Steven Avery
Administrator
Greetings textualcriticism!
All post numbers are to the new posts, the ones I saw after my previous #8594 was sent.
=============================
Elijah Hixson #8592
> “all the currently applicable forensic tests”. (from David)
Elijah gives us an excellent review of many scientific tests and explains why David Inglis’s phrase above is a bit loosey-goosey. A point which David acknowledged and discussed.
However, Elijah should be aware that the Dead Sea Scrolls were excellently subject to materials testing by the Berlin group BAM (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung). One of the scientists gave a talk on those tests in NY in 2014. And this very same group was scheduled to test the Leipzig Sinaiticus (CFA) portion in 2015 .. and the tests were canceled. So there is no question that much could be done.
> Elijah
> “I’ve even had libraries tell me that they won’t even bring out the manuscript I’ve requested to look at because the chance of damaging it is too high.”
That should not be of much concern with the “exceptional” Sinaiticus, as long as you have their required credentials. If you look at the video referenced:
The Codex Sinaiticus: The Oldest Surviving Christian New Testament - The Beauty of Books - BBC Four
You will see a marvelously flexible, supple, "alive" (Skeat & Milne said that Alexandrinus was "limp, dead" in comparison) ms. It does not have the brittleness concerns that limit old manuscripts. The pages are turned easily, lightly, similar to those old Life magazine issues that were kept neatly stored. In Leipzig, also “good conservation”, without the yellowing.
=============================
David Inglis #8597
> “The more uncertain the provenance, the more important it is to get as much information as we can from the document itself, which (IMHO) leaves big question marks against mss that (for any reason) cannot be subject to tests that have been known to yield useful results in other cases.”
> “digitization efforts … means that more people are likely to question things that were previously thought to be non-issues…. What I am not happy with is the view among some scholars (not all) that academic qualifications, a certain number of peer reviewed publications, etc. are required before anything that anyone reports can have value. As has been stated by many people many times, it is sometimes the ‘outsider’ who can add something valuable to a discussion because of knowledge in other fields, or perhaps because he or she is not bound by ‘conventional’ thinking.”
Again, you hit the nail on the head. (Can’t do much about the long posts, though
. However, I limit the number by putting in one post to respond to five and more.)
=============================
Tommy Wasserman 8593, 8595 8596
Rather a surprising, even disappointing, series of posts. e.g. After an earlier post, I wrote up and referenced here a special article explaining why the James Keith Elliott monograph is, to put it mildly, insufficient for this topic.
Review of J. K. Elliott book
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showpost.php?p=503&postcount=4
In that article I explained how dismissive attempts like those of Elliott and Tommy Wasserman are based on the argument from fallacy. And I pointed out that in the supporting material in purebibleforum much could be learned way beyond the Elliott book. And I doubt that Tommy even skimmed the review article.
Here is a new blog-style article that explains some of the basics:
The Mystery of Codex Sinaiticus
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?p=520#post520
Wasserman #8593
> .. it sounds like the sort of conspiracy theories that abound on the internet, and I thought it was a pity that these sort of posts should exist on this discussion list and the responsible persons should get away with it.
The problem, Tommy, is that everything changed when the CSP put the manuscript online in 2009. And we had many other resources newly available. Such as the ability to compare the pages with the historical observations and accounts, the Uspensky description (that essentially destroys the Tischendorf account) and the British Library video of Sinaticus live, and alive.
As to conspiracy, I mildly defended Sinaiticus authenticity. Until I realized that the new information overhauled the issues totally. (Granted, I know of some in Russia, Germany and England who had solid reasons for seeing Sinaiticus as modern even before 2009, I give them credit for a type of historical forensics insight.) In a sense, we are simply trying to keep pace with the “facts on the ground”.
Wasserman #8593
> Simonides …. publishes these eight fragments from Matthew, James and Jude from the first century, but that is not enough. He cites a number of other first century papyri which he alone has access to, in order to confirm his forged MSS… I will write up an article on this topic.
We look forward to your article. And we will publish it intact, comments on other pages, on the http://www.sinaiticus.net web site, if you give the ok.
One argument here is that Simonides could not have been involved in Sinaiticus because he was a forger, a charlatan.
Charles van der Poole, author of the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, pointed out difficulties in the Sinaiticus “vulgate” version of Sinaiticus. And he particularly addressed this point in writing of the British Library apologetic handwave in their 1930s publication, which he reprinted:
Charles van der Poole
“Lastly I find it somewhat comical that the charge against a forger was that he was convicted of forgery...that would seem to be more of a proof of his ‘credentials’”.
http://www.apostolicbible.com/mountsinai.pdf
And I interviewed Charles, who is personally familiar with the Greek Orthodox sense and feeling and handling of manuscripts, and Charles emphasized some specific elements of the Sinaitcus story that simply do not make sense. And we went over issues like the lack of any real provenance for the ms. and the incentives for such a manuscript production.
A second argument revolves around the skills of Simonides. That is discussed below.
The major problem here is the argument from fallacy, which I cover in the review of Elliot.
Wasserman #8595
> there is not one of the people and institutions involved in the Codex Sinaiticus project that doubts the authenticity of the MS.
Tommy Wasserman does not really know enough to make this claim. We know that textual critics seem to like mind-reading scribes, here we are mind-reading conservation workers, and others, in the employ of libraries. Wasserman does not talk over lunch with all the conservators, image specialists, administrators and workers at the libraries. My own conjecture is that there is at least quizzical comments in the back rooms, however, unlike Wasserman, I will not claim that as a fact.
Now, to be fair, a number of individuals working with the British Library have graciously acknowledged and discussed many of the anomalies. Although clearly, as I discussed earlier, they obviously would be very slow to acknowledge non-authenticity as a possible explanation. This is Employee Common Sense 101.
Tommy Wasserman would do well to try to do at least the same as the British Library about the anomalies, without their vested interest. (The Leipzig Library, in contrast, is very tight-lipped, mum is the word They do not want to discuss much of anything about the manuscript history. That does not necessarily apply to all former workers.)
The mirroring of messages on the purebibleforum was up one day when I was working on a post, and a team member thought they could not see the posts online. Here you can see how I link to every post with minimal comment from any SART members.
responses from those involved in textual criticism
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=239
It would be great to put up and keep all the posts in one place. And I have an inquiry in to the list-owner, however it may not be acceptable forum etiquette.
Wasserman #8596
“… I do think academic training and publications in the discipline matter a lot, and I have not seen any list of scholarly publications from this SART “research team” whereas there are over 150 years of scholarly research on this ancient codex;”
Tommy, with all those 150 years of scholarly research:
How many mentioned that the ms. In Leipzig is white parchment?
And that Uspensky and Dobschutz referred to this "white parchment" ms?
How many told you about the differences between Leipzig and St. Petersburg--> (England)?
How many (other than CSP 2009 online) referenced the colour variance in the British Library pages?
How many of them gave you the critically important Uspensky translation?
How many told you about Morozov saying the antiquity story does not fit the condition of the ms.?
In round numbers –- (i.e. zero).
And how many really put tried to sensibly put together the Simonides puzzle pieces?
(one – James Anson Farrer)
How many discussed the Barnabas 1843 edition of Simonides and the linguistic issues in Barnabas and Hermas.
(one - James Donaldson.)
And I could add a dozen more items. The above should help with the picture as to the limitations of the 150 years.
=============================
Wasserman #8596
> (2) To think that Simonides in his teens ca. 1840 acted as scribe A of Sinaiticus is ridiculous. From aspects of palaeography, textual character, and Simonides’ way of forging MSS, it is out of the question .. (continues)
You are simply wrong in your analysis here, because you are placing Simonides as the collator and mastermind behind the endeavor. A claim he never made. (And I do not think you have read the material carefully.)
Simonides likely knew very little about the actual compilation, working as one copyist in this c.1840 scenario. And the script of Sinaiticus is especially easy to emulate (a page of Vaticanus would be very helpful, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Claromontaus, and Alexandrinus was well, from Biblical mss.) You are confusing the later quasi-sophisticated endeavors of Simonides with a totally different situation c. 1840.
Many errors are based on selectively taking too literally, or distorting, certain claims Simonides made. Remember, we know that he, like Tischendorf, could often speak that which was convenient for the moment. And in the c. 1840 scenario it is clear that he fudged the story of his involvement to place his actions in the best light. And his personal contribution was emphasized in a way that somewhat lessened the contributions of others. Also, we would not necessarily know today for sure who are all the others behind the scenes, a point of fascinating speculation. (Simonides did reference the endeavor as a type of team effort.)
As to Simonides being scribe A, that is a conjecture. It incorporates a few elements including the hieroglyphics that George Webber Young (yes, he has your vaunted credentials) wrote about as being in the New Testament section. We do hope that George Young, and others, will return to that question.
Wasserman #8596
> (3) For those who want to learn more about Codex Sinaiticus, I recommend the scholarly website codexsinaiticus.org.
Finally, here we agree. We continue to learn a huge amount from studying this superb site and we compliment the expertise. Ironically, in defending Sinaiticus authenticity, we have found that a number of people have ragged the site as being incorrect, amateurish, in their colour representation. From our studies so far, we believe they were spot-on.
We have appreciated greatly working with the images, reading the articles, and reading the articles and between the lines about the “exceptional” Sinaiticus.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY
All post numbers are to the new posts, the ones I saw after my previous #8594 was sent.
=============================
Elijah Hixson #8592
> “all the currently applicable forensic tests”. (from David)
Elijah gives us an excellent review of many scientific tests and explains why David Inglis’s phrase above is a bit loosey-goosey. A point which David acknowledged and discussed.
However, Elijah should be aware that the Dead Sea Scrolls were excellently subject to materials testing by the Berlin group BAM (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung). One of the scientists gave a talk on those tests in NY in 2014. And this very same group was scheduled to test the Leipzig Sinaiticus (CFA) portion in 2015 .. and the tests were canceled. So there is no question that much could be done.
> Elijah
> “I’ve even had libraries tell me that they won’t even bring out the manuscript I’ve requested to look at because the chance of damaging it is too high.”
That should not be of much concern with the “exceptional” Sinaiticus, as long as you have their required credentials. If you look at the video referenced:
The Codex Sinaiticus: The Oldest Surviving Christian New Testament - The Beauty of Books - BBC Four
You will see a marvelously flexible, supple, "alive" (Skeat & Milne said that Alexandrinus was "limp, dead" in comparison) ms. It does not have the brittleness concerns that limit old manuscripts. The pages are turned easily, lightly, similar to those old Life magazine issues that were kept neatly stored. In Leipzig, also “good conservation”, without the yellowing.
=============================
David Inglis #8597
> “The more uncertain the provenance, the more important it is to get as much information as we can from the document itself, which (IMHO) leaves big question marks against mss that (for any reason) cannot be subject to tests that have been known to yield useful results in other cases.”
> “digitization efforts … means that more people are likely to question things that were previously thought to be non-issues…. What I am not happy with is the view among some scholars (not all) that academic qualifications, a certain number of peer reviewed publications, etc. are required before anything that anyone reports can have value. As has been stated by many people many times, it is sometimes the ‘outsider’ who can add something valuable to a discussion because of knowledge in other fields, or perhaps because he or she is not bound by ‘conventional’ thinking.”
Again, you hit the nail on the head. (Can’t do much about the long posts, though
. However, I limit the number by putting in one post to respond to five and more.)=============================
Tommy Wasserman 8593, 8595 8596
Rather a surprising, even disappointing, series of posts. e.g. After an earlier post, I wrote up and referenced here a special article explaining why the James Keith Elliott monograph is, to put it mildly, insufficient for this topic.
Review of J. K. Elliott book
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showpost.php?p=503&postcount=4
In that article I explained how dismissive attempts like those of Elliott and Tommy Wasserman are based on the argument from fallacy. And I pointed out that in the supporting material in purebibleforum much could be learned way beyond the Elliott book. And I doubt that Tommy even skimmed the review article.
Here is a new blog-style article that explains some of the basics:
The Mystery of Codex Sinaiticus
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?p=520#post520
Wasserman #8593
> .. it sounds like the sort of conspiracy theories that abound on the internet, and I thought it was a pity that these sort of posts should exist on this discussion list and the responsible persons should get away with it.
The problem, Tommy, is that everything changed when the CSP put the manuscript online in 2009. And we had many other resources newly available. Such as the ability to compare the pages with the historical observations and accounts, the Uspensky description (that essentially destroys the Tischendorf account) and the British Library video of Sinaticus live, and alive.
As to conspiracy, I mildly defended Sinaiticus authenticity. Until I realized that the new information overhauled the issues totally. (Granted, I know of some in Russia, Germany and England who had solid reasons for seeing Sinaiticus as modern even before 2009, I give them credit for a type of historical forensics insight.) In a sense, we are simply trying to keep pace with the “facts on the ground”.
Wasserman #8593
> Simonides …. publishes these eight fragments from Matthew, James and Jude from the first century, but that is not enough. He cites a number of other first century papyri which he alone has access to, in order to confirm his forged MSS… I will write up an article on this topic.
We look forward to your article. And we will publish it intact, comments on other pages, on the http://www.sinaiticus.net web site, if you give the ok.
One argument here is that Simonides could not have been involved in Sinaiticus because he was a forger, a charlatan.
Charles van der Poole, author of the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, pointed out difficulties in the Sinaiticus “vulgate” version of Sinaiticus. And he particularly addressed this point in writing of the British Library apologetic handwave in their 1930s publication, which he reprinted:
Charles van der Poole
“Lastly I find it somewhat comical that the charge against a forger was that he was convicted of forgery...that would seem to be more of a proof of his ‘credentials’”.
http://www.apostolicbible.com/mountsinai.pdf
And I interviewed Charles, who is personally familiar with the Greek Orthodox sense and feeling and handling of manuscripts, and Charles emphasized some specific elements of the Sinaitcus story that simply do not make sense. And we went over issues like the lack of any real provenance for the ms. and the incentives for such a manuscript production.
A second argument revolves around the skills of Simonides. That is discussed below.
The major problem here is the argument from fallacy, which I cover in the review of Elliot.
Wasserman #8595
> there is not one of the people and institutions involved in the Codex Sinaiticus project that doubts the authenticity of the MS.
Tommy Wasserman does not really know enough to make this claim. We know that textual critics seem to like mind-reading scribes
, here we are mind-reading conservation workers, and others, in the employ of libraries. Wasserman does not talk over lunch with all the conservators, image specialists, administrators and workers at the libraries. My own conjecture is that there is at least quizzical comments in the back rooms, however, unlike Wasserman, I will not claim that as a fact. Now, to be fair, a number of individuals working with the British Library have graciously acknowledged and discussed many of the anomalies. Although clearly, as I discussed earlier, they obviously would be very slow to acknowledge non-authenticity as a possible explanation. This is Employee Common Sense 101.
Tommy Wasserman would do well to try to do at least the same as the British Library about the anomalies, without their vested interest. (The Leipzig Library, in contrast, is very tight-lipped, mum is the word They do not want to discuss much of anything about the manuscript history. That does not necessarily apply to all former workers.)
The mirroring of messages on the purebibleforum was up one day when I was working on a post, and a team member thought they could not see the posts online. Here you can see how I link to every post with minimal comment from any SART members.
responses from those involved in textual criticism
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=239
It would be great to put up and keep all the posts in one place. And I have an inquiry in to the list-owner, however it may not be acceptable forum etiquette.
Wasserman #8596
“… I do think academic training and publications in the discipline matter a lot, and I have not seen any list of scholarly publications from this SART “research team” whereas there are over 150 years of scholarly research on this ancient codex;”
Tommy, with all those 150 years of scholarly research:
How many mentioned that the ms. In Leipzig is white parchment?
And that Uspensky and Dobschutz referred to this "white parchment" ms?
How many told you about the differences between Leipzig and St. Petersburg--> (England)?
How many (other than CSP 2009 online) referenced the colour variance in the British Library pages?
How many of them gave you the critically important Uspensky translation?
How many told you about Morozov saying the antiquity story does not fit the condition of the ms.?
In round numbers –- (i.e. zero).
And how many really put tried to sensibly put together the Simonides puzzle pieces?
(one – James Anson Farrer)
How many discussed the Barnabas 1843 edition of Simonides and the linguistic issues in Barnabas and Hermas.
(one - James Donaldson.)
And I could add a dozen more items. The above should help with the picture as to the limitations of the 150 years.
=============================
Wasserman #8596
> (2) To think that Simonides in his teens ca. 1840 acted as scribe A of Sinaiticus is ridiculous. From aspects of palaeography, textual character, and Simonides’ way of forging MSS, it is out of the question .. (continues)
You are simply wrong in your analysis here, because you are placing Simonides as the collator and mastermind behind the endeavor. A claim he never made. (And I do not think you have read the material carefully.)
Simonides likely knew very little about the actual compilation, working as one copyist in this c.1840 scenario. And the script of Sinaiticus is especially easy to emulate (a page of Vaticanus would be very helpful, Bezae Cantabrigiensis, Claromontaus, and Alexandrinus was well, from Biblical mss.) You are confusing the later quasi-sophisticated endeavors of Simonides with a totally different situation c. 1840.
Many errors are based on selectively taking too literally, or distorting, certain claims Simonides made. Remember, we know that he, like Tischendorf, could often speak that which was convenient for the moment. And in the c. 1840 scenario it is clear that he fudged the story of his involvement to place his actions in the best light. And his personal contribution was emphasized in a way that somewhat lessened the contributions of others. Also, we would not necessarily know today for sure who are all the others behind the scenes, a point of fascinating speculation. (Simonides did reference the endeavor as a type of team effort.)
As to Simonides being scribe A, that is a conjecture. It incorporates a few elements including the hieroglyphics that George Webber Young (yes, he has your vaunted credentials) wrote about as being in the New Testament section. We do hope that George Young, and others, will return to that question.
Wasserman #8596
> (3) For those who want to learn more about Codex Sinaiticus, I recommend the scholarly website codexsinaiticus.org.
Finally, here we agree. We continue to learn a huge amount from studying this superb site and we compliment the expertise. Ironically, in defending Sinaiticus authenticity, we have found that a number of people have ragged the site as being incorrect, amateurish, in their colour representation. From our studies so far, we believe they were spot-on.
We have appreciated greatly working with the images, reading the articles, and reading the articles and between the lines about the “exceptional” Sinaiticus.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY