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

This checkered receipt was part of the negotiations about 8 months after the theft.

It is a type of confession.

While the manuscript was safe at the Russian Consulate, a “loan” agreement was needed to complete the heist to Russia.

So you're saying the Wal-Mart from which he stole it gave him a receipt afterwards.


Makes perfect sense in Bizarro World, but that's not where we live.
 
There's two competing stories/narratives going on here.

To me (just from a brief perusal of the history) the shady character of Simonides interactions with others, and his behaviour very much give the impression and profile of a liar.

Simonides Perfectionalism - the simple fact he never once told the whole truth about ANYTHING.

And he didn't.
 
Simonides was exposed as a faker, Tischendorf might have been a thief. Are we comparing the two men in terms of their honesty?
Neither accusation, whether or not accurate, touches (or even hints) at the issue of whether the Sinaiticus dates from the fourth century.
 
Simonides was exposed as a faker, Tischendorf might have been a thief. Are we comparing the two men in terms of their honesty?
Neither accusation, whether or not accurate, touches (or even hints) at the issue of whether the Sinaiticus dates from the fourth century.

Tischendorf = a collector of rare manuscripts

Simonides = a huckster of fake manuscripts

Simonides = livelihood consists in/of hunting out/down any collector of rare manuscripts and offering his goods for said monies

Hmmmm

Do you think there might have been a chance of interaction of some kind or having something to do with each other before Simonides came to England to purvey his goods?

The likelihood and/or odds (even if only hypothetical) are quite high...

Hmmmm
 
We know for a fact that Tischendorf expressed himself when Simonides presented the Uranios ms in Germany - about five years before Simonides made the claim, in English newspapers, that he had fabricated the Sinaiticus.
I imagine that, as both being explorers in ancient mss in the Middle East, they had at least heard of each other well before then.
 
Mr Avery.

  1. Where did Simonides specifically and unambiguously say that he re-wrote letters from Kallinikos (and thereafter sent them to the newspapers, giving them no indication whatsoever in the letters themselves that he had done this for Kallinikos)?
  2. Where did Simonides specifically and unambiguously say that he wrote letters for Kallinikos (but nonetheless sent them to the newspapers without any indication whatsoever in the letters that he had done this on Kallinkos' behalf)?

Where's the concrete evidence in Simonides own words?
 
At 129 pages, I am not going to print it out but it is fascinating reading.

Even without high-tech examinations, it is obvious that Sinaiticus is very old and the handwriting points to the fourth century.
The one and only claim that it is recent comes from Simonides, depends entirely on Simonides, and hangs on the credibility of Simonides. But he has no credibility, not only from his previous frauds but his own story of writing the Sinaiticus is utterly implausible.
 
There's definitely two narratives going on with Simonides.

There's way WAY to much (excessive amounts of) shady dealing surrounding this guy's exploits.

He says something, someone goes to Greece to verify it, turns out to be a mixture of absolute falsehood and manipulated distorted facts.

Like, has anyone found the secret room underneath the monastery where he said he found the ancient manuscripts? Or is this just fairytale/land stuff (once upon a time in a land far far away...)?

He gave enough basic information (description) for someone to check. Yet, nothing.

Has the SART team set out on an archeological expedition to verify it's (secret room "underneath" the monastery) existence with the monks or Greek authorities?

I expect the answer will be lamentably predictable...
 
P.S. Meaning the room (or the remains of it, I.e. that Simonides/Kallinkos/Benedict described).

Not he alleged manuscripts, which (according to the story) are obviously gone.
 
Can anybody remember which specific monastery it was the Simonides allegedly found the hidden/secret room/chamber with the source materials for allegedly ✌️making✌️ the Sinaiticus?
 
You realize this doesn't matter to the SART team, right?

They'll just say he named the wrong monastery, we don't know, and oh yeah, Tischendorf was a bad guy!!!

I have learned from the highly eminent KJVO scholars that the right way to go about all of this is to just make up stuff that suits your needs.

And then fabricate more stuff to confirm your other stuff.
 
Can anybody remember which specific monastery it was the Simonides allegedly found the hidden/secret room/chamber with the source materials for allegedly ✌️making✌️ the Sinaiticus?

Where does Simonides say that the source materials for Simoneidos were in a secret room?

Journal of Sacred LIterature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA215

"however, remaining unaltered), being short of parchment I selected from the library of the monastery, with Benedict's permission, 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—probably by the writer or by the principal of the monastery, as it bore the inscription, EKAOHON nANHITPIKON (a Collection of Panegyrics), and also a short discourse much injured by time." p. 215-216

I have learned from the highly eminent KJVO scholars that the right way to go about all of this is to just make up stuff that suits your needs.
And then fabricate more stuff to confirm your other stuff.

Often the questions are themselves mistaken.
 
Last edited:
... it is obvious that Sinaiticus is very old and the handwriting points to the fourth century.

Handwriting can easily be copied 300 years or 1500 years later. So this will never be a proof.

Take a look at the Three Crosses note.
Are you familiar with it?
It talks about the scribal blunder in the manuscript of copying a section twice, so when would it have been written?

(We can for now put aside the blunder of not fixing the problem, maybe they were giving up on it as a finished product.)
 
Handwriting can easily be copied 300 years or 1500 years later. So this will never be a proof.

Yet you readily accept far less as "proof."

Take a look at the Three Crosses note.
Are you familiar with it?
It talks about the scribal blunder in the manuscript of copying a section twice, so when would it have been written?

(We can for now put aside the blunder of not fixing the problem, maybe they were giving up on it as a finished product.)
 
Handwriting can easily be copied 300 years or 1500 years later. So this will never be a proof.

Take a look at the Three Crosses note.
Are you familiar with it?
It talks about the scribal blunder in the manuscript of copying a section twice, so when would it have been written?

(We can for now put aside the blunder of not fixing the problem, maybe they were giving up on it as a finished product.)
So you've read and studied Amy Myshrall's massive 821 page thesis on Siniaticus and its correctors, have you?

Have you told her that she wasted a good portion of her life researching, studying, documenting and examining Sinaiticus, when all she would've had to do is sit behind her computer screen and read the nonsense spouted all over the internet by yourself and David Daniels?

Have you told her she's been duped by Simonides?

Who told you handwriting can easily be copied?

Do you have experience in the field or are you just statng a bunch of nonsense that you arent even qualified to write one sentence about?

And why did the guy in Simonides's day (can't recall the name offhand) bail on him, saying it was too hard to do what you say is so easy?
 
Last edited:
Where does Simonides say that the source materials for Simoneidos were in a secret room?

Journal of Sacred LIterature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA215





Often the questions are themselves mistaken.

Maybe...when done from memory... while at work... on my phone... away from my research files.

But you know what I'm talking about, when they said they discovered manuscripts in a secret room underneath the monastery!

Which monastery was it Mr Avery?
 
Back
Top