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

[Steven Avery]

I have not been privileged to touch a truly ancient manuscript but I did handle some medieval books - handwritten on parchment - in the library of Catholic University in DC. And parchment, unlike paper, is very easy to turn. The pages do not stick to each other. This because each page of parchment has its own configuration, sort of flat but with unique wrinkles. I have no reason to believe that a parchment document as ancient as Sinaiticus or Vaticanus would be any different.

Parchment loses flexibility and suppleness over time.

Daniel Wallace's CSNTM just posted on this fact.

https://www.facebook.com/CSNTM/photos/a.183287968414369/5367057453370702

The fact that Sinaiticus is in
"phenomenally good condition" Helen Shenton, British Library,
has been pointed out by many people in various times in many ways.

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

the climate of Sinai

This shows that the climate of Sinai should lead to lots of embrittlement and loss of flexibility.

Note though in the videos (referenced on the Pure Bible Forum one from the BBC, and one from the 1933 newsreel) that the pages are extremely flexible, and it is easy-peasy to turn the pages.

And Leipzig especially is called white parchment, although Tischendorf and Scrivener tried to pretend they were yellow with age.

You will not see similar videos of other truly ancient manuscripts. e.g. Alexandrinus is "limp, dead" compared to Sinaiticus, per Skeat and Milne.

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

This next is from a publication from the:

British Library
Preservation Advisory Centre
Damaged Books
https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/media/bl/global/conservation/pdf-guides/damaged-books-preservation-guide.pdf

 

[Steven Avery]

Did Simonides himself say that one of the proofs of his claim that he wrote the Sinaiticus is the ease of page turning?

In one spot, before the controversy really broke, Simonides actually tried to use the supposed antiquity of Sinaiticus, and its "excellent condition" as an exemplar for the excellent condition of his papyri.

Page turning is now easy to see, because we have online two superb videos.

 

[Steven Avery]

Pictures?
How can you physically feel through your hands (i.e. actually in person) page (folio) turning ease from digital "pictures"?

Videos.

 

[Steven Avery]

In one spot, before the controversy really broke, Simonides actually tried to use the supposed antiquity of Sinaiticus, and its "excellent condition" as an exemplar for the excellent condition of his papyri.

The manuscript was not described by name.

 

[Shoonra]

Parchment may well lose its suppleness and become brittle, but the pages will not stick together the way paper does, and the brittle pages will turn easily. They may be brittle but they do not adhere to other pages.

 

[Steven Avery]

Parchment may well lose its suppleness and become brittle, but the pages will not stick together the way paper does, and the brittle pages will turn easily. They may be brittle but they do not adhere to other pages.

When they get very brittle there is little page turning, as with the "limp, dead" Alexandrinus.

All handling becomes very cautious and slow, the exact opposite of the two Sinaiticus videos.

 

[Shoonra]

I stand by my opinion. A great deal depends on the climate in which the parchment document is kept, especially it's consistency. The St. Catherine's Monastery is in a dry, mostly warm, climate, which I think is better for parchment preservation.

 

[Shoonra]

The American Archivist, vol. 1, 1938, has an article on the extensive repairs the British Library had to make to its portion of Sinaiticus, indicating its extreme age.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b666469&view=1up&seq=32&q1=parchment

Parchment books were known and used in NT times (2Tim 4:13).

 

[Steven Avery]

The American Archivist, vol. 1, 1938, has an article on the extensive repairs the British Library had to make to its portion of Sinaiticus, indicating its extreme age.
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.$b666469&view=1up&seq=32&q1=parchment

You can see the arrival of the ms. here:

Newsreel Footage of Codex Sinaiticus from 1933
https://brentnongbri.com/2019/02/13/newsreel-footage-of-codex-sinaiticus-from-1933/

No special handling needed, carry it like a bunch of newspapers, and the quires turn nicely and easily, without care.

The article does not discuss the age or condition or flexibility of the parchment or anything of the ink. It says pages were "torn and crumpled". Crumpled, sure, but Cockerell does not say he repaired any tearing.

Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus p. 71
2. STATE OF PRESERVATION
The vellum is generally in good condition, retaining its 'life' and toughness except where, as on some of the edges of the leaves, it has
been wet.

Tischendorf had claimed the leaves were "zerrissener und verderbter"

The binding done by Douglas Cockerell was ripped by Kirsopp Lake.

 

[Shoonra]

It was very nice to provide us with the newsreel of the greater part of Sinaiticus arriving in England in 1933. The fact remains that the 1933 date for the British acquisition means the Russians had possession of it, or most of it, for half a century. That would mean that it was in the hands of Russian archivists for 50 years - Tsarist and Bolshevik. I can hardly imagine that the multiple generations of archivists did not make their own efforts to repair or replace the binding and rehabilitate (if necessary) the vellum. Under the circumstances I can believe that repair attempts took place, perhaps with every generation of Russian archivists.

 

[Steven Avery]

It was very nice to provide us with the newsreel of the greater part of Sinaiticus arriving in England in 1933. The fact remains that the 1933 date for the British acquisition means the Russians had possession of it, or most of it, for half a century. That would mean that it was in the hands of Russian archivists for 50 years - Tsarist and Bolshevik. I can hardly imagine that the multiple generations of archivists did not make their own efforts to repair or replace the binding and rehabilitate (if necessary) the vellum. Under the circumstances I can believe that repair attempts took place, perhaps with every generation of Russian archivists.

There is zero known history of the Russians sending the ms. to rehab.
From memory, some Russian mss. were affected by flood, but not Sinaiticus.

Morozov, a top Russian scientist, told them it was odd, but not very old.

They had it dumped in a box for the trip to England.

They knew their ownership was problematic, due to the Tischendorf cons.

There was very little known public showing in Russia.

==========

Conjecture:
they were very happy to dump the clump on the Brit marks for top $

Conjecture Two:
they hired Simonides at the Russian Historical Archives partly in exchange for silence about the ms. history

 

[Shoonra]

I stick by my suspicion that, in the half-century that the Russians had the Sinaiticus before selling it to Britain, some Russian archivists made some efforts at repair or restoration.

 

[Shoonra]

There was very little public showing in Russia because the Communist govt was decidedly atheist.
If Simonides was faking the Sinaiticus, I am surprised he didn't do something to make the vellum look decrepit.
I cannot prove it but I believe that some Russian archivists, perhaps under the Tsar, made some effort to rehab the Codex.

 

[Maestroh]

The catalog confirms Benedict, Kallinikos and Simonides working on manuscripts at exactly the time period that fits the creation of Sinaiticus.

But contradicts what Simonides himself said about his locale at the same time....

Kallinikos and Simonides worked on the same manuscript.

You're 100% correct. Since Kallinikos was "Simonides Writing Under Another Name," they worked on whatever manuscripts Simonides passed off as forgeries, both of them. There wasn't much of a gender issue with their pronouns since "they" was a "he."

What is "asymmetrical"?

Go back and read before you respond.

Your supposed corrections are generally weak attempts, like this one.

So you have nothing at all to say about the contradictory information from the Catalog regarding the date of Easter AND the locale of Simonides on the date in question?

Not surprising at all.

 

[Steven Avery]

But contradicts what Simonides himself said about his locale at the same time....

The key catalog entries are 6405, 6406 and 6407 from 1841.

What do you think contradicts?

So you have nothing at all to say about the contradictory information from the Catalog regarding the date of Easter AND the locale of Simonides on the date in question?

All too vague.
If you are reading off someone's script you should point to it, so it can be checked for specifics.

 

[Steven Avery]

Since Kallinikos was "Simonides Writing Under Another Name," they worked on whatever manuscripts Simonides passed off as forgeries, both of them.

Looking at the Spyridon Lambrou catalog, this makes no sense.

Two different people, and they worked on the same manuscript on different days.

And this was many years before there were any forgery accusations.

 

[Unbound68]

Maestroh said:
So you have nothing at all to say about the contradictory information from the Catalog regarding the date of Easter AND the locale of Simonides on the date in question?

All too vague.
If you are reading off someone's script you should point to it, so it can be checked for specifics.

Obviously you aren't paying attention. The issue surrounding the easter "blunder" as well as the date discrepancy on where Simonides was on March 27, 1841 have both been pointed out at least twice in the Simonides thread.

 

[Unbound68]

Maestroh said:
But contradicts what Simonides himself said about his locale at the same time....

The key catalog entries are 6405, 6406 and 6407 from 1841.

What do you think contradicts?

Proof you haven't even read Simonides!

So explain to us how a "researcher" conducts "research" into the origins of a supposedly forged manuscript, supposedly written by a man whose letters surrounding the supppsed origins of this manuscript aren't even being read by the so-called "researcher?"

 

[Steven Avery]

It was very nice to provide us with the newsreel of the greater part of Sinaiticus arriving in England in 1933.

The wonderful condition "phenomenally good" per Helen Shenton can also be seen on the BBC video, this amazing condition is with or without binding.

The Codex Sinaiticus…the world's oldest surviving bible
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00dy1gc

Why phenomenally good condition? Simple, it is not a manuscript that was in the dry, hot desert climate for a millennium, nor was it made 1650 years ago. It is from the 1800s.

 

[Steven Avery]

Since Kallinikos was "Simonides Writing Under Another Name," they worked on whatever manuscripts Simonides passed off as forgeries, both of them.

On the other thread it seems like Bill Brown claims that Simonides got back to Mount Athos (where he was not particularly welcome), got ahold of the catalog from 25 or 35 years earlier, rigged and changed the entries, and then put it back. Then, after he passed, the catalog was published in 1895 and 1900, helping to vindicate his claims on Codex Simoneidos.

That was the latest attempt by Bill Brown.

3) Easter Sunday was NOT on March 27, 1841 - which was a Saturday; it was on April 11th in both the Christian and Orthodox celebration.
But what makes this an after-the-fact attempt at trying to create evidence is this:

And I also placed the Farrer section on the other thread.