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

Review
Unpublished Review of David W. Daniels, "Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?"
https://www.academia.edu/37905881/U...._Daniels_Is_the_Worlds_Oldest_Bible_a_Fake_?

Discussion

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.

(SA: straw man. Leipzig and St. Petersburg were supposed to be identical storage for 1500 years!)

 

[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
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT...43190719283&reply_comment_id=7481978915222377

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

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Unpublished Review of David W. Daniels, "Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' a Fake?"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
https://www.academia.edu/37905881/U...._Daniels_Is_the_Worlds_Oldest_Bible_a_Fake_?

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 does if 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

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 said. I 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”.)

===========

SA
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
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
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

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
Fundamental to this discussion is my comment here:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTT.../7475516402535295?comment_id=7484471424973126

(SA: This was totally off topic, just prattle.)

Steven Avery
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]

Grantley,
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, codexsinaiticus.org. 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.

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

 

[Steven Avery]

https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/posts/2254877134599274/

Do you think Codex Sinaiticus is a fake? You should ask yourself what the people claiming it's a fake aren't telling you, and you should ask if they can even be trusted to be able to tell a fake when they see one. My review of David Daniels' book on Codex Sinaiticus:
https://evangelicaltextualcriticism.blogspot.com/2018/12/review-of-david-daniels-is-worlds.html

James E Snapp Jr
Related: my series of four posts against the Simonides-Made-Sinaiticus Conspiracy Theory:
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/.../sinaiticus-is-not...…
See more

THETEXTOFTHEGOSPELS.COM
Sinaiticus Is Not a Forgery - Setting the Stage

Sinaiticus Is Not a Forgery - Setting the Stage

Brett Todd
Bizarre is a perfect word.

James William Sheffield
John Burgon considered it old. "In short, these two codices are old"
http://www.textusreceptusbibles.com/Edi.../BurgonAlexandrian

TEXTUSRECEPTUSBIBLES.COM

Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Textus Receptus Bibles

Steven Avery
James William Sheffield - however, there is no indication that John Burgon saw or handled either section of the ms.

James William Sheffield
Steven Avery Who has been allowed to examine them?

Steven Avery
James William Sheffield - wonderful question.
Definitely Constantine Tischendorf examined both sections!
Also Kirsopp Lake c. 1910 for his photography, was at both the Russian and Leipzig pages.
After that, in the critical period from 1845 to 2009, there are no confirmed scholars, palaeographers or individuals known to have examined both sections.
Scrivener wrote a book on it, without seeing or touching any part of the manuscript.
Two scholars, questionable on objectivity and approach, saw at least some of the Russian pages at a very early time, Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875), and Henry Bradshaw (1831-1886)
No record of the actual palaeographers, like Edward Maunde Thompson (1840-1929) and Victor Emil Gardthausen (1843-1925), actually seeing any part of the mansucript.
The general idea pushed by Tischendorf had been - "simply use my facsimile edition", which, however, carefully hid fundamental aspects. (As did the 2011 Hendrickson facsimile edition!) Adolf Hilgenfeld (1823-1907) objected to this approach, one problem was the $$ involved. Clearly a book about a manuscript is NOT the same thing as inspecting parchment, ink, codicology, etc.
Even the Russian scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946), who disputed the possibility that it could be very old, apparently was only working with the Russian pages. Morozov commented on how the Tischendorf placement of the bulk of the manuscript in Russia, away from European cultural centers, unreachable for European scholars, was deliberate in order to keep the plot going.
Afawk, Porfiry Uspensky never saw the German pages, and has a very pithy comment on the record about it not being an old manuscript, although he has other earlier comments that did see it as old.
And what Constantine Simonides created and saw is part of the big debate!
If the scholars in the midst of the 1860s controversies had insisted on inspecting the two sections, I doubt if Sinaiticus would have cut muster as from antiquity.

Garry Mitchell
Is there really any reason to indulge conspiracy theorists?

Ron Braswell
Gary Mitchell, those who accept the standard critical text are also conspiracy theorist, they just have a different conspiracy theory.

Steven Avery
Athos monks and Sinaiticus margin notes
And I think it would be a superb idea to research why two names, Dionysios the calligrapher and Hilarion the deacon, show up in 3 related spots:
=========
1) the history of Panteleimon monastery in Mt. Athos. The Simonides workspace c. 1840
2) Sinaiticus margin notes and siggies.
3) the fascinating Simonides account of the production and transportation and disposition/sale of the ms.
==========
These connections were left unstudied for 160 years, but today is a wonderful new day!

Cody Parrott
Regardless if it's from the 300 AD or so or 1800s, the very fact that it's completely intact from Egypt should tell you something.

Eric Rowe
Cody Parrott Why would being from Egypt mean that it shouldn't be intact?


Timothy Mitchell
Cody Parrott it's not completely intact


Cody Parrott
Eric Rowe you really don't get it do you? It means that the church didn't use it.


Cody Parrott
Timothy Mitchell it's in pretty good shape for its age.


Eric Rowe
Cody Parrott being from Egypt means the church didn’t use it?



Steven Avery
Cody Parrott - the manuscript understatement of the year - if it were 1650+ years old - super-amazing preservation, flexibility and youthfulness


Cody Parrott
Eric Rowe it wasn't handled constantly. It was hardly used.


Eric Rowe
Cody Parrott I don’t see how that relates to being from Egypt.


Timothy Mitchell
Cody Parrott only parts of it are in good shape. Lots of it is lost and a lot of it is damaged.


Timothy Mitchell
Cody Parrott have you ever seen in person or handled ancient manuscripts yourself?

LJ Thriepland
Fake or not...its a terrible manuscript ...


Robert Lee Vaughn
Elijah Hixson, you wrote that the idea that Codex Sinaiticus is a modern production has been “even taken up by people I’ve known and respected for decades.” I have expected that the perspectives on either side of this divide were pretty much set up in concrete with very little movement from one view to the other. Have you seen much of this, or is this something you regret but still have only seen a little of? Thanks.


James E Snapp Jr
Also:
https://www.amazon.com/Worlds-Oldest-Bible.../dp/B0CQPKBSX1

AMAZON.COM
The World's Oldest Bible: Reliable or a Liability?



Seth Knorr
If I was going to fake a manuscript I would make it more like Vaticanus. Just saying.