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 protoge at Cambridge, William Whiston, who was fired from his chair at Cambridge for denying the Trinitym 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":
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.[/border]
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 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, everywheree.g.
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.[/border]
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.
Statistics: Posted by ebion — Sat Jan 06, 2024 2:44 pm