Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

And I can't help that you do not know the facts. Richard Goesche told Tregelles that the Arabic notes were "very recent". What facts do you have that show these notes were before 1840?

A similar question can be asked about the wacky scribbles, who has shown that that type of writing was used in antiquity?

==========================

Samuel Tregelles in a letter written July 3, 1862:

"Here and there a later hand has written Arabic notes in the margin, and these Tischendorf imagines are from the same hand that has made some corrections (apparently) in the eighth century: if so this would be an uncommonly ancient piece of Arabic writing: I showed the lithographed facsimile of the page to Dr. Goesche of the Royal Library, Berlin; and he tells me, (what I strongly suspected before) that the Arabic is very recent, also that it is by the hand of some Syrian, being (as I before knew) a liturgical note."

Some Unpublished Letters of S. P. Tregelles Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus, Evangelical Quarterly, 1976 Timothy C. F. Stunt, p. 20

==========================

Richard Gosche (1824-1889)

==========================
I find it somewhat puzzling to see you constantly taking positions contrary to the fruits of your own research. An unsubstantiated and imprecise statement from Grosche is hardly quotable, as contrasted with the findings in "A full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Textament," (1864) Scrivener, per your own website, and similar remarks in DC Parker, Jongkind etc., which date the twelve Arabic notes at sundry times, the earliest contemporaneous with the correctors, and then extending up until 15th century at the latest.

_______________________
Also note that Tregelles (no friend of Tischendorf) hjad also derided Simonides' claims:

From Stunt's biography of Tregelles (SPT) in "The Life and Times of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles":

"........the antipathy displayed by Tischendorf [to Tregelles] in whose opinion
Tregelles was a humbug, ‘always acting so piously, always bandying talk
of “God” and “God’s word” around, without scorning to use the most
spiteful weapons of this world’.[43]

[43] "C. Tischendorf (Paris, 1 December 1864) to S. Davidson (Glasgow/UGL, GB247 MS
Gen 527/7). The quoted extracts are from the translation by Dr James Bentley in his Secrets
of Mount Sinai: The Story of the Codex Sinaiticus (London: Orbis, 1985), 124–25, 88."

"There is a delicious irony in the fact that although Tischendorf regretted
having allowed Tregelles to see the Sinaitic Codex in Leipzig in 1862,
his having done so enabled the English scholar to give his wholehearted
support to Tischendorf in his controversy with the mischievous but gifted
calligrapher Constantine Simonides who claimed that as a young man in a
monastery on Mount Athos, it had been he who had written the Codex
Sinaiticus. There was a potentially comic element in this part of the story,
as Tischendorf had earlier played an important part in exposing Simonides
as a very skilful forger of ancient documents, and the German scholar’s
indignation was now aggravated by his belief that a desire for revenge was
Simonides’s deliberate motive for casting doubt on Tischendorf’s credentials.
For Tregelles, it was a sacred duty to testify to the authenticity of the
Sinai Codex against the spurious claims of Simonides. On the other hand,
it was a bit galling for Tischendorf to welcome SPT’s support for the cause
of truth. [45]

[45] "For most of SPT’s letters on the Simonides affair, see Stunt, See
Some Unpublished Letters of S. P. Tregelles Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus,
Evangelical Quarterly, 1976 Timothy C. F. Stunt, pp. 23–25. SPT’s profound disapproval
of Simonides’ behaviour was still apparent in an indignant letter that he

wrote some years later, ‘Codex Mayerianus and Simonides’, Notes and Queries
4th series 3 [24 April 1869] 369. Having examined the original codex when visiting Tischendorf
in Leipzig, Tregelles was able to confirm ‘as an eyewitness’ certain statements about the
codex made by another scholar, F.H.A. Scrivener in a lecture given in Plymouth in October
1863. SPT disagreed with Scrivener on many matters but probably attended the lecture to
give his support in person to Scrivener’s rejection of the claims of Simonides.
F.H. Scrivener,
"A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, with the Received Text of the New Testament, to which
is Prefixed a Critical Introduction," (Cambridge: Deighton, Bell and Co, 1864), xxxi, n.6."
 
Last edited:
In some aspects, Simonides and Tischendorf were alike, each involved in making money out of ancient manuscripts, and each suffering from an alarming lack of commitment to truth, in certain areas. From Stunt's biography of Tregelles (SPT) in "The Life and Times of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles", Chapter 10 "Tregelles and Tischendorf," it is clear that Tischendorf did have serious personal failings in his dealings with fellow scholars, and others, including lack of honesty mercuriality and conduct unbecoming of a "gentleman."

Lack of Honesty - Conerning Tischendorf's initial concealment of the Codex Sinaiticus from other scholars.

p. 147 "We do not know how Benjamin Newton became acquainted with Major
Charles KerrMacdonald (1806–67) but soon after his retirement from the
army in 1847, this learned military man was employed by the East India
Company to do some surveying in the Sinai region. With a keen interest
in antiquities, he was later responsible for some valuable Egyptological
excavations, but in 1849 he reported to Newton that he had visited the
Convent of St Catherine on Mount Sinai and had seen an ancient Greek
MS of the bible.

Newton immediately wrote to Tregelles (SPT) encouraging him to look into
the matter but possibly for reasons of health SPT was reluctant to take the
matter any further. It was, after all, in 1849 that he had been stricken with
cholera when working in Paris.

Nevertheless, SPT wrote to Tischendorf, asking him what he thought of
the MS seen by Macdonald in the monastery onMount Sinai, and similarly
when visiting Leipzig in 1850, he showed Tischendorf Newton’s letters
and asked again whether Macdonald’s report was worth acting upon. Each
time, the German scholar’s reply was categorical and he assured Tregelles
‘in the strongest manner both in writing’ and in conversation, that there
could be no such manuscript. With what we now know, we can see that
there was no way that Tischendorf was going to let the British scholar, who
was already beginning to appear as a rival, to pick up the scent that might
lead him to the Convent of St Catherine! [11]"


[11] "Years later Tischendorf liked to tell a very implausible story: ‘A learned Englishman,
one of my friends, had been sent into the East by his Government to discover and purchase
old Greek manuscripts, and spared no cost in obtaining them … but I heard that he …
had not even gone as far as Sinai “for” as he said in his official report “after the visit of
such an antiquarian and critic as Dr. Tischendorf, I could not expect any success”’ (Porter,
Tischendorf, 125). We have yet to learn of a British government-sponsored scholar with a
comparable commission in the 1840s and 1850s! It sounds like a garbled account of SPT
conflated with Major Macdonald, suitably embellished for the telling."

Tischendorf's viciousness toward potential rivals

p162." Dr. James Bentley whose account of the finding of the Codex Sinaiticus
gives full recognition to the remarkable achievement and scholarship of
Tischendorf, nevertheless observes that ‘even at the height of his fame, [Tischendorf]
displayed a quite extraordinary viciousness towards any scholar
whose reputation might diminish his own standing in the eyes of the world
… anyone who studied in Tischendorf’s field was liable to come under the
German’s lash’. It was Tregelles’s misfortune to find himself working in
that particular field and ‘Tischendorf responded to his views on the Codex
Sinaiticus with an astonishing viciousness’.[48]"

[48] "Bentley, Secrets, 88, 125, 123."
 
An unsubstantiated and imprecise statement from Grosche (sic) is hardly quotable,

Do you have any actual epigraphic or palaeographic analysis that grapples with the Goesche assertion?

==============================

(The fact that Tregelles was largely a Tischendorf shill on Sinaiticus is not really relevant to that question.)
 
Do you have any actual epigraphic or palaeographic analysis that grapples with the Goesche assertion?

==============================

(The fact that Tregelles was largely a Tischendorf shill on Sinaiticus is not really relevant to that question.)
Don't need any. There are twelve arabic inscriptions. He commented on one. So what? And anyway, where is his letter? I need the full letter to see what else he says.
 
Do you have any actual epigraphic or palaeographic analysis that grapples with the Goesche assertion?
Why do we need to constantly find multiple scholars who "grapple" with the musings and assertions of whomever you deem authoritative at any given moment?

Why are assertions always taken as fact with you???

Oh ya....you're a conclusion in search of evidence. How unethical.
 
Last edited:
Do you have any actual epigraphic or palaeographic analysis....
Asks the guy who admitted in an email to Myshrall that such analysis is way over his head to begin with!

So what's the point of asking for something you can't comprehend?

Posturing?

Pretending to have a knowledge you haven't acquired?
 
So you have nothing. Not even checking all the scholars.
Btw, none of those scholars take anything you say seriously.

Why don't you have any peer reviewed articles, a Master's thesis, or some such achievement on Academia?

Why don't you have any peer reviewed books available anywhere?

Why is it the only ones who use you for their "research" and mention your name in their works are other KJVOs?

The answer is pretty obvious. You and other KJVOs are looked at in the same way as flat-earthers. Laughing stock all the way.
The number of scholars who won't touch you and your nonsense should tell you something.
 
Last edited:
There is no explanation for the horrid scribal bumbling, including the duplicate section noted by the three crosses note, if it was a 4th century scriptorium.
What the heck does that even mean???

Whats the point?

Explain yourself, for once.
Clearly.
Plainly.
 
Don't need any. There are twelve arabic inscriptions. He commented on one.

Do you think there are twelve distinct Arabic writers?
Or just two?
If so, if one of the notes is "very recent", that applies to one of the two writers.
 
Last edited:
Scrivener, per your own website, and similar remarks in DC Parker, Jongkind etc., which date the twelve Arabic notes at sundry times, the earliest contemporaneous with the correctors, and then extending up until 15th century at the latest.

David Charles Parker (in Sinaiticus circularity)
The Arabic glosses

The Arabic glosses are, unfortunately, the only evidence for the six hundred years between the twelfth-century glosses and the middle of the eighteenth century. It is highly probable that the Codex was in St Catherine s Monastery throughout the period.

This allows for notes c. 1840s-50s.
Nothing about 15th century at the latest. Did you just make that up?

As I pointed out earlier, if Uspensky is not even noticing the Arabic notes, then it is likely that they were put on the manuscript after 1850.

Uspensky analyzed and published a number of important New Testament variants before the Tischendorf heist of 1859.

Part of the Tischendorf con was to pretend that somehow he did not know that information.
 
Last edited:
As I pointed out earlier, if Uspensky is not even noticing the Arabic notes, then it is likely that they were put on the manuscript after 1850.

Possibilities don't equate to facts.

Possibilities are only theories, and in your case, conspiracy theories...

Where exactly did Simonides specifically say he put "Arabic notes" onto the Sinaiticus manuscript, specifically after 1850?
 
Your just stating your suspicious thinking, which only exists in the realm of theory and imagination.

Tischendorf had connections in the Russian government, and they supported his trip to Sinai.

Uspensky was also a major figure in the Russian world, and wrote specifically about his trips to Sinai.

Uspensky’s first book that describes the Sinai manuscript, including problematic readings, was published in 1856. So Tischendorf had years to come up to speed.

The possibility that Tischendorf did not know about the Uspensky trip and book is extremely slim. However, it did not n\match his tissues of lies narratives, so he played pretend.
 
David Charles Parker (in Sinaiticus circularity)
The Arabic glosses



This allows for notes c. 1840s-50s.
Nothing about 15th century at the latest. Did you just make that up?

As I pointed out earlier, if Uspensky is not even noticing the Arabic notes, then it is likely that they were put on the manuscript after 1850.

Uspensky analyzed and published a number of important New Testament variants before the Tischendorf heist of 1859.

Part of the Tischendorf con was to pretend that somehow he did not know that information.

So when Uspenski doesn’t say something that’s proof it wasn’t there but when Tischendorf doesn’t that’s proof it WAS but he’s lying?

It must really suck to be such a lonely old man that the only way to feel you get attention is by posting nonsense online that even you know isn’t true.

Maybe you shouldn’t have spent your first 50 years acting like such an ass to everyone.
 
So when Uspenski doesn’t say something that’s proof it wasn’t there but when Tischendorf doesn’t that’s proof it WAS but he’s lying?
Kinda like heads I win, tails you lose.

Avery is a master at being a snake oil salesman. And God will not hold him guiltless for perpetuating all these lies that deceive the uninitiated.
 
David Charles Parker (in Sinaiticus circularity)
The Arabic glosses

The Arabic glosses are, unfortunately, the only evidence for the six hundred years between the twelfth-century glosses and the middle of the eighteenth century. It is highly probable that the Codex was in St Catherine s Monastery throughout the period.

This allows for notes c. 1840s-50s.
The middle of the 18th century is1740s-50s.

Nothing about 15th century at the latest. Did you just make that up?
From your WWWsite:

David Charles Parker
1453-1492 - Arabic note on Revelation 7:4 - Parker p. 119
"medieval corrections.. some Arabic glosses, notably one that may be dated between 1453 and 1492. " -
https://books.google.com/books?id=guYq9rohFQ8C&pg=PA45

I may have misunderstood the comment above, where it lacked any context. Isn't this the context: "The Arabic glosses in the margin of the codex indicate that it has already been kept in St. Catherine monastery between 12th century and 18th century?"

No support for your conspiracy theory at all from the Arabic glossolalia

As I pointed out earlier, if Uspensky is not even noticing the Arabic notes, then it is likely that they were put on the manuscript after 1850.

Uspensky analyzed and published a number of important New Testament variants before the Tischendorf heist of 1859.

Part of the Tischendorf con was to pretend that somehow he did not know that information.
 
Last edited:
"The evidence shows me that the original, handwritten Sinaiticus, no matter its age, was snow white with dark lettering. But that didn’t look as old as men wanted. So men aged it. And the publishers of this very expensive book also changed the color of the pages so they would all match. I cannot think of a single godly reason why they would change it. So it’s forcing me to think that the Sinaiticus is a sham, a modern counterfeit, and that it is part of an agenda. Don’t believe me? Go to www.codexsinaiticus.org and compare the pages marked LUL (for the CFA) with the pages marked BL (for the British Library). Check me out!​
"Of course, I have no horse in this race. I don’t believe Sinaiticus is God’s words. This discovery is simply more evidence that the Alexandrian stream of manuscripts is polluted with fakery as well as the omissions, discrepancies, and doctrinal distortions pointed out in my previous books and videos. I’ve got nothing to lose by finding all this out. But there are people who have a great deal to lose. Modern Bible Societies and publishers translate, produce, and print almost every Bible in the world, and they teach that the Sinaiticus was a real, ancient Bible. Of course, all this is a big part of an agenda preparing a one world Bible for the coming one world religion." (Daniels, Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?, pg. 80, Kindle Edition)​


So let me get this straight....if the existence of Sinaiticus is part of an agenda preparing a "one world Bible" for the coming "one world religion," what would we be told to believe were there no Sinaiticus and Vaticanus at all (which is what KJVOs are angling for with this forgery nonsense), and no modern versions descended from them?

All that would be left is the KJV. Yes, I know there is the Geneva Bible, etc....but KJVOs are of the opinion that no Bible but the KJV is the inerrant word of God.

Would the KJV, then, be that "one world Bible" they fear so much?

KJVOs, more than any other group, have been pushing and pushing for no Bible but the KJV to be read, studied, and memorized for how long? Are they not willing agents of the so-called coming antichrist in trying to force all of us into a one Bible mindset?
 
Tischendorf had connections in the Russian government, and they supported his trip to Sinai.

Uspensky was also a major figure in the Russian world, and wrote specifically about his trips to Sinai.

Uspensky’s first book that describes the Sinai manuscript, including problematic readings, was published in 1856. So Tischendorf had years to come up to speed.

The possibility that Tischendorf did not know about the Uspensky trip and book is extremely slim. However, it did not n\match his tissues of lies narratives, so he played pretend.

Where exactly did Simonides specifically say he put "Arabic notes" onto the Sinaiticus manuscript, specifically after 1850?
 
Back
Top