stephan huller

More from the TC Alternate Yahoo Group

Steve Avery's response to James Snapp's claim that Sinaiticus was already proved to be authentic:

Hi Folks,

James Snapp

Just *read what Kirsopp Lake wrote about it in his intro to the facsimile,* and after that, if you still think that there is any possibility that Sinaiticus is a forgery,

Steven
To be clear, the (final) Simonides claim is not that he did the manuscript as a forgery, but as a work for his uncle to be delivered to the Russian Emporer Nicholas, which never occurred after his uncle died.. Apparently, in this scenario, his uncle had unique textual theories, akin to the then-unpublished Vaticanus, and Simonides was a bumbling scribe for his uncle. Who for some reason wrote in multiple hand-writings and acted as multiple corrector of his own work. In this scenario, it is possible that the uncle and Constantine had ancient forgery motives, but I have not seen this conjectural motive issue directly discussed.

James Snapp
perhaps we can revisit the question. Consider the implications of the evidence from MacDonald, and Uspinsky
(Porfiri Uspenski-SA),
Scribal habits of Codex Sinaiticus (2007)
Dirk Jongkind
http://books.google.com/books?id=5PbDoZSYppEC&pg=PA5
Tischendorf ... between his first and second visit, the manuscript was in all probability seen by the British Major MacDonald and certainly seen, and even studied, by the Russian archimandrite Porfiri Uspenski during his visits of 1845 and 1850. (p. 5-6) In 1975, new parts of die codex were discovered in a previously blocked off room in the monastery. (p. 7)

Steven
Apparently, Uspenski attacked the text as heretical, not mentioned by Jongkind. There was an answer from Tischendorf on this, it would be interesting to have a summary laid out of the issues. Also, a sidenote: Rendal Harris says that Uspenski was a bit of a manuscript thief from the libraries of Europe.

Simonides claimed he wrote the manuscript in 1839, so it is unclear if the Uspenski or MacDonald accounts would act as a refutation of the Simonides story, without more detail.

James Snapp
and the pages in the 1975 finds, and consider the unlikelihood of forging a Greek text of Barnabas and Hermas, and consider the unlikelihood of the monks of St. Catherine's being co-conspirators and having the chutzpah to protest the removal of a codex they knew to be forged!

Steven
And I covered some other issues as well in my last post,

[TC-Alternate-list] Simonides as Siniaitcus scribe - an idea whose time has gone
Steven Avery November 19, 2011
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/TC-Alt...t/message/4738
Simonides said nothing for the 16 year period when Codex Frederico-Augustanus was floating about, and Simonides was a Codex F-A participant-watcher. Overall, the timing of the whole claim is rather incredible, this is a large manuscript supposedly done quickly by a young lad (15 or 19). There is no known exemplar for the Simonides labour, and, with this problem and others, you end up with the tacked-on story of the manuscript being the work of an uncle, his life work of textual scholarship ! Interesting is the verification by the Greek Orthodox monk who was hard to find, yet was verified .. by Simonides . Just the basic conceptual problem of doing such a forgery with multiple hands and correctors. If a person was flying through a manuscript for a quick calligraphy work, or for an uncle who wanted his ideas transcribed (from what ?), why all the dual-triple and more handwritings ? And when challenged by William Aldis Wright, you have much in way of obfuscation and evasive responses, the cutest being the "deposit money" response. The list goes on and on.

I am curious if James agrees that my list can be added to the five or so that he gives, in which case the list will start with about 10 major problems.

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

Dr Tischendorf, in addition to former attacks upon the character and credit of his great Codex Sinaiticus, proceeding from the Archimandrite Porfiri Uspenski in Russia, and from Simonides .. (third attack is referenced)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Yw4EAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA428

James
The discussion on this subject is already exasperating. If people are just not going to make the effort to undertake some basic reading so as to form an informed view, there's no helping them.

Steven
And I think much of the exasperation comes from starting with the Sinaiticus issue, and then moving to other Simonides involvements, including the papyri. I'll write on that, in response to Ben, separately.

Also there is the ongoing question of the reliability of the Tischendorf account, and his integrity issues.
And this reliability has two major components (which similarly can be mix-a-moshed)

1) The dubious trash-can story, the romantic legend that smells like a fabrication of convenience.

2) And the question of gift vs theft of the manuscripts.

The Wikipedia account attempts to absolve Tischendorf on #2 based on 2009 material.

St. Catherine's monastery still maintains the importance of a letter, typewritten in 1844 with an original signature of Tischendorf confirming that he borrowed those leaves. 10] However, recently published documents, including a deed of gift dated 11 September 1868 and signed by Archbishop Kallistratos and the monks of the monastery, indicate that the manuscript was acquired entirely legitimately. This deed, which agrees with a report by Kurt Aland on the matter, has now been published. Unfortunately this development is not widely known in the English-speaking world, as only German- and Russian-language media reported on it in 2009. Doubts as to the legality of the gift arose because when Tischendorf originally removed the manuscript from St Catherine's in September 1859, the monastery was without an archbishop, so that even though the intention to present the manuscript to the Tsar had been expressed, no legal gift could be made at the time. Resolution of the matter was delayed through the turbulent reign of Archbishop Cyril (consecrated 7 December 1859, deposed 24 August 1866), and the situation only formalised after the restoration of peace.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_S...-Zacharova-116

This is said to show TIschendorf saying he was borrowing the leaves in 1844

http://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php?lid=107

And this is asserted to be the 1868 deed absolving Tischendorf of accusations of theft.
http://www.nlr.ru/exib/CodexSinaiticus/zah/

When we discussed Tischendorf earlier in the year, I do not think these documents were referenced. James I believe called for at least seeking to have the return of the Sinaiticus manuscript to the original, rightful owners.

It is also possible that the accusation is one more of chicanery and deception, leading to these documents, than overt theft through speaking falsely. Exactly how it falls, I would be interested in any cogent summary.

Solo

Hey, Stephan, I checked McGrath' site as you suggested. I found a blog from August, where McGrath brings discusses Evans. I dare say that the view that McGrath demolished Evans' argument is exaggerated. The example of Robertson's Titan is interesting but as I said, if the Hunter's novel was the only thing then it could be dismissed as coincidence - weird as it may be. But the point is that it is not. There is a whole bunch of things in Evans' essay and outside of it which would give a disinterested scholar long pause.

Look, what else I found on the blog ! Your contribution in the debate, saying, among other things:

I must be psychic !

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

Jiri,

Allan Pantuck interviewed Hunter's son and found some interesting information. It's been so long I forgot even what he said (and it's early). Let me wake up and I will get the link. And for the record, I don't know that Sinaiticus IS a fake and Mar Saba ISN'T. I just think that the Sinaiticus story more closely resembles the udual pattern associated with forgery enterprises

stephan huller

Here is my summary of McGrath's article which essentially presents Craig Evans arguments for forgery based on Morton Smith's 1958 article on Vincent Taylor's Commentary on the Gospel of Mark are completely deceptive (my characterization not his). McGrath writes in his latest post clarifying his rejection of Evans claims in the following terms:

Then he follows this up with his own general assessment of the authenticity of Morton Smith's discovery:

This is a clear demonstration that those holding high places in academic institutions are better at formulating arguments for Morton Smith's innocence than yours truly. http://www.patheos.com/blogs/explori...cret-mark.html

andrewcriddle

There may be an 18th century account of Sinaiticus at St Catherine's monastery.
codex sinaiticus history Andrew Criddle

stephan huller

Yes Andrew I saw that. The only difficult I had with that is the suspicious “leaves in the waste paper basket” story by Tischendorf. The first time I read it I thought - this can't be the same document. If the answer is that Tischendorf lied about the discovery in the waste paper basket there were two other discoveries in the two years that followed of loose leaves. How did the beautiful treasured Bible end up being treated like waste? It's just very puzzling.

Even the circumstances of how Sinaiticus was taken away from St Kitts is conflicting. The Mar Saba discovery is pretty straight forward. People should talk to Quesnell before he dies

Solo

I think McGrath either misunderstands, or plays silly bugger around, the two points raised by Evans. Evans argues that Smith advocated unusual ideas regarding Mark well in advance of his discovery and that the discovery the Secret Mark seems to ratify these ideas - in an incredible stroke of luck. They were: 1) the mystery of the kingdom of God refered to a ritual and sex, and 2) Mark ommitted certain Johannine traits known to him.

For number #1 Evans provides four pages of analysis, in which he shows that Smith published on three separate occasions papers, including his doctoral dissertation, expressing belief that Mk 4:11 secrecy motif related to nocturnal initiations involving forbidden sex. Now, no matter what you or McGrath may say, the fact remains that one would be hard pressed for such a reading of Mark's secrecy motif in 4:10-4:12 among the learned interpreters of the NT.

For number #2, Evans points Smith's from his 1955 paper on Taylor in which the idea of Mark leaving out Johannine traits from his gospel supposedly was articulated. The quote given by Evans in the footnote is unclear, but the idea that the canonical Mark "was censored" appears also in a 1958 paper "The Image of God" (BJRL 40, 1958). Evans also quotes Francis Watson (Beyond Suspicion) as saying: “Clement’s letter confirms Smith’s surmise that Mark may have ‘deliberately censored’ his source material, and that this source-material may have included proto-Johannine elements.”

So, AFAICS, the disagreement between Taylor and Smith on the Lazarus import that McGrath sees as lifting the suspicion that Smith was himself the author of the Mar Saba letter is a non-sequitur. It has no bearing on the substance of what Evans is charging.

Best,
Jiri

Solo

I suspect the reason you did not send anything on Ian Hunter is that you found what most of us who are familiar his column in National Post know already: He would be no help to the likes of Morton Smith. He is a tough, conservative Catholic, who believes Protestant are apostates.

Best,
Jiri

stephan huller

I didn't even make the connection. I haven't read the Post in years (used to be a paperboy for the Toronto Star way back when). Pantuck got mileage out of the interview with the son. Here is Roger Viklund's summary of his recent article for the Toronto Secret Mark conference:

DCHindley

Click here* for Ian Hunter's first hand account of his conversion.

For those who would like to relate his father's book Mystery at Mar Saba to Morton Smith's discovery of the Letter to Theodore, there is a fine description of his father and his extreme but sincerely held views on what constitutes real Christianity:

A bit of that seems to have rubbed off on his son, although he is far more open to the faiths of others.

DCH

*The National Post article is no longer at their website, possibly because it was an excerpt from a copywrited book written by Hunter, but the original National Post article is available, indirectly, here.