Journal articles on the Randy White pages
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
Steven Avery
Administrator
Here is an account from the Saint James Chronicle on September 6, 1862. The Saint James Chronicle was an independent newspaper that started printing in 1761 and stopped operations in 2023, when it was known as the "English Churchman.”
The Saint James Chronicle - September 6, 1862
> THE CODEX SINAITICUS.-Much has been said lately of a famous Codex which Professor Tischendorf found in a monastery in Sinai, which was pronounced by the learned in such matters to be of most venerable antiquity, dating at least as early as the fourth century, is now being printed under tho patronage of tho Russian Government, and was expected to contribute to the elucidation of difficulties that had long perplexed Biblical scholars. In Thursday’s Guardian appears a letter of M. Simonides who declares that he himself transcribed the whole of this notable _Codex Sinaiticus, and he gives such a circumstantial account of the reasons which induced him to undertake the task, and of tho whole history of the affair, that there must, we apprehend, be an end to all claim of value for the MS. Professor Tischendorf has been hoaxed by the 'cute monks of Sinai.’
Published five months later, consider this admission, found in the Weekly Dispatch (London) on 22 February 1863.
> A new Bible has just been discovered. The Codex Sinaiticus has been adopted by scholars into the family of the Canons. It has a more genuine history, a more certainly authentic aspect, better corroborative internal evidence in its favour, than most of those on which our version is founded. Its authenticity is a matter of infinite importance. It omits most of the passages on which orthodox bigotry is founded. The interpolation of the "heavenly witnesses" is not there. The dogma "he that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned," is not there. The doubtful chapters on which orthodoxy props itself are not there. A Greek, of the name of Simonides, tolerated in literary society, does not blush to declare that he forged every line of the scrolls, and smuggled them into the monastery whose priests produced them to the Emperor of Russia as of infinite antiquity vouched by a long train of monastic traditions. [bold mine]
Do you see what I put in bold print? It is indeed bold! I fully agree with the editor, who says that "Its authenticity is a matter of infinite importance." The significance of this lies in the fact that the Codex Sinaiticus truly undermines the foundations of orthodoxy. Could this have been a malicious scheme to strip Christianity of its support base? The answer to that question can be given in one word: ABSOLUTELY!
Let's also look at this excerpt from the Birmingham Journal, dated 17 January 1863:
> Two years ago the literary world was startled the announcement of Herr Tischendorf that Codex Sinaiticus gave the most valuable and most important basis for the New Testament text. This MS. [MS. = manuscript] was found at the Greek Convent near Mount Sinai, and promised to make great sensation in the literary well as the biblical world. Simonides now comes forward, and frankly and boldly declares that the so-called ancient MS. was written by and cooked from several other texts, just as his Homeric fragments were made from Wolff! Whether true or false, the statement equally astounding. If, as he confesses, [he] did forge the Sinai MS., the suspicions of his former "discoveries" are confirmed beyond all doubt; and if he did not, his confession is one of the most impudent and dangerous of all literary frauds. His story is clear and simple; not free from all doubt, perhaps, but likely enough to be true, when remember the antecedents of the man. He says that his ever useful "uncle at Mount Athos" employed him to "get up" ancient MS. for the late Czar, and that on his death the proposal was abandoned, and that the MS. was sent to the Saint(?) Saba(?) Monastery Sinai, where it was discovered and paraded to the world. He further adds that the MS. contains irrefragable proofs that it is his own handiwork, and brings a Greek priest of the convent in a Romaic epistle to substantiate the truth of his assertions. At present, then, the case stands thus. The vaunted Codex Sinaiticus, which was to settle so many questions Biblical criticism, is distinctly claimed as modern forgery by one whose interest is certainly to conceal this fraud in order to gain credence for previous "discoveries.'' Tischendorf and his friends will have to disprove a clear and definite statement, which, there is every reason to believe, is true, or to confess that they have been duped by the astounding abilities and unbounded boldness of a young and learned Greek. So far as we can see at present there can be little doubt that the statements of M. Simonides are correct in the main, and that he must have the dubious honour being the most clever and successful of the literary forgers of the modern world. ([https://www.britishnewspaperarchive...ve.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000224/18630117/023/0007)) [bold mine]
Wouldn't the modern reader of the NASB, ESV, NIV, CSB (etc., ad nauseam) want to know that a respected British newspaper of the day determined that "there can be little doubt that the statements of M. Simonides are correct in the main"? Wouldn’t the modern reader want to know that the paper called for Tischendorf to “disprove a clear and definite statement”? Yet these statements have never been disproven, they have simply been ignored long enough and covered by publisher publicity to make them go away.
Now consider this from the Birgmingham Journal, 07 Feb. 1863:
> The "CodexSinaiticus," of Tischendorf, is destined to occupy the attention of the literary and theological world for some time to come. The bold statement Simonides, that he made and forged the whole, seems incredible, when its extent is considered, and how short was the time in which it must have been done. Had his name not been associated previously with "discoveries" which were more than doubtful, his claim would never have had hour's attention. As it is, two strong parties are now formed. Tischendorf and his friends are anxious to uphold the genuineness of the MSS. now published in facsimile at the cost of the Czar; and Simonides has many supporters who are more anxious to support his claim to be recognised a forger of MSS. than to damage the Tischendorf text. Whether genuine or spurious this work is most remarkable. Tischendorf found it wrapped an old cloth in the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, in 1859. Lord Lindsay believes, apparently, that he saw the Gospel portions at the convent in 1837— which his attention had been called by Burkhardt’s visit in 1816—but he has not yet identified the Codex in question, which Simonides says he wrote, with the one seen in 1837. The monks agreed to give the MS. to the Czar—the patriarch of their church—and after a brief sketch of the "find" in 1860, by Tischendorf, the Czar ordered facsimile, four folio volumes. Three hundred copies were struck off—ten of the twelve presented to Tischendorf being sold at £25. each, and ninety more copies which the Czar has urged the scholar to accept being now in the market at £34.10s. …Tischendorf thinks the MS. of the fourth century, and therefore of more value than the famous Vatican MS. of the same date, which wants the New Testament; or the Alexandrine, in the British Museum, the next in value. While the four column for three column page is favour of the antiquity of the Sinaitic, the names of the dramatis personea in red ink in the Song of Solomon are against its antiquity, and it is certainly remarkable that the Sinaitic is the only known MS. which the New Testament complete. The last verse St, John's Gospel—the famous hyperbole—is omitted, as in other late MSS. Many other minor differences are found which are interesting to theologian only; but Paleographers will have more to say before the vexed question set at rest. So many of the discoveries of Simonite’s are so suspected, and his skill so wonderful, that it will not be surprising if this famous MS. shall hereafter prove to be another production of the same profound scholarship and the same clever and prolific hand. (https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000224/18630207/027/0007 [bold mine]
Notice that the paper insists that the question is not “set at rest,” but needs more work. As it stood in 1863, Simonides was suspected of forgery by his “cleaver and prolific hand.”
But we should close with one last quote, taken from the original Simonides confession of forgery.
Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present age. But I may just note that my uncle Benedict corrected the MS. in many places, and as it was intended to be re-copied, he marked many letters which he purposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle I can, of course, point out as also those of Dionysisu the calligraphist. Iin various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different MSS. from which I had taken certain passages and readings. These initials appear to have greatly bewildered Professor Tischendorf, who has invented several highly ingenious methods of accounting for them. Lastly, I declare my ability to point to two distinct pages in the MS., though I have not seen it for years, in which is contained the most unquestionable proof of its being my writing. In making this statement, I know perfectly well the consequences I shall bring upon myself but I have so long been accustomed to calumny, that I have grown indifferent to it, and I now solemnly declare that my only motive for publishing this letter is to advance the cause of truth, and protect sacred letters from imposition. In conclusion, you must permit me to express my sincere regret that, whilst the many valuable remains of antiquity in my possession are frequently attributed to my own hands, the one poor work of my youth is set down by a gentleman who enjoys a great reputation for learning, as the earliest copy of the Sacred Scriptures. [as quoted in Liverpool Post and Mercury (Liverpool, Merseyside, England) · Mon, Jan 22, 1934, see Appendix A.]
For the full letter by Simonides to the Guardian making his claim, see Appendix A, which also contains a defense by the “experts.”
The Birmingham Journal (Feb. 1863) said that, “Paleographers will have more to say before the vexed question set at rest.” Where these questions ever “set at rest”? I would suggest that they were instead swept under the rug. Let’s jump forward, from 1863 to 1934, and consider this article from The Guardian of London on February 2, 1934:
The absurd stories which have been current regarding the authenticity of the Codex Sinaiticus were demolished in a, press interview to-day by Sir Frederic Kenyon. After the Archbishop of Canterbury had described briefly the history of the Codex and its purchase by the British Museum. Sir Frederic showed that the doubts which have already deterred many people from contributing to the purchase fund are entirely groundless. He dealt first with the old story that the Codex was forged by Constantine Simonides in the early nineteenth Century-a story put about by Simonides himself to satisfy a grudge against Tischendorf, the discoverer of the manuscript. This was patently untrue. The vellum used was unprocurable at that time. The hands of at two or three scribes and several correctors are discernible in the manuscript, the time which Simonides stated that the work occupied him was impossibly ,short, and no original has ever been found which he could have copied in making his forgery. [The Guardian (London, Greater London, England) · Fri, Feb 2, 1934 · Page 10]
This is hard to read without assuming that it is a public relations piece bySir Frederic Kenyon to dismiss the charges of forgery. While the article states that Kenyon’s press interview “demolished” the “absurd stories,” the evidence given doesn’t demolish it at all. Kenyon brought three charges.
1. The vellum was not available to Simonides at the time. First, it should be noted that the Codex is written on parchment, not vellum. Whether it was Kenyon using less-than-precise terms (vellum is a form of parchment, but the Codex is not on vellum), or a reporter misreporting, is not known. In reality, however, there were numerous avenues in which Simonides could have procured the parchment necessary, including from libraries of monasteries. And, in fact, through his uncle and numerous other connections, Simonides would have likely had easy access to these materials.
2. The hands of two or three scribes were used. Any good forger would recognize that this would improve the appearance of authenticity. Handwriting variation is easily produced, and someone creating an "authentic reproduction" would do this.
3. The work could not have been accomplished in the time Simonides declared it to have been done. It should be noted that Simonides had worldwide fame for his reproduction capabilities long before the Tischendorf affair. I suspect that it has never been scientifically proven that the work could not have been accomplished in the time claimed.
It should be noted that Kenyon, the one who “demolished” the “absurd stories” was himself the director and principal librarian of the British Museum, and was trying to defend the museum against charges that it had purchased a forgery and not the real document. He was certainly no third-party observer.
And how did the British Museum acquire the manuscript? Well, they purchased it from the Russian Soviet regime for £100,000. Immediately, cries went forth that the curators of the museum spent £100,000 on a fake and that the Soviets, a regime hostile to religion, had profited from a scheme to discredit Christianity. Upon the purchase, the museum entered protection mode, discrediting anyone who accused the experts of being deceived. I would dare to say that the discrediting campaign continues to this day, and that the Soviets achieved their goal of undermining the foundations of Christianity.
See Appendix A for a facsimile of the Liverpool Post and Mercury (Liverpool, Merseyside, England) of Monday, Jan 22, 1934 for an article entitled, “The Codex Genuine” with subheadings, “Forgery Story Rebutted” and “Passed Every Test.” However, the article is the full-length original letter of Simonides and a few “experts” insisting he was wrong, with no proof put forth whatsoever.
But to delve deeper, let's explore the forensic examination of Sinaiticus.
The Saint James Chronicle - September 6, 1862
> THE CODEX SINAITICUS.-Much has been said lately of a famous Codex which Professor Tischendorf found in a monastery in Sinai, which was pronounced by the learned in such matters to be of most venerable antiquity, dating at least as early as the fourth century, is now being printed under tho patronage of tho Russian Government, and was expected to contribute to the elucidation of difficulties that had long perplexed Biblical scholars. In Thursday’s Guardian appears a letter of M. Simonides who declares that he himself transcribed the whole of this notable _Codex Sinaiticus, and he gives such a circumstantial account of the reasons which induced him to undertake the task, and of tho whole history of the affair, that there must, we apprehend, be an end to all claim of value for the MS. Professor Tischendorf has been hoaxed by the 'cute monks of Sinai.’
Published five months later, consider this admission, found in the Weekly Dispatch (London) on 22 February 1863.
> A new Bible has just been discovered. The Codex Sinaiticus has been adopted by scholars into the family of the Canons. It has a more genuine history, a more certainly authentic aspect, better corroborative internal evidence in its favour, than most of those on which our version is founded. Its authenticity is a matter of infinite importance. It omits most of the passages on which orthodox bigotry is founded. The interpolation of the "heavenly witnesses" is not there. The dogma "he that believeth shall be saved, he that believeth not shall be damned," is not there. The doubtful chapters on which orthodoxy props itself are not there. A Greek, of the name of Simonides, tolerated in literary society, does not blush to declare that he forged every line of the scrolls, and smuggled them into the monastery whose priests produced them to the Emperor of Russia as of infinite antiquity vouched by a long train of monastic traditions. [bold mine]
Do you see what I put in bold print? It is indeed bold! I fully agree with the editor, who says that "Its authenticity is a matter of infinite importance." The significance of this lies in the fact that the Codex Sinaiticus truly undermines the foundations of orthodoxy. Could this have been a malicious scheme to strip Christianity of its support base? The answer to that question can be given in one word: ABSOLUTELY!
Let's also look at this excerpt from the Birmingham Journal, dated 17 January 1863:
> Two years ago the literary world was startled the announcement of Herr Tischendorf that Codex Sinaiticus gave the most valuable and most important basis for the New Testament text. This MS. [MS. = manuscript] was found at the Greek Convent near Mount Sinai, and promised to make great sensation in the literary well as the biblical world. Simonides now comes forward, and frankly and boldly declares that the so-called ancient MS. was written by and cooked from several other texts, just as his Homeric fragments were made from Wolff! Whether true or false, the statement equally astounding. If, as he confesses, [he] did forge the Sinai MS., the suspicions of his former "discoveries" are confirmed beyond all doubt; and if he did not, his confession is one of the most impudent and dangerous of all literary frauds. His story is clear and simple; not free from all doubt, perhaps, but likely enough to be true, when remember the antecedents of the man. He says that his ever useful "uncle at Mount Athos" employed him to "get up" ancient MS. for the late Czar, and that on his death the proposal was abandoned, and that the MS. was sent to the Saint(?) Saba(?) Monastery Sinai, where it was discovered and paraded to the world. He further adds that the MS. contains irrefragable proofs that it is his own handiwork, and brings a Greek priest of the convent in a Romaic epistle to substantiate the truth of his assertions. At present, then, the case stands thus. The vaunted Codex Sinaiticus, which was to settle so many questions Biblical criticism, is distinctly claimed as modern forgery by one whose interest is certainly to conceal this fraud in order to gain credence for previous "discoveries.'' Tischendorf and his friends will have to disprove a clear and definite statement, which, there is every reason to believe, is true, or to confess that they have been duped by the astounding abilities and unbounded boldness of a young and learned Greek. So far as we can see at present there can be little doubt that the statements of M. Simonides are correct in the main, and that he must have the dubious honour being the most clever and successful of the literary forgers of the modern world. ([https://www.britishnewspaperarchive...ve.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000224/18630117/023/0007)) [bold mine]
Wouldn't the modern reader of the NASB, ESV, NIV, CSB (etc., ad nauseam) want to know that a respected British newspaper of the day determined that "there can be little doubt that the statements of M. Simonides are correct in the main"? Wouldn’t the modern reader want to know that the paper called for Tischendorf to “disprove a clear and definite statement”? Yet these statements have never been disproven, they have simply been ignored long enough and covered by publisher publicity to make them go away.
Now consider this from the Birgmingham Journal, 07 Feb. 1863:
> The "CodexSinaiticus," of Tischendorf, is destined to occupy the attention of the literary and theological world for some time to come. The bold statement Simonides, that he made and forged the whole, seems incredible, when its extent is considered, and how short was the time in which it must have been done. Had his name not been associated previously with "discoveries" which were more than doubtful, his claim would never have had hour's attention. As it is, two strong parties are now formed. Tischendorf and his friends are anxious to uphold the genuineness of the MSS. now published in facsimile at the cost of the Czar; and Simonides has many supporters who are more anxious to support his claim to be recognised a forger of MSS. than to damage the Tischendorf text. Whether genuine or spurious this work is most remarkable. Tischendorf found it wrapped an old cloth in the convent of St. Catherine, on Mount Sinai, in 1859. Lord Lindsay believes, apparently, that he saw the Gospel portions at the convent in 1837— which his attention had been called by Burkhardt’s visit in 1816—but he has not yet identified the Codex in question, which Simonides says he wrote, with the one seen in 1837. The monks agreed to give the MS. to the Czar—the patriarch of their church—and after a brief sketch of the "find" in 1860, by Tischendorf, the Czar ordered facsimile, four folio volumes. Three hundred copies were struck off—ten of the twelve presented to Tischendorf being sold at £25. each, and ninety more copies which the Czar has urged the scholar to accept being now in the market at £34.10s. …Tischendorf thinks the MS. of the fourth century, and therefore of more value than the famous Vatican MS. of the same date, which wants the New Testament; or the Alexandrine, in the British Museum, the next in value. While the four column for three column page is favour of the antiquity of the Sinaitic, the names of the dramatis personea in red ink in the Song of Solomon are against its antiquity, and it is certainly remarkable that the Sinaitic is the only known MS. which the New Testament complete. The last verse St, John's Gospel—the famous hyperbole—is omitted, as in other late MSS. Many other minor differences are found which are interesting to theologian only; but Paleographers will have more to say before the vexed question set at rest. So many of the discoveries of Simonite’s are so suspected, and his skill so wonderful, that it will not be surprising if this famous MS. shall hereafter prove to be another production of the same profound scholarship and the same clever and prolific hand. (https://www.britishnewspaperarchive.co.uk/viewer/bl/0000224/18630207/027/0007 [bold mine]
Notice that the paper insists that the question is not “set at rest,” but needs more work. As it stood in 1863, Simonides was suspected of forgery by his “cleaver and prolific hand.”
But we should close with one last quote, taken from the original Simonides confession of forgery.
Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present age. But I may just note that my uncle Benedict corrected the MS. in many places, and as it was intended to be re-copied, he marked many letters which he purposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle I can, of course, point out as also those of Dionysisu the calligraphist. Iin various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different MSS. from which I had taken certain passages and readings. These initials appear to have greatly bewildered Professor Tischendorf, who has invented several highly ingenious methods of accounting for them. Lastly, I declare my ability to point to two distinct pages in the MS., though I have not seen it for years, in which is contained the most unquestionable proof of its being my writing. In making this statement, I know perfectly well the consequences I shall bring upon myself but I have so long been accustomed to calumny, that I have grown indifferent to it, and I now solemnly declare that my only motive for publishing this letter is to advance the cause of truth, and protect sacred letters from imposition. In conclusion, you must permit me to express my sincere regret that, whilst the many valuable remains of antiquity in my possession are frequently attributed to my own hands, the one poor work of my youth is set down by a gentleman who enjoys a great reputation for learning, as the earliest copy of the Sacred Scriptures. [as quoted in Liverpool Post and Mercury (Liverpool, Merseyside, England) · Mon, Jan 22, 1934, see Appendix A.]
For the full letter by Simonides to the Guardian making his claim, see Appendix A, which also contains a defense by the “experts.”
Was It Settled?
The Birmingham Journal (Feb. 1863) said that, “Paleographers will have more to say before the vexed question set at rest.” Where these questions ever “set at rest”? I would suggest that they were instead swept under the rug. Let’s jump forward, from 1863 to 1934, and consider this article from The Guardian of London on February 2, 1934:
The absurd stories which have been current regarding the authenticity of the Codex Sinaiticus were demolished in a, press interview to-day by Sir Frederic Kenyon. After the Archbishop of Canterbury had described briefly the history of the Codex and its purchase by the British Museum. Sir Frederic showed that the doubts which have already deterred many people from contributing to the purchase fund are entirely groundless. He dealt first with the old story that the Codex was forged by Constantine Simonides in the early nineteenth Century-a story put about by Simonides himself to satisfy a grudge against Tischendorf, the discoverer of the manuscript. This was patently untrue. The vellum used was unprocurable at that time. The hands of at two or three scribes and several correctors are discernible in the manuscript, the time which Simonides stated that the work occupied him was impossibly ,short, and no original has ever been found which he could have copied in making his forgery. [The Guardian (London, Greater London, England) · Fri, Feb 2, 1934 · Page 10]
This is hard to read without assuming that it is a public relations piece bySir Frederic Kenyon to dismiss the charges of forgery. While the article states that Kenyon’s press interview “demolished” the “absurd stories,” the evidence given doesn’t demolish it at all. Kenyon brought three charges.
1. The vellum was not available to Simonides at the time. First, it should be noted that the Codex is written on parchment, not vellum. Whether it was Kenyon using less-than-precise terms (vellum is a form of parchment, but the Codex is not on vellum), or a reporter misreporting, is not known. In reality, however, there were numerous avenues in which Simonides could have procured the parchment necessary, including from libraries of monasteries. And, in fact, through his uncle and numerous other connections, Simonides would have likely had easy access to these materials.
2. The hands of two or three scribes were used. Any good forger would recognize that this would improve the appearance of authenticity. Handwriting variation is easily produced, and someone creating an "authentic reproduction" would do this.
3. The work could not have been accomplished in the time Simonides declared it to have been done. It should be noted that Simonides had worldwide fame for his reproduction capabilities long before the Tischendorf affair. I suspect that it has never been scientifically proven that the work could not have been accomplished in the time claimed.
It should be noted that Kenyon, the one who “demolished” the “absurd stories” was himself the director and principal librarian of the British Museum, and was trying to defend the museum against charges that it had purchased a forgery and not the real document. He was certainly no third-party observer.
And how did the British Museum acquire the manuscript? Well, they purchased it from the Russian Soviet regime for £100,000. Immediately, cries went forth that the curators of the museum spent £100,000 on a fake and that the Soviets, a regime hostile to religion, had profited from a scheme to discredit Christianity. Upon the purchase, the museum entered protection mode, discrediting anyone who accused the experts of being deceived. I would dare to say that the discrediting campaign continues to this day, and that the Soviets achieved their goal of undermining the foundations of Christianity.
See Appendix A for a facsimile of the Liverpool Post and Mercury (Liverpool, Merseyside, England) of Monday, Jan 22, 1934 for an article entitled, “The Codex Genuine” with subheadings, “Forgery Story Rebutted” and “Passed Every Test.” However, the article is the full-length original letter of Simonides and a few “experts” insisting he was wrong, with no proof put forth whatsoever.
But to delve deeper, let's explore the forensic examination of Sinaiticus.
Last edited: