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

Your sole contribution to the subject is quoting people.

Nope.
The SART team has made many contributions.
And continues to do so.

However, bringing forth quotes that are important and have been hidden from the scholarship is extremely important. And giving them proper context is extremely important, e.g. if they show a historical imperative by impossible knowledge. (e.g. The 1843 theft.)

An example of an amazing quote is Tischendorf concerned about Simonides while he is en route to the 1859 theft. Can you show that in any other Sinaiticus scholarship? Similarly the quote from Tischendorf in 1844 that proves that the whole "saved by fire" nonsense was malarky, a self-serving con job. Unmentioned among Sinaiticus writers, except our studies.

An example of palaeography is questioning the absurd dating of the Three Crosses Note in the standard Sinaiticus sham scholarship, using Tischendorf plug-in-the-date numbers. And questioning why Tischendorf talked of notes that were truncated at the margins. And there are many more.

Contras should try to work with the real issues, instead of looking foolish, as I pointed out to TNC recently. One example of foolishness is Tommy Wasserman trying to censor any discussion on forums. Another is the current "attack the messenger" attempt.

You are just upset that this thread has strongly supported the creation of Sinaiticus c. 1840 at Mt. Athos, for thinkers. So rather than substantive discussion, your modus operandi is to attack the messenger. Typical.
 
Last edited:
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?

There are four quotes I gave, all come from Simonides and/or Kallinikos. They are all in the Elliott book as well, although on the one where I show two related quotes, with lemon-juice, he has only the one that is not Simonides.

Here are the pages in Elliott.

"much altered" - 28, 48, 53, 55, 68, 82
"ancient appearance" - 68
"herbs ... yellow colour" - 77
"lemon juice ... vellum" - 78

Remember, you asked anybody to show you a quote with lemon-juice. Now when I do that, and add more, you try to be a critic, with silly polemic, simply because I answered your question properly!
 
Last edited:
Here is an interesting quote from the opponents of Simonides.

Professor Tischendorf states that there are many letters in the marginal notes which have been lost, from their having been written close up to the edge, and from the further circumstance of the edges having suffered injury. Now this is a thing which is extremely likely to happen with a MS. some centuries old, but is it likely to be the case with a MS. written on parchment (or vellum), and not much more than twenty years old? We assume that Professor Tischendorf's statement is correct, for the point is one upon which he could hardly be deceived; if his statement be not correct, then, indeed, his authority can go for very little. - Elliott p. 62

Simonides said that notes were eliminated, but we can even put that aside and go to the basic question.

Where are these supposed truncated notes?

Why are they missing today?
 
Here is an interesting quote from the opponents of Simonides.



Simonides said that notes were eliminated, but we can even put that aside and go to the basic question.

Where are these supposed truncated notes?

Why are they missing today?
WHY DO YOU KEEP ON WITH THIS NONSENSE AS IF SIMONIDES WAS AN HONEST MAN????

With your asinine line of reasoning, anyone could say they wrote anything, and the proof would be the disappearance of the thing that mysteriously got removed from that specific anything that they claim they wrote!
 
Last edited:
Here is an interesting quote from the opponents of Simonides.
Simonides said that notes were eliminated, but we can even put that aside and go to the basic question.
Where are these supposed truncated notes?
Why are they missing today?

Once again,

Tischendorf wrote of truncated notes, why are they missing today?

If there was true Sinaiticus science and scholarship, this is rather an important question.

A full collation of the Codex Sinaiticus with the received text of the New Testament (1864)
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=v-JUmBD5zIcC&pg=PP21
https://archive.org/details/fullcollationofc00scri/page/n19/mode/2up

"marginal notes have sometimes been partially cut off by the ancient binder."
 

Denying the truth doesn't constitute being the truth.

The SART team has made many contributions.

If I asked anyone in textual criticism or paleography or the British Library, would they agree with your
assessment?

And continues to do so.

Like what?

Making a bunch of poppycock claims like "Simonides used Claromontanus," which even he wasn't dumb enough to assert?



However, bringing forth quotes that are important and have been hidden from the scholarship is extremely important.

What are you claiming was hidden?
The fact Simonides wrote some letters and signed another guy's name to it was known in 1862, which was 160 years ago.

Nothing has been "hidden," so I don't know why you claim it was.


And giving them proper context is extremely important, e.g. if they show a historical imperative by impossible knowledge. (e.g. The 1843 theft.)

There is no "historical imperative" involved here, just your flawed bibliology functioning as a motivation fallacy.
There was no "impossible knowledge" no matter how many times you keep making this ridiculous claim.

All Simonides related was what was already known about Sinaiticus.
Why did he claim stuff in Genesis? Because he knew it wasn't there!




An example of an amazing quote is Tischendorf concerned about Simonides while he is en route to the 1859 theft. Can you show that in any other Sinaiticus scholarship? Similarly the quote from Tischendorf in 1844 that proves that the whole "saved by fire" nonsense was malarky, a self-serving con job. Unmentioned among Sinaiticus writers, except our studies.

Hogwash.

That entire "his story doesn't add up" was known 160 years go.
Try again.



An example of palaeography is questioning the absurd dating of the Three Crosses Note in the standard Sinaiticus sham scholarship, using Tischendorf plug-in-the-date numbers. And questioning why Tischendorf talked of notes that were truncated at the margins. And there are many more.

Contras should try to work with the real issues, instead of looking foolish, as I pointed out to TNC recently.

Not only do you have an interesting definition of "foolish," but you seem blissfully unaware that people who - unlike you - have actually seen the manuscript...find your fantasy version of events amusing and not to be taken seriously.

One example of foolishness is Tommy Wasserman trying to censor any discussion on forums. Another is the current "attack the messenger" attempt.

I'm sorry, but pointing out you have nothing but quotes is not attacking the MESSENGER, it's attacking the flawed "research" you invoke.

You know this, but you like to pretend to be persecuted.



You are just upset that this thread has strongly supported the creation of Sinaiticus c. 1840 at Mt. Athos, for thinkers. So rather than substantive discussion, your modus operandi is to attack the messenger. Typical.

Guy who accuses other people of mind reading.....thinks he can read minds.


Let's cut through the bull.

If you had ANYTHING of actual substance, you wouldn't be posting these mindless musings on CARM or other chat forums.

You would, instead, be IN ENGLAND going over the manuscript and delivering your findings that way.
You would be involved in actual, not online fantasy, research.

You're not for one reason only - even you know that being a troll making demonstrably untrue assertions is a whole lot easier than actually providing scientific evidence for your position.


You have provided NOTHING MORE in your blizzard of posts here than "Simonides said."

Even saying "Kallinikos said" is actually saying, "Simonides said," since they are one and the same.
 
Maestroh:
Why did [Simonides] claim stuff in Genesis? Because he knew it wasn't there!

Yup. Along those lines,

Wright: "In conclusion, as Simonides states in his letter that he can point to two distinct pages in the MS. which contain the most unquestionable proof of its being his writing, I challenge him to place in your hands a statement of those marks of recognition in a sealed envelope, which shall be opened in the presence of impartial and competent witnesses, and compared with the facsimile reprint of the Codex Sinaiticus which Tischendorf had just completed." (Elliott, Simonides Affair, pg. 82)​

Obviously he never answered such a challenge. And we know why.

Just imagine the nonsense Avery would come up with, were Tischendorf the one who refused the above challenge by Wright.
 
Last edited:
Maestroh:


Yup. Along those lines,

Wright: "In conclusion, as Simonides states in his letter that he can point to two distinct pages in the MS. which contain the most unquestionable proof of its being his writing, I challenge him to place in your hands a statement of those marks of recognition in a sealed envelope, which shall be opened in the presence of impartial and competent witnesses, and compared with the facsimile reprint of the Codex Sinaiticus which Tischendorf had just completed." (Elliott, Simonides Affair, pg. 82)​

Obviously he never answered such a challenge. And we know why.

Just imagine the nonsense Avery would come up with, were Tischendorf the one who refused the above challenge by Wright.


Tischendorf not meeting in the UK was supposed to prove something - who even knows? - but that’s always a one-way street with a conspiracy theorist.
 
Since apparently "just quoting stuff" is viewed as a valid argument...

FROM CODEX SINAITICUS: THE STORY OF THE WORLD'S OLDEST BIBLE by D.C. Parker

"The manuscript was copied by a team of at least three scribes." (page 1 - so much for that Simonides nonsense)

"From about fifty years after its creation, for a period which lasted till around 600, the Codex was extensively revised by a succession of correctors. There are nearly 23,000 revisions (at an overall average of almost thirty on each page). Such a number is unique among ancient manuscripts. The majority were carried out by six correctors." (page 3 - hmm.....so not ONE guy like, say, Uncle Benedict)

"..it was the subject of detailed analysis by two Assistant Keepers of Manuscripts, HJM Milne and TC Skeat. They assessed the contributions of Tischendorf and the Lakes, and came to new and convincing conclusions with regard to both scribes and correctors" (page 4....wait, you mean they didn't just accept whatever Tischendorf said???)

"The manuscript was on show in the Manuscripts Saloon until the British Library was moved to a new bilding at St Pancras in 1998" (page 5 - wait, I thought it was hidden from the public and something about 2009?)

"Tischendorf advanced the romantic notion that the parchment might be antelope hide. But there are places where traces of hair follicles ar visible, and examination of the entry point of the hair into the skin through a microscope reveals that some sheets are cattle hide and some are sheep skin. The extraordinarily fine quality of the former suggests that it is uterine" (page 44 - wait....you mean the CSP didn't just say it's what Tischendorf said, THEY ACTUALLY LOOKED AT IT? Wow, someone should tell this to Steven Avery instead of hiding it, you know, in a book all can read)

"The parchment used for Codex Sinaiticus is of exceptionally high quality." (page 45 - hmm, might explain the easy page turning)

"Under raking light and before the image is magnified, the greater waviness of the bottom edge may be seen. Under high magnification..." (Wait...you mean they actually LOOKED AT IT, they didn't just take anyone's word for it?)

"There are a few manuscripts of similar age which are nearly as fine...." (page 46....wait.....you mean there's more than this one that's old?)

"It is precisely the fineness of the parchment that makes Codex Sinaiticus possible." (Ibid......hmmm, sounds like they thought of the 'but this looks new' argument AND ANSWERED IT!!!)

"The ink used for writing the Codex was of two colours, brown and red." (p 48 - wait, I'm told they didn't even look at the ink or study it or nothing)

"In the first place, they were a team...How many scribes were there? Here opinion has been divided. Tischendorf found four...Subsequent scholarship generally accepted this. But Milne and Skeat reduced the number to three...In the course of the Project, it has been proposed that is not one but two scribes, B1 and B2..." (pp 48-9....wait a minute.....you mean they don't just parrot what Tischendorf said, they STUDY IT???)

"...palaeography, a discipline first developed in France in the late seventeenth century, provides the tools for making informed judgments. First of all, one can get some idea from the general shape of the letters...Secondly, scribes have distinctive habits which are unconscious and so harder than letter shapes to control..." (51-52.....wait.......you mean they didn't just say Tischendorf was right, they studied it???)

"Unfortunately , ancient scribes did not put the date when they bean or finished a piece of work...Dating a manuscript from as long ago as the fourth century cannot be done with the precision that we would wish...The best we can say is that the evidence such as it is leads us to believe that Codex Sinaitiucs may have been written shortly after the middle of the fourth century" (53-54)

"Codex Sinaiticus is one of our most important ancient copies of the Bible." (93)

"We can say, then, that Tischendorf's account has been taken at face value by western scholarshp for too long, and there are serious difficulties with it." (132.....wait, I keep getting told the British Library is a bunch of dupes that just believes anything Tischendorf says.......sure.....)

"We are no longer dependent upon later reports by Tischendorf and others" (137 - amazing.....so the British Library does not simply take Tischendorf's word.....for anything. I can't imagine what kind of a brain dead liar would suggest otherwise...)

"The next episode in the story if of a very different kind. It is a scene from comedy...The absurdity of his claim to have forged something so indisputably the genuine article must be put down to malice. The fact that Tischendorf was one of those who had exposed Simonides (early in 1856) may have had something to do with it...In retrospect it may seem surprising that anybody could have taken any of Simonides' letter seriously (151-2......hmm, so they cover the nonsense, they don't uh HIDE anything....)

"Various old stories resurfaced. Simoindes' claims to be the author of the Codex put some people off. Reports that the manuscript had been stolen from St. Catherine's were refuted by Hill" (161 - wait....I've been assured by a guy who can't read Greek OR Sinaiticus that Tischendorf stole it.....)
 
And, of course, we have blithering nonsense - halfway nonsense - like this:


In the review I made passing reference to Parker’s discussion of allegations made in the nineteenth century that this codex is a forgery, created by a man named Constantine Simonides (1820-1890). I thought it might be on interest to do a study of some of the background to the Simonides forgery allegation, by looking at a few discussions of it.

Parker did nothing but mention this little incident and point out it was comedy. The name of the book is NOT "All About The Simonides Claims." Elliott wrote that one - which Parker pointed Riddle to read if he's interested.


Let’s begin with the Wikipedia article on Constantine Simonides.
Nothing says "I'm lazy" like citing the "anyone can edit this" online source.


Next, let’s look at Parker’s dismissal of the allegation in his work on Codex Sinaiticus (see pp. 151-152, and the bibliography on p. 154, especially the work by Elliot).

I love triggered language, don't you?


Finally, let’s look at a few relevant entries in Stanley E. Porter’s biography Constantine Tischendorf: The Life and Work of a 19th Century Bible Hunter (Bloomsbury, 2015).

See pp. 38-39 where Porter discusses how Simonides in 1855 sold to the University of Leipzig Library manuscripts of the Shepherd of Hermes, later challenged as inauthentic by various scholars, including Tischendorf. Around the same time, Simonides was also arrested on the charge of forging a palimpsest manuscript attributed to Uranius of Alexandria and Porter notes that Tischendorf also wrote disputing the authenticity of these documents.

See also pp. 48-50 and Porter’s discussion of the forgery claim made by Simonides and his ten reasons to reject the plausibility of this claim (taken from Elliot).

Conclusion:

Codex Sinaiticus may be a forgery, but I believe it is more likely it is authentic based on the arguments made by Elliot (relayed by Porter).


If you actually believe Elliott and Porter, why would you even think it "may be a forgery"?

There are people who are experts on papyrology and who have examined the documents firsthand, and their judgements should be given proper weight.

Certainly more than someone who hasn't examined it firsthand, thank you, Jeff.

This is not to say, however, that scholars cannot be duped. They can! And their presuppositions can lead them to embrace dubious “evidence” to support their views.

You'll notice he doesn't tell us what presuppositions anyone examining Sinaiticus must have had, thouhg.

There have been various examples of modern disputes about the age or authenticity of ancient documents.

Three contemporary examples:

First, Morton Smith and the Secret Gospel of Mark (1958). The dispute here involves the authenticity of the Mar Saba letter attributed to Clement of Alexandria and its reference to an extended version of Mark.


For this to apply, Tischendorf would have to be the source of it.


Second, Dan Wallace and “first-century Mark” (2012). In a debate with Bart Ehrman in 2012, Wallace claimed that a fragment of Mark was about to be published that was dated to the first century. He later, however, had to withdraw this claim (see his 2018 blog post).

Wallace didn't examine this firsthand, though; he got duped by someone who up to that moment had a stellar reputation. So this doesn't apply, either. Also - Riddle's obvious personal distaste for Wallace and the CT are here...given Wallace was never the source of this entire thing.

Third, Harvard Divinity scholar Karen L. King and the “Gospel of Jesus’s Wife” (2012). This Coptic papyrus was proven to be a forgery and exposed as such in an Atlantic article in 2016.

That was known to be a forgery the moment it hit the airwaves. HUGE difference.

Warning:
Scholars can make overblown and even deceptive claims about mss. in order to support their points, just as traditionalists can to support theirs.

The three examples cited above all involved relatively short and fragmentary documents. One of the arguments in favor of the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus is the fact that it is such a massive document and that it shows evidence of so much scribal correction.

Which also debunks the Burgon claim it wasn't used is the only reason we have it.....

Nevertheless, the claim probably cannot be completely dismissed.
It can if you really are basing it on the arguments of Elliott and Porter, which is what you said mere seconds ago, Jeff.

At the least the dispute illustrates a glary weakness of the reconstruction method. If you are going to rely on reconstruction as a method how can you do so without knowing with certainty the provenance or origins of many of the documents upon which you rely to make your reconstruction.

"Because a method has weaknesses it is therefore 100% unreliable" is a dubious argument as well.
 
Jeff Riddle: There are people who are experts on papyrology and who have examined the documents firsthand, and their judgements should be given proper weight.

Certainly more than someone who hasn't examined it firsthand, thank you, Jeff.

Will you name all manuscript experts who examined the two manuscript sections first-hand?

Even one section would be helpful.

Thanks!

And indicate if they had a vested interest, e.g.

Tischendorf - yes

Morozov - no
 
Where can I find information on where, who, how, and when Kallinkos' letter was compared with Simonides handwriting, and reportedly from the same hand?

Anyone?
 
Will you name all manuscript experts who examined the two manuscript sections first-hand?

Even one section would be helpful.

Thanks!

And indicate if they had a vested interest, e.g.

Tischendorf - yes

Morozov - no

This is a disingenuous request (at a minimum), because you don't accept anyone's verdict (i.e any "Text-Crit Dupe's" as you label them, who are generally the ones who do this sort of thing) except your own - and you know it.

Why even bother.
 
This is a disingenuous request (at a minimum), because you don't accept anyone's verdict (i.e any "Text-Crit Dupe's" as you label them, who are generally the ones who do this sort of thing) except your own - and you know it.

Why even bother.

Also - how can he possibly mind read the intents of Tischendorf and Morozov?
 
Last edited:
This is a disingenuous request (at a minimum), because you don't accept anyone's verdict (i.e any "Text-Crit Dupe's" as you label them, who are generally the ones who do this sort of thing) except your own - and you know it. Why even bother.

A belabored way of saying you do not have any names.

Especially not independent palaeographic experts (who are often not text-crit dupes.)

One of the key elements of the manuscript history is precisely how the manuscript sections were kept away from hands-on inspection. This began with Tischendorf dividing the two sections.
 
Also - how can he possibly mind read the intents of Tischendorf and Morozov?

Tischendorf especially left us a trail in his fabricated saved from fire yarn, and also two books c. 1863 where he wildly attacked anybody who did not accept his dating of Sinaiticus.
 
A belabored way of saying you do not have any names.

Especially not independent palaeographic experts (who are often not text-crit dupes.)

One of the key elements of the manuscript history is precisely how the manuscript sections were kept away from hands-on inspection. This began with Tischendorf dividing the two sections.

Define what you say is a "manuscript expert"?

And why do they have to be Steven Avery approved? 😉

Define "independent" in this context?

And who, in your opinion, qualifies as "independent paleographic expert"?

And what qualifications do these proposed Steven Avery approved "independent paleographic experts" have?

And what qualifications do these proposed Steven Avery approved "manuscript experts" have?
 
The British Library acknowledges (or admits) that the claim Tischendorf stole it is unadulterated hogwash.

"Reports that the manuscript had been stolen from St. Catherine's were refuted by Hill" (Parker, 2009: 161)
 
Where can I find information on where, who, how, and when Kallinkos' letter was compared with Simonides handwriting, and reportedly from the same hand?

Anyone?

"Mr Wright laid upon the table the original of the letter of Callinicus Hiermonachos which had, apparently, been written at Alexandria and which had certainly been sent thence to the Guardian office by the ordinary post. Mr Wright proved by comparison of the writing of this letter with other known specimens of the handwriting of Simonides that the letter of Callinicus must have been written by Simonides himself in England and sent hence to someone in Alexandria, who posted it to the Guardian."
W.S.W Vaux
"The Guardian, 18 Feb 1863

One week earlier Mr Wright proved this point at the February 11, 1863 meeting of the "Royal Society of Literature."
- written on the same kind of paper
- English writing identical
- Greek identical

It was so obvious that John Eliot Hodgkin, the arch-defender of Simonides, in a backhanded way:

A paper of much ability on the SINAITIC MS itself was read by Mr. W.A. Wright. It brought out very clearly, as we thought, the identity of the handwriting of the letters addressed to us by Callinicus, and that of Simonides himself; so much so that we feel persuaded that Callinicus must have had his letters copied before sending them to England for publication. Mr. Wright had examined the details with sagacity and care rarely equalled: and every one must feel indebted to him for his zeal and determination in this matter."

This whole sordid portion is in Elliott, 100-103.
 
Define what you say is a "manuscript expert"?
And why do they have to be Steven Avery approved? 😉
Define "independent" in this context?
And who, in your opinion, qualifies as "independent paleographic expert"?
And what qualifications do these proposed Steven Avery approved "independent paleographic experts" have?
And what qualifications do these proposed Steven Avery approved "manuscript experts" have?

This is a diversion from the simple fact that you have not given one independent person, with any "special set of skills" involving manuscripts, who looked at the two sections of the manuscript. Much less as a palaeographic evaluation. (Using palaeographic in either the limited sense of script analysis or, better, the wider perspective of general analysis of manuscript and ink, including history.)

When you have nobody, it does not really matter what category is the nobody.
 
Back
Top