Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Charles Wilson
Posts: 1055
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 8:13 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Charles Wilson » Wed Apr 04, 2018 7:09 am

http://www.gutenberg.org/cache/epub/909 ... mages.html

In discussions with a real scholar, this person was kind enough to send this:

"If the Annals are a forgery, they're a 9th-century forgery at the latest, since we have a 9th-century manuscript of a good part of them. And considering how poorly even the best scholars of that period wrote Latin, and how beautifully Tacitus writes, it would have to be a forgery of no later than the 5th century. In turn, in the 5th century and earlier, enough authentic materials existed that if someone had forged the Annals, they would have been called out.
Tacitus was known as a very good writer by contemporaries, who mention him as such. His biography of Agricola is (as far as I remember) the only book that has both come down to us and been referred to by those contemporaries in works which themselves have also come down to us. Many details of the Agricola has been confirmed by excavations in ways that no one within say 2 or 3 centuries of its writing could possibly have forged; and scholars who are intimately familiar with the style of the Agricola and the Annals pronounce them to be by the same person.
So while it's conceivable the Annals are a forgery, it's extremely unlikely..."

Perhaps I was hasty in making a blanket statement about the rapidity of criticism of Annals but John Wilson Ross isn't presenting a high school Wiki-P book report either. Annals plays a big part in what I see and things would be MUCH more difficult without it. Tacitus and Histories are all over Acts. Annanias and Saphira in Acts 5 came as a rewrite of Annals sections as is the Time Marker of 62 AD for the cowardice of the 12th Legion. (8 years until the Twelfth is rehabilitated at the Destruction of Jerusalem)

Acts 9: 33 - 35 (RSV):

[33] There he found a man named Aene'as, who had been bedridden for eight years and was paralyzed.
[34] And Peter said to him, "Aene'as, Jesus Christ heals you; rise and make your bed." And immediately he rose.
[35] And all the residents of Lydda and Sharon saw him, and they turned to the Lord.

Josephus, War..., 2, 19, 1:

But when Cestius had marched from Antipatris to Lydda, he found the city empty of its men, for the whole multitude were gone up to Jerusalem to the feast of tabernacles; yet did he destroy fifty of those that showed themselves, and burnt the city, and so marched forwards..."

I am still uneasy as I read J W Ross and then look at what it would imply if Annals was/were a forgery. For me, there are too many coincidences for it to be a forgery.

Now...Back to Sinaiticus...

CW

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5283
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by MrMacSon » Mon Apr 09, 2018 12:51 pm

Jax wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:51 am
MrMacSon wrote:
Wed Apr 04, 2018 5:21 am
Jax wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 5:19 pm
Charles Wilson wrote:
Tue Apr 03, 2018 4:01 pm
.. People "collect" things and Tischendorf might have "merely" seen the church material rather than the text that had been scrubbed. It was most probably presented as "church text" anyway as the entire Archimedian Thread had been long lost. Nor would it have been a discovery such as "Annals", which was attacked very quickly. ...
I would love to know more about this.
The discovery of Tacitus' Annals in the 14th century? I know aspects of their discovery, and later commentary that it/they might have been fake ...
Do you have links that you can post about this?

Thanks, Lane
1. http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 937#p34937

2. http://www.earlywritings.com/forum/view ... 962#p60962 and ongoing in that thread -
3. also https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annals_(T ... thenticity, etc

I think the proposal of Arthur Drews that Annals 15.44 derived from [or concurrent to] the Chronicle of Sulpicius Severus in the late 4th C. [or later] has merit; especially considering there is no indication anyone knew the Annals before then, then, or for a considerable period of time after.

Maestroh
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Thu Apr 12, 2018 4:51 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Apr 01, 2018 12:18 am
David W. Daniels put out an excellent 20-minute vlog today on the 1844 Tischendorf heist of the five full quires (80 pages) and then 6 more pages from the intact codex.

Tischendorf's Big Mistake
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xe_ZzKym5X8

Discussion welcome here, and in the Youtube comments section and on the Facebook PureBible forum.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebib ... 461247803/



Steven Avery
You could have at least disclosed my review of David Daniels's lack of scholarship.


One of the most amusing facets of the "Star Wars" movies (particularly the original trilogy) was the Stormtroopers, those protectors of the evil Lord Vader whose weapons could fire hundreds of light-producing rounds per minute but never hit the target. Internet Bible scholarship (an oxymoron to say the least) has produced a pair of Stormtroopers in recent years who are no better at hitting the target than their cinema predecessors. Unfortunately, there's nothing amusing at all about their efforts.

Steven Avery - real name Steven Avery Spenser but shortened for Internet posting both to give the illusion of transparency as well as to avoid taking responsibility for his continued embarrassing posts that are rife with basic errors- is an Internet Bible scholar wannabe. Unacquainted with even the rudiments of Greek exegesis (or for that matter the basic Greek alphabet and contract verbs), textual criticism, paleography, and having no qualifications other than an active imagination, a conspiratorial mindset, and a personal computer, Avery (Spenser) has made quite the name for himself in recent years with incessant blather about issues that he pretends to have studied. His latest hobby horse, now going on five years of wasted time, is to argue that Codex Sinaiticus, the oldest complete Greek NT in the world, is not the oldest but is a relatively modern creation that dates only to the 19th century. Unwilling to communicate precisely who he thinks wrote the document, Avery has run from site to site in recent years trying to pick fights and act as if he's informed on this issue. Until recently, however, Avery didn't have a publishing outlet for his wacky ideas. Fortunately, God - in His humor - sent Avery a willing sycophant named David Daniels, who in January 2018 put out a tome entitled, "Is The 'World's Oldest Bible' A Fake?" Daniels lays out what is, in essence, Avery's "case" for arguing that Sinaiticus isn't really an old document but a modern one. Droning on for 322 pages (Google Books version), Daniels at least has the decency to state right out of the gate to render his verdict on page 3: "It is a fake." If only Daniels had stopped right there then perhaps some trees would still be alive.

If you are familiar with the shrieking conspiracy laden musings of Gail Riplinger, suffice it to say that this is little more than a sequel by a less entertaining producer. If you are not, however, then indulge me in this review of a work that should embarrass but will undoubtedly embolden its advocates, who will no doubt see this (and every other negative review) as proof of their being "on God's side."

The book is one giant conspiracy theory. NOT a conspiracy mind you but a conspiracy theory. Proving a conspiracy relies upon evidence. A conspiracy theory, by contrast, is an idea where the evidence does not actually support the conclusion of a conspiracy so the "theory" is developed to explain why the evidence does not exist. A conspiracy requires evidence whereas a conspiracy theory is an explanation of why the evidence does NOT support a conspiracy even though one (allegedly) occurred. Conspiracy theories excel in offering "alternative facts" regarding why no evidence supports the position and focuses on the futile attempt to disprove a negative. After all, it's impossible to disprove something that doesn't even actually exist. In this particular carnival of nonsense, Daniels thinks he proves that Codex Sinaiticus is not a fourth century production but is instead a forged hoax foisted on the world in the 19th century as part of a New World Order conspiracy designed to lead people away from the use of the King James Bible. If that assessment sounds vaguely familiar it's because 25 years ago, an "assistant professor" at Kent State University named Gail Riplinger promoted the very same idea with one notable exception: so far as I can tell, Riplinger seems to at least grant that Codex Sinaiticus is a fourth century document. In other words, Daniels's book is nothing more than repackaged Riplinger with the added claim of a hoax manuscript. Being mentioned in the company of Gail Riplinger is not something anyone conscious would boast about.

Before beginning the criticism proper, there is a major question that has to be answered: for whom exactly was this monstrosity written? It is s book that literally has NO audience, so why was it written? This book will not persuade anyone even remotely familiar with textual criticism or paleography, not because those people are part of a vast conspiracy but because it betrays a total lack of understanding of these areas. There is no need whatsoever to pour this information into the KJV Onlyists who already rejected Sinaiticus anyway, having been told for over a century now that the reason Sinaiticus IS a still extant fourth century document is because it was "recognized as a bad copy" and "set aside." And the simple truth is that maybe - at most - 1% (and I think even that number is too high) of church members actually care all that much about the manuscript tradition and history. They read whichever translation they have and are content. Since KJVO pastors make up a very small number of congregational overseers, there is simply not a major audience awaiting this book. So why was it written when simple common sense would inform an author that the book has no real audience? The only real possible major shift that might occur is that recently indoctrinated KJVOs (like Bryan Ross or Brian Shepherd, which begs the question of whether the name Brian/Bryan causes one to be KJVO) will begin advocating it and imploding their credibility further. In short, Daniels has written a book without audience.

My criticism of this book is (unsurprisingly) extensive, and despite 300 pages to lay out his case, Daniels's case is so transparently goofy and incomplete that minimal intelligence could see through it. In fact, if Daniels cut out the KJVO preaching to the choir, his book would have about half as many pages. It is also crystal clear from an early page that this isn't really Daniels's research so much as it is a regurgitation of literally hundreds of repetitive Internet posts that Avery, who cannot even read Sinaiticus and would not be able to pick it out of a lineup of similar looking manuscripts, has posted online the past four years. Indeed, Avery's name appears eleven times on eleven pages. Kallinikos, the supposed source of virtually all of the conspiratorial information, appears eighteen times on only eight pages and Uncle Benedict, supposedly the inspiration for Simonides and called "famous" (which could likewise be said about O.J. Simpson) by Daniels - appears only eight times. The reason for this will be discussed below as it is one of the major problems with Daniels's book. But the simple truth is that the book is almost nothing save some rewritten Internet posts collected into a book and sent out to the public as the original thoughts of a conspiracy theorist. Even some of the chapter titles have their roots in Steven Avery's warped imagination of reality. For example, the chapter "Coloring the Truth" takes its name from an Avery post on The Biblical Criticism and History Forum posted on January 7, 2016; the chapter "Who Darkened Sinaiticus" is taken from a post placed on CARM one day later and the same title posted on Theology Web on April 12, 2016. One similarly worded title about "a smoking gun" is on Avery's own Pure Bible Forum and was posted April 4, 2016.

THE DAVID DANIELS CONSPIRACY THEORY

Daniels writes from the viewpoint of an advocacy of the Ruckmanite King James Only view. He refers to the KJV either directly or indirectly as the "preserved" Bible or Word (or references Greek preserved texts) over FIFTY times in a 300-page book. And the necessity of his conspiracy theory becomes clear when he repeatedly impugns Sinaiticus as the primary reason that people have moved away from the KJV to "modern versions." Daniels's conspiracy theory begins - like virtually every nonsensical KJVO theory - with the notion of there being TWO "streams of Bibles" that consist of the good majority at Antioch and the bad minority of Alexandria. Because Daniels writes from a rather radical dispensationalist point of view that sees the Roman Catholic Church as "the wicked whore of Babylon," they become the perpetrators of the fraud that will ultimately lead to a one-world church and religion. After erecting the absurd edifice of the two streams, Daniels jumps into the wild idea of Manly Hall and the New World Order trying to replace the KJV with a new Bible. Daniels goes further, alleging that President Franklin Roosevelt was - and I quote - "a 33rd Degree Mason" (33, 224) who "loved Hall and his occultic NWO teachings" (33). It has never failed to amaze me how many people who aren't even involved in secret societies can somehow know everything about what goes on and who exactly is what level in the secret society. Presumably, these secret societies aren't so secret. Daniels then distorts a quotation by Hall to suggest that Hall is part of a large conspiracy that goes back to 1844, the year Tischendorf first discovered what eventually came to be called Sinaiticus, to replace the KJV. Daniels further selectively quotes - by which I mean flat out distorts - other works by Hall, all available online, to try and suggest we now are living in a time that Hall says "they" could change across "five generations." This conspiracy - in Daniels's presumably sober imagination - was primarily overseen by having Constantine Tischendorf find Sinaiticus and bring it out of St Catherine's monastery to present to the world as a fourth century manuscript. Upon finding out he had been fooled, Tischendorf then - according to David Daniels as informed by "researcher" Steven Avery - "darkens" Sinaiticus so as to fool everyone into thinking the manuscript is older than it really is. From this point, Daniels makes the illogical jump to saying that to accept the Alexandrian text is to accept the Alexandrian scholars who wrote it and thus to accept the Roman Catholic Apocrypha as authentic Scripture. He then basically writes off anything Tischendorf had to say about any subject as a lie (with one notable exception: more on this cherry picking in a moment). The rest of the book revolves around this excursion into speculation and ends with Daniels basically thinking Constantine Simonides authored Sinaiticus around 1840-41. No chance is missed to insult, impugn, disparage, or slander Tischendorf while granting Simonides a free pass. In the end, Daniels decides on the basis of a specious letter by an interesting "Pug Henry" character who just happens to wind up in the right place at the right time to witness Tischendorf's long-running hoax, that the whole thing is a charade and Tischendorf a liar. Of course, in his lack of being as skeptical of sources who endorse his theories, it never occurs to Daniels that this - by definition - makes Pug Henry (whose name in this breathless and mindless theory is Kallinikos) part of the conspiracy and thus just as guilty as Tischendorf. One must question why Daniels feels he can trust such a source that by his own other standards would also have to be untrustworthy but such logical consistency is foreign to Daniels's apologetic.

Numerous errors permeate this monstrosity:

1) MIS-CITATIONS AND MISSED SOURCES

Over the last decade or so, Steven Avery himself has become well-known among not just Internet posters but even a few textual critics as a person who loves to cite old public domain works that he can find simply by finding it via a phrase on Google books. Up-to-date research is missing from his database, and Daniels's work is replete with enough out-of-date and wrong information to suggest he did nothing more than pass on quotes. Numerous examples may be cited.

On page 75, Daniels selectively quotes a 1913 book on Textual Criticism by J.A. McClymont as saying, "Sinaiticus...was rescued from oblivion...by the famous critic, Tischendorf...and now lies in the Library of St. Petersburg. It is written on snow-white vellum, supposed to have been made from the skin of antelopes."

Daniels - or more probably Avery given his repetitive history of quote misrepresentation - conveniently didn't bother to mention that in the sentence before the one chopped, McClymont takes the position that Sinaiticus is probably one of the fifty Bibles commissioned by Constantine, which of course makes it the fourth century. Furthermore, the words that Daniels edited right after Sinaiticus are "which probably emanated from Egypt." In other words, Daniels wants to enlist McClymont for his cause as an infallible source because of the words "snow white" but doesn't want the reader to know that this didn't create any sort of problem for McClymont seeing it as a fourth century document.

Just prior to this selective quotation, Daniels cites the 1910 "Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics" and again gets hung up on the words "snow white parchment." Daniels doesn't footnote this source, but not only is it on page 583, but it also VERY EXPLICITLY says this document is "the oldest parchment we possess" just a few words earlier and dates it to the fourth century. Once again, why is this deception necessary? Is this how Daniels (Avery) thinks historical inquiry is performed?

On page 100, Daniels informs us that "After Sinaiticus was published, people all over the world started writing notes in their Bibles that a part of the word of God didn't really belong." This is an absurdly false notion given that the 1611 had notes.

In chapter 23 (pp 179-92), Daniels again invokes a conspiracy by saying that for years he could only see the same one page of Sinaiticus, the final chapter of John. He cites three sources that show ONLY this particular page. But why this is a mystery is confusing unless Daniels is just not very well-read on the subject. Multiple pages of the codex appear in Skeat and Milne's 1938 book, "Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus," one of the earliest full treatments of the subject. Two different pages are shown in Milne's 1951 book, "Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Alexandrinus." (Amazingly enough, the two pictures of Alexandrinus in that book show a lighter one and a darker one, so presumably Daniels and Avery think Alexandrinus must have been aged as well).

This major omission has major consequences. Had either of these two been more interested in actual research than in propaganda, they would have noticed that Milne and Skeat touched on one of their supposed "proofs" of darkening. "There are also a number of brown stains, perhaps due to drops of oil or grease from the lamps and candles of pious readers in the past" (71). They even note the ink has run due to water spots. They further discuss the fact that it was necessary to remove the glossy surface of the animal skins so that the writing would be sustained on vellum. They point out that both medieval AND modern scribes used a variety of substances, including "powdered pumice, powdered cuttle-fish bone, sandarac, chalk, whiting, &c. or combinations of these." They go further in noting that "the harsh scouring of the pages suggests fine sand" (79) and that this treatment, known as pouncing, was actually done by the scribe in the fourth century, which explains the difference in color between those pages written by scribe A and those written by scribe D.

Yet another mis-citation removes all doubt that Daniels is merely a Riplinger-style clone when he completely distorts a quotation by Jurgen Gottschlich. The part that Daniels conveniently excised is in bold script:

"Uspensky was no manuscript expert, had received far less academic training than Tischendorf, and did not belong to the exclusive inner circle of European palaeographers, so he was unacquainted with Tischendorf's publication of the Codex Frederico-Augustanus - indeed, just like the monks of the monastery, he failed to detect how old the manuscript was and consequently how valuable. Critical textual research was as rare in Russia's Orthodox Church as it was among the Sinaite monks, as Uspensky would amply demonstrate in a subsequent dispute with Tischendorf.

Uspensky would resort to the "heretical" allegation regarding Sinaiticus because his own Russian Bible was of the Byzantine text-type. But Daniels hid the information that calls Uspensky's text critical knowledge into question. Given that Tischendorf had left with 43 leaves in 1844 (nobody disputes this point) and published a facsimile in 1846, Uspensky was without excuse for knowing this. He simply wasn't well-informed, and this calls to attention the problem Daniels has with doing nothing more than playing his juvenile game of "quote the scholar." The only people who argue thusly are those incapable of doing actual firsthand research, a deficiency evident in both Daniels's book and the ignorant Internet postings of his so-called "researcher Steven Avery"

Surely the most egregious omission, however, is that not one single notation of J.K. Elliott's 1982 dissertation, "The Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair" occurs. The seminal work regarding the Simonides affair is not even acknowledged to exist. What makes this amusing is that Daniels's lead researcher (Avery) has flippantly dismissed Elliott's work because it doesn't cite Farrer (even though it cites more recent books and is far more extensive than Farrer's work). No, since it doesn't mention Farrer's work (we're told), it's "deficient." Fair enough. At this point we can now dismiss Daniels's book as deficient for omitting the most important work of the last forty years regarding the subject of Simonides.

2) HE SAID, HE SAID

Daniels's entire book consists of a juvenile form of argumentation that functions thusly: pick a quotation by an individual that can be used in opposition to the standard theory, ASSUME that quotation is a documented fact, and then demand that someone who holds another position explain why the standard theory "hides" the opposing information. Daniels engages this tactic throughout the book. For example - borrowing heavily from Avery's post-2013 Internet postings - Daniels cites the claims of Porfiry Uspensky claiming (283) that there are "only four of them" (Bibles we are told) in 1845. This claim is never footnoted so the interested reader can investigate for himself, and Daniels tells us someone else did the translation. This low level of "scholarship" is bad enough, but what makes it worse is that earlier on the same page Daniels is trying to 'prove' that Sinaiticus is late with a quotation from Bentley's "Secrets of Mt. Sinai" where William Turner (in 1815) takes the word of mid-1700s scholar Richard Pococke that "they had only three Bibles" and "they had no rare manuscripts." Daniels pretends that these statements align to "prove" that there were only three Bibles in 1815 but another one that he is now suggesting was placed there sometime between 1815 and 1845. Daniels then pontificates with Avery's juvenile description of this as "poof" provenance.

Unfortunately, Daniels - who claims Chris Pinto suggested he get this book - either passed on an unreliable quote from Pinto or he just hopes nobody will check out his work. Simply look at the actual quote on the page Daniels cites: "In the mid-eighteenth century, an English bishop named Richard Pococke had found his way into the library of the monks of St. Catherine's on Mount Sinai where he saw a large number of manuscripts. He reported that none of them were valuable ones. He was wrong, but his error misled others. William Turner, who visited the monastery in 1815, reported, 'To my enquiries after manuscripts and a library the priests answered that they had only three Bibles, and I took their word more readily, as Pococke states, they had no rare manuscripts.' So he came away empty-handed." And on the very next page - after listing some of the valuable things taken from the monastery - "In fact, the monks were well aware that they possessed priceless treasures and that their visitors would have liked to take them away."

Quite frankly, Daniels should give more credence to the idea that the monks simply lied to either Turner or Uspensky or perhaps even both. He should also do a better job not twisting parts of the story that contradict his claims.

3) FAILING TO UNDERSTAND THE WORLDVIEW OF OTHERS

Daniels's polemical portion of his presentation is entirely dependent on the idea that dispensationalism is the accurate (and right) eschatology. If this position of Daniels's is wrong - and it most probably is - then the Satanic conspiracy theory that is going to lead all of mankind to a one world religion and one universal Bible is nothing but an active imagination hard at work. What's amusing is that Daniels (and a number of dispensationalists) think that the Catholic Church is trying to create a one-world church for an eschatology they don't even endorse. But whatever the merits or demerits of that system, the fact is that Daniels's entire polemical approach is destroyed if dispensationalism is untrue. Such is the fragile nature of his argument.

Daniels (again following the Avery train of thought) tries to fit the work of Dirk Jongkind into his conspiracy theory, even suggesting that Jongkind might actually agree with the KJV Onlyists regarding how Tischendorf got the manuscript. The reader looks in vain to realize that at no point does Daniels point out that Jongkind would never in a million years agree with the idea that Sinaiticus is a 19th century production. But this is typical of their work: suggest the big scholars who at other times are part of a conspiracy agree with YOUR version of events and hope the reader doesn't pay much attention to the deception inherent in the argument.

4) INCONSISTENT HANDLING OF THE EVIDENCE


One of Daniels's more amusing attempts at illogical nonsense occurs on page 51, when he tells us that the last 12 verses of Mark are in 618 out of 620 extant Greek manuscripts, missing only in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. What makes this so illogical is that just a paragraph earlier, Daniels is complaining about the missing verses at 1 John 5:7-8 (the Comma Johanneum) but doesn't DARE bring up the Greek manuscript count at all for good reason: the passage only appears in about nine manuscripts out of around 501. In other words, Daniels doesn't REALLY care about the "majority" of manuscripts, it's just a showy argument. If he did care about them then he'd have no choice but to abandon 1 John 5:7, as all wise scholars do.

Another area where Daniels follows the train first engineered by Chris Pinto and parroted by Steven Avery - cite James Farrer's propaganda about Simonides in 1907 but INTENTIONALLY OMIT Farrer's conclusion: "In literary ability, he surpassed all his contemporaries, but unhappily the essential element of truth formed no part of his mental constitution" (Farrer, 1907: 66). These men are quick to cite century-plus old "research" but don't seem to want to broadcast the fact that even Farrer, the most sympathetic evaluator of Simonides (and incompetent in his analysis), basically says Simonides is a liar. Why are they not quick to bring this out? Because all three are incompetent researchers, propagandists motivated by getting rid of evidence they don't like. Consequently, they cherry pick only the parts that will support their preconceptions and hope nobody brings up the rest.


5) 2427 AND A CLASSIC NON SEQUITOR


Despite the fact it literally has nothing at all to do with the subject, Daniels tries to cloak his argument with an appeal to MS 2427, formerly claimed to be a Category I manuscript but now recognized to be a modern forgery. Daniels is hoping the reader will draw the conclusion, "Well since they were wrong about X and it was a forgery then maybe Y is a forgery, too." Of course, the two situations don't even compare and this is nothing more than a naive form of the non sequitor fallacy. The authenticity of 2427 was contested from an early date and NOT by an arrogant calligrapher with a reputation for forgery who was bent on revenge against someone. Robert P. Casey - as early as 1947 (the manuscript arrived at Chicago in 1937) - suggested it might be derived from a 19th century NT critical edition. Daniels also excludes the fact - quite relevant - that just because Prussian blue was not available until 1704 did not necessarily exclude the idea that it was a poor touch up job. In 2006, Stephen Carlson proved the source of 2427 conclusively. But the question a well-trained mind has to aim at Daniels is, "So what?"

Daniels snidely claims, "Thinking it was fake didn't stop their agenda." But what agenda, David? It was textual critics and actual skilled researchers capable of reading 2427 who investigated actual problems with the manuscript, rendered a verdict and then (key point here) notified the rest of the world of their discovery. Nobody involved with this discovery was a King James Onlyist intent on getting rid of evidence undesired. The research surrounding 2427 proves - contrary to Daniels's allegations of conspiracy - that researchers actually wrestle with REAL contradictory claims.
What Daniels proves is not that textual critics are stupid but rather that they wouldn't have covered up for Tischendorf either in 1859 or today. It's amusing to watch Daniels seemingly oblivious to the fact that if it wasn't for a textual critic doing the hard work, Daniels himself wouldn't even know this.

But 2427 doesn't even apply to Sinaiticus anyway. For starters, the only challenge to the authenticity of Sinaiticcus came from someone who had his own agenda (revenge) anyway. Secondly, it has been evaluated and re-evaluated a number of times. Thirdly - and this part is rather important - the easiest way to prove Sinaiticus is a fake is to do exactly what was done here.....discover the ACTUAL exemplar dating from sometime later than the fourth century. Siimonides claimed three sources and collation work, none of which he ever produced. Of course, a conspiracy theorist simply would say that the demonic cover up involved getting rid of these materials, too. That's the genius of conspiracy theories: they require nothing but an active imagination.

6) DANIELS DOESN'T EVEN UNDERSTAND BASIC TEXTUAL CRITICISM


While this is hardly a surprise, one would think a little more humility would be found in his work. Daniels totally misses the point when he declares (193), "The basic principle of Textual Criticism is 'the harder reading is to be preferred.'" To anyone with even a scintilla of knowledge of the subject, the problem with this phrase is immediately obvious: the overriding principle of textual criticism is NOT the harder reading but is, in fact, "the most likely original is that reading that best explains the rise of ALL the other variants." This is true whether one is advocating reasoned eclecticism, Byzantine priority, or any other school of text critical thought.

7) DANIELS ISN'T EVEN REALLY FAMILIAR WITH THE SIMONIDES STORY AND YET HE BELIEVES THE FORGER

Of all the shortcomings in this book, the most egregious is the fact that David Daniels is clearly not even remotely familiar with the claims of Constantine Simonides. Anyone who is familiar with the story of Simonides knows immediately that Simonides is lying about virtually everything. It doesn't require much skill save for a minimal degree of critical thinking. What comes through clearly in the ranting pages is that Daniels hates Sinaiticus because it so clearly contradicts his precious KJV, and he is willing to do pretty much anything (including regurgitating the nonsense that the LXX is post-apostolic era) to get rid of the problems Sinaiticus creates for his bibliology. Thus, the claims of Simonides permit Daniels to dismiss any evidence to the contrary.

In chapter 29 (262), Daniels lays out for us his basic allegation against Tischendorf. "Tischendorf was set up" (which can truthfully be translated as, "It was all a big conspiracy"). "They" set up a "made to order manuscript" for Tischendorf to find on Mt Sinai. Tischendorf then - amazingly enough - falls into their plan by taking only SOME of Sinaiticus in his 1844 visit (isn't it amazing how they can set it up no matter whether he takes part of it or all of it?) But Daniels tells us "...in 1859, he figured out it was fake." Daniels then tells us that AS A RESULT of this discovery in 1859, Tischendorf "came upon a plan. He darkened Sinaiticus with, maybe lemon juice, like Simonides' friend says he did." Yes, Daniels is certain that the manuscript was darkened and yet he doesn't know who did it (maybe Tischendorf, maybe he had help), what he used ("maybe lemon juice"), or when he did it (maybe 1853, maybe 1859, sometime in the 1850s). Not only that, but he doesn't know where he did it and can only speculate as to "why" he did it. This accusation fails every single basic test of investiation and yet Daniels makes the claim. This is truly amazing given that Simonides' version of the story says he discovered this in 1852 as a darkened manuscript made to look older. How could Tischendorf have seen a white manuscript in 1859 that was dark in 1852? And when exactly did this friend (clearly supposed to be Kallinikos) SEE Tischendorf do this in 1859?

But there is a huge problem for the Simonides apologists: there is NO EVIDENCE that anyone named Kallinikos actually witnessed these events and then wrote a letter supporting Simonides's version of events. In fact, Simonides produced only a trio of letters and never once produced his so-called star witness. Why? Because this individual didn't exist (at least in 1862). A letter purporting to be from Kallinikos suddenly appears in December 1862. This letter - an incredible exercise in showing that Kallinikos was more of a genie in a bottle capable of appearing at will than he was an actual supporter of Simonides - informs us that Kallinikos saw Simonides - and Simonides ONLY - writing Sinaiticus, that he later SAW him take it Constantinople and deliver it there to someone, that this was presented to the Emporer of Russia, that it was left in the library awaiting Simonides's return, that Tischendorf tore a small part away and vanished with it, that Tischendorf later returned and took the rest of it and lied about how he took it, and says, "All these things, then, I know, being on the spot..." Seriously - if we are to believe the "star witness" that Simonides never produced, he somehow managed to see all of these things by appearing at will whenever it was necessary. He also claims to "know" that the Codex was "cleaned, with a solution of herbs" to change the color. (How he knows this is never explained). And there's no backing down given that Kallinikos claimed he "saw it in the hands of Tischendorf and recognized the work, and I first mentioned it to Simonides." Of course, why Kallinikos would not sound the alarm in 1859 after he had allegedly SEEN the first theft in 1844 and had ALSO seen the alleged aging of the manuscript, presumably also in 1844 makes sense only to those who believe professional wrestling is a real contest. Amazingly enough, we are supposed to believe that Kallinikos was on Mt Athos when Simonides (allegedly) wrote it AND he was on Sinai to see every single key development. Forrest Gump has nothing on this level of omnipresence.

Of course, Simonides never produced Kallinikos - because the latter was a phantom. Not that there wasn't someone named Kallinikos in the 1841 Mt Athos catalog, but because this person simply wasn't around to substantiate the claims made in the alleged letter. Simonides's critics produced a couple of suspects, neither of whom was the "real" one, but Simonides - for all of his taunting - couldn't produce a person who didn't actually exist (at least in 1862). Furthermore, the Kallinkos they DID find (on Sinai) no less - said very clearly that Simonides according to someone who lived there - said that Simonides had never even been to Sinai! Obviously, if Simonides (who didn't even bother to mention this alleged trip in is 1854 biography, an omission noted by Tregelles) was not on Sinai in 1852 then he could not possibly have seen the aging of the manuscript in which Daniels is placing his entire case. The simple truth is this: Simonides claimed he had independent witnesses, none of whom he ever produced. He then later claimed that he was intimates with this Kallinikos, who allegedly wrote a letter supporting him, but he never produced this alleged independent witness. Why? For the simple reason this person didn't exist and didn't write these alleged letters of support. Let's face it: if there was a real Kallinikos who actually saw all of these things then producing him to validate the story wouldn't have been difficult at all just like producing the materials used to make the manuscript would not have been difficult either. Simonides never produced the actual person - despite continued taunting of having people that could validate his story - for only one reason: no such actual person existed that did what Simonides said.

8) GUILTY BEFORE TRIED

Daniels is also content with another Avery characteristic: make an accusation, repeat it, and then assume that repetitive accusations constitute proof of the accuracy of the false charge. I've already touched on Daniels's misquotation of Manly Hall, but there are others. Nowhere is this more ridiculous than Daniels's assertion that someone "darkened" Sinaiticus.

Daniels first makes this charge on page 57 ("someone had darkened the rest of Sinaiticus"). After going into a rant about the Catholic Church, he repeats the accusation on page 61. The discerning reader may be excused for not buying what Daniels is selling when you realize Daniels NEVER presents any actual EVIDENCE that this occurred. He then begins to try building his case by saying that after Tischendorf had the manuscript for two months in Cairo it wasn't "snow white anymore" (70). He then - AGAIN - repeats this allegation on page 74, but even though this is the fourth time he has made the charge, he has yet to produce evidence. Daniels then comes right out and says that Tischendorf either knew who darkened it or did it himself sometime between 1850 and 1859. Again, the reader searches in vain for evidence supporting this allegation (76). Daniels AGAIN charges on page 232 that it was darkened. Finally, on page 270, Daniels tells us, "I've shown you evidence that someone darkened Sinaiticus." But - in truth - he never has. He has merely made the accusation SIX times and assumed that making an allegation is tantamount to proof. And then on page 272, Daniels tells use that Kallinikos "saw Tischendorf" claiming to be cleaning the manuscript but was really aging it. So now we have six allegations plus hearsay evidence from a phantom constituting proof of an allegation. Daniels repeats his allegation that Tischendorf either darkened the manuscript or knew who did. On page 296, he reiterates his allegation and tells us "either in 1853 or 1859," Tischendorf darkened the pages to make them look old. For anyone who is even remotely familiar with the Simonides affair - which neither David Daniels nor Steven Avery really is - there is an immediate problem confronting someone concerned with actual history: Simonides claimed that he saw this manuscript darkened in 1852. In fact, Simonides saw something that is a literal impossibility and a major reason why nobody with any critical thinking skills ascribes to his claim that this is a 19th century manuscript.

In his September 3, 1862, letter to "The Guardian," Constantine Simonides claimed that "in 1852, I saw it (note: Sinaiticus) there myself...I examined the MS. and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have." Fine and good but with a major problem: Tischendorf was never at Sinai between 1844 and 1853, and yet Simonides says it was "altered" to look older" by the time he saw it in 1852. Why didn't Daniels deal with this obvious problem with his argument? Avery has come up with an ingenious (and historically inept) solution: "Simonides fudged" (which is just another word for "lied," but Avery is too biased to say those words about Simonides). But the true answer is obvious: Daniels literally has no knowledge whatsoever of the Simonides affair. He is simply parroting the erroneous assertions of Steven Avery Spenser and Chris Pinto in a desperate KJVO attempt to rally the troops.'

9) STRAINING CREDULITY

Another major problem is that in wasting half of his book on KJVO exhortation, Daniels ignores the biggest problem of all: how exactly was this single-person written document done so quickly by a 19-year old? He never addresses the two text-types in John, never tells us the source material, never mentions Simonides's imprisonment for forgery, never mentions that Simonides wanted revenge on Tischendorf for exposing him, never mentions that Simonides' story changed every single time someone pointed out a flaw in it. Indeed, he functions more as a defense attorney for Simonides than for an impartial researcher. No interaction is actually given with the paleographic determinations of Milne, Skeat, and Jongkind. The book literally glosses over every important point to make one debatable point repetitively: "someone darkened Sinaiticus."

And it isn't enough to cite an incompetent non-scholar like Steven Avery (Spenser) with the claim that they aged old books with coffee stains in the 1800s to make them look old; what Daniels must PROVE is that SINAITICUS was aged with coffee. He never even tries to do this. Indeed, the preoccupation with the canceled chemical testing is amusing. They're asserting in the same breath that it's been treated with a chemical compound and yet admitting it's never been tested, completely oblivious to the inherent contradiction.

CONCLUSION


There are several other errors that permate this book. However, a person not convinced already about the ineptitude displayed in argumentation wouldn't be persuaded if I provided a dozen more examples (an easy feat to be quite blunt about it). To give just one example, Daniels is fond of calling Tischendorf a liar, but he softens that claim when it involves Simonides - because Simonides is literally the ONLY actual "reason" anyone can give for believing this is a 19th century production.
Codex Sinaiticus is a fourth century document. Nobody capable of firsthand research, palaeography, or any elated discipline even pretends otherwise nowadays. There are basically six people - all of them not even deserving of the moniker "novice" as researchers - who espouse this nonsensical view: Steven Avery, David Daniels, Bill Cooper, Bryan Ross, Brian Shepherd, and Mark Michie. All are ignorant, and I don't think any of them save perhaps Daniels (who was educated at Fuller Seminary) could give the lexical form of a Greek word if they had guns pointed at their heads. And if Avery applied his nonsensical shibboleth - his asinine claim that nobody today is "fluent in Greek" because they have been indoctrinated by seminaries - then even Daniels doesn't qualify to read Sinaiticus. The accusations are baseless, and the book is full of conspiracy theories, illogical arguments, mis-citations and distortions as well as assumptions that make it an amusing piece of fiction without an audience. Despite the bandwith continued to be wasted, no serious scholar entertains the idea that six hacks sitting at their computer who cannot even read a document deserve a serious hearing about this issue. Even if they did, Daniels's book is inept and incompetent research at every level.

Steven Avery
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:03 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:
Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:34 am
Interesting thanks Steven.
  • British Library on C14 dating Sinaiticus:

    Many thanks for your enquiry. Having consulted with colleagues in History & Classics and our Collection Care team, I can confirm that the Library has not previously subjected either manuscript to C14 dating, nor do we have plans to do so. There is broad scholarly consensus on the dating of both codices based on various well established criteria for judging the date of a manuscript. C14 dating requires a relatively large sample to be taken from a collection item and destroyed – the Library does not undertake such analysis on its collections, instead relying on a range of non-destructive techniques including contextual and imaging analysis.
This is an interesting thread and I am using it as a research fulcrum and will try to answer good questions.

I noted the humorous:

"There is broad scholarly consensus on the dating of both codices based on various well established criteria for judging the date of a manuscript."

Which is the consensus of the uninformed, who can't see past their "deeply entrenched scholarship".

And linked to this on this thread:

no testing of materials, ink! .. oops
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 14#post214

With post #5 on the "broad scholarly consensus".
Leucius Charinus wrote:
Wed Oct 29, 2014 12:34 am
.... I have no ideas how to explain the different coloured sheets. However I'd be interested to know why Tischendorf - the discoverer - did not make a note of this. From your summary above it appears that Tischendorf never mentioned this himself. Is that correct? Why would that be?
Be well
LC
This was a superb question. The situation is a lot worse than an omission from Tischendorf. For some years he hid the connection of the two mss. And he barely discussed the colour or condition of the parchment, except saying it was sufflava (which fits the stained Russian part but not Leipzig.) Tischendorf pointed everyone to his published facsimile edition, where the glaring problem was missing by his design. In fact, the 2011-2012 Hendrickson Publishers edition, in cooperation with the British Library did the same thing, sticking a note in the Preface about "sensitive adjustments".

Steven Avery

Maestroh
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Maestroh » Thu Apr 12, 2018 7:39 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Apr 12, 2018 6:03 pm
This is an interesting thread and I am using it as a research fulcrum and will try to answer good questions.
You have stated a willingness to answer questions so now let's put this claim to the test. I surmise yet again you will refuse to disclose the truth.

On April 24, 2016 - just 12 days short of TWO YEARS AGO - you were asked the following questions. You have STILL not provided any kind of answer to them. We'd appreciate it if you'd actually present something coherent. I mean, you have had TWO YEARS to answer questions that intelligent people (or at least honest ones) would have been able to answer in five seconds. So here we go.

I will give the REAL answers to the questions and we'll modify them as necessary.


1) Where did David Daniels, whose work you cite as authoritative, train in paleography?

David Daniels is completely ignorant of paleography.

2) How does the manuscript coming online in 2009 change Avery's 2011 strongly worded opinion about how if one is just familiar with the details, it's OBVIOUS that it is NOT a 19th century document?

Answer: Avery never bothered to study the issue in the first place. Consequently, it's fair to ask how if he was so deficient at study before why anyone should take him seriously now.

3) How many of these scholars have ever come down on the side of saying Simonides told the truth and Sinaiticus dates to the 19th century?

Answer - 0.

4) Does ANY paleographer in the world date Sinaiticus to the 19th century?

Answer - no.

Note: if the weasel answer we get is that not every paleographer has ever seen it to make such a judgment, I remind the audience that Mr Avery has never seen it to make such a judgment, either.

5) Who made the accusation that the manuscript was darkened?

Simonides in 1852.....which means there's no possible way Tischendorf could have done it
Of course, Kallinikos (Simonides in drag) said 1845.....so we can throw both their witnesses out..

6) Where did Steven Avery study 'forensic history'?

He never has. There's no such thing.

7) How much study of paleography have you (note: Steven Avery) ever done?

Zero.

8) Does your source Brent Nongbri have ANY papyri that he thinks are dated wrongly by 1500 years?

Brent Nongbri states he has NO REASON to question the fourth century date and finds nothing in the Simonides claims.

9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled? Zero. I doubt he's ever seen any.

10) How are they to be handled? (post 62) as in 'what precautions are necessary?'

Since I know the answer having worked at CSNTM, I'll await his answer lest he go forth from here and try to pretend he knows what he's talking about.

11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read?

None. He can't read Greek at all and isn't too swift at English as his repetitive fragments make clear.

12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed?

None, which means anything he says about pictures online is based on ignorance.

13) How is the lighting to be set? Let's see what this guy says since I've actually done this with CSNTM.

14) How long did it take you to take the photographs? He never has so the answer is..."I never took any."

15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus?

No, he cannot.

16) Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE with photographing manuscripts? No, he doesn't.

17) Do any of the OTHER two members of the SART team have any REAL experience in linguistics?

Apparently not since this question has been avoided like the plague.

18) What are the published works of those in question 17?

19) Do the people at the CSP who host the manuscript online SAY it is an 1800s production?

Not a single one does and Parker addresses Avery's faux concerns on page 176 of his 2010 book.

20) What date then do they give it?

Fourth century - universally.

21) How does Steven Avery actually KNOW the manuscript at CSP is really Sinaiticus?

He doesn't - if those lemmings and liars are such corrupt people then he can't possibly know.

22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied?

None, and he ain't too swift with timelines, either.

23) How many experiments have you ever done on parchment? None

24) In 2011, you claimed there was a typewritten note regarding Sinaiticus even though the typewriter had not yet been distributed wide scale. Why was your research so shallow as to say something so ridiculous?


You state a willingness to answer questions and MOST of those above deal with paleography, either direct or indirect.

When you dodge them - as you will - we will note your claim to be willing to answer questions is yet another fabrication on your part.

Steven Avery
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Codex Sinaiticus - Bryan Ross and Brian Shepherd

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:10 am

Bill Brown
"The only real possible major shift that might occur is that recently indoctrinated KJVOs (like Bryan Ross or Brian Shepherd...)"

====================

In terms of Sinaiticus, from my studies they are quite different.

Bryan Ross has a series of talks on YouTube, e.g:

"A Tale of Two Constantines: Rethinking Codex Sinaiticus, Part 1"
http://gracelifebiblechurch.com/sermon/ ... us-part-1/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DxPMXRebU

which I have found to be carefully done and accurate. Bryan has asked many good questions and has done in his own personal studies, reading and research. Today he posted on Facebook about the book The Bible Hunter, by Jurgen Gottschlich. This might be his main spot.

A Tale of Two Constantines: Rethinking Codex Sinainticus
Bryan Ross
http://gracelifebiblechurch.com/sermon- ... -theology/

====================

In contrast, Brian Shepherd spoke at the Dean Burgon Society. On Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus) Brian follows in the footsteps of a couple of writers who have made arguments that are simply incorrect. And this includes mangling the manuscript colour history.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Fri Apr 13, 2018 8:03 am, edited 1 time in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

chronology problem - which came first?

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:28 am

Bill Brown
"Even some of the chapter titles have their roots in Steven Avery's warped imagination of reality. For example, the chapter "Coloring the Truth" takes its name from an Avery post on The Biblical Criticism and History Forum posted on January 7, 2016; the chapter "Who Darkened Sinaiticus" is taken from a post placed on CARM one day later and the same title posted on Theology Web on April 12, 2016. One similarly worded title about "a smoking gun" is on Avery's own Pure Bible Forum and was posted April 4, 2016."

Bill Brown, as with the homoeoteleutons, again has everything backwards. My posts were directly pointing to vlogs with those titles that had been put out by David. :)

Maestroh
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: chronology problem - which came first?

Post by Maestroh » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:41 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 7:28 am
Bill Brown
"Even some of the chapter titles have their roots in Steven Avery's warped imagination of reality. For example, the chapter "Coloring the Truth" takes its name from an Avery post on The Biblical Criticism and History Forum posted on January 7, 2016; the chapter "Who Darkened Sinaiticus" is taken from a post placed on CARM one day later and the same title posted on Theology Web on April 12, 2016. One similarly worded title about "a smoking gun" is on Avery's own Pure Bible Forum and was posted April 4, 2016."

Bill Brown, as with the homoeoteleutons, again has everything backwards. My posts were directly pointing to vlogs with those titles that had been put out by David. :)
The fact that this the only point was to prove you two are in cahoots is lost on you, isn't it?

Jeez, how long were you at Cal before you dropped out?

Maestroh
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - Bryan Ross and Brian Shepherd

Post by Maestroh » Fri Apr 13, 2018 9:43 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:10 am
Bill Brown
"The only real possible major shift that might occur is that recently indoctrinated KJVOs (like Bryan Ross or Brian Shepherd...)"

====================

In terms of Sinaiticus, from my studies they are quite different.
Not really. You both have the same conclusion of it being a fake.
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:10 am
Bryan Ross has a series of talks on YouTube, e.g:

"A Tale of Two Constantines: Rethinking Codex Sinaiticus, Part 1"
http://gracelifebiblechurch.com/sermon/ ... us-part-1/
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9DxPMXRebU

which I have found to be carefully done and accurate.
ha ha.....
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 6:10 am
Bryan has asked many good questions and has done in his own personal studies, reading and research. Today he posted on Facebook about the book The Bible Hunter, by Jurgen Gottschlich. This might be his main spot.

A Tale of Two Constantines: Rethinking Codex Sinainticus
Bryan Ross
http://gracelifebiblechurch.com/sermon- ... -theology/

====================

In contrast, Brian Shepherd spoke at the Dean Burgon Society. On Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus) Brian follows in the footsteps of a couple of writers who have made arguments that are simply incorrect. And this includes mangling the manuscript colour history.
Just like you. got it. Thank you for clarifying that and validating my point, it is much appreciated.

Maestroh
Posts: 44
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Fri Apr 13, 2018 10:23 am

Since he opted to escalate by bringing an irrelevant Facebook post here, let's take a relevant post he made less than one month ago.
Steven Avery wrote:
Here, for those who struggle with analysis.

==========================================

1844 - Tischendorf to Leipzig............ - 86 pages white parchment - stain-free
1859 - Tischendorf to St. Petersburg - approx 700 pages - streaky stained yellow parchment
1862-64 - Simonides and Kallinikos piont out that in the 1850s the ms. was yellowed to give it the appearance of age.

2009 - the ms. becomes available online, and the colouring and stain differences can be seen by anyone.
Now.....there are MAJOR flaws in this cherry picked presentation, most notably what our self-appointed head of the SART team (as the document was originally called the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, a more appropriate as well as accurate name for their work would be to use those initials, but I digress) has INTENTIONALLY OMITTED....and why nobody takes his lack of scholarship seriously.

Let's rewrite the timeline accurately SHORT wise and then extend it in the next post:

1844 - Tischendorf to Leipzig............ - 86 pages white parchment - stain-free
1845 - Kallinikos - one of the two so-called eyewitnesses (in reality, Simonides's pseudonym) - claims to see the manuscript already altered
1852 - Simonides claims to have seen it on Mt Sinai and aged to look older
1859 - Tischendorf to St. Petersburg - approx 700 pages - streaky stained yellow parchment
1862-64 - Simonides and Kallinikos piont out that in the 1850s the ms. was yellowed to give it the appearance of age.
1862 - Simonides writes a letter claiming he's the sole author of it and it was aged by 1852 when he saw it on Sinai
1862-63 - letters written by Simonides under the pseudonym Kallinikos show up claiming to have seen the ENTIRE episode unfold, the author claiming to have witnessed Simonides writing it all by himself in 1840, seeing Tischendorf stealing it both times, and SEEING Tischendorf alter it with lemon juice.
1867 - Simonides either dies or fakes his own death (because, you know, that's what honorable people do...)

(It sounds absolutely ridiculous when you put it the honest way, doesn't it?)


2009 - the ms. becomes available online, and the colouring and stain differences can be seen by anyone.

2011 - Steven Avery begins posting ignorant studies online about a document he has not yet seen.

There is, of course, MUCH MORE to the timeline but suffice it to say the one he proposes is intentionally deceptive.

Want to try again, Steven Avery Spenser?

Post Reply