KJV Tampering as a precursor to Sinaiaticus Fraud

[Steven Avery]

The relatively recently discovered fragment of Sinaiticus https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=952 are evidence against a 19th century forgery.
Andrew Criddle

Forgery or replica.

An evidence, yes. Now we know that the idea that the New Finds room was inaccessible in the 1800s is a myth. There are various caveats and considerations.

[StephenGoranson]

Non-sequitur?
Where this fragment was located before being used in an eighteenth-century binding is an open question.

[Charles Wilson]

https://www.amazon.com/Archimedes-Codex ... 0306817373

If Sinaiticus is not stolen, burned or otherwise destroyed, we might find out something in about a hundred years. Jeffrey Epstein faces a brighter future.

If you want to read what could be done, get this book. Seriously.

With the tools we have TODAY, we could wrap this up inna'bout 7 minutes 27 seconds, tops.
Mebbe there are people on both sides of aisle who don't want to know?
Sure seems that way.

PS on another Subject: Teeple's Literary Origin of the Gospel of John is back up to $120=, up from 8 or 9 from a few months ago. I have finally finished a Digitized Version of it if anyone would want to haelp with a final proofing of the text...

[ebion]

I changed the title of the thread to "KJV Tampering as a precursor to Sinaiaticus Fraud" to broaden the subject from not only the tamperings in the KJV, but how all dissent over the tamperings is suppressed. An early example is that the most famous English scientist of all time, Sir Issaac Newton did not dare publish his obvious critique of the biggest of the pious frauds in the KJV, for fear of the retribution that would follow. He saw what happened to his successor and his former protogé at Cambridge, William Whiston, who was fired from his chair at Cambridge for denying the Trinity, and referred to the Queen on a charge of heresy, a capital offence. As I understand it, Newton tried to have it published under a pseudonym in France, but it was not published until after his death.

"Steven Avery" started a long thread " Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus" that I hope to summarize for the readers of this thread, as it helps us understand how the suppression of dissent on Sinaticus follows the establishment's suppression of KJV criticism. But in the meantime, I'll take the liberty of posting an extract of his a list of major Sinaiticus "coincidences":

"Coincidences" abound, everywhere e.g.

The colour of the 1844 and 1859 sections just happens to coincidentally match the colouring-tampering attributed to Tischendorf in the 1850s by Kallinikos. A perfect BEFORE and AFTER match. In addition, Kallinikos just coincidentally knew other various details of the ms. (e.g. the 1844 theft, the 1859 bogus-loan would never be returned, the bumbling Greek of Tischendorf) elements that simply were not known at the time.

The Sinaiticus ms. just coincidentally is in "phenomenally good condition" (Helen Shenton, BL) with easy-peasy page turning. While ancient heavily-used mss. from 1500+ years ago have to be handled with super-caution.

Simonides, Benedict and Kallinikos are just coincidentally shown in the Lambros catalogs of 1895-1900 to be working together in Athos c. 1840. Exactly the time stated for the collaborative efforts on the Sinaiticus ms.

Hermas just happens to coincidentally have been published by Simonides in Greek in 1856 before the 1859 Sinaiticus publication by Tischendorf.
(The ending of Hermas, which became very problematic to Tischendorf after the 1856 Simonides publication, is the one large section thrown into the back room, and is in the 1975 New Finds.)
Tischendorf even retracted allegations against the 1856 Hermas of Simonides because, as James Donaldson points out, the accusations had validity, and show the Sinaiticus Hermas (also applies to Barnabas) to be long after the 4th century.

Barnabas just happens to coincidentally have been published in Greek by Simonides in 1843, before the 1859 Sinaiticus publication by Tischendorf. There are solid links between the 1843 Simonides text and the 1859 text, the discovery of the supposed first Greek Barnabas by Tischendorf.

Simonides in England, 2,000+ miles away, was confident that Sinaiticus had no actual pre-1840 provenance, and "coincidentally" there was none, the ms.only has "poof provenance". (The claim of an "ancient catalog" affirming the ms. was simply bogus.)

The homoeoteleutons just coincidentally show Sinaiticus being made using a ms. from hundreds of years after its own supposed creation, Claromontanus And that manuscript, and its curious and unusual daughter mss. were located in our prime locales, Paris, Athos and St. Petersburg in the period right before Sinaiticus poofed into being in 1844.

I would like any of our Sinaiticus-Tischendorf (saved-from-fire) conspiracy theorists to begin to actually work with the history, the ms and the evidences. Including the multiple homoeoteleutons recently discovered from Claromontanus to Sinaiticus.

[Steven Avery]

The relatively recently discovered fragment of Sinaiticus https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=952 are evidence against a 19th century forgery.
Andrew Criddle

Hi Andrew,

Yes, this is a worthwhile study.

There has been a myth that the New Finds room was closed in the 1800s. This would have supported Sinaiticus way before 1840. Now, in addition to salient fragments from the Sinaiticus controversy showing up, we also have the historical narrative from Uspensky supporting the fact that this room is well known. And could easily receive a variety of material in the critical 1840-1860 ear, including relating to books. The standard story even has a rebinding of Sinaiticus in that era.

The Nikolas Sarris fragment is interesting, and may be Sinaiticus (the Brugsch fragments are an example of confusion between manuscripts).

Steven

[StephenGoranson]

The book binding with the Sinaiticus fragment included in the cover (inside surface) material was made in the eighteenth century, that is, in the 1700s, which is earlier than the claim that the manuscript was forged in the nineteenth-century, that is, in the 1800s.
Where this fragment resided in whatever location within the monastery before the binding was constructed is unknown, but which room it had been in is not relevant here, only that it was available for binding material earlier than the conspiracy theory claims.

[Steven Avery]

The book binding with the Sinaiticus fragment included in the cover (inside surface) material was made in the eighteenth century, that is, in the 1700s, which is earlier than the claim that the manuscript was forged in the nineteenth-century, that is, in the 1800s.
Where this fragment resided in whatever location within the monastery before the binding was constructed is unknown, but which room it had been in is not relevant here, only that it was available for binding material earlier than the conspiracy theory claims.

Hi Stephen!

The book binding activities do not really have a terminus ad quem, the tools remained available, they did not vanish. There was a false theory that the room was closed which skews a lot of Sinaiticus study.

This is allowing the identification of it as a Sinaiticus fragment for now, and putting aside ebion's theory .

[Steven Avery]

"Coincidences" abound, everywhere e.g.

Barnabas just happens to coincidentally have been published in Greek by Simonides in 1843, before the 1859 Sinaiticus publication by Tischendorf. There are solid links between the 1843 Simonides text and the 1859 text, the discovery of the supposed first Greek Barnabas by Tischendorf.

While there should be a lot of new material to add to the coincidences, I am removing Barnabas from my post. There are arguments on both sides of this one, it is possible that Simonides did a rather sophisticated yet awkward back-creation in 1864. (Yes, Simonides could pull stunts!) I enjoy being honest and transparent with evidence questions!

If it is a late creation, then I think it can help us learn to distinguish when Simonides is giving real history, as e.g. his history of Benedict, Athos, etc. the fact of the Hermas ms. before Sinaiticus, the Kallinikos friendship confirmed by the Athos library book in 1900, and when he is trying to do some manipulation.

Always watch for elements that are "to good to be true". Here that applies on both sides, e.g. how Sinaiticus supposedly weathered 1500 years of heavy use and yet not one word from the New Testament was lost! hmmmm ... The Barnabas text has some elements on the Simonides side that can be questioned.

The question arises as to whether the Sinaiticus production was a deliberate deception. Note that I think Simonides may have sold Constantius (his connection with Constantius is confirmed historically outside of Sinaiticus at exactly the right time 1841!, this was shown in a book on Simonides by Nikolos Farmakidis) a bill of goods about the manuscript when he turned it over to him and received 25,000 piasters (most of the $ likely for Sinaiticus.) The Simonides story is that the ms. was always designed as a replica, and even if that were true during creation, by the time Benedict passed and he got it to Constantius there would certainly be a temptation to say this was an old manuscript.

Note that Tischendorf went directly to Constantius after he stole the 43 leaves in 1844, likely he had been told that the manuscript had gotten to Sinai from Constantinople. A trip there could help his efforts to get the full manuscript.

[StephenGoranson]

Whether that room was accessible or not for some time is irrelevant in this case.
The binding is a creation made by one of two known contemporary monks in that monastery.
And the fragment that one of those two monks used in the binding was already a fragment when it was reused;
in other words, in the 1700s, that fragment was already worn and already quite
OLD.

[Steven Avery]

The binding is a creation made by one of two known contemporary monks in that monastery.

Sarris says two or more.
Two monks are named in other books.

However, the bookbinding techniques do not have to abruptly end.