the non-symmetry of time chronology in palaeographic dating

Steven Avery

Administrator
WIP

This is touched on here and there, but needs its own thread, and possibly a dedicated article.

This thread will collate the various information about the time chronology non-symmetry of palaeographic dating that is based on script and textual feature evidences.

On top of that it will highlight some of the related comments that have shown the problems in circular reasoning in palaeography. William M. Schniedewind is one example.

Specifically applied to Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus) by P. C. Sense, Michaelis and others.

================

2) The ** time chronology non-symmetry** of much historical and palaegoraphical dating (understood by Michaelis and others) comes to play. A very critical part of a deficiency of much modern papyrus and uncial dating and authenticity discussions.

And I have some discussion of this facet here, and welcome suggestions and improvements and enhancements (either publicly or privately):

PureBibleForum (used research blog-style)
four types of evidence that help determine age and authenticity of a manuscript
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/b.221
see the - "Note on Time Element Non-Symmetry"
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.252

https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.255

https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.250

https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.221

https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.119
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.112
=========================

Palaeographic Postscript


Reading the handwriting scripts is not a time-symmetrical enterprise. The earliest date, the terminus post quem is can be quite accurate. Nobody in 1700 was able to emulate a 1900s handwriting. Thus the 1900s handwriting can tell you that the letter was written no earlier than .. 1900. The terminus ante quem is another story. A good calligrapher can beat up any time limitation proposal. A skilled person in modern times can actually write just like 1611, even the printing of 1611! Or 350 AD. As for the related fields like codicology, Sinaiticus comes out with anomalies galore with the modern theory.

=========================
Bernard Janin Sage (P. C. Sense) questions great uncial dating edifice
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.190
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science
edited by Thomas Levy, Thomas Higham
24 - Problems in the Paleographic Dating of Inscriptions p. 404-421
William M. Schniedewind
https://books.google.com/books?id=ApvCBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA405

William M Schniedewind went even further in the abstract to his 2005 paper "Problems of Paleographic Dating of Inscriptions" and stated that


"The so-called science of paleography often relies on circular reasoning because there is insufficient data to draw precise conclusion about dating. Scholars also tend to oversimplify diachronic development, assuming models of simplicity rather than complexity".[111]
Youtube emphasized Vienna Dioscorides, V, VI, VII, VIII and X all might have some info.
Pure Bible
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1386017878156764/

Planets of the Apocalypse | For the Time is at Hand (Part V)

It is from an lds (mormon) with a wild agenda, Part V at 6:50 has an interesting section about Morozov, (1 minute long, a good watch and listen) and chain of custody is emphasized.

Part VI
4:10 Brent Nongbri on palaegraphy dating
William M. Schniedewind
Kenyon
7:30 - Dioscorides of Vienna 472 -

Part VII - more on the Dioscorides

===

Did he have an independent source (beyond our research and translation) for the Morozov discussion (see PureBibleForum.) Possibly, the quotes look different.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/1386017878156764/

So-Called Science of Palaeography - deeply entrenched scholarship

"The so-called science of paleography often relies on circular reasoning because there is insufficient data to draw precise conclusion about dating. Scholars also tend to oversimplify diachronic development, assuming models of simplicity rather than complexity".

The Bible and Radiocarbon Dating: Archaeology, Text and Science (2014)
"Problems of Paleographic Dating of Inscriptions"
William M. Schneidewind
https://books.google.com/books?id=ApvCBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA405

=============================

This gets even worse when there is "deeply entrenched scholarship" involved!
"As for how we "know" Sinaiticus is from the 4th century, this is actually something I have wondered myself, but this dating seems too deeply entrenched in the scholarship of early Christianity to have a rational discussion about it ... "
(From a top scholar in manuscript forgery studies today, sent privately in 2014.)

==============================
Steven
 
Last edited:
Top