Deceit, the Jesuits and an 'Ancient' Codex

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Red Sky at Morning
"So what's your thinking? @Golden Age Does it seem likely to you that the Sinaiticus is the genuine ancient document as it has been presented to us, or that other agendas were in play to promote this document to be an authority?"

I must say that I find the manner in which Constantine Tischendorf found (rescued!?) parchments from a basket in St Catherine's Monastery rather 'convenient' !?
Are we really expected to believe that monks kept these 'quires' for 1800 years and decided to consign them to the flames just at the moment Tischendorf walks in through the gates of the Monastery and rescues them for posterity!? It reads too much like a Hollywood screenplay for my liking.
[By the way, the Monks disagreed with Tischendorf's explanation about the circumstances in in which he discovered the Sinaiticus].

The 'quires' are in remarkably good condition for documents reputed to be between 1600-800 years old. This could be explained by the fact that they were stored in the very dry desert air of St Catherine's Monastery, which, we know does wonders for documents formed from animal skin and paper. Desert air is a natural preservative.

The Sinaiticus has many similarities with the Codex Vaticanus, (but bits of the Old Testament are missing and there are additional books and text in both the Old and New Testament). So this has to be a source of some reassurance for many Christians !?
However, important parts of the Bible referring to the resurrection are missing from the Sinaiticus. The resurrection narrative from the earliest Gospel of Mark is missing, indicating that this doctrine was still being developed and hadn't become a coherent idea when the scribes were at work writing the Sinaiticus. This seems to accord with the accepted Biblical academic view that Christian doctrine has developed over time.

My greatest concern is that the text displays signs of mistakes and corrections. Scholars believe there were three [primary] scribes of the Sinaiticus, but, we don't have their biographies. Then there were several correctors of the text that are also unknown.
However, this is a shortcoming of all early Biblical texts and is not a feature peculiar to the Sinaiticus.

So was the Codex Sinaiticus forged by Constantine Simonides?

Unlikely, [is my response]:

1] The Sinaiticus is a monumental piece of work of over 1,400 pages, with each page requiring 2,500 uncial letters to cover. That means that the entire Sinaiticus would have required 3,700,000 letters. Even with his cunning skills, that was a task beyond Constantine Simonides and certainly impossible to achieve in the just the period between 1839 - 1841.

2] Academics are also agreed that the Sinaiticus is the work of more than one scribe and several correctors. Academic techniques used to identify authorship were developed in the 20th Century and Simonides could not have been expected to foresee these and try to subvert them

3] Codex Sinaiticus at Isaiah 1:10, at Zechariah 14:8 and the Book of Revelation has Arabic notes in the margins. Simonides had no knowledge of Arabic

4] Influence of the Coptic language is also detected in the Sinaiticus

The Sinaiticus indicates a much earlier time frame for its composition than the 1800's. So on a balance of probabilities, I find it difficult to accept that Simonides authored the the Sinaiticus.

Much to comment on here, but not enough time today... I would be interested to hear what @Steven Avery makes of your observations.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Golden Age

I can understand, given the general tide of scholarship and narrative over the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus, along with the liberal scholarship from the likes of Bart Ehrman that followed from it why many would take the lead from such authorities.

To conclude that the Bible must surely be an evolved text, where cherished doctrines were "solidified" by later interpolation from well meaning scribes wanting to harmonise the early fragmented materials might be appealing, especially if such conclusions are supportive of the Islamic claim that the Bible has been "corrupted".

This was very much the line of conversation I had with @Kung Fu and @Etagloc and what prompted me to investigate that claim.

There is quite a bit of material referred to in the other thread I participated on :-

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-critical-text-criticized.3461/

A good number of the points regarding dating of the text, the end of Mark, Simonides account etc etc are covered here. It's worth working through even if you come out knowing better why you don't agree with the conclusions drawn ;-)

 

[Steven Avery]

Much to comment on here, but not enough time today... I would be interested to hear what @Steven Avery makes of your observations.

Will do a short summary responding to the post.

I must say that I find the manner in which Constantine Tischendorf found (rescued!?) parchments from a basket in St Catherine's Monastery rather 'convenient' !?
Are we really expected to believe that monks kept these 'quires' for 1800 years and decided to consign them to the flames just at the moment Tischendorf walks in through the gates of the Monastery and rescues them for posterity!? It reads too much like a Hollywood screenplay for my liking.

Agreed. This is an important point that was overlooked. 1500 years (1000+ at the monastery) and just as Tisch walks in, the one day in 350,000, they are going to have a bonfire of the manuscript vanities?

Plus the story, which was created 15 years later for political cover, and for public acclaim, turns out to be a transparent fabrication, for many reasons. However, even if you did not know that, it never should pass a burning smell stench test. This is one of dozens of notes that go to the non-credibility of Tischendorf.

[By the way, the Monks disagreed with Tischendorf's explanation about the circumstances in in which he discovered the Sinaiticus].

Disagreed is a very mild word . And this applies to 1844 and 1859.

The 'quires' are in remarkably good condition for documents reputed to be between 1600-800 years old.

Yep. Super-supple (see the BBC video, I think I put it on the other thread) , no grime, no hand oils, easy-peasy page turning. "Phenomenally good condition" said Helen Shenton of the British Library.

ie. If it really were 1650 years old. For an under 200 year old ms. that was actively used for less than 20, pretty much what you would expect, nice and white and beautiful, except for the stained colouring on the Brit section.

This could be explained by the fact that they were stored in the very dry desert air of St Catherine's Monastery, which, we know does wonders for documents formed from animal skin and paper. Desert air is a natural preservative.

Partly true. It avoids the mold and moisture problem. However, it accelerates the element of becoming more brittle over time. There is no way that a real desert 1650 year old ms. could be anything like Codex Simoneidos.

The Sinaiticus has many similarities with the Codex Vaticanus, (but bits of the Old Testament are missing and there are additional books and text in both the Old and New Testament).

And every single verse in the NT was perserved! (Except for the corruption omissions.) That is one of the "to good to be true" elements. By design.

So this has to be a source of some reassurance for many Christians !?

Why? It is ultra-corrupt textually, and arguably the worst manuscript in existence scribally. Who needs it, who gets "reassured"?

However, important parts of the Bible referring to the resurrection are missing from the Sinaiticus. The resurrection narrative from the earliest Gospel of Mark is missing, indicating that this doctrine was still being developed and hadn't become a coherent idea when the scribes were at work writing the Sinaiticus. This seems to accord with the accepted Biblical academic view that Christian doctrine has developed over time.

Which is all malarkey. The Mark ending with the resurrection appearances, and the Lukan ascension, are attested to by all sorts of Ante-Nicene early church writers. And both have overwhelming ms. attestation.

My greatest concern is that the text displays signs of mistakes and corrections. Scholars believe there were three [primary] scribes of the Sinaiticus, but, we don't have their biographies. Then there were several correctors of the text that are also unknown.
However, this is a shortcoming of all early Biblical texts and is not a feature peculiar to the Sinaiticus.

So was the Codex Sinaiticus forged by Constantine Simonides?

Unlikely, [is my response]:

1] The Sinaiticus is a monumental piece of work of over 1,400 pages, with each page requiring 2,500 uncial letters to cover. That means that the entire Sinaiticus would have required 3,700,000 letters. Even with his cunning skills, that was a task beyond Constantine Simonides and certainly impossible to achieve in the just the period between 1839 - 1841..

Actually the actual writing would simply be a few months, for one skilled scribe. Simonides talked of at least three people who worked on corrections, and we can simply acknowledge that what he did himself was a lot (Likely NT, Barnabas and part of the OT) but nowhere near the whole enterprise. There was no time problem. There was a little hyperbole in saying that he had written it all himself.

2] Academics are also agreed that the Sinaiticus is the work of more than one scribe and several correctors. Academic techniques used to identify authorship were developed in the 20th Century and Simonides could not have been expected to foresee these and try to subvert them.

There is nothing in the manuscript that mitigates against being produced in Athos and being utilized for a few years in Sinai.

3] Codex Sinaiticus at Isaiah 1:10, at Zechariah 14:8 and the Book of Revelation has Arabic notes in the margins. Simonides had no knowledge of Arabic.

Agreed. However, lots of people around Sinai did. When Uspensky saw the ms. in 1845, he reported many details about the ms. including all the books, but he said nothing about Arabic notes.

4] Influence of the Coptic language is also detected in the Sinaiticus

Happy to go over this, but you should be more specific. So far I have not seen anything that would be out of the Athos skill-set.

The Sinaiticus indicates a much earlier time frame for its composition than the 1800's. So on a balance of probabilities, I find it difficult to accept that Simonides authored the the Sinaiticus.

Here, I do not think you have weighted the probabilites that favor the 1800s production.

 

[UnderAlienControl]

All of Chile's 34 bishops RESIGN over a sex abuse and cover-up scandal after crisis meeting with the Pope
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-5744503/Chilean-bishops-offer-resignation-Pope-abuse-scandal-statement.html

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Steven Avery

This is an important point that was overlooked. 1500 years (1000+ at the monastery) and just as Tisch walks in, the one day in 350,000, they are going to have a bonfire of the manuscript vanities?

I had never even thought of this - realistically, what are the chances?!

Interesting too is the contrast between the condition of the Codex Sinaiticus and the 1500 year old Byzantine Garima Gospels. These too were stored in an arid climate but appear to be extremely frail and kept from touch. Unlike the more widely known Codex, this text of the Gospels (which includes the end of Mark btw) has been guarded carefully by the monks for centuries.

"THE pages crackle, specks of parchment falling to the ground like snowflakes. Wrapped in a white shawl, the book open on his knees on an embroidered velvet cloth, Father Teklehaimanot turns the sheets fastidiously lest the leather ligature tear them. Inside the text is dull and faded..."

"...researchers fret about the gospels’ future in their current setting. When Jacques Mercier, a French art historian, visited in 1995, the second volume of gospels seemed to have gone missing (it turned up later). As their custodians become aware of their financial value, the temptation to profit grows. Some monks can be bribed to produce the parchments for viewing, risking damage. “Every time you open the book the edges turn to dust,” says Mr Gervers. “So bit by bit they will fall apart.”

https://www.economist.com/books-and-arts/2018/03/22/a-symbolic-struggle-over-ancient-manuscripts

 

[Golden Age]

@Steven Avery, post: "Yep. Super-supple (see the BBC video, I think I put it on the other thread) , no grime, no hand oils, easy-peasy page turning. "Phenomenally good condition" said Helen Shenton of the British Library.
ie. If it really were 1650 years old. For an under 200 year old ms. that was actively used for less than 20, pretty much what you would expect, nice and white and beautiful, except for the stained colouring on the Brit section"

On this observation, I ask you also to consider the following:

1] Modern paper and paper from even a few centuries back are very different products. The former is vulnerable to decay even after a few decades due to the presence of acid in the manufacturing processes. In the age of plentiful paper, very little thought is given to preservation because most documents can be stored, copied, archived and reprinted with ease. The quality of paper doesn't have to be brilliant because writers/manufacturers/printers don't expect their documents to be in circulation for centuries.
Ancient paper was much rarer, of much higher quality and great thought was given to its production and preservation. Religious tracts, especially, were expected to be in circulation for centuries, if not a millenium !?

2] Invariably, most ancient Church documents were never committed to paper, for reasons outlined in 1] above. Animal skins, papyrus and parchments were used. All these have much greater 'shelf lives' than paper and much of early Church history, Egyptian, Greek and Roman documents have come to us in this form.

3] With favourable storage conditions, it is not remarkable that parchment that is older than a millenium can come down to us in good condition. We have the letters of Cicero and works of Tacitus all handed to us in this way.


@Steven Avery, post: "Why? It is ultra-corrupt textually, and arguably the worst manuscript in existence scribally. Who needs it, who gets "reassured"?"

I can understand why believing Christians may not need the Sinaiticus, but, it is an important document for academics and historians. It has intrinsic value that extends way beyond its religious significance.


@Steven Avery, post: "Which is all malarkey. The Mark ending with the resurrection appearances, and the Lukan ascension, are attested to by all sorts of Ante-Nicene early church writers. And both have overwhelming ms. attestation"

It may well be malarkey but it still doesn't explain the graphic omission of [THE] central Christian doctrine of the Resurrection from, what academics regard as, the earliest Gospel in the NT !?
In strictly Pauline terms, if there is no Resurrection, there is no Christianity. I accept that the Gospels in the NT can tell the Nazarene narrative in their own way, but, they must all incorporate the central belief in the Resurrection. This is the heart of the NT.

Referring to Ante-Nicene early Church writers, none of whom can be regarded to have been directly inspired by the Holy Spirit, is not a substitute for the earliest Canonical NT Gospels failing to attest to the Resurrection of Christ in explicit terms.
Its the equivalent of assembling a solar system of planets, but, forgetting to put a sun in the middle of it !?

Not being a Christian, I'm able to draw rational conclusions from the omission and not try to bluster my way out using whatever straws I can clutch!?

@Steven Avery, post: "Here, I do not think you have weighted the probabilites that favor the 1800s production"

Well, Steven . . . it is a question of judgement that one makes, based on a balance of probabilities. My view is that the Sinaiticus displays hallmarks of several authors and correctors. It requires linguistic demands from those authors that Simonides never possessed.

I age and date the Sinaiticus as being much older than the 200 year old forgery, although, I would not stake my life on it being exactly 1650 years old, either.

With the available evidence, its much more improbable (and problematic) to come to your conclusion than mine.

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Golden Age

The website below (respectfully) disagrees with your conclusions:

http://sinaiticus.net

Those alternate conclusions are robustly presented in the following book - enjoy (or ignore ;-) You may even find yourself coming to a surprising conclusion about the end of the Gospel of Mark (as I did).

 

[Serveto]

Although this thread has been active for awhile, it wasn't until this past weekend that I actually read a few, especially encyclopedic entries on the Codex Sinaiticus, and then some more general articles from both religious and secular sources.

Reading a few articles does not an expert make. With that acknowledged, yet without getting into the jots and tittles, so to speak, of the actual Codex itself, and allowing for the possibility of deceit and underhandedness in the process of its discovery and publication, I fail to clearly see how, on what basis, it can be said, or thought, that the Vatican is either implicated or involved. I read a number of online biographical sketches of Tischendorf himself, but was unable to determine whether he was Catholic or Protestant. I assume, given that he was from Saxony and was a student at the University of Leipzig, that he was Protestant, or pro-Reformation, but only an assumption it is. Furthermore, although he was reportedly initially sponsored by Frederik Augustus, King of Saxony, he made his monumental discovery at St. Catherine's Monastery, which is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic but rather the Eastern Orthodox Church, and is thus under different jurisdiction. From that point, he got support, or patronage, not from the pope and Rome, but from the Russian Orthodox Tsar Alexander II at St. Petersburg, who received (at least a portion of) the published Codex and rewarded the monastery with gifts. As well, the universities of Cambridge and Oxford awarded Tischendorf honorary doctoral degrees, and a sizable portion of his Codex is held in predominantly Protestant England, at the British Library in London. Where, then, is the hand of the Vatican visibly -or identifiably- at work in this process?

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Although this thread has been active for awhile, it wasn't until this weekend that I actually read a few, especially encyclopedic entries on the Codex Sinaiticus, and then some more general articles from both religious and secular sources.

Reading a few articles does not an expert make. With that acknowledged, yet without getting into the jots and tittles of the actual Codex itself, and allowing for the possibility of deceit and underhandedness in the process of its discovery and publication, I fail to clearly see how, on what basis, it can be said, or thought, that the Vatican is either implicated or involved. I read a number of online biographical sketches of Tischendorff himself, but was unable to determine whether he was Catholic or Protestant. I assume, given that he was from Saxony and was a student at the University of Leipsig, that he was Protestant, or pro-Reformation, but only an assumption it is. Furthermore, although he was reportedly initially sponsored by Frederik Augustus, King of Saxony, he made his monumental discovery at St. Catherine's Monastery, which is not affiliated with Roman Catholic but rather the Eastern Orthodox church, and is thus under different jurisdiction. From that point, he got support, or patronage, not from the pope and Rome, but from the Russian Orthodox Tsar Alexander II at St. Petersburg, who received (at least a portion of) the published Codex and rewarded the monastery with gifts. As well, the universities of Cambridge and Oxford rewarded Tischendorff with honorary doctoral degrees, and a sizable portion of his discovery is held in predominantly Protestant England, at the British Library in London. Where, then, is the hand of the Vatican visibly -or identifiably- at work in this process?

Keep at it! I studied it on and off for a year and more recently read and watched everything I could on the topic. What I discovered amazed and shocked my presuppositions.

The second thread I created on the subject was:

https://vigilantcitizenforums.com/threads/the-critical-text-criticized.3461/page-3#post-116749

I did this because the investigation is very active and the findings keep on coming. Also thanks to David Daniels and @Steven Avery for your efforts in helping to ensure the integrity of this investigation.

If the research ever reaches mainstream awareness, it would make a great film!!!

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Serveto

Just so you know, I have nothing against individual Catholics - I dated a Catholuc girl at University and Jim Cavezil is still one of my favourite actors!

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

@Red Sky at Morning
Thank you!!! When i got to the bolded part about Mark, i quickly grabbed my bible before reading further, because i've always seen that little note above those verses. I read through and asked myself, what would be the motive for the removal? There's Christ's resurrection and His sitting at the right hand of God. Then i find Bill says the same thing. I will ask the same thing i asked in another thread. The verses 'under attack' or called interpolations like John 3:16 are those that testify to the redemption of man, a theme which everyone should get acquainted with. If they are 'interpolations', who benefits in the real sense, if infact they are so? Does it really matter to me, the average person, if Christ did or didn't die? Or resurrect? And why would an entity go to great lengths to add or remove texts to sacred literature?
Just because there are 100 scholars who are in consesus on something doesn't necessarily mean something is true. This reminds me of that time,in 2012, when the Harvard Professor, Karen King, came out claiming Jesus indeed got married (with serious implications for His divinity), basing that on a parchment that she had recently acquired. Now, the stage had already been set years before, to mold the public's mind to accept this, with Dan Brown's Da Vinci code. Fiction was now fact.

When the story broke, i wondered who this anonymous owner was, and why he was so 'generous' to the world as to hand over this parchment to King.
Four years later, after sowing the seed in the public's mind, she turns around and claims it was a forgery. Meanwhile, in those 4yrs, she failed to do a background check on the owner. Like, really?
http://theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2016/06/karen-king-responds-to-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/
And probably these kinds of things will become more common as time goes on. A fictional work comes out and it is later 'validated' by an 'ancient text'.
Look for the motive. Who benefits at the end of the day? At least i know TPTB don't have my physical, emotional and spiritual interests at heart.

I only "liked" this comment when you made it several months ago but you are absolutely correct in what you point out here!!! We may not always agree on everything, but I think we do where it really matters - God bless you @Karlysymon

 

[Steven Avery]

Although this thread has been active for awhile, it wasn't until this past weekend that I actually read a few, especially encyclopedic entries on the Codex Sinaiticus, and then some more general articles from both religious and secular sources.

Reading a few articles does not an expert make. With that acknowledged, yet without getting into the jots and tittles, so to speak, of the actual Codex itself, and allowing for the possibility of deceit and underhandedness in the process of its discovery and publication, I fail to clearly see how, on what basis, it can be said, or thought, that the Vatican is either implicated or involved. I read a number of online biographical sketches of Tischendorf himself, but was unable to determine whether he was Catholic or Protestant. I assume, given that he was from Saxony and was a student at the University of Leipzig, that he was Protestant, or pro-Reformation, but only an assumption it is. Furthermore, although he was reportedly initially sponsored by Frederik Augustus, King of Saxony, he made his monumental discovery at St. Catherine's Monastery, which is not affiliated with the Roman Catholic but rather the Eastern Orthodox Church, and is thus under different jurisdiction. From that point, he got support, or patronage, not from the pope and Rome, but from the Russian Orthodox Tsar Alexander II at St. Petersburg, who received (at least a portion of) the published Codex and rewarded the monastery with gifts. As well, the universities of Cambridge and Oxford awarded Tischendorf honorary doctoral degrees, and a sizable portion of his Codex is held in predominantly Protestant England, at the British Library in London. Where, then, is the hand of the Vatican visibly -or identifiably- at work in this process?

Good questions.

The question of Jesuit involvement is not one that gets a lot of my involvement, I tend to stick with the historical and physical and textual evidences that show Sinaiticus is not authentic. These are massive, and there is a lot to be documented and brought forth and weighed.

Once that is seen, then there are questions of motive, how much was a purposeful plan? Or was it mostly simply an oddball confluence of circumstances involving one prideful and greedy and vain-glorious German who simply accidentally ran into the Simoneidos manuscript? When you go into motives, you find Hort talking in 1851 of Tischendorf finding "rich materials". You find possible collusion, even the incredible and terrible Russian collusion in the late 1860s, between Simonides and Tischendorf. And much, much more.

With Tischendorf and the Vatican and the Jesuits, there are a number of suspicious connections. Including how Tischendorf make a very hush-hush trip to the Vatican in 1843, right before the "discovery." And how the "Protestant" scholar was fawned over in his later trip. In his 1871 writing he spilled a tidbit about actually making a facsimile of Vaticanus (the NT, presumably) in the 1840s trip, which one biographer noted as an error he supposedly made. There is much more, and there is an issue of how far Jesuit influence and tentacles run. Would they have connections in Athos or Sinai? Possibly.

David W. Daniels goes into these questions, and he does so cautiously. Neither of us think that this is fundamental to understanding that Sinaiticus is a fake manuscript produced in the 1840s. That is the natural conclusion simply by looking at the evidences.

Steven

 

[Red Sky at Morning]

Good questions.

The question of Jesuit involvement is not one that gets a lot of my involvement, I tend to stick with the historical and physical and textual evidences that show Sinaiticus is not authentic. These are massive, and there is a lot to be documented and brought forth and weighed.

Once that is seen, then there are questions of motive, how much was a purposeful plan? Or was it mostly simply an oddball confluence of circumstances involving one prideful and greedy and vain-glorious German who simply accidentally ran into the Simoneidos manuscript? When you go into motives, you find Hort talking in 1851 of Tischendorf finding "rich materials". You find possible collusion, even the incredible and terrible Russian collusion in the late 1860s, between Simonides and Tischendorf. And much, much more.

With Tischendorf and the Vatican and the Jesuits, there are a number of suspicious connections. Including how Tischendorf make a very hush-hush trip to the Vatican in 1843, right before the "discovery." And how the "Protestant" scholar was fawned over in his later trip. In his 1871 writing he spilled a tidbit about actually making a facsimile of Vaticanus (the NT, presumably) in the 1840s trip, which one biographer noted as an error he supposedly made. There is much more, and there is an issue of how far Jesuit influence and tentacles run. Would they have connections in Athos or Sinai? Possibly.

David W. Daniels goes into these questions, and he does so cautiously. Neither of us think that this is fundamental to understanding that Sinaiticus is a fake manuscript produced in the 1840s. That is the natural conclusion simply by looking at the evidences.

Steven

I agree with the balance of your answer here - regardless of the Vatican / Jesuit connection at the time, the latter have their "fingers in the till" more identifiably...

The thread name has been updated accordingly!

 

[Serveto]

The question of Jesuit involvement is not one that gets a lot of my involvement, I tend to stick with the historical and physical and textual evidences that show Sinaiticus is not authentic. These are massive, and there is a lot to be documented and brought forth and weighed.

I understand. I now can see why the subject is so intriguing and I appreciate your research. I, personally, think you are well advised to work from and with the knowns, or givens, though there is a place for speculation as well. The topic appeals not only to my conspiratorial bend of mind, but also my fondness of History.

By way of rough analogy, if we compare circumstances surrounding the Codex Sinaiticus to, say, "9/11," a multi-disciplinary approach is advisable, and you seem to be focusing on the case of the at best mysteriously surviving passport of Muhammad Atta amid the rubble of the WTC. Unless one focuses upon a single bee, it's easy to become distracted by the hive.

Once that is seen, then there are questions of motive ...

Exactly. Cui bono [who benefits]?

With Tischendorf and the Vatican and the Jesuits, there are a number of suspicious connections. Including how Tischendorf make a very hush-hush trip to the Vatican in 1843, right before the "discovery." And how the "Protestant" scholar was fawned over in his later trip. In his 1871 writing he spilled a tidbit about actually making a facsimile of Vaticanus (the NT, presumably) in the 1840s trip, which one biographer noted as an error he supposedly made. There is much more, and there is an issue of how far Jesuit influence and tentacles run. Would they have connections in Athos or Sinai? Possibly.

David W. Daniels goes into these questions, and he does so cautiously. Neither of us think that this is fundamental to understanding that Sinaiticus is a fake manuscript produced in the 1840s. That is the natural conclusion simply by looking at the evidences.

Thank you for the leads and references. I am drawn more to the speculative than forensic aspects, thus far, and might explore them further. Without having yet followed those leads, some preliminary things which spring to mind, and you needn't feel obligated to respond, I just submit them for general consideration, are: 1) assuming the Jesuits had -and have- the interests of the RCC genuinely in mind; 2) given that the resurrection of Jesus is incorporated into and is part of what the RCC considers its infallible magisterium, or teaching tradition; 3) how would the RCC benefit by locating, or producing, a Codex which fails to support their magisterium (given that the Codex omits the ending verses of Mark's gospel)?

Anyway, as I said, I am intrigued. Thank you for responding and your contributions.

 

[Steven Avery]

Most welcome.

In fact, earlier, the other night, with the "coincidences" abounding (Barnabas, Hermas) and the principles all in Athos at the right time as discovered in 1900, and especially the called shots including Kallinikos saying the ms was coloured, tampered, and we can see that finally today!
... I came very close to using the passport analogy!

("It should have landed a few blocks further, on the Brooklyn Bridge, so you could buy the bridge with the passport.)

More planned laters!

 

[Karlysymon]

We may not always agree on everything, but I think we do where it really matters - God bless you @Karlysymon

Thank you! Sorry, just seen the alert. God bless you too!

 

[Steven Avery]

I understand. I now can see why the subject is so intriguing and I appreciate your research. I, personally, think you are well advised to work from and with the knowns, or givens, though there is a place for speculation as well. The topic appeals not only to my conspiratorial bend of mind, but also my fondness of History.

Just to be clear, originally I was a defender of Sinaiticus authenticity, at a time when we did not know anything much about the manuscript. At this point, I was a King James defender (although when I came to faith it was mostly NIV) , who liked to engage the textual criticism boards and learn the ropes, and the concepts that dragged them down. However, when I saw the modern version cornfuseniks try to beat up on Chris Pinto, I figured at least I should listen. Chris seemed like a nice enough guy, and quite sincere, and he was talking this quirky stuff about Simonides and Tischendorf, and he had dug up a couple of very interesting new points.

And then I was reading Wikipedia, and there was .. strangely, some untranslated Russian, or Old Slovenian, put in by a Pentecostal scholar from Ukraine and Poland, Leszek Janczuk, the report from Porfiry Uspensky in Sinai in 1845. So I threw it into Google Tranlsate, and Uspensky talked of a seeing a "white parchment" ms. in 1845. hmmm... I got a lot more interested, even excited about the research. Then over some weeks, with David Daniels help (I said, "hey, David, you wanna take a look at this?) we looked at the manuscript online and saw that Leipzig 1844 was, indeed, white parchment! Every page, consistently, and clean as a whistle. Yet, all the other pages that Tischendorf heisted in 1859 were streaky yellow.

This started the ball rolling. So it was more simply the integrity of scholarship and the interest in the history. The textual critics are totally incapable of understanding history and integrating it with other evidences, like provenance, manuscript condition, palaeography. At this point they are very similar to the evolution cliques and cabals. Everything is circular. They even will try to change manuscript and ink science to match the Sinaiticus anomalies! In other words, they tell the manuscript people "we know this ms. is 1650 years old, deal with it." (And they keep it away from the pure scientists.) Much like, "we know those dinosaur fossil remains are a million years old, you have to change the science if you see DNA or blood or anything that is supposed to be long gone."

"9/11," ... passport Unless one focuses upon a single bee, it's easy to become distracted by the hive.

And I try to focus on the micro and the macro (I'm thinking of firing up Scrivener for a short-medium book that will be complementary to what is done by David W. Daniels. Our goals are in synche, however our audiences and approaches differ a bit.) The only reason the Sinaiticus exposure has really begun to get traction is that there are about five core people working in complementary areas, iron sharpeneth. Caution-note: We do see a couple of unconnected people who write material or give talks that can mix interesting ideas with really bad rabbit-holes.

Here is the spot I found this AM for consideration, I was trying to figure out a bit about the dating of the three crosses note and the scribes in that part of the Leipzig section and ran into the 1845 ink-writing:

comparing acid-wear of 1845 ink with theorized 350 AD ink
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?587-comparing-acid-wear-of-1845-ink-with-theorized-350-AD-ink

Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1707155526042996/

Exactly. Cui bono [who benefits]?

Yes, that is one element that supports conspiracy and collusion. Another is the simple fact that solid knowledge of mss like Vaticanus and Claromontanus might have been used directly in the creation of Simoneidos. A third is that we do have a number of hints that this was not all simply accidental happy times for Tischendorf, as discussed in the previous post. Still, we see through this glass a little foggy.

Thank you for the leads and references. I am drawn more to the speculative than forensic aspects, thus far, and might explore them further. Without having yet followed those leads, some preliminary things which spring to mind, and you needn't feel obligated to respond, I just submit them for general consideration, are: 1) assuming the Jesuits had -and have- the interests of the RCC genuinely in mind; 2) given that the resurrection of Jesus is incorporated into and is part of what the RCC considers its infallible magisterium, or teaching tradition; 3) how would the RCC benefit by locating, or producing, a Codex which fails to support their magisterium (given that the Codex omits the ending verses of Mark's gospel)? Anyway, as I said, I am intrigued. Thank you for responding and your contributions.

Your welcome!

And I think there were counter-vailing forces. One main goal was to get a Vaticanus type manuscript to support the attempt to come up an alternative to the TR that might stick. Remember, Bentley, Griesbach, Lachmann and others had been flailing wildly. They wanted to circle the horses and Westcott and Hort really, really needed some manuscript that would take some of the pressure off of trying to push what would be perceived as a Vaticanus-primacy-only text. Hard to build a textual theory around that nonsense. Even with Sinaiticus, Hort still had to fabricate lots of absurd ideas in his obtuse, muddy writing, but he really needed Sinaiticus. So I think that trumps any individual verse concern. The ending of Mark has many compenents of discussion. Maybe more on all this later.

And, on the other hand, maybe it was all accidental .

Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi Golden Age,

Allow me to take just this one point for now.

[ 3] With favourable storage conditions, it is not remarkable that parchment that is older than a millenium can come down to us in good condition. We have the letters of Cicero and works of Tacitus all handed to us in this way.

Actually the condition of Sinaiticus is far more than remarkable. "Phenomenally good condition". Look at the BBC video. And then you add the obvious BEFORE and AFTER colour tampering.

The other ancient mss are not even remotely comparable.

As for Tacitus, (I did not look up Cicero) all I found was that there is a ms. dated to 850 AD that has a black-and-white picture online. If you have more information, share awy.

Steven

 

[Douglas Summers]

Following a discussion with my spiritual sparring partner @Kung Fu, he challenged me to consider 'late' interpolations in the text of the Bible, when compared to the Codex Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus.

I knew I had read something on the subject in the last year, but as it wasn't an issue for me anyway, I had filed the idea away and not really delved into it.

What follows is the text from a pamphlet which provides an overview of a more detailed work (178 pages so not really too bad) called "The Forging of the Codex Sinaiatucus", by Bill Cooper.

Interesting. I have come to know the Lord through preaching, and I'am grounded in the Scriptures NKJV. I have no other hope than Christ and seek His counsel daily. My heart is grieved at those who try to show their so called knowledge of Scripture, but have never been born again who lead the weak on to doubtful and lying spirits. My trust is in Him to the core...and it is not wishful thinking, but a relationship....and no, I'm no one special above anyone else and probably the least of many...but I have no other hope but Christ. I pray that others would seek Him on a personal relationship.

 

[Steven Avery]

Likewise, parchment contains a protein called collagen which decays after not many centuries, leaving the parchment shrivelled, cracked and brittle so that it can no longer be handled without serious damage occurring. The collagen of Sinaiticus, however, is largely undecayed, which is why its pages can be handled and turned with no real danger of damage. They would not enjoy this state of freshness if they were anywhere near the 1700 years that are claimed for them. Indeed, their freshness, lack of decay and time-related damage is something that surprised the British Library's technicians when they were allowed to examine them.

The Sinaiticus book from Bill Cooper (1947-2021) is very uneven, but this paragraph is worthy of special positive note.