Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?

In the 1858 volume entitled Principia Typographica, the editor wrote: "I have very great pleasure in being permitted to print this very interesting and highly satisfactory letter from the accomplished keeper of the MSS. [Sir Frederick Madden] in the British Museum. His thorough knowledge of the early Greek language enabled him at once to detect the forgeries of the imposter Simonides" (p. 136). [bold type added by this poster]

When Simonides himself claimed to have written Codex Sinaiticus, he in effect was professing to have supposedly forged it. He failed to use the correct term to describe what he claimed to have supposedly done.
 
F.H.A. Scrivener, who is usually regarded as very conservative about critical editions, had no doubts that Sinaiticus was authentic (as shown in his "Six Lectures").

It seems to me that the only persons in the 21st century who accept Simonides's claims of fabrication are KJVOs who will cling to any pretext to disparage critical editions.
 
Didn't someone (James Snapp??? perhaps) put pictures or links to digitised examples of known Simonides Greek hand writing at some muesem?

I can't remember who or exactly where, but I remember seeing them. Roger Pearse?? Perhaps?
 
I found a fascinating article, published as recently as July 2022:

Brent Nongbri, The Date of the Codex Sinaiticus, Journal of Theological Studies, n.s. 2022 (July 2022)
https://academic.oup.com/jts/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jts/flac083/6652265

Without mentioning anything of Simonides, the article brings together the various estimates of the date of the Codex (sometime after 330 AD, when Eusebian sections were introduced, up to roughly 420), and generally accepts the "middle of the 4th century". There are a lot of details that mere amateurs wouldn't know. Tischendorf detected four distinct scribes - the fourth used a distinctive ink; there's a peculiar method of writing numerals that points to the fourth century. There is also a discussion of the vagaries of radiocarbon dating, which might not be more precise than the various estimates - but not a clear explanation of why it hasn't yet been done to Sinaiticus. Radiocarbon dating will tell us when the animals were killed for parchment and velum but the actual writing of the whole Bible may have taken decades.
 
From Avery's PBF, "why-the-james-keith-elliott-book-tells-you-very-little-about-sinaiticus-authenticity."

Steven Avery wrote:
And inspecting the facsilmile is not examining the ms. (Bolding and underlining mine - U68)
Click to expand...
Let's keep this admission of Avery's in mind for what's to come in the near future.....
 
Last edited:
If the facsimiles are not enough, then nobody here can give an authoritative opinion on the Sinaiticus.

Leave it to the people who are in possession of the actual ms; they all say its authentic and ancient.
 
Shoonra said:
Leave it to the people who are in possession of the actual ms; they all say its authentic and ancient.
Click to expand...

Helen Shenton, British Library
"the quality of the parchment is phenomenal"

(You can actually look at the easy-peasy page turning.)

Plus the British Library acknowledged the colouring issue.

Leipzig cancelled the tests planned in 2015, the day BAM, the testing group, arrive.

Do you think perhaps those "who are in possession" are a bit reluctant to have a real examination?
 
James K. Elliott, who did write about this topic (in a book I previously cited) said:

‘No one nowadays doubts the antiquity and importance of the Codex Sinaiticus...[T]he authenticity and age of Codex Sinaiticus (and the portion of it known as Friderico-Augustanus) are beyond dispute’.

I am satisfied with this opinion. I would add that the production of the Sinaiticus (including the making of the parchment and vellum) probably took many years, perhaps more than a decade (or two).

This debate is taking on the characteristics of the climate change debate, with the vast majority of experts being challenged by a handful of dissenters.
 
Last edited:
Shoonra said:
James K. Elliott, who did write about this topic (in a book I previously cited) said:

‘No one nowadays doubts the antiquity and importance of the Codex Sinaiticus...[T]he authenticity and age of Codex Sinaiticus (and the portion of it known as Friderico-Augustanus) are beyond dispute’.
Click to expand...

James Keith Elliott actually missed some of the most important historical information.
He wrote to me on Feb 21, 2018.

dear Mr Avery

Former colleagues passed on to me your query. (I seem not to have heard from you in 2016).

No, I did not know of Farrer's book. I see the reference to it in Metzger's autobiography. It does not seem that Bart Ehrman in his recent book on forgery/ pseudonymity or David Parker's book on Sinaiticus were aware of him either. (Parker does include a reference to my 1982 study.)

I have not written again on this matter although I am obviously interested in the subject and comparable forgeries. My main interests have always been in textual criticism and the apocryphal NT.

I wish you well in your own researches and look forward to things you produce.

With best wishes

Sincerely
Keith Elliott

J. K. Elliott
Emeritus Professor of New Testament Textual Criticism
The University of Leeds
Click to expand...

And I have a page with the title.

"why the James Keith Elliott book tells you very little about Sinaiticus authenticity"
 
Steven Avery said:
A beautiful example of the common Rick Norris fallacy, where Rick is quoting mistaken secondary sources, while missing or deliberately ignoring the primary sources.

All you really have to do is read Simonides.

British Quarterly Review (1863)
The Sinaitic Codex
https://books.google.com/books?id=TMNjkkJZw8UC&pg=PA354



https://books.google.com/books?id=TMNjkkJZw8UC&pg=PA362


Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
Miscellanies
The Codex Sinaiticus and its Antiquity
https://books.google.com/books?id=vvgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA228
p. 228-229



Here, from James Anson Farrer, is a secondary source that properly represents the primary source, since Farrer did a lot of research on the Sinaiticus and Simonides issues.

Rick likely ran into this Farrer quote, but Rick is not interested in the truth of the matter of what Simonides actually claimed. Rick is only posturing to try to throw sand for diversion in order to avoid correcting his original blunder that called Simonides a "self-professed deceiver."

Literary Forgeries (1907)
Greek Forgery: Constantine Simonides
James Anson Farrer
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ei1KDcglxf8C&pg=PA59
Click to expand...
Rick knows, knows for a fact simonides did not write Codex Siniaticus. Codex Siniaticus was written 350-375 AD. Simionides from the 1800's. We was a fraudster.
 
Steven Avery said:
Rick is not interested in the truth of the matter of what Simonides actually claimed.
Click to expand...
As usual, you make false accusations. I am interested in the truth, which is why I question KJV-only fiction. You are interested in trying to support unproven and incorrect KJV-only claims and fiction. You are merely exposing your own erroneous KJV-only reasoning.

Any claim of Simonides to have transcribed or written this Codex would be in effect an admission to making a forgery, thus an admission to being a self-professed deceiver. Later writers would be accurately describing what Simonides in effect claimed to have supposedly done when they use the verb forged. My point was no blunder, and it did not involve use of any fallacy. Simonides had already been exposed for trying to sell forgeries so he should have known that claiming to have transcribed Codex Sinaiticus would be considered professing to making supposedly a forgery.

In the 1858 volume entitled Principia Typographica, the editor wrote: "I have very great pleasure in being permitted to print this very interesting and highly satisfactory letter from the accomplished keeper of the MSS. [Sir Frederick Madden] in the British Museum. His thorough knowledge of the early Greek language enabled him at once to detect the forgeries of the imposter Simonides" (p. 136). [bold type added by this poster]
 
logos1560 said:
Any claim of Simonides to have transcribed or written this Codex would be in effect an admission to making a forgery, thus an admission to being a self-professed deceiver. Later writers would be accurately describing what Simonides in effect claimed to have supposedly done when they use the verb forged. My point was no blunder, and it did not involve use of any fallacy.
Click to expand...

Your claim that SImonides was a self-professed deceiver was a total blunder.

I showed you precisely above what was the profession of SImonides.

logos1560 said:
You incorrectly choose to trust blindly the claims of a self-professed deceiver instead of dealing with the evidence.
Click to expand...

The fact that you can not make even a simple correction is duly noted.

Your obstinateness in adding to your error, through fallacies, rather than a simple correction, makes your writing worthless.

Plus your fabrication that I am not "dealing with the evidence" is humorous. You can not get even the simplest issue right.
 
Steven Avery said:
Helen Shenton, British Library
"the quality of the parchment is phenomenal"
Click to expand...

Also Helen Shenton:

Codex Sinaiticus is the earliest manuscript of the complete New Testament and the earliest and best witness for several books of the Old Testament. For scholars of the Bible it is the pre-eminent manuscript, known as aleph or 01, in other words number one. The Bible was written by hand on parchment in the middle of the fourth century around the time of Constantine the Great

Steven Avery said:
(You can actually look at the easy-peasy page turning.)
Click to expand...

As a reminder, the individual who thinks this is some great occurrence has never actually handled a biblical manuscript himself.

Steven Avery said:
Plus the British Library acknowledged the colouring issue.
Click to expand...

The British Library acknowledges it's fourth century, too.

Why do you continue to hide such important information, huh?

Steven Avery said:
Leipzig cancelled the tests planned in 2015, the day BAM, the testing group, arrive.
Click to expand...

How do you know this?
Did the same British Library who tells you it's a fourth century manuscript tell you this?


Steven Avery said:
Do you think perhaps those "who are in possession" are a bit reluctant to have a real examination?
Click to expand...

I know for a fact that Internet conspiracy theorists who hide relevant information are quite reluctant to admit that information.
 
Unbound68 said:
Just purchased this work by David W. Daniels for Kindle, and almost choked on my Pepsi when I came across the following:



So Avery, Daniels, and others have actually been floating the idea that Aleph was created in the 19th century?
Click to expand...

Chris Pinto made a couple of movies that misinformed the few people who care on this issue.
James White then wiped the floor with him in a debate (it's on You Tube).
Avery adopted the Pinto technique, Daniels wrote two ignorant books - and here we are.
 
logos1560 said:
Is it interesting that Trinitarian David W. Daniel is yoked together with anti-Trinitarian, oneness Steven Avery?
Click to expand...

Yes, and I called Daniels out for it at a Dean Burgon Society meeting.
He trembled and quivered, and the referee pulled me off of him.

If he's still yoked with Avery at this point, he's living in sin.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top