Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

Don Petit, NASA astronaut:

“I’d go to the moon in a nanosecond. The problem is we don’t have the technology to do that anymore. We used to but we destroyed that technology and it’s a painful process to build it back again.”
To quote a post from this source:

"You guys keep repeating one poorly worded sentence from Petitte. What he meant was "the technical infrastructure - rocket engines, capsules, launchers, derricks, plus all the equipment designed to turn out that stuff from the 1960s, has long been decommissioned, junked, recycled, repurposed, or rusted away. Also, all the people that worked on that stuff during that time have long since retired or have passed away. But that would have taken too long, so he said "destroyed the technology", because it's quicker. That being said, all the blueprints used to build that stuff are still in existence and NOT destroyed. Don was just answering a question the best he could."

Constrast with a similar statement made about the almost immediate obsolescence of the "Little Boy" WWII nuclear bomb project post Hiroshima:

"After the war ended, it was not expected that the inefficient Little Boy design would ever again be required, and many plans and diagrams were destroyed. However, by mid-1946, the Hanford Site reactors began suffering badly from the Wigner effect, the dislocation of atoms in a solid caused by neutron radiation, and plutonium became scarce, so six Little Boy assemblies were produced at Sandia Base. The Navy Bureau of Ordnance built another 25 Little Boy assemblies in 1947 for use by the Lockheed P2V Neptune nuclear strike aircraft which could be launched from the Midway-class aircraft carriers. All the Little Boy units were withdrawn from service by the end of January 1951."
 
Last edited:
I was just pointing out when KJVOnlys talk trash about Hort, yet the KJV and Hort will agree against other editions of the Greek New Testament. Sometimes even all other editions, they are forced to agree with the one they were talking trash about. I liked to point out the ironic situation they find themselves in. Did not mean to side track.

A stopped clock is right twice a day.
 
So your position is that some weak ink being reinforced in a few pages must mean 1,500 years of wear (although it is trivially easy for the calligraphist to use weak ink).

While the superb New Testament, and the many pages even in the OT of super-ink, unreinforced, shows that those manuscript sections and pages are new, say ... c. AD 1840. Simply impossible to have been subject to 1500 years of aging and deterioration and use.

Interesting ... hmmm .. the same manuscript has two different ages?
Which one wins?

The answer, my friend, is blowing in the parchment.

It's hard to reply to such, without saying what I really think of such ideas, after examining this in detail for some time now.... it's trash.

It's not a Simonides forgery... I've examined his known forgeries and I have to agree with Kalligas, he's a clumsy bungling idiot (his forgeries look nothing like the Sinaiticus)... plain and simple.

The pictures of the Sinaiticus all over the internet show your plainly deluded.

It's not the only 5th century A.D. manuscript found at St Catherine's (i.e. the context other genuinely old manuscripts), so why wouldn't it be genuinely old, like Uspensky thought, and as it simply looks...
 
Got any images of Arabic handwritten manuscripts (specifically) from St Catherine's monastery alongside all the different Arabic notes in the Codex Sinaiticus yet Steven?

I'm not seeing any on your blog...

I mean, if you're genuinely impartial in your research and thinking, at a minimum, you should be exploring that avenue...

Well over 500 manuscripts to explore Steve...

The first one I looked at (chosen randomly = true story) looked almost like a perfect match...same color ink, rough writing and all...
 
Tischendorf's vanity was well known, and remarked on, but making an error in the MS. date wasn't possible in the case of Sinaiticus: it would have taken a LIFETIME to forge, per Dean Alford (even if one were capable of it).
___________________

Tischendorf - The Discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript & Other writings

p.23 "In visiting the library of the monastery, in the
month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle
of the great hall a large and wide basket full of
old parchments, and the librarian, who was a
man of information, told me that two heaps of
papers like these, mouldered by time, had been
already committed to the flames.
What was
my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a
considerable number of sheets of a copy of the
Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me
to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen.

The authorities of the convent allowed
me to possess myself of a third of these parchments,
or about forty-three sheets, all the more
readily as they were destined for the fire.
But I could not get them to yield up possession
of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction
which I had displayed, had aroused their suspicions
as to the value of this manuscript. I
transcribed a page of the text of Isaiah and
Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take
religious care of all such remains which might
fall in their way.

On my return to Saxony there were men of
learning who at once appreciated the value ofthe
treasure which I brought back with me. I did
not divulge the name of the place where I had
found it, in the hopes of returning and recovering
the rest of the manuscript. I handed up
to the Saxon Government my rich collection of
oriental manuscripts in return for the payment
of all my travelling expenses, I deposited in
the library of the University of Leipzig, in the
shape of a collection, which bears my name,
fifty manuscripts, some of which are very rare
and interesting. I did the same with the
Sinaitic fragments, to which I gave the name
of Codex Frederick Augustus, in acknowledgment
of the patronage given to me by the King
of Saxony ; and I published them in Saxony in
a sumptuous edition, in which each letter and
stroke was exactly reproduced by the aid of
lithography.

But these home labours upon the manuscripts
which I had already safely garnered, did not
allow me to forget the distant treasure which I
had discovered. I made use of an influential
friend, who then resided at the court of the
Viceroy of Egypt, to carry on negotiations for
procuring the rest of the manuscripts. But his
attempts were, unfortunately, not successful.
"The monks of the convent," he wrote to me
to say, "have, since your departure, learned
the value of these sheets of parchment, and will
not part with them at any price."

.
.
.
p.30 "the Sinaitic Bible, the transcription of
which is to be referred to the first half of the
fourth century and about the time of the first
Christian emperor
."

________________________

Dean Alford on "The Gospels and Modern Criticism " in the Contemporary Review, V. 360

"A correspondent of The Guardian of June 12 of this
year [1867] is anxious to know whether the internal
evidence of the genuineness of the Sinaitic MS. is satisfactory,
having had his faith in that genuineness somewhat
shaken by the narrative prefixed to this tract of
Dr. Tischendorfs [Wann Wurden Unsere Evangelien Verfasst? (1865)],
which has been translated for the Religious Tract Society by B. H. Cowper].
We are persuaded that he may set his mind at rest on this point.
The text of this MS. bears to us the strongest possible
marks of originality and genuineness. If any man were
capable, from his knowledge of ancient MSS., of forging
such a text, it would take him almost the duration of a
life to accomplish the forgery
. Besides which, we are
unable to see in the very straightforward narrative of
Dr. Tischendorf any grounds of suspicion. Our friend
is given to blow his trumpet before him somewhat loud,
and this narrative is certainly not wanting in examples
of his habit.
We confess, too, to a certain anxiety—undispelled
by anything he says at the end—as to whether
the good monks of St. Catherine have got back, or are
likely to get back, their precious document, which was
borrowed to be taken to St. Petersburg. — See p. 17 of
the German, p. 34 of the translation."
 
Off topic.

Actually, it is on topic. One of the poor contra posters has made my moon landing position the centerpiece of his attack, as a "conspiracy theorist". You never complained that he was off-topic.

So it is my right to respond to these two posters and point out that the "conspiracy theorist" charge has lost all its pizazz, especially since we have had the jab abominations and censorship.

Now we all know that there has been a ton of conspiracy fact.
 
Last edited:
Actually, it is on topic. One of the poor contra posters has made my moon landing position the centerpiece of his attack, as a "conspiracy theorist". You never complained that he was off-topic.
Well, I understand that you violently object when people defer to you as a liar, but here you are falsely alleging a single response to your fake moon landing conspiracy theory that you just raised on this thread is "the centerpiece of his attack." I see you are a student of Simonides, whose only legacy was to dent Tischendorf's vanity, but at what cost to his own integrity?

So it is my right to respond to these two posters and point out that the "conspiracy theorist" charge has lost all its pizazz,
It's a pity that you cannot put your "research" to better use. You have a natural affinity with Simonides who was also a conspiracy theorist with few peers, as willing to be serially loose with the truth to further his own ends, and knowledgeable withal. Yet the current wealth of knowledge has made your contentions irrelevant except to you and your small circle, whom are trapped and encircled by the overwhelming evidence against you. There are related matters open to debate, but the authenticity of Sinaiticus no longer is.

especially since we have had the jab abominations and censorship. Now we all know that there has been a ton of conspiracy fact.
Politics and Paleology don't mix.
 
Last edited:
My puzzle is why the obsession with א but not B? Or is it just that א is more open to conspiracy theories, allowing the conspiracy theorist to demonstate his talents, which is likely much of the attraction in casting them as "false witnesses".

He was fuming about B several years ago on Facebook, whining about the write over. He even thought he’d made some spectacular discovery with a lower case beta.


Dr Peter Head put him in his place and Avery was banned from the site hours later. So his posts were removed so no I can’t show you.

Also, nobody ever claimed to be the author of B, and Chris Pinto never made a movie about it so far as I know.
 
Actually, it is on topic. One of the poor contra posters has made my moon landing position the centerpiece of his attack, as a "conspiracy theorist". You never complained that he was off-topic.

So it is my right to respond to these two posters and point out that the "conspiracy theorist" charge has lost all its pizazz, especially since we have had the jab abominations and censorship.

Now we all know that there has been a ton of conspiracy fact.

Your fake moon landing nonsense is called “credibility of the researcher.”

If that bothers you, do better research.

And, no, “I saw a You Tube video” isn’t research.
 
Actually, it is on topic. One of the poor contra posters has made my moon landing position the centerpiece of his attack, as a "conspiracy theorist".

Your claim the moon landing was fake is not the only thing. You’re a petulant anti-vaxxer, you suggest Building 7’s collapse on 9/11 is an “inside job”, and you’ve suggested we should seriously consider the idea atomic bombs do not exist.

I don’t have to mention all of those in every post. That’s not how reality works. But the fake moon landing is the most relevant because you want to pretend that Tischendorf was able to prevent folks from seeing a manuscript - yet millions saw the moon landing and you still pretend it never happened.

You never complained that he was off-topic.

Your name appears in a book with the claim you are a “researcher.” Consequently, your methods of research are fair game.

So it is my right to respond to these two posters and point out that the "conspiracy theorist" charge has lost all its pizazz, especially since we have had the jab abominations and censorship.

The same poster who does every thing he can to get posts censored is complaining of censorship….


Now we all know that there has been a ton of conspiracy fact.

No.

You’ve yet to explain all the things Simonides LIED about in the first letter. You just take his later explanations….who are we kidding, his later CONTRADICTIONS…and never answer questions.

Which again is your method of research. A REAL researcher does not propagandize as you do; there’s a major difference between an apologist and a historian, despite the fact you are neither.
 
Actually, it is on topic. One of the poor contra posters has made my moon landing position the centerpiece of his attack, as a "conspiracy theorist". You never complained that he was off-topic.

So it is my right to respond


1) the centerpiece of my so-called attack (rhetoric much?) is a thread you’ve largely avoided called “The False Claims of Constantine Simonides” etc. You’ve largely avoided any interaction with that thread other than to reassert debunked arguments.

You’re more than welcome to stop this Al Gore “he’s being so mean to me” nonsense and simply explain.

2) I challenged you to a debate in 2009, one you doubled down thinking I wouldn’t agree and then backed out of.

You’re more than welcome to debate this subject with me - but I don’t have Snapp’s limitations due to a stroke, so you won’t get by with as much as you did with him.

I can understand why you would be afraid. And spare me the “he’s vulgar” nonsense. You insult people all the time including this post, but you know I won’t sit there and take it.

And that terrifies you.


And we all know it.
 
So your position is that some weak ink being reinforced in a few pages must mean 1,500 years of wear (although it is trivially easy for the calligraphist to use weak ink).
The above is absolute proof that no matter what evidence is brought forth that demonstrates that Sinaiticus is NOT a 19th century forgery, the mind of the self-professed "researcher" will never be changed to acknowledge the fact that he's actually the one who has been duped since 2013.
 
Last edited:
He was fuming about B several years ago on Facebook, whining about the write over. He even thought he’d made some spectacular discovery with a lower case beta.

Dr Peter Head put him in his place and Avery was banned from the site hours later. So his posts were removed so no I can’t show you.

Also, nobody ever claimed to be the author of B, and Chris Pinto never made a movie about it so far as I know.
The undiluted claptrap from Avery about the inauthenticity of Sinaiticus is now growing very wearisome. He has outstayed his welcome on this thread.
 
The undiluted claptrap from Avery about the inauthenticity of Sinaiticus is now growing very wearisome. He has outstayed his welcome on this thread.


He’s wasted at least nine years on it. And persuaded not one single scholar of a 19th century date.

Probably coulda persuaded Karen King, dolt who got conned with The Gospel of Jesus Wife.


Some folks need a hobby.
 
Back
Top