Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

The issue at Sinai wasn't the lack of Arabic speakers: it was the lack of anyone besides visiting scholars who could read the Sinaiticus Codex.

So, when SART team members with (comparatively modest) Greek skills simply read Sinaiticus, are they using super-powers? :)

Or the Germans who worked with Tischendorf in Cairo, supposedly.

Or the monks at St. Catherine's whose native language was Greek and who had all sorts of Greek manuscripts around.

Did they all need super-powers?
 
Last edited:
That's simply because... drum roll ?????? you just invented your (Steven Avery specific) "after 1850" conspiracy theory... So your considered both a competent and world-renound Arabic epigraphical and paleographical expert, so as to be able to date Codex Sinaiticus Arabic handwritten notes accurately? Without having compared them yourself with a single Arabic manuscript from St Catherine's library?

So you do not have any scholarship study on the Arabic writing.

Fair enough.
 
Or quit complaining when they get removed. You WANT them removed - but only those of other people. If you didn’t want them removed, you wouldn’t cry about them. It’s your fault alone that that thread got removed. Nobody else’s. For you to have gone and cried to the moderator (on your ignorant blog) was the height of hubris.

Once again, you are very confused.
As I ask for psycho-babble, insult, "narcissism" and especially the vulgarity posts to be removed.
They are not Christian posts and denigrate the forum as a whole.

Apparently, some posts were way over the top so they removed the whole thread.
And I sent a note asking for a restore, if possible, as cjab and I had some solid discussion on the thread.
 
So, when SART team members with (comparatively modest) Greek skills simply read Sinaiticus, are they using super-powers? :)
Sinaiticus is ancient Greek, and in uncials commonly used from the 4th to 8th centuries. There is no word separation, and it is very hard to read.

Just because you can decipher it with the aid of modern translation tools and interlinears doesn't infer it was readable to the average 19th century Greek.

This is precisely why old uncial manuscripts were turned into palimpsests and book covers at an alarming rate.

Or the Germans who worked with Tischendorf in Cairo, supposedly.

Or the monks at St. Catherine's whose native language was Greek and who had all sorts of Greek manuscripts around.
Many were indecipherable to the monks, which is why they required external help just to catalogue them.

Did they all need super-powers?
You don't seem to know a lot about these monks, whose lack of learning even Tischendorf remarked on (and despised).
 
Many were indecipherable to the monks, which is why they required external help just to catalogue them.

And I will await your documentation for this claim, focusing on Greek manuscripts.

Is your assertion limited to the under-writing of palimpsest manuscripts?
 
Once again, you are very confused.

Once again, you saying something is true isn’t the same as it actually being true.

As I ask for psycho-babble

Another word that not only did you (again!) spell incorrectly but also doesn’t mean what you apparently think it does.

insult, "narcissism"

The fact you’re more bothered by the term than the reality is itself a manifest of narcissism.

and especially the vulgarity posts to be removed.

Poster who insults others incessantly whines when his facility weapon is turned on him.

It’s not my fault I’ll actually say something because nobody has to worry where they stand with me. The same cannot he said with all of your fear of people finding out what you actually mean.

They are not Christian posts and denigrate the forum as a whole.

Look, boy, you came here looking for a fight so spare me all your pious Christian phoniness. You are a wolf who denies the basic doctrines of the Christian faith so pardon me for following the command of Scripture to not accommodate or tolerate your


Apparently, some posts were way over the top so they removed the whole thread.

Like you were some pious Christian innocent? You started the whole thing with all your insults and make calling. You just hate the fact you’ve never gotten the best of me in 15 years.

And I sent a note asking for a restore, if possible, as cjab and I had some solid discussion on the thread.

Exactly, you want a double standard. You want to be able to insult people to your heart’s content but then cry like a baby when you get kicked in the shins.

You’re a coward, plain and simple, who says stuff online that people would punch you in the face if you had the guts to say it to their faces, which you don’t.

Your problem with me is I don’t care one way or the other about being even remotely polite to a heretic who’s the biggest phony I’ve ever encountered in my life. You need to be far more worried about the condition of your unregenerate soul than what I say to you online.
 
... I don’t care one way or the other about being even remotely polite to a heretic who’s the biggest phony I’ve ever encountered in my life. You need to be far more worried about the condition of your unregenerate soul than what I say to you online.

Since you do not write as a Christian, your harumphs as above simply fall to the ground. Dung.

Your life is sadly consumed with simply ranting about my posts and beliefs and my defense of the Authorized Version and the heavenly witnesses verse and our showing Sinaiticus to be a late production.

As I know in assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ shines his heart of love upon these labours.

1 Thessalonians 1:3 (AV)
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love,
and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ,
in the sight of God and our Father;

Hebrews 6:10 (AV)
For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love,
which ye have shewed toward his name,
in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

And I do appreciate your opposition, since it shows who is approved.
 
Since you do not write as a Christian, your harumphs as above simply fall to the ground. Dung.

He writes as a Christian.
Your life is sadly consumed with simply ranting about my posts and beliefs and my defense of the Authorized Version and the heavenly witnesses verse and our showing Sinaiticus to be a late production.

You are denying reality concerning Sinaiticus for a perverse reason. God will not bless you for telling lies for the AV. You hold back accuracy of the Bible just like Hort.
As I know in assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ shines his heart of love upon these labours.

1 Thessalonians 1:3 (AV)
Remembering without ceasing your work of faith, and labour of love,
and patience of hope in our Lord Jesus Christ,
in the sight of God and our Father;

Hebrews 6:10 (AV)
For God is not unrighteous to forget your work and labour of love,
which ye have shewed toward his name,
in that ye have ministered to the saints, and do minister.

And I do appreciate your opposition, since it shows who is approved.
The KJV is not perfect.
1 John 5:7-8 is an error in the KJV.
Codex Sinaiticus is an ancient manuscript of the Bible. You are not using reason at all.
 
Since you do not write as a Christian, your harumphs as above simply fall to the ground. Dung.

You are repeating the same cliches you were saying 15 years ago, apparently having learned nothing in the interim.

Your life is sadly consumed with simply ranting about my posts and beliefs and my defense of the Authorized Version and the heavenly witnesses verse and our showing Sinaiticus to be a late production.

The world class gaslighter strikes again.

Which one of the two of us has a blathering forum of about 4,000 posts of complete nonsense and idiocy? Hint: it ain’t me, old man. While YOU were clipping quotes out of context and making snotty remarks but without the stones to say things to peoples faces, I was on staff at a church, completing seminary, doing an internship and learning the stuff you PRETEND to know online.

As I know in assurance that the Lord Jesus Christ shines his heart of love upon these labours.

Jesus didn’t teach you to be a phony. He didn’t teach you to be a condescending schmuck. He didn’t teach you to LIE YOUR TAIL off about everything. He didn’t teach you to post nonsensical garbage.

Your unredeemed fallen nature did that.

And I do appreciate your opposition, since it shows who is approved.

Hitting the egg nog a bit hard aren’t you?

I only know of one individual in all the Bible who is the word merchant you are - Satan.

Again, I guess the reason you post here is a lack of persons who want anything to do with you, no kids, no family, and still think it’s someone’s fault besides yours.

You are a loud mouthed coward, plain and simple.

If you’re following Jesus so much, tell the rest of us this - why is it when you have a problem with (oh) James White or Dan Wallace or anyone, instead of approaching them the biblical way all you do is insult them online?

Huh? Tell me that one with a straightforward answer, without lying, fudging or hedging.

Spare me the Bible quotes when you don’t even go to church. Spare me the devilish tactic when you don’t follow the text.

You’ve lied about me online repeatedly so your scripture quotes don’t mean Jack squat to me. Satan quotes Scripture.
 
And I will await your documentation for this claim, focusing on Greek manuscripts.

Is your assertion limited to the under-writing of palimpsest manuscripts?
I think I was recalling the New Finds in 1975, for which external scholars were drafted in to deal with and catalogue, and presumably everything else there as well. What is most revealing is that the monks credited Tischendorf with telling the truth when he disclosed that Sinaiticus could be 4th century. Why would that be if Simonides had just left the Codex to Sinai, and why didn't they notify Tischendorf of it?

BTW, D.C. Parker sees the Simonides affair as mere "comedy." Are you a comedian?

Here is more evidence for the ignorance of the monks. From Bentley, Secrets of Mt. Sinai:

P.15ff Monks at St. Catherines were given or collected thousands of manuscripts over the years, many remaining unread by the monks.

P.46 "An American visitor Dr. Edward Robinsn, in 1838 that 'The Library is utterly neglected, private reading forming no partof the duties or pleasures of these worthies'."

P.75 "On his visit to the monastery in 1836 Alexandre Dumas uncannily sensed that the library contained some hitherto undiscovered treasure among ‘the vast number of manuscripts which the monks never open’. Dumas added that the value and importance of this library would not be known ‘until some young and enterprising scholar from Europe shut himself up for a year or two in the midst of these dusty volumes’."

P.84 "The awkward truth is that this great German Christian scholar soon grew to hate the monks of Mt. Sinai to an astonishing degree. Only eight days after he had arrived at the monastery of Mr. Sinai he wrote to Angelika, 'Oh these monks! If I had the military strength and power, I should be doing a good deed if I threw this rabble over the walls. It is sad to see how man can carry his baseness and wretchedness into the loftt grandeur of this mountain world'. He continually described them as 'ignorant'. The Greek servant they provided for him was a 'half-witted' fellow. Their library was 'a poor place to which no-one in the monastery paid much attention.' The new room in which they kept some of their books and manuscripts was 'pathetic'.

P.200 onwards - Sundry Greek scholars secretly brought in to assess the "new finds" in 1975.

Scivener, "A full collation &etc:" p.vii Monks had no idea of the date of Sinaiticus (and credited Tischendorf when he said it could be 4th century).
 
..... and our showing Sinaiticus to be a late production.
Actually, you haven't shown this. You've only shown your dedication to the enterprise. It has yet to produce any results on your part, and is (fortunately) doomed to failure due to the mountain of evidence against you, which you are quite unable to surmount. You are like someone walking on the lower foothills of a mountain range yet deluding themselves that they have conquered its highest peaks.

As Jesus said to Saul "It is hard for you to kick against the goads" Acts 26:14. The more you try, the harder your heart will become.

However there are people making money out of your conspiracy theory, and deceiving the public. Is that actually honoring to God?
 
Last edited:
I think I was recalling the New Finds in 1975, for which external scholars were drafted in to deal with and catalogue, and presumably everything else there as well.

They had thousands of manuscripts, in many languages, to which they paid little attention.

Starting in the early 1840s, Sinaiticus was given super special attention. And they all knew Greek and Arabic was another significant language at the monastery.

So the neglect of other manuscripts tells you nothing about who placed notes, or even manuscript textual features, on Sinaiticus in the 1840s and 1850s. The Arabic notes could easily have been placed on the manuscript after Uspensky saw the manuscript in 1845 and 1850.
 
Actually, you haven't shown this. You've only shown your dedication to the enterprise. It has yet to produce any results on your part

Your eyes are closed, and your attempt to counter various evidences, while sincere, have been generally weak. Some have to be reposted since they were on the thread that was deleted. Many new ones are in process.
 
Your eyes are closed,

....The Arabic notes could easily have been placed on the manuscript after Uspensky saw the manuscript in 1845 and 1850.

You haven'tadduced an argument as to why I should "open my eyes." You'll need to show the monks were reading the manuscript, even for your hypothesis to get one foot off the ground. There is no evidence of it. Why would they have made Arabic notes on Isaiah? You don't understand that this show is a "comedy" and you're a comedian second only to Simonides himself, by the judgement of D.C.Parker.
 
I think I was recalling the New Finds in 1975, for which external scholars were drafted in to deal with and catalogue, and presumably everything else there as well. What is most revealing is that the monks credited Tischendorf with telling the truth when he disclosed that Sinaiticus could be 4th century. Why would that be if Simonides had just left the Codex to Sinai, and why didn't they notify Tischendorf of it?

BTW, D.C. Parker sees the Simonides affair as mere "comedy." Are you a comedian?

Here is more evidence for the ignorance of the monks. From Bentley, Secrets of Mt. Sinai:

P.15ff Monks at St. Catherines were given or collected thousands of manuscripts over the years, many remaining unread by the monks.

P.46 "An American visitor Dr. Edward Robinsn, in 1838 that 'The Library is utterly neglected, private reading forming no partof the duties or pleasures of these worthies'."

P.75 "On his visit to the monastery in 1836 Alexandre Dumas uncannily sensed that the library contained some hitherto undiscovered treasure among ‘the vast number of manuscripts which the monks never open’. Dumas added that the value and importance of this library would not be known ‘until some young and enterprising scholar from Europe shut himself up for a year or two in the midst of these dusty volumes’."

P.84 "The awkward truth is that this great German Christian scholar soon grew to hate the monks of Mt. Sinai to an astonishing degree. Only eight days after he had arrived at the monastery of Mr. Sinai he wrote to Angelika, 'Oh these monks! If I had the military strength and power, I should be doing a good deed if I threw this rabble over the walls. It is sad to see how man can carry his baseness and wretchedness into the loftt grandeur of this mountain world'. He continually described them as 'ignorant'. The Greek servant they provided for him was a 'half-witted' fellow. Their library was 'a poor place to which no-one in the monastery paid much attention.' The new room in which they kept some of their books and manuscripts was 'pathetic'.

P.200 onwards - Sundry Greek scholars secretly brought in to assess the "new finds" in 1975.

Scivener, "A full collation &etc:" p.vii Monks had no idea of the date of Sinaiticus (and credited Tischendorf when he said it could be 4th century).

I was reading a Russian article one time, and Uspensky said he discovered parts of the Sinaiticus in a, (literal words): "HEAP of scraps".

Notice "a heap"

I.e. a pile...

Of "scraps".

There's two logical alternatives here to account for how the brand spanking new calligraphy and the super expensive - exceptional quality (+ quantity) leather skin manuscript got into this condition 1. the monks must have acted like wild beasts/animals to have literally torn the Codex Sinaiticus into pieces., or 2. the parchment was genuinely more than a mere few centuries old (remember! supposedly in exceptional condition ready for the Tsar) and had for a fact been deteriorating for over a thousand years to be in such a state.

A genuinely ancient manuscript, more than a thousand years old (corroborated by the fact that there other genuinely ancient 5th, 6th, 7th, centuries A.D. manuscripts in the St Catherine's library - notice how Avery virtually never speaks of this context ayyyy) is a million times more probable and logical to REALISTICALLY account for being reduced to scraps...

A beautifully written twenty something year old ink and calligraphy, and an exceptionally good calf/sheep skin hide, falling to bits and disintegrating in that short amount of time, is a million times more implausible...and incredulous.
 
Last edited:
and had for a fact been deteriorating for over a thousand years t
A beautifully written twenty something year old ink and calligraphy, and an exceptionally good calf/sheep skin hide, falling to bits and disintegrating in that short amount of time, is a million times more implausible...and incredulous.

And yet not one page, one verse, or one word of the New Testament was lost over this 1500 years of supposed deterioration and heavy use.
No ink-acid problem, no tearing, no foxing, not even one letter lost!
All 8,000+ verses .. perfecto!


hmmmm.... sounds like it was new, and given wonderful special treatment.

(The Athenaeum noticed this anomaly in 1863.)

Think a bit. If it is one manuscript, and part of it is new, and part of it has an appearance of age, how old is the manuscript?
hmmmm

(If fact, there is no significant parchment and ink deterioration even on the rest of the manuscript, aside from the dump room and some end pieces and stuff like that. The hand-colouring does not actually age the parchment and ink.)
 
Last edited:
And yet not one page, one verse, or one word of the New Testament deteriorated over this 1500 years of supposed deterioration and heavy use. No ink-acid problem, no tearing, not even one letter lost!

hmmmm.... sounds like it was new, and given wonderful special treatment.

Self delusional thinking going on here...

Just look at the pictures, and ignore Steven's KJVO misinformation campaign.
 
And yet not one page, one verse, or one word of the New Testament deteriorated over this 1500 years of supposed deterioration and heavy use. No ink-acid problem, no tearing, not even one letter lost!

hmmmm.... sounds like it was new, and given wonderful special treatment.

Notice he doesn't mention the Old Testament...

Notice he doesn't mention the Shepherd of Hermas...

This is purposely done to deceive.

We're talking about the entire manuscript, Avery, deceptively attempts to crop your view of the real context of the condition of the ENTIRE manuscript.
 
Last edited:
And yet not one page, one verse, or one word of the New Testament was lost over this 1500 years of supposed deterioration and heavy use.
No ink-acid problem, no tearing, not even one letter lost!

hmmmm.... sounds like it was new, and given wonderful special treatment.

(The Athenaeum noticed this anomaly in 1863.)

Think a bit. If it is one manuscript, and part of it is new, and part of it has an appearance of age, how old is the manuscript?

Except for the carefully sewn up tearing...of course...
 
"Scraps" could have been the artifical end product of the Codex pages being used for bookbinding purposes, or as a palimpsest for another book.
 
Back
Top