Steven Avery
Administrator
- Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?
Had it been original, it would be in all of the manuscripts. But the variant is only in a few manuscripts that did not make it beyond the 4th century. It died out because it was never in many manuscripts. Probably came into existence in the 2nd century. Monogenes theos occurs in the majority of...
forums.carm.org
Yet John Eliot Hodgkin gave solid help to James Anson Farrer in the Sinaiticus issues even 40 years later. Farrer had the new Athos Library Spyridon Lambrou catalogue confirmation of Simonides with Kallinikos in hand and a far more objective approach than the Investigative Clowns of the 1860s.
The animus towards Simonides transferred itself from issues like the Mayer papyri and Uranios over to Sinaiticus. This is understandable, in a sense, but not a good way to determine the age of a manuscript. The big knock against Simonides was that if he was involved with Sinaiticus, it must have been intended to deceive (Tregelles, Wright, Orthodox Review.) Maybe that is correct, but it is NOT an argument against the Athos creation. They could easily have intended it as a replica, in fact or theory, and later it morphed into the sale to Constantius.
The Clowns accepted the Tischendorf fabrications and ultra-early and absurd Sinaticius date without any access to either section of the manuscript. It was an absolute necessity to see both sections considering the colouring and staining report. Even one section properly examined would raise hugh warning flags, both and the jig would be over.
And, yes, Simonides was such a sly fellow, "deception" that he could easily have sold the Athos-Sinaiticus manuscript to Constantius. Simonides received 25,000 piastres in 1841 for manuscripts where Sinaiticus was clearly the highlight. And it is possible that Simonides led him to believe it was produced way back when.
Simonides seeing Constantius in 1841 is independently given by Nikolos Farmakidis as well. The age of coincidences, the library confirmation, and Hermas from Simonides before 1859 and the Tischendorf double-spin. And the inside knowledge of the 1844 theft.
You used to argue that Simonides and Constantius would not be connected at all.
Tischendorf ran right over to Constantius in Constantinople after the 1844 theft, out of the way for no known reason. He likely was quietly told that this was the manuscript source, so a visit there might help things along. (Tischendorf would have to be a bit cagey, since it is unlikely that he told Constantius that he had taken out a chunk! Nobody was supposed to know that, not even Uspensky! Thus he kept the CFA source hidden till 1859 and publicly even later.)
Claiming that Simonides was tricky and sly with manuscripts is NOT an argument against Sinaiticus being produced in Mt. Athos. As Charles Van der Pool of the Apostolic Polyglot Bible pointed out, it would be a "credential".
The evidence for the c. 1840 Mt. Athos production of Sinaiticus is multifold, compelling and probative.
- Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?
Had it been original, it would be in all of the manuscripts. But the variant is only in a few manuscripts that did not make it beyond the 4th century. It died out because it was never in many manuscripts. Probably came into existence in the 2nd century. Monogenes theos occurs in the majority of...
forums.carm.org
Let's add that Simonides was very specific about this transfer in 1841, which led to Tischendorf in Sinai taking part of the manuscript in 1844, and then running over to Constantius! Then taking the rest in 1859.
(Somehow Tischendorf knew to go straight from the Vatican in 1843, where he was lauded, to Sinai, where super-manuscript resided. If you understandably wonder why there might be some Jesuit connection with the Eastern Orthodox, you should also be wondering why the Protestant Lutheran Tischendorf was lauded by the papacy.)
Simonides discussed in depth John Prodromus of the coffee-shop in Galata, his dad having the church in Trebizond, Anthimus, Constantius, the corrections in Antigonus and Germanus bringing over the manuscript to Sinai. Everything here fits in perfectly with the provenance of Sinaiticus beginning c. 1840.
This history is 1,000 times more sensible than sitting in Sinai for 1,500 years, no records at all. And not one word of the New Testament being lost, and the parchment being in phenomenally good condition, super-flexible, before we even get into the amazing colouring of the 1859 leaves, while 1844 remains "notable for their whiteness", and consistent colouring, no awkward staining.