KJV Tampering as a precursor to Sinaiaticus Fraud

[StephenGoranson]

The fragment of Joshua from Codex Sinaiticus was incorporated into a book binding before 1844.

The Qumran 11Q Temple Scroll is surely older than the New Testament canon, yet it (most of it)
has quite clear writing and is easily readable (for those who read Hebrew).

Again, old books made with cotton rag paper pages survive better than,
say, books made in the World War II era with acidic wood chip based paper.

[Steven Avery]

Then, if you able to think as a historian or journalist —

Why would anyone make the colouring accusation —- unless it was seen and was true!

If it was false, it could be immediately refuted.

“Look, see the manuscript, there was no yellowing of the Russian leaves, they are identical to the pale white Leipzig leaves”
“What a fabrication”

Never happened, not even a denial.

Tischendorf kept the two sections very distant, and largely inaccessible, “just work with my $$ tampered books.”
Nice con.

Again, try to think like a historian or journalist researcher, who goes beyond any fake “consensus.”

[StephenGoranson]

You are free to continue to fail to address evidence contrary to 1800s forgery.

[StephenGoranson]

About the suggestion that I try to "think as a historian." My main subjects at Duke grad school were history of Judaism and history of Christianity.
My latest publication, mentioned in the forum, is "Qumran-Related History:...."
My publications do not all agree with any consensus.
My proposal in this forum, e.g., that the Aristion that Papias mentioned is the same individual as Ariston of Pella is not a consensus view.
Codex Sinaiticus existed before Simonides did.
As you know, for example, Tommy Wasserman is quite familiar with both, and knows that Simonides did not forge it.
Sometimes the consensus is right.

[Steven Avery]

Sometimes the consensus is right.

The consensus was built on hiding the manuscript.
Once it was achieved, it becomes "deeply entrenched" scholarship, with inertia, momentum and scholastic stagnation.

Even in late 1861, the German Oriental Society was planning to really look at the pages, (including the coloured and stained New Testament) which were in Leipzig for the publication of the smoothed out book publlshed in 1862. There would be a presentation and an inspection.

CANCELLED - poor Tischendorf sent a telegram saying he was ill.

2015 tests planned for Leipzig - CANCELLED - after BAM showed up, equipment in hand (Dr. Ira Rabin report at the Brent Nongbri zoom meeting.)

[ebion]

In a sense, the success of KJV tampering was essential groundwork for them to pull off the Codex Simonides fraud: the fact that the most famous English scientist of all time didn't dare publish his essay on tampering in thw KJV, for fear of what happened to William Whiston, shows how entrenched lying was in England even by the mid 1700s.

Some threads on the Codex Simonides fraud:

• Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus
• Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus
• Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery
• the Zurich Psalter used for Sinaiticus corrections?
• The Eusebian Canons in Codex Sinaiticus - a challenge to traditional dating

[StephenGoranson]

The four libraries with portions of the ancient Codex have cooperated in creating an informative website.
They are joined there with other collaborating institutions and dozens of scholars--named, along with their associations--including some of the leading textual experts in the world.
Participants are listed here:
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/ ... pants.aspx

In this forum, two posters dogmatically insist that the Codex dates to the 1800s, while simultaneously having quite extraordinarily different and incompatible views on the KJV.

Besides to some extent relying on scholars who know more about the Codex than I do, and considering it ancient based on my own knowledge, I personally and *additionally* also have, after reading many posts and links, not found a single persuasive reason to prefer an 1800s date rather than an ancient one.

[StephenGoranson]

Though no translation, KJV or others, is perfect, given the manuscripts and scholarship available to them, the KJV was good, especially in some poetry. Not a "tampering."

[ebion]

... and putting aside ebion's theory .

Ebion doesn't have a theory yet - that's the purpose of these threads: for him to form one.

Note that Tischendorf went directly to Constantius after he stole the 43 leaves in 1844, likely he had been told that the manuscript had gotten to Sinai from Constantinople. A trip there could help his efforts to get the full manuscript.

Or rather: he didn't "steal" them. He took them to Constantinople with the Patriarch's permission, or even at the Patriarch's request. Remember he's at Ste. Katherines on a Vatican budget: he had no money of his own and was an unknown for raising funds. To me, it is unbelievable that he would be allowed to, or would, "steal" the leaves. Not only would he never be invited back (he was), he would sully the name of those who recommended (or sent) him: cardinals Mai and Mezzofanti and others.

Hoole's conclusion is very clear:

Tischendorf's involvement does not seem likely. '
He would have be in Constantinople and he had his plate full topping off the Sinaiticus Con Tank.

Ebion's theory is emerging: There's only one con job: the S&H+V con job, and Tischenduper's involvement was always central, but at the level of the patriarch: he knows that Bryennius would do nothing without the Patriarch. The Tischenduper "saved them from the fire" is to deflect any questions of the Patriarch's involvement. Ste. Katherines failure to accuse Tischenduper of theft speaks loudly.

Tischenduper comes to Ste. Katherines on a Vatican budget after spending a year in Italy with the support of the 2 most important librarian cardinals, the custodians of Vaticanus.

The question arises as to whether the Sinaiticus production was a deliberate deception. Note that I think Simonides may have sold Constantius (his connection with Constantius is confirmed historically outside of Sinaiticus at exactly the right time 1841!, this was shown in a book on Simonides by Nikolos Farmakidis) a bill of goods about the manuscript when he turned it over to him and received 25,000 piasters (most of the $ likely for Sinaiticus.) The Simonides story is that the ms. was always designed as a replica, and even if that were true during creation, by the time Benedict passed and he got it to Constantius there would certainly be a temptation to say this was an old manuscript.

Simonides' letter to the Guardian documents his surprise at Tischenduper's deliberate deception, and that he was engaged only in the creation of a replica. Simonides was not a monk, so it's entirely appropriate he was paid well for his work with his uncle on it. And Constantius is visibly grateful for the replica. I see no involvement by Simonides with anything other than involvement with a replica.

Ebion's theory is emerging: Tischenduper took the leaves to Constantinople with the Patriarch's permission, and with the Vatican's connivance. Remember that what's in play here is gargantuan (bigger than huge): S&H laid the basis for the world-wide rewriting of the bibles that started in the 1880s, when combined with Vaticanus (V).

On PBF:

We also have his unusual claim to have transcribed the whole New Testament of the Codex Vaticanus in only 14 hours in his later visit.

Perhaps this is the basis for that, but I can't help but wonder if Tischenduper's year in Italy was spent studying and copying Vaticanus,

Ebion's theory is that Tischenduper took the leaves to Constantinople to get the Patriarch's connivance in the project of turning the replica into a fraud on a gargantuan scale. Maybe somehow they (Tischenduper + Constantius + Mai + Mezzofanti ) felt that they needed something extra, which turned into an order for the (perhaps custom made) Bryennius manuscript.

Ebion's theory is that somehow the Bryennius manuscript fits as a piece of the S&H+V fraud to support the S&H+V -> NIV+New* gargantuan (bigger than huge) frauds. We eed to look for a pattern to the edits and emendations versus say the TR by GreekSinaiticus and Bryennius and Vaticanus that lays the basis for the TR -> NIV+New* frauds.

[Steven Avery]

Note that Tischendorf went directly to Constantius after he stole the 43 leaves in 1844, likely he had been told that the manuscript had gotten to Sinai from Constantinople. A trip there could help his efforts to get the full manuscript.

Or rather: he didn't "steal" them. He took them to Constantinople with the Patriarch's permission, or even at the Patriarch's request. Remember he's at Ste. Katherines on a Vatican budget: he had no money of his own and was an unknown for raising funds. To me, it is unbelievable that he would be allowed to, or would, "steal" the leaves. Not only would he never be invited back (he was), he would sully the name of those who recommended (or sent) him: cardinals Mai and Mezzofanti and others.

Nobody noticed the theft, since it was five internal quires and part of a sixth. There is no record at the monastery of any permissoin for the 1844 theft and Tischendorf kept the source of the leaves very quiet. The idea that he got permission was written by Tischendorf around 1860, along with his saved by fire fabricationn, his 1844 letter to his brother Julius says simply that they came into his possession. Plus Tischendorf had an additional 1844 theft, a palimpsest.

I'll see if I have a summary handy.