Brent Nongbri is back with another article redating a New Testament manuscript. This time, it’s Codex Sinaiticus and he suggests pushing the date range into the early fifth century. The article is in JTS and the pre-print version is open access here.
Abstract: Codex Sinaiticus is generally described as one of ‘the great fourth century majuscule Bibles’, and its construction is often assigned to a more precise date in the middle of the fourth century. This essay surveys the evidence for the date of production of the codex and concludes that it could have been produced at any point from the early fourth century to the early fifth century. This time span may seem uncomfortably wide, but this particular range of dates makes Codex Sinaiticus an ideal candidate for AMS radiocarbon analysis. The shape of the radiocarbon calibration curve during this period means that a well-executed radiocarbon analysis of the codex should have the potential to shed further light on the date the codex was produced.
Much in Nongbri's essay persuades me (well - agrees with me) that earlier researchers were wrong about some subsidiary points (such as Skeats's idea that both Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were both prepared under Eusebius' supervision), but there's nothing here to move me from the theory that Sinaiticus was made at Caesarea during the bishoprics of Acacius and Euzoius.
ReplyDeleteHopefully the stewards of the MS will be persuaded to apply radiometric tests.
Imagine, Nongbri determining a Manuscript, which is dated similarly across the board, to a later date.
ReplyDeleteI believe that all the codices of the Christian Bible were made after the Roman Empire's establishment of Christianity as the state religion.
DeletePeter, Remembering that there is still some controversy over the authenticity of Sinaiticus, I think that we should do well to consider the article (which you cited on August 19th in the Tweets from ETC Bloggers) on the forged Galileo manuscript.
ReplyDeleteAlexander,
DeleteControversy, and /well-grounded/ controversy - not the confident bluster of lunatics (did I say that out loud?) with an agenda that warps their view their view of the evidence - are two things.
James, Controversy there is, whether well-founded or not; and name-calling is surely not the way to win gainsayers? I am not one of the gainsayers; but I was summarily ejected (without warning or appeal) from a certain group having to do with the textual criticism, simply for insisting that radiocarbon analysis must be applied to Sinaiticus! And, voilà!, that stipulation (which every logical person always knew had to be met) is now being openly canvassed! Scholars are experts; but layfolk are not without sound judgment. My point in mentioning the Galileo forgery was, and is, that even experts can be - both individually and collectively - fooled. Well, let the radiocarbon testing be done - and that right soon!
DeleteSinaiticus is a fake. We know that. Just like the KJV is.
DeletePeter, What do you mean? I, for one, do not know that either is a fake! Do you? Why are questions, let alone doubts, about Sinaiticus always met with ridicule and suchlike? I repeat : I was thrown out of a well-known textual criticism group because I insisted that radiocarbon dating had to be done; but now my insistence seems to be echoed by professionals! Does not the question of the authenticity deserve a better approach than ridicule?
DeleteAlexander, the reason is that ridiculous nonsense should sometimes be met with ridicule (cf. Prov 26.5). And the idea that Sinaiticus is a forgery is definitely ridiculous. If you don’t know why, that’s ok. You probably just need to learn more about manuscripts in general and Sinaiticus in particular. You could start with a search of “Sinaiticus fake” on this blog and find Hixson’s posts on the topic. Happy learning.
DeletePeter, I do not think that you should call Christian gainsayers “fools”; and nor should you ignore my assertion that I am not a gainsayer. And your remark , “If you don’t know why, that’s ok,” is somewhat arrogant : you also ignore completely my point that my previous insistence on radiocarbon dating is now finding academic supporter. Frankly, I’m disappointed by the attitude that some Christian academics exhibit to other Christians.
DeleteAlexander, would you react differently to a suggestion to radiocarbon date a KJV *because it might be from 1650 instead of 1611* than you would to a suggestion to radiocarbon date the same book *because it might be a modern forgery*?
DeletePeter, You misunderstand. 1. We know the history of the KJV and have no need of radiocarbon dating. We have plenty historical sources from which to convince gainsayers. 2. An ancient book needs to be radiocarbon-dated, especially in controversial or even uncertain cases - and a more accurate fixing of the date would surely be in everybody’s interest. I would add that not everybody who argues, or has doubts, or poses questions, on Sinaiticus and such, is a gainsayer : some of us just wish to have information too long denied us (and even now being with-held by keepers of the manuscript?). But, above all, peter, please do not call a Christian a “fool”.
DeleteRadiocarbon-dating is not an exact science either. It might provide a range of dates that we already have via other sciences. So there is little point in it.
DeleteThere's reasoning behind testing the ink and parchment: and this should be done on all the older important MSS., not just א.
DeleteAlexander, there is no scholarly controversy over the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus. There is a bunch of TR/KJV-onlyists who make all sorts of ridiculous claims about the codex (most of them cannot read Greek and have little or no experience working with manuscripts), but that is another pseudo-scholarly debate. Thus, that is not the reason why we need radio-carbon dating.
ReplyDeleteTommy, thank you for your comment. It may indeed be the case that most scholars accept the authenticity of Sinaiticus; but there may be a few who do not. And it may be true that most of those who reject Sinaiticus are TR/KJV-onlyists; but some of those who reject Sinaiticus may not be TR/KJV-onlyists. And there are those, whatever their stance on TR and KJV, have doubts about the manuscript, or questions, or who just want further and firmer information about it. In all this, the more accurate dating of a manuscript, whether that manuscript be accepted or rejected, can only be in everybody’s interest. I appreciate that, as the Athenians found Socrates to be like a gadfly, an irritation, so we can find our opponents : but we are Christians, and we must bear with one another and not resort to the pejorative treatment of one another. I do hope that radiocarbon dating will be applied soon to Sinaiticus; and I would agree with the comment above by Anonymous, that all important manuscripts should have radiocarbon dating applied to them.
ReplyDeleteYou state:
DeleteIt may indeed be the case that most scholars accept the authenticity of Sinaiticus; but there may be a few who do not.
Given that you are demanding carbon dating, I’m sure it is not too much to ask you to provide names of which scholars reject the authenticity of Sinaiticus.
Again, I, who have identified myself, am being asked by an anonymous person to justify my previous answer! I invite you to disclose your identity, so that full and open conversation may ensue. Thank you.
DeleteYou quoted, but you do not seem to understand the import of, what I said : “there MAY BE a few who do not” - the point was one of logic.
And my demand for carbon dating is not dependent upon which scholars so, or do not, accept the authenticity of Sinaiticus : rather, it is the demand that, for the avoidance or reduction of doubt, for the increase of knowledge, and for the deepening of trust, the document should be carbon dated.
Indeed, as others also demand, any ancient document should be carbon dated, wherever possible.
What is there to gear from carbon dating?
To the Administrators of this Group,
DeleteWould you please state why anonymity is allowed in this Group, and why it is considered to be ethical? Thank you.
You said “there may be”, which means you don’t know, you’re just engaging in speculation that even you know is ungrounded. As far as anonymous - I have zero way of knowing your name is actually the one entered here, either.
DeleteWhy don’t you just come right out and say what you mean - “there’s a guy who made a movie suggesting this document is fake, and even though he never came close to proving his case and a few people who have never actually seen this document have spent years arguing by innuendo, we should refute their unsubstantiated claims.”
Give us the name of one person who disputes the authenticity of the document.
There are people who claim to be Flat Earthers. Not “may be”, are. Do you think we should give their claims any merit?
How dare you, who hide behind anonymity, accuse me of lying!
DeleteAdministrators, This is a formal complaint against the monstrous insinuation of “Anonymous”.
DeleteAdministrators, I should like the courtesy of a response, please. Thank you.
DeleteIt’s the weekend, Alexander. Relax.
DeleteSorry no can do. This sort of thing is urgent.
DeleteI didn't accuse you of lying (and this is a typical KJV/TRO attempt to try and develop a persecution complex). I simply you asked you - twice - to give me names of actual scholars who dispute the authenticity of Sinaiticus since you are the one who did say "there may be a few who do not." Do you not know who these people are? Or are these people embarrassments to scholarship with no expertise whatsoever in any relevant subject? Or is there another reason you would hide their names while getting mad at someone else for hiding their name? I didn't accuse you of lying, and you know this. This is the same kind of tactic that leftists use when you point out the guy who attacked Salman Rushdie is a Muslim - accuse anyone pointing it out of Islamaphobia. Accuse, never actually engage. Now - for the third time - do you know any actual scholars who dispute the authenticity of Sinaiticus? This is not exactly a difficult question for most people.
DeleteWill you have the courtesy to respond to my question? As a reminder, you are the one who made the assertion, I simply asked for data. If you cannot provide the data then simply say so. Simply admit you don't know or that you are speculating. Because I'm unaware of anyone of any scholarly repute anywhere who disputes its authenticity, although Nongbri appears to assign it a later date than most scholars do.
DeleteNo Alexander, there are no scholars who deny the authenticity of Sinaiticus. I have not seen any serious peer reviewed publication on that matter. Have a nice day.
ReplyDeleteTommy, Thank you for your reply, which covers only one of the points that I made. I take your final remark to signal that you do not wish conversation to continue - fair enough, but I shall make only two points : 1. not all scholars choose to publish; and 2. so, an individual who denies the authenticity of Sinaiticus cannot be a scholar?
DeleteHi Tommy Wasserman,
DeletePlease indicate the Journal or Journals that you believe would seriously consider a paper on Sinaiticus authenticity for peer-review.
Allowing it to be well-written and prepared by a layman researcher very well informed on the topic.
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
https://linktr.ee/stevenavery
Hi ETC,
DeleteThere is a technique of trying to end discussion and inquiry by diverting the conversation to a type of drivel. This can be seen here by one poster using "Anonymous"
Then, in frustration, the moderators might close up the discussion, rather than discuss, e.g. what happened when BAM planned to do testing on Sinaiticus in 2015 at Leipzig, and the rug was pulled out just as they arrived!
By making the comments wacky (Benjamin Franklin) the hope is that the hosts will shut down ALL conversation, even relating to Brent Nongbri's paper on Sinaiticus.
Anyway, my question for Tommy Wasserman remains, please indicate the peer-reviewed Journals who you believe would host a short-moderate length paper on Sinaiticus authenticity.
And if you do not know of one or two, then your concern about no peer-reviewed Journals is clearly irrelevant.
(Note: that does not mean there might not be a need for a new paper, one that would help Tommy Wasserman and Elijah Hixson and others really understand the history, provenance, palaeography and issues. But peer-review becomes a red herring.)
Thanks!
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
https://linktr.ee/stevenavery
If your actual concern is your non sequitor complaint about "shutting off discussion," can you answer the question Alexander seemingly either cannot or will not answer? Do you know any actual scholars who dispute the authenticity of Sinaiticus?
DeleteAre you asking me which journals you should submit your stuff to? Are you telling me you do not know which journals are out there? Well, why don't you start with Journal of Biblical Literature to take one example.
DeleteExactly.
DeleteAgain, I have not seem any serious scholar deny the authenticity of Sinaiticus. However, I have seen (and debated) a whole bunch of TR-KJV-onlyists who made ridiculous claims. I spent some time debating them, not for their sake but for the sake of lay-men who were still open and curious.
ReplyDeleteThen, indeed, let the debate be for the sake of lay-men who are still open and curious!
DeleteAnd where are these so-called laymen going to learn the truth? By reading what actual experts say on the subject.
DeleteI am scholar of American history, because I announce myself to be one. I have never had any of my extensive learning in this discipline published because I choose to be a scholar who does not publish anything. I am here today to debate the historicity of 'Benjamin Franklin,' an alleged founding father of the USA. There are so many questions that have never been answered. As you might now realize, some scholars question whether or not the man really existed.
ReplyDeleteNotice this supposed person never became President of the United States, and he is alleged to have lived 84 years, much longer than normal average lifespans in the 18th century. He was alleged to have been an author, but there were numerous founding fathers who would have had ample reasons to write under a penname and thereby avoid arrest by the British Colonial government.
These facts are just the tip of the iceberg, what is needed is to open the crypt at the Christ Church Burial Ground in Philadelphia, PA, and do extensive modern scientific research on the remains found in the tomb of this alleged man, and confirm once and for all whether or not Benjamin Franklin was a fraud.
--Anonymous (of course)
“Anonymity is no excuse for stupidity.” - Albert Einstein
DeleteAnd exactly why is anonymity allowed in this blog?
DeleteSeveral of the blog members like to comment anonymously. Or so I’ve heard.
DeleteAnd I’m sure that you’ve *seen* that bloggers, including Contributors, have challenged writers of anonymous comments to disclose their name.
DeleteAlexander, I do that sometimes. I don't have a problem with anonymity in general, and I do understand that at times anonymity is needed to protect someone from retaliation, or injustice, etc. What I *do* have a problem with is when someone uses anonymity as a way to be a jerk and avoid facing (just) consequences for their own actions. If you're going to be a jerk, you should have the integrity to identify yourself so that everyone will know you're a jerk. That being said, I don't see the above post about Ben Franklin as an example of that, but a rather accurate analogy of the Sinaiticus-is-a-fake stuff. Yes, as you said earlier, "layfolk are not without sound judgment", but I have not seen any such sound judgement in claims that Sinaiticus is a fake in the few years I have followed them. I don't think anyone minds honest questions asked in humility, but that's not what seems to me to be happening with most discussions of the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus.
DeleteI didn't realize that the Ben Franklin post would stir up such a response. I was the one who posted it, adding the anonymity as part of the humor. But the point is how easy it is for someone to claim to be a scholar, without ever having to face peer review, and then assemble a loose connection of hit and miss data points--usually slanted facts mixed with wild guesses, salted with confirmation bias, all to create doubt and suspicion. Then there is the added touch of ridiculing the experts who refuse to give time to the debate.
DeleteDarrell. So, I take it you are not in agreement with the science as they scramble together a soon to come scholarly consensus that ‘later scribes added those dots’ in Vaticanus?
DeleteI doublechecked and confirmed that I had not posted any comments on the thread (see next one up: http://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2022/08/snapp-on-distigmai-in-vaticanus.html) about the Vaticanus Dots. So you must have had someone else in mind.
DeleteWhat has happened to Steven Avery’s reply?
ReplyDeleteLooks like Avery is being censored. Now that's some honest scholarship!
DeleteHi ETC,
DeleteThose who want to read about the attempt to test the Leipzig portion of Sinaiticus in 2015 can see the information in my comment on Brent Nongbri's blog. This was discussed by the lady Dr. Ira Rabin at Brent's Zoom meeting, so the information is easy to verify..
A New Article on the Date of Codex Sinaiticus
https://brentnongbri.com/2022/08/03/a-new-article-on-the-date-of-codex-sinaiticus/
The whole ETC note is mirrored here.
(You might want to visit and bookmark the sites quickly:).
Revisiting the Date of Codex Sinaiticus - Brent Nongbri
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/revisiting-the-date-of-codex-sinaiticus-brent-nongbri.1357/#post-10891
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7568/
Is Brent Nongbri a scholar? (In particular, recognized as a scholar by the contributors to the ETC blog?)
ReplyDeleteIs the “overly precise” (Nongbri’s term) dating of Sinaiticus inconsequential?
Why the general angst toward radio carbon analysis of Sinaiticus?
Thanks.
That Nongbri is a "scholar" is easy to confirm.
DeleteS. Goranson
Anonymous: Any thoughts on the other two questions? Thanks.
DeleteAnonymous/S. Goranson, any thoughts on the other two Nongbri article questions? Thanks.
Delete"I choose to be a scholar who does not publish anything." — I seem to recall a Veggie Tales group of Pirates who don't do anything. Same difference.
ReplyDeleteThis thread is now officially off the rails. If your comment isn’t actually about something in Nongbri’s article, then please take it elsewhere.
ReplyDeleteSounds good, Peter, much as I await a response from Tommy on "peer-review".
DeleteMaybe the most pressing question directly related to Brent Nongbri's article is how fixed or how fluid is the terminus ante quem. Would it be difficult or unlikely to see that mini-script and font e.g. in AD 700 or AD 1800? If so why?
(Also it would be good to know more about exactly what was written in each script instance.)
Similarly, were there really these super-tiny scripts in the 4th and 5th centuries? How tall were small scripts that are definitely dated to the early centuries?
So we should avoid circularity.
Sinaiticus has been used as an exemplar for ink/parchment preservation, precisely because of its amazing and unique condition for an ancient manuscript! Sinaiticus becomes the Science, as its early date is considered untouchable.
I've been preparing some questions for Brent, but now that we are on focus here, let's continue :).
At least please consider the terminus ante quem question. Your thoughts welcome.
Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
www.linktr.ee/stevenavery