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

The edge has a stain, perhaps a spill of water or lemon-juice or herbs.

Perhaps not "lemon-juice or herbs".

Perhaps it looks heavily damaged in a lot of places.

Perhaps it looks phenomenally good in a lot of places.

Who first claimed "lemon-juice" was involved in it's coloration?

Why "lemon-juice"?
 
Does anybody know where this "lemon juice" thing came from?

Why "lemon juice"?

Who was the very first person to propose (i.e. the originator/inventor) this theory in regards to the Codex Sinaiticus?

Simonides? Kallinkos? Benedict?

Is this a modern thing? Or an old thing?

Who, how, and when did they first bring this specific allegation forth?

And on what grounds did they pick "lemon juice"?
 
Does anybody know where this "lemon juice" thing came from?
Why "lemon juice"?
Who was the very first person to propose (i.e. the originator/inventor) this theory in regards to the Codex Sinaiticus?
Simonides? Kallinkos? Benedict?

Journal of Sacred LIterature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA232

And Source not provided per mod.

Incorrect sourcing.

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

This is essentially the same quote.

The Christian Remembrancer, interprets Simonides: (1864)
Constantine Simonides and his Biblical Studies
https://books.google.com/books?id=jvoDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA204

(also in Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair by J.K. Elliott, p. 78)

Edited per mod

===========================
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Here are the similar quotes, from the same era, that mention the tampering, but they do not specifically mention lemon-juice.

Simonides in The Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, answered a question posed by Henry Bradshaw:
Journal of Sacred Literature - July 1863
Constantine Simonides, published in the Guardian Feb 4, 1963
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA485
“Mr. Bradshaw’s very proper and natural query – ‘How is it possible that a MS. written beautifully, and with no intention to deceive, in 1840, should in 1862 present so ancient an appearance?’ I answer simply thus: The MS. had been systematically tampered with, in order to give it an ancient appearance, as early as 1852, when, as I have already stated, it had an older appearance than it ought to have had …”

Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair (1982)
James Keith Elliott
The Literary Churchman, Dec. 16, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=2...=2ahUKEwj4h4ecrI_7AhVlEFkFHf9nBvoQ6AF6BAgHEAI
I know too, still further, that the same Codex was cleaned, with a solution of herbs, on the theory that the skins might be cleaned, but, in fact, that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow colour."

Journal of Sacred Literature - April, 1863
Letter from William A. Wright, Dec 5, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA214
EDITED BY MOD--TOO MANY LINKS
"much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
By the fortuitous splitting of the manuscript into the 1844 Leipzig Library and the 1859 British Library sections these assertions were surprisingly, yet easily, corroborated by the 2009 CSP (Codex Sinaiticus Project.) The 1859 staining and erratic and darker coloring can be seen visually, and by the numbers.

These would have been truly absurd claims if they were, supposedly, a wild shot in the dark. Just looking at the ms. would have proven that Simonides and Kallinikos had never actually even seen the ms. and were inventing stories. End of story. However, nobody looked at the two sections of the manuscript, Tischendorf made that virtually impossible. Thank changed in 2009.

The proper conclusion. Simonides and Kallinikos actually knew of the tampering of the ms. In the 1850s.

Morozov looking at just the 1859 section saw that it was not an ancient manuscript. This almost surely contributed to the Russian enthusiasm for making a big $ deal with the British marks.

All these quotes relating to the coloring and tampering are one part of the historical imperative supporting the c. AD 1840 Mount Athos production of Sinaiticus.
 
Last edited:
Here are the similar quotes, from the same era, that mention the tampering, but they do not specifically mention lemon-juice.

Simonides in The Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, answered a question posed by Henry Bradshaw:
Journal of Sacred Literature - July 1863
Constantine Simonides, published in the Guardian Feb 4, 1963
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA485


Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair (1982)
James Keith Elliott
The Literary Churchman, Dec. 16, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=2...=2ahUKEwj4h4ecrI_7AhVlEFkFHf9nBvoQ6AF6BAgHEAI


Journal of Sacred Literature - April, 1863
Letter from William A. Wright, Dec 5, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA214
https://archive.org/stream/journalsacredli15cowpgoog#page/n229/mode/2up

Are we looking at two different letters, allegedly, one from Klink, and one from Simonides?

Or just one letter from Simonides, with Simonides relating/quoting Klink's words?
 
Last edited:
Here are the similar quotes, from the same era, that mention the tampering, but they do not specifically mention lemon-juice.

Simonides in The Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, answered a question posed by Henry Bradshaw:
Journal of Sacred Literature - July 1863
Constantine Simonides, published in the Guardian Feb 4, 1963
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA485


Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair (1982)
James Keith Elliott
The Literary Churchman, Dec. 16, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=2...=2ahUKEwj4h4ecrI_7AhVlEFkFHf9nBvoQ6AF6BAgHEAI


Journal of Sacred Literature - April, 1863
Letter from William A. Wright, Dec 5, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA214
https://archive.org/stream/journalsacredli15cowpgoog#page/n229/mode/2up

And are these quotes, multiple English translations of a (or the same) Greek original (i.e. letter) sent from Simon say's and Klink (or just Simon say's)?

They look like they might be translations of the same passage from a letter.

Or are they just newspaper editors puting the same story in their own word's (paraphrasing the same source)?

Or do details like these not matter to you?
 
Last edited:
Does anybody know where this "lemon juice" thing came from?

Why "lemon juice"?

Who was the very first person to propose (i.e. the originator/inventor) this theory in regards to the Codex Sinaiticus?

Simonides? Kallinkos? Benedict?

Is this a modern thing? Or an old thing?

Who, how, and when did they first bring this specific allegation forth?

And on what grounds did they pick "lemon juice"?


Simonides writing as Kallinikos presented that line of bull.


Remember - we keep being told the manuscript hasn’t been chemically tested, which means anyone claiming it has been aged by anything is just making stuff up and hoping nobody calls them out for it.

Simonides wrote the Kallinikos letter to make the allegation; had he made it himself, it would have been legally actionable.

It’s hilarious anybody gives any credence to anything a lying forger said and it’s the wishful thinking fallacy on steroids.
 
Last edited:
Here are the similar quotes, from the same era, that mention the tampering, but they do not specifically mention lemon-juice.

Simonides in The Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, answered a question posed by Henry Bradshaw:
Journal of Sacred Literature - July 1863
Constantine Simonides, published in the Guardian Feb 4, 1963
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA485


Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair (1982)
James Keith Elliott
The Literary Churchman, Dec. 16, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=2...=2ahUKEwj4h4ecrI_7AhVlEFkFHf9nBvoQ6AF6BAgHEAI


Journal of Sacred Literature - April, 1863
Letter from William A. Wright, Dec 5, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA214
https://archive.org/stream/journalsacredli15cowpgoog#page/n229/mode/2up

So you think there are no plausible alternative explanations for the Codex Sinaiticus' "ancient appearance"?

I.e. the simpler and more obvious explanations like, it has an "ancient appearance" because it is ancient?

Or that it's "older appearance" is because it is really old?
 
Or do details like these not matter to you?

That is why I specifically showed you the two similar quotes that do source to the same letter.

We have on record four distinct quotes that relate to manuscript tampering that can be related to colour. There are additional quotes that are in the ballpark, such as the theft abstraction of the leaves in 1844. Another one related to removing the dedication.

I’ll see if I can make up a list and also a page of all the quotes on the physical manipulation of the manuscript. I thought of a quote database, but that might be overkill, since I can use PBF.
 
So you think there are no plausible alternative explanations for the Codex Sinaiticus' "ancient appearance"?
I.e. the simpler and more obvious explanations like, it has an "ancient appearance" because it is ancient?
Or that it's "older appearance" is because it is really old?

The attempt to give an appearance of age only applied to the 1859 St. Petersburg pages, not the 1844 Leipzig pages. That is why they look so different, not just colour, but also stains and streaks.

Let’s pretend that the 1859 pages actually had an appearance of age, that they looked 1,650 years old. Yet the Leipzig pages only have an appearance of under 300 years old, more obviously “phenomenally good condition.” Then which number informs us of the likely manuscript age?
 
Last edited:
I wonder if Mr Avery ever thinks about this ,☝️ when he writes his blog entries about various institutions and people.
He may need to consider this.

While I would welcome legal actions, they are highly unlikely. And the libraries especially do not want discovery, which would be lots of fun. The only actual harumph I got was unrelated to Sinaiticus. And I actually softened some words, without any change to substance. No lawyers involved. I am a big fan of the Tom Paxton song, “One Million Lawyers.”

If Simonides had been sued for his report on the tampering, the accusers would likely have needed to bring parts of both sections to London. Which would similarly be a big “oops”.
 
Last edited:
That is why I specifically showed you the two similar quotes that do source to the same letter.

We have on record four distinct quotes that relate to manuscript tampering that can be related to colour. There are additional quotes that are in the ballpark, such as the theft abstraction of the leaves in 1844. Another one related to removing the dedication.

I’ll see if I can make up a list and also a page of all the quotes on the physical manipulation of the manuscript. I thought of a quote database, but that might be overkill, since I can use PBF.

So, the verification of the authenticity of the original quote sources is not as important as the claims within the said quotes, which quotes in turn, themselves, have an incredibly dubious provenance (which is actually what this is all about)...

I see.

Hmmmm.
 
Last edited:
While I would welcome legal actions, they are highly unlikely. And the libraries especially do not want discovery, which would be lots of fun. The only actual harumph I got was unrelated to Sinaiticus. And I actually softened some words, without any change to substance. No lawyers involved. I am a big fan of the Tom Paxton song, “One Million Lawyers.”

If Simonides had been sued for his report on the tampering, the accusers would likely have needed to bring parts of both sections to London. Which would similarly be a big “oops”.

All the best with that one...
 
That is why I specifically showed you the two similar quotes that do source to the same letter.

We have on record four distinct quotes that relate to manuscript tampering that can be related to colour. There are additional quotes that are in the ballpark, such as the theft abstraction of the leaves in 1844. Another one related to removing the dedication.

I’ll see if I can make up a list and also a page of all the quotes on the physical manipulation of the manuscript. I thought of a quote database, but that might be overkill, since I can use PBF.

So, you're a quote miner, who has thrown all caution to the wind, and commits contextomy at will.

Nothing new there...
 
Journal of Sacred LIterature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA232



Kallinikos Hiermonachos
Alexandria, Oct 15, 1862

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

This is essentially the same quote.

The Christian Remembrancer, interprets Simonides: (1864)
Constantine Simonides and his Biblical Studies
https://books.google.com/books?id=jvoDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA204

(also in Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair by J.K. Elliott, p. 78)



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

Can you set out clearly who and what are second or perhaps third hand accounts (i.e. retellings) and what are directly (without mediators) from Simonides, Klink etc?

Otherwise they are (in effect) nothing more than the church tabloid clippings from a serial quote miner - continually committing contextomy again and again ad infinitum...
 
Last edited:
That is why I specifically showed you the two similar quotes that do source to the same letter.

We have on record four distinct quotes that relate to manuscript tampering that can be related to colour. There are additional quotes that are in the ballpark, such as the theft abstraction of the leaves in 1844. Another one related to removing the dedication.

I’ll see if I can make up a list and also a page of all the quotes on the physical manipulation of the manuscript. I thought of a quote database, but that might be overkill, since I can use PBF.

Your sole contribution to the subject is quoting people.

Not learning paleography
Not learning Greek
Not learning manuscript collation
Not learning any relevant subject


Quoting people, which anyone with a password and too much spare time can do but contributes nothing to the world at large, understanding of the subject or to be blunt one’s judgment seat before Christ.
 
Back
Top