Archive for October, 2013


Most liberal scholars contend that the NT relied partly on several quotes taken from the LXX/Septuagint. James White, Nestle & Aland, Doug Kutilek, Daniel Wallace, et al, all agree with this assertion.

I strongly disagree that the Septuagint was used by any of the NT apostles or Christ, and was taken from Origan’s 5 Column of the Hexapla in 245 AD, and there are numerous NT quotes that show that Christ quoted from a Hebrew OT, not Greek (Matt 7:12, 11:13, 22:40, 23:35, Luke 24:27,44*). However, I believe for those that do agree with the notion that the NT writers quoted the LXX are faced with 2 problems:

1. Does this mean that they believe the LXX to be inspired? Scholars emphatically claim that only the “originals” are inspired, but it is obvious that if the stories surrounding the LXX were true, and it was really a 4th century –2nd century BC translation concocted by Aristeas, then it clearly is not part of the original Hebrew, which means that for the NT writers to claim that all Scripture in the NT are authoritative that made OT quotes based on the LXX would have to necessarily claim inspiration for the LXX. Otherwise, the apostles and Christ Himself could be accused of calling something Scripture that was not given by inspiration of God.

2. The second problem this presents is that these ‘scholars’ emphatically claiming that only the originals are inspired, but not translations, are faced with a blatant contradiction. If the LXX was a translation from Hebrew to Greek, and quoted by the Apostles and Christ in the NT, not only must they hold the LXX to be inspired, but they must also abandon their argument that a translation can not be inspired because by default, if the LXX is inspired, then it naturally follows that since it is itself a translation, that translations can be inspired.

So either scholars must abandon their arguments against the KJV that translations can not be inspired, or they must admit that the LXX is not authoritative and was in fact NOT used by any of the NT writers, or quoted by Jesus.


*The LXX was not divided in the manner in which the Hebrew OT was with the divisions of the Law, Prophets and Writings. These quotes from Christ show clearly that He never quoted from the Septuagint, but from the Hebrew. In Matthew 23:35, Christ makes reference to the Pharisees being guilty of the blood of Abel to Zacharias. In a Hebrew Bible, 2 Chronicles is the last book (where Zacharias is located. 2 Chronicles 24). Thus Christ is quoting this story in the order given in a Hebrew Bible, not a Septuagint.

stevehitler - Copy (2) - Copy“Pastor” Steven Anderson created a video in which he explains that God did not cause Israel to be regathered as a nation in 1948, due to the nation’s continued rejection of Christ. Anderson is not alone in sharing this sentiment, the Aryan Nation, Ku Klux Klan and Catholic Church agree with him.

Apparently, Anderson is of the persuasion that the promise of God to bring Israel back into their land depends upon their acknowledgment of Christ as Messiah. Yet, if Israel is said to be blinded for the moment (Romans 11:26), then how would Israel as a nation be expected to corporately turn to Christ? Anderson is also opposed to dispensationalism, which is the death-knell of every amillennial, post millennial, preterist, historicist and covenant system of theology which fails to rightly divide the word of truth, and leads to blurring the distinctions between the church and Israel. (See our Article on Steven Anderson’s “After The Tribulation” and “Debunking Myths About Israel”  for a refutation of common proof-texts used by these systems to claim that the church and Israel are the same.)

Israel has yet to fulfill the birthright promise to Ephraim in Genesis 48-49. The church inherited the spiritual blessings of faith through Abraham, but the church has nothing to do with the physical promises that are yet to be fulfilled in Israel. The spiritual blessings were fulfilled in the genealogy of Abraham through Judah to Christ (Genesis 49:10,Romans 9:1-7, Galatians 3:16), but the birthright was not reckoned after the genealogy (1 Chronicles 5:1-2). The failure of even the most sincere Bible students to get this throughout the Bible is partly responsible for the plethora of heresies and denominations that exist today.

But what we want to focus on in this article, since there is already so much material extant that clearly shows that Israel will be regathered, are many of the other prophecies concerning Israel that are ignored by Anderson and his ilk.

The Restoration of the Hebrew Language

Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that I rise up to the prey: for my determination is to gather the nations, that I may assemble the kingdoms, to pour upon them mine indignation, even all my fierce anger: for all the earth shall be devoured with the fire of my jealousy.

For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve him with one consent” Zephaniah 3:8-9

Since the ousting of the Jews from Jerusalem in AD 70 under Titus and the “Diaspora”, the Hebrew language had largely become obscure, and was only well-known to those who preserved and studied the Old Testament texts among scholars, linguists, and palaeographers. Within the last few centuries, Hebrew had been mixed with German (Yiddish) and Spanish (Ladino).

In 1858, Eliezer Ben Yahuda was born, who by age 12 had mastered several different languages including Russian, German, French and Hebrew. Ben Yahuda is largely responsible for the revival of the Hebrew language which in 1982, became the official language of Israel.

The Order Of Israel’s Regathering

Fear not: for I am with thee: I will bring thy seed from the east, and gather thee from the west; I will say to the north, Give up; and to the south, Keep not back: bring my sons from far, and my daughters from the ends of the earth” Isaiah 43:5-6

The first major exodus back to Israel came from Jews in Syria, Iraq, and Jordan from 1930-1940 (The East). The next groups returned to Israel from Europe following World War 2 (The West). Following the East then West, the Jews returned from Russia (The North) followed by Ethiopian Jews under Operation Solomon in 1991 (The South).

Israel Rejoices Over Regathering From the North

Therefore, behold, the days come, saith the Lord, that it shall no more be said, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel out of the land of Egypt;

But, The Lord liveth, that brought up the children of Israel from the land of the north, and from all the lands whither he had driven them: and I will bring them again into their land that I gave unto their fathers.” Jeremiah 16:14-15

This nugget is very interesting in light of the fact that most anti-Semites argue that all of the current Israelites who are not “real Jews” are Ashkenazi impostors from Russia (The North). This has caused Israel to defend the largest part of their migration from the North as legitimate and thus Israel has literally been outspoken in declaring their gratefulness to God in bringing them from the North more so now than they did in declaring how He brought them out of Egypt.

The Land Will Be Called Israel

Therefore prophesy and say unto them, Thus saith the Lord God; Behold, O my people, I will open your graves, and cause you to come up out of your graves, and bring you into the land of Israel. Ezekiel 37:12

This is rather crucial prophecy because it dispels the notion that the current occupiers of Israel are not real Jews. If the current occupants are not real Jews, then that begs the question: when will the REAL JEWS then occupy the land? If there is a future occupant in mind other than the current Israelites, then impostor Jews got the credit for restoring the name Israel to the land formerly referred to as Palestine after the Jews were dispersed in AD 70. Would God fulfill this prophecy by permitting fake Jews to restore the name of the land? And how then would a future “real” Jew restore the name to the land that is already called “Israel”?

This prophecy also eliminates the absurd notion that the church is Israel, and other heresies following this line of logic such as British Israelitism. The Bible says that not only will the Jews be regathered, but that the land in which they will be gathered in will be called ISRAEL, not Britain, not United States, and not a fairy tale land in Missouri discovered by Joseph Smith. Some ignoramous can’t tell the difference between “LAND” and “spiritual promises”, and interpret most references to Israel as a “spiritual” fulfillment in the church.

The Military Power of Israel 

In that day will I make the governors of Judah like an hearth of fire among the wood, and like a torch of fire in a sheaf; and they shall devour all the people round about, on the right hand and on the left: and Jerusalem shall be inhabited again in her own place, even in Jerusalem.”  Zechariah 12:6

The event in Israel known as מלחמת ששת הימים (The Six Day War) is one of the most impressive military victories in history. Israel was under attack and outnumbered by all of our surrounding countries, and made short work of all of them in just six days (from June 5-June 10, 1967)! Since then, Israel has been under constant attack by her enemies (War of Attrition, 1967-1970, Yom Kippur, 1973, First Intafada, 1987-1993, Second Intafada, 2000-2005, Gaza War, 2008-2009, Lebanon attack led by Hezbollah, 1982-2000, etc..). Israel has since 1948 when becoming a nation, never been defeated in battle.

The Shekel Restored As National Currency

And the shekel shall be twenty gerahs: twenty shekels, five and twenty shekels, fifteen shekels, shall be your maneh. This is the oblation that ye shall offer; the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of wheat, and ye shall give the sixth part of an ephah of an homer of barley:  Concerning the ordinance of oil, the bath of oil, ye shall offer the tenth part of a bath out of the cor, which is an homer of ten baths; for ten baths are an homer: And one lamb out of the flock, out of two hundred, out of the fat pastures of Israel; for a meat offering, and for a burnt offering, and for peace offerings, to make reconciliation for them, saith the Lord God.  All the people of the land shall give this oblation for the prince in Israel.” Ezekiel 45:12-16

The “Pound” was the Israeli currency from 1948 to February 23, 1980 when it was replaced by the shekel.


Israel Will Be Center Of World Controversy

And in that day will I make Jerusalem a burdensome stone for all people: all that burden themselves with it shall be cut in pieces, though all the people of the earth be gathered together against it.” Zechariah 12:3

No other nation has been the subject of such ridicule, persecution, and world conflict than Israel. With one word of potential conflict in middle East, oil prices rise, and stock markets fluctuate, and the crisis is always revolved around Israel and America’s support of her.

Israel Growing Crops In The Desert

Mark Twain once visited Israel in 1860, and said that Israel was a barren wasteland with no trees. For nearly 2000 years, Israel had been a wasteland, the grounds  untilled and “Palestinians” unsuccessfully attempting to grow any crops in Israel.

The wilderness and the solitary place shall be glad for them; and the desert shall rejoice, and blossom as the rose. It shall blossom abundantly, and rejoice even with joy and singing: the glory of Lebanon shall be given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon, they shall see the glory of the Lord, and the excellency of our God.” Isaiah 35:1-2

Israel now has over 400 million trees, and has seen an increase in rain by nearly 500% which has led to other Biblical fulfillments:

 Filling the World With Fruit

He shall cause them that come of Jacob to take root: Israel shall blossom and bud, and fill the face of the world with fruit.” Isaiah 27:6

Israel has become one of the leading sources in the world for fruit, including the introduction of twelve new fruits and vegetables.

 Largest Underground Water Source In Israel

And it shall be in that day, that living waters shall go out from Jerusalem; half of them toward the former sea, and half of them toward the hinder sea: in summer and in winter shall it be.” Zechariah 14:8

The largest underground water source was discovered in Israel in 2011 during excavation work in the railways of Jerusalem.

These prophecies are a clear indication that God has kept His promise to Israel. These prophecies are a clear fulfillment of events that effect flesh and blood, literal Jews in the land that God gave to our fathers. One must be blind or just plain STUPID and willingly ignorant to reject these evidences in order to make their theology fit their biases.

I’ve discovered one of the fastest ways to learn whether or not a professing Bible believer is a heretic is to see what they believe about Israel.


By Dr. Elisha Weismann and edited by Dr. James Ach

Paul: Today I begin my sermon with “In Isaac shall thy seed be called” from the book of Romans ch….

White: Excuse me. Don’t you know that’s from the OT? The OT was written in Hebrew and you are translating this into Greek. You should be aware that it is well-known among godly scholars that you lose meaning from one language to another.

Paul: I’ll take that under advisement, Mr White. Now as I was saying, “At this time will I come and Sarah shall have a son” and then we read….

White: I’m sorry but you’re doing it again, another quote from the OT. You should explain to your listeners the differences between the Hebrew verse you are reading, and the words that can not be properly translated in the language you are speaking to them in now.

Paul: The words I am speaking are what the Holy Spirit is giving me.

White: With all due respect, Paul, that’s not possible. What you are doing is translating OT Hebrew passages into another language, and then saying that those translations are inspired and we true scholars know that that is not possible.

Paul: Didn’t Jesus say something on the cross in Aramaic that was predicted in Hebrew?

White: That was from a COPY of and OT manuscript and we know that copies can’t be inspired. Only the ORIGINAL was the actual word of God, and since we don’t have an original copy of Psalms, there’s no way to know whether that statement from Jesus was really accurate. At best, it was a dynamic equivalent.

Paul: So you don’t believe that God promised to preserve His words in Psalm 12?

White: No. Psalm 12 is about preserving Israel. Israel are the “words of the LORD” in Psalm 12:6 so Israel was who God promised to preserve, not the words of the Lord. All good godly scholars agree with this.

Paul: So which one of Jeremiah’s writings were inspired after the king had thrown the first one into the fire? (Jeremiah chapter 36.)

White: Well obviously, the first because only originals are inspired. So the manuscript that Jeremiah re-wrote as instructed by God was inferior to the original.

Paul: And when John wrote 7 letters to the 7 churches in Asia, you mean to tell me that only one of those were ‘inspired’?

White: Now you’re catching on, Paul! God might be able to use you yet!

Paul: So all through history, the prophets should have been preaching the law from the tablets of stone.

White: At this rate, I will recommend you for an honorary doctorate!

Paul: So we really don’t have the word of God anywhere?

White: Oh of course we do. They are in the original languages.

Paul: So the language is what was inspired but not the writings? So every cuss word uttered in the original language was inspired because the language is what was inspired correct?

White: No. It was the first writing printed in the original language.

Paul: But the copies of the OT quotes were written in Greek translated from Hebrew so you are saying that none of the OT quotes in the NT were inspired because they were not the original language? And I thought you said that writings were not inspired, only the language that came from God.

White: Umm……..Only what God said originally was inspired.

Paul: In Matthew 4:4, didn’t Jesus quote a verse that had “word” in italics in Deuteronomy 8:3, thus Jesus quoted a word that was not “in the original”?

White: Umm…

Paul: Is what God said originally written down somewhere? Is there a copy of it? Didn’t he say, “Write thee all the words that I have spoken unto thee IN A BOOK” Jeremiah 30:2.

White: Those books are in the NASB, ASV, ESV, NKJV, NIV (but not the KJV). You can even find the words of God in a few news articles, church advertisements in the phone book, and in Webster’s 1828 dictionary. God said he would preserve words, not books, epistles, letters, etc.

Paul: So do you believe it is an error to tell believers that we actually HAVE a BOOK that is THE word of God?

White: Progress! You could be an apostle one day!

Paul: I personally saw the Lord Jesus Christ as “one born out of due time”. Deacons, please escort this nut case out the assembly.


Dr. James Ach

“And I fell at his feet to worship him. And he said unto me, See thou do it not: I am thy fellowservant, and of thy brethren that have the testimony of Jesus: worship God: for the testimony of Jesus is the spirit of prophecy.” Revelation 19:10

PROPHECY                               DESCRIPTION                                                        FULFILLMENT

1. Gen. 3:15 Seed of a woman (virgin birth) Galatians 4:4-5, Matthew 1:18
2. Gen. 3:15 He will bruise Satan’s head Hebrews 2:14, 1John 3:8
3. Gen. 5:24 The bodily ascension to heaven illustrated Mark 16:19
4. Gen. 9:26, 27 The God of Shem will be the Son of Shem Luke 3:36
5. Gen. 12:3 Seed of Abraham will bless all nations Galatians 3:8, Acts 3:25, 26
6. Gen. 12:7 The Promise made to Abraham’s Seed Galatians 3:16
7. Gen. 14:18 A priest after the order of Melchizedek Hebrews 6:20
8. Gen. 14:18 King of Peace and Righteousness Hebrews 7:2
9. Gen. 14:18 The Last Supper foreshadowed Matthew 26:26-29
10. Gen. 17:19 Seed of Isaac (Gen. 21:12) Romans 9:7
11. Gen. 22:8 The Lamb of God promised John 1:29
12. Gen. 22:18 As Isaac’s seed, will bless all nations Galatians 3:16
13. Gen. 26:2-5 The Seed of Isaac promised as the Redeemer Hebrews 11:18
14. Gen. 28:12 The Bridge to heaven John 1:51
15. Gen. 28:14 The Seed of Jacob Luke 3:34
16. Gen. 49:10 The time of His coming Luke 2:1-7; Galatians 4:4
17. Gen. 49:10 The Seed of Judah Luke 3:33
18. Gen. 49:10 Called Shiloh or One Sent John 17:3
19. Gen. 49:10 Messiah to come before Judah lost identity John 11:47-52
20. Gen. 49:10 Unto Him shall the obedience of the people be John 10:16
21. Ex. 3:13-15 The Great “I AM” John 4:26, 8:58
22. Ex. 12:5 A Lamb without blemish Hebrews 9:14; 1Peter 1:19
23. Ex. 12:13 The blood of the Lamb saves from wrath Romans 5:8
24. Ex. 12:21-27 Christ is our Passover 1Corinthians 5:7
25. Ex. 12:46 Not a bone of the Lamb to be broken John 19:31-36
26. Ex. 15:2 His exaltation predicted as Yeshua Acts 7:55, 56
27. Ex. 15:11 His Character-Holiness Luke 1:35; Acts 4:27
28. Ex. 17:6 The Spiritual Rock of Israel 1Corinthians 10:4
29. Ex. 33:19 His Character-Merciful Luke 1:72
30. Lev. 1:2-9 His sacrifice a sweet smelling savor unto God Ephesians 5:2
31. Lev. 14:11 The leper cleansed-Sign to priesthood Luke 5:12-14; Acts 6:7
32. Lev. 16:15-17 Prefigures Christ’s once-for-all death Hebrews 9:7-14
33. Lev. 16:27 Suffering outside the Camp Matthew 27:33; Heb. 13:11, 12
34. Lev. 17:11 The Blood-the life of the flesh Matthew 26:28; Mark 10:45
35. Lev. 17:11 It is the blood that makes atonement Rom. 3:23-24; 1John 1:7
36. Lev. 23:36-37 The Drink-offering: “If any man thirst” John 7:37
37. Num. 9:12 Not a bone of Him broken John 19:31-36
38. Num. 21:9 The serpent on a pole-Christ lifted up John 3:14-18, 12:32
39. Num. 24:17 Time: “I shall see him, but not now.” John 1:14; Galatians 4:4
40. Deut. 18:15 “This is of a truth that prophet.” John 6:14
41. Deut. 18:15-16 “Had ye believed Moses, ye would believe me.” John 5:45-47
42. Deut. 18:18 Sent by the Father to speak His word John 8:28, 29
43. Deut. 18:19 Whoever will not hear must bear his sin Acts 3:22-23
44. Deut. 21:23 Cursed is he that hangs on a tree Galatians 3:10-13
45. Joshua 5:14-15 The Captain of our salvation Hebrews 2:10
46. Ruth 4:4-10 Christ, our kinsman, has redeemed us Ephesians 1:3-7
47. 1 Sam. 2:35 A Faithful Priest Heb. 2:17, 3:1-3, 6, 7:24-25
48. 1 Sam. 2:10 Shall be an anointed King to the Lord Mt. 28:18, John 12:15
49. 2 Sam. 7:12 David’s Seed Matthew 1:1
50. 2 Sam. 7:13 His Kingdom is everlasting 2Peter 1:11
51. 2 Sam. 7:14a The Son of God Luke 1:32, Romans 1:3-4
52. 2 Sam. 7:16 David’s house established forever Luke 3:31; Rev. 22:16
53. 2 Ki. 2:11 The bodily ascension to heaven illustrated Luke 24:51
54. 1 Chr. 17:11 David’s Seed Matthew 1:1, 9:27
55. 1 Chr. 17:12-13 To reign on David’s throne forever Luke 1:32, 33
56. 1 Chr. 17:13 “I will be His Father, He…my Son.” Hebrews 1:5
57. Job 9:32-33 Mediator between man and God 1 Timothy 2:5
58. Job 19:23-27 The Resurrection predicted John 5:24-29
59. Psa. 2:1-3 The enmity of kings foreordained Acts 4:25-28
60. Psa. 2:2 To own the title, Anointed (Christ) John 1:41, Acts 2:36
61. Psa. 2:6 His Character-Holiness John 8:46; Revelation 3:7
62. Psa. 2:6 To own the title King Matthew 2:2
63. Psa. 2:7 Declared the Beloved Son Matthew 3:17, Romans 1:4
64. Psa. 2:7, 8 The Crucifixion and Resurrection intimated Acts 13:29-33
65. Psa. 2:8, 9 Rule the nations with a rod of iron Rev. 2:27, 12:5, 19:15
66. Psa. 2:12 Life comes through faith in Him John 20:31
67. Psa. 8:2 The mouths of babes perfect His praise Matthew 21:16
68. Psa. 8:5, 6 His humiliation and exaltation Hebrews 2:5-9
69. Psa. 9:7-10 Judge the world in righteousness Acts 17:31
70. Psa. 16:10 Was not to see corruption Acts 2:31, 13:35
71. Psa. 16:9-11 Was to arise from the dead John 20:9
72. Psa. 17:15 The resurrection predicted Luke 24:6
73. Psa. 18:2-3 The horn of salvation Luke 1:69-71
74. Psa. 22:1 Forsaken because of sins of others 2 Corinthians 5:21
75. Psa. 22:1 “My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?” Matthew 27:46
76. Psa. 22:2 Darkness upon Calvary for three hours Matthew 27:45
77. Psa. 22:7 They shoot out the lip and shake the head Matthew 27:39-44
78. Psa. 22:8 “He trusted in God, let Him deliver Him” Matthew 27:43
79. Psa. 22:9-10 Born the Saviour Luke 2:7
80. Psa. 22:12-13 They seek His death John 19:6
81. Psa. 22:14 His blood poured out when they pierced His side John 19:34
82. Psa. 22:14, 15 Suffered agony on Calvary Mark 15:34-37
83. Psa. 22:15 He thirsted John 19:28
84. Psa. 22:16 They pierced His hands and His feet John 19:34, 37; 20:27
85. Psa. 22:17, 18 Stripped Him before the stares of men Luke 23:34, 35
86. Psa. 22:18 They parted His garments John 19:23, 24
87. Psa. 22:20, 21 He committed Himself to God Luke 23:46
88. Psa. 22:20, 21 Satanic power bruising the Redeemer’s heel Hebrews 2:14
89. Psa. 22:22 His Resurrection declared John 20:17
90. Psa. 22:27-28 He shall be the governor of the nations Colossians 1:16
91. Psa. 22:31 “It is finished” John 19:30, Heb. 10:10, 12, 14, 18
92. Psa. 23:1 “I am the Good Shepherd” John 10:11, 1Peter 2:25
93. Psa. 24:3 His exaltation predicted Acts 1:11; Philippians 2:9
94. Psa. 30:3 His resurrection predicted Acts 2:32
95. Psa. 31:5 “Into thy hands I commit my spirit” Luke 23:46
96. Psa. 31:11 His acquaintances fled from Him Mark 14:50
97. Psa. 31:13 They took counsel to put Him to death Mt. 27:1, John 11:53
98. Psa. 31:14, 15 “He trusted in God, let Him deliver him” Matthew 27:43
99. Psa. 34:20 Not a bone of Him broken John 19:31-36
100. Psa. 35:11 False witnesses rose up against Him Matthew 26:59
101. Psa. 35:19 He was hated without a cause John 15:25
102. Psa. 38:11 His friends stood afar off Luke 23:49
103. Psa. 38:12 Enemies try to entangle Him by craft Mark 14:1, Mt. 22:15
104. Psa. 38:12-13 Silent before His accusers Matthew 27:12-14
105. Psa. 38:20 He went about doing good Acts 10:38
106. Psa. 40:2-5 The joy of His resurrection predicted John 20:20
107. Psa. 40:6-8 His delight-the will of the Father John 4:34, Heb. 10:5-10
108. Psa. 40:9 He was to preach the Righteousness in Israel Matthew 4:17
109. Psa. 40:14 Confronted by adversaries in the Garden John 18:4-6
110. Psa. 41:9 Betrayed by a familiar friend John 13:18
111. Psa. 45:2 Words of Grace come from His lips John 1:17, Luke 4:22
112. Psa. 45:6 To own the title, God or Elohim Hebrews 1:8
113. Psa. 45:7 A special anointing by the Holy Spirit Mt. 3:16; Heb. 1:9
114. Psa. 45:7, 8 Called the Christ (Messiah or Anointed) Luke 2:11
115. Psa. 45:17 His name remembered forever Ephesians 1:20-21, Heb. 1:8
116. Psa. 55:12-14 Betrayed by a friend, not an enemy John 13:18
117. Psa. 55:15 Unrepentant death of the Betrayer Matthew 27:3-5; Acts 1:16-19
118. Psa. 68:18 To give gifts to men Ephesians 4:7-16
119. Psa. 68:18 Ascended into Heaven Luke 24:51
120. Psa. 69:4 Hated without a cause John 15:25
121. Psa. 69:8 A stranger to own brethren John 1:11, 7:5
122. Psa. 69:9 Zealous for the Lord’s House John 2:17
123. Psa. 69:14-20 Messiah’s anguish of soul before crucifixion Matthew 26:36-45
124. Psa. 69:20 “My soul is exceeding sorrowful.” Matthew 26:38
125. Psa. 69:21 Given vinegar in thirst Matthew 27:34
126. Psa. 69:26 The Saviour given and smitten by God John 17:4; 18:11
127. Psa. 72:10, 11 Great persons were to visit Him Matthew 2:1-11
128. Psa. 72:16 The corn of wheat to fall into the Ground John 12:24-25
129. Psa. 72:17 Belief on His name will produce offspring John 1:12, 13
130. Psa. 72:17 All nations shall be blessed by Him Galatians 3:8
131. Psa. 72:17 All nations shall call Him blessed John 12:13, Rev. 5:8-12
132. Psa. 78:1-2 He would teach in parables Matthew 13:34-35
133. Psa. 78:2b To speak the Wisdom of God with authority Matthew 7:29
134. Psa. 80:17 The Man of God’s right hand Mark 14:61-62
135. Psa. 88 The Suffering and Reproach of Calvary Matthew 27:26-50
136. Psa. 88:8 They stood afar off and watched Luke 23:49
137. Psa. 89:27 Firstborn Colossians 1:15, 18
138. Psa. 89:27 Emmanuel to be higher than earthly kings Luke 1:32, 33
139. Psa. 89:35-37 David’s Seed, throne, kingdom endure forever Luke 1:32, 33
140. Psa. 89:36-37 His character-Faithfulness Revelation 1:5, 19:11
141. Psa. 90:2 He is from everlasting (Micah 5:2) John 1:1
142. Psa. 91:11, 12 Identified as Messianic; used to tempt Christ Luke 4:10, 11
143. Psa. 97:9 His exaltation predicted Acts 1:11; Ephesians 1:20
144. Psa. 100:5 His character-Goodness Matthew 19:16, 17
145. Psa. 102:1-11 The Suffering and Reproach of Calvary John 19:16-30
146. Psa. 102:25-27 Messiah is the Preexistent Son Hebrews 1:10-12
147. Psa. 109:25 Ridiculed Matthew 27:39
148. Psa. 110:1 Son of David Matthew 22:42-43
149. Psa. 110:1 To ascend to the right-hand of the Father Mark 16:19
150. Psa. 110:1 David’s son called Lord Matthew 22:44, 45
151. Psa. 110:4 A priest after Melchizedek’s order Hebrews 6:20
152. Psa. 112:4 His character-Compassionate, Gracious, et al Matthew 9:36
153. Psa. 118:17, 18 Messiah’s Resurrection assured Luke 24:5-7; 1Cor. 15:20
154. Psa. 118:22, 23 The rejected stone is Head of the corner Matthew 21:42, 43
155. Psa. 118:26a The Blessed One presented to Israel Matthew 21:9
156. Psa. 118:26b To come while Temple standing Matthew 21:12-15
157. Psa. 132:11 The Seed of David (the fruit of His Body) Luke 1:32, Act 2:30
158. Psa. 129:3 He was scourged Matthew 27:26
159. Psa. 138:1-6 The supremacy of David’s Seed amazes kings Matthew 2:2-6
160. Psa. 147:3, 6 The earthly ministry of Christ described Luke 4:18
161. Prov. 1:23 He will send the Spirit of God John 16:7
162. Prov. 8:23 Foreordained from everlasting Rev. 13:8, 1Peter 1:19-20
163. Song. 5:16 The altogether lovely One John 1:17
164. Isa. 2:3 He shall teach all nations John 4:25
165. Isa. 2:4 He shall judge among the nations John 5:22
166. Isa. 6:1 When Isaiah saw His glory John 12:40-41
167. Isa. 6:8 The One Sent by God John 12:38-45
168. Isa. 6:9-10 Parables fall on deaf ears Matthew 13:13-15
169. Isa. 6:9-12 Blinded to Christ and deaf to His words Acts 28:23-29
170. Isa. 7:14 To be born of a virgin Luke 1:35
171. Isa. 7:14 To be Emmanuel-God with us Matthew 1:18-23, 1Tim. 3:16
172. Isa. 8:8 Called Emmanuel Matthew 28:20
173. Isa. 8:14 A stone of stumbling, a Rock of offense 1Peter 2:8
174. Isa. 9:1, 2 His ministry to begin in Galilee Matthew 4:12-17
175. Isa. 9:6 A child born-Humanity Luke 1:31
176. Isa. 9:6 A Son given-Deity Luke 1:32, John 1:14, 1Tim. 3:16
177. Isa. 9:6 Declared to be the Son of God with power Romans 1:3, 4
178. Isa. 9:6 The Wonderful One, Peleh Luke 4:22
179. Isa. 9:6 The Counsellor, Yaatz Matthew 13:54
180. Isa. 9:6 The Mighty God, El Gibor 1Cor. 1:24, Titus 2:3
181. Isa. 9:6 The Everlasting Father, Avi Adth John 8:58, 10:30
182. Isa. 9:6 The Prince of Peace, Sar Shalom John 16:33
183. Isa. 9:7 To establish an everlasting kingdom Luke 1:32-33
184. Isa. 9:7 His Character-Just John 5:30
185. Isa. 9:7 No end to his Government, Throne, and Peace Luke 1:32-33
186. Isa. 11:1 Called a Nazarene-the Branch, Netzer Matthew 2:23
187. Isa. 11:1 A rod out of Jesse-Son of Jesse Luke 3:23, 32
188. Isa. 11:2 Anointed One by the Spirit Matthew 3:16, 17, Acts 10:38
189. Isa. 11:2 His Character-Wisdom, Knowledge, et al Colossians 2:3
190. Isa. 11:3 He would know their thoughts Luke 6:8, John 2:25
191. Isa. 11:4 Judge in righteousness Acts 17:31
192. Isa. 11:4 Judges with the sword of His mouth Rev. 2:16, 19:11, 15
193. Isa. 11:5 Character: Righteous & Faithful Rev. 19:11
194. Isa. 11:10 The Gentiles seek Him John 12:18-21
195. Isa. 12:2 Called Jesus-Yeshua Matthew 1:21
196. Isa. 22:22 The One given all authority to govern Revelation 3:7
197. Isa. 25:8 The Resurrection predicted 1Corinthians 15:54
198. Isa. 26:19 His power of Resurrection predicted Matthew 27:50-54
199. Isa. 28:16 The Messiah is the precious corner stone Acts 4:11, 12
200. Isa. 28:16 The Sure Foundation 1Corinthians 3:11, Mt. 16:18
201. Isa. 29:13 He indicated hypocritical obedience to His Word Matthew 15:7-9
202. Isa. 29:14 The wise are confounded by the Word 1Corinthians 1:18-31
203. Isa. 32:2 A Refuge-A man shall be a hiding place Matthew 23:37
204. Isa. 35:4 He will come and save you Matthew 1:21
205. Isa. 35:5-6 To have a ministry of miracles Matthew 11:2-6
206. Isa. 40:3, 4 Preceded by forerunner John 1:23
207. Isa. 40:9 “Behold your God.” John 1:36; 19:14
208. Isa. 40:10. He will come to reward Revelation 22:12
209. Isa. 40:11 A shepherd-compassionate life-giver John 10:10-18
210. Isa. 42:1-4 The Servant-as a faithful, patient redeemer Matthew 12:18-21
211. Isa. 42:2 Meek and lowly Matthew 11:28-30
212. Isa. 42:3 He brings hope for the hopeless John 4
213. Isa. 42:4 The nations shall wait on His teachings John 12:20-26
214. Isa. 42:6 The Light (salvation) of the Gentiles Luke 2:32
215. Isa. 42:1, 6 His is a worldwide compassion Matthew 28:19, 20
216. Isa. 42:7 Blind eyes opened. John 9:25-38
217. Isa. 43:11 He is the only Saviour. Acts 4:12
218. Isa. 44:3 He will send the Spirit of God John 16:7, 13
219. Isa. 45:21-25 He is Lord and Saviour Philippians 3:20, Titus 2:13
220. Isa. 45:23 He will be the Judge John 5:22; Romans 14:11
221. Isa. 46:9, 10 Declares things not yet done John 13:19
222. Isa. 48:12 The First and the Last John 1:30, Revelation 1:8, 17
223. Isa. 48:16, 17 He came as a Teacher John 3:2
224. Isa. 49:1 Called from the womb-His humanity Matthew 1:18
225. Isa. 49:5 A Servant from the womb. Luke 1:31, Philippians 2:7
226. Isa. 49:6 He will restore Israel Acts 3:19-21, 15:16-17
227. Isa. 49:6 He is Salvation for Israel Luke 2:29-32
228. Isa. 49:6 He is the Light of the Gentiles John 8:12, Acts 13:47
229. Isa. 49:6 He is Salvation unto the ends of the earth Acts 15:7-18
230. Isa. 49:7 He is despised of the Nation John 1:11, 8:48-49, 19:14-15
231. Isa. 50:3 Heaven is clothed in black at His humiliation Luke 23:44, 45
232. Isa. 50:4 He is a learned counselor for the weary Matthew 7:29, 11:28, 29
233. Isa. 50:5 The Servant bound willingly to obedience Matthew 26:39
234. Isa. 50:6a “I gave my back to the smiters.” Matthew 27:26
235. Isa. 50:6b He was smitten on the cheeks Matthew 26:67
236. Isa. 50:6c He was spat upon Matthew 27:30
237. Isa. 52:7 Published good tidings upon mountains Matthew 5:12,15:29,28:16
238. Isa. 52:13 The Servant exalted Acts 1:8-11; Eph. 1:19-22, Php. 2:5-9
239. Isa. 52:14 The Servant shockingly abused Luke 18:31-34; Mt. 26:67, 68
240. Isa. 52:15 Nations startled by message of the Servant Luke 18:31-34; Mt. 26:67, 68
241. Isa. 52:15 His blood shed sprinkles nations Hebrews 9:13-14, Rev. 1:5
242. Isa. 53:1 His people would not believe Him John 12:37-38
243. Isa. 53:2 Appearance of an ordinary man Philippians 2:6-8
244. Isa. 53:3a Despised Luke 4:28-29
245. Isa. 53:3b Rejected Matthew 27:21-23
246. Isa. 53:3c Great sorrow and grief Matthew 26:37-38, Luke 19:41, Heb. 4:15
247. Isa. 53:3d Men hide from being associated with Him Mark 14:50-52
248. Isa. 53:4a He would have a healing ministry Matthew 8:16-17
249. Isa. 53:4b Thought to be cursed by God Matthew 26:66, 27:41-43
250. Isa. 53:5a Bears penalty for mankind’s iniquities 2Cor. 5:21, Heb. 2:9
251. Isa. 53:5b His sacrifice provides peace between man and God Colossians 1:20
252. Isa. 53:5c His sacrifice would heal man of sin 1Peter 2:24
253. Isa. 53:6a He would be the sin-bearer for all mankind 1John 2:2, 4:10
254. Isa. 53:6b God’s will that He bear sin for all mankind Galatians 1:4
255. Isa. 53:7a Oppressed and afflicted Matthew 27:27-31
256. Isa. 53:7b Silent before his accusers Matthew 27:12-14
257. Isa. 53:7c Sacrificial lamb John 1:29, 1Peter 1:18-19
258. Isa. 53:8a Confined and persecuted Matthew 26:47-27:31
259. Isa. 53:8b He would be judged John 18:13-22
260. Isa. 53:8c Killed Matthew 27:35
261. Isa. 53:8d Dies for the sins of the world 1John 2:2
262. Isa. 53:9a Buried in a rich man’s grave Matthew 27:57
263. Isa. 53:9b Innocent and had done no violence Luke 23:41, John 18:38
264. Isa. 53:9c No deceit in his mouth 1Peter 2:22
265. Isa. 53:10a God’s will that He die for mankind John 18:11
266. Isa. 53:10b An offering for sin Matthew 20:28, Galatians 3:13
267. Isa. 53:10c Resurrected and live forever Romans 6:9
268. Isa. 53:10d He would prosper John 17:1-5
269. Isa. 53:11a God fully satisfied with His suffering John 12:27
270. Isa. 53:11b God’s servant would justify man Romans 5:8-9, 18-19
271. Isa. 53:11c The sin-bearer for all mankind Hebrews 9:28
272. Isa. 53:12a Exalted by God because of his sacrifice Matthew 28:18
273. Isa. 53:12b He would give up his life to save mankind Luke 23:46
274. Isa. 53:12c Numbered with the transgressors Mark 15:27-28
275. Isa. 53:12d Sin-bearer for all mankind 1Peter 2:24
276. Isa. 53:12e Intercede to God in behalf of mankind Luke 23:34, Rom. 8:34
277. Isa. 55:3 Resurrected by God Acts 13:34
278. Isa. 55:4a A witness John 18:37
279. Isa. 55:4b He is a leader and commander Hebrews 2:10
280. Isa. 55:5 God would glorify Him Acts 3:13
281. Isa. 59:16a Intercessor between man and God Matthew 10:32
282. Isa. 59:16b He would come to provide salvation John 6:40
283. Isa. 59:20 He would come to Zion as their Redeemer Luke 2:38
284. Isa. 60:1-3 He would shew light to the Gentiles Acts 26:23
285. Isa. 61:1a The Spirit of God upon him Matthew 3:16-17
286. Isa. 61:1b The Messiah would preach the good news Luke 4:16-21
287. Isa. 61:1c Provide freedom from the bondage of sin John 8:31-36
288. Isa. 61:1-2a Proclaim a period of grace Galatians 4:4-5
289. Jer. 23:5-6 Descendant of David Luke 3:23-31
290. Jer. 23:5-6 The Messiah would be both God and Man John 13:13, 1Ti 3:16
291. Jer. 31:22 Born of a virgin Matthew 1:18-20
292. Jer. 31:31 The Messiah would be the new covenant Matthew 26:28
293. Jer. 33:14-15 Descendant of David Luke 3:23-31
294. Eze.34:23-24 Descendant of David Matthew 1:1
295. Eze.37:24-25 Descendant of David Luke 1:31-33
296. Dan. 2:44-45 The Stone that shall break the kingdoms Matthew 21:44
297. Dan. 7:13-14a He would ascend into heaven Acts 1:9-11
298. Dan. 7:13-14b Highly exalted Ephesians 1:20-22
299. Dan. 7:13-14c His dominion would be everlasting Luke 1:31-33
300. Dan. 9:24a To make an end to sins Galatians 1:3-5
301. Dan. 9:24a To make reconciliation for iniquity Romans 5:10, 2Cor. 5:18-21
302. Dan. 9:24b He would be holy Luke 1:35
303. Dan. 9:25 His announcement John 12:12-13
304. Dan. 9:26a Cut off Matthew 16:21, 21:38-39
305. Dan. 9:26b Die for the sins of the world Hebrews 2:9
306. Dan. 9:26c Killed before the destruction of the temple Matthew 27:50-51
307. Dan. 10:5-6 Messiah in a glorified state Revelation 1:13-16
308. Hos. 11:1 He would be called out of Egypt Matthew 2:15
309. Hos. 13:14 He would defeat death 1Corinthians 15:55-57
310. Joel 2:32 Offer salvation to all mankind Romans 10:9-13
311. Jonah 1:17 Death and resurrection of Christ Matthew 12:40, 16:4
312. Mic. 5:2a Born in Bethlehem Matthew 2:1-6
313. Mic. 5:2b Ruler in Israel Luke 1:33
314. Mic. 5:2c From everlasting John 8:58
315. Hag. 2:6-9 He would visit the second Temple Luke 2:27-32
316. Hag. 2:23 Descendant of Zerubbabel Luke 2:27-32
317. Zech. 3:8 God’s servant John 17:4
318. Zech. 6:12-13 Priest and King Hebrews 8:1
319. Zech. 9:9a Greeted with rejoicing in Jerusalem Matthew 21:8-10
320. Zech. 9:9b Beheld as King John 12:12-13
321. Zech. 9:9c The Messiah would be just John 5:30
322. Zech. 9:9d The Messiah would bring salvation Luke 19:10
323. Zech. 9:9e The Messiah would be humble Matthew 11:29
324. Zech. 9:9f Presented to Jerusalem riding on a donkey Matthew 21:6-9
325. Zech. 10:4 The cornerstone Ephesians 2:20
326. Zech. 11:4-6a At His coming, Israel to have unfit leaders Matthew 23:1-4
327. Zech. 11:4-6b Rejection causes God to remove His protection Luke 19:41-44
328. Zech. 11:4-6c Rejected in favor of another king John 19:13-15
329. Zech. 11:7 Ministry to “poor,” the believing remnant Matthew 9:35-36
330. Zech. 11:8a Unbelief forces Messiah to reject them Matthew 23:33
331. Zech. 11:8b Despised Matthew 27:20
332. Zech. 11:9 Stops ministering to those who rejected Him Matthew 13:10-11
333. Zech. 11:10-11a Rejection causes God to remove protection Luke 19:41-44
334. Zech. 11:10-11b The Messiah would be God John 14:7
335. Zech. 11:12-13a Betrayed for thirty pieces of silver Matthew 26:14-15
336. Zech. 11:12-13b Rejected Matthew 26:14-15
337. Zech. 11:12-13c Thirty pieces of silver cast in the house of the Lord Matthew 27:3-5
338. Zech. 11:12-13d The Messiah would be God John 12:45
339. Zech. 12:10a The Messiah’s body would be pierced John 19:34-37
340. Zech. 12:10b The Messiah would be both God and man John 10:30
341. Zech. 12:10c The Messiah would be rejected John 1:11
342. Zech. 13:7a God’s will He die for mankind John 18:11
343. Zech. 13:7b A violent death Mark 14:27
344. Zech. 13:7c Both God and man John 14:9
345. Zech. 13:7d Israel scattered as a result of rejecting Him Matthew 26:31-56
346. Zech. 14:4 He would return to the Mt. of Olives Acts 1:11-12
347. Mal. 3:1a Messenger to prepare the way for Messiah Mark 1:1-8
348. Mal. 3:1b Sudden appearance at the temple Mark 11:15-16
349. Mal. 3:1c Messenger of the new covenant Luke 4:43
350. Mal. 4:5 Forerunner in spirit of Elijah Mt. 3:1-3, 11:10-14, 17:11-13
351. Mal. 4:6 Forerunner would turn many to righteousness Luke 1:16-17

From the Jerusalem Post

Palestinian Authority president tells pope he hopes to sign peace treaty with Israel.

Pope Francis hosts Abbas at Vatican

Pope Francis hosts Abbas at Vatican Photo: REUTERS

During their first meeting in the Vatican, Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas on Thursday invited Pope Francis to visit the Holy Land.

Francis welcomed Abbas and presented him with a gift in appreciation of his efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East, the PA’s official news agency Wafa reported.

After the private part of the meeting, the pope gave Abbas a pen, telling him, “surely, you have a lot of things you have to sign.”

Abbas responded: “I hope to sign a peace treaty with Israel with this pen.”

Abbas’s spokesman Nabil Abu Rudaineh; Ziad al-Bandak, PA adviser on Christian affairs; and Bethlehem Mayor Vera Baboun attended Abbas’s Thursday meeting with the pope.

Francis, who was ordained in March of this year, has already said he would like to come to the Holy Land in response to a personal invitation from President Shimon Peres in April.

But no date has been set for such a visit, even though reports surfaced that the pope would come in March of next year. A Vatican spokesman said that while the pontiff was eager to visit Jerusalem, no specific plans have been made.

When Francis arrives, it is expected he would visit both Israel and the Palestinian territories, as did Pope Benedict XVI in 2009, and John Paul II in 2000.

To date there have been only three papal visits to the Holy Land.

Abbas’s visit with Francis follows on the heels of an announcement Wednesday night, that Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu plans to meet with the pope in the Vatican next Wednesday.

Alex Jones and Anthony Gucciardi discuss the termination of  Navy Vice Admiral Tim Giardina and Maj. Gen. Michael Carey following leaked information about nuclear warhead transfers.

Click Here Missing Nuke Investigation

In other news:

Common Core Dirty Little Secret “There are four hundred points of data being collected, monitored and stored on every child in the American education system. Monitoring devices are being implemented in our children’s classrooms. All of this is being done under the guise of education reform.”

Israeli Defense Force (IDF) Find Terrorist Tunnel in Gaza 

NSA Spycamp Goes Up In Flames, Delays Program For One Year

California Signs Bill Allowing Nurses to Perform Abortions

Pentagon Spent $5 Billion on Weapons Eve of Government Shutdown

Ranger Told To Make Life Miserable For Citizens During Shutdown

Federal Attorney Warns of Negative Comments About Islam Could Lead to Prosecution and Imprisonment

Newspaper Sues For Names of Gun Owners

RFID Chip Part of Obama Health Care Law (“Obamacare”) (Begins with Ron Paul and Megan Kelly from the US Fox News)

Russia Cracks Down on Russian Muslims-300 Arrested (America could learn a few things from “Profiling” of terrorists and homosexuality from the Russians!)

Joel Osteen God Absolutely Accepts Homosexuals

Obama Uses Own Money to Fund Muslim Museum During Government Shutdown “Washington, DC — While up to 800,000 federal workers faced life without a paycheck as Day Two of the government shutdown kicked in, President Barack Obama held a press conference to announce that he is using his own money to open the federally funded International Museum of Muslim Cultures”

By Chris Pinto

Noise of Thunder Radio

Answering Dr. Daniel Wallace on Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair





“The history of this manuscript is wrought with mystery, politics, and perhaps even some deception …” 

Source: The Friends of CSNTM (Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts) website, featuring Dr. Daniel Wallace 

This is our second and more detailed response to a video that was posted concerning our film, Tares Among the Wheat.  The video in question features a presentation given by Dr. Daniel Wallace, who is a professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, speaking on the subject of Constantine Simonides and his claim to have authored the Codex Sinaiticus in 1840 (a manuscript ordinarily dated to the fourth century).  Our film presents evidence from the 19th century that strongly suggests Simonides may very well have been the true author of the codex, and indeed, he went to his grave defending this claim.  However, Dr. Wallace supports the predominantly held view that his story was false, and presents a number of reasons for this belief.

Perhaps the most important part of Dr. Wallace’s argument is his assertion that the Codex Sinaiticus was actually seen by an Italian explorer in the year 1761 – long before Constantine Simonides was even born.  But was this the case?  Or has the good doctor overlooked important details?

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the flaws in Dr. Wallace’s conclusions by examining the historic information he presents point by point.  We generally believe most scholars today are largely unaware of the specifics surrounding the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, and the story of Simonides in general.  Our desire is that a more perfect history be established concerning this controversy, for the benefit of the Biblical record and the understanding of the Church.



The first 43 leaves of the Codex Sinaiticus were found by the German scholar, Constantine von Tischendorf in 1844, at St. Catherine’s Monastery at the base of what is called Mt. Sinai in Egypt.  While he was very secretive about his original discovery, Tischendorf later claimed that the pages he found had been jettisoned by the Greek monks in a rubbish basket, and were destined to be burned in the fire.  The monks to this day claim that he stole them.  Tischendorf visited the monastery a second time in 1853, where he discovered a fragment of Genesis; but his next major discovery of the codex was in 1859, when he found the New Testament portion and part of the Old, along with the Epistle of Barnabas and a partial copy of the Shepherd of Hermas.  At this point, the manuscript was named Codex Sinaiticus, and declared to be the oldest Bible ever found.

Yet in 1860, when the Greek paleographer Constantine Simonides saw the first facsimiles in Liverpool, England, he said, “I at once recognized my own work.”  He claimed that he had created the manuscript twenty years earlier, and that it was intended to be a gift for the Czar of Russia, something planned by his uncle, (a Greek monk named Benedict) and carried out by Simonides as a young calligrapher.  The story was astonishing, and a debate concerning the issue raged back and forth from 1860 to 1864, much of it in the newspapers of England. In short, the critics of the 19th century rejected his claims.  Simonides published a final work in 1864, in which he reaffirmed all that he had said, and then left London, never to return.



Dr. Wallace mentions the opinions of the 19th century scholars, Samuel P. Tregelles and Henry Bradshaw, both of whom opposed the claims of Simonides.   But could it be said that these men in any way settled the issue? Tregelles had a comment published in the newspapers in which he said that: “the story of Simonides is as false and absurd as possible.”

Yet in response to this comment, a publication called The Literary Churchman, December 16, 1862, wrote the following:

“… we are not prepared, at this moment, to say, with Dr. Tregelles, that the statements of Simonides are ‘as false and absurd as possible.’  Tischendorf applies these terms ‘false and absurd’ just now to Tregelles himself: and indeed the proverbially furious way in which critics abuse one another, and the pettiness of their jealousies have had much illustration of late.”

In contrast, Henry Bradshaw actually met with Simonides and a friend of his at the Cambridge University Library. Simonides had written Bradshaw a letter, and provided examples of his own handwriting in ancient Greek characters to prove that he was the true author.  He said:

“… the penmanship of the Sinaitic Codex is my more usual style … I wrote letters not long since in the same style with a common pen and upon ordinary paper to … Mr. Henry Bradshaw, the keeper of MSS. in the university library of Cambridge; and to others … To Mr. H. Bradshaw I wrote as follows: — ‘Dear Sir – They who believe the Sinaitic Codex to be ancient are deceived, for I am the worker of the miracle, and many of the witnesses are still alive.  Farewell. – Christ’s College, Oct. 7, 1862.’

(Letter of C. Simonides, The Journal of Sacred LiteratureApril 1863)



It is strange that Bradshaw never commented on the handwriting of Simonides, to say whether or not it might have matched with the writing in Codex Sinaiticus.  It is also strange that Bradshaw showed no interest in learning more about the witnesses that were named either.  Instead, they had a debate about how to determine the genuineness of a manuscript.  Bradshaw wrote:


“But the great question was, ‘How do you satisfy yourselves of the genuineness of any manuscript?’  I first replied that it was really difficult to define; that it seemed to be more of a kind of instinct than anything else.  Dr. Simonides and his friend readily caught at this as too much like vague assertion, and they naturally ridiculed any such idea …”


Bradshaw then goes on to describe their conversation further, telling us that Simonides refused to accept his scholarly instincts in favor of the codex as a fourth century manuscript.  After repeated objections, Bradshaw said:


I told him as politely as I could that I was not to be convinced against the evidence of my senses.”


(Henry Bradshaw, Letter to the Guardian, January 28, 1863)


Notice that Bradshaw’s conclusion (much like that of Tregelles) was not particularly scientific or based on some in-depth textual analysis.   It does not appear that either of them examined the codex from the perspective that it might be a forgery.


While Dr. Wallace finds the assertions of Bradshaw and Tregelles to be authoritative, it is important to consider that their opinions were dismissed by renowned scholar James A. Farrer in his classic work, Literary Forgeries(1907).  After examining the Simonides controversy, he wrote:


“It is to be regretted that this matter was never cleared up at the time the claim was made.  It cannot be said to have been settled by the mere opinions of Tregelles or Bradshaw, or by the more critical and palaeographical objections urged by Mr. Scrivener…. The two former examined the Codex two months before Simonides had made his claim to it as his work, so that they had no reason to examine it with suspicion…. The question therefore, pending the acquisition of further evidence, must remain among the interesting but unsolved mysteries of literature.”  (Farrer, pp. 64-65)


Note that in the year 1907 (decades after the smoke had cleared, so to speak) Farrer refers to the subject of Simonides as an unsolved mystery.  We believe this is the only conclusion that one could come to at that point in history, after having examined the many writings and newspaper articles on the subject.  The reason the matter was never resolved is because the textual critics of the 19th century simply refused to investigate Simonides’ claims.  They relied on little more than their own academic credentials for proof, and found it more convenient to search for ways to discredit him, rather than discover whether or not he was actually telling the truth.




For a more modern reference concerning the mysterious nature of the manuscript’s history, we present this quote from the British Library’s official website for the Codex Sinaiticus, in which they declare that:


“… events concerning the history of the Codex Sinaiticus, from 1844 to this very day, are not fully known; hence, they are susceptible to widely divergent interpretations and recountings that are evaluated differently as to their form and essence.”  


When compared to the unverifiable fantasies concocted by the critics who have invented countless historic details for the codex that are often filled with incredible contradictions, the story of Simonides can be rightly called a “divergent interpretation” of the history of Codex Sinaiticus.  The difference is that there is much more documentation to support the assertions of Simonides than a vast majority of what is claimed by textual critics today.





Dr. Wallace says of Simonides that:


His wealth would have had to have been vast in order to produce this manuscript … the cost of production would be worth the equivalent of a lifetime of work.”


It is worth noting that during the debates in the 19th century, we find no record of anyone making this argument. In London, Simonides had more than 2,000 manuscripts in his possession, and these were seen by many witnesses (as recorded by Mr. Charles Stewart, his biographer).  As such, he obviously had access to lots and lots of vellum parchment.


More importantly, Simonides openly declared that he obtained the vellum used for Sinaiticus from a Greek monastery on Mount Athos in the year 1839, and that it was already of ancient character when he found it.  In the account he published in the Guardian on September 3, 1862 Simonides wrote:


“… being short of parchment, I selected from the library of the monastery, with Benedict’s permission, a very bulky volume, antiquely bound, and almost entirely blank, the parchment of which was remarkably clean, and beautifully finished.  This had been prepared apparently many centuries ago – probably by the writer or by the principle of the monastery, as it bore the inscription (a Collection of Panegyrics), and also a short discourse, much injured by time.”


So, he tells us the parchment had been prepared centuries earlier for a Collection of Panegyrics (i.e. works ofelaborate praise or laudation), but the work was begun and never finished, leaving a healthy amount of blank vellum pages.  Simonides would have gained the permission to use the parchment from his uncle, Benedict, who was a leader in the Greek Orthodox Church at that time.  It was he (along with other leaders) who wanted the manuscript created as a gift for the Czar of Russia.  So, the vellum was simply acquired through the resources of the monks on Mt. Athos, and it would not have been at all necessary to purchase it.





It was also in his first letter to the Guardian in Sept. 1862, that Simonides described how the work was “written according to the ancient form, in capital letters, and on parchment.”


This detail, along with the fact that the vellum he used was already ancient, becomes very significant once a person understands the principles of paleography – the science of dating ancient manuscripts.  The short definition for paleography is “handwriting analysis.” The chief considerations of paleography have to do with analyzing of the style of a scribe’s handwriting, and comparing it with the handwriting of known documents from a particular century.  This analysis is combined with identifying the character of the papyrus or parchment used for a particular codex.  Papyrus was typically used in the first three centuries of Church history, while vellum parchment (made from animal skins) came into regular usage about the fourth century.


Depending on how letters are shaped and words are spelled (i.e. whether ancient or modern) determines the core of how paleographers date a codex.  Hence, if Simonides wrote in ancient Greek characters, and on vellum that was already ancient, it becomes very possible that he could have created a work that would have deceived Western scholars, because of the methods they use for dating manuscripts.





Perhaps the most significant point made by Dr. Wallace is the assertion that an Italian explorer mentioned seeing Codex Sinaiticus in the year 1761, after a visit St. Catherine’s Monastery.  Dr. Wallace tells us:


“In 1761 an Italian scholar, Vitaliano Donati visited St. Catherine and described a manuscript he saw there that matches Sinaiticus to a tee.  This was 79 years before Simonides forged it, and 59 years before Simonides was born.”


If this were true, it would shatter the story of Simonides with a single stroke.  But did the Italian explorer describe Sinaiticus “to a tee” as Dr. Wallace asserts? An examination of Donati’s journal entry reveals the contrary. Thankfully, the specific words he wrote are recorded by the British Library on their website under the history section for the codex.  They tell us that:


“The first written record of the Codex Sinaiticus may be identifiable in the journal of an Italian visitor to the Monastery of Saint Catherine in 1761. In it the naturalist Vitaliano Donati reported having seen at the Monastery ‘a Bible comprising leaves of handsome, large, delicate, and square-shaped parchment, written in a round and handsome script’.”


Notice that the scholars at the British Library tell us this may be a reference to Sinaiticus.  They are not quite as confident as Dr. Wallace.  This is because Donati’s description is relatively vague, and can scarcely be called precise, or “to a tee” as Dr. Wallace said.


Donati writes about the Bible he saw in terms that might also apply to a thousand other works, depending how a person defines what it means to be “handsome” in the world of manuscripts. We also consider that there are currently more than 3,000 manuscripts at St. Catherine’s Monastery, and there may have been many more back in 1761.


If a man claimed to see a beautiful painting in a room filled with 3,000 paintings, would you know which one he meant?





Despite Dr. Wallace’s claim, none of the very unique features of Codex Sinaiticus were mentioned by Donati in 1761.  If he had truly seen it, his description would most likely have included at least one of the following prominent details:


1) Codex Sinaiticus is written in a four-column format (a rare featurewhile Dr. Wallace says it is the only one of this type, the British Library says it is one of very few)


2) The manuscript has 23,000 corrections, an average of 30 corrections per page (it is the most corrected Biblical manuscript in history)


3) It is one of only two Greek manuscripts that deliberately omits the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark.


The other manuscript that contains the shorter ending of Mark is the Codex Vaticanus, which, prior to the 19thcentury, had been hidden away in the Vatican Library, unavailable to most scholars.  Most all the other Greek manuscripts that include the Gospel of Mark also include the longer ending.  As such, if there had been a manuscript at St. Catherine’s with this very unique feature, it would have surely been mentioned by someone in the thousand years that came before.


It is worth noting that in 1907, James Farrer wrote that:


 “… no visitor to the monastery at Mount Sinai before 1844 had ever seen or heard of such a work as belonging to the monks …”





The “new finds” have to do with additional parts of the manuscript that were discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the year 1975, when a hidden room was uncovered in the tower on the north wall of the monastery. The website for the monastery tells us that “twelve pages and twenty-four fragments of the fourth century Codex Sinaiticus” were discovered.  But how did these pages come to be detached?  And why would they be hidden in this secret room?


Dr. Wallace says:


“The new finds of 1975 revealed that more leaves of the manuscript were still at Sinai.  How did they get there, if Simonides penned the manuscript somewhere else?”


Simonides publicly stated that he created the manuscript on Mt. Athos in 1839-1840, but how did it then arrive at St. Catherine’s Monastery by 1844?  The answer is provided by Simonides himself, in his letter to The Guardiannewspaper, on September 3, 1862.  He said that after his uncle died he ceased to work on the manuscript:


“… the supply of parchment ran short, and the severe loss which I sustained in the death of Benedict induced me to hand the work over at once to the bookbinders of the monastery, for the purpose of replacing the original covers, made of wood and covered with leather, which I had removed for convenience – and when he had done so, I took it into my possession.” (Simonides, Letter to the Guardian, Sept. 3, 1862)


In the same letter, Simonides then proceeds to tell us how the work arrived at the monastery at Mt. Sinai.  He wrote:


“Some time after this, having removed to Constantinople, I showed the work to the patriarchs Anthimus and Constantius, and communicated to them the reason of the transcription.  Constantius took it, and, having thoroughly examined it, urged me to present it to the library of Sinai, which I accordingly promised to do. Constantius had previously been Bishop of Sinai, and since his resignation of that office had again become Perpetual Bishop of that place.”


So, we learn that the Patriarch Constantius was in charge of St. Catherine’s Monastery and he is the person who would ultimately send the manuscript there some time later.  Simonides continued:


“Shortly after this … I went, over to the island of Antigonus to visit Constantius, and to perform my promise of giving up the manuscript to the library of Mount Sinai.  The patriarch was, however, absent from home, and I, consequently, left the packet for him with a letter.”


He goes on to say that after he left the package containing the manuscript, he later received a letter from Constantius confirming the receipt of it.  The patriarch’s letter was dated August 13, 1841.


All of this happens approximately three years before the first pages of the manuscript were discovered by Tischendorf in 1844.  As such, it is reasonable to conclude that Constantius would have delivered the manuscript to Mt. Sinai within a short time after he received it.  In his letter to The Guardian, Simonides even gave the name of the monk who brought the manuscript to the monastery:


“… the name of the monk who was sent by the Patriarch Constantius to convey the volume from the island of Antigonus to Sinai was Germanus.”


At this point, Simonides had provided the names of at least three men – Anthimus, Constantius and Germanus – who were all somehow eyewitnesses to this work. Typically, when someone is lying, they do not provide the kind of specific details that he did, and would be reluctant to name prominent people who could be sought out for fear that they would expose him.  A dishonest person who makes a story up from nothing is more likely to be vague and short on specifics, but this was not the case with Simonides.





Dr. Wallace tells us:


Archbishop Damianos had suspected for some time that there might be treasures hidden in the northern wall of the monastery.  This was where the sacristy had been previously.”


Why would Damianos suspect that there might be treasures there?  Did he imagine this from nothing?  Or was this idea given to him by a predecessor?  Think about it.  How could a room in a monastery that had been continuously inhabited be covered up without anyone knowing about it?  Surely, someone knew about it when it happened.  It stands to reason that stories about this hidden room (a room filled with many manuscripts, no less) would have been handed down from one generation to the next.


Dr. Wallace also says:


“… the latest manuscripts stored in the geniza (storage area) was from the 18th century.  This is significant because it shows that the practices of the monks, close to the time that Tischendorf came there, was to store manuscripts …”


Notice that Dr. Wallace acknowledged that the latest manuscripts found were from the 18th century, which means that this room could not have been covered up for hundreds of years.  Hence, the pages from Codex Sinaiticus must have been hidden there “close to the time that Tischendorf came there” as he said.  But how close?  Is it possible to tell?


We have already shown that the manuscript described by Simonides was transferred to St. Catherine’s Monastery about the year 1841, at the hands of a monk named Germanus, several years before Tischendorf arrived.  With this in mind, we next turn to a witness who was present when the discovery of 1975 was first revealed.





In the year 1968, a man named Moshe Altbauer began working at the library at Mount Sinai.  Dr. Altbauer was the Professor Emeritus of Slavonic Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and he published an essay on the “new finds” in 1987, his own interest being in the Slavic manuscripts discovered along with the pages of Codex Sinaiticus.  Dr. Altbauer died in 1998, but we had a brief correspondence with one of his former students (Prof. Moshe Taube), who confirmed that it was indeed the Sinai Library at St. Catherine’s that he refers to in his essay.  However, having corresponded with his son (Dr. Dan Altbauer), we are unable to confirm whether or not he was present in 1975 when the find was made.


Yet most importantly, in his essay, Dr. Altbauer tells us the following about the source of his information on the 1975 discovery:


The only information I got was from Father Sophronius, who discovered the manuscripts while digging foundations for a new building after a fire in the Monastery.”


Source: “Identification of Newly Discovered Slavic Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai,” by Dr. Moshe Altbauer (1987)


This is why Altbauer’s testimony is so significant, because he was working at the Sinai Library while all of this was happening, and he was in direct communication with the person who actually made the discovery. In contrast, the information presented by Dr. Daniel Wallace, by his own admission, was published some 23 years after all of these things happened.  One can only wonder how the information may have changed over the course of time, which often happens in the aftermath of historic events.  As we shall see, there are important details that Dr. Wallace does not include in his presentation.





While Dr. Altbauer’s essay is short, and concerned mainly with things that have nothing to do with Codex Sinaiticus, he reveals a number of interesting details.  First, that the monks at Sinai were very secretive about this hidden room and what was in it:


The Sinaitic monks kept the discovery as a great secret, but a scholar from Athens … was less cautious. American scholars, who had good relationships with the scholar from Athens, got information on the manuscript finds made in Sinai, and even pictures of some of them.  The reaction of the Sinaitic monks to this information was rage and wrath.”


Notice that they were not merely upset, as one might expect.  He says they were filled with rage and wrath?  Why were they so angry?  In his book, Secrets of Mount Sinai: the Story of the World’s Oldest Bible – Codex Sinaiticus, author James Bentley says “their resentment at the treachery of Constantin von Tischendorf prompted their decision to keep the new discoveries secret.” (Bentley, p. 200)


Undoubtedly, the most curious part of his essay is the opening statement made by Professor Altbauer, where he describes the find itself.  He wrote:


“Since the year 1975 many rumors spread of the sensational discovery of more than 220 old manuscripts, among them some in Slavic, set aside in a chest and burrowed in the ground of an ancient Sinai Monastery (about 150 years ago).”


Set aside in a chest and burrowed in the ground?  Now, when compared to the testimony of Dr. Wallace, there seems to be some inconsistency.  Dr. Wallace describes about two tons worth of manuscripts that were eventually uncovered.  It seems highly unlikely that these could have all fit into a single chest.  Was there a chest buried, with many other manuscripts beside it, or surrounding it?  Admittedly, there are a variety of possibilities.


Also notice that Dr. Altbauer says this happened “about 150 years ago.”  Since his essay was published in 1987, a century and a half would take us back to about the same time frame that Simonides is said to have delivered the manuscript to Mount Sinai and the activity with Tischendorf took place.  It is difficult to press this issue too far without knowing exactly when the room was hidden.  Yet even knowing that date would not be conclusive, since it is possible that even after the room was covered up, it could have been accessed by someone who knew about it, if they wanted to hide something there.


In any case, the fact that pages of Sinaiticus were discovered in this secret room in 1975 neither confirms the ancient character of the codex, nor prevents the possibility that it could have been created by Constantine Simonides.


While there is no question that mystery surrounds the issue, and speculation seems unavoidable, the real question is: Why would anyone have removed certain pages from the Codex Sinaiticus, buried them in a chest and hidden it away in a secret room at St. Catherine’s? 


Dr. Wallace argues that the monks may have been in the habit of burying certain manuscripts, perhaps in the same way this practice is known among the Jews; that they bury copies of the Torah once they are too old, or if they contain too many flaws.  But if the monks wanted to bury Sinaiticus, why didn’t they bury the whole thing? Why just certain pages?


If we believe Dr. Wallace, the impression he gives is that some of the pages of the front and back of the manuscript simply fell off to the ground, and went apparently unnoticed by a careless monk.  This is certainly possible, but if anything, it only feeds the idea that the monks were absent minded in their care of sacred works, something Wallace was trying to dispel in his presentation.  Yet if we look to the writings of witnesses from the 19th century, we may find clues to help solve the mystery.





In the story he published in The Guardian newspaper on Sept. 3, 1862, Simonides shared the following:


“In various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different MSS. from which I had taken certain passages and readings.  These initials appear to have greatly bewildered Professor Tischendorf, who has invented several highly ingenious methods of accounting for them.  Lastly, I declare my ability to point to two distinct pages in the MS., though I have not seen it for years, in which is contained the most unquestionable proof of its being my writing.”


Simonides repeatedly challenged Tischendorf to a public debate, so that he might point out these markings in the presence of others to settle the issue.  It seems that Tischendorf at one point agreed to it, but then backed out.  Simonides called attention to this in a letter published in The Literary Churchman, June 16, 1863:


“The public were assured that in May, Tischendorf was to be in London, armed with a portion at least of his great Codex.  I have waited in England hoping to have the opportunity of meeting him, face to face, to prove him in error; but May has come and gone, and the discoverer has not appeared.  Let the favourers of the antiquity of the MS. persuade him to come at once, and brave the ordeal, or else for ever hold his peace.”


Unfortunately, Simonides never had the opportunity to expose the markings he wrote about in a public debate with Tischendorf, but he was not the only person who acknowledged that such markings existed.





During the debates in the newspapers, a series of letters arrived from a friend of Simonides, a Greek monk named Kallinikos Hieromonachos.  Kallinikos provided interesting details about the codex, and confirmed that there were markings or “acrostics” that pertained to his friend.


After Kallinikos’ letters were published, a man named W. A. Wright, in an apparent attempt to draw attention from the fact that Tischendorf had backed out of the public debate, began declaring that Kallinikos was a fictional person created by Simonides.


It was revealed that the letters were clearly post-marked from Alexandria, Egypt, which is where Kallinikos resided at the time.  The postal markings were real and not forged.  In spite of this, Wright went so far as to suggest that Simonides had left London and traveled to Alexandria, where he mailed the letters himself so that they would have an Alexandrian postmark on them.  In order for Simonides to have done this, he would have needed to travel back and forth to Alexandria on at least four separate occasions.  This would be like suggesting that someone was in the habit of flying back and forth from the U.S. to China in order to mail letters so that they would have a Chinese postmark on them – all as part of a grand deception.  When one considers that Simonides stood to gain virtually nothing from all of this, the idea that he went to such lengths becomes ridiculous.


The absurdity of Wright’s arguments were later exposed by James Farrer, who showed that, indeed, Kallinikos was a real person whose relationship with Simonides was well documented (see Farrer, pp. 61-62).


It was Kallinikos who first declared that Tischendorf had not discovered the pages of the manuscript in 1844 in a basket as he claimed, but had rather stolen them.  In a letter written to Simonides in August 17, 1858, Kallinikos wrote:


“I understood from Gabriel, the keeper of the treasures, that his predecessor had given the manuscript to a German, who visited the monastery in 1844 in the month of May, and who having had the MS. in his hands several days, secretly removed part of it, and went away during the time that the librarian lay ill …”


Notice that yet another eyewitness to the manuscript is revealed – Gabriel, the keeper of the treasures.  He is just one of many people who were openly named, and could have been sought out to confirm or refute the claims of Simonides; but the critics avoided this at all costs.  It is of no less importance that Dr. Wallace tells us no one ever went to corroborate the story of Tischendorf either.


Kallinikos also made mention of the special markings that Simonides placed inside the Codex Sinaiticus. In a letter published Nov. 2, 1863 in The Literary Churchman he said that:


“A portion of [the codex] was secretly removed from Mt. Sinai, by Professor Tischendorf, in 1844.  The rest, with inconceivable recklessness, he mutilated and tampered with, according to his liking, in the year 1859.  Some leaves he destroyed, especially such as contained the Acrostics of Simonides; but four of them escaped him, viz.,one in the Old Testament, and three in Hermas, as I long since informed Simonides …”


At one point, Simonides made the claim that some of the markings he made in the manuscript were to be found in Genesis, but this was exploited by W.A. Wright, who accused Simonides of duplicity.  In The Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, he wrote:


Simonides now points to an acrostic in Gen. xxivas proof that he wrote the Codex Sinaiticus.  He knows perfectly well that no part of Genesis has been recovered, and therefore makes his assertion with full assurance that it cannot be put to the test.”


Mr. Wright provided another important detail in The Guardian, on Feb. 4, 1863:


“As proof that the manuscript is his own writing, he now exhibits tracings of four pages, in one at least of which is an acrostic containing his name.  This one is from Genesis, which he knows perfectly well has not been recovered.  These tracings he says he took when at Mount Sinai in 1852 …”


In spite of Wright’s claim, Tischendorf did recover a fragment from Genesis in 1853, during his second visit to the monastery, and the fragment includes part of chapter twenty-four as we shall see.


The fact that Simonides claimed to see the manuscript at Mt. Sinai in the year 1852 is well documented in his first published letter on the subject.  According to Wright’s testimony, Simonides presented tracings of four pages of the codex that he made after he saw it at that point.  To our knowledge, no one has ever taken those traced pages and compared them with the rest of the manuscript.   We wonder where, if anywhere, these pages might be found.  Do they still exist?  Assuming that one of the traced pages contained the acrostic of Genesis 24, what was on the other three pages?  Could these pages contain clues that would determine once and for all if Simonides were telling the truth?


With all of this in mind, now let us go back and consider what was discovered among the “new finds” at St. Catherine’s in 1975.





According to the official website for Codex Sinaiticus we read the following about those parts of the manuscript that were discovered in 1975:


“The careful study of all the new fragments reveals that there are nineteen leaves wholly or partially extant, along with a few tiny fragments in which the text cannot be identified.  They contain portions of Genesis … a sequence of complete leaves from Numbers … a mutilated leaf which has parts of Deuteronomy … a tiny fragment with Judges … Finally in the Old Testament … fragments of a leaf containing parts of Hermas …”


So, notice that we have pages from the Old Testament, including (among other things) portions of Genesis, and then we have a part of the Shepherd of Hermas.  Is it possible that some of these pages contain clues that might support the story of Simonides?  Could they have been deliberately removed by Tischendorf, and hidden away to keep others from learning the truth?  If Tischendorf had seen the acrostics of Simonides, is it possible that he destroyed those pages (as Kallinikos testified) and then removed any others he thought might have had similar markings?


It is also worth noting that the Shepherd of Hermas was a central point of controversy between Tischendorf and Simonides in 1856, at the University of Leipzig, years before the Sinai codex was discovered.  No one had ever seen a copy of the Shepherd in Greek, and the first known copy was presented by Simonides in 1855.  It was embraced by most scholars as genuine, and was published openly, but then Tischendorf declared it to be a forgery.  Bentley records it this way:
“When [Simonides] had tried to sell the forged copy of the Shepherd of Hermas in Germany, Tischendorf had exposed him.” (Bentley, p. 101)


Despite the impression given by Bentley, Tischendorf did not believe that Simonides himself had forged the copy of the Shepherd, but rather, that it was a forgery created by someone else during the Middle Ages, having been translated into Greek from a Medieval form of Latin.  The problem with Bentley’s argument is that, in 1859, another copy of the Shepherd was discovered as part of the Codex Sinaiticus, and it matched the one presented by Simonides years earlier.  As a result, Tischendorf was forced to change his position and admit that the manuscript presented by Simonides was genuine.  Philip Schaff records this little known detail:


“The Greek text (brought from Mt. Athos by Constantine Simonides, and called Cod. Lipsiensis) … in … 1863 …Tischendorf, in consequence of the intervening discovery of the Cod. Sinaiticus retracted his former objections to the originality of the Greek Hermas from Mt. Athos, which he had pronounced a mediaeval retranslation from the Latin …”


(History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Eighth Edition, 1901, by Philip Schaff, David Schley Schaff, pp. 678-679)


Chances are, this is why scholars like James Farrer believed that Simonides exceeded Tischendorf in both knowledge and experience of paleographical science (see Farrer, p. 50).  This issue may also have something to do with why certain pages of the Shepherd of Hermas were removed from the Codex Sinaiticus, and hidden away in the sacristy, possibly even buried in a chest.  Could Tischendorf have suspected that those pages might have vindicated Simonides?  Could he have seen markings on them, as mentioned by Kallinikos?  Admittedly, we can only speculate.


Yet since the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus proved that Simonides had been correct about the Shepherd of Hermas, where then is his motivation for revenge, as claimed by Bentley and others?  Perhaps this is why James Farrer wrote:


“That Simonides was a good enough calligrapher, even at an early age, to have written the Codex, is hardly open to doubt, and it is in his favour that the world was first indebted to him in 1856 for the opening chapters in Greek of the Shepherd of Hermas, with a portion of which Codex Sinaiticus actually terminates.  The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance.”

(Farrer, pp. 59-60)





The portions of Genesis recovered in 1975 only include chapters 21 through 23, while Simonides claimed he placed an acrostic somewhere in Genesis chapter 24.  On the Codex Sinaiticus website, the British Library includes the information on the “new finds” under a section about the reconstruction of the manuscript, where they bring all the different parts together.  It is here that they tell us about additional fragments in Russia:


“There are other fragments found in the nineteenth century and now in St. Petersburg.  The ones which concern us here consist of a part of a leaf now preserving Genesis 23.19-24.19 and 24.20-24.46 …”


In other words, part of Genesis chapter 24 was recovered.  Not the whole thing, apparently, but part of it.  In his book, Secrets of Mount Sinai, author James Bentley tells us that this fragment was found by Tischendorf in 1853, during his second visit to St. Catherine’s Monastery.  We are told it was being used as a bookmark when he found it (Bentley, pp. 90-92).  This account fits in perfectly with the story told by Simonides, that he made a tracing of Genesis 24 in 1852, the year before Tischendorf arrived.


Of course, we cannot help but wonder how W.A. Wright could have so forcefully asserted, that “no part of Genesis has been recovered” as he said in 1863.  Why is it that he failed to realize this fragment had been found a decade earlier?  If nothing else, it might have served to cool his fanaticism.


Is it possible that this portion of Genesis 24 contains the acrostic of Simonides?  All one would need to do is compare the tracing that was presented by him in 1863 to find out.  Of course, the portion of Genesis 24 in St. Petersburg would have to show the same part that Simonides captured in his tracing.  Assuming they match up, if his acrostic turns out to be missing in the St. Petersburg fragment, this would be clear proof that he was lying. Yet if it were there, it would prove he was telling the truth.





In an earlier quote, we read that Kallinikos accused Tischendorf of “mutilating” and “tampering” with the manuscript, according to his liking.


There was also this assertion made by Simonides himself in The Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, where he answered a question posed by Henry Bradshaw:


“Mr. Bradshaw’s very proper and natural query – ‘How is it possible that a MS. written beautifully, and with no intention to deceive, in 1840, should in 1862 present so ancient an appearance?’  I answer simply thus: The MS. had been systematically tampered with, in order to give it an ancient appearance, as early as 1852, when, as I have already stated, it had an older appearance than it ought to have had …”


In other letters, Kallinikos claimed that the manuscript had been “cleaned, with a solution of herbs … that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow color.” (The Literary Churchman, Dec. 16, 1862)


The Christian Remembrancer, in commenting on this, interprets it to mean that the manuscript “had also been cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of washing the vellum, but, in reality, to weaken the freshness of the letters.” (See “Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair” by J.K. Elliott, p. 78)


Were Kallinikos and Simonides both lying?  To reject their statements, we have to conclude that they were; but what they are describing appears to be somebody’s effort to doctor up the codex and make it appear more ancient than it was.  Given the dates involved, and considering that the discovery was spread out over a fifteen-year time frame, the implication is that the manuscript was being prepared over an extended period of time.  We must also consider that Tischendorf made at least three trips to St. Catherine’s from 1844 to 1859.  Was there more involved in these trips than he led others to believe?


The real question with this whole episode is why these things were not properly investigated at the time these statements were made.





Is it possible that during his visits to the monastery, Constantine von Tischendorf was working to tamper with this manuscript, just as Kallinikos claimed?  Is it further possible that he deliberately removed certain pages and hid them away in a chest, or somewhere else in the sacristy?  Kallinikos, who claimed to know Tischendorf said that he was of a “master and pupil of all guile, and all wickedness” and that he deliberately manipulated the manuscript for his own purposes.  Others claim that Tischendorf was a sincere Christian, who only desired to defend the truth of the Gospel by presenting a more accurate Biblical record.  Who should we believe?


At this point in history, it must be recognized that speculation is what we are unavoidably brought to.  But to assume that Simonides and his friend were lying, and that all that was said by Tischendorf was the truth, lacks objectivity and balance.  In fact, it’s not very logical when the very critics who rely upon Tischendorf’s research, also believe he dealt in a dishonestly.  James Bentley, after describing the apparent contempt Tischendorf had for the monks at St. Catherine’s Monastery, wrote:


“It was perhaps this hatred of these despised monks that enabled Tischendorf to steal from them their greatest treasure.” (Bentley, p. 85)


As to the issue of Tischendorf’s dishonesty, this has been debated from the beginning.  Even Dr. Daniel Wallace, at the end of his presentation, says that it is time to acknowledge that the story of how he supposedly discovered the first pages in a rubbish basket should be declared a “myth,” essentially admitting his belief that the great German scholar was lying.





1.  Was Constantine Simonides an ingenious forger as most scholars and historians believe? 


It is certainly possible that he was, but we believe it is important to note that this was an accusation that he always denied.  It is also worth noting that not everyone believed he was a forger.  His friends at the Mayer Museum in Liverpool, along with its curator, John Eliot Hodgkin and his biographer, Charles Stewart, did not think so.  In fact, Stewart wrote to the Athenaum in 1862, saying:


“… the high opinion I entertained of Dr. Simonides as a gentleman and a man of honour, at the time I published his biography, has in no way diminished during the two years that have elapsed.  I know him to be utterly incapable of committing the disgraceful deeds imputed to him, and firmly believe that the truth and value of his statements and discoveries will, ere long, be universally admitted and recognized.”


(Letter of Mr. Charles Stewart, to the Editor of the Athenaum, 1862, see: The Periplus of Hannon, p. 64)


Also, James Farrer believed that he was falsely accused in the controversy over the Mayer Manuscripts, in which he discovered a first century fragment of the Gospel of Matthew, which was unrolled with other scrolls by Simonides in the presence of several witnesses, including Joseph Mayer the founder of the museum.  It was said to be the oldest historic record of the New Testament.  He was accused of forging this, and the other papyri, even though they had been purchased by Joseph Mayer years before he ever met Simonides.  Our opinion is that the accusations came against him because the first century fragment of Matthew was in Greek, and contradicted the theories of the critics who believed it was originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew.  Of this controversy, James Farrer wrote:


It is almost impossible to believe in his manufacture of these papyri.  They correspond in writing and appearance with numberless other papyri which have of recent years been discovered and published … If these are forgeries, they can hardly be forgeries by Simonides; and if he was guiltless in respect of these, he was presumably guiltless in respect of the others.”  (Farrer, p. 56)


All this to say, even if Simonides was the world’s most brilliant forger (as some think him to be) this would only increase the possibility that he could have created a great manuscript that would deceive the academic world.



2.  Are you open to the possibility that Simonides was not the true author of the Codex Sinaiticus?


Yes, absolutely.  While we are inclined to believe the evidence leans primarily in his direction, we recognize other potential scenarios.  We think it’s important to acknowledge the two possibilities argued by both Scrivener and Farrer in this regard.  The first and most obvious is that Simonides simply lied to somehow get even with Tischendorf, or rob him of the glory of his discovery.  Because of what we reported about the Shepherd of Hermas earlier, however, we believe this to be the less likely explanation.  The second explanation offered is that Simonides did, in fact, create a codex just as he described, but that the codex he created on Mt. Athos was not the Codex Sinaiticus.  This possibility was also suggested by Henry Bradshaw.


Yet with the above things in view, we still do not believe anyone ever proved he was lying.  Furthermore, his critics in the 19th century were nearly all involved, either directly or indirectly, with the Revision Committee of 1870 under Westcott and Hort.  Even W.A. Wright was the secretary for the Old Testament Company of this committee.  So they all had an interest in promoting Sinaiticus, because they wanted to use it to change the underlying Greek text of the Authorized Version.



3.  In your opinion, how could Simonides’ claims be fully disproven?


Right now, we know of two ways.


A. Compare the traced page of Genesis chapter 24 with the Genesis 24 fragment recovered by Tischendorf in 1853, which now resides in St. Petersburg, Russia.  We have no idea where the traced pages of Simonides might be.  Yet if the traced page of Genesis that Simonides created in 1852, matches the section of Genesis found in St. Petersburg, and if the acrostic of Simonides is not present – this would prove he was either mistaken or else he was lying.


B.  Find the ancient catalogues of St. Catherine’s Monastery.  We did not mention this in the article above or in our film.  However, this is very important and, in our opinion, proves that deception was employed to discredit Simonides.  In 1863, someone claiming to be a Greek monk of Mount Sinai wrote a letter that was published in The Literary Churchman, June 1, 1863, in which he declared the following:


“Mr. Simonides … lies when he positively affirms that the ancient MS. of the Holy Scripture published by Mr. Tischendorf is his work; because the MS. in question (as the librarian of our holy monastery, having been so from the year 1841 to 1858, assured me) belonged to the library of the monastery, and was marked in its ancient catalogues … how could it possibly be the work of Simonides …?”


Obviously, if there were a record of the codex in the ancient catalogues of the monastery it would completely destroy the claims of Simonides.  When we first came across this, our expectation was that this would be the proof that he was lying, which we would have then documented in our film.  Indeed, it was this letter that was the great nail in the Greek’s coffin, at least, according to J.K. Elliott.  Yet, in response to this incredible claim, Simonides replied in another letter published shortly after in The Literary Churchman, June 16, 1863.  He boldly declared:


“I emphatically deny that the Codex Sinaiticus was inscribed in the Ancient Catalogue, for the good reason thatno ancient catalogue exists: there was none there whatever, till I made a catalogue, during my first visit, for the Patriarch of Constantinople, Constantius …”


Can you imagine this happening in a courtroom?  What would the judge do at this point?  Would he not require that the alleged “ancient catalogue” be produced as evidence?  Yet, to our knowledge, no one has ever produced any such catalogue from the library of St. Catherine’s.  They certainly did not produce it in 1863, and the partisan newspapers of the time, not to mention the critics, never pursued the issue.


Thinking back toward the beginning of this article, remember how the British Library told us that the “first written record” of the codex may be from the Italian explorer in 1761?  Shouldn’t the earliest record have been the ancient catalogue?  Barring additional information not yet known, it would appear that Simonides was correct, and that no ancient catalogue exists.  However, if such a catalogue were produced, we agree that it would prove Simonides’ claims were false.


It is for the above reasons that we continue to believe that there are many unanswered questions on the subject of Simonides and the Codex Sinaiticus that require further research; and our prayer is that such research may be sought out through sober investigation.








Unless otherwise specified, the newspaper articles were obtained through the book, “Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair” by J.K. Elliott


The British Library’s official website for the Codex Sinaiticus is