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

One example, James Asch from Kallinikos adds an element from the markings controversy, which could be another factor supporting Hermas being in the New Finds.



This is in:

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=l7cRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA227

This is what I had earlier on this topic, but the markings part should be added.
Do you have any comment on this section of Kevin McGrane's review (at p.106, 107) of Will Cooper's "conspiracy theory" thesis?

"Other parts of the Codex have been found (e.g. by Beneshevich in the late nineteenth
century) in volumes at St Catherine’s also, and indicate that by around three
hundred years ago some leaves from the Codex had become permanently separated
from the main body—most of Genesis to Chronicles is not extant [241]. One of the most
recently found fragments was part of the leaf containing Joshua 1. This appears in
Greek volume S.2289 in the library of St Catherine’s, which volume was bound by
the monastery itself around 1727 [242], the Codex leaf being re-cycled as a board lining.
It was discovered in 2009 because the covering paper pastedown had become torn,
thereby exposing writing from the Codex beneath [243]. This finding on its own
militates against Dr Cooper’s thesis of a nineteenth century origin of the Codex."

[241] Others were likely separated in 1734 when manuscripts were moved to the new library: some of
these turned up in the ‘New Finds’ in 1975 in the old storeroom that suffered earthquake damage.
These included a fragment of Q17-f.1, which contains parts of Joshua 12, 13 and 14. A leaf containing
Joshua 1 was re-used in the bookbinding of S.2289 (see below).

[242] S.2289 is one of a group of 18 manuscript bindings that were bound in the monastery c.1704-1727,
with common binding methods, structure, sewing, decoration and tooling marks.

[243] Nikolas Sarris, Classification of Finishing Tools in Greek Bookbinding: Establishing Links from the Library
of St Catherine’s Monastery, Sinai, Egypt (PhD Thesis, 2010). See also The discovery of an additional Codex
Sinaiticus fragment in Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript (2015).
 
There have been no microscopic or chemical testing of parchment or ink designed to determine date and authenticity.


But there's also been no chemical testing proving lemon juice OR ANYTHING ELSE was used to treat the manuscript to stain it, either - but that doesn't stop you from making that assertion now, does it?


(Your double standards are about as laughable as your knowledge of Greek or Latin or French or German).
 
Steven Avery
"...in a letter published Nov. 2, 1863 in The Literary Churchman:
"A portion of [the codex] was secretly removed from Mt. Sinai, by Professor Tischendorf, in 1844. The rest, with inconceivable recklessness, he mutilated and tampered with, according to his liking, in the year 1859. Some leaves he destroyed, especially such as contained the Acrostics of Simonides; but four of them escaped him, viz.,one in the Old Testament, and three in Hermas, as I long since informed Simonides…”

Does anyone, get the suspicion, that I'm getting?

Contextomy?

That, there's something is missing here?

Note!

This is the sentence right before his quote starts, which Mr Avery leaves out:

"...And further, I repeat, that the MS. in dispute, is the work of the unwearied Simonides, and of no other person..."

Well, well, well.

Isn't that interesting. 👈😉
 
... I wish someone would start a new thread on a different topic, like the Dead Sea Scrolls or the Aleppo Codex.

Recently, I have been studying some theories on the Dead Sea Scrolls. Solomon Zeitlin (1892-1976) argued against authenticity and some of his arguments were very interesting, and Victor H Mair (b. 1943) analyzed Chinese symbols in the DSS, starting in August 1990, the reporter has been Neil Altman.

The Moses Wilhelm Shapira (1830-1884) papri have also been in the news, with special attention given by Ross K. Nichols.

Another area of interest are papyri forgeries, especially the Bodmer, e.g. James David Audlin has a paper on P66 that is in Academia.edu.
 
Last edited:
But there's also been no chemical testing proving lemon juice OR ANYTHING ELSE was used to treat the manuscript to stain it, either - but that doesn't stop you from making that assertion now, does it?

The assertion is made simply by our ability to look at the manuscript pictures, correlated with the historical accusations, which would have not made any sense at all .. except that they were true.
 
The assertion is made simply by our ability to look at the manuscript pictures,

Key word: assertions (and you're admitting you didn't see it)


correlated with the historical accusations,

From a guy who wasn't even remotely reputable....

which would have not made any sense at all .. except that they were true.

One would think the big claims of Simonides would have big evidence - but in light of the fact he couldn't produce anything beyond the world of himself (after lying about his own birthday of all things), we need something more than this.

Reminder: Steven Avery's ENTIRE position when you cut through all the words can be summarized as, "I believe the lying forger Simonides."

I reiterate that there is nothing else in this entire argument he's presenting based upon anything other than the words of Simonides.
 
Reminder: Steven Avery's ENTIRE position when you cut through all the words can be summarized as, "I believe the lying forger Simonides."
I reiterate that there is nothing else in this entire argument he's presenting based upon anything other than the words of Simonides.

A bogus claim given a summary answer the other day.

The crux of the argument involves the physical condition of the manuscript.
parchment (phenomenally good)
ink (super-ink)
lack of grime (Morozov)
staining and colouring (as first told by Simonides and Kallinikos)

Wacky handwriting and ink blot-out and various palaeographic puzzles.

Also many textual phenomenon. These often show that the 4th century date is nonsense.

Then there is the historical imperative behind the arguments given by Simonides. The impossible knowledge that he had about the manuscript, starting with the Tischendorf 1844 theft.

Plus the various "coincidences" that confirm his story, including his pre-Sinaiticus Hermas, noted by Farrer and the Lambros catalogue.

Then we have the propensity of Tischendorf for lies and thefts, and his motive to push Sinaiticus as 4th-century.

Put it all together and the Simonides provenance story is far more trustworthy than the Tischendorf saved from fire and various embellishments cover stories.
 
A bogus claim given a summary answer the other day.
When you discount the manuscript evidence, which no one else in the world supports, you are left with hatred of Tischendorf, and your unaccountable empathy with the protestant persecutor and miscreant Simonides.
 
A bogus claim given a summary answer the other day.

Hmm.....let's take a look at the claims you made..


The crux of the argument involves the physical condition of the manuscript.

Simonides brought this up.


parchment (phenomenally good)

Simonides again.

(Your unattributed plagiarism of Dr. Shenton - for some reason known only to you - hides the fact that Shenton holds to the 4th century date. I would think someone saying a work is "deficient" because someone didn't mention an irrelevant 75-year-old paperweight in his book would at least have the consistency to mention relevant truths like the date held to by the person whom he's both misrepresenting and plagiarizing here).

ink (super-ink)

Simonides again..

lack of grime (Morozov)

Unproven and irrelevant claim

staining and colouring (as first told by Simonides and Kallinikos)

At least you admit you got this falsehood from Simonides.

Wacky handwriting and ink blot-out and various palaeographic puzzles.

There's no puzzle about it not being 19th century....

Also many textual phenomenon.

Big word never substantiated or validated.

These often show that the 4th century date is nonsense.

Things he didn't even tell us what they are prove he's right.



Then there is the historical imperative

A few years ago, you were stuck on the term "preservational imperative," which seems to not really have any definition since in all these years you've never defined it. There's a reason for that: it's a $10 made up word meaning "whatever I want it to mean to win this argument."

It is IMPERATIVE for you to admit Simonides lied about everything from his birthday to his writing this to his death, which you claim he faked.

behind the arguments given by Simonides.

Again - this doesn't exist. It's like unicorns.

The impossible knowledge that he had about the manuscript,

As Snapp pointed out to you in that debate where you got clobbered, Simonides not only didn't know ONE SINGLE THING about the manuscript that he didn't know from Tischendorf, but he also lied about when he stopped writing (assuming he did so, which he didn't) as the New Finds made clear.

starting with the Tischendorf 1844 theft.

Accusing someone of stealing isn't the same thing as them stealing.

Plus the various "coincidences" that confirm his story, including his pre-Sinaiticus Hermas, noted by Farrer and the Lambros catalogue.

You are literally saying the same thing over and over again, you're just using different words.

And every single claim you've made has been refuted.

And every single time I point out why the things you say are incomplete and wrong, you take one of two tactics:
1) you go desperately trying to find some way to get the post deleted
2) upon failing that (those "no violation" notes at the bottom of the post tell us all you tried), you just act like it never happened.


I informed you five years ago that the dates in this catalog you're trying to treat as proof are incorrect.
I informed you again in the "False Claims" thread, and you keep avoiding providing a coherent response.

Then we have the propensity of Tischendorf for lies and thefts, and his motive to push Sinaiticus as 4th-century.

It wasn't Tischendorf who got arrested for forgery, which is both lying and stealing, and he then had the motive to embarrass Tischendorf, too.

Again - every single alleged point you claim to make goes back to the lying forger Constantine Simonides.


Put it all together and the Simonides provenance story is far more trustworthy than the Tischendorf saved from fire and various embellishments cover stories.

Only in fantasy land.
 
The crux of the argument involves the physical condition of the manuscript.
parchment (phenomenally good)
ink (super-ink)
lack of grime (Morozov)
staining and colouring (as first told by Simonides and Kallinikos)

(Your unattributed plagiarism of Dr. Shenton

I have clearly attributed the important, full "phenomenally good condition" quote to Helen Shenton many times, such as:

"One of the things we found is that the parchment, which is 1600 years old, is in phenomenally good condition."
Helen Shenton, British Library

So everyone should know the most important source.

However, she does not own the words phenomenally and good, they can be used outside her quote, as they are a very accurate description, and above I was giving a summary explanation of some of the features.

Your silly "plagiarism" accusation is typical Bill Brown.
 
Last edited:
At first I rejected the idea that the manuscript had been created on Mt. Athos with Simonides being a scribe.

Of course you did.
At that time you were applying the "common sense" test of "this slippery fool Simonides was demanding money he'd get to keep one way or the other."

Then I actually looked at the manuscript and the full history.

What you literally just said was, "I rejected that idea without even looking at the manuscript or full history."

And you haven't looked at the manuscript now, either.
 
I have clearly attributed the important, full "phenomenally good condition" quote to Helen Shenton many times, such as:

You have equally never been willing to say that Shenton holds to the fourth century date.

Furthermore, we have a President right now who got tossed from a Presidential race in 1987 largely because of his failure to attribute the speech he stole from Neil Kinnock as his own. Yeah, he did the other times, but it was still plagiarism when he didn't.

So everyone should know the most important source.

Don't you think they should also know the date she holds?
Don't you think people should know the date Uspenski holds on Sinaiticus when you misrepresent him as sympathetic to your point of view?
For reasons I'm not sure why - oh, who are we kidding - you quote Uspenski repeatedly as if he helps your case, but you always are careful to never disclose that the alleged facts he gave supported his fifth century date.

However, she does not own the words phenomenally and good, they can be used outside her quote, as they are a very accurate description, and above I was giving a summary explanation of some of the features.

You were trying to get around the truth that your position is nothing but "Simon-IDES sez."

Your silly "plagiarism" accusation is typical Bill Brown.

As in 100% accurate at all times.

Thank you for admitting that.
 
Of course you did.
At that time you were applying the "common sense" test of "this slippery fool Simonides was demanding money he'd get to keep one way or the other."

No, I did not know the full history at the time, and said nothing about the challenge $, you can see my thinking in the post where I defended Sinaiticus authenticity.

Once again, you are just making things up.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top