Results 1 to 10 of 16

Thread: "it did NOT look to be 1600 years old"

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. Default "it did NOT look to be 1600 years old"

    Joseph Dindinger

    Facebook - NT Textual Criticism

    I had the immense pleasure of seeing Codex Sinaiticus on a recent trip to the British Library. I was struck, however, by how it did NOT look to be 1600 years old. Rather, it looked similar to the manuscripts which are roughly half that age.I deal with books in the 100 to 150 year range all the time, and the ink is worn a bit more than what I'm used to, but not hugely so. It also has annotations in red ink, which is my understanding fades a lot sooner than black ink. So it just looked to me like it was a lot newer than the middle of the 4th century.

    So I decided to research the method of dating, and all I can find from the official site, and other resources on the internet is that the dating is based on the type of writing itself, rather than any records of the Bible in antiquity (it was discovered in a monastery which wasn't even built until at least 100 years later), or other dating methods.

    My question is: how do we know that this manuscript was not copied from an older one in, say 1200 AD? Can anyone point me to more in-depth material on the dating of Codex Sinaiticus?
    Steven Avery
    Facebook - Pure Bible

    It is nice when someone simply speaks the clear and obvious truth. Sinaiticus is not a 4th century ms., not even close.

    Basically the Textual Criticism crew tried some diversions, and three posters were superb.

    In my experience, those in the art world have the easiest time seeing that Sinaiticus is not what is claimed. One made me smile the other day -- "obvious fake" (and she is not a Christian, or an AV reader.)
    At least one point is brand new from Joseph above.

    We know a lot about the ink, and have a special Palaeographic Puzzle page on the PureBibleForum, much of the material was originally on a Palaeography Forum.

    *** Joseph adds an excellent point about the minimal fading of the red ink. ***

    As we know, most of the palaeography around Sinaiticus is a Tischendorf charade based on conceptual errors and circular analysis, and ignoring major evidences that it is late.

    Joseph gets an Integrity Plus kudo -- he was not even aware that Sinatiicus authenticity and dating has been questioned
    This post:

    "it did NOT look to be 1600 years old"

    And a little note to the NT Textual Criticism crew, James Snapp will not take my post there. That is his right, and is one reason the more excellent posts are mirrored here and shared on Facebook PureBible and Sinaiticus groups.

  2. Default just throwing out: 'maybe it's this, maybe it's that, or perhaps this other thing'

    Another superb post on the thread.

    David Inglis

    James, you commented: If the difference is not merely a matter of different camera-setting ... then it's likely a matter of the effects of different storage-conditions. Plus ... monks ...prepared a new binding ... perhaps they cleaned up the pages too. But whatever the explanation, ...

    So what IS the explanation? Just throwing out: 'maybe it's this, maybe it's that, or perhaps this other thing' without actually providing evidence for or against any of these possibilities not just unhelpful, it's no better than what you accuse others of, i.e. interpreting evidence one way without having first falsified all other possibilities.
    Although David goes a bit too far, if he thinks you can ever falsify all other possibilities . Often we have dueling probabilities, and supposed "coincidences", a point I make often on this forum.

    However, his major point is superb. Where is the evidence that any of these situations occurred? Or that they really could account for the anomaly? Just throwing out a bunch of maybes, sans any evidence, is quite unconvincing.

    One irony in the writing of James .. if the monks cleaned up the pages, it would be the British Library 1859 that would be white parchment (using some unknown super-solution) not the 1844 Leipzig pages.


    However, we can not expect too much accuracy and clear thinking from James, for over a year he has maintained the following blunders on his site, despite many attempts to offer the simple corrections:

    172 pages
    43 sheets

    The correct number is 86 pages, and if you were going to talk sheets you would say 21.5, but that is awkward because not all the sheets are intact.

    Even on his blog page, the url above, I offer the correction back in Feb, 2018. Yet the Snapp error stands.

    And I also give the url here, to the PureBibleForum, where I responded to his posts.


  3. Default James Snapp absurd fantasises about the New Finds

    The errors of Snapp on Sinaiticus are a lot worse than his inability to put the right number of pages.

    Here is a bit of James Snapp total nonsene from the recent thread:

    Consider just one piece of evidence that I mentioned earlier in this thread: the new finds, discovered in 1975. To account for these pages while maintaining the notion that Simonides made Sinaiticus, one would have to posit a scenario in which the monks at St. Catherine's, in the 1800s, received as a gift a very large, newly made pristine codex containing the Greek Old Testament and New Testament (plus Barnabas and Hermas), and decided to dismember it, destroy some pages (including all of Exodus and most of Leviticus), put some pages in a side-room (where they stayed until 1975), turn one page into a bookmark, and keep others intact, till the time of Tischendorf's first visit -- and then, after his first visit, rebind the surviving pages which previously they had /unbound/. .
    This is all fantasy from James Snapp, totally ridiculous.

    The New Finds included discard pages from Sinaiticus in the 1840s to 1850s. And the Hermas section was particularly problematic because of how Tischendorf had accused the very similar Sinaiticus of 1855 from Simonides of being a Latin retranslation.

    Also Uspensky in writing of his 1845 visit specifically mentioned that Hermas was included in the manuscript. He did not say "a small part of Sinaticus".

    The Genesis 23-24 page was included specifically in the controversies as to whether Simonides had made markings on the manuscript.

    I discussed this in response to #20 on his list, the multiplication of nothigns (also #13)

    James Snapp #3 - Ten More Reasons Sinaiticus Was Not Made by Simonides

    Steven Avery

    Simonides and Kallinikos did say that the manuscript had been mangled and taken apart by Tischendorf.

    As for Hermas, the simplest explanation is that Simonides, like many, had a tendency to say what was convenient. Not trying to be too contrary to the English opposition, he fudged elements of the story.Especially as the Brits listening to his story at times accused him of having made a forgery, not a replica, and that was not his purpose.

    The Hermas New Finds discovery is especially interesting as that was the most embarrassing section of the 1844 Simoneidos document. Tischendorf wanted the Hermas and Barnabas discovery (they had already been reported by Uspensky), but the linguistic issues that came out around 1856 might torpedo the whole enterprise. Tischendorf accused the Hermas of Simonides of having later Latin elements. Then he found it the better discretion to quietly retract the accusation, in Latin, in a confusing section. James Donaldson said that this accusation also applies to the Sinaiticus Hermas. And, my conjecture is that it applies to the later parts of Sinaiticus (which Donaldson did not see.) Thus, Tischendorf limited the Sinaiticus Hermas damage by dumping much of the document in the dump room.
    James never responded.


    Simonides actually produced "Sinaitic" Hermas and Barnabas editions BEFORE the Sinaiticus discovery. Now that is an amazing and important fact, that James Snapp does not discuss.

    AND James Donaldson did a careful linguistic analysis and said the Sinaiticus Hermas and Barnabas had to be much later than 4th century.

    James comes up with the most absurd "multiplication of nothings" and does not study the Sinaiticus history and evidences.

  4. Default look at a beautiful condition Leipzig page

    Part of the response to Joseph Dindinger was that he was seeing the "best" displayed. This was disingenuous, since even the "best" leaves should avoid issues like red ink fading, general ink acidic deterioration action, and the parchment should become brittle.

    Joseph should try to see the white parchment Leipzig pages for comparison (also the BBC video.) They do not have the yellow, streaky colour. We can see their amazing condition online,e.g.
    Name:  sshot-565.jpg
Views: 59
Size:  69.3 KB

  5. Default James Snapp struggles to understand why only the 1859 pages were coloured

    Here is another doozy from James Snapp, which he tries every couple of months:

    it seems downright wacky to do what Avery and Daniels do with this feature, which is, interpret it as evidence that Tiscnendorf, after already presenting the pages at Leipzig (Codex Frederico-Aug., acquired in his first visit --- the one about which he made his famous claim that the pages were about to be burned by the monks), treated the remainder of the pages so as to give them (but not the pages at Leipzig) the appearance of greater age.
    And this is fully answered here:

    Tischendorf would have preferred to have one consistent colour manuscript

    All of this is rather trivial. Tischendorf knew that a white parchment manuscript would be likely to sink his ship. Even if he got away with it so far at Leipzig. (Limited access has always been Tischendorf's deception friend, until 2009.)

    He could not do much with Leipzig, except make sure there was very little access. And thus he put incredible efforts into pointing people to his facsimile, which deceptively hid the colour and stain and streak difference and hid the fact that Leipzig was white parchment.

    When he deposited the white parchment in Leipzig in 1844, he did not have all the details worked out. And he could go back to the library and colour the pages. The Librarians would blow the whistle on that mangling.

  6. Default "the people making this argument have never actually seen it"

    Here is a popular contra argument:

    Bill Brown
    Keep in mind the people making this argument have never actually seen it. They’ve seen computer images and combined them with a rather active imagination.
    I find this to be a real argument.

    First, the libraries have historically given very little access to the manuscript, even to scholars. The British Library gave access to five scholars in 25 years, as pointed out in one of the threads. Tischendorf did what he could to keep the ms. out of sight and emphasize his tampered facsimile, that hid the colour and condition issues.

    More importantly, if we said

    "we saw the manuscript sections, and the colour is quite different in Leipzig and England"

    The argument would be exactly the opposite.

    "who cares what you think you saw. Prove it with good photographs"

    And there would at least be a point, in that case.

    Amazing the weak arguments that are put forth for Sinaiticus authenticity.

    As for the "active imagination", that is quite absurd. Even the British Library acknowledges the colour disparity. (Although they have not discussed the stain and streak disparity.) The question remains .. how did it get there?

Posting Permissions

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