Codex Sinaiticus

[Melvadius]

As your latest posting makes clear misundestanding have arisen in both directions.

 

Let me finish by clarifying the main point I have been makings.

 

In my view belief or non-belief in any religion is irrelevant to this debate. As an archeologist my view is that what is written in either the codex or indeed any of the other books in the monastic library is of lesser importance than when, where, how, on what material and why - although admittedly the message itself also needs to be considered as a subset of most of these questions.

 

A monastic laundry list would be of some archaeological but probably not theological interest however; the confirmed discovery of re-used parchment leaves from one book in another will always open up the area of interest enomously, both archeologically and historically, beyond the simple theological debate you envisage. If one work has been re-used in this way then other works probably have also been re-used and their identification provides windows of information far beyond anything coming out of theological debate about whether a comma or any other mark has been added or missed out from a particular work.

 

Think on these points - the style of handwriting will say something about where the scribe was trained but identification of what animal the parchment was made from, microscopic clues to where the animal grew up or the raw materials used in the ink says a lot more about patterns of trade in that part of the ancient world.

 

On a wider basis IF the re-used fragments are from a lost work whether scriptural or otherwise then this would be a real prize worth hunting for and the ramifications will reverbate around the world in the same way as the discovery that some of the papyri from Herculaneum or the Vindolanda tablets could be read.

 

Melvadius

[sylla]

Yup, our differences were not so fundamental after all, weren't they?

 

I honestly think I have already grasped your points, and I sincerily hope that for some time now it has been evident for you that I can perfectly understand that the most microscopic piece of shit (literally) can give us a treasure of information on let say the social hierarchy and flora of the studied population, period and location.

That's not where our disagreements may rest; so let me finish my own points too.

 

First, we can, we should and we ought to grade the relevance of the archaeological findings.

 

Next, it would be extremely naive to pretend to ignore the social (and economic) context where this biblical research is talking place; religion, especifically Christian religion (irrespectively of your personal beliefs) couldn't be any more relevant.

 

In their own words, this article of Jerome Taylor, Religious Affairs Correspondent, explained why, even if there is a one-in-a-million possibility that it could be a Sinaiticus fragment, it would definitely be worth looking, as it raises questions about how close what we read today is to the original words of Christ and his early followers.

[Melvadius]

I accept that our discussion is only about our personal perceptions of the potential extent of interest in this discovery. While I can understand your argument, irrespective of the views expressed in the original articles, the real test of the extent of interest (whether - historical, archaeological, theological or anything else) is currently is unknowable as it will of necessity depend on what further research reveals.

 

Melvadius

[sylla]

Point taken; no one can predict the future. Even the divine word is hardly inerrable.

Even on theological grounds, the own author set their odds in a like "one million" figure; but well, miracles happen (even million dollars miracle$!) .

Edited September 8, 2009 by sylla