this in the past. The main reason behind this decision is that C14 is a destructive form of technical analysis: it requires a sample to be physically separated and destroyed from an artefact which is why it is not undertaken on BL collection items. [1]

(The BL – as you probably know – has no detached/unwritten fragments of the MS similar to the ones currently kept at the Monastery of St Catherine on Sinai – so it would indeed require an actual intervention and damage to be made on the brilliantly preserved parchment folios of this MS). [2]

Moreover, these methods sometimes lead to inconclusive and unhelpful results in dating manuscripts, so in our present view (and, also in the view of several of our predecessors) the scholarly benefits of undertaking this do not outweigh or justify the losses that would occur to this critically significant artefact if C14 was undertaken. [3]

Contextual and imaging analysis can, in our opinion, prove as reliable and much less harmful way to interpret artefacts like this and were widely and successfully applied in various other manuscripts. There is broad scholarly consensus on the dating of this manuscript based on these well-established criteria for judging the date of a manuscript. More productive than C14 was the non-destructive analysis and identification of the type of skins and the animal type origins of the pages of Codex Sinaiticus, undertaken within and disseminated through the Codex Project. See, for example, http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/proje ... hment.aspx

as well as the thorough examination of the various inks used throughout the manuscript [4] http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/c ... n_ink.aspx.

I hope this helps to clarify the background of the BL’s policies and decisions as to the date of this remarkable manuscript.

Best wishes

Peter T. (BL)

****************************************************

FOOTNOTES:

[1] The problem the BL faces is that C14 dating requires an extremely small sample to be physically separated and destroyed from an artefact which is why it is not undertaken on BL collection. Scientific dating meets an inviolable "holy relic". This is ideological. Who is really going to miss a few extremely small samples from a blank area on ay given page? We can take a picture of these small blank samples just to prove they were blank and thus contain absolutely nothing relevant to the scheme of things. Scientific dating is a tool which can provide very reasonable and entirely independent estimates for the century of the codex. Historians would be able to be guided by these results.

[2] The BL doesn't own detached/unwritten fragments of the MS similar to the ones currently kept at the Monastery of St Catherine on Sinai. But the author repeats the doctrine of inviolability of artefacts. Or rather some very small bits of BLANK. I honestly think its a no brainer. Give some blank bits to the C14 lab.

[3] The argument here is that C14 can be unreliable / inconclusive. The C14 results have their own error bounds. Nothing's perfect. But we are talking about an extremely small amount of material lifted from a blank space. C14 can also be reliable within its error bounds and the calibration curve has been improved. The C14 labs are better equipped that they used to be. But the BL says again that the codex is quote -- a critically significant artefact -- unquote.

[4] Nothing is wrong in using a range of dating methodologies.

As you said, there's much papyrus material available for testing outside of the bound parts of the book. That's the material tests will most likely be done on, but it's nothing the BL has any say over, as they don't own those parts of the manuscript.

Yes. [2] above. Also we're dealing with vellum.

The manuscript is a codex (the forerunner to the modern book) made from vellum parchment, originally in double sheets, which may have measured about 40 by 70 cm. The whole codex consists of quires of eight leaves (with a few exceptions), a format which came to be popular throughout the Middle Ages (this being eight parchment pages laid on top of each other, and folded in half to make a full block (also known as a folio); several of these were then stitched together to create a book).[6] The folios were made primarily from calf skins, secondarily from sheep skins.[7]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus

The reasons why a 19th century date for the manuscript is out of the question, anyway, have been stated often enough, so there's no reason to repeat those.

What if it's from (say for example) the 14th century? C14 can provide the approximate century. Confirming and knowing when the codex was produced would be important.

Or in other words: I see the "ideological attitude" somewhere else than on the BL's side.

You are entitled to your opinion(s). My position is described above. We are talking about removing a seriously small amount of vellum from the edge of a blank page.

Leather sample requires - 50-100 milligrams
https://www.radiocarbon.com/required-ca ... -sizes.htm

Surely we can spare a very small amount of blank page in order to get a scientific dating for the codex? My motivation is to be guided by scientific and historical truth.

IDK when the codex was made. Neither do you or Steven or the British Library or anyone else.

[Steven Avery]

The reasons why a 19th century date for the manuscript is out of the question, anyway, have been stated often enough, so there's no reason to repeat those.

I've seen you object to certain evidences, and use wacky language like "terrible yellow", and some strange arguments and lots of liar refrains. And I will plan on returning to those issues, at least anything that looks like it might be substantive.

However, I do not remember seeing your arguments as to why a "19th century date for the manuscript is out of the question". You are welcome to list those arguments.

Ironically, I took such a position around 2011, before I knew more about the manuscript, on the TC-Alternate forum although my language was softer. I listed about five reasons why I thought Sinaiticus was ancient, made long ago, somewhat in the ballpark of 4th century.

[Steven Avery]

Somewhere I read that these "rubrics" are present in writings of the Post Nicene Fathers of the late 4th and 5th century but I cannot find the source atm (You may have posted these earlier). However even if this is the case it seems to move Sinaiticus to the 5th century at the very earliest. I am interested to learn more on this. The presence of this stuff in Greek and Latin manuscripts of the middle ages is a problem to be resolved IMHO.

A lot of the information is on p. 6 of this thread. The book by Jay Curry Treat spoke of "the Sinaiticus rubric-tradition", yet the real compatriots in this tradition are:

[box=]The oldest and purest Latin representative is an eighth-century manuscript, Stuttgart 35.

A thirteenth-century manuscript, Fribourg L 75 is another valuable representative of this tradition of rubrics.

De Bruyne found the same tradition mixed with other traditions in six Italian, Anglo-Saxon, and French manuscripts dating from the ninth through the fourteenth century.3
[/box]

So it is most likely that the Latin mss. were source manuscripts for Sinaiticus, which would be c. AD 1000 or AD 1840.

[Ulan]

I don't think I have. Here is my recent email exchange. I have footnoted the paragraphs. Apologies if I have posted this before.

Yes, you have posted this already. That's what I summarized in stating that using a piece from the St. Catherine's Monastery's collection is preferred. Which I see, as I have stated before, as a very reasonable proposition.

Just a comment regarding this:

The whole codex consists of quires of eight leaves (with a few exceptions), a format which came to be popular throughout the Middle Ages

That doesn't mean what you probably want to stress here: The start of the Middle Ages is usually set in the 5th century, and the common dating of the manuscript is just shy of that date, which fits the quoted statement.

What if it's from (say for example) the 14th century? C14 can provide the approximate century. Confirming and knowing when the codex was produced would be important.

Here we come to the point why the interest in doing these tests is rather mild: The manuscript doesn't make sense as being from the 14th century. Steven Avery's hypothesis at least makes sense from a point of possible motivation: personal posturing by a forger. Steven's hypothesis is just dead in the water, because the surrounding facts disprove his thesis. On the other hand, what would be the reasoning behind forging something like this in the 14th century? Pointing at the certainly existing and very productive clerical forgery workshops is moot, as those forged only documents that resulted in monetary gains, like land deeds, social standing or royal privileges. Nobody doubted the age of the church, and old manuscripts were copied and thrown away. Forging a huge and expensive manuscript in the style of the 4th to 5th century would only make sense when interest in real historical knowledge awoke, together with actual knowledge of the times for which it was forged (clerical forgeries most of the time lacked that historical knowledge, which makes them easy to identify as forgeries, like with the Donation of Constantine). This leaves us with only a few windows in time in which such a document makes sense as having been produced.

As far as I understood it, this doesn't make any difference at all for your own hypothesis, anyway, right? Nobody claims this manuscript is pre-Constantine. Whether it's from the 4th, 5th or 6th century isn't really such a big deal. It would be one of the few oldest manuscripts in all of these cases.

[Steven Avery]

Somewhere I read that these "rubrics" are present in writings of the Post Nicene Fathers of the late 4th and 5th century but I cannot find the source atm (You may have posted these earlier). However even if this is the case it seems to move Sinaiticus to the 5th century at the very earliest. I am interested to learn more on this. The presence of this stuff in Greek and Latin manuscripts of the middle ages is a problem to be resolved IMHO.

A lot of the information is on p. 6 of this thread.

The book by Jay Curry Treat spoke of "the Sinaiticus rubric-tradition", since it works with the false 4th-century date, yet the real compatriots in this tradition do not include any other Greek mss. and are:

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

De Bruyne found the same tradition of rubrics in a family of Latin manuscripts.

The oldest and purest Latin representative is an eighth-century manuscript, Stuttgart 35.

A thirteenth-century manuscript, Fribourg L 75 is another valuable representative of this tradition of rubrics.

De Bruyne found the same tradition mixed with other traditions in six Italian, Anglo-Saxon, and French manuscripts dating from the ninth through the fourteenth century.

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

So it is most likely that the Latin mss. were source manuscripts for Sinaiticus, which would be c. AD 800-1000 or AD 1840.

[Steven Avery]

Steven's hypothesis is just dead in the water, because the surrounding facts disprove his thesis.

And I am waiting for the supposed surrounding facts.

Forging a huge and expensive manuscript in the style of the 4th to 5th century would only make sense when interest in real historical knowledge awoke, together with actual knowledge of the times for which it was forged (clerical forgeries most of the time lacked that historical knowledge, which makes them easy to identify as forgeries, like with the Donation of Constantine). This leaves us with only a few windows in time in which such a document makes sense as having been produced.

Leaving open whether the Athos manuscript was meant as a replica or forgery, you are basically right here. The main windows are:

4th-6th century (although Tischendorf and the Hortian theories insisted on 4th.)

c. 1840, at Mt. Athos (the land of parchment!)

Other possibilities are very difficult.