The Lying Pen of Scribes
Steven Avery - March 28, 2018
Hi Lying Pen group,
The provenance of the Museum of the Bible fragments was dicey. And those with ownership of the fragments have been willing to allow scientific tests. Even the famed BAM group (Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung,) with Dr. Ira Rabin is now able to do tests on some fragments. As shared by a super-reliable source.
Yet with Codex Sinaiticus the BAM group had material tests planned for 2015, for the white parchment, unstained, 1844 Leipzig portion of Sinaticus. A manuscript with similarly dicey provenance issues and rather glaring authenticity concerns.
The result ?
Nothing, the tests were cancelled.
So what do our experts do when the libraries (British Library and Leipzig University Library) stonewall on testing?
Apparently, they simply clam up in a clique of silence. The Sinaiticus scholarship is now "deeply entrenched" into the academic milieu. Ignoring or at best hand-waving the evidences is the modus operandi. Let's suppress even the discussion!
Like the colouring and staining of the 1859 portion, which had already been rather amazingly pointed out in the early 1860s (able to be verified only after the 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project placed all sections online, giving us the world's best evidence -- BEFORE and AFTER.)
Brit and German sections being in "phenomenally good condition" as reported by Helen Shenton of the British Library (for a supposed ancient manuscript,) There is even a wonderful must-see page-turner video online.
The scholars do not even check a source that was fingered as contributing to the production, In a manner similar to how the Buttmann 1861 edition was found to have been used to create the formerly "Category One" Archaic Mark (ms. 2427, now considered a forgery.)
And here, I have only scratched the surface, e.g. what about the Barnabas 1843 edition? Published by Simonides and referenced in a Smyrna periodical. Have the scholars checked the connections with Sinaiticus?
And have they made any sensible analysis of the sense-line homoeoteleutons that match up perfectly with Claromontanus as source?
Simonides we know published the Sinaitic-connected Hermas before the 1859 Tischendorf red-cloth "discovery" (previously seen and written about by Porfiry Uspensky.) Which led to Tischendorf first accusing Hermas of late Latin influence, and then retracting his linguistic accusations, as pointed out by the learned Scottish scholar James Donaldson. Tischendorf is the same gentleman who fabricated a "saved-from-fire" scenario in 1859 to mask the 1844 brazen theft of 5+ quires out of the codex.
The scholars have various excuses. It can be a tad humorous. And I can go into that another day. (One is .. not my expertise. The problem is that the evidences are so wide-ranging! And some are too clear, obvious, strong and simple.)
Who can do solid historical analysis when it comes to textual and authenticity issues?
Dutchess County, NY USA