Results 1 to 1 of 1

Thread: atomistic nature of modern scholarship is unable to work well with full-orbed multi-disciplinary science and history

  1. Default atomistic nature of modern scholarship is unable to work well with full-orbed multi-disciplinary science and history

    Sinaiticus authenticity is a multi-orbed study.

    Let's first go over some of the areas involved in the Sinaiticus authenticity studies. The following tends to be far too much for atomistic scholars who specialize in only one or two realms. One of the pitfalls of our current Academy. It also makes the peer review and Journal route virtually irrelevant, with their emphasis on geek-tech atomistic studies. Especially as we are talking about "deeply entrenched scholarship" that makes a fresh review almost impossible by the textual Academy.

    WORK IN PROCESS - COME BACK PLEASE IN A FEW DAYS AND CHECK FOR MORE

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

    Historical Forensics and Probability and Coincidence

    The historical imperative, the analysis of who said what when, and how did they know? is a major part of any true Sinaiticus authenticity studies. And has been totally missed by the "scholars".

    Suffice to say, textual critics are generally very weak in all these areas.

    When an individual speaks accurately about historical details where they are claimed to be totally non-involved, this requires special analysis. There are many examples of this wildly impossible accuracy.

    The most salient being the assertion make in 1862-1864 that the manuscript was coloured by Tischendorf in the 1850s. The manuscript became visually available in 2009, and the "facts on the ground" match to a "T" what was claimed in 1862-4. This can now be seen by any layman as well as any scholar. How could this be if Simonides and Kallinikos were not closely connected to the ms? And the moment they are acknowledged to be involved in St. Catherines and the Sinaiticus manuscript, all the previous dismissals of their claims are defunct, and we start fresh.

    More Probability and Coincidence

    James Anson Farrer, in Literary Forgeries in 1907, astutely talked about the coincidence that Simonides had produced a Shepherd of Hermas (which is exceedingly close to the Sinaiticus Hermas) before the Tischendorf 1859 "discovery"

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

    Now we have much more "coincidence" because we have the "Sinaitic" Baranabas from Simonides. This was written in 1843, with the Star of the East newspaper article also available. Perfect timing to connect with the Sinaiticus Barnabas, and again the texts are closely connected.

    The way that our "scholars" approach these evidences? -- they simply ignore them!

    Yet any sensible consideration would say -- wow, these "coincidences" very strongly support that Simonides and the Athos crew were involved in the Sinaiticus Hermas and Barnabas.

    To top it off, Tischendorf actually claimed the Hermas was a late Latin retranslation -- until his Sinaiticus Hermas was discovered, then all of a sucden he retracted the earlier analysis!

    Forgery Analysis
    Provenance
    - Sinaiticus has no provenance before the Tischendorf "discovery" of 1844. This "poof-provenance" is highly suspect.

    Before and After
    evidence of the two manuscripts, 1844 white and stain-free Leipzig, 1859, yellowed and streaky British Library. This became visible in 2009, and turns over all previous dismissals. Once the colouring is understood, the main operative theory has to be non-authentic. Why colour artificially by hand a priceless masterpiece? It is well known that mss. are coloured to give them the appearance of being "yellow with age."

    "phenomenally good condition" - the ms. turns easy-peasy, like yesterday's newspaper

    All the aspects of material science where the libraries have blocked analysis.

    Artists seem to have a much better "feel" for recognizing forgeries than those in the textual criticism milieu
    did the trimming and mangling of the ms work to remove markings that would indicate an Athos 1840s provenance

    Special Evidences that Overshadow 100 smaller Evidences
    the visible colouring is exactly this type of evidence

    After 2009, we have the BEFORE and AFTER evidence supporting the words of Simonides and Kallinikos and showing that the ms. was deliberately tampered to give the appearance of age.

    Aging and Conservation of Manuscripts

    why is the same ms, supposedly one unit for 1500 years,
    radically different in 1844 white parchment Leipzig and 1859 British Library

    the unusual distinction between two sections of manuscripts
    the "explanations" given have ranged from ridiculous (lights and shading) to facile hand-waving
    the basic response is to divert to "conspiracy theory"

    In fact, why is a heavily used ms. still supple "white parchment". What happened to oxidation, gelatization, yellowing, parchment becoming hard and brittle. Sinaiticus consistently overturns normative material sciences.

    Linguistics
    Tischenforf accusation against Hermas was reinforced by Donaldson, and was also including Barnabas.
    These books were seen as much older than 4th century, linguistically.
    Similarly, Hort pegged the production location as Rome to account for unusual Latinisms

    Truth and Psychology
    Fabrication of accounts
    Forgery "skills"
    Speaking what is convenient
    Vain-glorious pretensions for lucre and position

    Historical Analysis

    The "called shots" of Kallinikos
    The Lampros catalog verifying the placement of Simonides, Benedict and Kallinikos.
    Insights of Morozov as a polymath - the ms can not be too many hundreds of years old
    hiding of the manuscript by Tischendorf
    Reliance on the dated and deficient James Keith Elliott book - which omitted major evidences even when written.
    What is a sensible review of the 1860s controversies
    Evidences of Simonides and Tischendorf collusion
    - e.g. Simonides working in the Russian archives in St. Petersburg in the later 1860s
    And much more.

    Textual Criticism
    Direct Textual Dependencies (e.g, Zosimas to Sinaiticus OT was never studied)
    Homoeoteleutons that show sense-line copying - and match Claromontanus as a source
    Text-Types -Specific Variants
    Why is the ms. so full of shoddy blunders - was it meant to be redone? This goes with Simonides historical studies.

    Bible and Notes - Manuscript Analysis
    Colophons
    Sinaiticus specials - like the duplicate Chronicles section and the three crosses note
    Arabic writing and various scribbles and smudge-outs are not given proper attention

    Palaeography
    a) writing styles
    b) determining an overall date range and probability

    Why is the Tischendorf palaeography, still parroted today, so shoddy?
    Why is the ability for calligraphers to write a simple ancient script 100 or 500 or 1500 years later unmentioned?

    Institutional ossification

    The libraries do not want the manuscript studied for material science. This became clear in 2015 when Leipzig canceled the studies planned by the prestigious BAM group (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung, Berlin)

    The British Library, while more communicative, use "scholarship consensus" as their main excuse to avoid any material testing.

    Scholarship Consensus

    this becomes the excuse for ossification and also can be a wedge against any actual studies, due to "deeply entrenched scholarship". The gatekeepers at the Journals have their own problems involving the vaunted "peer review" - which can be done by individuals with little background and skill in most of the topics, and close connections to the Libraries who own the "priceless" manuscript.

    Materials Sciences
    Parchment
    Bookbinding
    Ink analysis
    Colour analysis
    Stain Analysis

    In all these areas, the Codex Sinaiticus Project basically points out questions and anomalies everywhere. And then says tnothing. The Libraries make sure there are no real scientific studies. today. The scholars are essentially paralyzed, and in their clique, if they take authenticity seriously, they will be similarly mocked by our pseudo-scholars.

    Simonides History
    2014 Vienna Conference
    If he is a con-man and forger, does that discredit his explanations? Or does it act more as a qualification.
    How well do his historical explanations stand up?
    In his story, does Sinaiticus appear to be designed as a replica or a forgery?

    Tischendorf History
    the brazen fabrications, such as the "saved from fire" nonsense, should make us wary
    desire for vain-glorious accolades
    closeness with Papacy
    efforts to keep the two parts of the ms. hidden from researchers, look at my facsimile instead
    lying by words and omission about the condition
    e.g. - no mention that Leipzig is white parchment, called yellow
    why did he trim the manuscript?

    Russian Translation

    The knowledge of the Uspensky writings essentially destroy any remnant of credibility of the Tischendorf history. These translations were only made by the efforts of the SART team c. 2014. They still are missing in the writing of the "scholars".

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

    Presuppositional Bias and "Deeply Entrenched Scholarship"

    The creation of arguments based on a "muplitiplication of nothings."
    Last edited by Steven Avery; 10-25-2018 at 11:49 AM.

Posting Permissions

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