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

You have not even come close to proving that to be the case. You are jumping to a conclusion that you have not proven to be true. You have offered mostly speculations and conjectures instead of verifiable facts.

Do you consider any part of the Tischendorf story "verifiable facts"?

Is his letter to his brother Julius a "verifiable fact"?
 
Last edited:
The Simonides story was already known (for about 50 years) when the British Museum purchased the Sinaiticus from the Russians. Under the circumstances I cannot imagine the British not thoroughly investigating the Sinaiticus before paying so much money.

It's been 90 years since the British bought it and the British portion of Sinaiticus has been examined by many experts - yet not one of them doubted its antiquity in all that time.
 
Last edited:
Do you consider any part of the Tischendorf story "verifiable facts"?

Is his letter to his brother Julius a "verifiable fact"?

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.”
 
Actually, the claims of Simonides are generally consistent,

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

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)

This btw would seem to contradict the assertions of the very biography Simonides was pushing, where Benedict was very wealthy.

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.

4) Who did the collation?
a) Simonides, starting in November 1839 (what he said in 1862)
b) Benedict, starting in 1784, when - according to Avery - Benedict would have been 16 years old (what Simonides said in 1863)

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"

Note: this "sister manuscript" equivocation is a way to get around the problem of "if Simonides used Claromontanus, common sense says he would have said, 'Yes, I took this reading and that one from there.'"

6) When did Simonides first go to Mt Athos?
a) November 1839 - both his biography AND his letter show this to be his first time there
b) After being informed of obvious problems, Simonides tells us this was his fifth visit to Athos

7) Did Simonides go to Sinai in 1852?
a) there's no way it's possible in the timeline in his biography
b) in his letter (1862), he says he did
c) in a later letter (1863), he suddenly announces he'd been there "two or three times" in an effort to fill in problems

8) When was this alleged manuscript alteration done?
a) Simonides says he saw it in 1852 (first letter in 1862)
b) Kallinikos (assuming for the moment he's a different source - he's not) says 1844 (several times)

Why would Tischendorf "age" the manuscript in 1844? Is this a way of saying he knew from day one it was a fake and tried to pass it off?

9) What was Benedict's ACTUAL ROLE (assuming any role at all)?

a) the biography says he had trouble teaching Simonides due to an eye inflammation (page 6)
b) but the first letter limits Benedict to doing the 23,000 corrections (1862)

Why would you have to "correct" a gift? You don't make this like a rough draft and THEN do it again.

10) When did Benedict move to Athos?
a) the biography Simonides endorsed says 1831
b) the second letter (1863) says 1819

11) Where was Simonides on March 27, 1841?
a) Simonides says he had left Athos in November 1840 and NOT returned by the time he got a letter from Constantius in August 1841
b) but the SART team tells us that the Lampros Catalog entry of that date proves he was there on that date.

I could add this many problematic questions again, but if the point isn't made by now, another 11 questions wouldn't persuade anyone anyway.

and are born out by the "facts on the ground".

You don't even agree with the "facts" Simonides said - well, not all of them.

You just pick the ones that enable a reasonable defense and ignore trying to defend the obviously wrong ones. The fact those only came about after he was cornered really proves nothing more than he didn't know about the MS to have written it.


It is the Tischendorf tissues of lies that are a cover story for brazen thefts and false claims meant not for honest scholarship, but his own glory. You have to be a very clever and deceptive thief to turn around your theft into being a saviour (from fire.) He even came up that creative fabrication fifteen years after the theft!

You mean like when Kallinikos came up with Tischendorf stealing it but NOT telling Simonides for (wait for it) FIFTEEN YEARS????

Once again - I’m not wasting time smashing your objection when my position DOES NOT depend on Tischendorf being a choir boy. So quit throwing in all these red herrings and simply answer the reality that your constant attacks on others don’t really persuade anyone to your views but reveal an inability to formulate a basic argument.

You were asked days ago to give us the narrative that’s true of Simonides, but you can’t even do that simple request, not due to anything other than Simonides had zip to do with this, a fact you know but assume not admitting keeps the case open.
 
When the demonstrable lies relating to all details surrounding the discovery, date, and authorship of Sinaiticus given by Simonides are cast aside as inconsequential, but the claim of the liar to have written the manuscript is still believed anyway, common sense has been turned upside down.

It should be obvious to any newcomer that the one who believes Simonides wrote Sinaiticus in the 19th century isn't following the evidence, but is following a conclusion that is required in order to maintain his errant KJVOism beliefs.
 
There have been no microscopic or chemical testing of parchment or ink designed to determine date and authenticity.
And yet you somehow think you can say, "This has been treated with chemicals"....just by looking at it!!!

They were planned for Leipzig in 2015 by BAM and Leipzig pulled out on the day of the testing. There was, I believe, a bit of ultra-violet to check for underwriting, especially the last verse in the Gospel of John.

In other words, you don't really know.



Plus, the manuscript was handled and studied by very few people over the years.

But if you came to YOUR conclusions by not handling it, wouldn't you call it incredibly inconsistent to demand others have to actually handle it?


Generally, it was the Tischenforf facsimile books that were used for study.

Milne and Skeat did not use facsimiles.....


The 2009 CSP was the big moment of change,

No, it's just the moment you could see it online.

It wasn't significant to anyone else at all.


and led to the discovery that the 1844 manuscript in Leipzig is very different that 1859 at the British Library, and that the differences match what was said by Simonides and Kallinikos in the early 1860s.

That thread you keep avoiding demolishes this claim - which was, in fact, obliterated in the 1860s themselves....

The writings of Simonides that were considered forgeries had incredible aspects of trying to change or add to an established history.

"Considered forgeries?"

I mean, his name only appears in a book you've cited that discusses forgeries so we're beyond "considered" at that point.


This made them very vulnerable to errors in chronology. While the Bible text of Athos, Codex Simoneides,

You're only doing this as a troll....


does have linguistic issues, it has no historical issues. Also the script itself was easy-peasy for calligraphists.

That's not what Simonides said.

He said - and I quote him fromhis 9/3/1862 letter....

Dionysius, the professional calligrapher of the monastery, was then begged to undertake the work, but he declined, saying that the task being exceedingly difficult, he would rather not do so.

YOU say it was easy for calligraphists.

This great pen......he says it was too difficult for a professional.


Was he lying?
Which time?
And why didn't you mention this or take this into account when you made your claim?


(It is VERY easy to see why you cower at the thought of a debate).
 
I don't know why Avery is so convinced that there were never microscopic or chemical tests on the Sinaiticus. In the 1850s there were extensive microscopic and chemical tests on Simonides's Uranios ms, most of which failed to detect fraud - but then there was one more microscopic and chemical test.
 
I don't know the testing history of Sinaiticus but Novum Testamentum, vol. 52, 2010, pages 101-133, had an article: Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' (ms 2427) II, Microscopic, Chemical and Codicological Analysis Confirm Modern Production, by Margaret M. Mitchell, Joseph G. Barabe, and Abigail B. Quandt. The University of Chicago had acquired a miniature codex of the Gospel of Mark, alleged to be from the 14th century. Except it appeared that the text followed an 1860 edition of the Greek NT. Numerous experts and labs were consulted. Spectrographic analysis established that the ink used in an illustration was Prussian Blue which was first formulated in 1704. Carbon dating of the parchment established that the animals used had lived between 1461-1640. Polarized light microscopy and a scanning electron microscope discovered trace amounts of Ultramarine Blue, a pigment commercially available since the late 1820s. Ultraviolet examination showed the presence of zinc white, a fluorescent white pigment not commonly available until 1825. Analysis of the ink indicated it was an iron gall ink, such as existed since the 6th century, but particles of Vandyke Brown, which was first used in the 17th century, were found. Every page was found to have been heavily scraped, so as to remove some previous writing, and the edges of the pages showed a comparatively recent cutting. .... To sum up, the 'Archaic Mark' was not a 14th century work, but a production made between 1874 and the first decades of the 20th century.

It's an interesting article. My point is that I fully expect similar tests have been made on the Sinaiticus; it would be malfeasance to have neglected the opportunities modern science provides.
 
Just purchased this work by David W. Daniels for Kindle, and almost choked on my Pepsi when I came across the following:



So Avery, Daniels, and others have actually been floating the idea that Aleph was created in the 19th century?

The people of churchianity are busy spinning up lie after lie after lie. They are piling up their lies to the heavens.

The truth we are to know is Christ himself who truly lives in those who love him and who walk just as he walked. This unblemished pure truth requires no translation, no interpretation. Yet this is the truth nearly all reject for the sake of following the wisdom of men.
 
I don't know the testing history of Sinaiticus but Novum Testamentum, vol. 52, 2010, pages 101-133, had an article: Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' (ms 2427) II, Microscopic, Chemical and Codicological Analysis Confirm Modern Production, by Margaret M. Mitchell, Joseph G. Barabe, and Abigail B. Quandt. …
It's an interesting article. My point is that I fully expect similar tests have been made on the Sinaiticus; it would be malfeasance to have neglected the opportunities modern science provides.
No such tests on Sinaiticus.
They were planned in Leipzig in 2015 but the Leipzig University Library backed out the day of the tests.

Malfeasance, it is.
 
Last edited:
I don't know why Avery is so convinced that there were never microscopic or chemical tests on the Sinaiticus. In the 1850s there were extensive microscopic and chemical tests on Simonides's Uranios ms, most of which failed to detect fraud - but then there was one more microscopic and chemical test.
The Brits might have tested during the controversy, but the manuscript was far away.
 
A color difference on a picture is not the same thing as someone coloring the manuscript to make it look older.
That is true. Extensive testing by BAM should differentiate natural parchment yellowing from staining by lemon juice, coffee, tea and/or herbs.

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.)
 
I posted a summary of an article from Novum Testamentum, v. 52, 2010, pp. 101-133, on the high tech examinations of the Univeristy of Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' codex, which proved that it was a fake, not from the 14th century but from the latter half of the 19th century. The article didn't mention Sinaiticus but it was obvious to me that the multitude of tests, including microscopic and spectrographic and fluorescent, were considerably more than a carbon-14 test of the vellum (it appeared that a 14th century vellum document had been completely erased for a 19th century forgery). I cannot say for certain but I would bet that in the 90 years that the British Museum has had the Sinaiticus, most or all of those tests have been done on it.
 
I posted a summary of an article from Novum Testamentum, v. 52, 2010, pp. 101-133, on the high tech examinations of the Univeristy of Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' codex, which proved that it was a fake, not from the 14th century but from the latter half of the 19th century. The article didn't mention Sinaiticus but it was obvious to me that the multitude of tests, including microscopic and spectrographic and fluorescent, were considerably more than a carbon-14 test of the vellum (it appeared that a 14th century vellum document had been completely erased for a 19th century forgery). I cannot say for certain but I would bet that in the 90 years that the British Museum has had the Sinaiticus, most or all of those tests have been done on it.

Yes, those types of tests do go way beyond only C-14. I even mention that to people who emphasize C-14.

However, the British Library has not done any significant tests, not even on the ink. They did have a bit of ultra-violet to see the under-letters, e.g. there was a question at the last verse of John.

If they had done any tests, they had plenty of time to inform scholars and the public. I think they just took the "discretion is the better part of valor:" approach. Let's not open up a can of worms.

Plus the comparison with really old mss. like Alexandrinus was staring them in the face every day. In fact, until 2009, very few people outside library staff had any access to the ms.

Remember, the few hour return window ended in 1933. Any scientific problems would be egg on the face.
 
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.
 
Back
Top