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

[Steven Avery]

Ohhhh but Tischendorf and Simonides in a back alley...cash changing hands...wink wink etc etc

A quid pro quo is simply a good, solid conjecture as to the three events.

Tischendorf delaying London, ducking the challenge.
Simonides leaving London.
Simonides writing for the Russians in St. Petersburg.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

A quid pro quo is simply a good, solid conjecture as to the three events.

Tischendorf delaying London, ducking the challenge.
Simonides leaving London.
Simonides writing for the Russians in St. Petersburg.

He was preparing something sensational (in print) for the Russians, just like he prepared something sensational for the King of Greece ??

Catch my drift...

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

David Daniels gave us plenty of infornation about Benedict on Athos, and earlier.

You are asking for all the floor plans of deserted monasteries on Mt. Athos 180 years ago.
You are just playing nonsense games.

Your obviously not interested in verifying facts, but evidently, you are open to deceit.

On top of that, your methodology is severely flawed and incredibly inconsistent at every step of the way. So buyer beware!

 

[Steven Avery]

Your obviously not interested in verifying facts, but evidently, you are open to deceit.
On top of that, your methodology is severely flawed and incredibly inconsistent at every step of the way. So buyer beware!

Edit per mod An absurd demand for floor plans for inactive monasteries on Athos 180 years ago you springboard to trolling absurdity.

Talk about a fake methodology!

===========

The facts on the ground support Sinaiticus as c.AD 1840 production.

Even without the manuscript, with anomalies everywhere, the historical imperative supports Athos production. Such as facts on the ground discovered after Simonides passed in the Lambrou catalog, and the impossible knowledge of Simonides and Kallinikos.

When you add the actual manuscript puzzles and phenomenal condition and colouring and staining and Hermas and linguistics and tons more including the three crosses note and the colophons and Revelation as an Andreas precursor, we have a slam dunk. With studies in process .

The thefts and lies of Tischendorf are just a corroboration.

 

[Shoonra]

The "facts on the ground" support an ancient Sinaiticus, very probably fourth century. Only Simonides's story, which is full of holes, advocates a 19th century origin.

 

[Unbound68]

It makes proving the claim impossible - which renders the claim meaningless.

Exactly like the claim by Kinney and others that the KJV reading at Rev 17:8 (kaiper estin) is the true reading - despite its complete absence from history until it ended up in Erasmus via a printer's error- because, as Kinney says,

"you do know there were thousands of manuscripts that no longer exist due to the big fire in the 1600s, right?"


KJVOs are easily manipulated by phantoms of their own imagination.

Us: Sinaiticus is 4th century.
Avery: Well, Simonides was a vegetarian who wore dresses, so....there's that. Interesting questions arise.....blah, blah.

 

[Conan]

You are trolling.
An absurd demand for floor plans for inactive monasteries on Athos 180 years ago you springboard to trolling absurdity.

Talk about a fake methodology!

===========

The facts on the ground support Sinaiticus as c.AD 1840 production.

Even without the manuscript, with anomalies everywhere, the historical imperative supports Athos production. Such as facts on the ground discovered after Simonides passed in the Lambrou catalog, and the impossible knowledge of Simonides and Kallinikos.

When you add the actual manuscript puzzles and phenomenal condition and colouring and staining and Hermas and linguistics and tons more including the three crosses note and the colophons and Revelation as an Andreas precursor, we have a slam dunk. With studies in process .

The thefts and lies of Tischendorf are just a corroboration.

You have absolutely no evidence whatsoever. All you have are lies of a con man.

 

[Maestroh]

The facts on the ground support Sinaiticus as c.AD 1840 production.

You keep reasserting this over and over - as if the sheer number of times you say something constitutes evidence.

You have not given ONE SINGLE "fact on the ground," and all I see you spouting cliches.

Even without the manuscript,

"Hey folks, I date the manuscript WITHOUT the manuscript!!!
(That's what you just said).

with anomalies everywhere,

Another cliche with no evidence.

the historical imperative supports Athos production.

A third assertion without the first bit of evidence.

I asked you the other day what you mean by "historical imperative" and you didn't answer.
Apparently, the question was too difficult.

Such as facts on the ground discovered after Simonides passed in the Lambrou catalog,

An entry into a catalog a half century after the fact proves nothing regarding "he wrote Sinaiticus."
As I pointed out to you months ago, it doesn't even prove he was actually there on that date.

You'd think a "researcher" would have actual answers to these obvious counterpoints - but not the SART team.

and the impossible knowledge of Simonides and Kallinikos.

There was no "impossible knowledge" and I've already documented Kallinikos to be a complete fabrication.

I guess that's why you avoided commenting with any counter-evidence on that thread.

When you add the actual manuscript puzzles

None exist

and phenomenal condition

Said by someone who has no problem with the fourth century view

and colouring

Never happened

and staining

By your own admission it's never been chemically tested meaning YOU HAVE NO PROOF ANY STAINING EVER OCCURRED!!
LOL!!!

nd Hermas and linguistics and tons more including the three crosses note and the colophons and Revelation as an Andreas precursor, we have a slam dunk.

All I see is you again listing stuff like Gail Riplinger and with about the same level of accuracy.

With studies in process .

Are you going to Athos any time soon?

If not, your studies are meaningless.

The thefts and lies of Tischendorf are just a corroboration.

What about the lies of Simonides INCLUDING pretending to be Kallinikos?

Hmm?


Oh that's right......explaining all the voluminous detail that refutes your viewpoint.....you just pretend it doesn't exist.

Which makes your position like Kallinikos the Phantom.......nowhere and nothing.


Reminder: there's a reason you post this ill-informed tripe on a chat board of nonexperts but don't dare set foot into a meeting with actual scholars on this subject.

And all of us here know what that reason is, too.

Including you.

 

[Maestroh]

This was what I put in about your debate theories, to the post in response to your trying to make my picture the main theme of CARM.

I didn't offer any debate theories, I gave facts.

I'm not surprised you can't tell the difference, though.

There is nothing online substantiating your skewed claims.

There's nothing online - except your skewed claims - about me having "15" or "16"or "18" (you apparently can't make up your mind) wrong examples, either, and yet you had the gall to demand an answer on it.

When I ignored your debate challenge as irrelevant,

No, you said it would be good but preferred face to face.
Then when I said, "Fine," you freaked out.

Remember - you have FAR MORE INCENTIVE to lie here about it than do I.

You're trying to save face after all the insults you've thrown my way.
I don't have to "save face" because all I've done is buried you in your illogic.

your habit of vulgarity was pointed out.

You were challenged until 2009.

That didn't happen until 2015.

So to read that back into something that never was.....well, it's pretty obvious your fear.

I'll be the nicest debater you ever encountered - until the first time you pull one of YOUR insults.

That's the part you always pretend never happened.

Also, beyond that obvious deal-killer, there was never even an actual, structured challenge. This spot, rules, format, moderation, etc. Plus, your obsession with me is very cringe-worthy.

And now your mind reading continues.

My memory looks to be far better than yours.

That's funny.

When Lesley Stahl interviewed me on MY MEMORY, I sure don't recall seeing you around anywhere in the room.

Were you there?
Did I miss you?

Were you invisible like the evidence for Simonides's claims?

I can understand why you want to pretend you weren't (and aren't still) afraid of me and have more fun insulting me from the safety of your nursing home during the hours they allow you to use the computer.

I have no reason to lie - it's not like you're in the top 15,000,000 of scholars in the world on the Comma Johanneum.
You are, instead, the low hanging fruit.

However - you have every reason to pretend that reality didn't happen because saving face is the #1 goal of a narcissist.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

It appears Simonides went to prison for forging the Uranios thingy, in Germany. Apparently Tischendorf and (some other guy starting with L) exposed his work as a forgery in the book below.

So, Germany is the place to look for records of a criminal conviction.

(Emphasis added)

1853 handelte er in England mit echten und gefälschten Manuskripten und gelangte 1855 nach Leipzig. Dort suchte er eine angebliche ägyptische Königsgeschichte des Uranios zu verkaufen, die von Lykourgos und Konstantin von Tischendorf als Fälschung identifiziert wurde.[1] Er kam dafür ins Gefängnis. Einige Jahre später wollte sich Simonides an Tischendorf rächen und behauptete, er habe den Codex Sinaiticus (diese griechische Bibelhandschrift stammt aus dem 4. Jh. n. Chr., ist die älteste komplett erhaltene Handschrift des Neuen Testaments und wurde 1844 und 1859 von Tischendorf im St. Katharinenkloster auf dem Sinai entdeckt) auf dem Athos selber angefertigt. Englische Zeitungen griffen diese Beschuldigungen unkritisch auf. Konstantin von Tischendorf widerlegte diese wahnwitzigen Behauptungen in seinen beiden Schriften Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel und Waffen der Finsternis wider die Sinaibibel (beide erschienen 1863 in Leipzig). Später flüchtete Simonides nach Ägypten.
[1.] Alexander Lykurgos: Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios. Fritzsche, Leipzig 1856. (online)
Click to expand...

Google Translate from German (Emphasis added)

There he tried to sell an alleged Egyptian royal history of Uranios, which Lykourgos and Konstantin von Tischendorf identified as a forgery.[1] He went to prison for it. A few years later, Simonides wanted revenge on Tischendorf and claimed that he had the Codex Sinaiticus (this Greek Bible manuscript dates from the 4th century AD) Athos made himself. English newspapers took up these allegations uncritically. Konstantin von Tischendorf refuted these insane claims in his two writings Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel and Waffen der Dunkelns gegen die Sinai-Bible (both published in Leipzig in 1863). Simonides later fled to Egypt.
Click to expand...

[1] Alexander Lykurgos: Revelations about the Simonides-Dindorfsche Uranios. Fritzsche, Leipzig 1856. (online)

https://www.hellenicaworld.com/Greece/Person/de/KonstantinosSimonides.html

The Book on Google, in which, "apparently" Tischendorf was instrumental in exposing Simonides forgery of Uranios:

Alexander Lykurgos: Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios. Fritzsche, Leipzig 1856.
Alexander Lykurgos: Revelations about the Simonides-Dindorfsche Uranios. Fritzsche, Leipzig 1856.
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Can anyone read German?

It would be interesting to see what Tischendorf wrote about Slime-onides in the book above. It's not ridiculously long, if that helps.

 

[Maestroh]

Can anyone read German?

It would be interesting to see what Tischendorf wrote about Slime-onides in the book above. It's not ridiculously long, if that helps.

I can.

I'm at work, but I can.

Section?

 

[Steven Avery]

Reminder: there's a reason you post this ill-informed tripe on a chat board of nonexperts but don't dare set foot into a meeting with actual scholars on this subject.

The savvy scholars often work in the background.

And they do not get confused by deeply entrenched scholarship.

 

[logos1560]

And they do not get confused by deeply entrenched scholarship.

Are you suggesting the possibility that deeply entrenched non-scholarly KJV-only studies may get confused by their own preconceived notions?

 

[Steven Avery]

As for how we “know” Sinaiticus is from the 4th century, this is actually something I have wondered myself, but this dating seems too deeply entrenched in the scholarship of early Christianity to have a rational discussion about it.

Written by a top textual scholar, with request to remain unnamed.

And you can see the irrationality in many of the arguments here.

However, I am rather confident that it will fall nonetheless.

 

[Unbound68]

Written by a top textual scholar, with request to remain unnamed.

Which means he could just be a figment of your imagination.

Which means the statement itself has no merit.

Who is it?
Uncle Benny, version 2022?
21st century Kallinikos?
Praxean?

"Top textual scholar?" Coming from you, unlikely.

Speculations, arguments from silence, and anonymous sources do not a researcher make!

 

[Shoonra]

Steven Avery (from post #527, Nov. 4th)
What we need from the British Library is simple - allow BAM to do the manuscript and ink tests that were planned for Leipzig in 2015.


It turns out that the BAM is an agency of the German government, apparently corresponding to our National Bureau of Standards, and probably has no facility for checking anything in London.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Written by a top textual scholar, with request to remain unnamed.

And you can see the irrationality in many of the arguments here.

However, I am rather confident that it will fall nonetheless.

The snippet needs the full and complete context.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Steven Avery (from post #527, Nov. 4th)
What we need from the British Library is simple - allow BAM to do the manuscript and ink tests that were planned for Leipzig in 2015.


It turns out that the BAM is an agency of the German government, apparently corresponding to our National Bureau of Standards, and probably has no facility for checking anything in London.

Who exactly planned the tests?

The British Library? Or BAM? Or someone else?

 

[Shoonra]

It wouldn't have been the British Library that contacted BAM, it would have been the University of Leipzig.
I have been trying to verify this story that the U of Leipzig contacted, and then cancelled, BAM, but no luck.