The Battle between two different types of evidences - Sinaiticus & Simoneidos square off

Steven Avery

There are conceptual differences in the approach of the two sides.

Both sides work with the integrity and truthfulness element.

The side for Sinaiticus being a fake, non-authentic, works with:

1) physical evidences and anomalies
the "phenomenally good condition"
the evidence of colouring comparing

2) historical forensics - puts together the one consistent history
a) Barnabas and Simonides
b) Lampros confirmation of Simonides, Benedict, Kallinikos
c) Simonides knowing about the ms. including the colouring (1) which became visible after 2009

It also works with some textual evidences and palaeographic issues


The side for Sinaiticus authenticity does very ilttle with any of the evidences above
Basically coincidence.
And some issues are, quite strangely assigned to inconsistent, poor photography (even though the British Library as affirmed th ecolour anomaly

They instead claim that textual issues, and virtual impossibilities are the proof of authenticity.
Also some claim perceived difficulties, like getting the necessary parchment.
And how could Simonides do it alone (although he clearly was part of a team, by the full Athos account)

Textual issues involve Eusebian canons and many other elements. Scrivener started this approach (despite never having seen either part of the ms.) and it is continued today by James Snapp.

See his pages and my response.
Last edited: