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

[Steven Avery]

For the record. I don't think the Forging Antiquities Project is "hiding" these letters.
The motives Steven implies. I categorically disagree with.
I just wanted to make that clear.

Whatever the various motives, the Forging Antiquities Project sit upon these important letters year after year, there is no indication that they actually will be published in the foreseeable future, and they do not say where they may be held.

It reminds us of the cabal with the Dead Sea Scrolls, that held up scholarship for years, until Hershel Shanks and BAR spoke up!

Scholarship delayed, or mothballed, is scholarship denied!

 

[Shoonra]

I find that Avery is carrying on this same debate in the Carm forum for Bible Questions and Discussion. Same topic, same lame arguments.
Please, please, PLEASE, let's confine the Simonides arguments to one and only one forum, and very preferably one and only one thread.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So you think that is why he received the money for Sinaiticus from Constantius?

What money? From where?

Where's the archive record that verifies this legendary payment?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Whatever the various motives, the Forging Antiquities Project sit upon these important letters year after year, there is no indication that they actually will be published in the foreseeable future, and they do not say where they may be held.

It reminds us of the cabal with the Dead Sea Scrolls, that held up scholarship for years, until Hershel Shanks and BAR spoke up!

Scholarship delayed, or mothballed, is scholarship denied!

Don't believe you.

Publish in full the complete (unedited) emails that you received from Malcolm Choat!

 

[Steven Avery]

Don't believe you.
Publish in full the complete (unedited) emails that you received from Malcolm Choat!

They have some wonderful stuff, including a pithy quote that Malcolm asked me to keep anonymous. Simply posting correspondence is not proper etiquette.

The quote on the letters.

April, 2023:
Malcolm Choat
Hi Steven, thanks for this, I’ll be sure to take a look. As for George, he did some work for us a while back, as you found reference to. We’ll be rolling what he found into future publications on Simonides, which we hope you find of interest when we get a chance to publish them.

I posted that here on March 6
https://forums.carm.org/threads/ant...antiquities-project.16173/page-3#post-1454360

It could mean 5 years, and just extracts, or never.
The FAP is doing very little.

We are now 4 years down the road.
Nothing is announced.

This hurts all Simonides and Sinaiticus scholarship, not just the Forging Antiquity Project.

Scholarship delayed, or mothballed, is scholarship denied!

 

[Steven Avery]

What money? From where?
Where's the archive record that verifies this legendary payment?

This was part of the Simonides account.

It actually is quite surprising that he let this slip out.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So you think that is why he received the money for Sinaiticus from Constantius?

Which Constantius?

By 1860, both Constantius 1 (died January 1st, 1859) and Constantius 2 (coincidentally died 1859 as well, or Wikipedia is confusing the two) were both dead (as Cjab pointed out over a year ago).

So as conveniently dead, either Constantius 1 or 2, could not testify whether Simonides letter was a fake.

Most damningly.

Even after over a century and a half, no independent record has ever been brought forth from the Constantinoplian Church archives by the S.A.R.T Team or any other Simonides dupe (like Hodgkin's, Steuart, Farmakidis, Daniels)...

None = investigative incompetence (by your own standards)

Even if (note BIG IF = hypocritically speaking here) it could be proved Simonides was paid money on the that date, Simonides would deviously and dishonesty twist his version of what the money was for.

 

[Steven Avery]

Which Constantius?
By 1860, both Constantius 1 (died January 1st, 1859) and Constantius 2 (coincidentally died 1859 as well, or Wikipedia is confusing the two) were both dead (as Cjab pointed out over a year ago).

Yes, I think that likely made it easier for Tischendorf to pull his con.

So far it looks like Constantius I since Constantius II went out of the picture pretty early.
Still checking.

 

[Steven Avery]

Even if (note BIG IF = hypocritically speaking here) it could be proved Simonides was paid money on the that date, Simonides would deviously and dishonesty twist his version of what the money was for.

His saying de facto that it was for Sinaiticus (and auxiliary manuscripts) is quite straightforward. I am surprised that Wright and others did not use that as part of their attack on Simonides.

 

[Steven Avery]

brought forth from the Constantinoplian Church archives

In addition there could be letters and documents in libraries.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

In addition there could be letters and documents in libraries.

You mean the Constantinoplian Church archives...

Yep "folks" the archives are real. He's quite possibly hiding any response they gave to any enquiries he might have made!

Note Steven's phoneyness when he says:

"Could be..."​

What slimy deviousness.

 

[Steven Avery]

You mean the Constantinoplian Church archives...

Nope. Athens, Thessaloniki definitely might have material.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Nope. Athens, Thessaloniki definitely might have material.

Yes Steven. You had something to say about your enquiry to the Constantinoplian Church archives about Constantius 1's letter in 1841 and the payment of 25,000 piastres?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Nope. Athens, Thessaloniki definitely might have material.

Antigonus (where the letter was sent from and manuscript dropped off supposedly) is in Constantinople.

That's where you should be making inquiries...

 

[Steven Avery]

You mean the Constantinoplian Church archives...
Yep "folks" the archives are real. He's quite possibly hiding any response they gave to any enquiries he might have made!
Note Steven's phoneyness when he says:

"Could be..."​

What slimy deviousness.

TNC, King of Childish Condition “Quite Possibly” Insults!

Alway good for a laugh.

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes Steven. You had something to say about your enquiry to the Constantinoplian Church archives about Constantius 1's letter in 1841 and the payment of 25,000 piastres?

A good suggestion for future inquiries, assuming there is a good contact point for the "Constantinoplian Church archives".

 

[Shoonra]

Can Avery - or anybody - explain why, IF Simonides forged the Sinaiticus, he omitted such familar passages as the longer ending of Mark and the story of the adulteress? These were so ingrained by the mid-19th century that only some special motivation would cause Simonides to omit them.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Can Avery - or anybody - explain why, IF Simonides forged the Sinaiticus, he omitted such familar passages as the longer ending of Mark and the story of the adulteress? These were so ingrained by the mid-19th century that only some special motivation would cause Simonides to omit them.

And the Comma...

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Can Avery - or anybody - explain why, IF Simonides forged the Sinaiticus, he omitted such familar passages as the longer ending of Mark and the story of the adulteress? These were so ingrained by the mid-19th century that only some special motivation would cause Simonides to omit them.

Would be interesting to get an impartial Greek Orthodox opinion on all three being omitted...

• Long ending of Mark
• Story of the Adulteress
• The Comma Johanneum

How would a Bible back then (late 1830's early 1840's in revolutionary Greece) with these three passages missing, be viewed officially by the Greek Orthodox Church?

The Rossico Monastery (same Mt. Athos monastery where Simonides alleged it all happened) elders gave their opinion on the likelihood and plausibility of Simonides fake Emperor's Bible myth in the Russian Orthodox Review in 1863 (a strong point pointed out by Cjab).

Plus Uspenky made a big deal about it's potential offensiveness to the Emperor and it's heretical nature, mentioning (by memory - so don't quote me on this) at least one of these missing passages (also covered well by Cjab).

Which wasn't wrong, it caused a big stir in Russia and was the cause of at least one private meeting with the Tsar (see Featherstone's Tischendorf correspondence) to convince him not to drop his backing of the facsimile project etc.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

BTW.

Steven Avery has posted a low resolution (unfortunately) digital image of Simonides Comma-inclusive forgery of 1st John 5:7-8.

https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...s-meyer-papyrus-in-liverpool.3738/#post-15536

I would love to have a higher resolution image zoomed in on the Comma-inclusive forgery.