Sinaticus problematicus

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The idea that Sinaiticus is a 4th century ms. is deeply entrenched in modern scholarship.

However, a little scrutiny, especially using the tools available since 2009 when the Codex Sinaiticus Project came online, shows us that the manuscript was actually written in the 1800s.

These two websites have been set up as an introduction to Sinaiticus, and they point to additional resources and discussions.

Codex Sinaiticus Authenticiy Research
http://www.sinaiticus.net/

Sinaiticus - authentic antiquity or modern?
http://www.purebibleforum.com/forumdisplay.php?f=65

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY

[Esaias]

[Scott Pitta]

The original post should have been placed on April Fools Day.

I may or not like a certain manuscript, my favorite ones shall remain unnamed, but I do not make light of those that I do not study.

[mfblume]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The original post should have been placed on April Fools Day.

I may or not like a certain manuscript, my favorite ones shall remain unnamed, but I do not make light of those that I do not study.

Hope it's not the catholic Vaticanus or the Sinaiticus you favour, interpolated beyond belief.

[Steven Avery]

I do wonder if any of our readers would like to comment on, or discuss, the evidences that Sinaiticus is actually an 1800s production.

Steven Avery

[Scott Pitta]

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The original post should have been placed on April Fools Day. I may or not like a certain manuscript, my favorite ones shall remain unnamed, but I do not make light of those that I do not study.

This was an interesting sniping-blindly comment.

Perhaps you would like to study and and comment on the homoeoteleuton that shows that the supposedly 350 AD Sinaiticus was copied using the Codex Claromontanus, dated as 550 AD.

Codex Sinaiticus Authenticity Research
Homeoteleuton - Text Omitted Because Of Similar Endings
http://www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton.html

======================

More detail:

1. Presentation of a Textbook Case of Homeoteleuton
W. R. Meyer
https://app.box.com/s/jnbxtg8et442xtsobklq8k830bwpyvnw

2. A Layman's Guide to the Textbook Case
Steven Avery
https://app.box.com/s/teozkmv0ifshfwdjne4vsgkmjlzjs4sn

3. Description of the Discovery of the 1 Corinthians 13 Homeoteleuton
W. R. Meyer
https://app.box.com/s/2k4ihkp6op1appn4fw5egvsiw2kw01v2

======================

Steven Avery

[Michael The Disciple]

If there can be 1500 years variance between people who study this what does that say for the dating methods? How certain can we be about all the dates that are proposed for different manuscripts or parts of them?

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Michael The Disciple

If there can be 1500 years variance between people who study this what does that say for the dating methods? How certain can we be about all the dates that are proposed for different manuscripts or parts of them?

It is a good question.

As an example, Vaticanus seen as a fourth-century ms. is only because of the push by Tischendorf (and Tregelles) in the same era that the non-authentic Sinaiticus was also pushed by 4th century. There was a bit of an agenda involved. Montfaucon, rather a manuscript savant, had said 6th century. It could be later. And the overwriting and the lack of scholarship and scientific access adds a level of complexity and perplexity.

Papyri are often given with unrealistic terminus ad quem, as pointed out by Brent Nongbri and others.

Keep in mind that palaeography is not time-symmetrical. Any good calligrapher can (and often does) copy a script from 200 or 1500 years earlier. (Simonides said that this was the goal with Sinaiticus, or Simeonides, to make a replica manuscript.) Nobody can write in a script that does not exist till 100, or even 10, years later. This fundamental truth has been largely ignored in textual circles, when they dabble in using palaeography for ms dating.

I am working on cataloging some exceptions, writers who have pointed out the lack of realism in many dating scenarios that are based on the limiting, the final date, the terminus ad quem, being determined by the script. e.g. P. C. Sense. (Bernard Janin Sage) wrote on this element. The learned Johann Michaelis, if I remember. And a few others.

Bottom line in terms of textual theory: the giants of the Reformation era (Erasmus, Stephanus, Bezae) had a far more sensible idea of transmission theory than the moderns from the 1800s on who gave us the corruption versions from the nouveau Critical Text. The Reformation era scholars, who gave us the Received Text as restoration editions, saw the transmission of the Bible text as having been providentially maintained through the mass of Greek and Latin mss. In terms of a real genealogical theory, (rather than the absurd Hortian game) this makes much more sense than a few oddball, supposedly old, and radically differing manuscripts. Including Sinaiticus, which is not an antiquity manuscript.

(now for the return to the Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton !)

Steven

[Steven Avery]

This next section is about one of the corroborative evidences that Sinaiticus is not an antiquity manuscript.

(The BEFORE and AFTER colouring by Tischendorf is the most helpful single evidence.)

Sinaiticus early date refuted by linguistic studies of the learned Scottish classical scholar James Donaldson (1831-1915).

James Donaldson looked especially closely at the Shepherd of Hermas and Barnabas. He put special attention on arguments that Constantine Tischendorf had made against the Hermas publications of 1856. This was when Constantine Simonides "jumped the gun" on the Sinaiticus Hermas, which led to an Anger & Dindorf edition of 1856, followed by a Dressel-Tischendorf edition.

Tischendorf said that the Hermas texts had linguistic features that showed them to be of late medieval origin. and supported the charges with linguistic scholarship. (Later, after 1859, Tischendorf put forth a very short and awkward retraction, understanding that the linguistic charges against Hermas could deep-six his push for the ultra-early dating of Sinaiticus.)

Tischendorf had accused the Simonides Hermas of being linguistically no earlier than late medieval. With features like Latin retroversion and a much later Greek vocabulary than the date assigned by Tischendorf. Donaldson argued forcefully that this was in fact an accurate analysis from Tischendorf,. And the accusations applied 100% to the Sinaiticus Hermas as well. as the Simonides Hermas.

His studies were never answered, although a gentleman named Brook Foss Westcott wrote that they "prove too much" (and thus should be ignored, since Sinaiticus was 5th century.) Circular reasoning as a fine art!

James Donaldson wrote about Hermas in 1864 and then about Barnabas in 1874.

Information on the Donaldson linguistic arguments are now online in discussion on two independent forums:

Bible Criticism and History Forum
Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomalies
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1025

CARM
James Donaldson linguistic studies on the Greek Hermas and Barnabas manuscripts
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/th...as-manuscripts

Simonides also had published Barnabas in 1843. That Preface and the accompanying article from Star of the East in Smyrna are only partially translated, and the connections between that edition and Sinaiticus are rather fascinating.

Beyond that, the New Finds of 1975 include a decent section of Hermas that had been trashed, and is now available, and could add to the linguistic scholarship. Afaik, there has not yet been any comparison of the first Hermas edition of 1856 and the New Finds Sinaiticus

Steven Avery

======================================

PS
In addition there are studies in a few other places on Facebook and off.
On Facebook, we have a Sinaiticus group and a PureBible group.
There is a special website at

Codex Sinaiticus Authenticity Research
http://www.sinaiticus.net/

And I place a lot of research up at :

Sinaiticus - authentic antiquity or modern?
http://www.purebibleforum.com/forumd...uity-or-modern

David W. Daniels has a new book!

Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?
David W. Daniels
https://books.google.com/books?id=bXJGDwAAQBAJ
https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Oldest.../dp/B078XKXDW8
http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/1442.asp
https://itunes.apple.com/us/book/is-...34750588?mt=11

These linguistic elements are on p. 153-155 and in Chapter 30: The Sinaiticus Smoking Gun