Steven Avery
Administrator
white parchment - A Tale of Two Manuscripts
Greetings to the research!
The question of the white parchment anomaly in Sinaiticus developed slowly.
We are examining:
a) Codex Frederico-Augustanus, which went from Sinai-->Germany in 1844 in a fast and spirited manner.
b) Codex Sinaiticus (the rest of it, 90% of the origianl) which is today mostly in England, having first gone to Russia (pieces remain in Russia and Sinai) and for which there was plenty of opportunity for tampering both at the Sinai monastery over some years, and in Cairo in 1859. And in fact, such tampering was alleged at the time.
The question at hand is simple:
Does the evidence indicate that the Codex Sinaiticus was coloured, yellowed, stained, treated to give an appearance of age anytime from 1844-->1862?
This was all one white manuscript in 1844, 10% went to Germany white, and the 90% that stayed in Sinai was subject to deliberate tampering, yellowing to give the appearance of age.
In the series of posts here, the basics will attempt to be explained how it developed and present it visually, give the history, attempts at explanation, assess the significance, and consider where we are today. Throughout the weekend (December 5-6, 2015) I plan to place in some posts and threads here close to all the information currently available on the white parchment anomaly.
=================================
Why is this only coming to the fore after 2009?
Many elements contributed to the white parchment discovery, here are some of the major elements.
a) the Codex Sinaiticus Project placing the ms. online in 2009 was a huge help. Plus their excellent tech skills in areas like photography, making sure that the same techniques were used in Leipzig, Germany, the English British Library,Russia and Egypt. And the acknowledgment that basic testing in areas like material and ink chemical composition has never been done. (Some testing has been planned in Germany, but there is no public word on whether this has occurred.)
b) the fortuitous Wikipedia extract of Uspensky, in Russian, helped. This was placed in Wiki in 2008 and discovered by Sinaiticus researchers and translated around the end of 2013. Note that that extract also has great bearing on other issues, like the book binding.
c) The interest generated by the Chris Pinto video Tares Among the Wheat in 2012, which included video of a discussion held in the British Library. And which focused on the Simonides and Tischendorf questions in regards to Sinaiticus.
d) the debate between Chris Pinto and James White on December 11, 2013. Personally, I became interested in the issues, while being very cautious, simply because I felt that Chris had raised some interesting issues and was not being treated fairly in the mainstream Bible internet media. And I began to research certain areas. Chris later focused on some other fascinating new issues, such as the Barnabas issue.
e) The internet ability, with google books and many other resources, to bring forth the historical material from the 1800s. (Often in a much more complete way than the 1900s.) Also making it easier to have quick communication with scholars and principles throughout the world
f) The corroborative nature of the Facebook studies. And that brought forth extra input, including the research abilities of David W. Daniels, who immediately understood the white parchment significance.
g) The availability of books and papers on the overall topic, such as that of James Keith Elliott in 1982, Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair. Or Dirk Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus. Later, a bibliography is planned.
=================================
After 1859 - A Tale of Two Different Manuscripts
=================================
1845 visit to Sinai - Uspensky (book published in 1856) describes seeing Sinaiticus, "white parchment"
This is ALL of Sinaiticus, in one volume, (minus the CFA) including all thatis now stained and yellowed.
Uspensky was not describing the Codex Frederico-Augustanus (CFA) since that had been spirited up to Germany in 1844.
Let us start with the Wikipedia extract.
Leszek Jańczuk
https://www.facebook.com/leszek.janczuk?__mref=message
Leszek did a lot of the ms. work on Codex Sinaiticus. His background is Ukrainian and Polish, with solid Russian skills. He added to on the Wikipedia page on November 2008 a Russian extract from the book about the 1845 visit to the Sinai Monastery by:
Porphyrius Uspensky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyrius_Uspensky
Uspensky had seen the ms. in his visits to the monastery in 1845 and 1850. His two books on the visits were published in 1856 and 1857. Note that all this is in between the first removal of the Codex Frederico-Augustanus by Constantine Tischendorf in 1844, which went to Germany, and the final heist in 1859, sent to Russia.
In 1845, Archimandrite Porphyrius Uspensky (1804–1885), at that time head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem and subsequently Bishop of Chigirin, visited the monastery and the codex was shown to him, together with leaves which Tischendorf had not seen.[n 5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
This google-based translation can use some tweaking from anyone Russian fluent. The white parchment has been confirmed by my Rego Park Russian friends.
=================================
First Manuscript - based on the description of the pristine Friderico-Augustanus, housed in Leipzig, Germany, Sinaiticus was said to be "white parchment" into the 1910s.
The idea that Sinaiticus was white parchment remained (although not in Russia, where the stained document was housed, and not in the writings of Tischendorf)
Here are some examples.
Ernst von Dobschütz (1870-1934)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_von_Dobschütz
Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: Bible in the Church (1910)
Ernst Von Dobschutz
http://books.google.com/books?id=oEATAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA583
James Alexander McClymont (1848-1927)
https://books.google.com/books?id=2REMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA108
Dobschütz was in Halle, near to Leipzig, so he would surely have actually seen the CFA ms. His description matches that of Uspensky.
=================================
New Testament criticism; its history and results (1913)
James Alexander McClymont
https://archive.org/stream/newtestamentcrit00mclyuoft#page/44/mode/2up
=================================
Second Manuscript - when the 1859 full "Sinaiticus" ms, the later haul, was described by Tischendorf in 1862, the ms. was now "sufflava", "yellow with age".
Saturday Review of Politics, Literature Science and Art
The Codex Sinaiticus (1864)
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=eHJAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA35
How the Codex Was Found: A Narrative of Two Visits to Sinai (1893, 2010 edition)
Margaret Dunlop Gibson
https://books.google.com/books?id=AgCmFGN-E0IC&pg=PA87
=================================
Scholars in 2015 still do not know the basics
Even in 2015, the scholars are getting this all wrong. Many are far worse than the situation in 1900. Here is a recent example. Stanley E. Porter gives the story from Tischendorf of the basket, mouldered by time, committed to the flames. The 1860 Tischendorf saved from burning account of what happenned in 1844. And Porter writes:
Stanley Porter simply shows no indication of knowledge of the fact that the 1844 ms. looked as fine snow-white parchment to Uspensky and Dobschutz in the 1800s. And retains its fine appearance at the Leipzig library today, as can be seen at the CSP. He has an excuse that he did not see it in Germany, but it is up on the CSP site! Thus Porter supports the Tischendorf myth through super-convoluted reasoning against the hard physical evidence and the contextual historical reasons given by David Parker. And the motive for Tischendorf's "oddness" is trivially simple .. Tischendorf trumped up support to combat the charged accusations of theft by simply lying 15 years later, after the previous private stark language of theft "I have come into possession" of the leaves ... and making himself into the savior of the manuscript. A crafty politician, or a charlatan.
=================================
Returning to the white parchment, the big question is .. why are the pages that stayed in Sinai until 1864 yellow and aged, and pages that went to Germany in 1844 are pristine in white? Are there any natural explanations? Or was the simplest answer the one that applies:
The pages in Sinai were yellowed deliberately. (Perhaps in the somewhat unusual months in the 1859 period in Cairo. In that period Tischendorf worked on a transcription, apparently never used. He said he worked with two Germans, who were only vaguely identified.)
=================================
A possible objection answered
It is important to remember that the 2009 CSP Project has shown us that this distinction between the two mss is radical and complete. Any objection based on subjectivity of colour analysis is thus answered. Later we will discuss any alternate possible explanations, other than deliberate colouring. Plus, if there is deliberate colouring, then we have the issue of what that means about the history, provenance and antiquity of the ms.
Does a 1840s or 1850s staining, discolouring and yellowing of the ms. mean ipso facto that it is not Ancient?
Not necessarily. However, it definitely changes the history and all the scenarios proposed. It would definitely indicate collusion to deceive the public as to the age and would be consistent with modern production theories.
=================================
Resources
Sinaiticus - Facebook
Uspensky and the White Parchment Manuscript - March 14, 2014
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/permalink/276711049172374/
Bible Criticism and History Forum
Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus - Oct. 28, 2014
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017
Tischendorf Discussion - (TC Alt List - Feb 1, 2014)
http://tischendorf-8th.blogspot.com/2014/03/tischendorf-discussion-tc-alt-list.html
The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as reported in the personal letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
Jeffrey-Michael Featherstone
https://www.academia.edu/1123038/The_Discovery_of_the_Codex_Sinaiticus_as_reported_in_the_personal_letters_of_Konstantin_Tischendorf
https://lettres.unifr.ch/fileadmin/Documentation/Departements/Langues_et_litterature/Philologie_classique/Documents/featherstone._tischendorf_correspondence.pdf
Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus - May 2009
Gavin Moorhead
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx
=================================
December 2015 Videos Highlighting Sinaiticus Issues, the First One is "white parchment" Anomaly.
Is Sinaiticus a Fake? - Youtube - David W. Daniels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjOhDJ5HKo
Facebook
Look What's Missing? - David W. Daniels - https://www.facebook.com/LookWhatsMissing/photos/a.258701534286144.1073741828.251234655032832/533969483426013/?type=3
Sinaiticus - https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/permalink/551086928401450/
PureBible - https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/896920090399881/
=================================
Greetings to the research!
The question of the white parchment anomaly in Sinaiticus developed slowly.
We are examining:
a) Codex Frederico-Augustanus, which went from Sinai-->Germany in 1844 in a fast and spirited manner.
b) Codex Sinaiticus (the rest of it, 90% of the origianl) which is today mostly in England, having first gone to Russia (pieces remain in Russia and Sinai) and for which there was plenty of opportunity for tampering both at the Sinai monastery over some years, and in Cairo in 1859. And in fact, such tampering was alleged at the time.
The question at hand is simple:
Does the evidence indicate that the Codex Sinaiticus was coloured, yellowed, stained, treated to give an appearance of age anytime from 1844-->1862?
This was all one white manuscript in 1844, 10% went to Germany white, and the 90% that stayed in Sinai was subject to deliberate tampering, yellowing to give the appearance of age.
In the series of posts here, the basics will attempt to be explained how it developed and present it visually, give the history, attempts at explanation, assess the significance, and consider where we are today. Throughout the weekend (December 5-6, 2015) I plan to place in some posts and threads here close to all the information currently available on the white parchment anomaly.
=================================
Why is this only coming to the fore after 2009?
Many elements contributed to the white parchment discovery, here are some of the major elements.
a) the Codex Sinaiticus Project placing the ms. online in 2009 was a huge help. Plus their excellent tech skills in areas like photography, making sure that the same techniques were used in Leipzig, Germany, the English British Library,Russia and Egypt. And the acknowledgment that basic testing in areas like material and ink chemical composition has never been done. (Some testing has been planned in Germany, but there is no public word on whether this has occurred.)
b) the fortuitous Wikipedia extract of Uspensky, in Russian, helped. This was placed in Wiki in 2008 and discovered by Sinaiticus researchers and translated around the end of 2013. Note that that extract also has great bearing on other issues, like the book binding.
c) The interest generated by the Chris Pinto video Tares Among the Wheat in 2012, which included video of a discussion held in the British Library. And which focused on the Simonides and Tischendorf questions in regards to Sinaiticus.
d) the debate between Chris Pinto and James White on December 11, 2013. Personally, I became interested in the issues, while being very cautious, simply because I felt that Chris had raised some interesting issues and was not being treated fairly in the mainstream Bible internet media. And I began to research certain areas. Chris later focused on some other fascinating new issues, such as the Barnabas issue.
e) The internet ability, with google books and many other resources, to bring forth the historical material from the 1800s. (Often in a much more complete way than the 1900s.) Also making it easier to have quick communication with scholars and principles throughout the world
f) The corroborative nature of the Facebook studies. And that brought forth extra input, including the research abilities of David W. Daniels, who immediately understood the white parchment significance.
g) The availability of books and papers on the overall topic, such as that of James Keith Elliott in 1982, Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair. Or Dirk Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus. Later, a bibliography is planned.
=================================
After 1859 - A Tale of Two Different Manuscripts
=================================
1845 visit to Sinai - Uspensky (book published in 1856) describes seeing Sinaiticus, "white parchment"
This is ALL of Sinaiticus, in one volume, (minus the CFA) including all thatis now stained and yellowed.
Uspensky was not describing the Codex Frederico-Augustanus (CFA) since that had been spirited up to Germany in 1844.
Let us start with the Wikipedia extract.
Leszek Jańczuk
https://www.facebook.com/leszek.janczuk?__mref=message
Leszek did a lot of the ms. work on Codex Sinaiticus. His background is Ukrainian and Polish, with solid Russian skills. He added to on the Wikipedia page on November 2008 a Russian extract from the book about the 1845 visit to the Sinai Monastery by:
Porphyrius Uspensky
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Porphyrius_Uspensky
Uspensky had seen the ms. in his visits to the monastery in 1845 and 1850. His two books on the visits were published in 1856 and 1857. Note that all this is in between the first removal of the Codex Frederico-Augustanus by Constantine Tischendorf in 1844, which went to Germany, and the final heist in 1859, sent to Russia.
In 1845, Archimandrite Porphyrius Uspensky (1804–1885), at that time head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem and subsequently Bishop of Chigirin, visited the monastery and the codex was shown to him, together with leaves which Tischendorf had not seen.[n 5]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus
Первое путешествие в Синайский Монастыŕ в 1845 году Архимандрита Порфиря Успенскаго (1856)
- Uspienski described: "Первая рукопись, содержащая Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием ап. Варнавы и книгой Ермы, писана на тончайшем белом пергаменте. (...) Буквы в ней совершенно похожи на церковно-славянские. Постановка их прямая и сплошная. Над словами нет придыханий и ударений, а речения не отделяются никакими знаками правописания кроме точек. Весь священный текст писан в четыре и два столбца стихомерным образом и так слитно, как будто одно длинное речение тянется от точки до точки."(Порфирий (Успенский), Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь в 1845 году, Petersburg 1856, с. 226.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#cite_note-92
Порфирий Бишоф в. Чигирин
https://books.google.com/books?id=hIlCAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA22
(Google translate: First trip to the Sinai Monastary in 1845 by Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky- Porphyry Bishop of Chigirin)
"The first manuscript, containing the Old Testament is incomplete and the entire New Testament with a message up. Barnabas and Hermas book, writing on the thinnest white parchment. (...) The letters in it quite similar to the Church Slavonic. Statement of their direct and continuous. Above the words, there is no signs and accents and sayings are not separated by any signs spelling except for points. All the sacred texts were written in four columns and two stihomernym way and so together, as one long utterance stretches from point to point. "(Porfiry (Uspensky), the first trip to the Sinai Monastery in 1845
This google-based translation can use some tweaking from anyone Russian fluent. The white parchment has been confirmed by my Rego Park Russian friends.
=================================
First Manuscript - based on the description of the pristine Friderico-Augustanus, housed in Leipzig, Germany, Sinaiticus was said to be "white parchment" into the 1910s.
The idea that Sinaiticus was white parchment remained (although not in Russia, where the stained document was housed, and not in the writings of Tischendorf)
Here are some examples.
Ernst von Dobschütz (1870-1934)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernst_von_Dobschütz
Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: Bible in the Church (1910)
Ernst Von Dobschutz
http://books.google.com/books?id=oEATAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA583
The wonderfully fine snow-white parchment of the Sinaitic MS seems to be of antelope skin.
James Alexander McClymont (1848-1927)
https://books.google.com/books?id=2REMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA108
Dobschütz was in Halle, near to Leipzig, so he would surely have actually seen the CFA ms. His description matches that of Uspensky.
=================================
New Testament criticism; its history and results (1913)
James Alexander McClymont
https://archive.org/stream/newtestamentcrit00mclyuoft#page/44/mode/2up
Sinaiticus .. It is written on snow-white vellum, supposed to have been made from the skins of antelopes.
=================================
Second Manuscript - when the 1859 full "Sinaiticus" ms, the later haul, was described by Tischendorf in 1862, the ms. was now "sufflava", "yellow with age".
Christian Remembrancer (1863)
Review - 1862 Imperial Edition of the Codex Sinaiticus -bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus - Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=rPQDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA377
The parchment is generally 'sufflava' in colour, think and smooth, although of course the leaves vary; some are worm-eaten.
Saturday Review of Politics, Literature Science and Art
The Codex Sinaiticus (1864)
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=eHJAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA35
"vellum sheets, are now yellow in age" - F. H. A. Scrivener, 1864
A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus (1864)
Scrivener
http://books.google.com/books?id=v-JUmBD5zIcC&pg=PP38
"Nor, in estimating its date, must we forget the quality of the material on which it is written, or its present look and condition. The vellum leaves, now almost yellow in colour, are not only the largest, but among the finest and smoothest yet known ; if not quite so thin as those of the Codex Claromontanus of St. Paul's Epistles, the skins of none but the very oldest documents can be compared to them in beauty"
Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology (1870)
John Henry Blunt
http://books.google.com/books?id=li9RAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA702
"non tam alba quam sufflava"
Introduction to the Study of the New Testament (1872)
James Austin Bastow
https://books.google.com/books?id=zwkFAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA234
Sinaiticus .. is written on parchment, supposed to be made of antelope skins, but it is now quite yellow with age.
Introduction in sacram Scripturam (1877)
Thomas Joseph Lamy
https://books.google.com/books?id=5jRMAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA120
"membrana tenuis et sufflava"
How the Codex Was Found: A Narrative of Two Visits to Sinai (1893, 2010 edition)
Margaret Dunlop Gibson
https://books.google.com/books?id=AgCmFGN-E0IC&pg=PA87
"Of this venerable relic of so many ages, written on fine yellow vellum" - Perikles Gergoriados, 1875
=================================
Scholars in 2015 still do not know the basics
Even in 2015, the scholars are getting this all wrong. Many are far worse than the situation in 1900. Here is a recent example. Stanley E. Porter gives the story from Tischendorf of the basket, mouldered by time, committed to the flames. The 1860 Tischendorf saved from burning account of what happenned in 1844. And Porter writes:
The above version is the traditional one usually found summarized in recountings of the fortunes of the manuscript, as well as being found in the official version published by the British Library. Not all have been convinced by this account, however. The doubts that have emerged have been several, and include the following issues:
(1) the pages that were rescued were in better shape than Tischendorf's account seems to give warrant for .... The first argument, regarding the condition of the manuscript pages that Tischendorf found, is called into question by the evidence in two significant ways. The first is that anyone who has examined the manuscript of Codex Sinaiticus will notice that it does show signs of age and wear. In fact, when I was in Leipzig not too long ago, I was unable to see the manuscript pages held there because it was in the process of restoration. The remains of the manuscript that appear to have been in the basket found by Tischendorf, the rest of the 129 sheets, as well as the rest of the manuscript that he eventually found in 1859. Now suppose one had taken an entire manuscript from Genesis to Revelation and beyond and wanted to divide it up for some further use, such as reinscribing or cutting up for bookbinding material or burning for heat (whether such is a good idea or not)—we do know that Sinaiticus had apparently already been divided up in some way and some parts had already apparently been re-used by the monks at St Catherine's. Let us say you had thrown the entire manuscript in a couple of baskets, and then grabbed some off the top for this further use, and then were going to start taking the top pages and casting them into a fire. Which ones would you expect to be missing? Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. because you took at least some of these for further use, and then the rest for casting into the fire—in other words, the very pages that are generally missing, starting from the top and working down. The extent of the remains of the manuscript tends to confirm rather than refute Tischendorf's story. As a result, I cannot accept Parker's conclusion that the throwing of Sinaiticus in the fire “is disproved by the discovery of fragments used in bookbinding and above all by the New Finds of 1975.”63 To the contrary, the splitting up of the manuscript, the designation of it for re-use in a variety of ways, and the state of preservation of the manuscript—along with the oddness of Tischendorf’s story if it is not true (why make up such a story?)—clearly indicate that the story is, if not proved beyond doubt, certainly plausible and more believable than the proposed alternatives. ... 63 Parker, Codex Sinaiticus, 132.......... ..... Constantine Tischendorf: The Life and Work of a 19th Century Bible Hunter, p. 26-28, 2015 by Stanley E. Porter.
Stanley Porter simply shows no indication of knowledge of the fact that the 1844 ms. looked as fine snow-white parchment to Uspensky and Dobschutz in the 1800s. And retains its fine appearance at the Leipzig library today, as can be seen at the CSP. He has an excuse that he did not see it in Germany, but it is up on the CSP site! Thus Porter supports the Tischendorf myth through super-convoluted reasoning against the hard physical evidence and the contextual historical reasons given by David Parker. And the motive for Tischendorf's "oddness" is trivially simple .. Tischendorf trumped up support to combat the charged accusations of theft by simply lying 15 years later, after the previous private stark language of theft "I have come into possession" of the leaves ... and making himself into the savior of the manuscript. A crafty politician, or a charlatan.
=================================
Returning to the white parchment, the big question is .. why are the pages that stayed in Sinai until 1864 yellow and aged, and pages that went to Germany in 1844 are pristine in white? Are there any natural explanations? Or was the simplest answer the one that applies:
The pages in Sinai were yellowed deliberately. (Perhaps in the somewhat unusual months in the 1859 period in Cairo. In that period Tischendorf worked on a transcription, apparently never used. He said he worked with two Germans, who were only vaguely identified.)
=================================
A possible objection answered
It is important to remember that the 2009 CSP Project has shown us that this distinction between the two mss is radical and complete. Any objection based on subjectivity of colour analysis is thus answered. Later we will discuss any alternate possible explanations, other than deliberate colouring. Plus, if there is deliberate colouring, then we have the issue of what that means about the history, provenance and antiquity of the ms.
Does a 1840s or 1850s staining, discolouring and yellowing of the ms. mean ipso facto that it is not Ancient?
Not necessarily. However, it definitely changes the history and all the scenarios proposed. It would definitely indicate collusion to deceive the public as to the age and would be consistent with modern production theories.
=================================
Resources
Sinaiticus - Facebook
Uspensky and the White Parchment Manuscript - March 14, 2014
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/permalink/276711049172374/
Bible Criticism and History Forum
Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus - Oct. 28, 2014
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017
Tischendorf Discussion - (TC Alt List - Feb 1, 2014)
http://tischendorf-8th.blogspot.com/2014/03/tischendorf-discussion-tc-alt-list.html
The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as reported in the personal letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
Jeffrey-Michael Featherstone
https://www.academia.edu/1123038/The_Discovery_of_the_Codex_Sinaiticus_as_reported_in_the_personal_letters_of_Konstantin_Tischendorf
https://lettres.unifr.ch/fileadmin/Documentation/Departements/Langues_et_litterature/Philologie_classique/Documents/featherstone._tischendorf_correspondence.pdf
Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus - May 2009
Gavin Moorhead
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx
=================================
December 2015 Videos Highlighting Sinaiticus Issues, the First One is "white parchment" Anomaly.
Is Sinaiticus a Fake? - Youtube - David W. Daniels
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVjOhDJ5HKo
Look What's Missing? - David W. Daniels - https://www.facebook.com/LookWhatsMissing/photos/a.258701534286144.1073741828.251234655032832/533969483426013/?type=3
Sinaiticus - https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/permalink/551086928401450/
PureBible - https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/896920090399881/
=================================
Last edited: