why the Sinaiticus and textual and manuscript scholars do not want to touch the real issues

Steven Avery

You likely will not see anybody actually try to defend Sinaiticus authenticity by responding to the actual history and facts. Not if they have to look at the massive evidences that Sinaiticus was produced around 1840.

These evidences include

1) colouring disparity that shows that the larger British Library section was stained to make it look old

2) visible streaky staining on the British section

3) pristine white parchment in Leipzig, not at all "yellow with age" as had been claimed, not even after another 150 years

4) supple condition, not oxidized like truly old mss .. "phenomenally good condition", per Helen Shenton

5) lack of any manuscript or ink testing

6) cancellation of the 2015 planned tests in Leipzig

7) historical imperative with improbable-impossible coincidences galore

8) Simonides discussing the actual production of the ms. way before the Tiscvhendorf 1862 publication

9) Simonides Hermas published in 1855 before the discovery of the Sinaiticus Hermas

10) Simonides Barnabas of 1843, before the discovery of the Sinaiticus Barnabas

11) textual similarities and relationships of Simonides Hermas and Barnabas to Sinaiticus

12) linguistic evidences of Hermas and Barnabas being late as pointed out by James Donaldson

13) Tischendorf retraction of his Latinization accusation against the Simonides Hermas to try to save Sinaiticus early dating

14) special historical fact of Kallinikos pointing out the 1850s colouring - published in 1862-1864

15) additional Simonides-Kallinikos monastery corroborations - including the 1844 theft of Tischendorf,

16) Tischendorf thefts and lies throughout the endeavor

17) worthlessness of the Tischendorf-pushed palaeography dating analysis

18) hiding of the manuscript away from researcher eyes, kept inaccessible, to augment the Tischendorf dating push

19) pointing to the facsimile of Tisschendorf instead,

20) Tischendorf hiding the actual ms. colour and condition

21) terrible scribal blunders that would never be part of a scriptorium enterprise (double section, missed sections, etc)

22) anomalies everywhere with binding, ink, parchment

23) confirmation of the proper timing and location for Benedict, Simonides and Kallinikos in the 1895-1900 Spyridon Lambrou Athos catalog

24) homoeoteleutons with Claromontanus-->Sinaiticus, the sense-lines matching, as one source for Sinaiticus

25) sense-lines considered a 500s phenomenon, not even known to be in New Testament mss at the time theorized for Sinaiticus

26) lack of provenance before 1844

27) ancient catalogue claim now discarded - a special part of the poof provenance

20) Russian scientist Morozov showing that the ms. could not be from antiquity

29) 2011 publication shenanigans, when the colour of the pages was smoothed to hide the variance

30) general lack of honesty about the St. Catharines - Tischendorf history


And more.

Thus, nobody really wants to touch this, quite understandably, so you will see instead bluster, harumphs and irrelevancies. They will try to deal with one side of the street, like James Snapp with his listing of 20 weak attempts to support authenticity.

Or they will simply make vague aspersions about one or two elements, ignoring the accumulation of evidences and the historical corroborations.

The Sinaiticus charade has warped New Testament textual and manuscript science, and the scholars simply want to avoid the issue, at all costs. There is a fundamental problem of "deeply entrenched scholarship" that has to wear blinders, and simply does not want to be embarrassed by the truth.

While the scholars are silent, we can learn :)


ADDED 2/2/2018

A contra wondered if I would mention that the British Library would be embarrassed for having made the purchase in the 1930s (and all the hoopla for a fake manuscript.)

This is something I have mentioned, in fact I conjecture that the Russians, knowing of Morozov's report, were very happy to dump the ms.

And I have also mentioned the textual critics having "deeply entrenched scholarship" and lots of cozy relationships with the British Library that they are not looking to disrupt.