Results 1 to 3 of 3

Thread: Tommy Wasserman - Sinaiticus gate-keeper

  1. Default Tommy Wasserman - Sinaiticus gate-keeper

    Facebook - The Lying Pen of the Scribes
    Roberta Mazza post

    Steven Avery
    When will the Lying Pen group actually make an effort to look at the provenance and authenticity issues that swirl around the Codex Sinaticius?

    Granted, there is "deeply entrenched scholarship" but the 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project, and other newly available information, shows us that the anomalies are glaring
    Tommy Wasserman
    Steven, there are no serious scholars who doubt the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus. It does not help that a KJV-only group attempts to prove that Sinaiticus is a forgery or copy from the hand of Simonides. This is regarded as a curious conspiracy theory.
    Steven Avery
    Tommy Wasserman -There are no serious scholars that have related to the new evidence available since 2009. So the appeal to authority is totally irrelevant.

    If I am wrong, name one that has commented on:

    a) the 1844 white parchment in Leipzig vs. the 1859 stained yellow in the British Library

    b) the 1843 Barnabas from Simonides now available

    c) the Uspensky translation that shows the established Tlschendorf history to be totally false

    There are more, but that is a start.

    (1) is critical since it matches to a "T" what was stated in 1862, the ms. was coloured in the 1850s to give it an appearance of age. And we have an amazing BEFORE and AFTER visible today, since 2009.

    (The 2011 publication was tampered to hide the colour disparity, the one from the British Library and Hendrickson.)

    As for the genetic fallacy approach that you try to use, really I would think you could do better. It is funny when you get upset over who does the work that you should be researching.
    Tommy Wasserman
    I will not debate with you in this forum
    Steven Avery
    Another venue would be fine.

    And it could even be a cordial discussion, the issues are glaring and really need to be addressed.
    However your efforts have been to quash any discussion at all, like at the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog.
    Tommy Wasserman
    I am one of few who have replied to your postings on the textual criticism discussion list, and other members have asked me why I bother. The issues are not glaring in my opinion.
    Steven Avery
    You never even tried to explain why the 1844 Leipzig is a pristine white parchment when the 1859 British Library is stained and yellow, exactly as described as having occurred during the 1850s, published in 1862.

    You do not get more obvious and glaring evidence than that on any authenticity inquiry.. BEFORE and AFTER.


    Beyond that the "phenomenally good condition' can be seen in the superb 2-minute BBC video:

    The Beauty of Books

    1650 years of heavy use? Aged parchment?
    Take a look.

    Quite glaring, my friend.
    Please, take off your tin foil hat and actually interact with the evidences.

    Pic of Wasserman Mazza post.jpg

    Tommy Wasserman tin foil hat.jpg

    Roberta Mazza apparently got intimidated by the gate-keeper into not allowing the last post. I sent her a note, I will report back if there is a reply.

    The closed-eyes approach of the "scholars" is quite clear . Unable to discuss the substance of Sinaiticus, where the actual evidence for non-authenticity is enormous, they look for various diversions, genetic fallacies, hand-waves.

    In a sense, the evidences are too clear and powerful and easy to understand. This is uncomfortable for the "scholars". Anybody can see for themselves what happened to Sinaiticus by just looking at the Codex Sinaiticus Project photos. (And the helpful information at including the contiguous points, and the superb composite photo by David Daniels.)

  2. Default Sinaiticus Gate-keeping 101

    One major add to the points above that have not been addressed by the textual scholars, to be added to the ones above, that has radically changed in the period since 2009:

    a) the 1844 white parchment in Leipzig vs. the 1859 stained yellow in the British Library
    b) the 1843 Barnabas from Simonides now available
    c) the Uspensky translation that shows the established Tlschendorf history to be totally false

    is the discovery of the sense-line homoeoteleutons that work with Claromontanus as a source for Sinaiticus.

    An extremely unusual phenomenon on extant mss, that you can see an exact match where a line that was omitted is the extant line in another extant ms. If the target ms. wasn't the supposed ultra-early Sinaiticus, this would lead to lots of fascinating discussion and theorizing and even amazement from the textual scholars. Since the target is Sinaiticus, it must be simply ignored. (Afawk, nobody had even theorized sense-line manuscripts earlier than Sinaiticus, much less ones that would match up so precisely again and again.)

    Also on the Barnabas 1843 of Simonides, we would include the discovery of the Star of the East review of the publication, and the Preface and Intro to the Barnabas. And the research into the connection to Sinaiticus Barnabas.


    As the main Sinaiticus gate-keeper, Tommy Wasserman would give an "answer" to posts on the textual criticism forum. He would do it in such a way that he says absolutely nothing about the substantive evidences. I'll post some examples below.


    In general, his modus operandi is to pressure the forum administrators to quash discussion. As in the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, which would be a natural discussion point, where he has the moderator status.

    • Tommy Wasserman 6/30/2017 1:55 pm
      I have deleted a comment by "Steven Avery" who claims that Sinaiticus is not an ancient manuscript. We will avoid the spread of such propaganda on this blog.
    Tommy Wasserman tries to make sure that any post that could touch on Sinaiticus authenticity is deleted, or not allowed through moderation. Is this next one, he makes a nothing dismissal comment and skedaddles.

    Youtube - Sinaiticus Coincidences? (a superb video)

    Tommy Wasserman - 2017
    "WARNING: pseudo-scholarship alert!"

    Steven Avery
    Warning, Tommy Wasserman has danced around, and avoided dealing with any of the salient issues, including:
    1) the colouring of the manuscript,
    2) the pheonmenal condition
    3) the historical studies supporting Simonides involvement 4) the deceptions of Tischendorf and keeping the ms. away from view
    5) the homoeoteleutons from Claromontanus
    6) the linguistic analysis of James Donaldson
    7) the 1843 Barnabas And much more. So which side of this issue is pseudo-scholarship? Easy enough to see.


    the key textual criticism argument contra evidences of Sinaiticus being 1800s is the argument from fallacy



    SBL - August, 2017

    Steven Avery Great stuff from our scholars. "Too good to be true" is one major element that can help determine non-authenticity. And I wonder when one or three of our scholars will take a long, careful look at the mountain of evidence that is now swirling around Codex Sinaiticus. Time for the deeply entrenched scholarship logjam to break.
    Tommy Wasserman Who are "our scholars" "Steven Avery"? Do you mean scholars in general? They have examined and written articles and monographs on Codex Sinaiticus since the 19th century.
    Steven Avery Sure, Tommy Wasserman, dozens of papers have been written about elements of Sinaiticus, simply and incorrectly assuming authenticity.

    However, from 1900 to recent days only two English writers made any type of significant attempt to address the authenticity issues. James Anson Farrer in Literary Forgeries in 1907 was one. He revealed to the English readers one major evidence corroborating the Simonides account and involvement, from the Lambrou catalogs of 1895 and 1900, and raised important thinking points.

    And the James Keith Elliott book of 1982 was another, with major deficiencies (e.g. he did not even mention Farrer, which was a type of scholarship gross negligence. I wrote to him and asked about the omission and received no reply.)

    Now, many of the major evidences that challenge the deeply entrenched scholarship all arose after the Codex Sinaiticus Project of 2009 made the manuscript available to study. Some of that study actually began collaboratively on a Facebook group.

    This new evidence includes the clear evidence of colour tampering, matching to a "T" (for Tischendorf) the historical accusation of tampering made c. 1860. We can even see the Before and After from the Codex Sinaiticus Project. And the homoeoteleuton evidence that Claromontanus was used as an exemplar for Sinaiticus. Also the timeline research that makes the commonly accepted scenario virtually impossible and supports Simonides involvement. David W. Daniels has been studying this closely. Then we have the crafty and blatant lying of Tischendorf (one example, the saved from fire in 1844 canard that he put forth in 1859 for expediency). This worked to hide the lack of provenance. And Tischendorf would point people to his facsimiles rather than examining the actual manuscript. Holding the pristine white parchment portion in Leipzig and the awkwardly coloured part in St. Petersburg, with minimal access (the facsimile edition ignored physical anomalies and the obvious colour distinction, remember Leipzig leaves left Sinai at a much earlier date). Study of the facsimile rather than the manuscript section was a classic case of misdirection. We now have the acknowledgement of the "phenomenally good condition" (Helen Shenton) of the manuscript. And we have the translation of the Uspensky and Morozov observations, Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) having noted that the condition simply could not be that of a heavily-handled antiquity manuscript. Dirk Jongkind thanked us for making the Uspensky material available in English. This material makes the Tischendorf fabrication history 100% clear. And much more.

    We also have the lack of any scientific testing of parchment and ink and materials. The planned 2015 study of the Leipzig pages, by the group in Berlin, Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung Und Prüfung under Dr. Ira Rabin, that worked on the DSS, having been quietly cancelled.

    Plus we have additional helps arising from the fascinating Vienna 2014 conference on Simonides. (Although they were not really aware of the new Sinaiticus material, which was still in the beginning stages of research and study.)

    So the fact that much of the scholarship train keeps rolling along in the gear of oblivious is really not very relevant. The authenticity issues cry out for examination. Especially now that we know so much more about the authenticity and forgery problems.

    Who will step up to the plate?


    Your thoughts, counterpoint and consideration welcome!

    Steven Avery
    Asheville, NC (writing in Casa Grande, AZ)


    Steven Avery The above omits one of the most important areas of historical manuscript evidences, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas.

    In 1855, Simonides made public a Greek Hermas edition before the Sinaiticus manuscript Hermas was published. Even earlier, Simonides published an 1843 Barnabas Greek edition. The very two books that were non-canonical in Sinaiticus.

    Rather amazing coincidences. Amazing coincidences and seemingly impossible insights (if you accept some iteration of the Tischendorf and authenticity positions) abound everywhere in the field of Sinaiticus.

    Tischendorf actually accused the Hermas of Simonides of being too Latinized, then he retracted the accusation around the time of the publication of Sinaiticus, for fear of the boomerang effect.

    The world-class Scottish scholar James Donaldson (1831-1915) analyzed both the Hermas and Barnabas books of Sinaiticus, and he wrote articles that showed that linguistically they could not be the antiquity claimed by Tischendorf (in essence, the Tisch original accusation was right.)

    Even without knowing of the Barnabas edition, and without going into the Tischendorf accusation and retraction, and the Donaldson linguistics:

    James Anson Farrer said about the Simonides Hermas edition:

    "The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"

    Literary Forgeries p. 60
    Greek Forgery: Constantine Simonides


    And what do Elliott and Wasserman and Snapp tell us about this history?

    A thunderous silence, a harumph and a hand-wave.



    Steven Avery So, while a number of individuals, and one team, have been researching, finding and studying these evidences, and making them more publicly available, the position taken by the more official forgery scholarship realms has so far been akin to that of government bureaucrats that say:

    "nothing-burger, nothing to see, we don't need to even examine this evidence, fake news, kooks"

    At times on Facebook or blogs they even delete posts (or block the posters) that even reference the evidence that indicates that Sinaitcus is non-authentic. (I am not talking about rant or off-topic or self-promotion posts, which on any topic can properly deserve moderator action.)

    The possibility of Sinaiticus being non-authentic is discomfiting to the paradigms of our current deeply entrenched scholarship. Thus, the issue is supposed to be invisible, dismissed with a hand-wave. Or a very mild limited possible counter-evidence is emphasized. (e.g. The Mayer papyri controversy of Simonides in the 1860s, while interesting, is barely relevant to the 1839-1844 Simonides work and the Sinaiticus provenance history.)


    My appreciation that the Lying Pen group has taken a more open position.


    Whatever your position, studying Sinaiticus should help appreciate the many different competing elements that have to be compared in examination of authenticity issues. (It should be recognized that not all non-authentic manuscripts are forgeries, replicas can morph into supposed antiquity documents.) Here are some of the major components, and each one has sub-components.



    Historical Analysis
    veracity and consistency
    timeline and chronology
    means, motive and opportunity
    too good to be true

    Physical Condition
    materials and ink
    consistency with purported history

    Textual Analysis

    Linguistic Elements



    Which elements are really the critical piece of the puzzle to show authenticity, or not, can vary greatly on each manuscript study.

    This is why you can find people talking past each other, looking at only one evidence, rather than working together for the full picture.


  3. Default textualcriticism forum

    Textual Criticism forum on YahooGroups

    To be added here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts