# Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

#### Steven Avery

##### Well-known member
.Your making up stuff to …

Did Simonides get into the Sinaiticus manuscript and make up the many variants that show that Sinaiticus is a late manuscript?

#### Unbound68

##### Well-known member
Did Simonides get into the Sinaiticus manuscript and make up the many variants that show that Sinaiticus is a late manuscript?
How about answering why a "late" manuscript copied as a gift (brand-spanking new in the 19th century) would have 23000 variants to begin with? Hmmm?

And I trust you can easily provide your first-hand findings that contradict everything that has been written regarding the scribes and correctors of Sinaiticus by actual scholars like Jongkind, Milne and Skeat, Parker, Paulson, Scrivener, Myshrall, Nongbri, Lake, Metzger, and numerous others?

I'm sure they would like to know exactly how you arrived at a conclusion that runs completely contrary to the evidence (which you have no expertise in evaluating, and can't read anyway).

Last edited:

#### Unbound68

##### Well-known member
"The original scribes often add small amounts of text in between the lines, but where necessary they place larger amounts of text in either the side margins or the top and bottom margins. Scribe A possibly prefers marginal additions to additions within the lines of text. Both scribes use carets and arrows to mark additions. They also both wash or scrape the vellum where needed, and obelize where needed. Both scribes use transposition marks, but we do have one instance where Scribe A uses letters instead (Matthew 14.1,8b/3/14-16). Scribe D also occasionally arranges his marginal corrections in the shape of a pyramid, each line decreasing in length.​
"C(a) prefers to add his corrections within the line of text, so they are often squeezed in between lines. He tends to place a dot above letters to indicate their removal, but does also cross them if he thought necessary. His wavy carets to mark marginal additions are ambiguous as to whether they indicate addition or substitution; only the context is decisive. C(b2) prefers to add his corrections to the margins. He uses many different forms and combinations of carets, and has no particular preference in the Gospel material. These methods illustrate the scribes and correctors habits when it comes to correcting a work. These habits are consistent throughout the four Gospels, and appear to be typical of correction types.​
"The numbers of alterations made to the text are quite phenomenal. 3041 corrections are made to the four Gospels by all the correctors, with this figure including minor corrections such as overwriting some pen strokes." (Myshrall, Codex Sinaiticus, its Correctors &c., pp. 533, 34)​

Again, I ask, explain how all of that is going on in a brand new manuscript in the 19th century?

Have you read Brogan's article "Another Look at Codex Sinaiticus" in Bible as Book: the Transmission of the Greek Text? Some interesting findings are discovered within.

Last edited:

#### Steven Avery

##### Well-known member
Conspiracy theory built on conspiracy theory.

You are seeing many textual examples that demonstrate a late manuscript.

Conspiracy theory?
Did Simonides tamper with the Sinaiticus text to create the non-ancient variants?

Here is a challenge. Take the feature of conflation with a late minuscule variant, find one similar example in any of the other “great uncials.”

Similar challenge finding a corrector’s text that shows a close affinity to a manuscript.

Thanks!

Last edited:

#### Steven Avery

##### Well-known member
Funny how the text suddenly "aged." What sort of miracle brought that on?

Please be specific, who said the text suddenly aged.

Thanks!

#### Steven Avery

##### Well-known member
They don't have the presupposition that the Sinaiticus is not a 4th century manuscript...

And neither do I. I started defending Sinaiticus as ancient, and was quite happy with that position. I switched only as compelled by the evidence.

#### cjab

##### Well-known member
Please be specific, who said the text suddenly aged.
You infer that it "suddenly" aged, otherwise, how come it looks aged?

Sinaiticus has the appearance of a 4th century manuscript. Some have said it looks even older. This you decline to account for. If as Simonides said, there was no "attempt at deception" - how come it is so "deceiving"?

By anyone's estimation, there must have been a preconcerted attempt at deception if the Codex is not genuine. It is indeed Simonides own testimony that exposes his own lies. He said "there was no attempt to deceive." It could only have been so. He just couldn't stop lying. So he was caught out by his own lies.

We can't cedit 19 year-old Simonides with such a talent at forgery. We can credit older Simonides with lying.

__________________________

Testimony of Dr. Henry Bradshaw (from p.96 of "A memoir of Henry Bradshaw, fellow of King's college, Cambridge, and university librarian"

"On the 18th of July last I was at Leipzig with a
friend, and we called on Professor Tischendorf. Though
I had no introduction but my occupation at Cambridge,
nothing could exceed his kindness ; we were with him
for more than two hours, and I had the satisfaction of
examining the manuscript after my own fashion. I had
been anxious to know whether it was written in even
continuous quaternions throughout, like the Codex Beza;,
or in a series of fasciculi each ending with a quire of
varying size, as the Codex Alexandrinus, and I found
the latter to be the case. This, by-the-by, is of itself
sufficient to prove that it cannot be the volume which
Dr Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos.

"Now, it must be remembered that Dr Simonides
always maintained two points — first, that the Mount Athos
Bible written in 1840 for the Emperor of Russia was
not meant to deceive any one,
but was only a beautiful
specimen of writing in the old style, in the character
used by the writer in his letter to me; secondly, that
it was Professor Tischendorfs ignorance and inexperience
which rendered him so easily deceived where no decep-
tion was intended. For the second assertion, no words
of mine are needed to accredit an editor of such long
standing as Professor Tischendorf. For the first, though
a carefully made facsimile of a few leaves inserted among
several genuine ones might for a time deceive even a
well-practised eye, yet it is utterly impossible that a
book merely written in the antique style, and without
any intent to deceive, should mislead a person of moderate
experience.
For myself, I have no hesitation in saying
that I am as absolutely certain of the genuineness and
antiquity of the Codex Sinaiticus as I am of my own
existence. Indeed, I cannot hear of any one who has
seen the book who thinks otherwise.
Let any one go
to St Petersburg and satisfy himself. Let Dr Simonides
go there and examine it. He can never have seen it
himself, or I am sure that, with his knowledge of manu-
scripts, he would be the first to agree with me. The
Mount Athos Bible must be a totally different book
."

--------------

Kisopp Lake: CODEX SINAITICVS PETROPOLITANVS (Intro)

p. vii "The only point on which practical certainty can be
arrived at with regard to the history of the MS. before it was
discovered by Tischendorf, is that at the time when one of the
correctors belonging to the group C was working it was in the
famous library at Caesarea. Palaeographical and historical
grounds agree to fix this time as not later than the beginning
of the seventh or earlier than that of the fifth century."

"The evidence that the Codex Sinaiticus was once in this
library is given by the notes added by one of the C correctors at
the ends of Ezra and Esther, in the fragment at Leipzig (Codex
Fr iderico-Augustanus). It has often been stated that these
notes are by the corrector Ca, but this is not the case, as will
be seen when the facsimile of the Old Testament is published.
There is a certain family resemblance between Ca and the scribe
of the notes at the end of Ezra and Esther, but they are not
identical, and there is perhaps a difference of ink—Ca used
a redder, and the scribe of the note at the end of Esther a
yellower colour—though I am inclined to doubt this, strikingly
evident though it seems at first The two notes happen to
have been written on bad patches of vellum, which have not
taken the ink well, so that the writing has faded, but at the
end of the note to Ezra, where the parchment improves, the
ink has the same reddish tint as Ca״. Further discussion of
this point belongs to the introduction to the Old Testament:
it is sufficient here to say that the probable solution of the
question is that several scribes (of which Ca was certainly one)
were engaged in correcting the text according to that of the
Codex Pamphili, and one of them (not Ca) wrote the notes at
the end of Esther and Ezra to explain what had been done.
That the writer of the notes belongs to the C group of scribes
is tolerably certain, and his statements make it almost equally
plain that this group was formed by the monks in the scriptorium
at Caesarea.

[colophons at the ends of Ezra and Esther]

"From the addition of the word ομολογητής to the name of
Antoninus it is clear that the writer identified him with
the Antoninus who was martyred on Nov. 13, 309, shortly
before Pamphilus, who was put to death on Feb. 16, 310
(see Eusebius, de martyr. Palest. 9.5 and 11.1). The reference
to the prison also enables us to date the MS. used by the
corrector almost exactly in the year 309. Moreover, as the
original Hexapla of Origen was at Caesarea, and Pamphilus
claims to have corrected his MS. by it, there is really only
one step—the MS. of Pamphilus—between the corrector and
the original Hexapla.

"It will be noted that the colophons at the ends of Ezra
and Esther only refer to MSS. of a comparatively small part
of the Old Testament, and there are no other notes else·
where. It is, however, well known that in the Pauline
epistles critics have long been struck by the resemblance
between the text of the corrector Ca and that of CODEX H OF THE PAULINE EPISTLES (Hpaul - 015 - Coislinianus)
Now, Cod. Hpaul has at the end of the Pauline epistles a long
colophon, beginning with the name Evagrios, and ending
with the statement: -

"Considering the close textual relationship between Cod.
Hpaul and the corrector Ca of the Codex Sinaiticus, it is legitimate
to regard this evidence as increasing the probability
that during the time that the corrector Ca was working the
Codex Sinaiticus was in the libraiy at Caesarea, in which there
were ·certainly many MSS. of Pamphilus, rather than in
some other library to which a MS. of Pamphilus might have
been brought.

"The date which must be assigned to the time when the
Codex was in Caesarea depends entirely on that which
palaeography gives to the writing of the C correctors, and especially
of course to that of the scribe who wrote the notes at the
end of Ezra and Esther. On this point opinions are likely
to differ. The latest date suggested is the seventh century;
the earliest is the fifth. Dr. F. G. Kenyon and Dr. A. S.
Hunt agree in regarding the sixth century as possible,
but the former is inclined to accept the seventh as equally
possible, while the latter is more disposed to prefer an
earlier date.
.
.
.
"......and the fact that all the peculiarities of the Codex Sinaiticus are also found in Pap.
Rylands 28, as well as in Codex Vaticanus, is remarkable: it is
enough to suggest the possibility that these documents come
from the same scriptorium, and, as will be shown later, in the
cast of the two vellum codices there is further evidence to support
this suggestion.
.
.
.
"The ink which the original scribes used is the usual sepia
colour commonly found in ancient manuscripts. As Tischen·
dorf says, it varies from an ashy but yellowish grey to a somewhat
red tint. It presents no unusual features : the facsimile
makes it appear too much of a genuine black. The ink used
by the correctors A is the same as that of the original—
doubtless it was the ink which was always used in the scrip*
torium. The ink used by B is a trifle darker than the original
ink. Ca and Cb used a reddish-yellow ink, which has usually
remained veiy bright and clear. Cc and Cc* used a greyer
colour, and the later correctors used black. Red (vermilion)
was used for the Eusebian apparatus, the earlier signatures to
the gatherings, and in some of the 'Arabesques', for instance,
at the end of Mark. All these are printed in red in Tischendorf's edition.

"The edges of the leaves have been slightly trimmed since
the time of the C correctors; this can be seen, for instance, on
f. 49 recto. So far as it is now possible to discover, there is no
writing on the edges of the closed MS.

"The Codex was prepared for writing in the usual way by
rulings to regulate the lines and columns. There are,
apparently always, 48 lines, and each of the four columns is
regulated by a vertical line on each side. The prickings
which were always made at the edge of the leaves as a
guide for the preparer of the vellum have been cut away,
but in a few places a mistake seems to have been made
by the preparer of the vellum, and a line of prickings can
still be seen in the middle of the first column of writing.

[cont.]

Last edited:

#### cjab

##### Well-known member
[cont.]

"The gatherings into which the sheets of vellum were made
up are as a rule quaternions of four conjugate leaves, but .....

"Each gathering appears to have been signed in a
dull red ink at the top left-hand comer of the first recto by a
hand which was probably contemporary with the MS. It is
therefore likely that these signatures ought to be reckoned
among the work of the scribes who were employed in the
original scriptorium, though there is no proof that this was the
case. Most of these signatures have been cut off, but traces
of them can be seen in the Epistles and later books. ....

"A later scribe, perhaps as
recent as the eighth century (it is impossible to fix the period of
isolated figures with even approximate certainty), has added
fresh signatures in the right-hand top comer of the first recto
of each gathering. It will, however, be noted that his numbers
are less by a single unit than those of the original numerator,
and in the older signatures the right-hand figure has consistently
been erased; it can, however, still be read on ....

"Either the original numerator made a mistake—a supposition
which is by no means difficult—or a gathering has been lost at
the end of the Old Testament; it is worth noticing in this
connexion that the larger divisions in the Old Testament in
this Codex always were made to coincide with the end of
aquire. That is why the lacunae generally include whole
books, e.g. Ezekiel, Hosea-Amos-Micah, Daniel. It does not
appear possible that anything has been lost earlier in the MS.,
as the traces of the original signatures agree in the Old
.
.
.
.
The following table may perhaps be useful as a summary
of the results, with regard to the provenance, genesis, and
history of the MS., which the foregoing discussion has rendered
probable:—

Saec. IV. In a scriptorium in Egypt

Scribe A wrote the New Testament including the Sub-
scriptions, Scribe B wrote Hermas, Scribe E added the
Eusebian Apparatus, and Scribe S added the στίχοι to the
Epistles. Scribe D (= corrector A2 and (?) A1) added
the superscriptions, and probably the ׳ tituli' in Acts.
He also wrote cancel-leaves for eight folia, and (using
Testament with those of more recent date.
a smaller and different type of hand when necessary)
acted as Diorthotes of the whole. He omitted to do the
work of scribes E and S on the canceMeaves. The rest
of the ‘A* group of correctors probably also belong to
this period and place, but this is uncertain.

Saec. IV-V. In a locality which is unknown.
Scribes B, Ba, and Aobliq., and possibly some of the doubtful
members of the A group, worked on the MS., whether in
the same or another scriptorium cannot be ascertained.

Saec. V-VII. In the monastery at Caesarea.
The MS. was corrected by the group of C correctors,
Ca Cb Cc Cc* Cphamp.־, and possibly others.
Saec. VIII-XII. Possibly on Mt Sinai.
At least two correctors, D and E, made unimportant and
fortunately few corrections.

----------------------------

#### cjab

##### Well-known member
You are seeing many textual examples that demonstrate a late manuscript.

Conspiracy theory?
Did Simonides tamper with the Sinaiticus text to create the non-ancient variants?

Here is a challenge. Take the feature of conflation with a late minuscule variant, find one similar example in any of the other “great uncials.”

Similar challenge finding a corrector’s text that shows a close affinity to a manuscript.

Thanks!
I am not playing your game (i.e. contributing to your conspiracy). If you want to challenge the dating of the scholars, submit a scholarly article for publication and get it accepted by them. At least make a serious point that isn't based in idle conjecture.

#### Steven Avery

##### Well-known member
You infer that it "suddenly" aged, otherwise, how come it looks aged?

You likely mean imply, not infer.

So, what did I actually write?
As I cannot respond to a chimera.

========

One obvious point, there are major differences in the Leipzig 1844 and British Library 1859 appearance. However, not in their actual age.

Last edited:

#### Steven Avery

##### Well-known member
I am not playing your game (i.e. contributing to your conspiracy). If you want to challenge the dating of the scholars, submit a scholarly article for publication and get it accepted by them. At least make a serious point that isn't based in idle conjecture.

The truth stands without “acceptance” in Journals of Textual Presuppositions. The textual establishment has already flunked Sinaiticus Objectivity 101.

As for making some of the explanations and expositions more rigorous and more complete, in individual papers, sure, a wonderful idea and plan.

Enough clear textual evidence has been shown on this thread already to start the wheels spinning for any good thinker.

#### cjab

##### Well-known member
You likely mean imply, not infer.

So, what did I actually write?
As I cannot respond to a chimera.
I am referring to your Simonides school of hubris, which you endorse, and as to which you let others endorse you in return:

Daniels writes (p. 90, Is the “World’s Oldest Bible” a Fake? Ontario, CA: Chick Publications, 2017): “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.”

There comes a point when the conspiracy theory is even stranger than the truth, don't you think?

#### Steven Avery

##### Well-known member

Are you bowing out of your attempts to answer the textual evidences that show Sinaiticus to be written long after the current dating?

Sometimes you dig up good info, like the textual affinity in 2 Peter of Codex Athous Lavrensis and Sinaiticus.

Last edited:

#### Steven Avery

##### Well-known member
Sinaiticus has the appearance of a 4th century manuscript. Some have said it looks even older. This you decline to account for. If as Simonides said, there was no "attempt at deception" - how come it is so "deceiving"?

By anyone's estimation, there must have been a preconcerted attempt at deception if the Codex is not genuine. It is indeed Simonides own testimony that exposes his own lies. He said "there was no attempt to deceive." It could only have been so. He just couldn't stop lying. So he was caught out by his own lies.

So if you say Simonides was lying and there was an attempt to deceive rather than create a replica (a point David mentions in his second book and I have always considered possible) you are acknowledging that Sinaiticus was produced at Mt. Athos c. AD 1840 (with an attempt to pass it off as truly ancient.)

#### Conan

##### Well-known member
Are you bowing out of your attempts to answer the textual evidences that show Sinaiticus to be long after the current dating?

Sometimes you dig up good info, like the textual affinity in 2 Peter of Codex Athous Lavrensis and Sinaiticus.
There is no textual evidence to show that "Sinaiticus to be long after current dating?" You simply are pretending. Not one shred of evidence have you given. You are pretending.

#### cjab

##### Well-known member
Textual Presuppositions.
Are you bowing out of your attempts to answer the textual evidences that show Sinaiticus to be long after the current dating?

Sometimes you dig up good info, like the textual affinity in 2 Peter of Codex Athous Lavrensis and Sinaiticus.
Individual textual affinities don't prove anything of themselves. I suspect one day someone with analyse all the variants using a computer program and draw conclusions.
--------------
From Tommy Wasserman on The Epistle of Jude: Its Text and Transmisdon

p.24 The witnesses that were considered to have the initial text as their closest
related potential ancestor to original Jude: 326 ,307 ,88 ,81 ,044 ,020 ,04 ,03 ,02 ,01 , P72,
431, 436, 442, 453, 808, 1739, 2200.

of which 1739 ,044 ,04 ,03 ,02 ,01 ,P72 are "Alexandrian."

#### cjab

##### Well-known member
So if you say Simonides was lying and there was an attempt to deceive rather than create a replica (a point David mentions in his second book and I have always considered possible) you are acknowledging that Sinaiticus was produced at Mt. Athos c. AD 1840 (with an attempt to pass it off as truly ancient.)

I'm not familiar with that slang. What I'm saying is that if Simonides was honest, he would have conceded an attempt to deceive with respect to Siniaticus. That he doesn't even do that shows that he can be ignored as to everything else re Siniaticus. His argument is too inconsistent to be credible, and obviously designed only to show Tischendorf up as a fool. Hypothetically, "if" Sinaiticus wasn't antique, it would have to be the work of a school of professional forgers, i.e. a large scale criminal enterprise: this is what you'll need to prove if you are to maintain your contentions.

As others have remarked, he may well, aged 19, have been intended a present to the Czar of some manuscript ... but not the Sinaiticus. Such an anterior intention (if it can be proven) is not of itself remarkable, and it may be allowed to Simonides, who only later surreptitiously pretended to have created the Siniaticus.

Please stop putting words into my mouth.

Last edited:

#### logos1560

##### Well-known member
I switched only as compelled by the evidence.
You fail to present sound, verifiable, compelling evidence that would have actually compelled you.

Perhaps it was more your unsound, incorrect human KJV-only reasoning which actually compelled you instead of any sound verifiable evidence.

#### christ_undivided

##### Well-known member
Avery is focusing on Codex Sinaiticus because he believes that is one area he can find "mud" to throw at others. I have never tried to support Codex Sinaiticus. It is not the best example of an early Christian Bible to be found.

Codex Alexandrinus is. It is a priceless example of an early Byzantine text. It is the single greatest extant witness to the OT. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles.

So my question is.... who really cares about Codex Sinaiticus? Avery actually loves it because he uses it to preach his false doctrine of KJV exceptionalism.

#### Unbound68

##### Well-known member
Avery is focusing on Codex Sinaiticus because he believes that is one area he can find "mud" to throw at others. I have never tried to support Codex Sinaiticus. It is not the best example of an early Christian Bible to be found.

Codex Alexandrinus is. It is a priceless example of an early Byzantine text. It is the single greatest extant witness to the OT. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles.

So my question is.... who really cares about Codex Sinaiticus? Avery actually loves it because he uses it to preach his false doctrine of KJV exceptionalism.
If you read David Daniels's 2 books on Sinaiticus, you'll see why all the fuss.

Daniels, with Avery's help and "research," has posited the ridiculous theory that the existence of Sinaiticus is nothing but a grand scheme to dethrone the TR, overthrow the KJV, and get the world to use a one world Bible for the New world order under the antichrist. The lavish scheme comes complete with Jesuits, the Vatican, complicit scholars, a forger named Simonides, etc.

That's why they've been trying with all their might to prove it was written in the 19th century......to justify their conspiracy theories.

Last edited: