Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 7:17 pm A curious blindness is only to seek out one side. James Snapp related to none of the evidences for recent vintage, but I am familiar with his approach, I expect a higher quality of response here.

James Snapp just acts logically here. As it has been proven that Simonides did not know the original Codex Sinaiticus manuscript, any further investigation into possible motivations or time details of a Simonides forgery become a waste of time and unnecessary.

I love this "two sides" argument.

"The world is round."

But you haven't given enough attention to the possibility it might be flat ...

I love this "two sides" argument.

"The world is round."

But you haven't given enough attention to the possibility it might be flat ...

The world has antipodes.

"As to the fable that there are Antipodes, that is to say, men on the opposite side of the earth, where the sun rises when it sets on us, men who walk with their feet opposite ours, there is no reason for believing it."

St. Augustine (City of Gawd XVI.9):
https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01581a.htm


Sinaiticus in all likelihood is a late forgery by the utterly corrupt church industry.

What C14 did for the Shroud it can do for Sinaiticus

Ulan wrote: ↑Mon Dec 05, 2022 7:49 am James Snapp just acts logically here. As it has been proven that Simonides did not know the original Codex Sinaiticus manuscript, any further investigation into possible motivations or time details of a Simonides forgery become a waste of time and unnecessary.

I answered that above, and on an earlier thread.
viewtopic.php?p=144001#p144001

Ulan wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:57 pm the person he tries to frame as a liar,

Are you really going to try to defemd the brazem lies of Tischendorf, including his 1859 saved from fire fabrication looking back at this 1844 theft?

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 5:01 am

Ulan wrote: ↑Sun Dec 04, 2022 12:57 pm the person he tries to frame as a liar,

Are you really going to try to defemd the brazem lies of Tischendorf, including his 1859 saved from fire fabrication looking back at this 1844 theft?

Yes, I will defend him here. However, I have answered this exact question of yours now numerous times, so there's no need to repeat that, unless you really don't remember, in which case:

That the leaves he took were discarded can be reasonably regarded as a factual statement, as leaves from this book had been used to repair other books long before Tischendorf or Simonides were born, as we know nowadays. At worst, the "fire" bit of the characterization was a bit of dramatic flourish; the kernel of the statement was obviously true. And no, he didn't steal the leaves, given he instructed the monks to collect the rest of the book in his absence, which they did, as we heard from Uspensky.

But it's funny how you repeat your baseless hypotheses here and elsewhere as if they were facts. I guess it's about fishing for supporters, even if your story has long been discredited.

Whether Tischendorf acted ethically is a separate question than whether the ms is genuinely ancient.
Compare the dispute on whether the UK should return the Elgin Marbles--which are genuinely ancient--to Greece.
To repeat a useful link, all four current holders of portions of the ms--including the monastery--agree on the history recounted here:
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/codex/history.aspx

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:05 am Whether Tischendorf acted ethically is a separate question than whether the ms is genuinely ancient.

Agreed. The Simonides/Tischendorf forgery hypothesis for Codex Sinaiticus is dead for the already mentioned reasons.
Furthermore, any hypotheses assuming a forgery after late antiquity and before modern times lack any motive.

Any character studies of the people involved in the 19th century discovery are just smokescreens that want to hide the fact that the forgery hypothesis has no merit.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Tue Dec 06, 2022 7:05 am Whether Tischendorf acted ethically is a separate question than whether the ms is genuinely ancient.

This cuts two ways. The main argument against the Mt. Athos production is “orange man bad”, unethical, referring to Simonides, who had nothing to gain. So if one is off the table, then both are off.

When you get to the nitty-gritty, the specifics of the Tischendorf con do in fact have major significance. He was the supposed palaeographic scholar, above Montfaucon. who pushed and pushed for the super-early date, he was also the thief and liar about that same ms. Oops. And he made examination of the two sections live extremely difficult. When the Russian scientist Morozov saw the ms., he blew the whistle.

=======

Ironically, Tischendorf did understand that the three crosses note was a scriptorium note, based on the comments I have seen.

The irony … this totally decimates the 4th or 5th century theory of Sinaiticus creation. Meaning, all those 4th- century arguments are worthless. Hmmm,…

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?

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.

IMO the BL has abrogated its professional obligation which should be to send a few samples to the scientists in the radiocarbon lab.