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

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The manuscript was mangled in various ways from 1840 to 1859, and any binding was dismanted
Uspensky might have found those fragments any which way, but Simonides was not in control of what occurred at Sinai.

More speculation. "Might have".

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The manuscript was mangled in various ways from 1840 to 1859, and ANY binding was dismanted. (emphasis added)

Thanks for the admission.

 

[Unbound68]

What a coincidence. As "Providence" would have it, I was reading Kirsopp Lake's work on Sinaiticus last night, and he mentioned that there are some notes written at the end of the books of Esther and Ezra in the Codex Fred. Aug. (Sinaiticus) which were written to explain that the manuscript was corrected according to Codex Pamphili and resided at the Caesarean library between the 5th to 7th centuries.

The notes Lake provided are in Greek, which I can't read, but the work that Shoonra was obviously "inspired" to provide last night by the British Museum had those very notes translated in English!

And I thought my dream the other day that had a voice telling me:

"there are notes in the manuscript......what if they mean something?.....the corrector wants you to know something......Sinaiticus is not a forgery........Simonides is lying.....there are notes.....get them translated.....

was just my overactive imagination.

(For those of you who don't know what I'm referring to with my tongue in cheek, read the opening pages of Daniels's book "Is the world's oldest Bible a fake.")

Notes translated on pg. 17.

 

[Steven Avery]

Thanks for the admission.

The "admission" that Tischendorf mangled the ms. including dismantling the binding that was there for Uspensky.

 

[Steven Avery]

More speculation. "Might have".

You seem to prefer the straight-out lying and theft of Tischendorf over uncertainties in Athos or Sinai.

Typical contra approach.

 

[Steven Avery]

According to the newsreel, the British Museum paid £ 100,000 to Russia for its share of the Sinaiticus. I find it hard to believe that the Brits would part with that much money - especially when dealing with the Communists - without first having made the most thorough examination to make sure they were buying a genuine article.

There is a bit in that book about a forgery concern.

There is no record of a thorough examination, only what occurred on arrival day.

 

[Steven Avery]

He wasn't in control of anything at Athos, either, since he didn't write this - and even you know it.

EDITED--BORDERLINE RULE 22 VIOLATION

 

[Steven Avery]

the Moscow Bible.

And why do you think Benedict did not use the 1821 Zosimas Moscow Bible as an OT source?

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes, in 1934 LESS THAN A YEAR after they got the manuscript, they knew everything there was to know about it.

If they were going to make the snarky attack on Uspensky, they should know what he wrote about the manuscript.

 

[logos1560]

Typical contra approach.

Are you preferring the false claims and lies of a forger Simonides?

 

[Maestroh]

And why do you think Benedict did not use the 1821 Zosimas Moscow Bible as an OT source?

Mostly because Benedict did nothing, Simonides did nothing, and your evidence must be nothing if your entire case is shifting the burden of proof from your claim into me to disprove.

Universal negatives cannot be disproven.

 

[Maestroh]

If they were going to make the snarky attack on Uspensky, they should know what he wrote about the manuscript.

Why do you continue to avoid mentioning that Uspenski agreed with THEM that it’s ancient (fifth century) and not with YOU?

 

[Maestroh]

You seem to prefer the straight-out lying and theft of Tischendorf over uncertainties in Athos or Sinai.

So the lies of Simonides…..you won’t call them that. That’s fatal to the credibility of any objective researcher.

Besides - the one thing we are certain of is Simonides didn’t write it on Athos, in Queens, or anywhere else.


For a guy who supposedly wrote it, he sure didn’t know much about it.

I will also remind you for the ten thousandth time that my position doesn’t depend on Tischendorf stealing it or borrowing it or even knowing which planet he was on.


Yours does depend on Simonides telling the truth and the guy lied about his own birthday. And everything else.

 

[Steven Avery]

Are you preferring the false claims and lies of a forger Simonides?

Simonides worked on Codex Simoneidos when he was a teenager. His explanations of what occurred in Sinai fits the facts on the ground far better than the brazen self-serving tissues of Tischendorf lies.

 

[Shoonra]

Here is the Reuss catalogue entry on the 1821 Zozimus Moscow NT (pages 113-114). It appears to me that Reuss is saying it adopts the Elzivir TR text, which does not explain the variants in Sinaiticus.
https://archive.org/details/bibliothecanovi01reusgoog/page/112/mode/2up?view=theater

 

[logos1560]

Simonides worked on Codex Simoneidos when he was a teenager.

How do you know that to be a verifiable fact instead of your blindly believing Simonides' brazen, unproven, conflicting, self-serving claims?

 

[Unbound68]

Here is the Reuss catalogue entry on the 1821 Zozimus Moscow NT (pages 113-114). It appears to me that Reuss is saying it adopts the Elzivir TR text, which does not explain the variants in Sinaiticus.
https://archive.org/details/bibliothecanovi01reusgoog/page/112/mode/2up?view=theater

Which is why we know Simonides is lying about the Moscow Bible being one of his sources.

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is the Reuss catalogue entry on the 1821 Zozimus Moscow NT (pages 113-114). It appears to me that Reuss is saying it adopts the Elzivir TR text, which does not explain the variants in Sinaiticus.
https://archive.org/details/bibliothecanovi01reusgoog/page/112/mode/2up?view=theater

That is correct.
The usage of the Zosimas Moscow Bible would be in the OT.

Post #307 spoke of how the Septuagint was a primary focus of Benedict.

“First, that my undo Benedict, being by profession a theologian, and versed in twelve languages, intending to publish both the Old and New Testaments, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers with exegetic scholia of the ancient commentators, and specially to reply to what had been written against the Septuagint, began this work while Professor in the College of Cydon in the year 1784."

 

[Steven Avery]

How do you know that to be a verifiable fact instead of your blindly believing Simonides' brazen, unproven, conflicting, self-serving claims?

Actually, the claims of Simonides are generally consistent, and are born out by the "facts on the ground". It is the Tischendorf tissues of lies that are a cover story for brazen thefts and false claims meant not for honest scholarship, but his own glory. You have to be a very clever and deceptive thief to turn around your theft into being a saviour (from fire.) He even came up that creative fabrication fifteen years after the theft!

 

[Shoonra]

Whatever yarns Tischendorf told about his acquisition of the Sinaiticus are irrelevant in evaluating Simonides's story. Simonides is not confirmed by the facts on the ground; there is evidence that the Codex was seen and described in the 18th century, Simonides claimed to have worked up the Codex in one week, he also claimed to have copied a Russian Bible in Greek, which had a TR text, he could not explain (or predict) the variants found in the Codex, and there is ample evidence that the Codex is older than 1840.