Joseph Dindinger

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTe...1383142615342/


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
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pure...1060086319206/

Spot-on!
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"
http://www.purebibleforum.corm/showthread.php?684-quot-it-did-NOT-look-to-be-1600-years-old-quot&p=1408#post1408

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.