David W. Daniels put out an excellent 20-minute vlog today on the 1844 Tischendorf heist of the five full quires (80 pages) and then 6 more pages from the intact codex.
Ridiculous. Chick Publications is hardly scholarly, their reputation has been in question ever since they began publication. Find better sources. Preferable scholarly ones. I would start at the Society of Biblical Literature.
Genetic fallacy. David is very well informed on Sinaiticus and has a solid backgtound as well.
Those involved with groups like SBL have blockages, including “deeply entrenched scholarship”, that make it virtually impossible for them to understand the Sinaiticus authenticity issues.
The simple analogy is the establishment scientists who can not understand that their evolutionary theories have no basis.
.
Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-03-2018 at 03:55 AM.
If a document is a fraud, that fact will be seen and documented by the scholars. A document like this one has been examined by a wide range of scholars but they do not conclude it is a fake.
Often it takes time for the scholars to catch up to the evidences. e.g. Archaic Mark, ms. 2427, was listed for decades as a Category 1 manuscript, until certain evidences came forth (especially the Buttmann 1861 Vaticanus edition.)
The situation with Sinaiticus is similar, with many more fascinating twists and turns. Including being in two locations, which masked the parchment colouring issues. Including the use of Tischendorf's doctored facsimile, instead of the manuscript sections, for almost all of the first 150 years of scholarship. Including a very aggressive pseudo-palaeographic dating push, by Tischendorf, who was not remotely an objective party.
Everything changed with the 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project and the aid that the Internet gave for tracking down information like the Uspensky writing, and the full Simonides story.
If you actually study the evidences, I believe you will understand. There is even a similar 1800s edition that was used to help make Sinaiticus, you can expect some publication on that this year.
The BEFORE and AFTER colouring evidence is truly amazing. Here is a short summary I wrote up yesterday on another forum:
Quote:
And Tischendorf coloured the sheets that came out in 1859. This led to the amazing situation where you can actually see and compare the BEFORE 1844 white parchment that went to Leipzig and the AFTER 1859 yellowed, streaky, stained parchment now in Britain. Rarely does such a crime leave such an easy to see and follow trail.
Plus, the crime of colouring the manuscript to make it look old was specifically noted as having occurred in the 1850s. This was noted by an observer who was at the monastery, Kallinikos, and published in 1862-64. Kallinikos also noted the 1844 theft. And that the “loan” of 1859 was a cover for theft and would not be returned.
You can easily see the colouring with your own eyes.
Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery; 04-03-2018 at 10:17 AM.
Serious question...what do you mean by this? What does DNA have to do with this? Kindly explain to a confused old man.
The genetic fallacy is committed when an idea is either accepted or rejected because of its source, rather than its merit.
Even from bad things, good may come; we therefore ought not to reject an idea just because of where it comes from, as ad hominem arguments do.
Equally, even good sources may sometimes produce bad results; accepting an idea because of the goodness of its source, as in appeals to authority, is therefore no better than rejecting an idea because of the badness of its source. Both types of argument are fallacious.
Examples
(1) My mommy told me that the tooth fairy is real.
Therefore:
(2) The tooth fairy is real.
(1) Eugenics was pioneered in Germany during the war.
Therefore:
(2) Eugenics is a bad thing.
Each of these arguments commits the genetic fallacy, because each judges an idea by the goodness or badness of its source, rather than on its own merits.
Ridiculous. Chick Publications is hardly scholarly, their reputation has been in question ever since they began publication.
Find better sources. Preferable scholarly ones. I would start at the Society of Biblical Literature.
I remember sharing a tape with my father, and mother concerning Alberto Rivera.
Alberto Rivera was teaching how the Latin language was the language of Satan. My father and mother were intently listening when they got to about 10 minutes of Alberto Rivera's teaching on Latin my mother burst into laughter. My father stopped the tape and tossed it across the table. Then after my mom dried her tears from laughter, and my father stopped shaking his head. They had questions. They wanted to know what was the basis of Alberto Rivera's findings? Did he no longer speak Spanish. Should Italian, French, Portuguese, and Romanian no longer be spoken? Should medicale, botanist, and books on zoology no longer be read? What about Latin roots in English? Should we no longer use them? Anyway, once they were finished with their taunts, they got up from the table and left me there.
You don't want to know what my mother thought of Sister Charlotte's book.
__________________ "all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed."
~Declaration of Independence
Linear Mode
