Sunday, January 12, 2014

Aleph / 01 / א


We 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"
  • Calligraphy 
  • Quire numbers 
  • Hieroglyphics 
  • Retracing
  • Rebinding  
  • 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
  • Bibliography 
  • Summary 
    Let me add a note here.  Being active in textual discussions, I was dismissive of Codex Sinaiticus, as being a junque early text.   When I saw "Tares Among the Wheat" I was more interested in the Vaticanus retracing than the idea that Sinaiticus might not be authentic, since authenticity was always presented as probability=1. On the TC-Alternate forum in 2011 I even wrote up a paragraph of the main reasons that could be given against Simonides involvement.

    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.

Steven Avery
Bayside, NY 

This blog page is:

Codex Sinaiticus - Authentic?

Pure Bible Central


No comments:

Post a Comment