Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I suggest that the S. Avery characterization of BN's 19-page JTS 2022 article (pdf, preprint) is not accurate, but, because the article is available online* I'll be brief.

The article includes a wealth of detail, much of it about dating.
And the article includes (page 3):
"We may set aside as unfounded the claims of modern forgery...."

*The link to the pdf is given in the blog here:
https://brentnongbri.com/2022/08/03/a-n ... inaiticus/

The scholarly debate started by Nongbri is about the possibility that the text may be from the 5th century instead of the 4th.
I don't know of any expert in the field who doubted that the text is antique, at least not after the initial debate from the time the text surfaced. I don't know of any evidence that speaks against it.
On the other hand, the possibility that the text is from the 1800's had been conclusively disproved by solid evidence, which means that this line of thought is not considered by any historian.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 8:22 am I suggest that the S. Avery characterization of BN's 19-page JTS 2022 article (pdf, preprint) is not accurate, but, because the article is available online* I'll be brief.

The article includes a wealth of detail, much of it about dating.
And the article includes (page 3):
"We may set aside as unfounded the claims of modern forgery...."

*The link to the pdf is given in the blog here:
https://brentnongbri.com/2022/08/03/a-n ... inaiticus/

The reference given is:

On Simonides, see J. Keith Elliott, Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair (Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1982).

However, that is a grossly deficient source, and is also totally dated by the new information after 2009. So it is barely in the ballpark today (most of what Elliott quoted is now available on Google search.) I have a page directly on the topic of his book, and James Keith Elliott did write me a nice note when I pointed out how he had missed the Farrer account and asked him if he knew of it at the time.

Ulan wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 9:32 am On the other hand, the possibility that the text is from the 1800's had been conclusively disproved by solid evidence, which means that this line of thought is not considered by any historian.

Hi Ulan,

We have 40 pages of discussion here, and other threads.
And I have not seen anything that "conclusively disproved..."

James Anson Farrer wrote Literary Forgeries in 1907, a book praised by Metzger. Farrer had contacts that went back to the 1860s and knew of the Spyridon Lambros catalog of 1895-1900 that strongly supported the Simonides account. Farrer was quite sympathetic to the possibility that SImonides was involved with the Codex at Mount Athos.

"The question therefore, pending the acquisition of further evidence, must remain among the interesting but unsolved mysteries of literature."

Today we have the tons of further evidence, and it points to Simonides involvement in the manuscript and lots of Tischendorf theft and chicanery, like his flim-flam creative fabrication in 1859 that he had saved the ms. from fire in 1844 (he actually removed five intact quires and three leaves from the ms.) The condition of the ms., both flexibility with easy-peasy page turning, and the wonderful ink without acid effects over time, and the differences between 1844 Leipzig and 1859 British Library involving colour and staining, and much more, shows that the ms. is recent.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) handled Sinaiticus, which has been done by few historians, and he was convinced that it is much newer than the Tischendorf date. It was far too flexible, the oldest it could be was 600 years. No indication he even knew the Simonides account.

Much of the true history came forth after 2009. The attempt by James Keith Elliott is of little value today, as he missed the most salient issues. Chris Pinto was able to understand the historical imperative, because his background was more historian and journalist than Bible text writer, and he essentially reopened the question (although there were some predecessors in the USA, Germany and Russia.)

Historians, aware of historical imperatives, will ask questions like these:

Why would Simonides raise the issue without knowledge of the manuscript, when provenance would normally be trivially easy to prove? (Sinaiticus has no provenance before 1840s.)

How did Simonides and Kallinikos know of the Tischendorf 1844 theft? And numerous other inside issues, including the colouring and staining we can see since 2009? If he was not directly involved in some way, where did the knowledge come from?

There is much more, but I give these to emphasize the historical imperative (think also how the Athos catalog of 1895-1900 confirmed Simonides, Kallinikos and Benedict working in Athos at exactly the right time.)

Think also about the "coincidence" of his Hermas published before Sinaiticus. A very similar text, yet attacked by Tischendorf as a medieval retranslation.

Anomalies abound.

Good historians give them careful consideration.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:34 am We have 40 pages of discussion here, and other threads.
And I have not seen anything that "conclusively disproved..."

Yes, and I have been part of this discussion from the very beginning. Nothing has been brought forward that casts any doubt on the manuscript. The Tischendorf or Simonides involvement in forgery has been ruled out by pages of the manuscript having been used in book repairs long before both, Tischendorf or Simonides, were born. By the way, this also proves Tischendorf's account that he saved the manuscript from destruction, as pages were obviously in the "spare papyrus" bin. Additionally, Simonides disqualified himself as forger by showing that he had no knowledge of the actual manuscript and only knew Tischendorf's publications.

All this "internet paleography" by amateurs, which started this thread and is still visible in the title, has also been shown to be a lot of mistaken assumptions. At the moment, there's nothing left. I don't expect any of the curators of the manuscript to open the case, as long as doubts are only brought up by a mix of some fundamentalist and/or Biblical literalist Christians and people who deny antiquity happened. As long as nobody makes a solid case for forgery, there's no need to spend any effort on this.

C14 dating is nice to do, and let's see whether the project at St. Catherine's Monastery will perform some testing. Until then, there's not much to talk about.

Ulan wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:58 am
Simonides disqualified himself as forger by showing that he had no knowledge of the actual manuscript and only knew Tischendorf's publications.

A strange conclusion on your part.
Did Simonides learn of the 1844 theft, which he clearly described, from Tischendorf publications?
Did Simonides learn of the colouring and staining (only on 1859 British Library, not 1844 Leipzig) from Tischendorf?
Did Simonides lean of the lack of any pre-1840 provenance from Tischendorf?

Actually there was a dispute about the specifics of markings claimed by Simonides.
Here is the summary from Bodleian librarian Falconer Madan (1851-1935):

Books in Manuscript (1893)
Falconer Madan
https://books.google.com/books?id=o_s8AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA124

Simonides asserted, not only that he had written it, but that, in view of the probable scepticism of scholars, he had placed certain private signs on particular leaves of the codex. When pressed to specify these marks, he gave a list of the leaves on which were to be found his initials or other monogram. The test was a fair one, and the MS., which was at St. Petersburg, was carefully inspected. Every leaf designated by Simonides was found to be imperfect at the part where the mark was to have been found. Deliberate mutilation by an enemy, said his friends. But many thought that the wily Greek had acquired through private friends a note of some imperfect leaves in the MS., and had made unscrupulous use of the information.

Madan was in a position to know this controversy well. The "private friends" idea is very difficult, since Tischendorf made sure the manuscript was generally unavailable.

Tischendorf talked of incomplete notes, yet when the manuscript was stashed at St. Petersburg, the notes were gone.

What is your opinion of Tischendorf stealing five intact quires (plus three leaves) and then creating a cover story 15 years later that he had saved the manuscript from fire? Does it raise any suspicions that he was not on the up and up?

Ulan wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:58 am The Tischendorf or Simonides involvement in forgery has been ruled out by pages of the manuscript having been used in book repairs long before both, Tischendorf or Simonides, were born. By the way, this also proves Tischendorf's account that he saved the manuscript from destruction, as pages were obviously in the "spare papyrus" bin.

Based on what has been published, you are weak on the facts. There are no such pages. There is one binding fragment that may be from Sinaiticus, the Nikolaos Sarris fragment. There is no solid terminus ante quem for the binding and, if it is from Sinaiticus, it could have been done in the same period when Tischendorf dumped the latter part of Hermas in the dump room.

StephenGoranson wrote: ↑Sat Oct 08, 2022 12:12 pm Brent Nongbri, who calls for C14 testing of Sinaiticus, wrote:

"I also suggest that this particular range of possible dates (ca. 300 – 425 CE) makes the codex a good candidate for radiocarbon analysis."
https://brentnongbri.com/2022/08/03/a-n ... inaiticus/

I agree with him.
Nothing about modern forgery claims there.

No there is nothing about forgery claims there however ...


The claims appear to be directed towards CONFIRMATION BIAS.

Ulan wrote: ↑Sun Oct 09, 2022 11:58 am By the way, this also proves Tischendorf's account that he saved the manuscript from destruction, as pages were obviously in the "spare papyrus" bin. Additionally, Simonides disqualified himself as forger by showing that he had no knowledge of the actual manuscript and only knew Tischendorf's publications.

Anybody who believes the “saved from fire” canard should retire from Sinaiticus discussion.

In 1844 Tischendorf extracts (steals) five intact quires, and three Leaves.

He writes family simply that they came into his possession - thieves talk.

No permission ever given for the theft.

He hides the source of the 43 leaves, even after the 1859 theft,

In 1859 , he first floats the story, privately about saving from fire.

He waits years before publicly connecting the Leipzig CFA with the 1859 Sinaiticus.

Then he adds the saved from fire cover story.

Some gullible textcrits and Tischen-Philes believe the big lie, even today.

FWIW I attempted to bring attention to the C14 dating of these earliest Greek NT Bible codices by starting a petition 9 years ago. It attracted 50 supporters.

Background Data: http://mountainman.com.au/essenes/c14%20the%20bible.htm




Constantine Lukaris
Patriarch of Constantinople (1621-1638)
Codex Alexandrinus



*

Constantin von Tischendorf
Biblical Historian and Theologian (1834-1873)
Codex Sinaiticus