ahead of the curve - points made by rejoice44 at bibleforums.org

Steven Avery

Administrator

Two names were used at the bibleforums.org post

tgallison - Terrell Gallison - 8/2007 - 1/2010
rejoice44 - central Pennslyvania, police chief, retired - 10/2010 - 5/2013

The post were from 2009 to 2014.

The purpose of this thread will be to extract interesting aspects.
Today we can connect the dots, and show incredibly important evidences that were unknown at the time of this discussion.

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


How one verse exposes the CT & the new translations. - April 2009
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/165540-How-one-verse-exposes-the-CT-amp-the-new-translations

Please Help ESV or HCSB??? - April 2009
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/168559-ESV-or-HCSB?p=2068809#post2068809

Codex Vaticanus #1209; Can you locate it in history? - May 2009
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/169073-Codex-Vaticanus-1209-Can-you-locate-it-in-history

Vaticanus/Aleph Fact or fiction? - May 2009
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/169324-Vaticanus-Aleph-Fact-or-fiction

Codex Sinaiticus-See the Manuscript - Feb, 2011
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220874-Codex-Sinaiticus-See-the-Manuscript

Should a Translator of the Bible Believe in the Deity of Christ? - Sept 2011
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.p...e-Bible-Believe-in-the-Deity-of-Christ/page13

A version of the Bible, what do you think? - Dec, 2011
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/231996-A-version-of-the-Bible-what-do-you-think/page5

Which translation is correct? - March, 2012
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/236213-Which-translation-is-correct?p=2826517#post2826517

Manuscripts have variants - now what? Sept, 2012
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.p...hat?p=2894734&highlight=Simonides#post2894734

Information relating to the UBS. - Feb 2013
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/244900-Information-relating-to-the-UBS/page2

Pro-Bible, let's quit attacking Bible translations (again) - March 2013
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/245158-Pro-Bible-let-s-quit-attacking-Bible-translations-%28again%29/page10

Should the Book of Mark be called a Gospel if modern textual criticism is true? - March, 2013
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.p...pel-if-modern-textual-criticism-is-true/page9
(James Snapp posts)

The Codex Sinaiticus - March 2013
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/246214-The-Codex-Sinaiticus

Hebrew books of the NT - April, 2013
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/246229-Hebrew-books-of-the-NT/page4

Should verses have been removed from the Bible?- April, 2013
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/246470-Should-verses-have-been-removed-from-the-Bible?p=2977864#post2977864
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
"Codex Sinaiticus" threads

rejoice44 - Norm
Codex Sinaiticus-See the Manuscript - Feb, 2011
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/220874-Codex-Sinaiticus-See-the-


Here are some questions to be answered. In looking at this manuscript online I was puzzled to find two different 1 Chronicles listed.
How can this be possible? They state that the one is a duplicate of the other, but it is not an exact duplicate.

They say both are written by the same scribe some 1,700 years ago. How did both copies manage to survive all those years, while at the same time many of the Old Testament books are completely missing?

They were both assigned folio numbers which would have placed them some 96 pages apart in their respective manuscripts.

The one is found in the Leipzig Library in Germany under the title the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, and its clarity is amazing though it is not complete.

The other one is in the hands of St. Catherine’s Monastery, and is a mere strip that looks like it was used as a book marker.

Can anyone explain how this is possible, have I missed something?
Another poster to his credit observed the obvious:

I looked up this codex after it had been on TV because I was amazed at how well preserved it was
More later... we will put in one ultra-astute note from rejoice44

There seems to be a dead silence in the Academic world as to all the problems associated with this manuscript. Why?


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

rejoice44 - Norm
The Codex Sinaiticus - March 2013
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/246214-The-Codex-Sinaiticus


How many know that only 29% of the Old Testament exists in this manuscript, while 100% of the New Testament. This in itself could be entirely meaningless as far as the credibility of the manuscript goes, but there are so many peculiarities that exist in relation to this manuscript. For instance how many know that while the manuscript contains all of the New Testament there are five missing leafs in the New Testament?

Luke is missing one leaf, John is missing two leafs, and Philemon is missing two leaves and a half. The last chapter of Philemon ends in the second column, and then someone cut the last two columns out. One could possible assume that there was something they didn't want us to see. Is it possible that the next book in order after Philemon was not the book of acts, otherwise why would they they cut two columns so you couldn't see them, and remove the last two leaves. There may be a legitimate reason for this, but I would like to hear it.
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/246214-The-Codex-Sinaiticus?p=2971465#post2971465
Maybe you could explain why they cut two columns out of Philemon as well as the last two leaves. The Sinaiticus is supposed to be the oldest manuscript and yet its order of books in the New Testament does not follow the Vaticanus and the Alexandrinus, rather it follows the current form, having the Pauline Epistles preceding the Apostolic books. It does not have Acts following John, but then one might question why the last two leafs of John are missing, and why the the last two columns of Philemon is cut out as well as the last two leafs missing. Was it because they originally had Acts following John? The manuscript looks too manipulated.
You are right we don't know. We don't know how a scribe could repeat 7 leafs, 14 pages, 36,000 letters without realizing what he was doing. How can he be copying exactly from another manuscript when the text he was writing does not line up with the other text? When he repeats the text in error in 1 Chronicles he does not write it the same the second time as he did the first time. In the one page that he duplicated he compressed the writing so that it eliminated 8 lines in the space of four columns. He didn't make the same errors, but new ones, and it appears that the text isn't identical.

How can the holders of the manuscript spend a page counting letters to show how the Quire markings should fall when the New Testament has 5 missing leafs that are not accounted for in the New Testament and the Old Testament is three times longer? If the manuscript is the oldest, why does the Pauline letters precede the apostolic letters similar to what we have today? How did both the Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus have the same error in Mark 4:21, as well as many other places. This is the most corrupt manuscript ever, without considering the points I am taking up. How can it be a testimony to a correct reading of the Bible? How can it be number one of all the Alexandrian manuscripts? Without this manuscript to support the Vaticanus they would not have been able to do all the damage they have done.

Every single new translation follows these two manuscripts. This isn't about King James Bible, but about taking a single bible from which all the English speaking churches had been using and replacing it with multiple bibles bringing forth the corruption that is found in these Alexandrian manuscripts, that have no chain of evidence, presenting confusion in the church. Look at all the threads asking what bible should I use, and they ask that because they all read differently
.
If someone says I am going to flatten all your tires, and then your tires get flatten, isn't that enough reason to investigate the person that made the statement? A man set a goal to get rid of the only existing English bible that was being used in all the English speaking churches and replace it with one that he could agree with. He did not have enough of the type of material he needed, and in a letter to a friend, this man stated that Tischendorf would find him rich new material with which to use to accomplish his fifteen year goal. Tischendorf found him rich new material under unbelievable circumstances, for which the greatest forger of the nineteenth century claimed authorship. The man who's desire it was to eliminate the bible which had been accepted by millions, for hundreds of years, discussed getting rid of 1 John 5:7 early on, as well as "God, manifested in the flesh. He threatened to quit the translation committee if they wouldn't leave the Unitarian on the committee. He didn't believe in Christ's blood atonement for sin, he did not believe in the Genesis account of creation, but he did believe in evolution.

I am not judging the man. The claims I have made come from his own letters. But I do think his work should be judged. ...
. As far as the scribe is concerned, he may have been the most godly man around. I was judging his work, and his work is sloppy and careless. He was a terrible speller for an occupation as a scribe. You would think a scribe would know how to spell Isaac, wouldn't you? Why shouldn't we examine this manuscript to see if it is trustworthy enough to rewrite the bible?
Did you intentionally cut out half a page? It is not just the fact that it was cut out, but where it was located. The problem with the missing leaves is that we are told that the New Testament is 100% complete. What was on the missing leaves, nothing? If you are copying the Bible you wouldn't throw away leaves when they are so costly, you would copy the next book on the remaining leaves. The missing leaves are also in places where a scribe would have continued the next book on those missing pages. This is a scribe who had no trouble switching from 1 Chronicles to Ezra right in the middle of a line. It is bad enough to have no break between words in a line, but when you have no break between the words or the books you have to question who is doing this?
When a man says that another man will find him rich material to rewrite the bible and he does, that is not a conspiracy theory, but a fact. When it is stated that Tischendorf said he found the manuscript in a trash bin, that is not a conspiracy theory, that is fact. When it is stated that the Codex Sinaiticus is the most corrupt manuscript of all manuscripts, that is not a conspiracy theory, that is a fact. When the greatest forger of the nineteenth century said he wrote the manuscript, that is not a conspiracy theory, that is a fact. That the manuscript has 100% of the New Testament and only 29% of the Old Testament, that is not a conspiracy theory, but a fact. That seven leafs, or 36,000 letters were duplicated in the manuscript is not a conspiracy, but a fact, and they were not even identical.

This thread isn't about the King James Bible, but about creating translations from corrupt manuscripts.
Do you mean of all the changes that they made, or the whole complete text, because the changes in the text swayed greater when the Sinaiticus agreed with the Vaticanus 1209. When they took "God" manifested in the flesh out they ignored the Codex Alexandrinus. They also ignored the Codex Washingtonianus, a fourth Century manuscript of the Gospels, when they changed "only begotten Son" in John 1:18. So without the Sinaiticus the Vaticanus would not have carried the weight that it did.
Then it goes to the later period of the Chris Pinto and James White debate, and I am involved in the discussion.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator

James Snapp is part of this thread, in Green
rejoice44 - Norm
Should the Book of Mark be called a Gospel if modern textual criticism is true?
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.p...-a-Gospel-if-modern-textual-criticism-is-true


Post#9 - Actually A, which is (02) Codex Alexandrinus has the long ending of Mark in it. The corrupt manuscript Codex Sinaiticus was moved up in front of A by giving it the Greek designation of aleph, or first. They are now designated (01) for Codex Sinaiticus and (03) for Codex Vaticanus 1209. B was the old designation for Vaticanus.
Post#30 - The question of whether Codex Sinaiticus was a product of the fourth century, or a product of the nineteenth century was never adequately proven. If there is proof that the greatest forger of the nineteenth century was lying, it would be interesting to see the proof.
Post #55 Well then why don't you scrutinize this manuscript? The Codex Sinaiticus, claimed to be the number one (Aleph) of the manuscripts being used to rewrite the bible. The greatest forger of the nineteenth century claimed to have written it. What proof do you have that he was lying? Have you scrutinized this manuscript as it is presented online?
Post #68 Can you explain why both Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus 1209 had the same error in Mark 4:21 where both manuscripts had "under" the candlestick instead of "on" the candlestick? Can you explain why the New Testament was complete, while in the Old Testament many books had only a single fragmented page, or no page at all? Can you explain why the many errors in spelling indicate a copying through verbal dictation? Can you explain how there was two different copies of 1 Chronicles, or why the manuscript jumps from 1 chronicles chapter 19 to Ezra 9:9 right in the middle of a line? Can you explain why the scribe had trouble spelling Isaac?
Post#84 If I understand the OP correctly he was asking if modern textual criticism is true. The manuscripts from which these modern textual critics worked to discard the ending of Mark should be a legitimate subject for this thread. If he prefers I would stop immediately, but shouldn't he make that decision.

That is evidence that was presented for the Codex Sinaiticus being a forgery, and no it doesn't necessarily prove it, but there is no proof to show that Simonides was lying. In fact the British Library has many of his manuscripts which he sold them.

The manuscript is online to be examined. Look at it yourself and explain all the errors and peculiarities of it. The best explanation is that it is a forgery.

This thread is not about the KJB though you are trying to make it so. It is about the legitimacy of striping many verses from the English bible that had been in use since the 14th century.
Post #100-James E. Snapp Jr.
Let's see here . . . someone asked about Simonides, as if there was a possibility that Codex Sinaiticus was made by Simonides in the 1800's. There is not the least chance of that. It is a real manuscript. I could walk you through some of the evidence of this if you really want. But first, look up Kirsopp Lake's preface to his 1911 Photo-facsimile of Codex Sinaiticus (which was known at the time as Codex Petropolitanus, since it was in St. Petersburg, Russia), and Scrivener's comments about it. A few things to consider:

(1) Pages from Codex Sinaiticus were among the "new finds" uncovered at St. Catherine's Monastery in 1975.
(2) This is a huge book, and would be expensive and time-consuming to make.
(3) Three copyists appear to have been involved in the production of the codex; each one had his own orthography.
(4) The codex has been extensively corrected, and this was done four times, using four different exemplars. A forger would thus have not only needed to manufacture the text; he would need to go over it repeatedly and make corrections to partly conform the text to different exemplars.
(5) The text of the first seven chapters of John are of a different text-type than the surrounding pages.
(6) The marginalia in Acts in Sinaiticus are similar to those in Vaticanus in Acts, but, afaik, this feature of Vaticanus was not described in detail until after the discover of Codex Sinaiticus.
(7) Did I mention that pages of Sinaiticus were among the new finds discovered in a forgotten annex of St. Catherine's monastery in 1975?

I have no doubt that Codex Sinaiticus is a genuine manuscript. It was probably produced at Caesarea in the mid-300's, but not under Eusebius' supervision. More likely, Eusebius' successor-bishop, Acacius, oversaw its production, when he was attempting to collect and preserve the texts that were in decaying papyrus copies of the library. This would explain a lot of the unusual features in Codex Sinaiticus, as well as some of its unusual readings....
Post#109 Evidently it wasn't corrected enough, otherwise both the Codex Vaticanus 1209 and the Codex Sinaiticus would not have the same error in Mark 4:21. They both have "under" the candlestick, instead of "on" the candlestick. Another thing that was not corrected is the book of Jeremiah. In chapter 23 they repeat verses 7 and 8 at the end of the chapter. In Chapter 25:13 they jump to chapter 49 and from there on all the chapters are distorted. Didn't the copiers know in the fourth century the order of the books of Jeremiah? How did they not know that they were jumping from 1 Chronicles chapter 19 to Ezra chapter 9 right in the middle of a line? What kinds of correctors did they have. Yes the parchment was expensive, and that makes you wonder who would give expensive calf-skins to scribes who had trouble spelling.
Post #111 James Snapp -
That Sinaiticus was not corrected exhaustively is no surprise; nor is it surprising that two manuscripts made at the same scriptorium within 50 years of each other would share many of the same unusual readings – not only at the places you mentioned, but also elsewhere, such as at James 1:17. This does not mean that Sinaiticus is a forgery, and I believe that anyone who works through the relevant evidence with a modicum of objectivity will conclude that Simonides not only did not forge Sinaiticus, but could dot have forged Sinaiticus.

Regarding the question about the order of the chapters of Jeremiah, see Lake’s preface. (And, if you’re trying to suggest that Sinaiticus was based on Vaticanus, then compare their texts in Tobit. One used the short recension of Tobit; the other has the long recension of Tobit.)

Did you notice that I said that pages from Codex Sinaiticus were among the pages discovered at St. Catherine’s monastery in 1975? This point alone should convince anyone that Simonides did not forge Codex Sinaiticus. Noticing some unsolved problems does not mean that the question, “Did Simonides forge Sinaiticus?” is not solved.

(Regarding Tischendorf's account of how he acquired (most of) Codex Sinaiticus: I've already read that. But I don't believe Tischendorf's statements to the effect that the monks were burning pages of manuscripts; either Tischendorf was lying outright to make it seem to his patrons that he had rescued, rather than stolen, the codex, or else he misunderstood what the monks told him was happening to the pages in the basket -- that is, they may have been collected there to be rebound, not to be burned. See my YouTube video-lecture on the subject, "Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Tischendorf.")
Post #112 James Snapp -
I must correct myself: when I referred to Lake's Preface to his photo-replica of Codex Sinaiticus, I was thinking of the wrong source. Lake barely mentions Simonides. The source I was thinking of -- I think -- is Scrivener. See his remarks in his "Full Collation of Codex Sinaiticus," which can be easily tracked down and downloaded for free.
Post #118 Not sure what you mean about James 1:17. The only variant related to SV that I could see was TOS- "which" I guess. I am not very good at Greek.

You are looking at paleography while I am looking the broader picture. How could two pages of the same chapter and verse end up at Mt. Sinai if the manuscript was not produced there? Have you looked at the evidence that Simionides produced, including his method for creating it? The 43 pages that Tischendorf first found in 1885, are they not the pages that Tischendorf gave to the Leipzig University, and if so, why did Tischendorf make a big fuss about making a one page copy of Isaiah-Jeremiah?

They declared Simonides a child progeny. Many stated he had no peers. Remember there was fourteen years to come up with the New Testament, and a lot of money to be gained. If we were to believe Tischendorf''s statement, the monks at the monastery would have had to have been fools. What else do monks have to do besides go to the library?

Maybe the monks figured they were due some money. It had to be an embarrassment when that second copy of 1 Chronicles 17 showed up. It wasn't even on the same column. The Russians had a fragment that had some red tinge on it. They looked for red coloring to determine if a parchment had been tampered with at one point in time.

The fact that it had so many errors was an indication that it was completed in a hurry. That Simonides didn't have enough time to complete the manuscript was the oppositions main point of contention.

Best regards Norm.
The red tinge fragment is likely:

Numbers, 5:26 - 6:18 library: NLR folio: Greek 259 = CRSU F2, CRSU F3 scribe: A
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manus...lioNo=1&lid=en&quireNo=10&side=v&zoomSlider=0

Post #120 James E. Snapp

First, emphasizing what I wrote earlier: Scrivener addressed this matter in the introduction to his collation of Codex Sinaiticus. Have you read his comments? The book can be downloaded for free online.

The variant I was referring to in James 1:17 is APOSKIASMATOS. This is read in Sinaiticus, and in Vaticanus, and in one papyrus. It poses a problem for the idea that Simonides forged Sinaiticus because it’s not the sort of variant that a person would naturally invent; in the 1840’s, it could only be read in a transcript of Codex Vaticanus.

You asked,
“How could two pages of the same chapter and verse end up at Mt. Sinai if the manuscript was not produced there?” Through the effects of Heinlein’s Law: "When looking for an explanation of why something is messed up, don’t rule out sheer stupidity.” The copyists who made Codex Sinaiticus carelessly copied, and even bound together, pages containing the same text. You can see this at the Codex Sinaiticus website.

You asked,“The 43 pages that Tischendorf first found in 1885, are they not the pages that Tischendorf gave to the Leipzig University.”

They are the pages that he found on his first visit to St. Catherine's monastery, but that wasn't 1885; it was 1844.

You asked,
“Why did Tischendorf make a big fuss about making a one page copy of Isaiah-Jeremiah?”

I can’t read Tischendorf’s mind. It was probably a convenient sample.

You wrote,“If we were to believe Tischendorf''s statement, the monks at the monastery would have had to have been fools.” As I mentioned before, I don’t believe Tischendorf’s story. The monks had pages of Codex Sinaiticus in a basket, but the monks were not in the process of burning manuscript-pages.

You asked, “What else do monks have to do besides go to the library?”

They pray. A lot.

You mentioned that
“The fact that it had so many errors was an indication that it was completed in a hurry.” That could explain some of the mistakes. But “made in a hurry” does not mean “made in a hurry by Simonides.” I reckon that some professional scribes in ancient times typically worked in a hurry, since they were paid per copy, and monk-scribes were also probably not strangers to the concept of deadlines.

I don’t mean to settle your question by throwing a book at you, but, after you read Scrivener’s comments, I recommend that you find Milne & Skeat’s detailed book, Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus, and read it carefully. Then find Dirk Jongkind’s book, Studies in the Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, and read that. (I don’t expect you to buy it; you should be able to obtain a copy to borrow via interlibrary loan. Some of it can be
accessed in preview-mode at books.google.com/books?isbn=1593334222 .) If, after that, you still think that Simonides made Codex Sinaiticus, get back to me on this.
Post #121 on James 1:17

I read this as two separate words--APOSKIASMA=shadow and TOS=which or who. Is there a reason it cannot be read this way? Didn't ὅς sometimes have a T in front of it? τος
Post #122 (Scrivener)
Scrivener made two statements that do not appear to be accurate. One was that Kallinikos was a fictional person. According to J. A. Farrer, who wrote "LITERARY FORGERIES" in 1907 (pages 61-63), the truth of the matter over who wrote the Codex Sinaiticus hinged on Kallinikos. According to Farrer, Kallinkos was a real person who did exist, his name appears in Lampros' Catalogue of the Mount Athos MSS., as late as 1844.

The second implicaton of Scrivener was that Dr. Simonides probably had never seen a copy of the Vaticanus 1209, and if he had that would not account for the variants that are assigned to Sinaiticus alone. A simple answer to Scrivener's implication is found in a number of corrupt collations that were available to Dr. Simonides. One was by Johann Scholz 1830. According to Bible Researcher Scholz made a collation in 1669 from a copy of Barolocci's, the Vatican librarian. There was also collations by Birch 1788, and Ford 1799. Also there was a collation by Angelo Mai, the Vatican librarian, which was claimed to be a false copy by Tischendorf. There was absolutely no reason to suspect that Simonides did not have these collations as well as copies of other Alexandrian manuscripts in his possession.

Scrivener's whole argument stands on whether Simonides was competent enough to produce a false manuscript that would be believable. In Farrer's words, "That Simonides was a good enough calligraper, even at an early age, to have written the Codex, is hardly open to doubt, and it is in his favour that the world was first indebted to him in 1856 for the opening chapters in Greek of the SHEPHERD OF HERMAS, with a portion of which the Codex Sinaiticus actually terminates. The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance."

two pages of the same chapter and verse end up at Mt. Sinai - "sheer stupidity.” The copyists who made Codex Sinaiticus carelessly copied, and even bound together, pages containing the same text.

When the smoke keeps rising up you have to ask yourself if there isn't a fire somewhere.

"The 43 pages that Tischendorf first found in 1885, are they not the pages that Tischendorf gave to the Leipzig University.... it was 1844."
Yes, and the point was that is was on his first visit in 1844.

You asked, “Why did Tischendorf make a big fuss about making a one page copy of Isaiah-Jeremiah?”
I can’t read Tischendorf’s mind. It was probably a convenient sample.

I see a very serious problem here. Tischendorf had 23 leafs of Jeremiah out of those first 43 that he obtained in 1844. Why then does he make a big fuss about transcribing one page of Isaiah-Jeremiah in 1853. It was as if he had never obtained all those leafs from Jeremiah back in 1844. It would seem obvious that he is trying to cover something up, but what?

You think Tischendorf was lying when he said he found them in a basket destined for the fire?

made in a hurry

How long would you employ someone that was so sloppy and careless with skins that are worth a year's wages?


reference to Milne-Skeat and Jongkind

If Simonides was so superior in paleography as many claimed, and so practiced at creating forgeries, than you should be able to put aside all of the arguments based on paleography. Now if there was scientific evidence, that might be different story. Is there any scientific evidence you know about?
James E. Snapp #124
Farrer seems to have been only poorly informed about the details of Codex Sinaiticus' contents, and somewhat gullible where Simonides’ claims are concerned: the basis for Farrer’s insistence that there was a person named Kallinokos who wrote letters to Simonides are very faint; it’s as if he has assumed that the existence of the name Kallinokos in a colophon implies that the person who wrote the letters must have been that person. Whereas the real inference is that Simonides knew that a copyist named Kallinokos worked, or had worked, at Mt. Athos, and Simonides borrowed that name when he wrote letters to himself to provide a second witness for his claim.

Regarding the idea that Simonides had access to collations of Vaticanus: the question is not that he had access to collations to Vaticanus (although I don’t think it’s been shown that he did), but that anyone with access to those collations would be able to make the text of Codex Sinaiticus by relying on them. (For example, the collations are collations of the text of the manuscript; from what source would Simonides have obtained the marginalia in Acts which matched up (in many details) with the marginalia that appears in Acts in Vaticanus?) Scholz’s collation, made in 1830, which echoed the 1669 collation that had been made by Bartolucci, was inaccurate at many points. Plus, Sinaiticus diverged from Vaticanus frequently: there are over 3,000 differences between the two manuscripts in the Gospels, and Sinaiticus clearly had a non-Alexandrian exemplar for John 1:1-8:38. Yet they both share some rare readings, such as APOSKIASMATOS in James 1:17, and the reading in Matthew 27:49 which states that Jesus was pierced before He died.

Thus the proposal that the teenaged Simonides produced Codex Sinaiticus requires that Simonides sifted through Vaticanus, and adopted some of its extremely rare readings, but rejected others, and sometime wrote several pages (in Tobit, and at the beginning of John) without consulting Vaticanus at all. But Simonides’ claim was that he had written the codex, not intending to create a forgery, but as a present for the czar. In which case, there would have been no need to pick-and-choose variants from collations of Vaticanus, or to adopt one exemplar for John 1:1-8:38 and a different one for the rest of the Gospels.

When I explained that the copyists who made Codex Sinaiticus carelessly copied and bound together pages containing the same text (in First Chron.), you wrote, “When the smoke keeps rising up you have to ask yourself if there isn't a fire somewhere.”

Why does it seem incredible that a group of copyists, working on lots of manuscripts, could not carelessly lose their place and repeat a portion of the text? Look at the alternative that you are proposing: to maintain the idea that Simonides made Codex Sinaiticus, you must believe that Simonides deliberately repeated this portion of text, and added corrections to its first appearance, but not to the repetition.

You wrote, “I see a very serious problem here. Tischendorf had 23 leafs of Jeremiah out of those first 43 that he obtained in 1844. Why then does he make a big fuss about transcribing one page of Isaiah-Jeremiah in 1853. It was as if he had never obtained all those leafs from Jeremiah back in 1844. It would seem obvious that he is trying to cover something up, but what?”

I must confess that I do not understand what you are saying. Your question seems to be based on some confusion about when and where Tischendorf did what.

You asked, “You think Tischendorf was lying when he said he found them in a basket destined for the fire?”

Either Tischendorf lied about that, or else he misunderstood what the monks told him they were doing with the manuscript-pages in the basket that Tischendorf saw.

You asked, “How long would you employ someone that was so sloppy and careless with skins that are worth a year's wages?”

Not long, but I’m not a bishop in Caesarea spending someone else’s money.

You wrote, “If Simonides was so superior in paleography as many claimed, and so practiced at creating forgeries, than you should be able to put aside all of the arguments based on paleography.”

No; that does not follow. Here's one reason why. An expert at palaeography, making a present for the czar, would have no reason for changing his handwriting (and adding other features of the different scripts of the copyists who produced Codex Sinaiticus -- different spelling, different decorative flourishes, different abbreviations) back and forth. A person who was merely making a present for the czar, if he noticed that he had made a bad mistake, might re-write the pages on which the mistake had appeared -- but would he do so in different handwriting, and with different spelling, and with different treatment of the sacred names, and with a different use of the diple-mark? No, Rejoice44, he would not. But there are replacement-pages in Codex Sinaiticus, and they have all these features which are different from the other pages.

The case that Codex Sinaiticus is what it appears to be – a manuscript produced in the 300’s, very probably at Caesarea – is based on a number of factors. I hope that you will take the time to read the books and articles I recommended, especially the work by Milne & Skeat, and by Jongkind.

I believe we have given this tangent more attention than it deserves.
Five more
125
126
130
132
137
 
Last edited:
Top