the Elijah Hixson review of David W. Daniels - Is the “World’s Oldest Bible” a Fake?

Steven Avery

Now discussed at Facebook

David W. Daniels, Is the “World’s Oldest Bible” a Fake? Ontario, CA: Chick Publications, 2017

Unpublished Review of David W. Daniels, "Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?"


Daniels does not deal with the fact that different storage conditions can result in
different colours of the pieces. Simply look at the reconstructions of the Coptic
fragments from the White Monastery for examples of this phenomenon.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Alexander Schick recommended this post by Elijah Hixson as the possible response to the writing of David W. Daniels on the issues of authenticity that swirl around Codex Sinaiticus and the claims of production on Mt. Athos c.1840 involving Constantine Simonides. David has two books and many videos.

Since the earlier thread is long, if the moderators don’t mind, let’s start another thread and try to focus on real substance on either side, David and Elijah, with value added, with iron sharpeneth.

Notice also the Comments on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog. Since that forum is heavily censored, maybe we will comment on the comments later.


Earlier post from Alexander Schick!


Review of David Daniels, Is the ‘World’s Oldest Bible’ a Fake? - 2018 - Elijah Hixson


The Review we will actually study is here:
Unpublished Review of David W. Daniels, "Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?"
by Elijah Hixson
No rush to start, forum readers are welcome to give preliminary thoughts!


Elijah’s very first sentence is wacky, tacky and snarky.
Elijah Hixson #1
“If you couldn’t tell from the scare quotes around the words “World’s Oldest Bible” in the title of the book, let me ruin the plot for you: the author thinks that Codex Sinaiticus is a modern production, made during the 1840s.”
“quotes” are appropriate because the claim-phrase itself is used and is dubious in multiple ways.
“World’s oldest Bible” is used in the 2010 book title by David Parker and even by the Codex Sinaiticue Project.
The one running “scared” here is Elijah. With a really mediocre opening.


Elijah Hinson #2
“This position is complete nonsense, and the book is full of the kinds of infuriating logic that only works if you’re both already convinced of the author’s position and also committed to being one-sided with the evidence. The kinds of arguments Daniels makes would devastate his own case if he were forced to answer the same kinds of questions he asks. In some cases, what Daniels does not mention in his book is more significant than what he doesÑif you read this book, this thought should be kept in mind.”
Why start with a bunch of claims?
No evidence of anything at all.
What a mess!
So we have more tacky and snarky nothings.


Steven Avery
Top contributor
Elijah Hixson #3
“There are some detailed reviews out there (Bill Brown’s review at the link in the footnote, 1 but also search academia edu for Kevin McGrane’s review), so I do not need to repeat what has already been saidÑI skimmed them both a while back, but what I say here, I say without following along with either of them. Any overlap is purely accidental. I’m sure Steven Avery will quickly write a post about how I’ve just missed the point over at his purebibleforum, and I’m sure it will sound convincing if you are already convinced that I’m wrong about this. Please don’t be misled. Weigh the information yourself and ask yourself if Daniels does a decent job proving his case. Don’t take his word on it he asks you himself to examine the evidence (p. 12 “Please, check the facts all you want”.)
More politics. Hixson does not tell you that Kevin McGrane thinks that the 4th century date is off by hundreds of years, and Tischendorf lied right and left in his discovery accounts. Or that his other star writer is a vulgar sicko with limited mental facilities.
Still waiting for any substance.


Steven Avery
Top contributor
Elijah Hixson #4
“Daniels begins by denying the power of the Gospel, asking (p. 9) “Would God have withheld the truth for 1800 years, only to have it show up in an Orthodox monastery in the desert?— as if if the Gospel can only be found in a perfect reproduction of the original text. Never mind what Paul wrote, “But we have this treasure in earthen vessels, that the excellency of the power may be of God, and not of us” (2 Cor. 4:7). Daniels then asks (p. 9), “Would He have His people see only a typeset text that covers up thousands of erasures, write-overs, marginal notes and optional readings?” A “typeset text that covers up thousands of erasures, write-overs, marginal notes and optional readings” sounds exactly like the textus receptus to me.
While the position of Elijah is false, especially in his wicked description of the Textus Receptus. really this is on auxiliary issues, not really on Sinaiticus dating and authenticity in any direct manner, so let’s not waste time on textcrit bias nothings from Elijah.
We still have 0 substance.

Steven Avery
Top contributor
Elijah Hixson #5
Daniels also sets out how he came to this question (p. 12): I woke up one morning and went into prayer, as I usually do. Then I heard these words:
What if they’re fakes?
And I saw a mental image of Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus.
[later on the same page]
A few weeks later, during devotions, the thought came to my heart: Simple answers to even simpler questions. And then one more event really got me started. I prayed and asked God, What question should I ask?And I heard, What color is it? And that was the beginning of all that you are about to read. Please, check the facts all you want. So there you have it: Daniels claims that God revealed this line of inquiry to him spiritually. I’m not one to argue with God himself, but I relay another story about God speaking to people: My pastor growing up once told me that a stranger showed up at our church one Sunday morning and told him God told me I am supposed to preach here today! My pastor replied, That’s nice, but he didn’t mention it to me, so you’re not preaching.Ó I can’t judge what Daniels did or did not hear, but I know that Jesus commands us to love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, soul and strength. This review flows from my desire to love the lord with all my mind
—to test what Daniels has written against my experience with manuscripts and with doing research.
Same as #4.
No Sinaiticus substance, just Elijah upset that David has an identifiable pure and perfect Bible.
Well, there is a mention from Daniel of the colour of Sinaiticus, and Elijah Hixson again tells us how sincere he is. Yawn.
Still, nothing!


Steven Avery
Top contributor
Elijah Hixson #6
I. Daniels’ “22 Facts”
For the main part of my review, let me briefly respond to Daniels’ “22 Facts” that
make up Chapter 27, “The Evidence”, which is the first part of “Section IV: The Bible
Version Conspiracy.” These facts are mostly summaries of other discussions
throughout the book, so they draw heavily on what Daniels wrote elsewhere. As they
are succinct summaries, however, I think they are a good starting point for a review.
Assume any irregularities in grammar or bold/italics within quoted material is original
to Daniels; I have tried to preserve it exactly as written, with the exception of the
placement of a few paragraph breaks, as Daniels’ writing style is preachy, and one-sentence paragraphs are not uncommon. At times, I respond to Daniels’ longer discussions earlier in the book, on which these ‘facts' are based.
Ok, finally, we are getting closer to an actual Sinaiticus discussion! Whew.

Elijah Hixson
Top contributor
Fundamental to this discussion is my comment here:

Steven Avery
Top contributor
Elijah Hixson - not even remotely relevant.
The issue here is Sinaiticus, and your "Review" of the first book by David. Did you read the second book?

Steven Avery

There are numerous *** textual elements *** that point to Sinaiticus being later medieval, which de facto means it corroborates the 1800s account.
The "deeply entrenched" scholarship of Sinaiticus however is tied up in knots by the false 4th century pseudo-consensus, developed WITHOUT manuscript access. And then maintained by ossified acceptance, resistance to the truth buttressed by the dozens of papers and the reputation of libraries and scholars.
"Oops, we have to censor discussion! Your ears are too delicate! Misinformation! " is a common position, although fortunately not on this forum today.
Earlier on the Textus Receptus Academy, I gave you a summary of some of the principle elements, when you asked a similar question:
Grantley Robert McDonald -
there are numerous evidences.
There is no provenance and the later cover stories are wacky fabrications, contradicted even by the Tisch correspondence.
The phenomenally good condition of parchment and ink, with supposedly 1500 years of ongoing heavy use, is a red mark.
Amazingly, not one word, barely one letter, of the NT, is lost.
The colouring and staining corroborates the amazing 1862-63 exposure that the manuscript had been artificially aged. However, the 1844 section left before the tampering so it is consistent pale without stains.
The Simonides account, the main alternate holds up very well on examination, with various historical corroborations.
There is much, much more, for those interested!

Steven Avery

Elijah Hixson #7
1. “Someone darkened Sinaiticus!" (p. 255). This is just not true at all. Remember, Daniels and his crew have no experience with manuscripts. They don’t have the years of experience and training to know what is and is not normal in an ancient document. They are working off digital images and descriptions made by others, which they interpret without the background knowledge of what is/is not a normal way of describing things. Daniels perceives a difference in colour between the Leipzig leaves and the British Library leaves as posted on the website, However, he does not deal with the one true fact —that the colour standards for those respective leaves do not match, which proves that the images were taken and/or processed differently. They are not true representatives of the actual colour of the manuscript.

[[Steven Avery and others have attempted to respond to this objection, but they miss the point: the colour standards are there in the photos to indicate whether or not the images are taken to the same specs. The colour standards do not match, so therefore the images available do not represent the codex’s true colouring. Any arguments made on the basis of colouring are on incredibly unstable ground without matching colour standards, because they can only speculate how much of a difference there really is between the folios—if any.]]

Even if the images were true representatives of the colour of Codex Sinaitieus, Daniels does not deal with the fact that different storage conditions can result in different colours of the pieces. Simply look at the reconstructions of the Coptic fragments from the White Monastery for examples of this phenomenon. This is the sort of mistake one would make if he or she had never looked at a real manuscript before but was determined to find any “evidence” that undermined a New Testament text that disagrees with the KJV.

Last edited: