stephan huller

Or perhaps if you want something a little more upbeat ...

stephan huller

Here is a sample of the script of Vaticanus



And here is Sinaiticus:

andrewcriddle

One problem is whether the room discovered in 1975 was accessible in the mid 19th century. The old manuscripts were left behind when the main library was set up by Nicephorus Marthalis in the early 18th century. (The latest documents seem to be c 1750). Subsequently various developments culminating in the collapse of the tower above in an earthquake, made the room impossible to access. The very existence of the room had apparently been long forgotten when major rebuilding/renovation led to its rediscovery in 1975.

See sinai monastery library saint_catherine New Finds

I am doubtful whether a mid 19th century forger would have been able to access the room.

Andrew Criddle

andrewcriddle

I suspect that the room became inaccessible at the collapse of the North Wall of the Monastery in 1798 during heavy rain/floods. The North Wall was rebuilt by Napoleon

Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

The interesting thing then is that this is becomes one of the most incredible examples of synchronicity I have ever witnessed Sinaiticus is certainly a poor copy of Vaticanus on many respects. A man, Tischendorf, is allowed to see Vaticanus previously hidden from the view of outsiders and then a year later uncovers an ancient copy previously unseen in the Monastery of St Catherines in Sinai. This alone is a much more incredible coincidence than Morton Smith having published a review of a study of the Gospel of Mark and then discovering a letter which makes reference to a previously unknown Alexandrian version of Mark. Perhaps stranger things have happened in the history of the world, but you'd think this alone would convince someone to at least test the ink. The voices which claim to Theodore is a fake demand this with a far less amazing set of coincidences.

stephan huller

Here is something else I read by one of the posters at the TC Alternate list group (you don't know how difficult it is to post things with your son balancing on your shoulders!). Not directly related but about another possible Simonides forgery:

tanya

Thank you Stephan.

May I inquire, where did you find Vaticanus on line? In other words, how do you know that this photograph represents text from Vaticanus?

If Sinaiticus is a 19th century, forged copy of Vaticanus, why does it possess so many divergences from Vaticanus?

Vaticanus (Westcott & Hort) Mark 1:1

αρχη του ευαγγελιου ιησου χριστου

Codex Sinaiticus Mark 1:1

αρχη του ευαγγελιου

OOPS, What happened to ιησου χριστου??? Something of a large omission, in codex Sinaiticus, no?

Can you please identify for us which passages these two photographs represent?

stephan huller

Actually let me correct that - Tisch saw Vaticanus made a facsimile and then discovered Sinaiticus

DCHindley

Are you posting these to demonstrate their similarities or their differences?

The scribe of your fragment of Vaticanus is better at spelling than his fonts (he is much more cursive), while the scribe of your fragment of Sinaiticus is the exact opposite, great at his fonts but sucks as a speller (of the three identified scribes, he must be the infamous "scribe D").

The letters eta (Η), omega (Ω), mu (Μ), upsilon (Υ), alpha (Α), kappa (Κ), etc, are much different between them. The scribe of Sinaiticus is using ligatures (e.g., Τ^ω) while the scribe of Vaticanus does not, but the scribe of Vaticanus uses some accents while the scribe of Sinaiticus does not.

DCH

Solo

Let me understand this: the statement: surely no account of the document's origins from Simonides can be believed, argues exactly for what ? For the possibility that Sinaiticus is a forgery that he created ? It is extremely unclear.

Also, I am not clear on what you are refering to by Tischendorf also lied.

Pardon me ? Are saying that to proclaim a forgery belongs to a standard repertory of forger's techniques ? That's news to me. Truly.

The intent of Simonides' letter to the Guardian seems amply clear: he wanted to discredit the expertise of Tischendorf by claiming that he himself forged the codex, and expressed amazement that a learned paleographer could not tell a contemporary text from an ancient one. The problem is: since 1863, scores of experts looked at the texts and none of them AFAIK was struck by their modernity.

You claim without proof that a similarity in readings between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus is a typical exhibit of counterfeit provenance. But could it not be - and pardon me for asking the obvious question here - that the textual overlaps are given by the simple fact that both mss were copies of a common older version of the set ? Is there anything statistically or otherwise outrageous about the agreements that would sustain the suspicion of fraud ? If there is I don't see it; not that I am an expert.

The reason I said this is an example of false syllogism is that you would not know by the data from Hitler's life meshing with entries in what pretends to be his diary, that the diary is genuine or not. You are simply using your knowledge of the diaries as unmasked fraud to convince yourself that there is a parallel.

But if you visit the wiki page of the diaries fraud , you will see that the it was not the 'agreements' that led to the verdict, but the age of the paper and the type of ink, bad imitation of Hitler hand and a number of historical inaccuracies. It is an undying irony that the one who called Hugh Trevor-Roper to task for his nod to the historical accuracy of the notebooks was none other than David Irving, the infamous Holocaust denier.

Best,
Jiri