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

[Maestroh]

All scholars everywhere acknowledge the plain fact that Codex Sinaiticus is an ancient handwritten manuscript of the Bible. Everyone on this planet acknowledge it to be so. The only exception is a tiny faction of KJVOnlyist, who are not scholars and who have no authority whatsoever believing a false lie of a 19th century con man and 21st century con men. It is you that has the untruth of con men. We have thousand of copies of God's Word. Your untruths cannot cancel that as hard as you try.

The critics like Nongbri concede it's early (years ago Avery tried to enlist Nongbri on his side in this argument).
The Majority Text advocates concede the date.

Ehrman, Aland, EVERYONE concedes it's early.

Dan Wallace - unlike Avery - has actually seen it firsthand.

 

[Maestroh]

Loaded question, as usual, as I never consider or describe myself as "anti-trinitarian." We had this discussion before.

You've never said the words online "I don't know Koine Greek at all," either - but that is an accurate assessment.

 

[Steven Avery]

I believe there is a lively dispute going on about who owns the Sinaiticus, so getting permission to cut a bit out it for testing is not so easy.
e.g.:https://www.baslibrary.org/biblical-archaeology-review/33/6/7

BAM from Berlin, under a lady named Dr. Ira Rabin, worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most of their testing is totally non-destructive.

In 2015, they were invited to test Leipzig Sinaiticus.
The Leipzig library changed their mind the day they arrived.

 

[Maestroh]

You cannot assume that Sinaiticus had the full "LXX". We do not know, with so many books missing. Perhaps the project was aborted.

The Shepherd of Hermas text was linguistically identified by the learned Scottish scholar James Donaldson (1831-1915) as quite a bit later than the date assigned today.

Four years ago, I informed Avery that Donaldson's linguistic claims are out of date, ignorant, and wrong.

On July 30, 2018, I informed you Donaldson was wrong.

Bible Versions Disc Board-It's that time of year again folks....

Either him or a double was moderating the DBS meeting again this year. He is now over 90, and one can only wonder how much longer he or the DBS can ho

www.tapatalk.com

So why didn't you disclose that?

In fact, Tischendorf attacked the earlier, very similar, Shepherd of Hermas produced by Simonides c. 1856 on those linguistic grounds. An accusation that Tischendorf quietly withdrew in one of his Latin works when he was publishing the SInaiticus Hermas. And James Donaldson did say similar for Barnabas.

How do "quietly withdraw" anything?

And again - Donaldson was simply wrong.
And you're not exactly building a stellar reputation when you withold information.

The handwriting is rather easy to replicate by scribes, following the style from ancient manuscripts.

It was so easy to do that according to Simonides, the professional calligrapher of the monastery could not do it.
So was it as difficult as that or as easy as Avery claims?

In general, handwriting can help determine a terminus post quem, since nobody can replicate a future script. However, it is not very helpful for a terminus ante quem, since any good scribe can look back and write in an earlier script. There is no symmetry on this issue.

I would note that the person writing this has never even taken a course in paleography and would be laughed out of the classroom for saying something like this.

but then again, he also thinks the moon landing was fake.

Did he interview Buzz Aldrin?

 

[Maestroh]

Kevin McGrane actually has his own theory, that Sinaiticus was about AD 600-700.

Is Kevin McGrane a paleographer?
Are you?

He does some good work, and makes some horrid errors.

Unless he claims the moon landing was fake, he did not surpass you in that category.

Since nothing of mine is specifically criticized, there is no purpose in responding in depth.
We had interesting conversations.

Narcissists always think they're conversations are interesting.
Our recent former Narcissist-in-Chief thought the leader of North Korea loved him.

It is easy to see that I deal with supposed countervailing evidences.

You've had seven years to answer my questions and crickets.

As an example, I went through every point raised by James Snapp.

And demonstrated you knew nothing about the subject.

Rick Norris knows nothing on the topic, he is just fishing for quote-snippets, which is his normal "criminal" citation methodology.

Rick Norris, what is your date and authorship of Codex Simoneides (Sinaticus)?

Remember folks - all Steven Avery has for his position are the words of a documented lying forger.

Every single point he makes can be summarized "Simonides said."

Of course, Simonides said a lot and contradicted himself at every turn.

 

[Maestroh]

Because propagandists edit out inconvenient information, we must insert it.

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.

Uspenski dated the manuscript to the fifth century long before Tischendorf took full possession of the rest of it.

I can't imagine why Avery felt the need to not share that information in making his conclusion - except he wants to say "Uspenski said" but only quote him selectively.

I can't imagine why he'd do that.

The Shepherd of Hermas had been published by Simonides years earlier, and I explained that to you earlier.

And it's irrelevant to your argument.

This was a very easy handwriting for good scribes to write.

Not if you're gonna believe Simonides is isn't.

And he was a calligrapher.

Are you a calligrapher?
Or a paleographer?
Or a textual critic?

 

[Maestroh]

Am I wrong, or is only one member contending that Sinaiticus is a forgery?

No, you're correct.

And the fact not a single non-KJVO dates this to the 19th century gives you the tells.

 

[Maestroh]

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.

Which book do you reject along with the Trinity?

Your positions are just a joke of blunders.

Simon the used car salesman was bold in "True Lies" just like this - until he actually faced someone.

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.

Bold behind the keyboard, terrified of debate.

 

[Maestroh]

So far, only one poster has shown any real awareness of the issues around Sinaiticus.

There are no issues.
We just have a person who thinks the moon landing was fake touting more conspiracy theories.

The four or so that would defend authenticity seem to be unaware of the issues.

Were you unaware Donaldson was wrong even after I told you he was and DEMONSTRATED USING THE VERY WORDS HE USED that he was wrong?

Or did you just hope I wouldn't bring it up?

I don't think either answer commends you or your position.
If you have another alternative, please provide it if you are, in fact, interested in discussion.

And I did answer a couple of your posts that were for authenticity.
At least you made an effort.

Bold behind the keyboard, terrified to pay the piper.

 

[Maestroh]

James Keith Elliott actually missed some of the most important historical information.

Dr. Elliott missed nothing of relevance.

Incidentally, James White actually quoted from Farrer when he wiped the floor with Chris Pinto in that debate, but I see even that had no effect on your position.

Thus, your objection has no merit.

He wrote to me on Feb 21, 2018.

So?

"Hey, Mr. No Moon Landing, I wasn't aware of an irrelevant book from 75 years ago by a non-scholar that proves nothing, but thank you for wasting my time by bringing it to my attention."

And I have a page with the title.

"why the James Keith Elliott book tells you very little about Sinaiticus authenticity"

Folks, Avery is terrified you will actually read Elliott because it exposes the smoke and mirrors that is the modern Alpeh fake folks. Twenty years ago, the same thing was said by other posters about James White.

What these folks are terrified of is that since none of them can produce anything other than quote people, they're terrified you're going to quote White (back then) or Elliott (now) and debunk their nonsense for the uninitiated. So to keep that from happening, they attempt to discredit those folks.

As a reminder, Steven Avery wants you to discredit Keith Elliott because he didn't include an irrelevant citation - but he himself concluded the moon landing is fake without interviewing Buzz Aldrin, who has actually been.

It would seem to me since Aldrin is still alive (and lives not far from Avery) that he should have done this given he wants to impugn Elliott for not knowing about a resource in the primitive research days of 40 years ago when there was no quick online search mechanism.

Seems to me like Avery doesn't have any problem at all with exclusion just so long as he's the one not actually checking sources.

 

[Maestroh]

A beautiful example of the common Rick Norris fallacy, where Rick is quoting mistaken secondary sources, while missing or deliberately ignoring the primary sources.

The poster who thinks the moon landing was fake but refuses to speak to the one man still living who was on Apollo 11 is accusing someone else of being incorrect.

All you really have to do is read Simonides.

As I stated earlier - Avery's ENTIRE POSITION is "Simonides says."

... the MS. had been forwarded to Sinai. In 1852 he saw it there himself, and found that the librarian knew nothing whatever of the origin of the MS., and he for his part said nothing. He examined the MS., however, and found it altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have. The dedication to the Emperor Nicholas,

That's a CLAIM.
It doesn't prove it happened.

And btw - if it was altered AFTER Tischendorf left in 1844 and BEFORE he arrived again in 1853, there went the entire Avery-Daniels "Tischendorf stained it with lemon juice" nonsense because he couldn't possibly have altered it prior to 1852.

This epistle speaks about ‘ the deacon Hilarion, and thy friends Nicander and Niphon, who lent thee the Books of Esdras at the time when thou wast preparing in Athos, at the exhortation of my uncle, the present (of the Holy Scriptures) to the glorious Emperor Nicholas.'

Yes, but this doesn't prove there was any dedication in the first place.

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.

Again, all he does is relate WHAT SIMONIDES SAID.

Simonides... the most amazing was his claim to have written when at Mount Athos in 1840 the Sinaitic Codex (Codex A), which Tischendorf discovered at Mount Sinai under highly singular circumstances between the years 1844 and 1859. The claim of Simonides to have transcribed this Codex, at the suggestion of his alleged uncle Benedict, as an intended present for the Czar Nicholas I, was first publicly made in the Guardian of 5th September, 1862, and in the Literary Churchman on 16th December of the same year.

Now here's a quote from that same book by Farrer that Avery always ignores when you scroll down to page 66:

"In literary ability he surpassed all of his contemporaries, but unhappily the essential element of truth formed no part of his mental constitution."

Farrer himself is saying, "Simonides was a lying sack of garbage."

Avery always avoids this after boasting about how smart Farrer is, and Pinto does the same, which is why White threw him through a table in that debate.

Rick likely ran into this Farrer quote,

Like you ran into the one that you excluded?

but Rick is not interested in the truth of the matter of what Simonides actually claimed.

The guy who isn't interested in the truth of what Farrer actually claimed gaslights Rick Norris here. Malignant narcissism.

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."

FARRER calls him a deceiver.

Did you not read that far?

 

[Maestroh]

Rick Norris has not made any factual declaration about Codex Sinaiticus dating and authenticity. He has made one false assertion, and then tried to support it with a major fallacy.

Rick Norris, like you, is not a paleographer.

The difference is that he defers to experts whose job it is to know, and you defer toa conspiracy theory in the desperate hope to cling to your KJVOism.

The fact YOU THINK Sinaiticus is 19th century doesn't make it so.
The fact your opinion was deduced by doing nothing more than parroting a forging liar (Farrer notes this) from the1860s is relevant.

 

[Maestroh]

Really? Wow.

So do you have a position on the dating and authenticity of Codex Simoneides?

There is no Codex Simonides, but I have zero doubt this attempt to provocative is borne of fear rather than knowledge and faith, too.

 

[Steven Avery]

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?

It was asked how I know this, about the planned Leipzig examination.

1) I was in contact with Dr. Ira Rabin, starting with her talk at Hofsta in 2014.

2) She discussed it, giving more details, and with emotion, on the Zoom conference about Sinaiticus, hosted by Brent Nongbri on July 1, 2020.

 

[Maestroh]

It was asked how I know this, about the planned Leipzig examination.

Actually, that's not at all what I asked.

Here's what I asked you:

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

How do you know this?

Go study what "this" means in this sentence.

1) I was in contact with Dr. Ira Rabin, starting with her talk at Hofsta in 2014.

2) She discussed it, giving more details, and with emotion, on the Zoom conference about Sinaiticus, hosted by Brent Nongbri on July 1, 2020.

So your EVIDENCE for "they showed up and the tests were cancelled that day" is not something you know other than SOMEONE SAID IT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

Your only contribution seems to be that.

 

[Steven Avery]

So your EVIDENCE for "they showed up and the tests were cancelled that day" is not something you know other than SOMEONE SAID IT'S WHAT HAPPENED.

When the someone is Dr. Ira Rabin of BAM, Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing), yes, es suficient.

 

[Maestroh]

When the someone is Dr. Ira Rabin of BAM, Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung (Federal Institute for Materials Research and Testing), yes, es suficient.

So expertise matters?

Is THAT what you're saying, Steven?

Credentials suddenly matter to you?

So when the people at the British Library with credentials give you a date, you just do a 180 (that's a degree measurement where you're going in the opposite direction from where you started or so say the experts; maybe you can give us a contrary opinion on it).

 

[Steven Avery]

So expertise matters?

Sure.

If Sinaiticus was to finally have objective parchment & ink analysis, it would make sense to have it done by a world-class testing outfit that had worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Leipzig got cold feet.

 

[Maestroh]

Sure.

If Sinaiticus was to finally have objective parchment & ink analysis, it would make sense to have it done by a world-class testing outfit that had worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls.

Leipzig got cold feet.

So by your admission, you cherry pick data.

And we all know what you would have done.....

 

[Steven Avery]

So by your admission, you cherry pick data.

For Sinaiticus, there is no testing data from which to pick cherries, plums or apple pies.