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

These are not serious questions, because they are based on assuming the truth one persons "apparently" (meaning even her uncertainty about reports from 150+ years back), and nothing more. Thus your repetition of fallacious questions is a type of trolling.

Where did I (note I, not the straw man garbage your making up) where did I say I was basing those specific questions on Kalliga? Quote my post with all four questions, saying "Kalliga said" bla bla bla anywhere?
 
your repetition of fallacious questions is a type of trolling.

Demonstrate logically how those specific questions about how and why Simonides ended up on Mt Athos in the first place, are "fallacious"?

Questions about young Simonides attempt at murder.

  1. Which specific relative did Simonides try to poison?
  2. With what did he try to poison this relative?
  3. Why did he try to poison this relative?
  4. What were the consequences of this attempted poisoning?

Or are you just running scared, and trying to cover Simonides attempted murder up?
 
Quite a lot of useful info on the Codex Sinaiticus in this book (need to borrow it using a free login): "Secrets of Mount Sinai : the story of the world's oldest Bible--Codex Sinaiticus / James Bentley ; foreword by James H. Charlesworth 1985."
 
Quite a lot of useful info on the Codex Sinaiticus in this book (need to borrow it using a free login): "Secrets of Mount Sinai : the story of the world's oldest Bible--Codex Sinaiticus / James Bentley ; foreword by James H. Charlesworth 1985."

Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story the World’s Oldest Bible–Codex Sinaiticus -Codex Sinaiticus (1986)
James Bentley
https://books.google.com/books?id=vHAQAQAAIAAJ

Now this story, told by Tischendorf long after the event, entirely fits in with his general desire to depict the monks of St. Catherine's as little better than idiots. It was repeated in countless journals and newspapers throughout the Christian world. In the twentieth century the same story has been told by Tishendorf's son-in-law (Ludwig Schneller, in 1927) and by his granddauther (Hildegard Behrend, in 1956).It appears in the account published by the British Library of the greatest manuscript in their possession, the Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf brought from the monastery of St Catherine in 1859, fourteen years after his first visit. It seems to me hardly likely to be true. Quite apart from the fact that the forty-three parchments he supposedly rescued from a basket of rubbish are in remarkably good condition, the highly suspicious circumstances under which Tischendorf took the Codex Sinaiticus from the monks in 1859 made him (as we shall see) desperate to prove that the original owners of the manuscript were unfitted to keep it.” p. 86-87

SA:
Bentley is one of the few writers who would speak directly to Tishendorf fabrications, e.g. writing of the later negotations after he had the goods, James Bentley says:

Tischendorf therefore now embarked on the remarkable piece of duplicity which was to occupy him for the next decade, which involved the careful suppression of facts and the systematic denigration of the monks of Mount Sinai." p. 95
 
Secrets of Mount Sinai: The Story the World’s Oldest Bible–Codex Sinaiticus -Codex Sinaiticus (1986)
James Bentley
https://books.google.com/books?id=vHAQAQAAIAAJ

Now this story, told by Tischendorf long after the event, entirely fits in with his general desire to depict the monks of St. Catherine's as little better than idiots. It was repeated in countless journals and newspapers throughout the Christian world. In the twentieth century the same story has been told by Tishendorf's son-in-law (Ludwig Schneller, in 1927) and by his granddauther (Hildegard Behrend, in 1956).It appears in the account published by the British Library of the greatest manuscript in their possession, the Codex Sinaiticus, which Tischendorf brought from the monastery of St Catherine in 1859, fourteen years after his first visit. It seems to me hardly likely to be true. Quite apart from the fact that the forty-three parchments he supposedly rescued from a basket of rubbish are in remarkably good condition, the highly suspicious circumstances under which Tischendorf took the Codex Sinaiticus from the monks in 1859 made him (as we shall see) desperate to prove that the original owners of the manuscript were unfitted to keep it.” p. 86-87

SA:
Bentley is one of the few writers who would speak directly to Tishendorf fabrications, e.g. writing of the later negotations after he had the goods, James Bentley says:

Tischendorf therefore now embarked on the remarkable piece of duplicity which was to occupy him for the next decade, which involved the careful suppression of facts and the systematic denigration of the monks of Mount Sinai." p. 95
Yes, but this is rather different from the Codex Sinaiticus being fabricated. Moreover Bentley says that the monks of St. Catherines have a large library with 3000 old manuscripts and after the Tischendorf affair are now very wary of outsiders. p108 "As a result of Tishendorf's duplicity in 1859, even now, the monks cling with extraordinary secrecy and tenacity to their many remaining treasures."

So here is the independent evidence that the Codex Sinaiticus wasn't fabricated. If it had been written by Simonides, why would they have cared?
 
Again, for the umpteenth time, it doesn't matter if Tischendorf stole the Sinaiticus and lied about how he got it. The issue is the Codex itself and how old it is.
 
Again, for the umpteenth time, it doesn't matter if Tischendorf stole the Sinaiticus and lied about how he got it. The issue is the Codex itself and how old it is.
Apparently, in some quarters, purity of character is only meaningful when it concerns someone who does not agree with you. If someone agrees with you, purity of character is meaningless. 🙄

--Rich
"Esse quam videri"
 
There was a lot of politics that went on after Tishendorf got hold of it. I don't think he stole it. Rather he procured the help of the Russians to keep it, where the Russians and the Ukrainians funded St. Catherine's monastery.

Here is a useful and recent video which interviews the current librarian of St. Catherine's monastery. It's informative on the politics of the affair. Simonides doesn't figure in it. I think that there is considerable doubt that Simonides would have been able to easily procure over 300 sheets of fine vellum to write it on, and do the magnum opus himself. The possibility is that the Codex was one of the copies ordered to be produced by the Emperor Constantine.
 
Apparently, in some quarters, purity of character is only meaningful when it concerns someone who does not agree with you. If someone agrees with you, purity of character is meaningless. 🙄

--Rich
"Esse quam videri" ["to be rather than to seem"]

I am willing to concede that Tischendorf may not have been honest or truthful; it doesn't matter to me. And Simonides may be a candidate for sainthood but his own story of working up the Sinaiticus as a teenager, within a week, using a Russian edition of the Greek NT as a model, etc., does not hold up to scrutiny. That leaves us with the Sinaiticus itself, as if it appeared on someone's doorstep like a foundling, and the issue is its authenticity and antiquity.
 
I am willing to concede that Tischendorf may not have been honest or truthful; it doesn't matter to me. And Simonides may be a candidate for sainthood but his own story of working up the Sinaiticus as a teenager, within a week, using a Russian edition of the Greek NT as a model, etc., does not hold up to scrutiny. That leaves us with the Sinaiticus itself, as if it appeared on someone's doorstep like a foundling, and the issue is its authenticity and antiquity.
Totally agree, even if certain folk do not.

(And thanks for translating my state's motto! 🙂)

--Rich
 
Written by a top textual scholar, with request to remain unnamed.
Interestingly, this isn't some new revelation that Avery happened upon. He produced that very same quote almost 3 years ago, and stated that it was from a 2014 private e-mail.

Does this "top textual scholar" still believe what you claim he wrote 8 years ago?
Is he even still alive?
Why would you produce his quote as if it was recent?
 
Last edited:
Instead of arguing about the antiquity of the Codex Sinaiticus, does anyone want to argue about the "antiquity" of the Book of Mormon??
They've cracked the book of Mormon using Nearest Shrunken Centroid (NSC) Classification. See this research article.

"Based on this evidence we find the original claims of Howe (Howe, 1834,
1977) and the more recent assertions of Cowdrey and coworkers quite plausible;
it seems likely that the 1830 version of the Book of Mormon was the creation of
Sidney Rigdon, a Reformed Baptist Preacher, who had motives, means, and
opportunity to carry out the project (Cowdrey et al., 2005). We acknowledge that
because our samples of Rigdon prose all come after 1830, some could argue
that Rigdon's prose was influenced by the Book of Mormon and not vice versa.

"To raise such an objection, however, one would have to argue that Rigdon was
so influenced by the Book of Mormon that he consciously or unconsciously
adopted, even internalized, the most subtle and unremarkable linguistic patterns
found in certain portions of the text, but not in others.

"Prior exposure to the Book of Mormon most certainly did not influence
Solomon Spalding who died fourteen years before it was published. Yet our data
strongly support the historical claim that a lost Spalding manuscript served as a
source text for the backbone narrative of the Book of Mormon. The document
that we used for samples of Spalding’s writing ("Manuscript Story" also known as
"The Oberlin Manuscript") does not match the eyewitness descriptions of
"Manuscript Found," the draft novel that Spalding read to friends and family in
Conneaut, nor does it match the Book of Mormon.

"The Spalding-Rigdon theory rests heavily on the assumption that additional Spalding manuscripts once
exited, and that material from one of these manuscripts provided the narrative
framework for the Book of Mormon. This additional manuscript would be the one
that the Conneaut witnesses and others identified as being the “source” of the
Book of Mormon. While not that manuscript, the Oberlin Manuscript
nevertheless provides us with a reliable sample of Spalding's prose and the
linguistic signal detected in it appears with significant regularity throughout the
Book of Mormon.

"Of course, we have not considered every possible candidate-author who
may have influenced the composition of the Book of Mormon. We have, however
selected from among the most likely candidates, excepting perhaps Joseph
Smith. In the case of Joseph Smith, we had no reliable samples of prose to test.
When reliablyntified materials become available, their addition to this analysis
would be worth considering. An effort to compile such writings is currently
underway."
 
The false memory problem is largely exposing a dark-side sham, where people are coached to remember things that never happened, supposedly when they were young.

Anyway, whatever the reason, your memory of the debate issues is very poor.

Science says otherwise.

And again - I can completely understand why you wouldn't want to just admit the truth.
 
Another sham.
You pretended you had the authority to get approval to be a speaker.

I did no such thing.
All I did was offer to pay for your membership.

So when you state untrue things about me that people can verify online - why do you think anyone would believe what you say about things that are not online?

Anyway, by next year, it might be a good time, by the grace of the Lord Jesus. However, the Evangelical group would be superior to the unbelievers that dominate SBL. I remember Maurice Robinson sharing that it was a far better meeting venue.

If you are referring to the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that meets the week after SBL, you're not going to be speaking there because you cannot endorse the doctrinal statement (speaking of people who "pretended" they have the authority to do something.....)

(If they still have that group meeting.)

Wait a minute - you're implying here you're going to speak at a meeting next year you're not sure even exists??????

1) Next year's meeting is in San Antonio
2) the topic of submitted papers is "Theological Anthropology"

So.....did you not know this when you suggested you were going to be speaking at a meeting you're not sure even exists????
 
Last edited:
These are serious questions that we expect Mr Avery to be very well informed about.

These questions relate directly to how and why young Constantine ended up on Mt Athos in the first place.

Questions about young Simonides attempt at murder.

  1. Which specific relative did Simonides try to poison?
  2. With what did he try to poison this relative?
  3. Why did he try to poison this relative?
  4. What were the consequences of this attempted poisoning?

Mr Avery is being very reluctant to give an answer.

You'd be reluctant to answer, too, if your only alleged point was "Tischendorf was a (fill in the blank)."
 
If you are referring to the Evangelical Theological Society (ETS) that meets the week after SBL, you're not going to be speaking there because you cannot endorse the doctrinal statement (speaking of people who "pretended" they have the authority to do something.....)

And I have seen organizations with a Trinitarian statement of faith be flexible in this regard.
 
Back
Top