TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Grrrrr
Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You mean a leaf through a glass some distance away?
Not the SART principles.
Not quite sure what point you are making by your complaint that people were duped by the Sinaiticus facsimiles, as everyone from Bradshaw to Scrivener to everyone else who has examined and handled the manuscript in person has had no doubts as to its authenticity.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You give two names, and even there, with Scrivener, there is no evidence that he examined and handled even one section of the manuscript.
Due to its extraordinary circumstances, it is critical to compare the 1844 and 1859 sections. Very few people are known to have examined and handled the sections, so the “consensus” scholarship conclusion was a sham.
===========
If the scholars in 1862-63 had insisted on manuscript access as necessary, the whole Sinaiticus claim of Tischendorf would have quickly blown up.
Tischendorf bowed out of the German Oriental Society appearance, which similarly have ended the controversy.
Last edited:
Codex Siniaticus is a valuable 4th century handwritten manuscript of the Greek Bible. It is of great historic value. No one is asking you to accept it's handwritten errors. It is not a threat to you or anyone else. Unless a person just hates Bibles. Then it is a legitimate threat.
Avery's excuse for his adherence to the Simonides mythology is that nobody (or almost nobody) has actually touched the Siniaticus, and therefore nobody "knows" anything about its antiquity.
Avery's argument from ignorance does not come close to outweighing the opinions of several scholars and technicians who have actually handled and studied the Siniaticus.
As for the variants between the Siniaticus and the Textus Receptus, as far as I can see the Sinaiticus supports all the articles of faith, altho sometimes the repetition of proof texts is limited.
Avery's argument from ignorance does not come close to outweighing the opinions of several scholars and technicians who have actually handled and studied the Siniaticus.
As for the variants between the Siniaticus and the Textus Receptus, as far as I can see the Sinaiticus supports all the articles of faith, altho sometimes the repetition of proof texts is limited.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
By the time of the 2009 CSP, the "consensus" date was deeply entrenched, and could only be questioned by nibbling at the edges.
Before 2009, hardly anybody except Tischendorf and Simonides with Kallinikos (they called out the colouring) knew the two sections, so the colouring was hidden, and there was no true palaeographic study.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
lol 
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
They lied straight faced that Hermas was not finished (you know it's a lie)...
They DID NOT KNOW both sections...They DID NOT KNOW that Hermas was a complete book...
You are perpetuating that lie deliberately.
Sorry, meant to name Kirsopp Lake rather than Scrivener.
And I think you're still living in the past. Since Kirsopp Lake's photographic facsimile Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (which is now online in its entirety) in the early 20th century, all scholars have had access to the true representation of Sinaiticus, i.e. for over a century now, and no-one has ever found grounds to controvert it's authenticity except for the ardent votaries of Simonides.
Last edited:
I am not sure whom I am supporting here but the Sinaiticus* has only a part of the text of the Shepherd of Hermas, starting at the beginning, Vision I,i,1 and going to Mandate IV,iii,6. In the Loeb Classical Library edition (transl. by Kirsopp Lake) this is pages 6 to 85, out of a total text that goes to page 305. In the Goodspeed translation this is pages 101 to 128 out of total that goes to page 201. Lake lists the later manuscripts that help complete the Shepherd.
* My apologies for repeatedly misspelling Sinaiticus.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Not a problem.
Some leaves from very near the END part of the Shepherd of Hermas were found in the New Finds room in 1975.
Avery knows it.
Simonides did not (said the parchment "ran short")
Neither did the phantom Kallinikos (who said even more specifically than Simonides that it was left "unfinished").
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Steven even has a list of the leaves from the END/LAST part of the Shepherd of Hermas (which Simonides and Kallinikos did NOT know about).
He knows the folio/quire numbers.
He knows the book numbers.
He knows the chapter numbers.
He even probably knows the verse numbers.
He even has links to the CSP photos of each on the Codex Sinaiticus Project website.
He might even post them here for you if you ask him ?.
He knows the folio/quire numbers.
He knows the book numbers.
He knows the chapter numbers.
He even probably knows the verse numbers.
He even has links to the CSP photos of each on the Codex Sinaiticus Project website.
He might even post them here for you if you ask him ?.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Kirsopp Lake and Edgar Goodspeed are now obsolete, but still excellent publications and translations for their time.
But they did not know about the New Finds leaves from the LAST/END book/part of the Shepherd of Hermas.
Wasn't until 1975 all this came to light (which shows categorically Simonides was LYING and Steven has been deceived).
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Do the Kirsopp Lake black-and-white photographs show the colour distinction between the 1844 Leipzig and the 1859 St. petersbutg pages?
Do they show the inconsistent colouring and staing of the 1859mpages?
I'm not interested in those arguments, which are worthless due to climatic variations and because a common origin of the two sets of pages is proven.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Exactly. Common origin.
So after 1500 years they should agree as one aged, yellowed, brittle manuscript.
Yet the SAD (Sinaiticus Antiquity Defenders) claim that the massive colour, consistency and stain distinctions all occurred in the 180 years at the tail end.
I don't recognize any "massive colour, consistency and stain distinctions." But 180 years is a long time. Damp can destroy an old book in just a few years, which may have previously survived 400 years in the dry. Same with parchment vis-a-vis discoloration, I should imagine.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
180 is a lot less than 1500.
And nothing essentially was destroyed in the Russian pages, since the pages remain wonderfully flexible and no ink-acid reaction. Putting aside special pages like the New Finds and the Judith washed out page (palimpsest attempt?).