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

Your fixation on demanding others defend an unverifiable story one way or the other while you parse and produce a narrative not even Simonides expressed is unbecoming anyone wishing to be taken seriously as a “researcher.”

I understand that there is no defense for the Tischendorf theft, lies and ongoing con about the date of the ms.

The Simonides account fits the facts on the ground much, much better than the Tisch con.
 
You have a very different definition of "consistent" than the dictionary does.

1) When was Simonides born?
a) November 11, 1824 - which is in a biography TWICE that he was pushing with no correction and in an 1861 statement to "The Athenaeum"
b) November 5,1820 - the date Simonides gave AFTER he learned this would make him only 15 years old doing this project

See the second David Daniel's book, he explains (b) and how (a) came about.
 
2) What was the reason for Simonides writing the manuscript?
a) a gift to Emperor Nicholas I, first conceived in November 1839 to acknowledge presents he had given (the 1862 letter)
b) in hopes of acquiring a printing press from Nicholas (the old "give to get" theory in the 1863 letter)

B is what I know, and is related multiple times. I would have to see the text of (a) to comment. The two do not have to be mutually exclusive.
 
3) When was the invisible exemplar collated and created?
a) starting in November 1839 after the project was conceived (the 1862 letter)
b) Benedict started it in 1784 when he was 16 years old (the 1863 letter)

Btw - Emperor Nicholas I of Russia didn't rule until 1825, which makes the whole "this project began in 1784 for a person who wasn't even born until 1795" comically hysterical.

Even in the letter where 1784 is mentioned for defending the LXX in Cydon, it says the actual specific textual work was at Athos.

While at Athos he gave himself up particularly to the study of the Sacred Scriptures. He collected the most ancient MSS. of both Testaments, and of their commentators, and at considerable expense prepared his work for the press. Which coveres 4.

4) Who did the collation?

And I covered that earlier on this forum.
 
You have a very different definition of "consistent" than the dictionary does.


5) What sources were used to produce the manuscript?
a) A Moscow edition of both testaments (only source mentioned in the 1862 letter) but which absolutely doesn't match
b) Imagined sources Avery provides like "maybe Claromontanus or a sister MS"

Even in the 1862 letter other sources are mentioned.

Having then examined the principal copies of the Holy Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos, I began to practice the principles of calligraphy; and the learned Benedict, taking a copy of the Moscow edition of both Testaments (published and presented to the Greeks by the illustrious brothers Zosimas), collated it with the ancient ones, and by this means cleared it of many errors, after which he gave it into my hands to transcribe. - Simonides, published in the Guardian, Sept 3 1862, p. 211

And an Alexandrinus edition is specifically mentioned along with ancient manuscripts.

This Moscow Bible, after having been collated with three ancient manuscripts and the printed edition of the Codex Alexandrinus,

also mentioned is a Syriac codex.

"I for my part carefully considered the questions connected with the best possible performance of the penmanship. And the learned Benedict taking in his hands a copy of the Moscow edition of the Old and New Testament (published at the expense of the illustrious brothers Zosimas, and by them presented to the Greeks), collated it, with my assistance, with three only of the ancient copies, which he had long before annotated and corrected for another purpose and cleared their text by this collation from remarkable clerical errors, and again collated them with the edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, printed with uncial letters, and still further with another very old Syriac Codex; and gave me, in the first instance, Genesis to copy." - p. 56
 
I understand that there is no defense for the Tischendorf theft, lies

Ask question about Simonides - and the man's character is so bad, all Avery is engage in "whataboutism."

and ongoing con about the date of the ms.

Ah - so YOU can date the manuscript without ever seeing it or testing it but OTHER PEOPLE have to test it.

How convenient.


The Simonides account

There was more than one account so try again.

fits the facts on the ground much, much better than the Tisch con.

Nah, you just pick the parts you like and sound less ridiculous than the others.

You really have nothing other than "Simon Says."
 
Even in the letter where 1784 is mentioned for defending the LXX in Cydon, it says the actual specific textual work was at Athos.

Again - you are hung up on CLAIMS.

I can claim I've been to the moon and you're whole "the moon landing is fake" nonsense is therefore wrong - using your standards.

While at Athos he gave himself up particularly to the study of the Sacred Scriptures. He collected the most ancient MSS. of both Testaments, and of their commentators, and at considerable expense prepared his work for the press. Which coveres 4.

but he wasn't at Athos until, well, 1819 or 1831 - because even that's indispute.

He wasn't there in 1784 - when according to you he was 16 and apparently prepping an exemplar for an idea he wouldn't have until he was 70.



4) Who did the collation?

And I covered that earlier on this forum.


No, you just made an assertion.

You never bothered to explain how the two different versions Simonides told don't align in any way.


So try again.

(We can continue to see why debate and dialogue frightens you. You're not doing very well here since every objection you're making - I already covered).
 
I would not be surprised if the British Museum did the tests and that somewhere there's a report or two or three about them that is available to scholars but I doubt that the public would be told. After all, we weren't told about Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' except in a learned foreign journal.
I sent an email asking (begging) the British Library to tell me about all the testing of Sinaiticus, but it's a burdensome request so I am not sure they will bother with me.

Good job sending them an email. Probably not so burdensome because there is no testing to burden. :)

Dr. Bell, Keeper of Manuscripts, spent two hours testing its authenticity, after which it was installed in the entrance hall, where a queue speedily formed. About people inspected the manuscript 3500, of them placing a contribution, sometimes a Treasury note, in the box alongside. - London, Dec 17, 1933

Report on the different inks used in Codex Sinaiticus and assessment of their condition
Sara Mazzarino
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx

The Codex Sinaiticus inks have never been chemically characterized, and the type and proportions of ingredients mixed together have never been determined. Therefore, the composition of the writing media can only be roughly guessed by observing their visible characteristics and their degradation patterns.
...
"After more than 1600 years, it is clear that the quality of the writing medium originally used by the scribes was truly exceptional, as is the quality of the parchment. The ingredients appear to be well balanced creating a smooth and thin fluid perfect for writing on parchment. The recipe and the manufacturing technique seem to be exquisite too, revealing high craftsmanship and skilled experience for producing good quality inks.
No significant degradation process seems to affect the writing media."

Scientific analysis of the different inks and a comparison of the results may be of much help to clarify these and many other issues.

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

What determined the binding or rebinding of the book? Was the original binding and/or the manuscript damaged and therefore in need of a new binding?
Currently there is no answer to all these questions. It is hoped that future scientific analysis may help us to understand more fully the many issues related to Codex Sinaiticus.
 
The lack of general publicity about microscopic/spectroscopic/etc analysis of the Sinaiticus does not mean that no such analysis has been done. The lack of public awareness of the 'Archaic Mark' examinations shows that such examinations happen without fanfare.
 
The lack of general publicity about microscopic/spectroscopic/etc analysis of the Sinaiticus does not mean that no such analysis has been done. The lack of public awareness of the 'Archaic Mark' examinations shows that such examinations happen without fanfare.

At the moment, I am not really aware of the Archaic Mark timeline of the tests.
David Daniels has some information in his first book.

Here is an excellent note I just saw on Archaic Mark.

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

"Archaic Mark" (MS 2427) and the Finding of a Manuscript Fake (2006)
Stephen C. Carlson
https://www.sbl-site.org/publications/article.aspx?articleId=577
https://www.academia.edu/9805089/_Archaic_Mark_MS_2427_and_the_Finding_of_a_Manuscript_Fake

I had been aware that there was a controversy over 2427 because, every once in a while, a discussion about it would break out on TC-list, a textual criticism mailing list run by Jimmy Adair. I remember wanting to use 2427 in my study of the origins of the Caesarean text in Mark 6:45-8:26 (the Bethsaida section) that I did for the New Testament Textual Criticism section at SBL 2004, but I was hampered by the very selective list of readings in NA27. I needed a full collation. Then, I learned last summer (2005) that the images of Archaic Mark were put online, and I started collating the text. My interest in 2427's authenticity was piqued when I found what looked like a line omission in Mark 8:11. According to Paul Maas, Textual Criticism, line omissions in a manuscript are highly diagnostic of the manuscript's exemplar:

(a) If a witness J, exhibits all the errors of another surviving witness, F, and in addition at least one error of its own ('peculiar error'), then J must be assumed to derive from F. Sometimes a witness can be shown to depend on another surviving witness from a single passage, viz., if the peculiar error in the descendant is clearly due to the external state of the text in the surviving exemplar; e.g. . . . where in copying a prose exemplar a line has been omitted, destroying the logical unity, &c.[2]

[2] Paul Maas, Textual Criticism (trans. Barbara Flowers; Oxford: Clarendon, 1958), 4.

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

Notice how the spur to the study was the ms. being placed online.
Same as Sinaiticus.

Note that the SART team are afawk the only ones who have looked into the Sinaiticus line omissions in any detail.

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

Margaret Mitchell on YouTube about the materials testing, in the Q&A, c. 54:00
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cn_zzlcTQGI

"the same should be applied to other manuscripts without provenance"
 
Last edited:
That you (and I) do not know about the scientific testing of Sinaiticus is not, per se, evidence that no such testing was done.
Lots of different tests were made on 'Archaic Mark', more than I mentioned in my summary of that Novum Testamentum article, and I think it is reasonable to assume that comparable tests were made on Sinaiticus, especially because of Simonides's claims.
 
That is true. Extensive testing by BAM should differentiate natural parchment yellowing from staining by lemon juice, coffee, tea and/or herbs.

Guy with zero experience viewing or testing manuscripts claims to know online what people who do know these things should do.


So we should watch for those tests ….

Oh, wait, Leipzig pulled out. Hmmmmm

(Note, though, the testing should include a Brit leaf.
However, the Leipzig testing would tell the true age of parchment and inks.)

Nah, you'll just move the goalposts again.

We can see your response the day after testing right now:

"But this date matches what Simonides said. He said, "I was taught the means of knowing the ancient MSS of every period and of every nation, their changes from time, also the knowledge of the skins, and the chemical preparation of the different writing inks, and the effects of the atmospheric changes of the different climates of the world." And he was accused of forgery, so it stands to reason that he knew how to do this! So the tests don't REALLY PROVE ANYTHING!! Not only that but HE ALSO SAID, "a very bulky volume, antiquely bound and almost entirely blank, the parchment of which was remarkably clean, and beautifully finished. This had been prepared apparently many centuries ago. So the fact the parchment dates to the fourth century doesn't mean Simonides wasn't involved with his creation of the 19th century text. It just means he used parchment that was old. THIS CONFIRMS what we knew in the 1860s when the lying tissue-dorfs did the long con something something."

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

As a reminder, readers, you're dealing with someone who thinks the moon landings DID NOT HAPPEN.
 
Even in the 1862 letter other sources are mentioned.

Having then examined the principal copies of the Holy Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos, I began to practice the principles of calligraphy; and the learned Benedict, taking a copy of the Moscow edition of both Testaments (published and presented to the Greeks by the illustrious brothers Zosimas), collated it with the ancient ones, and by this means cleared it of many errors, after which he gave it into my hands to transcribe. - Simonides, published in the Guardian, Sept 3 1862

Ok, so wait a minute - because you're trying to have it both ways here and everyone sees it.


You want us to believe ONLY THE PART HERE where Simonides says that these unnamed ancient manuscripts - invisible manuscripts, if you will, since not one corner of one was ever produced - were used to do this collation. The problem for you is that you want us to ignore the SECOND PART, where this collation doesn't even begin until after November 1839.

And an Alexandrinus edition is specifically mentioned along with ancient manuscripts.

This Moscow Bible, after having been collated with three ancient manuscripts and the printed edition of the Codex Alexandrinus,

Yes, and this is precisely how we know he's lying, because the Sinaticus DOES NOT MATCH ANY of those.

So since we know THESE ARE NOT THE SOURCES USED for this manuscript...then we likewise know he was lying about that.

What's funny is that you keep adding to the manuscript tally of numbers with "maybe this, maybe that" - but the larger the numbers gets, the more preposterous the idea not on shred of anything was ever found.

again collated them with the edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, printed with uncial letters, and still further with another very old Syriac Codex;
also mentioned is a Syriac codex.

Again, we can simply look at Sinaiticus and see none of this happened.

So we're up to:
a) he used the Moscow Bible
b) he used Alexandrinus
c) he used a Syriac Codex
d) he used 3 other ancient manuscripts
e) he used Claromontanus (your position)
f) he might have used other unnamed something something


All alleged as claims, none proven - and none even close to the readings in Sinaiticus.
 
Or I do not need to spend time explaining a minor question that you can get directly from David's book.

No, you just want an out.

You don't want to post an opinion online because you're afraid you'll be proven wrong and not be able to erase it like you can on your blog.

So instead, it's "go read David's book." That way - when it's wrong - you never took a position.

Incidentally, all Daniels does is waste our time and in the end is doing nothing but quoting the propagandist Hodgkin.

People do not circulate copies of their biographies that have the wrong birth date in it TWICE.
They - at a minimum - correct it if not order a republication.


They don't:
a) circulate it
b) tell the other people inquiring the same date
c) then change the date later
 
That you (and I) do not know about the scientific testing of Sinaiticus is not, per se, evidence that no such testing was done.

It definitely is strong evidence, you can say it is not absolute proof.

I've done extensive reading on the Sinaiticus availability to scholars, and testing quotes like those I put above.

There is a related, separate issue as to whether the libraries did any treatment, beyond the Douglas Cockerell binding. Kevin McGrane tried to theorize that Leipzig did some treatment that might relate to the lighter colour, but it was all speculation.
 
Back
Top