4 ms·

I have an appreciation for such "conspiratorial" thinking (using that term loosely since it's taken on a mind of its own in recent years), but mostly as a sourc

I have an appreciation for such "conspiratorial" thinking (using that term loosely since it's taken on a mind of its own in recent years), but mostly as a source of amusement. I want to suggest that the idea is entirely preposterous and ridiculous, which it probably is, but where I would agree with your caution lies mostly in the time frame from which this manuscript originates. It's possible (although unlikely) it's been faked in some capacity since human history (and literacy) somewhat undulate over time and the period this originates was a bit more hostile to free interchange of information (even the article mentions that many of the source texts could have been destroyed as heretical). In such a case, the Hebrew texts have a substantially more solid provenance simply by virtue of their volume and because we have significantly older witnesses at our disposal from the discoveries in Qumran. For something that dates from the 12th or 13th centuries this becomes a little more difficult as, perhaps ironically, fewer witnesses to the material actually exist. But, again, my argument against it being a significantly later fabrication is in the volume of physical materials used in construction: The binding, the number of leaves, etc., conspire toward the earlier dating since it would be virtually impossible to source that many original pieces of parchment or vellum that hadn't seen prior use (I'm saying this without any knowledge of this manuscript, but I'd imagine if the individual leaves showed signs of prior use they'd have mentioned it). These were expensive to produce when new. The other piece of evidence in this case is that this appears to be a compilation of other works, specifically commentaries, on the text of the LXX. The article mentions that the Koine Greek used in the LXX was somewhat difficult for later audiences to read due to its grammatical peculiarities, derived from its nature as a word-for-word translation of (now lost) earlier Hebrew texts. Hence why in my lay-estimation the earlier dating is most probably correct. The probable destruction of source texts support this claim, but also raises the question as to how (or why) this text managed to survive. You do raise a great point: Virtually every manuscript we have available is a copy of an earlier manuscript. No originals, to our knowledge, have survived into the present.

verisimi 3y ago
My criticism of the lack of historicity even holds for something as common the bible. Looking specifically at the new testament, we can see these lists of documents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Listings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Listings List of New Testament papyri List of New Testament uncials List of New Testament minuscules List of New Testament lectionaries List of New Testament Latin manuscripts Of the papyri, we read: > Before 1900, only 9 papyri manuscripts were known, and only one had been cited in a critical apparatus (𝔓11 by Constantin von Tischendorf). These 9 papyri were just single fragments, except for 𝔓15, which consisted of a single whole leaf.[3] So we only have 9 fragments from before 1900 - and we are talking about fragments - not even whole pages! Is that not amazing? > Among the most important are the Chester Beatty Papyri When I look at that page I read: > The papyri were most likely first obtained by dealers in illegal antiquities. Because of this, the exact circumstances of the find are not clear. One account states that the manuscripts were in jars in a Coptic graveyard near the ruins of the ancient city of Aphroditopolis. Other theories have proposed that the collection was found near the Fayum instead of Aphroditopolis, or that the location was a Christian church or monastery instead of a graveyard.[4] Most of the papyri were bought from a dealer by Alfred Chester Beatty, after whom the manuscripts are named, although some leaves and fragments were acquired by the University of Michigan and a few other collectors and institutions.[3]: 118 That's hardly a solid provenance. And then: > The papyri were first announced on November 19, 1931, 1931 is when we actually hear about these papyri. If work down the lists of sources, perhaps the uncials ("written on parchment or vellum") will be better... > New Testament uncials are distinct from other ancient texts based on the following differences: > New Testament papyri – written on papyrus and generally more ancient "More ancient"?? Good god! We have just read that there were only 9 fragments before 1900! > In 1751, New Testament theologian Johann Jakob Wettstein knew of only 23 uncial codices of the New Testament.[1] By 1859, Constantin von Tischendorf had increased that number to 64 uncials, and in 1909 Caspar René Gregory enumerated 161 uncial codices. By 1963, Kurt Aland, in his Kurzgefasste Liste, had enumerated 250, then in 1989, finally, 299 uncials. The uncials page references the Codex Sinaiticus. Ok, what of its provenance? > The Codex may have been seen in 1761 by the Italian traveller Vitaliano Donati, when he visited the Saint Catherine's Monastery at Sinai in Egypt. His diary was published in 1879 "may have been seen". Then we read: > German Biblical scholar Constantin von Tischendorf wrote about his visit to the monastery in Reise in den Orient in 1846 (translated as Travels in the East in 1847), without mentioning the manuscript. Later, in 1860, in his writings about the Sinaiticus discovery, Tischendorf wrote a narrative about the monastery and the manuscript that spanned from 1844 to 1859. He wrote that in 1844, during his first visit to the Saint Catherine's Monastery, he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. They were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery",[15]: 313 although this is firmly denied by the Monastery. After examination he realized that they were part of the Septuagint, written in an early Greek uncial script. He retrieved from the basket 129 leaves in Greek which he identified as coming from a manuscript of the Septuagint. He asked if he might keep them, but at this point the attitude of the monks changed. They realized how valuable these old leaves were, and Tischendorf was permitted to take only one-third of the whole, i.e. 43 leaves. So, in 1846 he does NOT mention this document. Then in 1860 he "wrote a narrative about the monastery and the manuscript" and his 1844 discovery! So in 1860 we get some story about finding the document in a waste basket in 1844. BTW, papyrus oxyrunchus - another foundational biblical document - is also found in a rubbish dump - in 1897 - by Bernard Pyne Grenfell and Hunt > Since 1898, academics have collated and transcribed over 5,000 documents from what were originally hundreds of boxes of papyrus fragments the size of large cornflakes. "cornflakes". On Grenfell's wiki page, we can read: > His mother, Alice Grenfell, was living with him after his father died in 1897. She took a great interest in Egyptian Scarab shaped artifacts. She taught herself to read hieroglyphics. She published her own papers and a catalogue of the scarab collection belonging to Queen's College.[1] > In 1908, he became professor of papyrology at Oxford and was part of the editing team of The Oxyrynchus Papyri and other similar works. However he was ill for four years and during that time the professorship lapsed. Grenfell was cared for by his mother and he had recovered by 1913.[1] In 1920 he travelled to Egypt for the last time in his life and bought P.Ryl. III 457 (𝔓52), the earliest surviving witness of the Greek New Testament. His mother was self-taught, he then "finds" the papyri. Is it possible he himself placed them there? Or even created them with his mother while at Oxford? On Hunt's page we read: > In 1913 he became Professor of Papyrology at Oxford succeeding to his lifelong friend and colleague Grenfell, whose professorship lapsed due to the latter’s breakdowns and depression. So, Grenfell was depressed.... perhaps he had a guilty conscience? Anyway - ignoring my impossible to verify suppositions, my main point is that you can go on and on, and round and round attempting to find a real source. Its like a game of Chinese whispers, but you can never break out of the chain. Eg uncials are useful, but papyri are more ancient. Except that the papyri were found in the last 150 years. And are foundational. Except that uncials are older. I'll leave it there - but I have done this before. Yes, I can imagine that some document materials were re-used. But it surely can't be that there are no ancient sources of the bible at all!! That the oldest we can go to is to late 19th century and cornflake sized fragments. But that is the provenance! If you read this differently, feel free to correct me!
- Zancarius 3y ago
  I'm not a subject matter expert. What I can say is that the Wikipedia entry does seem to be a fairly complete list near as I can tell. I only scanned it quickly, however, but it does seem to miss the Patristic sources. Specifically, we know some of these documents predated certain individuals (early church fathers, mostly) because they have been recorded in some of their writings; either in partial quotations, paraphrases, or in large parts. I do think you're at risk of reading into some of this "evidence" for foul play. Ken Thompson's lecture "Reflections on Trusting Trust" comes to mind for reasons that escape me. Presently, I don't have the mental energy (or time) to parse through everything you have copied here (sorry, I just don't), but I can assure you that it likely has been considered by the translation boards of modern translations (I'm sure you could contact them for further inquiries, however). Specifically the NET translators did, IMO, a fantastic job with the NT and are quite transparent about it: https://bible.org/article/abbreviations-and-introduction-principal-manuscript-evidence-greek-new-testament-found-net https://bible.org/article/abbreviations-and-introduction-pri...
  - verisimi 3y ago
    > Presently, I don't have the mental energy (or time) to parse through everything you have copied here (sorry, I just don't) I absolutely understand - no need at all to look through all the links etc. I was really just trying to show enough to illustrate my difficulties when personally trying to verify this info. I hate that the only option is to trust - I want to check for myself! > I do think you're at risk of reading into some of this "evidence" for foul play. Ken Thompson's lecture "Reflections on Trusting Trust" comes to mind for reasons that escape me. Absolutely fair enough too. I now have very low levels of trust. But then that is because I bear in mind that people really do play tricks. I mean there are so many examples... do you remember weapons of mass distraction, Hans Blix, etc? Or Snowden? Did you know Zelensky is referenced in the Panama papers? Etc. My low trust levels are based on my research. Eg the sort of historical research I presented above. There is always scope to doubt a story.. and perhaps, if you do not 'default to trust' there are hints at how the tricks may be being played. Perhaps such is the nature of power - ie that is it is a series of deeply considered, well-executed trickery to manage the masses. Perhaps the idea of faking commonly perceived truths is something that has a long pedigree - perhaps 'power' has used tricks to manage people from the very beginning. Perhaps trickery is actually to world's oldest profession :) All the best, thanks for your thoughts.

verisimi 3y ago

My criticism of the lack of historicity even holds for something as common the bible. Looking specifically at the new testament, we can see these lists of documents: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Listings https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript#Listings List of New Testament papyri List of New Testament uncials List of New Testament minuscules List of New Testament lectionaries List of New Testament Latin manuscripts Of the papyri, we read: > Before 1900, only 9 papyri manuscripts were known, and only one had been cited in a critical apparatus (𝔓11 by Constantin von Tischendorf). These 9 papyri were just single fragments, except for 𝔓15, which consisted of a single whole leaf.[3] So we only have 9 fragments from before 1900 - and we are talking about fragments - not even whole pages! Is that not amazing? > Among the most important are the Chester Beatty Papyri When I look at that page I read: > The papyri were most likely first obtained by dealers in illegal antiquities. Because of this, the exact circumstances of the find are not clear. One account states that the manuscripts were in jars in a Coptic graveyard near the ruins of the ancient city of Aphroditopolis. Other theories have proposed that the collection was found near the Fayum instead of Aphroditopolis, or that the location was a Christian church or monastery instead of a graveyard.[4] Most of the papyri were bought from a dealer by Alfred Chester Beatty, after whom the manuscripts are named, although some leaves and fragments were acquired by the University of Michigan and a few other collectors and institutions.[3]: 118 That's hardly a solid provenance. And then: > The papyri were first announced on November 19, 1931, 1931 is when we actually hear about these papyri. If work down the lists of sources, perhaps the uncials ("written on parchment or vellum") will be better... > New Testament uncials are distinct from other ancient texts based on the following differences: > New Testament papyri – written on papyrus and generally more ancient "More ancient"?? Good god! We have just read that there were only 9 fragments before 1900! > In 1751, New Testament theologian Johann Jakob Wettstein knew of only 23 uncial codices of the New Testament.[1] By 1859, Constantin von Tischendorf had increased that number to 64 uncials, and in 1909 Caspar René Gregory enumerated 161 uncial codices. By 1963, Kurt Aland, in his Kurzgefasste Liste, had enumerated 250, then in 1989, finally, 299 uncials. The uncials page references the Codex Sinaiticus. Ok, what of its provenance? > The Codex may have been seen in 1761 by the Italian traveller Vitaliano Donati, when he visited the Saint Catherine's Monastery at Sinai in Egypt. His diary was published in 1879 "may have been seen". Then we read: > German Biblical scholar Constantin von Tischendorf wrote about his visit to the monastery in Reise in den Orient in 1846 (translated as Travels in the East in 1847), without mentioning the manuscript. Later, in 1860, in his writings about the Sinaiticus discovery, Tischendorf wrote a narrative about the monastery and the manuscript that spanned from 1844 to 1859. He wrote that in 1844, during his first visit to the Saint Catherine's Monastery, he saw some leaves of parchment in a waste-basket. They were "rubbish which was to be destroyed by burning it in the ovens of the monastery",[15]: 313 although this is firmly denied by the Monastery. After examination he realized that they were part of the Septuagint, written in an early Greek uncial script. He retrieved from the basket 129 leaves in Greek which he identified as coming from a manuscript of the Septuagint. He asked if he might keep them, but at this point the attitude of the monks changed. They realized how valuable these old leaves were, and Tischendorf was permitted to take only one-third of the whole, i.e. 43 leaves. So, in 1846 he does NOT mention this document. Then in 1860 he "wrote a narrative about the monastery and the manuscript" and his 1844 discovery! So in 1860 we get some story about finding the document in a waste basket in 1844. BTW, papyrus oxyrunchus - another foundational biblical document - is also found in a rubbish dump - in 1897 - by Bernard Pyne Grenfell and Hunt > Since 1898, academics have collated and transcribed over 5,000 documents from what were originally hundreds of boxes of papyrus fragments the size of large cornflakes. "cornflakes". On Grenfell's wiki page, we can read: > His mother, Alice Grenfell, was living with him after his father died in 1897. She took a great interest in Egyptian Scarab shaped artifacts. She taught herself to read hieroglyphics. She published her own papers and a catalogue of the scarab collection belonging to Queen's College.[1] > In 1908, he became professor of papyrology at Oxford and was part of the editing team of The Oxyrynchus Papyri and other similar works. However he was ill for four years and during that time the professorship lapsed. Grenfell was cared for by his mother and he had recovered by 1913.[1] In 1920 he travelled to Egypt for the last time in his life and bought P.Ryl. III 457 (𝔓52), the earliest surviving witness of the Greek New Testament. His mother was self-taught, he then "finds" the papyri. Is it possible he himself placed them there? Or even created them with his mother while at Oxford? On Hunt's page we read: > In 1913 he became Professor of Papyrology at Oxford succeeding to his lifelong friend and colleague Grenfell, whose professorship lapsed due to the latter’s breakdowns and depression. So, Grenfell was depressed.... perhaps he had a guilty conscience? Anyway - ignoring my impossible to verify suppositions, my main point is that you can go on and on, and round and round attempting to find a real source. Its like a game of Chinese whispers, but you can never break out of the chain. Eg uncials are useful, but papyri are more ancient. Except that the papyri were found in the last 150 years. And are foundational. Except that uncials are older. I'll leave it there - but I have done this before. Yes, I can imagine that some document materials were re-used. But it surely can't be that there are no ancient sources of the bible at all!! That the oldest we can go to is to late 19th century and cornflake sized fragments. But that is the provenance! If you read this differently, feel free to correct me!

Zancarius 3y ago
I'm not a subject matter expert. What I can say is that the Wikipedia entry does seem to be a fairly complete list near as I can tell. I only scanned it quickly, however, but it does seem to miss the Patristic sources. Specifically, we know some of these documents predated certain individuals (early church fathers, mostly) because they have been recorded in some of their writings; either in partial quotations, paraphrases, or in large parts. I do think you're at risk of reading into some of this "evidence" for foul play. Ken Thompson's lecture "Reflections on Trusting Trust" comes to mind for reasons that escape me. Presently, I don't have the mental energy (or time) to parse through everything you have copied here (sorry, I just don't), but I can assure you that it likely has been considered by the translation boards of modern translations (I'm sure you could contact them for further inquiries, however). Specifically the NET translators did, IMO, a fantastic job with the NT and are quite transparent about it: https://bible.org/article/abbreviations-and-introduction-principal-manuscript-evidence-greek-new-testament-found-net https://bible.org/article/abbreviations-and-introduction-pri...
- verisimi 3y ago
  > Presently, I don't have the mental energy (or time) to parse through everything you have copied here (sorry, I just don't) I absolutely understand - no need at all to look through all the links etc. I was really just trying to show enough to illustrate my difficulties when personally trying to verify this info. I hate that the only option is to trust - I want to check for myself! > I do think you're at risk of reading into some of this "evidence" for foul play. Ken Thompson's lecture "Reflections on Trusting Trust" comes to mind for reasons that escape me. Absolutely fair enough too. I now have very low levels of trust. But then that is because I bear in mind that people really do play tricks. I mean there are so many examples... do you remember weapons of mass distraction, Hans Blix, etc? Or Snowden? Did you know Zelensky is referenced in the Panama papers? Etc. My low trust levels are based on my research. Eg the sort of historical research I presented above. There is always scope to doubt a story.. and perhaps, if you do not 'default to trust' there are hints at how the tricks may be being played. Perhaps such is the nature of power - ie that is it is a series of deeply considered, well-executed trickery to manage the masses. Perhaps the idea of faking commonly perceived truths is something that has a long pedigree - perhaps 'power' has used tricks to manage people from the very beginning. Perhaps trickery is actually to world's oldest profession :) All the best, thanks for your thoughts.