salient arguments that authenticity defenders do not address

Steven Avery

A summary - the context was comments on:

David W. Daniel's book:
Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?

where to read and purchase Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?

the other side has not presented arguments that are germane to the fundamentals:
(How should David present and rebut that which does not exist?)

Pure Bible
Steven Avery - Feb 14, 2018


1) the historical imperative of the Simonides account
.......... (e.g. provenance, location, skills, confirmations right and left)

2) the colouring of 1859
.......... a) true colouring only seen since 2009
.......... b) called in 1862 as having occurred in the 1850s
.......... c) 1844 BEFORE and 1859 AFTER visible, since 2009 CSP.

3) super-supple condition "phenomenal" "exceptional" ..
visible today in BBC video, no explanation ever given .. against ms. science of oxidation, hardening, yellowing

3a) unusual visual staining .. and the monk hand grime missing
3b) materials testing never done - 2015 tests canceled
3c) other anomalies in binding, super-ink, etc.
3d) white parchment in Leipzig .. against ms. science of yellowing

4) Barnabas and Hermas linguistics by James Donaldson showing that Sinaiticus is not a 4th century ms. Earliest would be much later medieval. Ironically, Donaldson worked closely with Tischendorf's own original arguments used against the 1856 Hermas of Simonides, where we have a history of accusation and retraction.

5) Barnabas 1843 by Simonides. And the Star of the East newspaper review.
And this is on top of the amazing Hermas situation, about which James Anson Farrer wrote:
"The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"

6) Tischendorf deceptions and thefts and belligerent dating strangeness.
And keeping the ms sections far from each other, while always using his deceptive facsimile for misdirection.
Simple example, in 1859 he pawned off the absurd fiction that in 1844 he had saved the leaves from fire, when he had taken them by simple theft.

7) dating done without access to the manuscript sections, and independent access to the sections has been rare
(Radical change when the Codex Sinaiticus Project of 2009 exposed the true colours.)

8 ) homoeoteleutons matching sense-lines from Codex Claromontanus, or its sister ms. As one of the contributing ms to Sinaiticus

9) using tampered facsimile editions historically to create and maintain the early date
(the fiction of uniform colour is more difficult now with the CSP calibrated professional photography of 2009)


And more. The starting point for any earnest inquiry.

Codex Sinaiticus Authenticity Research
Plus, one book can not cover everything. I have made it a point to address every serious authenticity defender argument attempt. And my posts are online and on:

Sinaiticus - authentic antiquity or modern?

Also on forums, such as various Facebook and Yahoogroups forums, and the Bible Criticism and History Forum.

Note, though those for authenticity attempt to squash discussion quickly on many venues (e.g. Evangelical Textual Criticism, three textual criticism forums on Facebook .. non-textual-criticism forums have been far better.)


And it is the textual critics who rule the Sinaiticus date, not palaeographic scholars who look at all the evidences. The early date was aggressively pushed by .. Tischendorf. .. and never re-examined. Independent analysis and consideration is basically non-existent. Remember, real palaeography includes provenance, history, ms. condition and much more. As handwriting styles can always be replicated 100 or 1500 years later.

Note, copying earlier handwriting is especially a theme of Bible and religious writings. And, looking at a manuscript, markings that don't fit the production date can simply be pegged, ad hoc, as later: "8th century"... "11th century" ... "15th century" corrections, additions and notations without any real evidences or confirmation.

Remember, the SART team literature online is not just David, it is David, Rohan Meyer, and myself, with help from Mark Michie, as the core. Each individual handles different elements.

The SART team approach.

David W. Daniels - areas of research and vlogs and books, able to be understood by the layman and scholar.
Steven Avery - documenting background information, research and addresses any critics.
Rohan Meyer works on specific technical research papers, including the homoeoteleutons from Claromontanus
Mark Michie - colour/photography studies creates, updates and supports the web site at
Those are the core participants, although the pioneer journalism of Chris Pinto also gets strong recognition.

Others have helped, some directly, others simply by their own auxiliary studies.. One gentleman in the USA helped with the important smoothed out and tampered 2011 Hendrickson & British Library Sinaiticus facsimile book, and other materials. One gentleman is helping with the Zosima Bible issues. One scholar in Austria has helped with Simonides material including the 1859 biography and the 2014 Simonides conference that was held in Vienna, and helping to pin down the factual history around Simonides. A gentleman in Australia looked up the Simonides archive material in Melbourne, while a Professor working with those materials is aware of the "deeply entrenched scholarship" that inhibits Sinaiticus dating inquiry among the textual scholars. One classical language professor in the USA pointed out, on a simple read, his own sense that the Greek of Hermas seemed unusual for a 4th century writing and expressed interest in the Donaldson articles. Chris Pinto received assistance in Greece in looking up the Barnabas and Star of the East materials. We had assistance in Russia (friends and professional) in translating for the first time into English the incredible Uspenky material. This was first seen in translation from the Slavonic script by the efforts of a Ukrainian scholar. (This was core material that was not available to the recent books of Parker and Jongkind, or the history as related by the CSP.) And one gentleman in Germany wrote about Sinaiticus being non-authentic 15 years ago, noting the Morozov science and other Tischendorf-related elements.



Many of the arguments, when addressed, are simply given glib handwave dismissals. Like James Snapp saying that he the professional photographers must not have understood the lighting! :p (by contrast, The British Library has fully acknowledged the colour anomaly, giving their own little attempted conjectural possible explanations, which were similarly non-functinoal.)

The facts on the ground are very difficult for authenticity defenders. e.g. Tommy Wasserman will simply ignore these incredible evidences about the ms. colour and condition.



Howrver, look at the try of James Snapp about the pristine white parchment in Leipzig.

"I consider the difference in the coloration to reside exclusively in the photographs, due to differences in the photography-methods for different sections of the manuscript, and not in the manuscript pages themselves"... "The color-differences in the Leipzig images = a difference in the photos, not in the pages themselves." ... "As far as I can tell, they do not vary in color; only the camera-settings differed when photographs of the pages were taken."
James Snapp - 2017"tn"%3A"R9"%7D"tn"%3A"R9"%7D
"the likely explanation -- that the photographs were taken under different lighting"

James Snapp, Feb, 2018"tn"%3A"R9"%7D
James Snapp was showing incredible ignorance, again and again, about the professional photography of the Codex Sinaiticus Project. This photography was done standardized by a special committee of experts, and the photographers included colour bars with their pictures.

Virtually every area, you run into this type of ignorance. In order to salvage some small piece of Tischendorf veracity and credibility (knowing the bogus claim of saving leaves from fire) James would claim that Tischendorf had permission from the monks to take the leaves in 1844 (this was 86 pages, James has it wrong as 172). Once you know about his correspondence, his pronensity for theft, the Uspensky account and the fact that what he took included five full quires you can know for a fact that Tischendorf just stole those leaves. There is not a scintilla of evidence that Tischendorf had the permission claimed by James Snapp.

Later, James Snapp wrote three blog posts on Sinaiticus authenticity, and did not touch on any of the evidences above, that show that it was produced in the 1800s.
James tries to hide the real issues from the readers. Yet, he is, ironically, the best of the authenticity defenders!



Similarly, most of the detail defense (e.g. James Snapp) would be a waste of time in a published book as they are a "multiplication of nothings". So they are "Coloring the Truth" as David put it in one vlog.


So what specifically do you think is missing in our approach?

What has the SART team not addressed?

Where are the real authenticity defense attempts that will look at 1-9 above?

And to what was Mark McDonnel referring?


If you would like a booklet that condenses the arguments, pro and con, sometime in the future, it would have to be about a 20-page paper at least. Not everything can be done overnight, and, first-things-first:

David, starting with the first book, is successfully and properly laying out many of the fundamental arguments that Sinaiticus is not 4th century, but is a recent creation. And he is doing so in a way that can be read and understood by the Christian believer on the street, and anyone with some common sense reading and thinking abilities.

David includes more background historical material, and supporting research, than anyone, about the Benedict - Simonides - Kallinikos - Athos milieu that created the ms. David also is the first writer since the 1800s to properly bring forth the Donaldson linguistic arguments that were never covered. And thus David looks closely in the book (e.g. the Maximo example) in ways that have never been done, not even online. Similarly with the 2427 and Sinaiticus "let's learn from experience" coverage.

David has a full and solid mastery of the fundamental colour and condition anomalies, and the historical background that are core to understanding the creation of Codex Simonieidos.

His is the first book that has done the presentation accurately. And it is a starting point for researchers.

In contrast .. the modern textual crew are .. silent. We see a couple of tepid reactive attempts, a mask over the eyes and one multiplication of nothings.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

arguments selective and unconvincing.?

This is what brought forth the discussion above.

Review (enhanced) from:

Facebook - PureBible


Sinaiticus - David W. Daniel's book:
Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?

from Nerdy Language Majors

The claim at hand:

Mark McDonnel
"Quite a few of us have looked at Daniels’s claims about Sinaiticus and Simonides and found his arguments selective and unconvincing. He doesn’t present evidence and arguments that go against his thesis which are much more persuasive.""tn"%3A"R6"%7D

Damon Lee Gang
Mark is right about presenting and rebutting the other sides arguments being more convincing

And I will invite Mark over to tell us what are these "more persuasive" arguments.
And if he is really familiar with the evidences that Sinaiticus is recent, and where he feels they are addressed. And by who ("quite a few").


For context, Mark saying his own general position.

Mark McDonnel
"Now most of us, including myself, are strongly committed to the inerrancy of Scripture, to the Sovereign authority of God, and to a life of obedience, and holiness.""tn"%3A"R9"%7D
Mark McDonnel - Facebook


Mark and I have had some discussions about "strain at a gnat" .. and not surprisingly we have differing views on the Reformation Bible, the Received Text and the AV (compared to the modern corruption versions. ) However, that topic is covered by many in many places.


Here, I am really interested in his *** Sinaiticus *** comment above, where he seems to be claiming that he, and/or others, have really looked at and responded to the Sinaiticus evidences. I've never seen that occur. :)

So I would like Mark to point out who, where, and what.