Aleph / 01 / א
PurposeWe will examine one question on this blog, the authenticity of Sinaiticus as a 4th century text. The main question is .. 4th or 19th century, although we will also examine the historical arguments that the codex, even if authentic, was from a later date, e.g. 6th century.
Discussions Planned - Partial List
- Provenance - the 1840 poof factor
- Origin - Stories, Myths and Fables
- Why does it matter if Codex Sinaiticus is not authentic?
- Constantine Tischendorf - adventurer, scholar, Count, liar, thief, mutilator of ancient manuscripts
- Constantine Simonides - the fly in the ointment
- Codex Simoneidos
- England literary controversy - 1862-1864
- Shepherd of Hermas - "coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"
- Tares Among the Wheat by Chris Pinto
- Ink, Vellum & Binding
- Ink analysis - "inks have never been chemically characterized"
- Scribes and Correctors
- authenticity, forgery and dating
- "many obvious blunders"
- Burgon and the significance of Codex Aleph
- Hilgenfeld questions what became the Tischendorf-Hort "scholarly consensus"
- Quire numbers
- James Anson Farrer - "unsolved mysteries of literature"
- Codex Sinaiticus Project
- bogus "English translation" of Sinaiticus
- evolution-style circularity
- probability analysis
- John 21:25 - Tischendorf's x-ray vision, the attack on Samuel Tragelles
- Mark ending - the curious cancel sheet
- the James White - Chris Pinto debate
- James White - "any scholar"
- Alan Kurschner - "documentary lie"
- Lake, Skeat & Milne, Jongkind & Parker
- Forum Discussions
In 2013, I became more interested. Alan Kurschner belligerently and falsely accused Chris Pinto of a "documentary lie", using a James White blunder as his reference. James White and Chris Pinto got ready to square off in the debate. So I figgered I should get more informed. Out of that developed the studies du jour.
This blog page is:
Codex Sinaiticus - Authentic?