Steven Avery
Well-known member
What reference are you describing?
Was Hermas talking to someone from 2 centuries earlier?
Codex Sinaiticus - the facts
- Thread starter cjab
- Start date
What reference are you describing?
Was Hermas talking to someone from 2 centuries earlier?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Are you concerned that the Tregelles and Gosche comments have never been addressed in Sinaiticus scholarshp?
I simply pointed out what they said.
Very simple.
Actually there are multiple versions of the early Latin text, and all of them significantly different from the Palatine. Your explanation of how "Maximo" derived from "Magno" is far fetched. As I have said before and re-iterate: there are several differences in the words besides "Maximo". Your naive and facile conjecture of how Magno became corrupted into Maximo is unsupported by any scholarship, or any evidence, and fails to take into account the other word changes. I conclude your account is fantasy.
VULGATA versions
"Dices autem: Magna ecce tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega." (critical edition of the oldest translation of the Vulgata - Cecconi 2014)
"Dices autem Magno: Ecce tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega." (Adolphus Hilgenfeld 1873)
"Dices autem : ecce magna tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega." (PATRUM APOSTOLICORUM OPERA- Dressel 1863)
PALATINE
"dices autem Maximo : Ecce tribulatio supervenit tibi. Si placuerit tibi iterum negare" (PATRUM APOSTOLICORUM OPERA Gebhardt, Harnack 1877)
"If I pretend I don't know exactly what's being said, I won't have to deal with what's being said - and then I can go back and make my debunked assertions again."
Steven Avery Probably
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
While I continue the project to show many textual and linguistic and palaeographic evidences that Sinaiticus is much later than the 4th-century dates (overall supporting the 1800s creation), I want to share a bit about why this is missed by modern scholars.
[/QUOTE]
While he continues to basically reduce his arsenal to "Some of what Simonides may have meant by what he said," he wants to be sure you understand he knows more than modern scholars.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
It is the atomistic nature of modern scholarship.
[/QUOTE]
That word doesn't mean what you think it means - for the second time.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
Fields of study are largely circumscribed by the paper du jour. Perhaps a particular Sinaiticus book and a particular corrector and specific scribal features. There are no equivalents of renaissance scholars or polymaths, who can neatly integrate the wide range of disciplines and data.
[/QUOTE]
This is not at all what atomistic scholarship is.
What your complaint seems to be - that you don't seem to have enough knowledge of the subject to actually express coherently - is "scholars aren't all experts about every single detail of one manuscript." Because OF COURSE they aren't.
And how is this any different from being a doctor?
A general practitioner and an orthopedist are BOTH doctors - one knows a whole lot more than the other about bones and muscles. That doesn't mean the general practitioner is stupid or not a doctor, it means it isn't his specialty.
Are you really this dumb?
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
Each individual paper is done with the presupposition of the ultra-dubious consensus scholarship of Sinaiticus as 4th century. Then the anomalies may be seen, the puzzle may be mentioned, but some sort of explanation is given or the problem is simply shrugged off.
[/QUOTE]
Your complaint here is that nobody will address all the nooks and crannies of your wild conspiracy theory.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
As a simple example, many have commented on the unexpected sophistication of the formatting and rubrications of the Song of Songs (Canticles, Song of Solomon) in Sinaiticus. And this sophistication is counter-posed to the bumbling scribal aspect of Sinaiticus. Based on the general nature of these features, what is seen in Sinaiticus should be much later than 4th century, and the Sinaiticus formatting and rubrication is akin to late medieval Latin texts. However, the person working on the Song of Songs, or the rubrications, simply accepts the faux consensus scholarship, and tries to put the square peg in the round hole.
[/QUOTE]
Remind me - while you're complaining about other scholars in this snotty and snide personal attack conveniently excluding names - what is YOUR PERSONAL EXPERTISE? I mean, most of the people you're criticizing can actually READ the document in question and you cannot.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
A similar dynamic is seen in the Hermas and Barnabas linguistics, such as the Tischendorf-led attack on Maximo in the Athous Codex as indicating a later retro-version from the Latin. Where the concern from Westcott and Hort was that the problems noted would "prove too much" (i.e. would shake the needed ultra-early date.)
[/QUOTE]
Remind me where you studied linguistics to be able to make this wild-eyed claim?
Oh that's right, you didn't.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
In some cases, like the conflations where one component has lacks the early Greek manuscript evidence, the Sinaiticus problems have simply been missed. The question has not been asked, until late 2022
.
[/QUOTE]
What you just advertised right here is "I have no idea how textual critics do their jobs, but I'm going to make a judgment about it anyway."
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
And these three are only the tip of the iceberg.
Oftentimes, the actual "science" will even change to match the new data of Sinaiticus. Ink is now thought to be able to stay on parchment for 1700 years without a significant ink-acid reaction. This new "science" is based on the Sinaiticus Experience.
As this thread unfolds, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, we will see this same dynamic of atomistic scholarship missing the forest for the twigs, again, and again, and again.
[/QUOTE]
Again - your complaint here is nothing more than nobody will give you ammunition for your conspiracy theory.
That's not someone else's failure - it's yours.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
Now, for background, on the Song of Songs, even beginning as far back as the 1860s, this was questioned as a concern for the 4th-century date by Benjamin Harris Cowper (1822-1904). So that dating concern is unusual as one of the few features that was directly mentioned as challenging the Tischendorf date. For a couple of years, and unanswered.
[/QUOTE]
Did nobody write on this subject after 1904?
If they did, why don't you cite it?
If they didn't, why haven't you done it?
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
As for how we "know" Sinaiticus is from the 4th century, this is actually something I have wondered myself,
[/QUOTE]
But you "know" it is from the 19th century - how did you arrive at that?
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
but this dating seems too deeply entrenched in the scholarship of early Christianity to have a rational discussion about it. - anonymous scholar
[/quote]
Are you citing Nongbri now and not disclosing his "fifth century at the latest" claim?
Or are you citing an anonymous scholar who doesn't share your 19th century date again but trying to get mileage out of it.
What's really funny here is the only one impressed by your posts is you; everyone else (especially the scholars themselves) are laughing at how dumb your comments are but are trying to be polite.
While I continue the project to show many textual and linguistic and palaeographic evidences that Sinaiticus is much later than the 4th-century dates (overall supporting the 1800s creation), I want to share a bit about why this is missed by modern scholars.
[/QUOTE]
While he continues to basically reduce his arsenal to "Some of what Simonides may have meant by what he said," he wants to be sure you understand he knows more than modern scholars.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
It is the atomistic nature of modern scholarship.
[/QUOTE]
That word doesn't mean what you think it means - for the second time.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
Fields of study are largely circumscribed by the paper du jour. Perhaps a particular Sinaiticus book and a particular corrector and specific scribal features. There are no equivalents of renaissance scholars or polymaths, who can neatly integrate the wide range of disciplines and data.
[/QUOTE]
This is not at all what atomistic scholarship is.
What your complaint seems to be - that you don't seem to have enough knowledge of the subject to actually express coherently - is "scholars aren't all experts about every single detail of one manuscript." Because OF COURSE they aren't.
And how is this any different from being a doctor?
A general practitioner and an orthopedist are BOTH doctors - one knows a whole lot more than the other about bones and muscles. That doesn't mean the general practitioner is stupid or not a doctor, it means it isn't his specialty.
Are you really this dumb?
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
Each individual paper is done with the presupposition of the ultra-dubious consensus scholarship of Sinaiticus as 4th century. Then the anomalies may be seen, the puzzle may be mentioned, but some sort of explanation is given or the problem is simply shrugged off.
[/QUOTE]
Your complaint here is that nobody will address all the nooks and crannies of your wild conspiracy theory.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
As a simple example, many have commented on the unexpected sophistication of the formatting and rubrications of the Song of Songs (Canticles, Song of Solomon) in Sinaiticus. And this sophistication is counter-posed to the bumbling scribal aspect of Sinaiticus. Based on the general nature of these features, what is seen in Sinaiticus should be much later than 4th century, and the Sinaiticus formatting and rubrication is akin to late medieval Latin texts. However, the person working on the Song of Songs, or the rubrications, simply accepts the faux consensus scholarship, and tries to put the square peg in the round hole.
[/QUOTE]
Remind me - while you're complaining about other scholars in this snotty and snide personal attack conveniently excluding names - what is YOUR PERSONAL EXPERTISE? I mean, most of the people you're criticizing can actually READ the document in question and you cannot.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
A similar dynamic is seen in the Hermas and Barnabas linguistics, such as the Tischendorf-led attack on Maximo in the Athous Codex as indicating a later retro-version from the Latin. Where the concern from Westcott and Hort was that the problems noted would "prove too much" (i.e. would shake the needed ultra-early date.)
[/QUOTE]
Remind me where you studied linguistics to be able to make this wild-eyed claim?
Oh that's right, you didn't.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
In some cases, like the conflations where one component has lacks the early Greek manuscript evidence, the Sinaiticus problems have simply been missed. The question has not been asked, until late 2022
.[/QUOTE]
What you just advertised right here is "I have no idea how textual critics do their jobs, but I'm going to make a judgment about it anyway."
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
And these three are only the tip of the iceberg.
Oftentimes, the actual "science" will even change to match the new data of Sinaiticus. Ink is now thought to be able to stay on parchment for 1700 years without a significant ink-acid reaction. This new "science" is based on the Sinaiticus Experience.
As this thread unfolds, by the grace of the Lord Jesus, we will see this same dynamic of atomistic scholarship missing the forest for the twigs, again, and again, and again.
[/QUOTE]
Again - your complaint here is nothing more than nobody will give you ammunition for your conspiracy theory.
That's not someone else's failure - it's yours.
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
Now, for background, on the Song of Songs, even beginning as far back as the 1860s, this was questioned as a concern for the 4th-century date by Benjamin Harris Cowper (1822-1904). So that dating concern is unusual as one of the few features that was directly mentioned as challenging the Tischendorf date. For a couple of years, and unanswered.
[/QUOTE]
Did nobody write on this subject after 1904?
If they did, why don't you cite it?
If they didn't, why haven't you done it?
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
As for how we "know" Sinaiticus is from the 4th century, this is actually something I have wondered myself,
[/QUOTE]
But you "know" it is from the 19th century - how did you arrive at that?
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
but this dating seems too deeply entrenched in the scholarship of early Christianity to have a rational discussion about it. - anonymous scholar
[/quote]
Are you citing Nongbri now and not disclosing his "fifth century at the latest" claim?
Or are you citing an anonymous scholar who doesn't share your 19th century date again but trying to get mileage out of it.
What's really funny here is the only one impressed by your posts is you; everyone else (especially the scholars themselves) are laughing at how dumb your comments are but are trying to be polite.
Last edited:
Correction: It is Elijah Hixson who flies off the top rope and gives Avery the "Superfly Smash" re: the errors and corrections in Sinaiticus being those of 4th century scribes, not 19th century scribes.
Avery's response to Hixson's intelligent comments? Something akin to "blub, blub, blub..."
I'll be posting some of them later tonight or tomorrow.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
No.
A simple comparison of dated Arabic manuscripts (yes they exist Mr Avery), and therefore, dated Arabic handwriting at the St Catherine's library, should always be the first port of call... with this question on the dating of Arabic notes in the Codex Sinaiticus, from...drum roll ??????????...St Catherine's library. ?
Last edited:
[quote="Steven Avery" post_id=147505 time=1671934139 user_id=3049]
As a simple example, many have commented on the unexpected sophistication of the formatting and rubrications of the Song of Songs (Canticles, Song of Solomon) in Sinaiticus. And this sophistication is counter-posed to the bumbling scribal aspect of Sinaiticus. Based on the general nature of these features, what is seen in Sinaiticus should be much later than 4th century, and the Sinaiticus formatting and rubrication is akin to late medieval Latin texts. However, the person working on the Song of Songs, or the rubrications, simply accepts the faux consensus scholarship, and tries to put the square peg in the round hole.
.
.
.
Now, for background, on the Song of Songs, even beginning as far back as the 1860s, this was questioned as a concern for the 4th-century date by Benjamin Harris Cowper (1822-1904). So that dating concern is unusual as one of the few features that was directly mentioned as challenging the Tischendorf date. For a couple of years, and unanswered.
[/QUOTE]
Colometry has been dated to 2nd/3rd century Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Bruce Metzger: "Manuscripts of the Greek Bible," 1981, p.38-40 notes that codex Vaticanus (B) and codex
Sinaiticus (aleph)) copy the ‘poetical’ books of the Septuagint colometrically—Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus.
As for the New Testament, the oldest colometric arrangement is codex Bezae (D) (5th century), but
this is certainly to indicate patterns of breathing and phrasing rather than anything
about poetry or traditional material. (PEPPARD "‘Poetry’, ‘Hymns’ and ‘Traditional Material’," JSNT 30.3 (2008) 319-342).
Per Metzger, p.39 "Colometry is the division of a text into κώλα and κόμματα, that is, sense-lines
of clauses and phrases so as to assist the re ader to make the correct inflection and
the proper pauses. It was applied to the Septuagint Greek text of the poetical
books of the Old Testament. One of the earliest examples of a portion of the Septuagint
arranged in cola is the second- (or third-) century a.d. Bodleian fragment of the Psalms [Edited by J . W. B. Barns and G. D. Kilpatrick,
Proceedings of the British Academy, xliii (1957), pp. 227 f.]"
As a simple example, many have commented on the unexpected sophistication of the formatting and rubrications of the Song of Songs (Canticles, Song of Solomon) in Sinaiticus. And this sophistication is counter-posed to the bumbling scribal aspect of Sinaiticus. Based on the general nature of these features, what is seen in Sinaiticus should be much later than 4th century, and the Sinaiticus formatting and rubrication is akin to late medieval Latin texts. However, the person working on the Song of Songs, or the rubrications, simply accepts the faux consensus scholarship, and tries to put the square peg in the round hole.
.
.
.
Now, for background, on the Song of Songs, even beginning as far back as the 1860s, this was questioned as a concern for the 4th-century date by Benjamin Harris Cowper (1822-1904). So that dating concern is unusual as one of the few features that was directly mentioned as challenging the Tischendorf date. For a couple of years, and unanswered.
[/QUOTE]
Colometry has been dated to 2nd/3rd century Greek manuscripts of the Septuagint.
Bruce Metzger: "Manuscripts of the Greek Bible," 1981, p.38-40 notes that codex Vaticanus (B) and codex
Sinaiticus (aleph)) copy the ‘poetical’ books of the Septuagint colometrically—Psalms,
Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom of Solomon and Ecclesiasticus.
As for the New Testament, the oldest colometric arrangement is codex Bezae (D) (5th century), but
this is certainly to indicate patterns of breathing and phrasing rather than anything
about poetry or traditional material. (PEPPARD "‘Poetry’, ‘Hymns’ and ‘Traditional Material’," JSNT 30.3 (2008) 319-342).
Per Metzger, p.39 "Colometry is the division of a text into κώλα and κόμματα, that is, sense-lines
of clauses and phrases so as to assist the re ader to make the correct inflection and
the proper pauses. It was applied to the Septuagint Greek text of the poetical
books of the Old Testament. One of the earliest examples of a portion of the Septuagint
arranged in cola is the second- (or third-) century a.d. Bodleian fragment of the Psalms [Edited by J . W. B. Barns and G. D. Kilpatrick,
Proceedings of the British Academy, xliii (1957), pp. 227 f.]"
[continued from above]
From Lost Keys: Text and Interpretation in Old Greek "Song of Songs" and Its Earliest Manuscript Witnesses
Jay Curry Treat
University of Pennsylvania
1996
[download link]
p. 426 Rubics in Old Greek Song of Songs
"Except for color, the element of dramatic papyri closest in appearance to the rubrics
of Codex Sinaiticus is the indented stage-direction (parepigraphos). For example, a rather
calligraphic papyrus roll.of Aescylus' s Dictyulci from the second century c.e. contains the
stage-direction .... ("smacking of lips") in line 803:"
p. 427 The fifth century church writer Theodoret, in the preface to his dialogue Eranistes, explains that,
unlike the ancient writers of dialogues, he has put the names of the speakers clearly beside
each speech in order to make reading easy for those uninitiated in literature. [60] This practice
does not appear to have become typical until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries."
[60] Wilson, "Indications of Speaker in Greek Dialogue Texts," 305, actually credits Theodoret
of inventing this convention. Nothing in Theodoret's text requires more than that he is explaining his
procedure in contrast to those of ancient Greek philosophers. He could easily be following a
contemporary convention. Codex Sinaiticus certainly predates Theodotion (sic. - I assume this is a typo for Theodoret).
Page 439
Chapter 4
The Sinaiticus Rubric-Tradition of the Song of Songs
"In 1926, Donatien de Bruyne called attention to a family of manuscripts that
contained "a very remarkable" tradition of rubrics, to be found in both Latin and Greek
manuscripts.} De Bruyne described these rubrics as "the finest and the most nuanced of the
interpretations of the Canticles conceived as a drama."2 We will refer to this as the
Sinaiticus rubric-tradition, because the oldest manuscript to preserve it is Codex Sinaiticus."
[there follows a very lengthy comparison of the Sinaiticus rubrics with Old Latin rubrics]
The authors doesn't dispute a 4th century date for Sinaiticus.
From Lost Keys: Text and Interpretation in Old Greek "Song of Songs" and Its Earliest Manuscript Witnesses
Jay Curry Treat
University of Pennsylvania
1996
[download link]
p. 426 Rubics in Old Greek Song of Songs
"Except for color, the element of dramatic papyri closest in appearance to the rubrics
of Codex Sinaiticus is the indented stage-direction (parepigraphos). For example, a rather
calligraphic papyrus roll.of Aescylus' s Dictyulci from the second century c.e. contains the
stage-direction .... ("smacking of lips") in line 803:"
p. 427 The fifth century church writer Theodoret, in the preface to his dialogue Eranistes, explains that,
unlike the ancient writers of dialogues, he has put the names of the speakers clearly beside
each speech in order to make reading easy for those uninitiated in literature. [60] This practice
does not appear to have become typical until the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries."
[60] Wilson, "Indications of Speaker in Greek Dialogue Texts," 305, actually credits Theodoret
of inventing this convention. Nothing in Theodoret's text requires more than that he is explaining his
procedure in contrast to those of ancient Greek philosophers. He could easily be following a
contemporary convention. Codex Sinaiticus certainly predates Theodotion (sic. - I assume this is a typo for Theodoret).
Page 439
Chapter 4
The Sinaiticus Rubric-Tradition of the Song of Songs
"In 1926, Donatien de Bruyne called attention to a family of manuscripts that
contained "a very remarkable" tradition of rubrics, to be found in both Latin and Greek
manuscripts.} De Bruyne described these rubrics as "the finest and the most nuanced of the
interpretations of the Canticles conceived as a drama."2 We will refer to this as the
Sinaiticus rubric-tradition, because the oldest manuscript to preserve it is Codex Sinaiticus."
[there follows a very lengthy comparison of the Sinaiticus rubrics with Old Latin rubrics]
The authors doesn't dispute a 4th century date for Sinaiticus.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
While I appreciate that you are trying to find a response, the above has lots of omissions and problems.
Lets look at them one by one. We will take the two that are fairly accurate first.
"Dices autem : ecce magna tribulatio venit. Si tibi videtur, iterum nega." (PATRUM APOSTOLICORUM OPERA- Dressel 1863)
Yes, this is what Donaldson states.
And you will find this in about a dozen Latin printed editions, mostly from 1500 to the mid 1800s, and in the L1 (Vulgata) manuscripts. There are about 28 Vulgata manuscripts, a 1994 count, although not all are complete text.
============================
PALATINE
"dices autem Maximo : Ecce tribulatio supervenit tibi. Si placuerit tibi iterum negare"
(PATRUM APOSTOLICORUM OPERA Gebhardt, Harnack 1877)
Yes, this almost matches the two manuscripts.
Except they do NOT have Maximo capitalized (like when Sabilla speaks) and they have a period not a colon.
This is important in that it helps show how the error came about in the Greek manuscripts, step by step.
The Palatine is not a translation of a Greek manuscript with a name Maximo.
=========================
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Why do you call this a Vulgata version? This is after Athous and Sinaiticus and Tischendorf's awkward pseudo-retraction, and Hilgenfeld explains the recently discovered Palatine version and the emendation involved in his text here.
=========================
Plus, in his other editions Hilgenfeld states for you point-blank what is the Vulgate reading, here is one.
Hermae Pastor. Gr. integrum ambita ed. A. Hilgenfeld
1887
https://books.google.com/books?id=1sIUAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR19
=========================
Did you really only look at the 1873?
Or did you know the actual "facts on the ground"? And decided to try to bluster through with the 1873 text?
And you did not even mention the actual L1 Vulgata manuscripts once.
And you did not give page numbers, unlike your normal style, so it seems that you actually knew that you were not explaining Hilgenfeld properly.
=========================
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
"A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts."
By Charles Stewart, 1859
Pages 15-16
"A short time before the publication of the Hermas he communicated to Lycurgus the existence of another Hermman manuscript, preserved in palimpsests. He afterwards communicated the like intelligence to Anger, and this manuscript: was brought from Alexandria to Leipsic, after the publication of the Hermas, at the reiterated request of Anger and Dindorf. This preference given to the two latter gentlemen [Page 16] appears to have given considerable annoyance to Professor Tissendorf, and hence arose a jealousy that was most unfavourable to Simonides. It was reported by Tissendorf that there was a deception in the manuscript of Hermas, and that the deception was evidently intended to mislead. A controversy arose in consequence..."
https://archive.org/details/1859-bi...nstantine-simonides-stewart/page/n11/mode/1up
By Charles Stewart, 1859
Pages 15-16
"A short time before the publication of the Hermas he communicated to Lycurgus the existence of another Hermman manuscript, preserved in palimpsests. He afterwards communicated the like intelligence to Anger, and this manuscript: was brought from Alexandria to Leipsic, after the publication of the Hermas, at the reiterated request of Anger and Dindorf. This preference given to the two latter gentlemen [Page 16] appears to have given considerable annoyance to Professor Tissendorf, and hence arose a jealousy that was most unfavourable to Simonides. It was reported by Tissendorf that there was a deception in the manuscript of Hermas, and that the deception was evidently intended to mislead. A controversy arose in consequence..."
https://archive.org/details/1859-bi...nstantine-simonides-stewart/page/n11/mode/1up
Simonides attributes jealousy as Tischendorf's motive for exposing him. This is in fact, a sarcastic projection of Simonides own motives upon Tischendorf.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
The real problem, which Simonides hides...
Is his resulting humiliation from his lack of success in trying fawn his pathetic and obvious palimpsest forgery of his "Uranius, History of the Kings of Egypt" in the same Shepherd of Hermas manuscript.
NOTE: The excitement around Simonides Uranius was about solving the problems of Egyptian chronology (which is still a problem today).
Is his resulting humiliation from his lack of success in trying fawn his pathetic and obvious palimpsest forgery of his "Uranius, History of the Kings of Egypt" in the same Shepherd of Hermas manuscript.
Haris A. Caligra
"During my term of office as Director of the Gennadius Library in Athens, I had the chance to examine in detail various holdings of the Library referring to Simonides. To my great surprise his forgeries are so evident and so clumsy that I was really mystified as to how it could have been possible for him to fool eminent philologists of the nineteenth century, who should have been familiar with authentic manuscripts."
https://forum.kajgana.com/threads/Гејскиот-фалсификатор-constantine-simonides.30481/
"During my term of office as Director of the Gennadius Library in Athens, I had the chance to examine in detail various holdings of the Library referring to Simonides. To my great surprise his forgeries are so evident and so clumsy that I was really mystified as to how it could have been possible for him to fool eminent philologists of the nineteenth century, who should have been familiar with authentic manuscripts."
https://forum.kajgana.com/threads/Гејскиот-фалсификатор-constantine-simonides.30481/
NOTE: The excitement around Simonides Uranius was about solving the problems of Egyptian chronology (which is still a problem today).
No it does not, for the reasons I have stated: Maximo is not the only difference. Your theory doesn't account for the others.
You can't prove it, and no-one else shares your "scholarly" opinion except the SART team.
Because, as your "private" correspondent Cecconi says in his book, "The
last critical edition of the older translation – the so-called Vulgata – is that of A.
Hilgenfeld (1873). It is the aim of the present study to elucidate the textual transmission
of the Vulgata more thoroughly than this has been done so far and to provide
future editors of the Greek text with a useful tool by replacing Hilgenfeld’s edition,
which is in many respects inadequate, with a more reliable one."
And if you "even" read the title to his 1873 edition, it is "VETEREM LAT1NAM INTERPRETATIONEM E CODIC1BUS"
So he changed his opinion. I'm sure there are many Vulgata versions. Makes no difference.
I gave you three different versions of the Vulgata - all I could find. Not sure where Hilgenfeld got his 1873 vulgata from: anyway Cecconi describes it as inadequate, although he relies on it a lot. Best consult Cecconi for the Vulgata text.
You can find the relevant text at Visio 2, end of Paragraph 3, in every version.
I can't see you have shown anything here, especially as to why you are justified in disagreeing with Cecconi who states explicitly that both Latin versions translate the Greek. May be you should take your "issue" up with Cecconi directly. Cecconi says "Hermas wrote the Shepherd in Greek at Rome during the first half of the 2nd century AD."
Note that Greek was the Lingua Franca of the early church. The use of Latin in the Church started in the late fourth century with the split of the Roman Empire after Emperor Theodosius in 395.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
In regard to the Shepherd of Hermas, these facts should not be lost sight of:
This puts context on Simonides claims.
NOTE: How Simonides said: "Tischendorf...lately DISCOVERED"
NOTE: How Simonides didn't say "I wrote it"
Google Translate from German (Emphasis added)
The Book on Google, in which, "apparently" Tischendorf was instrumental in exposing Simonides forgery of Uranios:
- The Leipzig Shepherd of Hermas palimpsest manuscript was stolen from Mt Athos
- The same stolen Shepherd of Hermas palimpsest manuscript was over-written with a forged text pretending to be the lost Uranius
- The three sheets of the Leipzig Shepherd of Hermas palimpsest manuscript is the same three sheets discovered to be missing (i.e. stolen by Simonides) from the Codex Athous Gregoriou 96 (Lampros 643).
- The Leipzig Shepherd of Hermas palimpsest text, was eventually rejected as a forgery by scholars
- This humiliated Simonides
- Simonides was imprisoned in Germany for his forgeries largely because of the work of Tischendorf
- After these humiliations and imprisonment, in 1862, Simonides made a MASSIVE U-TURN on his previous stance that the Codex Sinaiticus was dated to the 2nd century A.D. and legitimately discovered by Tiscendorf.
This puts context on Simonides claims.
SIMONIDES CODEX SINAITICUS MASSIVE U-TURN!!!
"A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts."
By Charles Stewart, 1859
Pages 60-61
“As to the time of the duration of the manuscripts, it is to be observed that parchment, as it was prepared among the ancients, was much more durable than any other writing material employed by them. In the Library of the Vatican are more than 1500 years old, and in Spain and elsewhere there exist manuscripts of as ancient a date. [Page 61] Moreover, Sir T. Phillipps publicly announced in the Athenaeum (see No. 1536, April 4th, 1857,) that he had in his posession a Latin manuscript 1200 years old, and that it was in a state of complete preservation. M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well a the 1st Book of Hermas, all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago. This MS. is reptesented to be in excellent condition. From this we may conclude that parchment manuscripts may be preserved for almost an unlimited period, for those that are kept in the Museums, even though they exceed 1000 years, have not lost a single letter. Nor is at all surprising that manuscripts on parchment should have been preserved for so long a time; for it must be admitted to be much more wonderful that the papyrus manuscripts which are so much more fragile than skins, should have come down to our times, well preserved, many of them more than 3000 years old. Those who please may at the British Museum and at Turin see many of them; even this is nothing startling, for corn and many other seeds have been found in Egyptian coffin which have been underground for perhaps 4000 years, and have not in the least lost their germinal powers. Many lock of hair, too, have been found in these coffins, preserved in a most perfect condition till the present day.* There can be no reasonable doubt as to the extraordinary durability of parchment, neither can it be questioned that at a very early period in the world's history skin of various kinds both prepared and otherwise were
used for the purposes of writing. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider any further...”
https://archive.org/details/1859-bi...nstantine-simonides-stewart/page/n33/mode/1up
"A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts."
By Charles Stewart, 1859
Pages 60-61
“As to the time of the duration of the manuscripts, it is to be observed that parchment, as it was prepared among the ancients, was much more durable than any other writing material employed by them. In the Library of the Vatican are more than 1500 years old, and in Spain and elsewhere there exist manuscripts of as ancient a date. [Page 61] Moreover, Sir T. Phillipps publicly announced in the Athenaeum (see No. 1536, April 4th, 1857,) that he had in his posession a Latin manuscript 1200 years old, and that it was in a state of complete preservation. M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well a the 1st Book of Hermas, all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago. This MS. is reptesented to be in excellent condition. From this we may conclude that parchment manuscripts may be preserved for almost an unlimited period, for those that are kept in the Museums, even though they exceed 1000 years, have not lost a single letter. Nor is at all surprising that manuscripts on parchment should have been preserved for so long a time; for it must be admitted to be much more wonderful that the papyrus manuscripts which are so much more fragile than skins, should have come down to our times, well preserved, many of them more than 3000 years old. Those who please may at the British Museum and at Turin see many of them; even this is nothing startling, for corn and many other seeds have been found in Egyptian coffin which have been underground for perhaps 4000 years, and have not in the least lost their germinal powers. Many lock of hair, too, have been found in these coffins, preserved in a most perfect condition till the present day.* There can be no reasonable doubt as to the extraordinary durability of parchment, neither can it be questioned that at a very early period in the world's history skin of various kinds both prepared and otherwise were
used for the purposes of writing. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider any further...”
https://archive.org/details/1859-bi...nstantine-simonides-stewart/page/n33/mode/1up
NOTE: How Simonides said: "Tischendorf...lately DISCOVERED"
NOTE: How Simonides didn't say "I wrote it"
Google Translate from German (Emphasis added)
The Book on Google, in which, "apparently" Tischendorf was instrumental in exposing Simonides forgery of Uranios:
Alexander Lykurgos: Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios. Fritzsche, Leipzig 1856.
"Alexander Lykurgos: Revelations about the Simonides-Dindorfsche Uranios." Fritzsche, Leipzig 1856.
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
"Alexander Lykurgos: Revelations about the Simonides-Dindorfsche Uranios." Fritzsche, Leipzig 1856.
https://books.google.co.nz/books?id...ce=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
This should not be lost sight of in all this...
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
These are pertinent questions, that everybody should be asking as to:
Here's some questions about known events in Simonides' youth, that pertain to an attempt at murder by young Simonides':
Steven Avery has never actually answered these questions with what the historical sources actually say about this. Mr Avery tries to avoid these questions at all costs.
Here's a question to think about in regard to Mr Avery's patent aversion to answering the question of how and why did young Simonides end up on Mt Athos in the first place:
- How and why did young Constantine end up on Mt Athos in the first place?
Here's some questions about known events in Simonides' youth, that pertain to an attempt at murder by young Simonides':
- Which specific relative did Simonides try to poison?
- What did he try to poison this relative with?
- Why did he try to poison this relative?
- What were the consequences of this attempted poisoning?
Steven Avery has never actually answered these questions with what the historical sources actually say about this. Mr Avery tries to avoid these questions at all costs.
Here's a question to think about in regard to Mr Avery's patent aversion to answering the question of how and why did young Simonides end up on Mt Athos in the first place:
- What light would it put on Simonides character, if it turns out that he was actually sent to Mt Athos by his step-parents as punishment for attempted parracide?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Nothing wrong with that, but it will not tell you anything about the terminus ante quem.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Have you given any historical sources other than the "apparently" from Haris A. Kalligas.
(You actually omitted her quote, likely you did not want the apparently.)
As I will add any new information to the Pure Bible Forum.
====================