Deceit, the Jesuits and an 'Ancient' Codex

Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,900
Likes
6,415
#1
Following a discussion with my spiritual sparring partner @Kung Fu, he challenged me to consider 'late' interpolations in the text of the Bible, when compared to the Codex Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus.

I knew I had read something on the subject in the last year, but as it wasn't an issue for me anyway, I had filed the idea away and not really delved into it.

What follows is the text from a pamphlet which provides an overview of a more detailed work (178 pages so not really too bad) called "The Forging of the Codex Sinaiatucus", by Bill Cooper.

The book is available on Amazon and on Kindle. The introduction gives a good overview of its thesis...

"Next only to the King James Bible, Codex Sinaiticus is by now perhaps the most famous (many would say infamous) book in the world. Its impact when it surfaced in the mid 19th century was immediate, and even today is powerfully felt in the world of Bible scholarship. That is because it is pretended to represent a version of our Bible which is quite unlike the Received Text, and is trumpeted abroad as representing the original text of the Bible before the Protestant church and its bishops got their political hands on it, changing it into the Bible that we know today. It is also wrongly claimed to be the oldest and the best manuscript of the Bible, representing a text to which all others – especially the Received Text – are to be referred. In other words, whenever Sinaiticus differs from the Received Text – which is shockingly often - then its readings are to be held superior to all others and preferred before them all. The impact of this upon Christian doctrine, and especially upon the question of the Bible’s integrity and Authority, has been immense, and it continues to shipwreck the faith of millions. So, where did this strange book come from? Who wrote it, and why? Under what circumstances did they write it? These are all questions which we come to answer in this examination of the subject."

If
this holds water (and my reading of it is quite compelling) the case for the "critical texts", of greater antiquity undermining the Textus Receptus of the KJV is destroyed.

To non-Christian readers of this thread, this does not automatically mean that the Bible is 'true' but it may help those who have been led to believe that they cannot rely on the text of the Bible... I will need to post the leaflet up in a couple of chunks to get it in to a thread, but I assure you it is worth a read...
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,900
Likes
6,415
#2
Codex Sinaiaticus

Dr Bill Cooper PhD ThD

In the past few decades. my work has led me to one conclusion.Did l say conclusion? lt has actually taken on the form a Universal Law, and it is this, that every attempt to misrepresent, slander, pervert, devalue or denigrate the Word of God can only ever be attempted or achieved by means of fraud, forgery and fakery. Let me explain.

For the past 300 years or so the world of academe has done its utmost to debase
the Bible in the public eye. For about the first hundred years of that period, every
effort was channelled into dreaming up false information concerning the Bible’s
authors ~ “Moses did not write the Pentateuch”, and so on. But that had little effect, for during that same period the westem world, at least, was undergoing a great spiritual revival, and Bible Societies were being set up for the specific purpose of promulgating the Bible and sending it out to every country on earth.

So something far more radical had to be done. lf the public would not listen to slander and innuendo, then more material evidence was needed.

Some tangible, visible object would have to he produced that would convince the public of the Bible’s falsity. Nothing less than outright forgery must be called upon to produce such an object, but that didn't matter.

Fake 'scriptures' to challenge the true would have to be produced. lt was by no means a new idea. The Egyptian (Alexandrian) gnostics had attempted the same thing as early as the second century and for several centuries after, so that many late 'scriptures' have survived from those times (only in the form of fragments or quotes by early authors), and thus were available for our modernist scholars to exploit. What the modernists needed to show was that these fake 'scriptures' were older and hence of more authority than the Received Text which was but a later and hence worthless corruption of them. lt was a complete reversal of the truth, but once they could convince the public, the battle would be won. And so they set to work.

To be brief, the epitome of all their labours was the production of the book known today as Codex Sinaiticus. lt is to this day still proclaimed by 'experts' the world over, most of whom have never even set eyes on the book, that Sinaiticus represents the original text of the Bible particularly of the New Testament. They tell us that it is a text that dates back to the 3rd century, when in fact it was produced in only the 19th century. lt is truly discomfiting to note the fact that this knowledge is known, and has always been known, in certain circles of academe. It is even known to many who sit on today’s several Bible translation committees, for it is impossible not to be aware of Sinaiticus' fraudulent nature by any who care to examine its text in any real depth. It’s just that they have seen it as their mission in life to withhold this knowledge from the public.

But what does an examination of Codex Sinaiticus reveal when it is looked at closely?

[Text continues in the next post]
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,900
Likes
6,415
#3
Points to note

There are seven points to note.

First, the entire manuscript is written on parchment that is largely unoxidised, supple and certainly not as ancient as is claimed, and whose collagen is virtually undecayed. Parchment becomes heavily oxidised after only a few centuries. We have 13th-century copies of Magna Carta which at 800 years are not half the age that is claimed for Sinaiticus, but which are so heavily oxidised that they are sealed in special frames. No one is allowed to handle them, they are now so fragile, and the oxidisation means that the writing on them can only be read with difficulty. Yet the pages of Sinaiticus are barely oxidised, if at all, and on those pages that have escaped the deliberate fading of the text by the forger’s hand, the ink and letters are so crisp and clear that they might have been written yesterday. Try as they might, forgers have always found it impossible to fake oxidisation.

Likewise, parchment contains a protein called collagen which decays after not many centuries, leaving the parchment shrivelled, cracked and brittle so that it can no longer be handled without serious damage occurring. The collagen of Sinaiticus, however, is largely undecayed, which is why its pages can be handled and turned with no real danger of damage. They would not enjoy this state of freshness if they were anywhere near the 1700 years that are claimed for them. Indeed, their freshness, lack of decay and time-related damage is something that surprised the British Library's technicians when they were allowed to examine them.

Secondly, almost every page of the manuscript bears telltale signs of forgery, mostly involving fading the text and discolouring the page in a most amateurish attempt to make it look much older than it truly is. Whoever did this work used an applicator (probably a ball of cloth) soaked with lemon juice or some such agent, and wiped it over the pages so hurriedly and carelessly that the agent has dried in very noticeable streaks across the page. lt truly would not fool a two-year-old. How it comes to fool our top scholars is not explained.

Likewise, some pages have suffered severe water damage. whereas the pages either side of them display no water damage at all, but have remained bone dry and unaffected. That would not - that could not - happen in nature. But it does happen in the world of forgery.

Thirdly, certain pages are unnaturally and inexplicably mutilated. That this was again deliberate is seen in the straight lines and cuts that occur on pages where the forger’s work was not completed. Again, it wouldn’t have fooled a two-year-old.

Fourthly, almost comically, some pages display square wormholes which the forger forgot to finish. Others display ‘normal’ wormholes aplenty, yet there are no lines of ingress that a real worm would have made in eating its way through the pages. There are also no matching wormholes in the immediately adjacent pages to account for them. When a real worm burrows its way through a book, it is easy to follow its track, because the holes match on every page that it burrows through. Yet a fingertip search through every ‘worm-eaten’ page of Sinaiticus reveals no such tracking. Every such page is a mismatch to the one next to it.

Fifth, the Codex contains a text of the Epistle of Barnabas which is written in essentially modern Greek and contains many grammatical and vocabularic evidences of having been translated into Greek from a late Latin (medieval) recension.

It is written, moreover, in the same hand - ‘Scribe A’ - as most of the codex. lt also complies with many of the scholarly emendations of the Latin text that had been suggested and recommended by scholars who lived and worked during the 18th and 19th centuries; and its text, moreover, is identical to that printed by Simonides in 1843, sixteen years before Tischendorf found it nestling inside Sinaiticus.

But could this obviously 19th-century version of Barnabas not have been bound into a 4th-century Codex Sinaiticus? No, it couldn`t, and for this reason. We see that column 1 of page Q91-f.2r of the codex contains the explicitus or ending of John’s Apocalypse, the Book of Revelation. Yet, written in the same hand and in the same ink as John’s Apocalypse, the Epistle of Barnabas begins in the very next column of that page (see attached image) in other words, whenever John’s Apocalypse was written into the codex. it was written at the same time and by the same person as its Epistle of Barnabas.



Indeed, the two texts share the same hand, ink and vellum as the rest of Codex Sinaiticus (except where certain pages of the codex have been substituted), which tells us that if the Epistle of Barnabas’ text is of 19th century origin - which it is, containing as it does many Greek words first coined by Simonides - then so is the rest of the codex of 19th century origin. There is no other conclusion which can be drawn.

cs4-image.jpg

Sixth, the Codex also contains a text of the Shepherd of Hermas which is again in modern Greek and contains many grammatical and vocabularic evidences of having been translated into Greek from a late Latin recension, most likely the Palatine. Its text is also identical to that printed by Simonides (through Leipzig University) in 1856, some three years before Tischendorf found it nestling within the pages of Sinaiticus. Together, Barnabas and Hermas put an indelible 19th century date-stamp on the codex.

But the seventh point is the most distressing of all. It involves the removal of the last twelve verses of Mark’s Gospel. The reason for their removal was to enforce the claim that was later to be made that Mark’s was the first Gospel to be written, and yet it contained (allegedly) no account of our Lord’s Resurrection. This, had it been true, would have meant that the other Gospel writers must have added the ‘tale’ to their own accounts, or that their accounts of the Resurrection were added generations later - a claim still made today. The ramifications of such a conclusion, which it was hoped the public would receive, are indescribably great, and would be entirely destructive of the Christian faith. And therein lies the motive for the removal of Mark 16:9-20.

Many modern Bibles have a note to the effect that Mark 16:9-20 does not appear in the ‘earliest and best’ manuscripts, meaning, of course, Codex Sinaiticus and its sister volume, Codex Vaticanus, which also omits these verses. But what they forget to tell their readers is the following startling fact...

Quire 77 of Codex Sinaiticus, which contains the omission of Mark 16:9-20, is written in a different hand to that of the rest of the codex.

That hand is referred to by scholars as the hand of ‘Scribe D’. ln other words, the quire that did contain the missing verses was removed from the binding, and another which omitted the verses was put in its place.

But that is not all, for the hand known as Scribe D in Sinaiticus, is identical to the hand of Scribe B where Vaticanus also omits Mark 16:9-20, meaning that the substitution in both was very l clearly carried out by the same person. Interestingly, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the only two ‘authorities’ that omit Mark 16:9:20.


Yet this act of fraud, this deliberate deception, has shipwrecked the faith of millions who have been and are still being - convinced by it that the New Testament is not, after all, the Word of God. lt is a deception of truly Satanic proportions, and we are aghast at the fact that our scholars, who have known about this all along, are dedicated to perpetuating such a disgraceful and destructive fraud.

We know that they have known about it all along for it was pointed out to them by none other than Tischendorf himself no less than three times. They cannot therefore claim ignorance of the fact. lt has been, and is, notorious among themselves, but they have systematically prevented that knowledge from ever reaching the public. There are no superlatives that can sufficiently convey the enormity of what they have done. lt is damnable in the extreme.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,900
Likes
6,415
#4
Conclusion

Forgers the world over have always carried within them the source of their own betrayal. There is always something that they overlook or forget or a complication they do not anticipate, and always something that they cannot quite imitate. That much is evident throughout Codex Sinaiticus. The surprise is that it has taken this long for these things to be noticed. There was a reason for that. Until 2011, the codex was separated in four sections between Russia, Germany. St Catherine’s Monastery in the Sinai Peninsula. and the British Library, and few were ever allowed access to any part of it.

But in that year, the British Library, in cooperation with the publishers Hendrickson, produced a nigh perfect digital facsimile of all four sections and bound them all into a single volume. With its publication, all pretence at the genuineness of Codex Sinaiticus can be dropped, for now anyone can examine its pages in great, almost microscopic detail. Sadly though, the damage has been done, and unless God amends it, it probably cannot be undone. lt has turned ned airway millions trom any trust in the Word of God. and will probably continue to do so. But at least the truth can now be told and pondered upon, and with its sister volume Vaticanus, can be seen for the fakes that they truly are.


For a much fuller account of the subject, CSM have published The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus, which is available now. It is the first such book to appear concerning the matter, and will hopefully provide a platform for future research. Meanwhile, the Bible reader can be assured that his or her New Testament, when based upon the Received Text, is intact and thoroughly dependable.


Footnotes


1 “Apart from a small percentage of pages with heavy ink corrosion, most of the folios appeared to have survived the rigors of 16 centuries with an unexpected lack of damage, suffering in the main only from small tears and losses along the head, tail, fore-edge and spine folds. Much of this damage is more likely attributable to mechanical damage than physical deterioration.


2. There are two translations of the Received Text available today. The first is the 1611 King James Bible, or Authorised Version, and the second is the 1560 Geneva Bible, the facsimile of which is published by Hendrickson. Virtually all other Translations’ from 1881 onwards are based on Codex Sinaiticus, and thus perpetuate all its faults and false readings.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
2,240
Likes
3,835
#5
It is an interesting theory. I also think it is quite feasible.

In the last year my church did an adult's bible study and we were shown some of the differences between translations from non-KJV and KJV texts. I was amazed at how much was omitted. It wasn't just a word or two - they were verses that made core doctrines clear.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,900
Likes
6,415
#6
It is an interesting theory. I also think it is quite feasible.

In the last year my church did an adult's bible study and we were shown some of the differences between translations from non-KJV and KJV texts. I was amazed at how much was omitted. It wasn't just a word or two - they were verses that made core doctrines clear.
These are then interpreted as 'interpolations' and 'late entries' by higher critics. When you dig into the details, the intrigues and deceit behind the production of these texts is quite alarming...
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,900
Likes
6,415
#8
Joined
Mar 24, 2017
Messages
3,772
Likes
5,975
#10
Peace be upon you,

Dr. Bill Cooper definitely has a dog in this in this fight and his biases show in his work but we'll leave that aside for now.

Now my question to you is if the Codex Sinaiticus is forged, which most scholars don't believe to be to my knowledge, why doesn't the Vaticanus, miniscule 304, Syriac Sinaiticus, and numerous other Greek manuscripts not contain the ending of Mark (9-20)? All of these manuscripts pre-date the King James Bible and none of them contain it. Don't even get me started on John 5: 7-8. Also, why do, by the looks of it, most scholars believe the ending of Mark to be an interpolation?

One biased Protestant using no real evidence to debunk the Sinaiticus isn't really affecting its authenticity. Again, I have no real issue if the Sinaiticus turns out to be a forgery because there are numerous other Greek texts that show the interpolations of verses. However, scholars until now still believe the Sinaiticus to be authentic.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,303
Likes
2,489
#11
Wow, this goes deep! It is good to have the links from JoChris to cross-reference and check the work of Cooper.

Pinto is a somewhat controversial figure among those of his ilk in the Christian realm, as I found by googling him and checking various google entries for other Christian websites. I do not know most of these sites, nor Pinto, but am giving out the general opinion I gathered from a quick look.

That being said, I did not yet listen to the podcast from Worldview Weekend, nor have read any of his work-which may or may not hold up to scrutiny upon examination.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,900
Likes
6,415
#12
Peace be upon you,

Dr. Bill Cooper definitely has a dog in this in this fight and his biases show in his work but we'll leave that aside for now.

Now my question to you is if the Codex Sinaiticus is forged, which most scholars don't believe to be to my knowledge, why doesn't the Vaticanus, miniscule 304, Syriac Sinaiticus, and numerous other Greek manuscripts not contain the ending of Mark (9-20)? All of these manuscripts pre-date the King James Bible and none of them contain it. Don't even get me started on John 5: 7-8. Also, why do, by the looks of it, most scholars believe the ending of Mark to be an interpolation?

One biased Protestant using no real evidence to debunk the Sinaiticus isn't really affecting its authenticity. Again, I have no real issue if the Sinaiticus turns out to be a forgery because there are numerous other Greek texts that show the interpolations of verses. However, scholars until now still believe the Sinaiticus to be authentic.
So many questions!?

Well, I have gone into the specific question on Vaticanus and Sinaiaticus and on digging deeper into the seven points mentioned earlier, each of them seem to add up, and more compelling points also emerge. Without quoting huge chunks it appears that we should at least be reviewing the authenticity of these codexes in the light of new evidence.

As these are the ones that exclude the end of Mark the liberal 'higher criticism' narrative that arises from that view should also be questioned.

I will continue to look into the issues you raise though, as I genuinely believe that real truth has nothing to fear from cross examination. I am currently looking into and cross referencing his two books on the authenticity of the New Testement. (And will look out your John 5:7-7 issue on my travels)

Peace be upon you @Kung Fu
 





Joined
Mar 18, 2017
Messages
2,109
Likes
4,275
#13
@Red Sky at Morning
Thank you!!! When i got to the bolded part about Mark, i quickly grabbed my bible before reading further, because i've always seen that little note above those verses. I read through and asked myself, what would be the motive for the removal? There's Christ's resurrection and His sitting at the right hand of God. Then i find Bill says the same thing. I will ask the same thing i asked in another thread. The verses 'under attack' or called interpolations like John 3:16 are those that testify to the redemption of man, a theme which everyone should get acquainted with. If they are 'interpolations', who benefits in the real sense, if infact they are so? Does it really matter to me, the average person, if Christ did or didn't die? Or resurrect? And why would an entity go to great lengths to add or remove texts to sacred literature?
Just because there are 100 scholars who are in consesus on something doesn't necessarily mean something is true. This reminds me of that time,in 2012, when the Harvard Professor, Karen King, came out claiming Jesus indeed got married (with serious implications for His divinity), basing that on a parchment that she had recently acquired. Now, the stage had already been set years before, to mold the public's mind to accept this, with Dan Brown's Da Vinci code. Fiction was now fact.

When the story broke, i wondered who this anonymous owner was, and why he was so 'generous' to the world as to hand over this parchment to King.
Four years later, after sowing the seed in the public's mind, she turns around and claims it was a forgery. Meanwhile, in those 4yrs, she failed to do a background check on the owner. Like, really?
http://theatlantic.com/politics/arc...o-the-unbelievable-tale-of-jesus-wife/487484/
And probably these kinds of things will become more common as time goes on. A fictional work comes out and it is later 'validated' by an 'ancient text'.
Look for the motive. Who benefits at the end of the day? At least i know TPTB don't have my physical, emotional and spiritual interests at heart.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
2,240
Likes
3,835
#14
I also just found an audio file from a KJV bible Christian apologist!
You can click the 2 min ad forward to get to the following show. http://www.worldviewweekend.com/radio/audio/chris-pinto-june-17-2016

I'll make sure I listen to it tomorrow am.
It was a very short segment starting at approx 23rd minute, related to the omission of verses in Gospel of Mark which referred to Jesus' resurrection and the apostles seeing him again.
I also found this show from only 4 DAYS ago. http://www.noiseofthunderradio.com/...-update-on-codex-sinaiticus-debate-42717.html
Will listen to that now.
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
2,240
Likes
3,835
#15
Wow, this goes deep! It is good to have the links from JoChris to cross-reference and check the work of Cooper.

Pinto is a somewhat controversial figure among those of his ilk in the Christian realm, as I found by googling him and checking various google entries for other Christian websites. I do not know most of these sites, nor Pinto, but am giving out the general opinion I gathered from a quick look.

That being said, I did not yet listen to the podcast from Worldview Weekend, nor have read any of his work-which may or may not hold up to scrutiny upon examination.
Yes he is extremely black and white in his viewpoints. He is dismissed by scholars who believe in the opposite position. Unfortunately they are currently in the majority and much more trusted that they are correct.
 





Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
2,408
Likes
3,050
#16
It is an interesting theory. I also think it is quite feasible.

In the last year my church did an adult's bible study and we were shown some of the differences between translations from non-KJV and KJV texts. I was amazed at how much was omitted. It wasn't just a word or two - they were verses that made core doctrines clear.
It's hard to look at the new versions and not think something very fishy is at work. It's not just "thee's and thou's", is it?
 





Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
2,240
Likes
3,835
#17
It's hard to look at the new versions and not think something very fishy is at work. It's not just "thee's and thou's", is it?
Now I have read the KJV as well as other translations I have to say first that I personally dislike subjective reasons for choosing one translation over another.
Before I had learned about the omitted verses though I had already come to believe that the KJV was the true translation as it was the version that I believe brought me to true repentance.
I remember which passage it was too:
Proverbs 6:16 These six things doth the Lord hate: yea, seven are an abomination unto him:
17 A proud look, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood,
18 An heart that deviseth wicked imaginations, feet that be swift in running to mischief,
19 A false witness that speaketh lies, and he that soweth discord among brethren.


I saw clearly that my heart was wicked and I knew deep down I could never please God. Head knowledge was not true personal faith.

Edit: I have decided this is important to tell.

You see, not long before I had decided after hearing a street preacher to re-investigate the Christian faith. Inwardly I had asked God which book of the Bible I should read again. Did I go to the Gospels? No I did not. The name Hosea came to mind. I read it and boy I got mad. This is why. http://www.acts17-11.com/sa.html

Did realising I had been like Hosea's wife, turning to every way of thinking except Christianity bring me to repentance? No it did not, but I did decide that since the Book of Proverbs was God's Book of Wisdom I would go there next.

Biblegateway has multiple translations and I decided I would read a chapter of Proverbs a day, in multiple translations. From memory NIV, the Message, KJV and two others.

I felt more convicted each day. I was understanding and seeing what I had never done so before. I actually half-dreaded the KJV version.

I remember it was the 6th day and the 6th chapter KJV version that I suddenly realised how depraved I was and in spiritual / behavioural patterns I had been guilty of all these things God hated. That was what made me beg for God's forgiveness.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 13, 2017
Messages
1,303
Likes
2,489
#18
Exactly, JoChris. This is why one can provide scripture to answer questions from others, but it is God Who does the work in the heart. It is He Who does the convicting leading to repentance, and the revealing of His saving grace.
1 Cor. 2:13
13 Which things also we speak, not in the words which man's wisdom teacheth, but which the Holy Ghost teacheth; comparing spiritual things with spiritual.
 





Last edited:
Joined
Mar 15, 2017
Messages
3,900
Likes
6,415
#19
It was a very short segment starting at approx 23rd minute, related to the omission of verses in Gospel of Mark which referred to Jesus' resurrection and the apostles seeing him again.
I also found this show from only 4 DAYS ago. http://www.noiseofthunderradio.com/...-update-on-codex-sinaiticus-debate-42717.html
Will listen to that now.
Wow!!!! This overlaps with what I found our reading Bill's book. Just for it's pure intrigue, the story of how the Codex Sinaiaticus came about is worth a listen...