CARM threads needing checking before they purge

Steven Avery


One was purged:

Did Simonides forge the Sinaiticus like he claimed? -
2013-04 -
Donati Bankes Tattum - a bit on other topics - Grolier, Elizabeth Best, hyper-spectral imaging


Tares Among Wheat research fiasco
11-27-2013 to 10-21-2014 to 12-26-2015 (closed by mod, new post deleted) 26 pages

the New Finds, a sealed room with Sinaiticus leaves before Tischendorf and Simonides? (excerpts done below)
12-09-13 to 2-07-2015 11 pages
(Follow-up to TAW)

Sinaiticus colour variance - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus
10-30-2014 to 12-23-2015 4 pages (closed by admin)

Another KJV Ode To Poor Research: "Ancient Syriac Codex"
(excerpts done below)
2-11-2014 to 10-30-2014 - 4 pages

William John Bankes- example of Sinaiticus CARM-thread repetitive "research" blunder
12-24-13 to 10-21-2014 6 pages to 12-28-2015 (still open)


This is the only forum with purging, afaik, material should also be checked from:

Bible Criticism and History Forum



Resources thread supplies a lot of the info, starting with:


Bible Criticism and History Forum - (2014 discussions with quirky, fairly well-informed group)

Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomalies - Oct, 2014

Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus - Oct, 2014

non-invasive testing of inks, parchment, stains and threads - Nov, 2014


Last edited:

Steven Avery

the New Finds, a sealed room with Sinaiticus leaves before Tischendorf and Simonides? -Donati, Bankes and Tattum

Note: These posts are planned for clean-up into summary mode:

William John Bankes- example of Sinaiticus CARM-thread repetitive "research" blunder
12-24-13 to 10-21-2014 6 pages


[TC-Alternate-list] Daniel Wallace and Chris Pinto on Sinaiticus and Simonides - the Vitaliano Donati 1761 report
Steven Avery - October 5, 2013


The New Finds

On May 25, 1975, Archimandrite Sophronius, then the Skevophylax of the monastery, discovered a cache of manuscript leaves and fragments in the tower on the north wall of the monastery. The room where they were discovered had been used to store manuscripts in earlier centuries, and when the manuscripts were transferred to a new location in the early eighteenth century, these damaged leaves and fragments had been left behind. These were subsequently hidden when the floor above the room gave way during an earthquake.
St Catherine's Monastery at Mount Sinai: Its Manuscripts and their Conservation - Nov. 27, 2010
Georgi R. Parpulov (Oxford)

A major discovery occurred at Sinai, accidentally, in the wake of yet another war, in 1975, when complete volumes as well as isolated fragments came to light in a storeroom that had been immured and forgotten tor at least a century. The processing of these new finds was at first exclusively entrusted to Athenian experts. In the case of manuscripts in Greek, by far the most numerous, their labour of love bore fruit some two decades later. The fact that this valuable publication is illustrated with a number of photographs and that it records leaf measurements has allowed for identifying a good many items catalogued in it as fragments coming from volumes in the principal, previously known part of the monastery's library. (A list of a few such identifications made by myself appears below.) The statement that "the microfilming of all the finds... has been completed by now as regard; the Greek MSS, both the complete codices and the single folios and fragments" does not correspond to reality: for the time being, scholars who study the 1975 finds need to handle them directly.In 2002 one of them reported: "I found it impossible to count the leaves: most of the manuscript [NF M 163] is in a truly miserable state, and I refrained from making a full description in order not to contribute to its further deterioration. The full conservation and photographing of the Sinai manuscripts discovered nearly four decades ago remain outstanding tasks.
The New Finds
These were subsequently hidden when the floor above the room gave way during an earthquake.
Nothing about an earthquake, and most importantly, the room considered unused from only some time before 1875.
So far, the only earthquake at the monastery that I've seen that has a specific historical record of doing heavy damage was in 1212. Anybody tampering with Simoneides or Sinaiticus could easily have ended up with some pages stashed in the room. At this point, the information about why the room was closed off is somewhat contradictory. Note that Parpulov even questions whether the data about the mss is complete. And there is actually a site that seems to be St. Catherine's talks of an earthquake, but with no date referenced. ==============================There are simply a lot of puzzles and mysteries in the history. Often, people will give phoney refutations of Simonides and don't know the actual history. (Like we saw here, which is why I started a thread bringing over the discussion of the New Finds.) Perhaps certain research with the New Finds, especially regarding the marks claimed made by Simonides, or with the hieroglyphics which was a specialty area of Simonides, or real study of the claims, and the ms anomalies, scientific checking if there was any artificial aging ... many things could help solve all the puzzles.

Remember, a new review is what was requested by James Anson Farrer in Literary Forgeries in 1907, because he saw that the central pillar of the anti-Simonides campaign, pushed by William Aldis Wright who later had a major role in the revision, had actually fallen apart when the identity of Kallinikos was confirmed.

In his letters Kallinikos affirmed the labour of Simonides on the manuscript, the incompetent Greek of Tischendorf (a technical detail recently referenced by Daniel Wallace, in a different context trying to leave an excuse open for the story, the myth, the fabrication, the lie, of rescuing the manuscript from trash burning) and Kallinikos asserted that he saw Tischendorf four times at the monastery. Kallinikos also accused Tischendorf of manuscript theft from the monastery, a charge which now we can see is almost surely true (the 1844 theft looks to have been more blatant than the complex 1859 loan-theft procurement). Kallinikos also pointed out that a key letter that was used by the opponents of Simonides looked bogus, or a joke, not being a proper letter from the monastery. If the Kallinikos correspondence was all on the up and up, then the opponents look to have been involved in some type of shill campaign, the deck was stacked a bit, and in some circles there was a rush to judgment, an attempt to silence.

Now, to be fair, there are some real aspects that look like they confirm the traditional rejection of Simonides.
Those arguments are more textual, and relate to manuscript details, than being a result of the actual historical charges and counter-charges. The question here is one of simply allowing for honest inquiry. We learn from the process. I would not mind one bit if there is some single probative aspect that knocks the Simonides claims out of the box. One major problem is the abject corruption of Sinaiticus. It is so bad that I saw one theory that it was something like a beginner's training manuscript.

And this trash manuscript was historically a major crutch of the Hortian fog. Anyone who does not understand this should try to read the phoney Hortian theories. Bernard Janin Sage pointed out the truth about Hort's writing:

"The peculiar volubility of this writer renders him barely intelligible in numerous passages, so that it is often difficult to extract the grains of wheat from the heaps of words" -
A critical and historical enquiry into the origin of the third gospel, 1901, p. 308.

The Hortian text survived in scholastic confusion circles, even while his underlying theories were shown to be deficient, irresponsible and false. The proof-text reliance on the two corrupt manuscripts, the phantom Lucian recension, the bogus neutral textline, the primitive corruptions, the inept approach to genealogical theory -- everything fell apart. Yet for those duped the resultant textual blunders, including many hard errors in the modern versions, remains.
How the Hortian textus corruptus (which is in fact the textual origin of the corrupt modern versions from the descendant Critical Text) came to have some acceptability, contra the pure Received Text and the Reformation Bible editions, in a fascinating historical study. And the quick knighting of Sinaiticus (to his shame, Tischendorf changed thousands of readings in his Greek New Testament based on the one corrupt manuscript) is a major part of that history.

Westcott and Hort praised the quality of its text and took it into their Greek NT of 1881. -
Manuscripts and the Text of the New Testament, Elliott and Moir, 1005, p. 16.

Here was a discussion about it when it was first being planned, from Faith.

Chris Pinto challenged to debate with James White on Codex Sinaiticus Validity
Faith - August 5, 2013

Even if Tischendorf lied and stole (my view, yes) and even if Simonides was often unfairly accused in the matter (which also seems to be definitely true) and even if there was some trickery in silencing Simonides (seems so) -- that only opens up the door to far more careful considerations. The problem is, how to have a discussion that handles the distinct issues respectably?

1) the Simonides claims to authorship of Sinaiticus
....... a) historical components
....... b) scribal and textual elements

2) the tissues of lies of Tischendorf, and his manuscript thefts

3) the anomalies in the Sinaiticus ms and history

4) the corruption in the Sinaiticus text and how it was used for the Hortian disaster

5) whether the Tischendorf-Hortian disaster can be seen as having a Jesuit component, and how to view elements like the papal visit of silence.

Hopefully, our two gentlemen will be able to sort out some of the issues. We know that James White is a total disaster on #2 and we know that 1b is one of the stronger traditional attempts. So with so many overlapping yet distinct elements, I do hope they manage to have a good discussion.
And in the 1800s this was a very wide-ranging controversy. Many people do not understand how the rcc has used the Hortian text in a counter-Reformation manner. Even Chris Pinto sees this with a different emphasis than I might share. (I tend to emphasize how, after the Vulgate lost the Battle of the Bible to the pure Reformation Bible, the rcc desired to see a "Plan B" strategic pincer movement.)

any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest
- James White 3/15/2006 - aomin blog, discussing the Tischendorf trash basket history

At least here we will not be reading James White.


The censored forum ran with the James Bentley 1985 book and quoted:

“Archbishop Damianos, the present abbot of Mount Sinai, showed me the room in the great north wall where the 1975 find was made... The Archbishop explained why he thought the hidden manuscripts were there in the first place. This room was very close to the sacristy of the monastery. And until the eighteenth century, part of the monk’s library was kept there too. When this library was moved, for three good reasons a number of the manuscripts were left behind in their old place.

First, manuscripts in languages other than Greek- such as Slavic and Syrian texts- were no longer useful in an all-Greek community, and were put aside. Secondly, in the very early days of the monastery the whole Bible was used at worship for reading the set lessons. But because this proved cumbersome, the monks soon created or obtained lectionaries containing extracts from Holy Scripture, corresponding to the lessons of the day. The old unwieldy Bibles were no longer of practical daily use. Thirdly, Archbishop Damianos suggested, some manuscripts were left behind when the library moved, simply because they were in need of repair. Subsequently the whole collection was buried when the roof of the cell caved in.” [James Bentley, Secrets of Sinai, Orbis Publishing, London, 1985, p. 199]

“The latest of the documents unearthed in 1975 dates from about the year AD 1750 (hence the conjecture that the roof of the cell caved in sometime in the late eighteenth century). [Ibid. p. 205]

...they do not even mention Moshe Altbauer (1904-1998), referenced by Chris Pinto and then on this forum, who made direct contact with the monastery, and wrote in 1987:

Identification of Newly Discovered Slavic Manuscripts in St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai (1987)
Moshe Altbauer

Since the year 1975 many rumors spread of the sensational discovery of more than 220 old manuscripts, among them some in Slavic, set aside in a chest and burrowed in the ground of an ancient Sinai Monastery (about 150 years ago).

Hmmm... 150 years back from 1975 is 1825, not 1700s, and that is an estimate and is very close to the Tischendorf years.
And from 1987 it goes right up to the critical 1840 period.

Beyond that, what about the chest? Big question .. why would part of an ancient Greek manuscript - Codex Sinaiticus no less, the most valuable ms in the monastery - be found? ... apparently in the chest. Especially when it was pointed out that the finds were generally "manuscripts in languages other than Greek".


Before examination, to try to use the new finds as an argument for Sinaiticus authenticity is truly absurd, especially if you understand that Tischendorf was specifically accused of mangling the manuscript.

The Journal of Sacred Literature

Kallinikos Hieromanochos - Sept 17, 1863

A portion of this was secretly removed from Mount Sinai, by Professor Tischendorf, in 1844. The rest, with inconceivable recklessness, he mutilated and tampered with, according to his liking, in the year 1859. Some leaves he destroyed, especially such as contained the Acrostics of Simonides; but four of them escaped him, vie., one in the Old Testament, and three in Hermas, as I long since informed Simonides: many paleographical symbols also [escaped his notice], but I do not know whether these were eventually overlooked with the acrostics.
We can tell today that the accusation about 1844 is extremely well supported. The Cairo letter of recommendation for Tischendorf, which he did not present, we are told in his family correspondence included a warning of his wayward wanton ways with manuscripts. Much later, in the 1860s, Tischendorf wrote that "the authorities of the convent allowed" the taking of the 43 pages, yet no names are given, and such has never been collaborated. Similarly, much later, in times of political expediency, in 1859, begins the saved from burning cover story that duped so many for so long.

And the Sinai convent even today considers him a thief (the Tischendorf loan documents is kept up for easy reading remembrance in the library) with the emphasis more on the bigger heist of 1859 (which has its own unusual elements, some of which we have not covered here, I will mention that the refreshments in the English report is liquor in French, and remember the Prince Regent account).

Tischendorf published the main part of the 1844 heist in a manner that hid their source in 1846, even though Uspensky described the Sinaiticus manuscript in 1845. And now we know that in these Egyptian journeys Tischendorf even took a page from the middle of an Archimedes palimpsest that was part of the 1870s estate. And the theft was discovered in the 1980s by Nigel Wilson, when he recognized the missing leaf from the Archimedes pages.

All of this acts as a collaboration of at least elements of Simonides, and especially Kallinikos who knew the monastery. Kallinikos boldly and accurately said that Tischendorf barely could communicate in Greek, a point that was emphasized recently in a different context by Daniel Wallace, yet astounded the English scholars at the time. Kallinikos said he met Tischendorf four times, and he said that Tischendorf stole the pages in 1844 and mutilated the Sinaiticus manuscript. With so many elements confirmed, each element has now a prima facie appearance of truth.


Simonides did not claim the manuscript was a forgery. (There was some debate on this around 1860, as to what would have been the motive.) And I have stated very clearly that I do not know if Simonides was involved in the production of the manuscript. In fact, fair to say that Chris Pinto has said that as well. Now, thanks to the new emphasis, we do know that many questions were unanswered in the 1860s, and an honest inquiry today would be very helpful. There are a number of points that really need examination today. That includes the new finds burrowed chest puzzle, textual and vellum anomalies, the hieroglyphics, the Simonides claims of markings, and specifically how the new finds relates to the markings on pages issue, and the assertion that the pages were aged by herbs or lemon juice. Personally, I do not think that it matters much if a trash or training manuscript like Sinaiticus was written in 350 AD or much later, however scholastically the issue is clearly significant. And I do not think people realize how bad is this manuscript. We have fought for years just to get the British Library to acknowledge that they don't have an English translation of the text (it simply does not exist.)


My short summary would go like this:

Historical - favors Simonides involvement, noting the Kallinikos confirmation

Textual and Scribal - favors early text

Other specific hard evidence questions, like the claimed markings, are up in the air.


This is one reason why I wonder if there might be some hybrid explanations.
Plus, I want to hear what comes forth tomorrow, and the weeks ahead.


"Codex Sinaiticus: the oldest Bible? Or a modern hoax?"

My understanding:
The debate actually arose out of the attacks by Alan Kurschner on the research of Chris Pinto and attempts that were made to pressure a Christian broadcasting spot to not give air time to Chris Pinto. Chris said, essentially, if you think this is all kooky, conspiracy hogwash, that it is wrong to raise the Sinaiticus issues, then come debate in a fair format and prove the point. The radio (or internet radio) people agreed that this would be sensible. Alan Kurschner deferred to James White, who has experience debating and more background on the manuscript issues.

That history is fair enough, whether a discussion or a debate, I look forward to a time of learning and comparing ideas and notes. James White showed in his radio show that he can raise some good points against the Simonides theory. Let's hope he is willing to discuss on the originally agreed upon topic.


Looking at the Jesuit Horse

My view is that the rcc and jesuit horse in the race and involvement was likely more around the support of a "Plan B" text (the Latin Vulgate and its vernacular translations being the failed Plan A) that could be used against the pure Reformation Bible. Notice that the rcc has given an imprimatur to modern critical text editions. The Plan B text did have an auxiliary desired effect of weakening protestant claims of sola scripture and the infallibility of the scriptures (the rcc wants the scriptures through the interpretation and traditions of the church).


The Disaster of the Modern Critical Text Confusion Pseudo-Apologetics

You can see that on this forum where the emphasis today by the modern seminarian-duped Christians is much more on the historical corruption of the Bible than its purity, since they are stuck supporting versions with hard errors, with texts uncertain, and with words and phrases that change over editions and can even can directly contradict. Many are actually more concerned that the TR and AV not be seen as pure, than declaring the purity, majesty and excellence of their conflicting and conflicted version texts.

The common position, as you see here in post after post, is now that their versions are sort of good enough -- that they don't have to shipwreck their current faith. Which is rather a milquetoast position, and extremely unconvincing to the skeptics, islamists, mormons, atheists and other ilkies. Even to individuals within those groups who might otherwise be hungry for the truth of the word of God.

Ephesians 6:16-17
Above all, taking the shield of faith,
wherewith ye shall be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked.
And take the helmet of salvation,
and the sword of the Spirit,
which is the word of God:

All this is because James White is trying to reconcile the irreconcilable -- modern version and critical text and ethereal inerrancy theories -- with the historic Reformation and Protestant view of Bible purity. The historic position was based on the excellence and majesty and purity of the Bible text, with agreement upon the pure Reformation Bible from the refined Received Text editions.


My thanks to the posters who brought forth the recent interest here by parroting strident attacks by Alan Kurschner on Chris Pinto. Personally, I was only marginally interested up to that point, however I felt that I should study and learn, to try to understand from whence came the surprising degree of vitriol from those uninformed. This helped lead to the current threads, in which I have tried to connect some dots, especially Tischendorf Dots, in some cases adding to dots already connected. I've also made more of an effort to understand what happened in the mid-1800s period (1840-1865) and then the later look backs.


Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.


A couple of notes:

James White looks like he is going to bypass as much as possible the historical elements, and concentrate on the scribal and textual. I don't blame him, however all elements are significant. Perhaps the question I asked here ... what are those Sinaiticus<-->ancient papyri agreement variants? ... that do not show up anywhere else (or almost nowhere else) ... will be answered by James White. In my studies I remember an occasional variant where the papyri agreed with Sinaiticus contra Vaticanus, however not as an orphan reading. So that should be interesting.

The most recent radio of Chris Pinto is here, it is #2 in the responses to the James White radio show:

Noise of Thunder
Today's Show: White, Wallace, Islam & Aleph

Should be an interesting discussion tonight, both gentlemen are good speakers.

Apparently the listening link is:

Pirate Christian Radio


Steven Avery

more on New Finds thread

> Perhaps the question I asked here ... what are those Sinaiticus<-->ancient papyri agreement variants? ... that do not show up anywhere else (or almost nowhere else) ... will be answered by James White. In my studies I remember an occasional variant where the papyri agreed with Sinaiticus contra Vaticanus, however not as an orphan reading. So that should be interesting.

In his first speaking, James White gave two verses, while sort of claiming thousands.

Here is one of the two that he specifically discussed:

Matthew 14:30 (AV)
But when he saw the wind boisterous, he was afraid;
and beginning to sink, he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

"boisterous" is omitted in the original text of Sinaiticus, then corrected. Also omitted in Vaticanus, a few Greek manuscripts, a minority of Vulgate manuscripts, and most all Coptic manuscripts.

Omissions are by nature hard to use to make a point of uniqueness, since they occur so easily. Especially in a manuscript that abounds in omissions. An interesting evidence, but far from the type of variant that James was claiming "anticipating papyri" (about 54:00).

Ironically, this ultra-minority reading omission, which is considered so oddball, you will now find in the ASV, RSV, NASV, NIV among the modern versions, while the NETBible and the NRSV have strong winds, and the NLT has high waves. Another example where the modern versionist simply does not know what the is the actual Bible text.

The other verse is:

John 1:18 (AV)
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

Which I will plan on getting back to on a subsequent post.

I'm listening to the debate. James White is clearly not informed on the Simonides history issues. So he is upset with general aspects of Tares Among the Wheat (the Jesuit emphasis) and its characterization of Tischendorf.

Anyway, so far it is interesting. One reasonable point from James White now has to do with the multiple initial scribes.

Many of his other points are fudgy. e.g. Right now James White is talking about collation of manuscripts being a major undertaking, however that is assuming that a formal collation was involved. It also ignores the fact that Sinaiticus is largley a blunderama manuscript, and much could have been done in a haphazard or poor scribe fashion (one theory is a training manuscript).

Two rounds done. Q&A now beginning.

Also Chris Pinto is mentioning that his uncle Benedict could have been involved in the prep work. That is the current discussion, about 1:08, and interesting back-and forth.

(I am using the real time of 6:00 as the starting point.)

Now (1:18) James is trying real hard to attack the Reformation Bible, using an anachronistic attack approach. (Did they understand the Alexandrian text type?). Here Chris is doing very well, my only criticism is that he in some cases he takes a bit too much "A"nswer time to a "Q"uestion.

Now the interesting Vitaliano Donati reference is the discussion, which we discussed earlier, there is a quote box in the OP.

Now the issue (1:22) is whether Chris Pinto should have included more of the critical quotes of Simonides, especially from Farrer and Elliott. These points are handled in Answer rather easily by Chris Pinto.

At 1:28 closing arguments begin, Chris Pinto first, saying that the possibility that Simonides wrote the manuscript is an "unsolved mystery" (from Farrer) of history.

James White says the Pericope Adultera is not found until the fifth century, a typically absurd position, the type of blunder we normally get from Ehrman in deceptive public presentations. White falls back on his animus towards the TR and AV to try to play to the contra audience.

More when you listen. Total time 1:40.


Originally Posted by Steven Avery James White says the Pericope Adultera is not found until the fifth century, a typically absurd position, the type of blunder we normally get from Ehrman in deceptive public presentations.
Just first using LaParola, to which much could be added, earlier evidences include:

the Old Latin line (majority of extant mss corroborated by ECW refs)
the Vulgate line (based on Jerome working with early Latin and Greek mss)

Didascalia Ambrosiaster Faustus-Milevis Apostolic Constitutionsvid Pacian Ambrose Rufinus Jerome

And Didymus the Blind is a well-known addition.

When you get into the fifth century, many more ECW are added.

Augustine in the early 5th century even specifically discusses the reason why the Pericope was being omitted in some manuscripts in earlier centuries, a very powerful evidence of the story being scripture from apostolic days. See also the pointed Ambrose 4th-century comment. And Jerome specifically mentions Greek and Latin manuscripts with the verse, which is 4th century and the manuscripts would be earlier.

The early evidences for the Pericope are wide-ranging and strong (unlike many Hortian variants that James White supports, that have little beyond Vaticanus).

The blunder of James White in the debate was typical of Hortian deception attempts to misrepresent the support of the pure Bible texts.

And the James White agitprop book omits all mention of the supporting ECW evidences, in the typical Metzgerian-Wallacian word parsing deception style, and then James White adds:

"the passage is omitted by ... Latin versions",
King James Only Controversy (2009) p. 328

a truly Whitian blunder.


If any sensible, readable, iron sharpeneth posters want to give their positions against the Received Text and Reformation Bible, we can always go into that more.

Note that I emphasize the Pericope here, because afaik it was the only straight blunder by either side in the debate.


Luke 23:34 Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do.

And the Pericope was a major aspect of their discussion, towards the end, the highlight example, about how the Bible has been mangled through the 19th century Tischendorf-Hortian fiasco (Jesuit or not).

My memory: on verses Chris Pinto first mentioned Luke 23:34:

Luke 23:34
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them;
for they know not what they do.
And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Understandably, James White did not want to discuss that well-known, powerful and majestic verse. Since the omission is clearly a Vaticanus-Hortian ultra-minority blunder. And White has acknowledged that the verse has:

"profound theological implications" - KJV Only Controversy p. 321

and has given a bunch of equivocal hybrid version nothing verbiage .. e.g. "a high amount of doubt" in the youtube video .. about the verse, put up by the islamists to show corruption in the Bible, taking advantage of White's confusions.

All this is highlighted by Will Kinney here:

James White on Luke 23:34-Jesus Didn’t Forgive Them
<Edit per Mod>

Also, since the original Sinaiticus text has the verse, it was contra his basic theory that the original text of Sinaiticus agrees with the papyri (P75 in this case).


btw, if anyone wants to claim that Tischendorf was not a liar, they should discuss all the evidences about the 1844 theft from the monastery and his 1859 "myth" (Rendel Harris and Daniel Wallace) trash burning cover story. In his radio show Chris Pinto pointed out that the attempt of Wallace to allow this myth to be an honest error on Tischendorf's part were clearly and decisively contradicted by Tischendorf's own words. And I would add, also the fact that the myth was fabricated 15 years later, for the itching ears of the Russians who worked with his theft, and elements of the public from whom he was seeking to get support, honor, praise, laurels and lucre.


As for my doofus comment about James White, how else would you describe his classic comment?

any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest
- James White 3/15/2006 - aomin blog, discussing the Tischendorf trash basket history

When James White himself has not gotten the story straight for 20 years. Chris Pinto mentioned his foibles on the trash can story on the most recent radio show, given above.

The comment wins the Boomerang Award.


As for the apparatus and textual descriptions of Metzger, Ehrman, Wallace, and White being deceptive, that has been trivially easy to demonstrate, time and again. All you do is compare their descriptions with the actual evidences. Two examples are given right above.


John 1:18 - No man hath seen God at any time

John 1:18 (AV)
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

Which I will plan on getting back to on a subsequent post.

Here the question is why a 19th century Sinaiticus scribe would come up with the "only begotten God" corruption (the mistranslation to unique God is another story, discussed in the Biblical Languages section).

Here it is true that the Greek and Latin manuscripts overwhelmingly support "Son". So you might first wonder why your versions have the corruption "God", if you are a modern versionite or hybridite.

Anyway, beyond the papyri and Vaticanus support (the usual suspects) both readings have ECW support. And ms C, L and 33 are referenced for "God" and a small pct (up to 5%) of the Greek mss with "God" against the mass of Greek manuscripts, uncials and cursives. The "God" corruption does have Syriac Peshitta support, and some reference in Coptic and Georgian and the Arabic Diatessaron.

The Coptic support is notable because Simonides was very much involved in Egyptian hieroglyphics (one point in the debate about the manuscript that was not mentioned). In those studies, it is reasonabe that he would have worked with Coptic manuscripts. A check of his bio and works would help here.

So, John 1:18 is a much better example (there is a change with the article "the" which I am bypassing for now) than the Matthew verse. However, far from the claims of James White.

As expected, the James White overblown claims of readings that only arose in subsequently-found (to Simonides) papyri was a fabrication, and James White gave zero support to that in the debate. James even threw in comments about "thousands" of readings that were of some specialized type, however often the actual claim was fudged. Here I am focusing on his claim, repeated a few times on the radio program and the debate, that Sinaiticus was rife with readings that only appeared in later found papyri. This was simply false. Arguably, if I could pull out his exact words, it would qualify for blunder #1, putting the Pericope blunder down to #2.

To be fair, even though the James White claim was overblown, unsupported and bogus, that does not mean that there are not actual arguments in there for Sinaiticus antiquity based on the corrections. And based on the paucity of support for Sinaiticus variants in the mass of Greek manuscripts (bogus ultra-minority corruptions that you can often find in your modern versions). It simply means that the major attempt of White, his specific claim, was flawed, failed and flunked.


George Salmon and John William Burgon on Luke 23:34
Originally Posted by Steven Avery
Luke 23:34
Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them;
for they know not what they do.
And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.

Understandably, James White did not want to discuss that well-known, powerful and majestic verse. Since the omission is clearly a Vaticanus-Hortian ultra-minority blunder. And White has acknowledged that the verse has:

"profound theological implications" - KJV Only Controversy p. 321

and has given a bunch of equivocal hybrid version nothing verbiage .. e.g. "a high amount of doubt" in the youtube video .. about the verse, put up by the islamists to show corruption in the Bible, taking advantage of White's confusions.

All this is highlighted by Will Kinney here:

James White on Luke 23:34-Jesus Didn’t Forgive Them
<Edit per Mod>

Also, since the original Sinaiticus text has the verse, it was contra his basic theory that the original text of Sinaiticus agrees with the papyri (P75 in this case).

George Salmon (1819-1904) highlighted some of the textual absurdity of the Hortian-Whitian mindset.

Textual criticism of the New Testament (1897)
George Salmon

From St Luke's Gospel we are taught to erase the story of the Bloody Sweat, and the divine words on the cross, " Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do." That is to say, we are not forbidden to believe that our Lord spoke these words, but only that we have Luke's authority for so believing.
In these and several other cases of omission, a student who examines the evidence for himself, without having mastered WH's principles of dealing with it, would be likely to think that a bad reading had been adopted in the teeth of evidence, overpowering both in respect of the number and the antiquity of the witnesses in favour of the reading which the Church for many centuries had received. Nay, it would seem as if in the judgment of the new editors any evidence was good enough to justify an omission.

George Salmon makes good reading for those who seek to understand the Hortian fiasco.

As for the technical aspects of the verse evidences, and more insightful study, see John William Burgon:

Revision Revised (1883)
John William Burgon

...How could our Revisionists dare to insinuate doubts into wavering hearts and unlearned heads, where (as here) they were bound to know, there exists no manner of doubt at all ? p. 82-85

Today that Hortian doubt and confusion is institutionalized and error is institutionalized and personified in the movement against the purity of the AV and gentlemen like James White.

The penetrating words of John William Burgon above were, in essence, a key point of the Chris Pinto summation.



Originally Posted by TripleZ
Who teaches us about the Bloody Sweat anyway, I only heard that from the RCs.

Maybe check your Bible

Luke 22:43-44 (AV)
And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven,
strengthening him.
And being in an agony he prayed more earnestly:
and his sweat was as it were great drops of blood falling down to the ground.

The learned John Gill (1797-1771) has a neat commentary on verse 44, including the textual aspects (astutely discussing why the verses may have dropped from some manuscripts, even including the possibility of orthodox corruption, pre-Burgon, pre-Ehrman) that begins:

This account of Christ's bloody sweat is only given by Luke, who being a physician, as is thought, more diligently recorded things which belonged to his profession to take cognizance of ...

(Although I am not sure that Luke the beloved physician, Colossians 4:14, was Luke the Gospel author.)


Interestingly, these verses are another example of where the James White discussion of Sinaiticus agreeing with the papyri and invariably having thousands of Alexandrian-->Byzantine corrections has great difficulties.

While these verses are omitted in Vaticanus and papyri and the Old Syriac Sinaitic ms and the Coptic mss, they are included in the original Sinaiticus. And then "corrected" to omission (possibly, in current Sinaiticus theory, at the scriptorium) and then corrected once again to inclusion.

Yet the original text is contra the papyri omission. The original text agrees with the overwhelming Byzantine and Old Latin and Vulgate and Peshitta evidences, supported by the majority ECW. The overwhelmingly clear, powerful and majestict pure Bible text.

We note that, not surprisingly, the Westcott-Hort and the later Critical Texts have been totally confused, using a variety pack of brackets to indicate their perplexity and the uncertainty they want you to have about God's word.

Oh, let's point out here that the ultra-corrupt Old Syriac Sinaitic palimpsest mss, agreeing with many Sinaiticus corruptions, either from first hand or corrector, was found at ... St. Catherine's monastery.

hmmm. The soup thickens (Just having fun here, dear readers, on a point though that should not be missed.)


In the debate, James White was repeatedly concerned that there was too much conjecture or speculation when Chris Pinto discusses the scribal and textual aspects of Sinaiticus. However all theories of the development of Sinaiticus, 4th-century antiquity or recent creation, must jump over a high bar of conjecture and speculation.

Especially on the weird, wild and woolly textual aspects. And also on the historical and provenance aspects. On top of which their are various anomalies and the question of how the manuscript ended up in four places, with a good chunk still missing.

Remember, Kallinikos said that Tischendorf had "mutilated and tampered" with the ms, and the Kallinikos track record on Tischendorf is quite good.

Chris Pinto believes that there is enough documented difficulty that some solid scientific study and examination should be done while referencing the specific Simonides-Kallinikos claims as part of the research base. And I agree.


James White blunder on the Pericope Adultera and Latin versions

The Pericope Adultera is supported by the large majority of Old Latin and Vulgate mss, so White's disaster claim is simply bogus, with or without the word "majority" in front of "Latin versions".

Which was ambiguous in White's writing, however majority looks to be modifying lectionaries.

Pericope Adultera
James White Blunder or Deception - "Latin versions"

"Externally, we note that the passage is omitted by a truly diverse group of ancient manuscripts, including P66, P75, Aleph, B, L, N T W Delta, Psi 0141 33 157 565 1241 1333* 1424, the majority of lectionaries, Latin versions, and Syriac versions."

Just as a point of English, majority does not look to be modifying Latin versions or Syriac versions. Grammatically it is somewhat ambiguous (thus it is an interesting techie point) but since there are four distinct groups:

Greek manuscrpts (listing individually from the minority omitting the section)
lectionaries (discussed nicely by Burgon)
Latin versions
Syriac versions

Normative English would not presume majority to extend to three groups.
Else you would write:

the majority of lectionaries and Latin and Syriac versions.

Now that would apply majority to all three.
English 101.

More precisely (since there are nuances) you would, if wanting to be ultra-precise, apply majority directly in front of any place it is meant to apply.
So that you deal with the question of whether the majority is of the individual element or the combined elements.

Actually, White's claim might be remotely more supportable without "majority" in front of Latin versions by a tricky word-parsing attempt. e.g. If you managed to divide the Old Latin and Latin Vulgate into a dozen "versions", you might try to say that two or three of them of them support the omission of the Pericope. They would not be a majority but they would be "Latin versions". Yes, contras do get that deceptive. It would not be as deceptive if they tell you the specific Latin versions, like "Italic" (that won't work here) or "Nova Vulgata" (which is a Latin version based on the Greek critical text.)

Really, though, it looks like James White simply blundered. Or he was following, perhaps without thinking, a writer who used that deceptive technique described right above. And then James made it worse by leaving the deceptive "Latin versions" when the "Latin versions" FAVOR inclusion of the Pericope.


The prince of word-parsing deception is Bruce Metzger. The crafty fella in the TCGNT, 1971 simply omitted the Vulgate, despite its huge historical significance and despite his mentioning many less significant evidences.

Then, on the Old Latin, he wrote:

the passage is absent from ... several Old Latin manuscripts (ita.l*.q).

And omitted the inclusion in (using Laparola):

itaur itc itd ite itff2 itj itl(mg) itr1

How do you know when a Metzgerite or Wallacian or a Whitian is deceiving on Bible textual evidences?

All and all, sort of humorous.


And the contras here are woefully inconsistent in discussing issues like what is a 2nd or 3rd century evidence. Anybody who wants to try to understand these issues, I suggest first reviewing:

Luk 2:33 And Joseph and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him

And lest we forget:

Originally Posted by Robert_V_Frazier
I sincerely believe with conviction that the Pericope Adultera is part of the word of God, it is Scripture.


Nothing else above except some reportable stuff and diversions.

Readable posters who like dialog iron sharpeneth are welcome to see if there is anything they want to extract. I hope we can keep the two threads principally focused on the Simonides and Sinaiticus issues. Although it was interesting to find and point out the James White Pericope Adultera blunder.



James White blunder/deception on Pericope Adultera "Latin versions"

Originally Posted by Steven Avery
James White Blunder or Deception - "Latin versions"

"Externally, we note that the passage is omitted by a truly diverse group of ancient manuscripts, including P66, P75, Aleph, B, L, N T W Delta, Psi 0141 33 157 565 1241 1333* 1424, the majority of lectionaries, Latin versions, and Syriac versions."

And I will challenge any sensible poster who reads any of James White material, book, debate, blog posts, anything ... to tell us what are the specific Latin versions, or if you prefer dubious English grammar, the majority of Latin versions, o which this blunder about the Pericope Adultera refers.

"we note that the passage is omitted by ... Latin versions"

Note: since the "defense" here of the James White blunder is itself humorous, I will start a new thread, to keep this one free.


the transparent inconsistency of modern version apologists

That is a good example of the islamic approach to Codex Sinaiticus.

Assuming for a minute the typical idea of Sinaiticus as 4th century:

If a Christian apologist wants to argue the significance of the Sinaiticus as a ms from the 4th century, the proper approach is to point out that the Alexandrian region had a terrible text, this is easily demonstrable by the ECW and the mass of Greek and Latin mss. And that gnosticism had made inroads in that region even by the 2nd century (as pointed out by even Kurt Aland). And that Sinaiticus is a text that is filled with obvious omissions and blunders and is simply not relevant to our pure Bible. Simply a bumbling nothing. The ms. is interesting more as a curiousity, and it shows a bit that there were full New Testament texts circulating as one unit by the 4th century. (i.e. If the traditional approach is true.)

Very simple.

By talking about 1,000s of New Testament mss on one hand, and then consistently rejecting those thousands of mss for a weakly supported variant in one or two ultra-corrupt early mss (noting that Vaticanus is scribally not a mess in the same way as Sinaiticus) an apologist like James White is easy pickens for the skeptics, islamists, atheists, Ehrmanites and other ilkies.

This is a little off-topic from the "New Finds", but it is on-topic to the general theme of the White-Pinto debate and the post above by J316.

You can see this topic was recently discussed in dorightchristians in a blog post from Dec 12 with the title:

Chris Pinto Vs James White by James Ach

Where I have a post in the comments emphasizing these points.

James Ach
“It is ironic that White assails the Majority Text, but scholars like White, Wallace, McDowell, et al. will use the 5000 plus manuscripts that support the King James when arguing against atheists, and then criticize those same texts and give more weight to the critical text (less than 100 total manuscripts) when debating a King James Onlyist. THAT is some lopsided apologetics!”

Steven Avery
While the numbers vary depending whether papyri fragments are considered a manuscript like a full Bible, and whether lectionaries count, and it is wrong in many cases to only think of Greek when Latin manuscripts and the ECW and even the Syriac Peshitta are also significant — the point above is 100% right, and it is the shell game of the Whitian apologists.

They will talk about the “thousands of manuscripts” that verify the New Testament text when talking to islamists, skeptics, mormons, Ehrmanites and other ilkies … then they turn around and say, again and again and again and again, that the thousands of manuscripts are not to be trusted, because the “oldest and most reliable manuscripts” (code-word for Vaticanus and a smidgen more, sometimes Sinaiticus) tell them the New Testament text. The ilkies above are not fooled, nor should the TR and AV defenders be fooled, by this shell game.



Originally Posted by marke
The closer the observation of the facts surrounding Sinaiticus the more it looks like someone pulled off a major hoax on the religious world through Tischendorf and Westcott and Hort.

At the very least, as to the authenticity of Sinaiticus, we see that the proper approach is:

"case open"


AV variants only from the Latin?

Originally Posted by marke
Excellent, well reasoned and supported post!

Thanks !

While it is a bit off-topic for this thread, James Price is the main person today claiming that the AV has a number of variants that are only in the Latin text, with no Greek support. (Greek support in this context includes Greek TR editions, including the Complutensian Polyglot.)

So I would invite anybody who has actually looked at the variant evidences to give what they think are such examples. (Preferably do your own checking before quoting Price.) In my checking a couple of years back, Price was consistently mistaken.

However this would do better on its own thread. Let us try to keep this one on topics related to:

the New Finds, a sealed room with Sinaiticus leaves before Tischendorf and Simonides?


End of p. 11 of 11


Last edited:

Steven Avery


Another KJV Ode To Poor Research: "Ancient Syriac Codex" - 2-11-2014


Chris Pinto website:

In a letter written to his friend, Charles Stewart in 1860, Simonides described the manuscripts that were chosen by Benedict as the textual basis for the codex:

“… the learned Benedict taking in his hands a copy of the Moscow edition of the Old and New Testament … collated it … with three only of the ancient copies, which he had long before annotated and corrected for another purpose and cleared their text by this collation from remarkable clerical errors, and again collated them with the edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, printed with uncial letters, and still further with another very old Syriac Codex …” (Letter of C. Simonides to Mr. Charles Stewart, as published in the Guardian, August 26, 1863, see Elliott, pp. 54-56*)


Bill Brown

Note a couple of things here:

1) The entire quote is on page 56. I have no idea why Pinto lists this quote as coming across three pages.
2) Note something VERY IMPORTANT that Pinto omitted when I give the ENTIRE quote, words Pinto deleted in bold:

the learned Benedict taking in his hands a copy of the Moscow edition of the Old and New Testament (published at the expense of the illustrious brothers Zosimas, and by them presented to the Greeks), collated it with my assistance with three only of the ancient copies, which he had long before annotated and corrected for another purpose and cleared their text by this collation from remarkable clerical errors, and again collated them with the edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, printed with uncial letters, and still further with another very old Syriac Codex, and gave me, in the first instance, Genesis.

Note that Pinto ... omitted the important fact that Simonides claimed to have done this collation as well.

... Elliott's assessment ,,,

"This 1860 letter clearly shows that Simonides tried to cover up some of the elements in the original (i.e. 1862) story by producing this earlier draft through his champion Hodgkin. Now to continue with our list of objections to Simonides story - be it of 1860 or 1862." (Elliott, 1982: 56).


Thanks for pointing out (as I do at times) that my position changed from 2011 to late 2013 and early 2014. The reasons for this are manyfold, and by the grace of the Lord Jesus will be on the forthcoming web pages. (So they will not be reiterated here.) Although many are in my posts of 2013-2014.

Definitely, I was extremely skeptical of the possibility of the ms. being Codex Simoneidos when I had not studied the history. When I learned the actual history, and humongous Sinaiticus anomalies, my position changed, to recognizing that the mystery is unsolved, and it is very possibly true that the manuscript began as the Simonides enterprise.


As for the ancient Syriac codex, the writing above is simply too confused. And the fuller quote does not change anything. For Shoonra, I will say that it is unlikely to be a reference to the Peshitta. The reference might even be an OT reference, or Tobit.

It is all a rather minor issue in the midst of studies (including .. how did the Sinaiticus text get to be so corrupt.)


And I often point out that Simonides may have been hedging certain aspects of the efforts around 1840. The issue is not whether his account is 100% pristine, the question is whether Sinaiticus was in fact originally his handiwork. Or more simply, a proper evaluation of the evidences.

Tischendorf (the hero of Daniel Wallace) was a liar, a thief and a mutilator of manuscripts, yet that does not prevent the textual establishment from relying on his considerations. Maybe sometimes he spoke the truth, so we do not reject everything he says because he was so greedy, malicious, vain-glorious and corrupt.

Our goal is to separate truth from fiction and myth. No more tissuedorfs, like the cutesie lie about the trash can burning that he came up with 15 years after he first mutilated the manuscript by stealing 43 leaves.


One more important question is alluded to above, clearly by a writer who does not know the basics of the controversy.

Most of the thousands of corrections, in the Simonides-Kallinikos account, would have happened in the two decades after the ms. got to Sinai. This is Sinaiticus Provenance 101. No provenance before 1840, and then tons of activity.

Kallinikos (who knew Tischendorf to a T) emphasized that various hands got on the ms. in the two decades. Including monastery hands, where Tischendorf had his baksheeshniks. And it is obvious that Tischendorf tore apart the binding (we know that from the Uspensky account, which also mentioned that the manuscript was "white parchment") and Kallinkos specifically said Tischendorf mutilated and tampered with the ms. Later Tischendorf had months the with manuscript secretly in Cairo with the two strange mystery Germans.

Kallinikos was very accurate about Tischendorf. He knew Tischendorf could not really speak Greek (which shocked the English establishment) and he knew the ms. "loan" was phony baloney even when the Tischendorf shenanigans was recent.

provenance .. one key to antiquities
chain of custody .. another


Simonides and collation

Any idea that Simonides claimed to do more than mild assistance in some later aspect of collation (e.g. we know he worked on Hermas, publishing from the Greek Hermas before Sinaiticus) is refuted by quotes not given above. Simonides specifically says the project had been begun by his uncle in 1784, way before he was even born.

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
First, that my uncle Benedict... began this work while Professor in the College of Cydon, in the year 1784.

It was clear that James White simply was unfamiliar with the whole history, this is also true for the posters above, the ones who gave Akriboo the run-around.

ancient Syriac codex

Here are indications of an ancient Syriac codex being a source for Sinaiticus, as referenced by Simonides.

The reference is from Tischendorf's letter to Allgemeine Zeitung (December 22, 1862).

Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, (1863)
fuller text here

... in the Old Testament, the text of Tobit and Judith, for example, are of quite a different recension--a recension still preserved principally in old Latin and old Syraic documents.

weighing evidences - Sinaiticus scribe-corrector anomalies

And this would mean that Simonides could only give a partial or shorthand answer about collation and manuscript sources.

Between the language issues, the integrity questions (including the possibility that the original motives were Simonides-sanitized), and the complex historical aspects, the explanations from Simonides should be considered as a guide, not an absolute full and detailed picture.

Remember, Tischendorf mutilated manuscripts, tore pages out of bound mss, stole manuscripts, bribed his baksheeshniks, and fabricated a vain-glorious myth cover story, one that dupes often repeat or attempt to excuse today. And Tischendorf had the ms, which Uspensky had described as "white parchment", in private possession for months. Oh, Tischendorf is also is reported to have used liquor as an agent of distraction, along with being a bribery tool. And, as Kallinikos pointed out around 1860 and Daniel Wallace caught on to in 2013, Tischendorf also could not speak Greek.

The claims of either man should be examined carefully. If you trust, be sure to verify.

Which is why Chris Pinto would emphasize the view of James Anson Farrer that we have an unsolved mystery. The closer we examine, the more that Sinaiticus antiquity theory looks like evolutionary theory.

Once Kallinikos and Benedict were confirmed as real individuals, most of the harumphs against the Simonides account were poofed. This was pointed out by Farrer and later in the 1973 account by John Whitehead, The solemn mockery: the art of literary forgery.

Compare this to the book by James Keith Elliott, which was so grossly deficient that it did not even reference the Spyros Lambros Mt. Athos catalog, which helped with the excellent Farrer historical review. Yet the textual village savants convince themselves that the Elliott book is the real scholarship!
collation began much earlier than the Simonides text

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
"First, that my uncle Benedict... began this work while Professor in the College of Cydon, in the year 1

Here is the quote that was edited above, and it had the url to google books.

The information is important to understanding the collation situation, that this was not all a rush job of 8 or 20 months.

End of p. 1 of 4

Farrar and Kallinikos - 15 years of tampering time

A few points should be made clear.

A key part of the Farrar research was confirming evidences of the Kallinikos and Simonides connection, using the Mt. Athos catalogue which was published around 1890.

It is very likely that Simonides involvement with the ms. was not as he said. The concerns about Sinaiticus authenticity do not depend on the full veracity of Simonides. There are many possibilities as to the exact relationships that would have formed that ms. There was a lot of unusual aspects of the Barnabas and Hermas parts of the ms. as well.

And there was a 15 years and more period of tampering-time available for the ms. The change in condition of the ms. from 1844 (Codex Friderico-Augustanus to Leipzig) to 1859 (rest of Sinaiticus to Russia) is easy to see by simply looking at the ms.
assigning a date for Sinaiticus - notice the hard evidence

And I would like these gentlemen to mention even one person who observed Codex Sinaiticus, from 1860 to 2014, who even mentioned that:

a) Codex Friderico-Augustanus, 1844 to Leipzig, is a white parchment ms, no stains, and

b) the rest of the Sinaiticus manuscript, 1859 to St. Petersburg, 1933 to the British Library, is yellow, aged, with stains.

Without even noticing the most basic feature of the ms, deciding on a date is no better than groping in a hortian fog.


Remember, though, Tischendorf never mentions this simple fact. And over the years, not that many individuals saw the two parts of the manuscript, and if they did it was in different cities at different times.

The excellent (even pristine) condition of the manuscript in Leipzig was in fact mentioned as a reason why its burning by the monks would be unlikely. However it clearly could have given pause and consideration to antiquity claims in general.

The contrast of the two parts however, is even more striking. And without some other explanation coming forth, (accepting that no chemical or spectrographic testing has been done) the simple explanation must be considered the most likely: this was caused by the common aging techniques of replica makers and others with nefarious motives, giving an aged appearance to a manuscript by using simple techniques like tea, coffee, lemon water and herbs.

The easy accessibility of the ms. is brand new, courtesy of the excellent placement of Sinaiticus on the net in 2009.

Emphasis added

Gavin Moorhead, who was one of the conservators who worked on the project. He mentioned that initially there were plans to do a detailed study of the colour variance between parchment leaves, but for reasons of time and finances this was not followed through on, and instead the information was put up on the Sinaiticus website in the hope that researchers might be able to make some use of it. - Cillian O'Hogan, British Library, 3/13/2014 email

So who is doing the research?


End of p. 4 of 4

Steven Avery

CARM - Tares Among Wheat research fiasco 11-27-2013

Tares Among Wheat research fiasco - 11-27-2013

Pinto’s Dated and Selective “Research”
July 15, 2013

Elliott, J.K. Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair: An Examination of the Nineteenth Century Claim that Codex Sinaiticus was not an Ancient Manuscript, Analekta Vlatadon 33. Thessaloniki: Patriarchal Institute for Patristic Studies, 1982.

Parker, D.C, Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the Word’s Oldest Bible (Hendrickson Publishers, 2010).

Jongkind, Dirk. “One Codex, Three Scribes, and Many Books: Struggles with Space in Codex Sinaiticus,” New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World (ed. Thomas J. Kraus and Tobias Nichlas; TENTS 2; Leiden:Brill, 2006) 121–35.

Jongkind, Dirk. Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, Texts and Studies: Contributions to Biblical and Patristic L (Gorgias Press LLC 2007)

Milne, H. J. M. and Skeat, T.C. Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus. London: 1938.

Alan Kurschner - ignorant, bumbling critic following James White errors

While I think it is fair to criticize Chris Pinto on some points, Alan Kurschner is not a particularly informed source on the matter, and lacks fundamental integrity. Here he accuses Chris Pinto of lying based on the ignorance of James White.

Chris Pinto and His Ignorant, Kooky Conspiracy
Alan Kurschner - July 15, 2013

I want to respond to one documentary lie in Pinto's blurb. He writes:
Tischendorf said he found the work in a rubbish basket at a Greek Orthodox monastery in Egypt.

It was not found in a "rubbish basket." Just the contrary, it was prized and protected by its owner. To sell his DVDs, Pinto must take advantage of those ignorant of the historical facts. Here is a refutation to Pinto's claim from an excerpt in James White's book
The King James Only Controversy:

From my TC-Alternate post:

It is amazing that Kurshner relies on the James White blunders to attempt to refute Chris Pinto. And worse, even to falsely accuse Pinto of lying based on the White blunders! (Which we know from the Jack Moorman debate have continued now for almost two decades.) Lot's of stuff could go back and forth with the Chris Pinto DVD, and the Simonides issues, we have had many discussions here. However, this Kurschner bumbling and false railing accusation is amazing.

One source for helping unravel the blunders of James White on this topic is my post, which also works with the posts from James Snapp:

[TC-Alternate-list] James White myths about Codex Sinaiticus
Steven Avery - Feb 9, 2011

In #3938 I give some of the history about the James White synapse disconnect, and that post has the excellent James Snapp review at bottom.

James Snapp
... The thing to see here is that White's incomplete version of events is quite misleading; those who say that Sinaiticus was found in a wastebasket are not arbitrarily perpetuating a myth.
They are repeating Tischendorf's own claim, made in the very composition to which White appeals! At the very least, if we take Tischendorf's story seriously at all, he initially found unbound pages of Sinaiticus in a dismembered state in a basket.

Then we go to a post that documents that even the James White website has the information, from Colin Smith, that demonstrates that White is totally confused.

[TC-Alternate-list] Daniel Wallace - proper concern about Tischendorf - James White myths re: Sinaiticus
Steven Avery - Feb 12, 2011

Now we go to the web site of James White:

An Introduction to Textual Criticism:part 6--The Challenge to the Received Text
04/12/2008 - Colin Smith
Constantin von Tischendorf was an industrious and prolific textual scholar. He expended much energy hunting out manuscripts, ....while visiting the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai, he noticed some parchment leaves in a wastebasket. When he examined them he recognized the text as coming from the Greek Septuagint written in an early uncial script.
According to Tischendorf, these parchment leaves were to be used for lighting the monastery oven, though,as Dr. Daniel Wallace has suggested, this might just be Tischendorf's embellishment to make himself sound more of a rescuer than a thief. Tischendorf warned the monks that the parchment was too valuable to use for kindling ....

So, if James White and Alan Kurschner would read and understand the information on White's own site, they could avoid the blunders. And could avoid the false, railing accusation of lying made by Kurschner above .. all based on White's ignorance. (Kurschner is used as a White hatchet man, see Puritanboard.)

An additional note: from referencing, Chris Pinto is clearly informed on the James Keith Elliott book, and I see no indication that Kurschner is so informed.

Another additional note: The James White Tischendorf-trash fiasco is also referenced on another recent thread here.

There is one point where James White makes a solid summary conclusion:

any "scholar" who can't even get this story straight is not really worth reading, to be honest
- James White 3/15/2006


James White is completely wrong on the Tischendorf trash can.
... Even his own web site, an article by Colin D. Smith, shows he is wrong.

Alan Kurschner followed the James White error.

Based on the dual errors, Alan Kurschner falsely accused Chris Pinto of lying.

You have aligned yourself with these blunders and the attendant false accusati
on of lying.


End of p. 3 of 26

Steven Avery

CARM -Sinaiticus colour variance - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

CARM -Sinaiticus colour variance - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus
10-30-2014 4 pages - closed on 12-23-2015