When he lied about copying codex Sinaiticus!
Last edited by a moderator:
Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
The weight of evidence is for the authenticity of Sinaiticus, esp because other pages to it have since been found in parts of the monastery that Simonides could not enter. Also because it contains the complete text of the Shepherd of Hermas and the Epistle of Barnabas; two documents that, until that discovery, existed only in incomplete versions. Also because it consistently shows a handwriting style (in at least two different hands) that is appropriate only for great antiquity.
Unless something better than the boasting of Simonides can be used as evidence, I would hope this debate is silenced.
Unless something better than the boasting of Simonides can be used as evidence, I would hope this debate is silenced.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
There is no real claim that the part of the monastery where more from Hermas was discovered was unavailable to Simonides and Tischendorf. In fact, the section discovered was part of Hermas, a book that was very embarrassing to Tischendorf, as he had criticized the very earlier, linguistically similar Sinaiticus from Simonides. And when Uspensky saw the manuscript in 1845 there was no indication that Hermas was truncated, so that is good evidence that the ending was placed in the dump room.
The Shepherd of Hermas had been published by Simonides years earlier, and I explained that to you earlier.
This was a very easy handwriting for good scribes to write.
From the earlier post.
Last edited:
Your assumption or speculation may be the result of your blind acceptance or advocating of non-scholarly KJV-only fiction.
You may try to allege failure on the part of other posters as a diversion away from the greater failure of KJV-only advocates to present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, or scriptural case for a modern KJV-only theory.
Evidence had already been quoted and cited from an earlier post.
In the book entitled God's Last Words by David Katz, this is stated: "A Greek named Constantine Simonides published a letter in the Guardian claiming that he himself had forged the Codex Sinaiticus in 1840" (p. 372).
In Studies on the Text of the NT by or edited by Daniel Gurtner, there is a reference to "Simonides' claim that he himself had forged the Codex in 1840" (p. 26).
It is with all reasonable, intelligent thinking people. But conspiracy people who think there are no errors in the KJV will believe anything, including genuine 4th century Bibles were forged by a liar. They pretend they are smarter than the people who study the Bible in the original languages.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Did you properly quote (cite) the Potamius translation with Professor Conti's reference to 1 John 5 verse 8?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Thanks!
A good example of my integrity concerns.
When it was shown that my source had a different comment/verse-number than the primary source, I was happy to change my text to make sure the comment is clear. And pass on up the concern.
Now contrast that to Rick’s obstinance in “criminal” citation methods used for his Simonides blunder, and his refusal to correct blunders like “had known”, past tense, in 1 Timothy 3:14-16.
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
You forget, many of us have been here for years and you have in fact stated you were not a trinitarian.
Beloved Daughter
Super Member
What's hilarious is you running through your list of imaginary wrongs. You've been defeated before and you will be defeated again. Get a new schtick.
It has been clearly demonstrated over and over that Steven Avery does not practice what he preaches.
Accusing others of things of which he is guilty could be regarded as one of his favorite tactics. It is one of his typical diversionary responses to throw out unproven or false accusations. Perhaps he somehow imagines that his unproven, bogus accusations are true or else he may be unable to recognize the truth. Possibly he likely tries to keep other posters busy answering his bogus allegations and endless questions so he can avoid dealing with the facts that are problems for his erroneous KJV-only opinions. Whatever errors he imagines that he sees in the posts of others his own errors in accepting the non-scriptural, false teaching of KJV-onlyism are greater.
For many years, he has dodged and avoided his own burden of proof to present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, or scriptural case for his own claims for the KJV. Dismissing his own burden of proof and attempting to reverse the burden of proof are other of his normal tactics.
Accusing others of things of which he is guilty could be regarded as one of his favorite tactics. It is one of his typical diversionary responses to throw out unproven or false accusations. Perhaps he somehow imagines that his unproven, bogus accusations are true or else he may be unable to recognize the truth. Possibly he likely tries to keep other posters busy answering his bogus allegations and endless questions so he can avoid dealing with the facts that are problems for his erroneous KJV-only opinions. Whatever errors he imagines that he sees in the posts of others his own errors in accepting the non-scriptural, false teaching of KJV-onlyism are greater.
For many years, he has dodged and avoided his own burden of proof to present any positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, or scriptural case for his own claims for the KJV. Dismissing his own burden of proof and attempting to reverse the burden of proof are other of his normal tactics.
Steven, if you cannot get something so simple and basic (such as presenting a positive, clear, consistent, sound, true, or scriptural case for your own claims for the KJV) right, are you saying that your posting is really hopeless?
Thanks for confirming that your own errors are greater than the ones who try to allege concerning others. You can try to shout and scream about others, but you refuse to correct your own greater errors.
Thanks for confirming that your own errors are greater than the ones who try to allege concerning others. You can try to shout and scream about others, but you refuse to correct your own greater errors.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
My position for AV purity and perfection is stated frequently. Faith and the preservational imperative are key parts, similar to the acceptance of the 26 book canon. No scripture directly states that truth.
Your positions are just a joke of blunders. A couple mentioned above, also your recent confusion as to whether books have to be originally in Greek, where you changed your long-standing blah-blah.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So far, only one poster has shown any real awareness of the issues around Sinaiticus.
The four or so that would defend authenticity seem to be unaware of the issues.
And I did answer a couple of your posts that were for authenticity.
At least you made an effort.
Yes. One who belongs to a group of people who reject trying to be more accurate with the Bible. People who want errors in the Bible to remain for ever.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Au contraire, you seem to be very bitter, I am just concerned with truf.
And truf will expose the Edit trying to attack the pure AV, and dancing around his own blunders.
Last edited by a moderator:
KJV-only advocates fail to show that they are seriously concerned with truth, considering how they cling to the fallacies and errors on which their unproven KJV-only opinions depend.
KJV-only advocates try to attack and smear the Bible-believers who present the truth concerning the KJV and its imperfections.
KJV-only advocates try to attack and smear the Bible-believers who present the truth concerning the KJV and its imperfections.
There was a very thorough book on this topic: James K. Elliott, Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair, An Examination of the 19th Century Claim that Codex Sinaiticus was Not an Ancient Manuscript, 1982, Thassalanika, 192 pages. There are copies in at least 38 US libraries.
A much shorter account is in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society for March 2016 (vol. 160, nr. 1, pages 26-36), namely an article by Christopher P. Jones, A Syntax of Forgery. Jones recounts how Simonides claimed, in 1860, when he was about 40 years of age, that he had produced the Sinaiticus around 1835, when he was 15. If his claim were true Simonides would have had to be one of the most skilled forgers ever, because of the bulk of the Codex and the fact that subsequent examination showed the presence of multiple handwritings plus corrections. One of Simonides's weaknesses was the fact that all his other forgeries had, conspicuously, all the same handwriting. He would also, at age 15, had a phenomenal grasp of Biblical literature; back in 1835 critical editing was still in its infancy yet Simonides would have chosen to introduce what would then be innovative departures from the TR. Another characteristic of Simonides is that all his forgeries were quickly exposed; none of them enjoyed a long period of gullible acceptance - this applies even to his claim to have written Sinaiticus.
I shouldn't have to go to this trouble to refute a bogus assertion.
A much shorter account is in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society for March 2016 (vol. 160, nr. 1, pages 26-36), namely an article by Christopher P. Jones, A Syntax of Forgery. Jones recounts how Simonides claimed, in 1860, when he was about 40 years of age, that he had produced the Sinaiticus around 1835, when he was 15. If his claim were true Simonides would have had to be one of the most skilled forgers ever, because of the bulk of the Codex and the fact that subsequent examination showed the presence of multiple handwritings plus corrections. One of Simonides's weaknesses was the fact that all his other forgeries had, conspicuously, all the same handwriting. He would also, at age 15, had a phenomenal grasp of Biblical literature; back in 1835 critical editing was still in its infancy yet Simonides would have chosen to introduce what would then be innovative departures from the TR. Another characteristic of Simonides is that all his forgeries were quickly exposed; none of them enjoyed a long period of gullible acceptance - this applies even to his claim to have written Sinaiticus.
I shouldn't have to go to this trouble to refute a bogus assertion.
Well I, for one, find it interesting! I would imagine that if enough people really argued for Simonides, it would be relatively easy ? to get a bit of the MSS from the British Library and test its age.
--Rich