Simonides and Sinaiticus -

Steven Avery

CARM 12-28-2015

CFA and Sinaiticus - let's go to the videotape

The question of the many ties of Simonidies to the Sinaiticus manuscript is very significant, and can be handled separately. This post has a different purpose, although there will be overlap.


First, the dichotomy of the truthfulness of Tischendorf or Simonides in the harumphs is obviously implied. Simply by the fact that they offer quite different histories and if they both are wrong, which seems to be frequently the case, then it is time to search for the third way. We do that, the authenticity supporters do not. They would take the false position that a dark Simonides means he did not work on the manuscript, an absurd conclusion. It is trivially obvious that it is a false conclusion to say that because Simonides deceived on A, his claims of working on the Sinaiticus manuscript were simply an awkward blind claim, a stab in the dark, of what turns out to be a group of absolutely amazing "coincidences".

The fact that Simonides and Tischendorf were both capable of lying and other manuscript problems (e.g. Tischendorf was an accomplished thief) means very little in this whole scenario. Something quite unusual happened in Sinai. In fact, the calligraphy and manuscript and forgery skills of Simonides are part of the skill-set that can help explain how Sinaiticus arose. And why it has such incredible anomalies such as the very extra-NT Greek books, missing for a millennium and more, produced by Simonides c. 1840s and 1850s coincidentally show up in Sinaiticus.


Let's not forget the basics:

Why did Tischendorf make up such grandiose lies about his finding of the manuscript?

By whom and why was the manuscript darkened?

These are fundamental questions in any reconstruction of events, as a forensic historian.


Once we accept that all sides were capable of lying for convenience, the whole argument that Simonides (and Kallinikos) embellished or misremembered the events of 20 years earlier, or deceived on some secondary point, such as the original motivation and crew behind the creation of the manuscript, becomes only a minor issue.

e.g. Perhaps Simonides wrote virtually all the New Testament and Barnabas (as what we call scribe A) that could easily lead to Kallinikos considering him the scribe of the manuscript. This matches the fact that Simonides wrote a full "Sinaitic" Barnabas in 1843 in addition to the Hermas "coincidence", one of so many.

"The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance" - James Anson Farrer

We do not have to ultra-parse every comment made c. 1860 about events c. 1840. We do have to get the general picture and make note of special actions, such as Kallinikos nailing the Greek-bumbling thief Tischendorf to the wall as to his manuscript mangling (dismantling the book seen by Uspensky 1845-1850 after having pulled out the 5+ quires in 1844) and thievery and Greek stuttering. (And, let's add, more conjecturally, when we place Simonides as one scribe, that the proposed hieroglyphics are also from scribe A.)

Remember: the fact that Tischendorf lied about 1844 and 1859 does not change the fact that he brought the manuscript out of Sinai. Similarly, if Simonides embellished the events of 1839-1843 to make a shady enterprise look like the purity of Biblical charity, that should not surprise us one bit. Simonides, like Tischendorf, had darknesses. As far as we can tell, neither was walking in a Holy Spirit apostolic holiness and anointing. Both were historically involved with the Codex Frederico-Augustantus and then Sinaiticus ms times and events. Tischendorf was seeking his delusions of grandeur of dozens of titles and honorary names strung together, while he was selling and squirreling away significant manuscripts and leaves that he purloined. Yet he conned much of the textual establishment. Similarly, Simonides had his whole bag of issues.

The coincidences and historical events and physical nature of the manuscript and linguistic evidences give huge support to the Simonides involvement. However, such a manuscript may or may not have been simply a benevolent gesture for the czar. Maybe there was some chicanery involved.

In fact, there was all sorts of unusual goings on with Tischendorf and the Vatican (e.g. Tischendorf in 1871, shortly before his passing at a young age, specifically wrote that he had made a copy of Vaticanus in the 1840s, contradicting his earlier accounts. Beyond that there was the Cardinal heaping praises, virtually kissing Tischendorf's feet, when Sinaiticus was moving along.) And we have the quirky situation of Fenton Hort expecting "rich materials" from Tischendorf in the same years that Sinaiticus was being amazingly "discovered".

Connecting all the dots does become somewhat conjectural, but nothing seems to be on the up-and-up, especially once we realize that the Sinaiticus manuscript (the 90% that went to Russia and then England) was deliberated stained and coloured. And I tend to doubt that the snow-white pristine manuscript would have stood up to continued scrutiny as a proposed heavily-utilized century-by-century 4th century creation.

As to scribes, we know the manuscript had a number of hands in the full OT-NT Hermas and Barnabas production. Simply the facts on the ground, just like the colouring and darkening of the manuscript is a fact on the ground. Thus, in viewing the 1839-43 creation possibility, we can discard the scenario that only one hand did the mass of the manuscript. Which also eliminates all the questions about.. how could a youth do so much copying so quickly? There were 3 or 4 individuals who did the mass of the work, whether in 4th-7th century or 19th century.

And in the 1840s scenario, there was plenty of opportunity through at least 1859, with the manuscript bumping around Sinai and then Cairo, for corrections, squiggles, sections, Arabic and many of the additional various elements that are guessed for various centuries in the more difficult long-term scenario. The strange situation of many correctors can fit more easily the short-term scenario. It is virtually impossible to imagine the unbound and bound, multiple century use, more use and abuse scenario fitting with the pristine CFA or with the New Testament not even missing a part of a column, after a supposed 1500 years of heavy use.


We know that the Sinaiticus ms. was tampered with after 1844 and before 1862. This is easily verified historically and has:


a) physical manuscript backing. All the testimony from 1845 to today concurs that the ms. was like the CFA .. pristine snow-white .. originally, yet the part to Russia was yellowed, stained with age by 1862

b) Uspensky testimony of an almost complete white parchment Bible. The British Library manuscript apologist-handlers thus theorize a quick full rebinding in 1844, without even a smidgen of real evidence.

c) the New Finds evidence. Where parts of what Uspensky took out correlate with what ended in the room. Where the ending of Hermas in the room correlates with the Hermas problems faced by Tischendorf.

d) And there is corroborating historical accusation backing from Kallinikos, a person who clearly knew Tischendorf to a "T", and T's machinations at the monastery. And we know that these accusations and connections and claims of involvement with the manuscript were made before there was any public publication of Codex Sinaiticus as a full Bible or as a manuscript from St. Catherines. And they included the very mangling and colouring and aging of the manuscript that is our evidence (a)


It is time for those who have been somnambulistic about all this to wake up and smell the herb tea or coffee (is that what is in the stains?). Add some lemon-juice. (Teccino was not available at the time.) At the very least, ask for, demand, independent physical testing of the materials and ink of the two parts of the manuscript. The German materials group BAM was planning in April, 2015 to do the first real testing ever on Sinaiticus. (On the German part.) This was cancelled. Let the textual scholars and public ask for 2016.

Meanwhile, there is plenty to do for our textual and linguistic scholars with the material offered by James Donaldson and the 1843 Barnabas Sinaiticus essentially rediscovered by one Chris Pinto. Let's really look at The Tale of Two Manuscripts, and stop burying the scholarship heads in the sand.


Palaeographic Postscript

Reading the handwriting scripts is not a time-symmetrical enterprise. The earliest date, the terminus post quem is can be quite accurate. Nobody in 1700 was able to emulate a 1900s handwriting. Thus the 1900s handwriting can tell you that the letter was written no earlier than .. 1900. The terminus ante quem is another story. A good calligrapher can beat up any time limitation proposal. A skilled person in modern times can actually write just like 1611, even the printing of 1611! Or 350 AD. As for the related fields like codicology, Sinaiticus comes out with anomalies galore with the modern theory.


CARM 12-30-2015

the question remains .. Who Darkened Sinaiticus? .. And why? how? where? and when?

The question remains:

.. Who Darkened Sinaiticus?

And why? how? where? and when?

Cui bono? -
who benefits?

Interesting in this context is the question as to whether a careful examination of a manuscript that has hundreds of leaves like the CFA (the 10% that left in 1844) would have been likely to lead to difficult codicology and palaeography questions about the pristine condition. The question is historically conjectural, yet it remains. And it is one possible and sensible answer as to the why.

As a help, we would want to compare Sinaiticus with other parchment manuscripts thought to be around 1500 years old, that also had substantial use. In addition to the internal comparisons within Sinaiticus. (Our team is working on bringing some of this visually to the net, although anyone can easily leaf through the CSP for the basics.)

Also if there are any other objections to pointing out this colouring, and asking why, this remains a good thread on which to place objections, since many of the objections have been discussed and answered here already.

On the censored forum that is notable for vulgar attacks and other silly stuff, one poster did offer this more mature attempt at dismissal:

> Ken Willy or brandpluckt (forum names only, real name unknown)
> I can't believe Avery is still into that "Sinaiticus is a forgery" nonsense. I guess some are more easily duped than others. When will he realize that no one takes him seriously?

And the answer to that is simple. Open your eyes. The manuscript was darkened, yellowed and stained. (This was even directly accused of having occurred at the time by an inside the monastery voice.) Even if you want to believe that this does not materially affect authenticity (ie. it only has to do with materials
) the moment you look at that issue sensibly and objectively, you will join in asking for a public reopening of the discussion of the history and provenance of Sinaiticus. (Afaik, the last important discussions outside a 4th-century presupposition were in the 1860s and 1870s. Although David Trobisch is said to have questioned whether it is really as old as 4th century in recent years). Oh, you might join in also asking for independent material testing as well, similar in nature as to what was done with the Dead Sea Scrolls by the German lab BAM, Bundesanstalt f?r Materialforschung, in Berlin.

This will not go away. The CSP evidence is available for anyone and matches exactly what was said in the 1800s and early 1900s. Even if the CSP picture were taken down, it would matter little, since the disparity has been acknowledged and the important pages studied closely. The historical descriptions of the manuscript are available. The scholars, if they are really scholars, will slowly wake up.

The diversionary attempts at dismissal (e.g. claiming that the big issue is whether or not Simonides is generally truthful and reliable) will be put in their very limited place, while real research continues.

And this about the darkening of the ms is before, and without, getting into the other issues, such as the Hermas coincidence and its linguistic anomallies, the problems in the standard explanations, the early Simonides assertions of involvement dated to even before the supposed red cloth find of Tischendorf, the Farrer-Lambrou Athos history and the 1843 "Sinaitic" Barnabas published in Smyrna. And more.


On a theoretical and conceptual level, I might prefer to write about the excellence of the Reformation Bible, and the fulcrum verse in the Battle of the Bible (the heavenly witnesses), the special place of the AV as the English Holy Bible and other topics. However, as a historical investigation (forensic historian) Sinaiticus has a special appeal. Now, I used to want to avoid and dismiss the discussions (see e.g. my 2011 position) partly because I felt the manuscript itself was textually unclean and worthless. Why bother getting involved one way or another? And I had up to a point accepted some superficial analysis given in the standard textual literature that was largely based on historical misrepresentations and omissions.

When the "Sinaitic" Barnabas of 1843, the James Donaldson linguistic objections and the "white parchment" colouring issues, supported by a simple look at the leaves at the CSP site, came to the fore (along with the realization that Simonides was raising the issue before Sinaiticus was publicly known), and some others also saw the basic problem clearly, then I realized that it is an honourable service to continue to make solid information available. Let's see if we can find the truth of the manuscript.

In fact, this is an honourable scholarship and Bible service no matter what the final result. It is always remotely possible that some sort of authenticity proof could come forth. After all, all that is needed is one solid proof that the Sinaiticus manuscript existed before around 1830 to undue the alternate scenario of creation around 1839-1843. And thus just about the only option would be that Sinaiticus was written c. 4th century, and no later than around the 6th.

In such a historical reconstruction of an ancient ms, the colouring would then be understood as an unnecessary mistake by somebody, sort of a nervous Nellie.

However, to date, despite a number of claims and attempts, every supposed solid evidence that Sinaiticus even existed before 1830 has fallen to the ground. And some of the attempts (e.g. the ancient catalog, the New Finds) on closer examination work against the common antiquity position.


CARM 12-30-2015
issues on the Sinaiticus production go way beyond the 1860s assertions of Simonides

So now let us review some of the ties of Simonides to Sinaiticus, and more specifically the evidences that it is an 1800s production rather than from around the 4th century. The issue is the group of evidences that support a 1800s production. Some we will not go into here in any depth, such as the poof provenance of Sinaiticus, the missing ancient catalog or the New Finds. We will simply stick with some of the most significant.

It is wrongly implied that the only connection is a plotted petty, vindicative fabrication from Simonides. In actuality we have:

a) an amazing web of coincidences around the Shepherd of Hermas published by Simonides in 1856, before the supposed Sinaiticus red cloth discovery of Tischendorf. This is a Greek text, the first Greek Hermas extant, with many similarities to the Sinaiticus Hermas. This had already been published by Simonides a few years before the Sinaiticus partial Hermas. (From the New Finds we learn that the rest of Hermas was chopped off, a whole nother discussion, one in which it is good to remember the nature of the Hermas embarrassment to Tischendorf.) Tischendorf was even forced to retract an attack on the Simonides Hermas because it would work against the idea of the Sinaiticus Hermas antiquity. The Scottish scholar James Donaldson wrote on this in depth. In the giddy rush to accept Tischendorf and Sinaiticus, and use them to push for the Revision and the new Greek recension of Westcott and Hort, his learned analysis was simply bypassed.

b) the simple fact that the words from Simionides about involvement in Sinaiticus came forth before the Tischendorf red cloth incident. Thus Simonides was clearly informed about the manuscript and the happenings in Sinai. This is a corroboration of the essential base events of his words. And it refutes the common motive ascribed to Simonides (e.g. by Samuel Tregelles and William Aldis Wright) that the claims were reactive, and made only in jealousy and vindictiveness contra the fame of Tischendorf. Simonides was talking about a manuscript and situation in Sinai that he was not even supposed to know existed! How could Simonides be petty and vindictive about a manuscript that he supposedly did not even know existed?

c) An addition to (b) is that the events of Sinai were exposed by his contact Kallinikos . The bumbling Greek of Tischendorf, the fact that the 1844 manuscript was simply taken from Sinai, not saved from burning. And the bogus loan promises in 1859, as well as mangling the manuscript, these were all exposed by Kallinikos at a time when none of this was understood in the popular press. And we see this later given many corroborations, such as the bumbling Greek in Tischendorf's own writing, the secretive taking in 1844 in the correspondence with his family (at that time he said the letters simply came into his possession) and other historical confirmations. Humorous and helpful in this regard is the account given by the barrister William George Thorpe.

d) The actual physical condition of the ms, the Codex Frederico-Augustanus. The white parchment unstained part, is consistent with a recent manuscript. And at the time of Uspensky, this was the condition of the whole manuscript. (In fact, the only part not seen by Uspensky was the part that had already left to Germany.) Thus the bulk of the manuscript was later darkened and stained, which would be very helpful to passing it off as 4th century. The actual 1845 physical condition of the Sinaitic manuscript, as confirmed by the physical examination of Uspensky, fits well with the recent ms claim of Simonides. Plus we see that we can find means, motive and opportunity behind the coloring by staining of Sinaiticus. Curiously, testing that might give great help in regard to the parchment and ink has never been done.

e) About the physical condition (d), this is again corroborated by the specific statements from Sinai that Tischendorf had mutilated the manuscript. And had yellowed it, in a way that is consistent with trying to give it an appearance of age. The author of these expositions, Kallinikkos, was essentially accepted as giving a Sinai account by James Anson Farrer, seeing the historicity support of the Lambrou catalog of Mt. Athos manuscripts published in 1895 and 1900. In fact, it is virtually impossible to explain the insight given by Kallinikos to the events of the 1840s and 1850s with any other explanation than his having been at the monastery, having met Tischendorf and witnessing the manuscript events of the times.

f) The 1843 Barnabas publication, the Sinaitic Barnabas, a history recently rediscovered by Chris Pinto. Again we have the first Greek Barnabas, similar to the Hermas situation, both by Simonides, and it is published before even the first Sinaiticus discovery of Tischendorf. This was one factor that helped convince Scottish scholar James Donaldson (along with the related also amazingly coincidental Hermas situation) that the Sinaitic ms. is not consistent with a 4th century text.

g) The actual set of linguistic arguments given by James Donaldson, from Hermas and Barnabas, that he used as evidence that those texts were not actually of the 4th century antiquity commonly proclaimed in the textual circles. These arguments were all given after the early 1860s Simonides-Tischendorf related debates. Those debates were largely 1861-1863, while Donaldson's major writings on the linguistic topics of Hermas and Barnabas were 1864-1874.

h) A group of glaring difficulties an anomalies in the standard scenario. One example of many. Following the Tischendorf story, it is theorized that he found a loose manuscript (yet the NT after 1500+ years of heavy use was totally undamaged!) and yet it was quickly patched up into a new binding in 1844. So the codex could be seen by Uspensky. And then that new binding disintegrated into nothingness. This is all promulgated without any real evidence, just due to the major error of accepting the Tischendorf stories as factual. And everywhere you turn on the physical and historical reconstructions, anomalies abound.


Notice that many of these evidences have little to do with the precise claims of Simonides. Some of the most important have to do with the physical condition of the manuscript, the Tale of Two Manuscripts. This is something about which Simonides likely had no direct influence (although Kallinikos acted as a reporter) and which involves Uspensky, Tischendorf, Scrivener, Dobsch?tz and others. As well as the new information made available by the 2009 CSP.

Another major groups of evidences are linguistic and historical and revolve around texts that were published prior to 1859. Again, there was little specific discussion about this in the Simonides discussions of the early 1860s.

Thus, very little of a proper analysis of Sinaiticus 1840s-1862 revolves around the specifics of the claims of Simonides. In fact, we can safely conclude that, if Simonides worked on the manuscript, he, like Tischendorf, fudged elements of the story he gave. Thus it becomes our job to become forensic historians. We can research the issues, share what we find, and watch the reactions.

The group of evidences above, however, are truly compelling. A careful examination shows that today's historical reconstructions and stories and fables are basically worthless. And anyone who tries to handwave them by saying .. oh, no, it is simply the word of Simonides .. shows a bit of scholastic blindness. That is ok, the history and evidences speak for themselves. Over time, even the scholarship world can catch up

Last edited:

Steven Avery

start with the basics - the evidences do not revolve around the word of Simonides

CARM 1-1-2016

iron sharpeneth

About eight strong evidences (some of the major ones) that point to the c.1840s creation of Sinaiticus were given in the posts above. And I am wondering if there are any posters on this forum who will actually respond to the points, or offer sensible counterpoints. Personally, I not concerned with polemical tricks or games. They are big yawners

If Sinaiticus is authentic 4th century, or 4th-7th century, that is fine by me (textually, it is a trash manuscript either way) .. I simply want to see the actual evidence and compare it with the evidence that the manuscript is modern. All types of evidences, historical, physical, manuscript, textual. What actually fits what we know about the manuscript, and the times, about the people, about the provenance, about physical conditions of manuscripts and ink. And what explains those of pesky 'facts on the ground.' What are the hard evidences, what are the soft evidences.

And those potential arguments for authenticity can include any evidence that is used by James Keith Elliott (not referencing books without ever indicating what is supposedly there, wasting time), or other sources. Especially anything new that has not been properly discussed. Those evidences can come from English, German or Russian books (including the fascinating literature from the 1840s to the 1870s) or other languages, the Grolier library, any of the sources overseas such as the British Library stash or the Australian set of letters to Henry Deane or the Gennadius Library (in Athens) information or the Dirk Jongkind paper and book, or the CSP papers online, or the book on the 2009 conference. Or they can be related to the New Finds, or the recent 1843 Sinaitic Barnabas find. Anything substantive is interesting.

Even an attempt to answer the points in the posts above (e.g. how did 90% of the manuscript that stayed in Sinai after the 1844 heist get darkened? how did Simonides know about Sinaiticus before the red cloth incident? how did the Barnabas 1843 Sinaitic text get published?) etc. Any real substance would be worthwhile.

Even an attempt to make arguments that might tend to prove authenticity, e.g. about the binding (e.g. if the manuscript had two bindings before Douglas Cockerell, that would be a real evidence that is hard to reconcile with an 1840s production) or the supposed ancient catalog that has never been produced that was claimed to reference the manuscript, or the awkward claims trying to use Vitaliano Dotali (those were tried by Robert Frazier, however the thread is now defunct) or any other potentially strong evidence for authenticity would be interesting.

Then we could compare evidences of antiquity and those of modern origin.

Interestingly, there are a number of claimed and potential proofs, that would be super-solid evidence for authenticity, that have poofed away upon examination, leaving the poof provenance problem.

Any solid posters want to try to work with us as forensic historians?


At any rate, you can look forward to more solid information coming to the net! Especially issues involving the actual anomalies with the Tale of Two Manuscripts and additional manuscript puzzles. The truth is not in a hurry
, and does not waver by huffings and puffings.
CARM 1-2-2015

start with the basics - the evidences do not revolve around the word of Simonides

The simple problem is that the evidences above do not rest solely on the word of Simonides. Simply read a-h above, this was gone over very clearly. Many, Simonides could not cause or even influence in his supposed anachronistic motive of wanting revenge on Tischendorf (anachronistic because Simonides talked of the ms contribution even before the supposed red cloth discovery that led to the Tischendorf fame and fortune and position.)

Start with the basics. Simonides did not cause the poof providence of the manuscript, the total lack of historical verification before 1844. If one such verification had come forth (like the supposed ancient catalog) and stood up to examination, there would never be a question. Simonides did not rewrite the history of the manuscript to prevent any knowledge of the manuscript, he did not go into the St. Catherine's back rooms looking for catalogs to destroy. He did not purge any entries in history (e.g. Vaticanus, for all its difficulties like the overwriting, has a lineage clearly back to the 1400s.) The lack of any reference to the ms before it appears from Tischendorf and Uspensky (loaded with a Greek Hermas and Greek Barnabas strangely akin to texts recently published by .. hmmm .. Simonides) in the mid 1840s is simply an historical fact.

Now lets return to a-h and show how bogus is the claim that they depend on the word of Simonides.

e.g. The coincidence of the 1856 Hermas pubication, with the attendant Tischendorf flip and retraction, is an historical fact, about which James Anson Farrer wrote quite astutely "The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance". That "coincidence" is not based on the word of Simonides, it is an historical fact. How many of the scholars today discuss this fact and the Tischendorf retraction of his position.

The 1843 "Sinaitic" Barnabas is an actual publication, reviewed at the time. Show us one discussion of this publication by Elliott, Wallace and company.

The linguistic arguments about the texts of the two books Hermas and Baranabas were developed by Scottish scholar James Donaldson in 1864-1874. These are historical facts, placed into publication after the major English Simonides brouhaha of 1862-63. Unanswered. Where does Elliott and Wallace and the others address these arguments? Why would anyone falsely claim that those linguistic arguments against Sinaiticus antiquity have anything to do with the word of Simonides.

Similarly, the darkening and staining of the bulk of the manuscript (what did not leave Sinai in 1844) was long after Simonides could do anything at all with the manuscript, per the contra-1840 position. It is simply an historical fact that we can see from the writings of Uspesnksy, Tischendorf, Dobsch?tz and others, and is easily confirmed by our examination available since 2009 courtesy of the Codex Sinaiticus Project.

It is simply a false statement to say that such evidences rest on the word of Simonides. A statement that is clearly, and at this point knowingly, false. Since all of this is gone over right above. Making irrelevant any post that starts with that assertion.

The only sense in which these histories depend on Simonides is that the Simonides claims worked as a spur to examination of all the evidences around the manuscript. And his assertions, including what Kallinikos added from the monastery in the 1840s and 1850s, are in a general way consistent with the actual historic evidences. In a way that does not apply to the Tischendorf claims.

The rest of the post above begs the same questions as before. Sinaiticus lacks testing of materials and inks, which cripples the very limited palaoegraphic analysis to date. Analysis which has generally been done from the 4th century presuppositions, and often directly under the auspicies and financial position and support of those for whom the manuscript is a precious gem and questioning authenticity would be .. awkward. Peer pressure can lead to stumbling science.

Then you also have the totally bogus presupposition of a Tischendorf essential storyline reliability. (e.g. A rebinding of the ms. is theorized to have occurred in 1844, solely based on accepting the fantasy storyline for 1844 that Tischendorf first gave in 1859, for political chicanery purposes.) Time to step back and start over.

Please read the palaeographic postscript above and try to understand the point that palaeographic analysis is not time-symmetrical in dealing with replicas and forgeries. And often it really needs testing of chemicals and inks, as occurs with the Dead Sea Scrolls, the Vinland Map and other items. What caused that colour? When and where was that ink made? (Ask Wolfgang Baltracchi about titanium white.) The point is rather simple and clear, and thus it is not addressed in any of the huffing and puffing posts above.

Many of the clearest and most powerful evidences (again, go over a-h) were simply not available to former analysts. If the analyst does not know that the part of the ms. that stayed in Sinai after 1844 was darkened, and that there is a Barnabas 1843, or the James Donaldson linguistic arguments, and that Simonides and Kallinikos were supported by the Lambrou ms (the list goes on and on) .. what the textual-criticism-palaeographic gentlemen (since there is very little pure palaeography on the ms.) briefly pontificates about what little they saw of Sinaiticus is of very limited value. Some did question the early date, however a huge campaign quickly sought to silence questions about authenticity, after Tischendorf held back from bringing the ms. to England. And now, thanks to the availability of fuller information due to the internet and the 2009 CSP project, the attempt to silence the questions has failed. Even if you simply read the CSP reports that are online (great readings!, some excerpts on the PureBibleForum) .. you see an abundance of anomalies and puzzles unanswered.

When an evolutionist keeps butting up against the "facts on the ground" that show his theory to be a tissue of nothings, the right thing he should do is to be willing to question the evolutionary paradigms. (Remember: the evolutionists will claim that they represent all the real scientists.) He should stop trying to patch holes in the dikes. Step back, drink some herb tea, and maybe at least acknowledge the possibility that evolutionary theory is a failure. Start afresh.

When a Sinaiticus antiquity supporter comes up against anomaly upon puzzle upon historical fabrication, they should similarly at least be willing to step back and question their basic paradigm about the manuscript. A paradigm developed in deceit (the tisssuedorfs) and ignorance of the factual and historical matters. And which was developed out of a massive agitprop campaign in the 1860s (Tischendorf wrote book after book trying to vindicate the Sinai Bible, by 1871-1881 the Westcott-Hort recension had it essentially enshrined as one base of all textual theory.) This campaign was not out of any clear science base, very few even saw the two widely differing parts of the manuscript. So what should be done? Read carefully the actual history and science, without the presuppositions, and start afresh.