the "New Testament Textual Criticism" critics on Facebook

Steven Avery

With the David W. Daniels Sinaiticus book:

"Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' A Fake? - David W. Daniels

coming forth shortly, Facebook friends, and anyone, are welcome to continue these discussions at either:



The discussion spots now set up:


Pure Bible Forum

the "New Testament Textual Criticism" critics on Facebook

This is part of:a new sub-forum:

Is the "World's Oldest Bible" A Fake? - David W. Daniels - Jan. 2018






And I use the PBF for my longer-term analysis, since the reading and editing is easier and more flexible, and it is visible in the board hierarchy. Most of our friends are Facebook oriented, all three venues are open.


Steven Avery

Steven Avery

New Testament Textual Criticism - Facebook

"Is the 'World's Oldest Bible' A Fake? - David W. Daniels

there is a bit of apoplexy in the censored forum (While they freely try to attack me by name, and make many false statements, they will not allow my responses on forum, which is a bit tacky.) New Testament Textual Criticism.

James M Leonard hosts (with some admins who are contra-Sinaiticus consideration) the New Testament Textual Criticism forum. Here we have a number of contras putting forth their perspectives.

For the PICS bigger and more .. go to the thread as well!

New Testament Textual Criticism


Glynn Brown - Dec 30, 2017
The Simonides conspiracy theory is alive and well in kjvo groups. David Daniels, Stephen Avery,and others take it seriously. It amazes me how anyone could take it seriously. My question is,why are some of the leaves white?
Glynn is an active contra-AV poster on Facebook, however his question here is fair enough, at least a good starting point.

This question was my original puzzle-point when I saw the reference from Uspensky on Wikipedia (using the Russian translation tool) to his having seen a "white parchment" manuscript. Although at that time, 1845, Uspensky was referring to the whole manuscript, not two sections that had gone to Leipzig in 1844.

Elijah Hixson Could be either differing conditions for where the leave have been kept since Tischendorf and/or differences in the conditions in which the leaves were photographed. Photography conditions make a HUGE difference, and you can tell by the color charts that the cameras used by the different holding institutions were not color-balanced the same way when the images were taken. You can see how this affects brightness even on an iPhone. Just open your camera app, focus on something dark and then change the focus to something light and see how that affects the whole image.

On storage conditions affecting color, here is a guest post I wrote a few months ago on N[022]. The two pages pictured are consecutive—right next to each other—and have only been separated since probably the 1890s (=not as long as the Leipzig leaves have been separated from the rest of Sinaiticus!). I will add that I've seen photos of the leaf of N at the Morgan Library, but I've also seen that leaf with my own eyes—one the photos I've seen looks absolutely nothing like the leaf itself.
This is one of many absurd attempts to dismiss the colour disparity, a disparity that even the British Library acknowledges. The photography of Leipzig and London was of top-quality, with a special committee making sure that the photography standards were excellent and implemented to a high degree of accuracy. Therefore any photography variations would be very minor.

Elijah pulls out some unknown photography comparisons (presumably done with independent settings) of a manuscript with purple dye, where the purple dye was, perhaps, effected differently by different environments in two locations. So what? Sinaiticus is not supposed to be a dyed manuscript. There is no situation with an amazing white parchment section after a supposed 1500+ years of heavy travel and use.

This is simply absurdity, but that is because Elijah, and the textual critics, do not want to understand the amazing situation with Codex Sinaiticus. So they just come up with a bunch of nothings.

<a class="uiLinkSubtle" href="" data-ft="{"tn":"N"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_timestamp"><abbr class="livetimestamp" title="Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 6:02am" data-utime="1514631728" data-minimize="true" data-shorten="true"></abbr>
Alex Sacc?
Even if it were fake hows that help kjv only since we dont need sinaiticus we have vaticanus, papyri etc.

Tommy Wasserman These guys are amazing, I don’t think anyone of them can actually read a Greek manuscript. And Avery and others try to prove that Sinaiticus was copied from Claromontanus based on selected cases of haplography (if I remember correctly). That is just amazing. It is sad that they might succeed to fool untrained laymen.

James M Leonard "These guys" i.e., those who make the forgery claim, and "amazing" in that they make such assertions with so little academic knowledge.

Tommy Wasserman James M. Leonard - yes. These guys, Daniels and Avery (whose real name is not ”Avery”).

Bill Brown Thomas Wasserman - And this is why the academics - in this case - need to absolutely smash them. I don’t usually look at it that way but this particular subject demands the deepest of ridicule and pointing out “why.” Your understanding is correct. They’ve found a couple of similar endings with Claromontanus and decided it is therefore a source. When I pointed out to one of the stooges the fact Simonides could have ended the argument by making this claim, he dodged with “but they didn’t believe him when he said X.” Their entire enterprise is “A said this but B said that, hmmmmm????”

James Dowden What's worse is that they can't express their arguments concisely. It's barely tolerable when it comes from a genuine scholar, but when it's this sort of nonsense, I really don't know how anybody has the patience to read it.

Glynn Brown What is Avery's real name ,Tommy?

Bill Brown
Glynn Brown - Steven Avery Spenser - And the hypocrite has spent years attacking other people for “hiding” things and making it his mission to reveal the real names of Internet posters while pretending to be transparent by using his “real” name.

Tommy Wasserman Bill Brown, I think Stephen Spencer.
Somewhat of a sickly series of posts. None of these gentlemen have any idea of the real issues around Codex Sinaiticus. Not one.

Oh, my full name is Steven Avery Spencer, you can see Steven Spencer on LinkedIn. However, years back, I took Steven Avery as a pen name on the internet, for interesting reasons that are not too relevant. That is how I am known in Bible circles.

Thomas Wasserman once again makes the false claim that none of the SART member team can read a Greek manuscript. We have two researchers who have looked at issues like the homoeoteleutons and the Hermas and Barnabas linguistics who are quite familiar with Greek. However, many of the Sinaiticus historical evidences have absolutely nothing to do with reading Greek.

James Dowden raises one interesting point. Can we express the issues more concisely? Perhaps there could be a 5-page paper, but really, shows you many of the issues in a clear and compelling manner.

As David W. Daniels said in a recent conversation:

If they're troubled, maybe they'll actually read the book!
Then they'll see it's not just one issue or question, but multi-faceted.
Jared Lind To piggy back off Elijah Hixson, the pages are made of parchment. Since no two animal skins are the same even if they are bleached to close approximation they aren't going to be identical. This means they will darken differently as they age. Furthermore certain pages will simply be read more. This frequency of use will add far more wear and tear on those pages most visited.

Buck Daniel Two cases in point: 61 is the only monolingual pre-Erasman Greek ms with the CJ in the text. Naturally that page was of prime interest and was handled so much that a rumor arose to the effect that it must have been a cancel-sheet, due to looking so different than the surrounding pages. 02 is the other one, in which continued close examination of its reading at 1 Tim 3:16 over the centuries gradually erased the bar on the theta.
This shows that Jared simply does not understand the situation with Codex Sinaiticus. And Daniel joins him with a couple of irrelevancies. It is like they underwent seminary training to learn how not to think.

Some nonsense stuff about mermaids I skip.

Elijah Hixson I wonder how much they paid to use those images that they don't own in a publication like that.

Timothy Mitchell Lets hope they obtained permission!
Suggestion to Elijah and Timothy.
Look up fair use.

And the composite picture is, quite obviously, a new and originsl work.

Skip an irrelevant diversion into the LXX, Origen and the Hexapla.

<a class="uiLinkSubtle" href="" data-ft="{"tn":"N"}" data-testid="ufi_comment_timestamp"><abbr class="livetimestamp" title="Saturday, December 30, 2017 at 11:38am" data-utime="1514651890" data-minimize="true" data-shorten="true"></abbr>
Timothy Mitchell Stephen Avery has attacked me on my blog as well. It's frustrating. I just don't understand what stake they have in the charade.

Glynn Brown Anything to undermine the modern versions, attacking Sinaiticus, vaticanus, Westcott and Hort. Avery is a kjvo fanatic.

Jonathan McCormick To stop the mermaid killing, servants of Satan working for HarperCollins. Study it out, man.

Jared W Saltz Mostly to maintain power in their own group.
Another group of sickly posts. Timothy is upset because I sometimes correct his blog, and point out things he missed. btw, his blog is often pretty good, and I never attack Timothy.

It might have been interesting if they have written anything of substance.