Thursday, December 1, 2022

Debate: Is Sinaiticus A Fake? Absolutely Not.

             Yesterday, I had the opportunity to debate Steven Avery on the subject of the genuineness of Codex Sinaiticus.  He alleged that it was produced in the 1800s; I maintained that it was produced in the 300s.  Our host was L. J. Thriepland, on the YouTube channel FollowInTruth LJ.  The debate lasted almost two hours.  (Those pressed for time may want to set the playback speed to x2.)

        Proverbs 27:2 says, "Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth."  So I welcome viewers/readers to watch the video, and ask themselves if there is any basis whatsoever for the claims about Sinaiticus that have been spread by Steven Avery, David Daniels, Chris Pinto, Bill Cooper, and David Sorenson.   I think that the evidence I have presented make it absolutely clear that the only motive for their support of Simonides' demonstrably false claims is linked to their KJV-Onlyism.

Constantine Simonides

     Simonides' claims are proven to be false by the same evidence, and more, that Constantine Tischendorf pointed out in a one-page note on page 478 of the 1863 Journal of Sacred Literature:  

       the NT text in Sinaiticus "differs essentially (principiell) in several thousand places from all the Moscow editions [the primary source Simonides said was used], and all the manuscripts which have been written for the past thousand years; occasionally it stands quite alone in its readings; sometimes it agrees only with the Vatican or the Cambridge manuscripts, and contains many readings which must appear gross heresies in a copy destined as a present to the orthodox emperor."  

       Sinaiticus "in the Old Testament, the text of Judith and Tobit "are of quite a different recension - a recension still preserved principally in old Latin and old Syriac documents."

       In addition to such proofs of Sinaiticus' antiquity, readers/viewers may consider the features of the manuscript that I pointed out in the debate:

       l Multiple scribes worked in the manuscript's production, shown by their different spelling, use of space-fillers, and replacement-pages.  This collides with Simonides' claim to have written the entire manuscript himself.

       l The manuscript was used for centuries, as shown by layers of correction and annotations (some in Arabic).

       l Reinforced lettering on multiple pages (in a manuscript that Simonides said was new in 1841).

       l Extensive damage to the manuscript in the books on the Pentateuch (in a manuscript that Simonides said was new in 1841).

       But I think the plainest evidence the Simonides lied habitually about the manuscript is his claim that after writing the Greek text of the Old and New Testaments, and the book of Barnabas, and the first part of Hermas, "the supply of parchment ran short."  He stated this in print in the 1863 For the 1975 New Finds included pages from Hermas from near the end of the book.  Simonides obviously did not know any more about the manuscript in 1863 than what he had read in Tischendorf's descriptions of it.

       People might ask, "Why would Simonides make such a claim?"  The answer is simple:  his motive was simple revenge; he hoped to besmirch Tischendorf because earlier, in 1856, Tischendorf had exposed his attempt to con German scholars into buying one of his forgeries.  

       It is no wonder that Tischendorf called Simonides' claims an "insane fancy."  He concluded his brief note in 1863 by saying, "Sound eyes and ordinary common sense are quite sufficient for the purpose of seeing the absurdity of the Simonides tale" - but, "mundus vulti decepi," and "volent[i] non fit injuria."

       (These two Latin phrase may be paraphrased as "The world wants to be fooled"  and "to a willing person, injury is not done" - a way of saying that those who listen to Simonides, knowing he was a seller of forgeries, have only themselves to blame for being deceived.  - A principle similar to, "You knew there was a risk of getting hit by a baseball when you went to the baseball game.")  

       Here are links to four earlier blog-posts in which I go into more detail on this subject:  One, Two, Three, Four.





Joel Metzger said...

Very interesting, thanks for your detailed analysis of this subject.

Charlie said...

I find it interesting that there are still individuals spouting that nonsense since the 1975 discovery of missing Sinaiticus pages after the hidden wall was discovered after the fire in St. George's Chapel at St. Catherine's monastery.

Martijn Linssen said...

Sinaiticus contains five instances of a plene Christ:

Leviticus 21:12 και εκ τω¯ αγιων ο̣ υκ εξελευϲεται και ου βεβηλωϲει̣ τ̣ ο ηγιαϲμενο¯ του θ̅υ ̅ αυτων οτι το αγιον ελαιον το χριϲτον του θ̅υ ̅ επ αυτω εγ ̣ ω κ̅ς ̅ (Scribe A)
Habakkuk 3:13 εξηλθεϲ ειϲ ϲωτηριαν λαου ϲου · του ϲωϲαι τον χριϲτον ϲου .
βαλιϲ ειϲ καιφαλαϲ ανομων θανατο¯ εξηγιραϲ δεϲμουϲ εωϲ τραχηλου διαψαλμα (Scribe B2)
1 Chronicles 16:22 μη αψηϲθε των . χρειϲτων μου τοιϲ προφηταιϲ μου μη πονηρευεϲθαι (Scribe A)
Psalms 104:15 μη απτεϲθαι των χρειϲτων μου και εν τοιϲ προφηταιϲ μου μη πονηρευεϲθε (Scribe A)
Revelation 12:10 και ηκουϲα φωνην μεγαλη¯ εν τω ουνω λεγουϲαν αρτι εγενετο η ϲωτηρια και η δυναμιϲ και η βαϲιλια του θυ ημω¯ και η εξουϲια του χριϲτου αυτου οτι εβληθη ο κατηγοροϲ των αδελφω¯ ημων ο κατηγορων αυτων ενωπιον του θυ ημω¯ ημεραϲ και νυκτοϲ (Scribe A)

Apologies for missing superlinears - but especially the unique reading in Revelation would be erratic and suicide at the same time. Do observe that which Sinaiticus says for the usual nine hotspots:

▪ Sinaiticus book 33, chapter 24, verse 24 (Matthew 24:24): ψευδοχριϲτοι
▪ Sinaiticus book 34, chapter 13, verse 22 (Mark 13:22): ψευδοχριϲτοι
▪ Sinaiticus book 51, chapter 11, verse 26 (Acts 11:26): χρηϲτιανουϲ
▪ Sinaiticus book 51, chapter 26, verse 28 (Acts 26:28): χρηϲτιανον
▪ Sinaiticus book 53, chapter 4, verse 16 (1 Peter 4:16): χρηϲτιανοϲ
▪ Sinaiticus book 55, chapter 2, verse 18 (1 John 2:18): αντιχριϲτοϲ, αντιχριϲτοι
▪ Sinaiticus book 55, chapter 2, verse 22 (1 John 2:22): αντιχριϲτοϲ
▪ Sinaiticus book 55, chapter 4, verse 3 (1 John 4:3): αντιχριϲτου
▪ Sinaiticus book 56, chapter 1, verse 8 (2 John 1:7): αντιχριϲτοϲ

Only a raving lunatic would attract this much suspicion and be this erratic. χρηϲτ is unique for Sinaiticus and doesn't get encountered again until the 10th*

*Depending on the INTF here, so YMMV even though the result set numbered into the hundreds

Martijn Linssen said...

For much more on Chrest vs Christ, Chrestian vs Christian, and the main Five Codices (and NHL),

Don't forget to look at:

Psalms 68:18 (69:17) even treats ταχὺ in ὅτι θλίβομαι, ταχὺ ἐπάκουσόν μου (for I-am-pressed, quickly listen-to me) as two words and marks χυ with a superlinear

Sparkling Clean Carpet Care said...

For top-notch tile and grout cleaning in Toledo Ohio, look no further! Our dedicated team utilizes advanced cleaning techniques to restore the shine and cleanliness of your tiles. Say goodbye to stubborn stains and grime as we meticulously clean and sanitize grout lines, leaving your surfaces looking brand new. We understand the importance of a pristine environment, and our skilled professionals are committed to delivering exceptional results.

Whether it's your kitchen, bathroom, or any tiled area, we bring expertise and efficiency to every job. Experience the difference with our reliable Tile and grout cleaning toledo ohio services – where excellence meets cleanliness in Toledo, Ohio!

Clayton Smith said...

Clayton Smith: Well Daniels has evidence though independent chemical testing that shows the ink used for the Sinaiticus is 19th century, both written, and art! This is very telling, this alone makes me reject it as a fraudulent/fake. He has a video with an expert chemist.