Steven Avery
Administrator
The historical forensics research of SART has received supportive and helpful responses from around the world to the Sinaiticus research and discoveries. Major new research help, information additions and translation help have come from scholars, professionals and laymen in Russia, England, German, Austria and the USA. Sometimes on the record, sometimes off, including important elements in process in research which surprise the SART team. And we remain open to all potential explanations of the events surrounding the "exceptional" Codex Sinaiticus. There is a highly unique combination of circumstances around this manuscript.
Even those in manuscript history and science at the British Library (much less so at Leipzig) have been very helpful and willing to dialog and discuss Sinaiticus iron sharpeneth. Even if they are not, so far, going to consider, on the record, the alternate historical possibilities to the vulgate version of the Sinaiticus discovery, provenance and authenticity. One major skill you utilize in the discussions about Sinaiticus is the ability to "read between the lines".
As rejoice44, a gentleman named Norm, pointed out in 2011, way before the most critical new evidences arose .. the academics have been asleep.
The BCHF forum (with a widely diverse contribution base) discussion represents an area where at least a good number of the participants asked probing questions. Peter Kirby and Andrew Criddle and Stephen Huller (who related to us the views of David Trobisch) are three on that forum. That may get a special section or thread. Similarly, discussions with actively involved individuals like the British Library or Alexander Schick (writer on Tischendorf) and Dirk Jongkind and others, will not be part of this thread. Also this thread is not designed to show the many supporting comments and websites.
What this thread will do:
We find, not surprisingly, the most resistance to even considering what has been discovered about Sinaiticus to come from those involved in "textual criticism". Ironically, we find ourselves to be the only individuals who took seriously the call of the Codex Sinaiticus Project to continue the research they had begun.
What this thread will do is first simply document the posts and positions taken by the textual criticism community. In fairness to their posts, we will not modify one word (if a salutation is omitted, or a spelling correction is made, that will be noted with the post). Nor will we do any any quick response here. Any responses we make will be simply links to the discussion. Or we will add comments separately further down in the thread. In addition we will be pointing you to some existing threads here on PBF, some of which discuss a group of arguments for authenticity summarized by Scrivener and Stanley E. Porter.
And a new writing is planned that discusses with a title like:
"Why the James Keith Elliott book tells you very little about Sinaiticus authenticity".
Since the British textual types, especially, seem to consider that book as all that is needed to consider about Sinaiticus.
By placing some of these posts here, we can encourage those considering these issues to look at all sides of the discussion. Those trying to really study the issues, and engage in analysis and discussion, iron sharpeneth, should be able to come to this site and feel that they are able to get the resources to study all sides of the manner. SART is a research group, and we simply desire to follow the evidences.
Steven Avery - April 1, 2016
SART
Even those in manuscript history and science at the British Library (much less so at Leipzig) have been very helpful and willing to dialog and discuss Sinaiticus iron sharpeneth. Even if they are not, so far, going to consider, on the record, the alternate historical possibilities to the vulgate version of the Sinaiticus discovery, provenance and authenticity. One major skill you utilize in the discussions about Sinaiticus is the ability to "read between the lines".
As rejoice44, a gentleman named Norm, pointed out in 2011, way before the most critical new evidences arose .. the academics have been asleep.
What this thread will not do:There seems to be a dead silence in the Academic world as to all the problems associated with this manuscript. Why?
The BCHF forum (with a widely diverse contribution base) discussion represents an area where at least a good number of the participants asked probing questions. Peter Kirby and Andrew Criddle and Stephen Huller (who related to us the views of David Trobisch) are three on that forum. That may get a special section or thread. Similarly, discussions with actively involved individuals like the British Library or Alexander Schick (writer on Tischendorf) and Dirk Jongkind and others, will not be part of this thread. Also this thread is not designed to show the many supporting comments and websites.
What this thread will do:
We find, not surprisingly, the most resistance to even considering what has been discovered about Sinaiticus to come from those involved in "textual criticism". Ironically, we find ourselves to be the only individuals who took seriously the call of the Codex Sinaiticus Project to continue the research they had begun.
On textual criticism discussion forums, a few, however, have helpfully at least tried to take the role of debunkers, with a wildly varying quality of response. This includes, so far, James E. Snapp, Jr., Thomas Wasserman, Bill Brown and Jacob Peterson. In addition, Elijah Hixson tried to very helpfully share his manuscript experiences, on a forum where simultaneously Jacob Peterson took the role of debunker. Overall, most have not addressed the basic issues, although James E. Snapp, Jr. did at least make attempts on some elements in a number of discussion forums.Gavin Moorhead, who was one of the conservators who worked on the project. He mentioned that initially there were plans to do a detailed study of the colour variance between parchment leaves, but for reasons of time and finances this was not followed through on, and instead the information was put up on the Sinaiticus website in the hope that researchers might be able to make some use of it. - Cillian O'Hogan, British Library, 3/13/2014 email
What this thread will do is first simply document the posts and positions taken by the textual criticism community. In fairness to their posts, we will not modify one word (if a salutation is omitted, or a spelling correction is made, that will be noted with the post). Nor will we do any any quick response here. Any responses we make will be simply links to the discussion. Or we will add comments separately further down in the thread. In addition we will be pointing you to some existing threads here on PBF, some of which discuss a group of arguments for authenticity summarized by Scrivener and Stanley E. Porter.
And a new writing is planned that discusses with a title like:
"Why the James Keith Elliott book tells you very little about Sinaiticus authenticity".
Since the British textual types, especially, seem to consider that book as all that is needed to consider about Sinaiticus.
By placing some of these posts here, we can encourage those considering these issues to look at all sides of the discussion. Those trying to really study the issues, and engage in analysis and discussion, iron sharpeneth, should be able to come to this site and feel that they are able to get the resources to study all sides of the manner. SART is a research group, and we simply desire to follow the evidences.
Steven Avery - April 1, 2016
SART