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

Steven Avery


Now we are beginning to understand the resistances to the clear and sure evidences Sinaiticus is of recent (1800s) production.

This is what I wrote on the review of the James Keith Elliott book:

The major problem with the book is that it starts with a totally flawed implied logic, the argument from fallacy.

If P, then Q.
P is a fallacious argument.

Therefore, Q is false.

If what Simonides said about Sinaiticus was accurate, then Sinaiticus is not authentic
Simonides said things that were false
Therefore Sinaiticus is authentic.
This fundamental fallacy permeates the whole book.

So far the following three people have really fallen into this fallacy, they are the tip of an the iceberg. James Keith Elliott, Tommy Wasserman and Bill Brown.

They all falsely think that if Simonides, and his Sinaiticus story, is shown to have certain weaknesses, that makes him not involved in the manuscript, and it is therefore authentic.

Tommy Wasserman plans to take it a little further, by looking at the Simonides New Testament papyri. However, in that regard he does not understand that in the c. 1840 scenario, others did most or all of the textual work. And the script in Sinaiticus is one of the easiest possible from a calligraphy standpoint.

More on this fallacy is planned, as it is the fundamental flaw of many Sinaiticus authenticity arguments.