Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery
-
- Posts: 18761
- Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am
Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery
I think Trobisch once told me it could be as late as the 5th. It's been so long but I think he said that to me.
Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery
Yes, I had added that Nongbri said that 5th century would be a possibility. Radiocarbon dating would probably not necessarily help to distinguish between that and 4th century.
- Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2836
- 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
Nongbri himself recommends C14 dating Sinaiticus in the paper cited.Ulan wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:18 pmDoes 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.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.
Brent Nongbri wrote:
CONCLUSION
While standard reference works give a date of ‘ca. 360 C.E.’ velsim. for Codex Sinaiticus, this overly precise mid–fourth century date is more a matter of habit rather than the result of reasoned argumentation based on reliable evidence. Either a date earlier in the fourth century or a date in the later fourth or early fifth century is equally possible. For greater precision and confidence, we need study from new angles, and AMS radiocarbon analysis seems sensible at this juncture.
Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery
Sure. As I said, it's planned for some of the St. Catherine's stuff that's heavily damaged and without writing. Nevertheless, nobody expects any miracle insights from this.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 4:23 am Nongbri himself recommends C14 dating Sinaiticus in the paper cited.
Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery
Aww common, I want Avery to be rightUlan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 10:59 amSure. As I said, it's planned for some of the St. Catherine's stuff that's heavily damaged and without writing. Nevertheless, nobody expects any miracle insights from this.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 4:23 am Nongbri himself recommends C14 dating Sinaiticus in the paper cited.
-
- Posts: 2107
- Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am
Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery
https://www.amazon.com/Archimedes-Codex ... 0410&psc=1
Help may be on the way (of a more Non-Destructive Type) if anyone RILLY wants to examine the material.
CW
Help may be on the way (of a more Non-Destructive Type) if anyone RILLY wants to examine the material.
CW
-
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery
A variety of quotes from the 5th to the eighth.Secret Alias wrote: ↑Wed Dec 14, 2022 1:33 pm I think Trobisch once told me it could be as late as the 5th. It's been so long but I think he said that to me.
==========
This was a wide ranging interview: ... the egotism and vanity of Biblical scholars, David Trobisch's suggestion that Codex Sinaiticus could date from the 8th century ...
Stephan Huller Interview on Aeon Byte Gnostic Radio
Post by Blood » Sat Dec 21, 2013
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=292
==========
And I conjecture that David Trobisch is aware of some of the many difficulties in the Tischendorf date and fantasy story-line. Like the scriptorium three crosses note, the Hermas linguistics brought forth by Tischendorf vs, Codex Athous, the Barnabas linguistics, the Simonides Athous coincidence, the sophisticated formatting of the Song of Somgs, the connection to the Andreas Revelation commentary, Latinized names in the New Testament, Hilgenfeld on the spelling anomalies using Montfaucon, Sinaiticus correctors matching up with specific manuscripts in both the NT and OT, similar homoeoteleuton connections, the sophisticated sense-lines, even NT, pointed out first by Uspensky, the phenomenally good condition of the parchment, the lack of ink-acid derterioration, the differences between the Leipzig 1844 leaves and the Brit 1859 leaves, the Morozov appraisal, the skepticism on the colophons due to the similarity with other manuscripts, the lack of testing, the duplicate pages, the scribal bluneramas, the palaeographic missing puzzles and missing links, the aborted project, etc.
Even if you omit everything related to Simonides, Athos and the 1800s, any good scholar should be ready to chuck the current on sensum date,
============
Main argument for the standard, pseudo-consensus date?
Orange man bad.
- Leucius Charinus
- Posts: 2836
- 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
C14 dating provides scientific insights.Ulan wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 10:59 amSure. As I said, it's planned for some of the St. Catherine's stuff that's heavily damaged and without writing. Nevertheless, nobody expects any miracle insights from this.Leucius Charinus wrote: ↑Thu Dec 15, 2022 4:23 am Nongbri himself recommends C14 dating Sinaiticus in the paper cited.
"Everything which has come down to us
from heathendom is wrapped in a thick fog;
it belongs to a space of time we cannot measure.
We know that it is older than Christendom, but
whether by a couple of years
or a couple of centuries,
or even by more than a millennium,
we can do no more than guess."
[Rasmus Nyerup, (Danish antiquarian), 1802 CE
(in Trigger, 1989:71) - from https://c14dating.com/k12.html]
Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery
Yes. Did my statement in any way question this?
What I referred to was that even C-14 dating only gives a range of possible dates. As the question among people from the field is whether the document is from the fourth or the fifth century, it may not be able to distinguish between those possibilities. Even the typical date ranges given (and often not mentioned in popular publications) of 80 years or so often only have a 1σ confidence interval, which is just above the "two thirds likely" confidence. That's the reason why the interest in these measurements is low.
And really, nobody in academia gives any thought to crackpot ideas like Steven Avery's. Those inventions aren't really directed at academia, anyway, but are just meant to be peddled to laypersons in their circle of believers who won't know any better. People who really read Avery's fables also recognize that radiocarbon dating won't change a single thing about his stories. Then he'll come with "but Simonides said he used some old parchment, which means the radiocarbon dating proves nothing". True conspiracy nuts won't ever be swayed by any evidence whatsoever.
Avery only argues on the basis of belief. Just take the "three crosses" note for example to see how he ticks. Avery spent lots of time to convince us that Tischendorf is a notorious liar implied in a forgery scandal. The "three crosses" note is generally attributed to a corrector from the region of Pamphilia who worked in the seventh century on some minor parts of the Old Testament. Of course, this doesn't work with Avery's ideas. His solution? He "chooses to believe" Tischendorf in the specific case of the "three crosses" note, because Tischedorf attributed that one to one of the original hands. The reason for this sudden change in Avery's stance? Any factual reasons? No. It's just because it fits his invented story better. That this constitutes a major logical fallacy should be obvious.
What I referred to was that even C-14 dating only gives a range of possible dates. As the question among people from the field is whether the document is from the fourth or the fifth century, it may not be able to distinguish between those possibilities. Even the typical date ranges given (and often not mentioned in popular publications) of 80 years or so often only have a 1σ confidence interval, which is just above the "two thirds likely" confidence. That's the reason why the interest in these measurements is low.
And really, nobody in academia gives any thought to crackpot ideas like Steven Avery's. Those inventions aren't really directed at academia, anyway, but are just meant to be peddled to laypersons in their circle of believers who won't know any better. People who really read Avery's fables also recognize that radiocarbon dating won't change a single thing about his stories. Then he'll come with "but Simonides said he used some old parchment, which means the radiocarbon dating proves nothing". True conspiracy nuts won't ever be swayed by any evidence whatsoever.
Avery only argues on the basis of belief. Just take the "three crosses" note for example to see how he ticks. Avery spent lots of time to convince us that Tischendorf is a notorious liar implied in a forgery scandal. The "three crosses" note is generally attributed to a corrector from the region of Pamphilia who worked in the seventh century on some minor parts of the Old Testament. Of course, this doesn't work with Avery's ideas. His solution? He "chooses to believe" Tischendorf in the specific case of the "three crosses" note, because Tischedorf attributed that one to one of the original hands. The reason for this sudden change in Avery's stance? Any factual reasons? No. It's just because it fits his invented story better. That this constitutes a major logical fallacy should be obvious.
-
- Posts: 988
- Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am
Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery
Added to the above are the conflations in Sinaiticus, where there is no early Greek evidence for one of the two components of the conflation. Two excellent examples are Jude 1:3 (σωτηρίας καὶ ζωῆς conflates σωτηρίας and ζωῆς) and 2 Peter 2:15 (Βεωορσορ conflates Βοσόρ and Βεώρ)Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Dec 18, 2022 5:37 pm
And I conjecture that David Trobisch is aware of some of the many difficulties in the Tischendorf date and fantasy story-line. Like the scriptorium three crosses note, the Hermas linguistics brought forth by Tischendorf vs, Codex Athous, the Barnabas linguistics, the Simonides Athous coincidence, the sophisticated formatting of the Song of Somgs, the connection to the Andreas Revelation commentary, Latinized names in the New Testament, Hilgenfeld on the spelling anomalies using Montfaucon, Sinaiticus correctors matching up with specific manuscripts in both the NT and OT, similar homoeoteleuton connections, the sophisticated sense-lines, even NT, pointed out first by Uspensky, the phenomenally good condition of the parchment, the lack of ink-acid derterioration, the differences between the Leipzig 1844 leaves and the Brit 1859 leaves, the Morozov appraisal, the skepticism on the colophons due to the similarity with other manuscripts, the lack of testing, the duplicate pages, the scribal bluneramas, the palaeographic missing puzzles and missing links, the aborted project, etc.
Even if you omit everything related to Simonides, Athos and the 1800s, any good scholar should be ready to chuck the current on sensum date,