TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Which is something that Simonide's would be seething with envy and jealousy over...
Works against you...
Constantine Simonides and Codex Sinaiticus - fragments in book covers and bindings and in disordered heaps, in baskets etc
- Thread starter TwoNoteableCorruptions
- Start date
Which is something that Simonide's would be seething with envy and jealousy over...
Works against you...
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Tischendorf did not describe the Papacy honors till 1866.
Do you also now credit Simonides with a network of spies and informants in the Vatican?
Why was a supposed Lutheran scholar receiving Papal or Jesuit accolades?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Simonides' forgeries...
Nearly all of them...have the same dishonest provenance story inseparably connected with the old uncle Benedict at Athos, including the Sinaiticus...
- 1846-1850 Greece = Benedict + Athos story used dishonestly
- 1850 Constantinople = Benedict + Athos story used dishonestly
- 1850-1851 Russia = Benedict + Athos story used dishonestly
- 1853-1855 England = Benedict + Athos story used dishonestly
- 1854 France = Benedict + Athos story used dishonestly
- 1855-1856 Germany = Benedict + Athos story used dishonestly
- 1860-1863 England = Benedict + Athos story used dishonestly (Sinaiticus added)
- 1864 France (again) = Benedict + Athos story used dishonestly
Your false dichotomy of young Simonides the innocent teenager and the older villainous Simonides just doesn't cut it. Your false dichotomy of his forgeries stories (= lying) separate from the Sinaiticus (= not lying) forgery story definitely doesn't cut it either.
The Sinaiticus story is inseparably connected with all his false stories
The Sinaiticus story by association with the same Benedict + Athos false story, therefore, is inseparably connected with nearly all his attempts sell forgeries
Steven Avery
Well-known member
I think you have been duped by Kevin McGrane.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
He doesn't like his own arguments being turned on him, because his conscience gets a wake up call concerning his double standards, false dichotomies, absence of objectivity, and how weak the provenance for Simonides really is...
He's been hit so hard, he's clicked on the follow button for myself. He's stalking me.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
You simply can't deny the inseparable connection of Simonides' dishonest use of his Athos + Benedict story in nearly all of his forgery sale's attempt's.
Thus the provenance of the Athos + Benedict story is worthless, and will forever be connected with Simonides fraudulent behavior.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
On another thread I have explained the fundamental Kevin McGrane errors on Benedict and Kallinikos. You missed his blunder where he contradicted himself on the Lampros catalogue, it was quite amazing.
Your posturing here was all based on your inability to see the McGrane errors.
Some of it is here.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/con...manuscripts-as-siniaticus.14329/#post-1116963
More is in a couple of posts here.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...cripts-catalogue-s-plural.14121/#post-1116941
You’ve been duped.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You are a bit confused. I follow eight people, there is no stalking.
And I had to check who I follow, here is why.
it looks to me that the CARM follow doesn’t really do anything. it would affect the “News Feed”, which would show on the Profile, if it were activated.
Good info for me, since my research forum is Xenforo.
What exactly does following someone do?
A moderator on my forum asked this today: Just wondering, what does Following people actually change? I mean I follow quite a few people, but nothing in the way of notifications seems to change? I thought when I followed someone I'd get their status updates and stuff like that. Sort of like...
xenforo.com
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Also notice that the New Finds leaves of the Shepherd of Hermas appear to have been trimmed by Tischendorf before they got to the dump room.
The Gospel of Mark in Codex Sinaiticus : Textual and Reception-Historical Considerations
Peter Head
http://academia.edu/3098158/The_Gos...xtual_and_Reception-Historical_Considerations
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Conservative wording.
Gregory’s analysis on the trimming is truly astounding!
==========
“measuring when found, according to Gregory, 16 7/8 X 14 7/8 inches (43 X 37.8 cm.), but now, according to Milne and Skeat 15 x 13 1/2 inches (38.1 x 34.5 cm).”
Manuscripts of the Greek Bible: An Introduction to Palaeography (1981)
Bruce M. Metzger
https://books.google.com/books?id=Z35H7PQDQ1oC&pg=PA76
==========
Why is this missing from the Sinaiticus scholarship?
Would it be a tad embarrassing to know that Tischendorf did large-scale trimming?
What notes were in those margins that called for manuscript mangling?
(Hint: see the controversies.)
Or was it only based on squeezing the manuscript into a camel saddle-bag for the midnight rides of Tischendorf Revere? Manuscript Savior! Or common thief?
What were all the Tischendorf manglings?
And why?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Why did Tischendorf trim the manuscript?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Contextomy alert ???
NOTE TO READERS:
Notice the word "approximately" used in both the surrounding context (Page 3, Paragraph 6) and the actual quotation by Steven above.
Notice the word "approximately" used in both the surrounding context (Page 3, Paragraph 6) and the actual quotation by Steven above.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The quote is from Peter Head.
Another major quote is from Bruce Metzger, the numbers are more precise, so there is no approximately.
So why did Tischendorf trim the manuscript?
Why do none of the scholars, including Bruce Metzger and Peter Head, ask this obvious question?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
They don't bother listening to stories that have connections to such an incredibly untrustworthy provenance as coming from Constantine Simonides.
The Tischendorf vs Simonides trustworthiness comparison is not a real comparison.
Simonides is in a totally different league of un-trustworthiness...
He tips the dishonesty scales way WAY further than Tischendorf (in fact Simonides tips them over onto the ground).
Any story with a Simonides provenance is totally worthless.
What else has to be said...
Except, a perfectly reasonable explanation (such as above) is unacceptable to an unreasonable mind such as your's.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Steven Avery
Well-known member
It also has very little to do with Sinaiticus authenticity.
The truly amazing lies and thefts and chicanery and phony palaeography of Tischendorf are in his Sinaiticus history.
Where he built his reputation, and supported his vain-glorious claims.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
You're effectively saying Tischendorf's story is untrustworthy.
You've in effect said in the past, (and effectively saying above), that the Simonides provenance story is more trustworthy compared to Tischendorf.
That simply is the crux of your argument.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The crux of the argument involves the physical condition of the manuscript.
parchment (phenomenally good)
ink (super-ink)
lack of grime (Morozov)
staining and colouring (as first told by Simonides and Kallinikos)
Wacky handwriting and ink blot-out and various palaeographic puzzles.
Also many textual phenomenon. These often show that the 4th century date is nonsense.
Then there is the historical imperative behind the arguments given by Simonides. The impossible knowledge that he had about the manuscript, starting with the Tischendorf 1844 theft.
Plus the various "coincidences" that confirm his story, including his pre-Sinaiticus Hermas, noted by Farrer and the Lambros catalogue.
Then we have the propensity of Tischendorf for lies and thefts, and his motive to push Sinaiticus as 4th-century.
Put it all together and the Simonides provenance story is far more trustworthy than the Tischendorf saved from fire and various embellishments cover stories.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Dating Greek script, requires paleographic qualifications, as well as experience.
Your opinion is neither qualified, nor experienced in the study of dating Greek paleography.
Provide a detailed explanation of your (note YOUR) Greek paleographic dating methodology?