Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by John T »

Maestroh wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:06 pm
No carbon dating has been done on Sinaiticus. But then again, it hasn't been done on hardly anything else, either.
Houston we have a problem. :o

Just like the story of how the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and eventually made it to the experts makes for an interesting story but does nothing to prove or disprove the age of the scrolls.

I have already visited the problems of radiocarbon dating with the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atwill and Eisenman) be as they may, the results did settle two things, they weren't forged in the 1800's and some of them were most likely composed during the 1st century CE.

For the Codex Sinaiticus not to under go such testing is inexcusable, (barring lack of funding).

As far as the my error regarding +/- 1,5000, well yes that was a typo, I meant 1,500 years plus or minus. Thanks for the correction.
The point being, modern Radiocarbon dating can easily narrow the date down to within a couple of hundred years.

With all that being said, I know consider the manuscript highly suspect until proven otherwise.
This is getting very interesting.


John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh »

John T wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:28 am
Maestroh wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:06 pm
No carbon dating has been done on Sinaiticus. But then again, it hasn't been done on hardly anything else, either.
Houston we have a problem. :o

Just like the story of how the Dead Sea Scrolls were found and eventually made it to the experts makes for an interesting story but does nothing to prove or disprove the age of the scrolls.

I have already visited the problems of radiocarbon dating with the Dead Sea Scrolls (Atwill and Eisenman) be as they may, the results did settle two things, they weren't forged in the 1800's and some of them were most likely composed during the 1st century CE.

For the Codex Sinaiticus not to under go such testing is inexcusable, (barring lack of funding).

As far as the my error regarding +/- 1,5000, well yes that was a typo, I meant 1,500 years plus or minus. Thanks for the correction.
The point being, modern Radiocarbon dating can easily narrow the date down to within a couple of hundred years.

With all that being said, I know consider the manuscript highly suspect until proven otherwise.
This is getting very interesting.


John T
No, it really isn't interesting at all.

Nobody who has actually seen Sinainticus takes this revived conspiracy theory seriously.

Btw, I figured typo but not a big deal anyway.

The KJVOs like to point to 2427, but the differences are far more obvious than any sort of comparison. The date of 2427 was disputed from day one and across the years up until the point the testing was done, and Stephen Carlson then discovered the source manuscript.

As far as Simonides, the SART team is claiming stuff not even he was dumb enough to claim about himself.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by John T »

Maestroh wrote: Tue Jul 24, 2018 6:02 pm
So let's look at what the SART team (and Steven Avery) has REFUSED to answer now for two years. In April 2016, I posted this list of questions on CARM. TO THIS DAY NOT ONE WORD of response has come from this so-called researcher. And these are relevant questions. The fact none of these people has any expertise in any related area ties directly to the "this is why nobody takes you folks seriously." Note the bold below.

1) Where did David Daniels train in paleography?

2) How does the manuscript coming online in 2009 change Avery's 2011 strongly worded opinion about how if one is just familiar with the details, it's OBVIOUS that it is NOT a 19th century document?

3) How many of these scholars have ever come down on the side of saying Simonides told the truth and Sinaiticus dates to the 19th century?

4) Does ANY paleographer in the world date Sinaiticus to the 19th century?

5) Who made the accusation that the manuscript was darkened?

6) Where did Steven Avery study 'forensic history'?

7) How much study of paleography have you (note: Steven Avery) ever done?

8) Does your source Brent Nongbri have ANY papyri that he thinks are dated wrongly by 1500 years?

9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled?

10) How are they to be handled, as in 'what precautions are necessary?'

11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read?

12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed?

13) How is the lighting to be set?

14) How long did it take you to take the photographs?

15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus?

16) Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE with photographing manuscripts?

17) Do any of the OTHER two members of the SART team have any REAL experience in linguistics?

18) What are the published works of those in question 17?

19) Do the people at the CSP who host the manuscript online SAY it is an 1800s production?

20) What date then do they give it?

21) How does Steven Avery actually KNOW the manuscript at CSP is really Sinaiticus?

22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied?

23) How many experiments have you ever done on parchment?

24) What date does Brent Nongbri give Sinaiticus?
Perhaps no one answered those questions for you before but I will answer them for me now.

All those questions (except question #23) are irrelevant in comparison to finding the actual date of the manuscript by using radiocarbon dating and DNA testing.

The fact that you are not bothered by the lack of testing is troubling. :scratch:

As a judge I would find it very troubling if a woman suing for child support refuses to have a DNA test on her child.

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
Secret Alias
Posts: 18362
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Secret Alias »

This conspiracy is about as interesting as any other conspiracy suggestion. But there are a lot of documents - most documents related to Christian antiquity in fact - that haven't been tested. A similar accusation against the DSS was made by Flusser initially I believe - namely that they were modern fakes. The idea here is that since scholarship does not test every document related to early Christianity it would require some justification to say that THIS document is somehow exceptional requiring 'an extra level of proof' to verify them. I don't see anything particularly interesting in anything Avery brings up, other than the association with Simonides. But not so sure there is any actual evidence that suggests we treat this text differently than any other MS.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Kapyong »

Gday all,
Secret Alias wrote: Mon Jul 23, 2018 6:44 am Then he certainly belongs at this forum. It should be renamed "The Center for Imaginative Adoption of Historical Facts and Anomalies to Suit Pre-Existent Assumptions Forum"
Then why are you here ?

Kapyong
User avatar
Kapyong
Posts: 547
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 4:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Kapyong »

Gday John T and all :)
John T wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:46 am As a judge I would find it very troubling if a woman suing for child support refuses to have a DNA test on her child.
You keep mentioning "DNA testing" for Sinaiticus.

How do you think DNA testing applies to dating of ancient MSS ?

Kapyong

PS :
You can buy your own facsimile for US $700 :
https://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexsin.htm

Image
Steven Avery
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery »

Kapyong wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:48 am You can buy your own facsimile for US $700 :
https://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexsin.htm
However, that Hendrickson and British Library book is a tampered, deceptive edition. They smoothed it out, in order to make the Leipzig pages the same colour as the British Library. It may have led to some awkward questions if they had not made that "sensitive adjustment".
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by John T »

Kapyong wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 9:48 am Gday John T and all :)
John T wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 4:46 am As a judge I would find it very troubling if a woman suing for child support refuses to have a DNA test on her child.
You keep mentioning "DNA testing" for Sinaiticus.

How do you think DNA testing applies to dating of ancient MSS ?

Kapyong

PS :
You can buy your own facsimile for US $700 :
https://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexsin.htm

Image
DNA testing can be used as a molecular clock.
http://theconversation.com/dna-dating-h ... line-65606

Vellum is parchment made from animal skins. DNA will confirm what animals were used and what generation they came from.
http://www.sciencebuzz.org/blog/dna-and ... fic-method

There are other dating methods but those two will quickly determine if the Codex Sinaiticus is a modern forgery.

Thanks for the link on how to buy a facsimile book on a book that may be forgery but I will pass. :thumbup:

Sincerely,

John T
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Peter Kirby
Site Admin
Posts: 8015
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 2:13 pm
Location: Santa Clara
Contact:

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Peter Kirby »

John T wrote: Wed Jul 25, 2018 3:28 am For the Codex Sinaiticus not to under go such testing is inexcusable, (barring lack of funding).
Speculatively, here are three reasons manuscripts might not get tested:

1) Inertia, property rights, and a philosophy of custodial duty that tends towards conservation.

2) Limited upside. Acceptable consensus already reached. Possible downside if tests are "negative."

3) Funds present but allocated elsewhere. Different priorities. Some people would defund NASA.
"... almost every critical biblical position was earlier advanced by skeptics." - Raymond Brown
Steven Avery
Posts: 987
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery »

Good 3-part Peter.

Along with #2 is the flipside that will apply in special cases. A large-scale downside, especially if the Conservators and Librarians have noticed that the manuscript gives indications of not having the physical features normally associated with the consensus date.

Steven
Post Reply