A time line of the Sinaiticus showing it has to be a forgery

I am grateful to David Daniels and his fellow researches who have scoured the world examining historical documents of the time to find the following facts about the codices used as a basis for modern bible translations.

A catalogue of the Monastery the Sinaiticus was found in the very early 1800’s was made.  There were three codices of the Bible found.  The Sinaiticus was not one of them.

Early 1800’s

There is no record in the monastery of the Sinaiticus being received from elsewhere.  If it has been there would  be two records:

That of the monastery or person giving it

The monastery receiving it and possible celebration because of having received it.

 

The Lewis sisters and a Serbian theologian saw the Codex Sinaiticus describing it as white and clean (implying no corrections).

Before 1844

Simonides (one of the greatest 18TH Century forgers of antique documents) claims to have forged the manuscript.  His claim was verified by someone who saw him do it.  He was such a good forger they had to ask h im for a list of his forgeries.

 

Tischendorf sees the codex and sends pages to King Frederick.  These are white and have no corrections.  (Corrections would have made it like the Vaticanus implying a connection of age).

1847

Tischendorf finds the manuscript of the New Testament in a basket waiting to be burned.  (See comments below)

1856?

Tischendorf obtains the New Testament manuscript in its white state without corrections?

 

He is seen by a witness cleaning the pages with lemon juice which also happens to darken it.  He gives it to the Czar of Russia (who sent soldiers with Tischendorf to forcibly take it which is why the Czar compensated the monastery for its loss with a payment of 9,000 roubles).

Tischendorf said the monks loaned it to him then why was the head monk of the monastery punished by the fellow orthodox brethren for allowing Tischendorf to have it.

1856

Pages are found later in the 1990’s that are white without corrections

1990’s

Problems with the basket theory:

A part had been sent years earlier to the king Frederick.  If it has all been together all of it would have been sent and not found separate to the codex found in the basket.

Codices were stored in baskets and Tischendorf knew this so for him to say the baskets were for manuscripts waiting to be burnt was a deliberate lie.

He claims it was waiting to be burned.  Vellum was too expensive to burn and was made into a Palimpsest.  You also did not burn vellum as it was animal hide and smelled to high heaven

The monks claimed He stole after it was lent to him,

The King of Russia compensated the monastery 9,000 roubles for the loss of the codex implying they had it taken from them by force (which it was as Tischendorf and soldiers from Russia came there to get it).

Tischendorf lied through his teeth over how he obtained it.

Questions

Why were so many lies told by Tischendorf about the Sinaiticus and how it was obtained unless he had to hide something like the fact it was a forgery and he knew.

Why was such a valuable document in three separate parts and not all together?  Maybe it was not considered sufficiently valuable to be cared for properly which is strange if it was a very old document.

It was said to have a book binding in the monastery when viewed by The Lewis sisters and the Serbian Theologian so that it could not have been separated like Tischendorf said.  And he did not present it to the world with a book binding.

When confronted by three witnesses that it was a forgery, why did Tischendorf ignored them?

When the monastery said it had been stolen why were they ignored.  If it had not been stolen, then why did the Czar of Russia compensate them for it being stolen from them by his solders?

What about Codex 2472 used to alter The Gospel of Mark?

This was found to be a forgery.  It cannot have been written before 1860 because the ink used in it was not available till the 1850.s so it has to be a forgery.  All the changes to the Gospel of Mark it made should be ignored.

What about the Vaticanus?

This was considered to be a category 1 document (4th century so was not one of The Bibles had made to b e distributed throughout the Roman world).  However it is not a category 1 document as its style shows It was written in the 5th Century (between 446 and 464).  It also has so many corrections you cannot really say which is the correct  text (which correction or non-corrected text) is to be used for translation purposes.

Conclusion

You do not need to be concerned how the modern translations change the text of the King James Bible.  As you can see there is no real foundation for modern Bible translations so they can be dismissed as the work of man and ignored for Bible translation purposes. This leaves the King James and the Syriac Peshitta as the only translations of worth.