Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

[Maestroh]

Most people examine all the evidence and then draw conclusions.

No you though.

You draw conclusions then examine some of the evidence, and look for what supports your preconceived conclusion = confirmation bias.

His most detailed notes on the Sinaiticus (as you know better than all of us) have not been published yet, and (as of as recently as the last two weeks)...you posted that you hadn't examined this evidence.

So you demonstrate your bias in this controversy.

You've prejudged the conclusion.

From Timothy Arthur Brown to Avery:
"Ordinarily, people do their research first and afterwards publish their conclusions. It appears that you have chosen to publish your conclusions first, and are doing your research afterwards.”


It was on his site before Avery decided to hide it, which of course is exactly how honest people sincerely seeking iron to sharpen iron behave.

 

[Maestroh]

He said there were other source materials

No, he didn't.

His FIRST CLAIM is the canonical one. Anything he said after it was pointed out he was lying is just another lie.

This was his first claim:
"the learned Benedict taking a copy of the Moscow edition of both Testaments...."

All his other nonsense that came later was nothing but making the lie bigger.

and that it had been a long-term project.

Also not true, he FIRST claimed the idea was conceived in 1839 and THEN he pivoted back to 1837.

It's you folks trying to defend him later that make it sound like this was decided 20 years before the library discovery, not Simonides.

He specifically discusses Montfaucon.

He also specifically discussed doing it all by himself, Dionysius being excluded, and his forged letters purported to be from Kallinikos confirmed him as the only author.


He was lying - about it all.

And you know this.

I won't insult your intelligence by pretending you really believe what you keep saying here.

 

[Steven Avery]

Interesting.
So what did the monks specifically highlighted by Simonides, like the deacon Hilarion (1810-1886), report?

They did not want to get Hilarion and Dionysius involved in the discussion. Even more so since they had left their siggies (and Dionysius a poem) on the manuscript.

If Tischendorf had represented their writings on the manuscript accurately, it likely would have torpedoed the Sinaiticus con.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So what [= WHY] did the monks specifically highlighted by Simonides, like the deacon Hilarion (1810-1886), report(?)

Easy.

Three obvious reasons.

1. Bluffing.
2. Name dropping.
3. Identity theft.

The same way Simonides lied about being a relative of Aristotle, he lied about being a relative of Benedict.

And...

He casually lied about the details of his interactions and history with many other people at Athos.

They in turn (i.e. the monks at Athos) simply replied later on in 1863 with the truth, that Simonides was a lying sack of puss.

Ampholicus (himself and Athonite monk) also relates that before then (1863-ish), the majority of those who knew Simonides in the Panteleimon Monastery simply ignored Simonides blatherskiting most of the time. They were isolated in there own little world, busy with there monkish stuff.

His words:

"These things being reported on the holy mountain, those who knew Mr. Simonides gave no hearing nor attention to such absurdities..."

Simple.

 

[Maestroh]

Easy.

Three obvious reasons.

1. Bluffing.
2. Name dropping.
3. Identity theft.

The same way Simonides lied about being a relative of Aristotle, he lied about being a relative of Benedict.

And...

He casually lied about the details of his interactions and history with many other people at Athos.

They in turn (i.e. the monks at Athos) simply replied later on in 1863 with the truth, that Simonides was a lying sack of puss.

Ampholicus (himself and Athonite monk) also relates that before then (1863-ish), the majority of those who knew Simonides in the Panteleimon Monastery simply ignored Simonides blatherskiting most of the time. They were isolated in there own little world, busy with there monkish stuff.

His words:

"These things being reported on the holy mountain, those who knew Mr. Simonides gave no hearing nor attention to such absurdities..."

Simple.

Again, the pretentiousness in his objections is hilariously inept.

No logical person can buy the cockamamie story he and the SART-MOPS are trying to suggest here.

"Well, there was thith guy and hith name ith on th' manuthript, tho how do you explain that?"

I mean, his demands for explanations are laughable, too.

If Simonides had written this as a group project then OF COURSE he gives the names of the other authors and where they can be found - not the names of "this guy owns a coffee shop and this guy was the calligrapher and they might all be dead," meaningless thrusts that do nothing for his case.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

He also deliberately conflated some of the details about the Benedict's, plural, and the Kallinikos's, plural.

He knew he could get away with it (pull the wool over people's eyes) for a while (but not forever!) with some people (but not all!)...

 

[Steven Avery]

Easy.

Three obvious reasons.

1. Bluffing.
2. Name dropping.
3. Identity theft.

The same way Simonides lied about being a relative of Aristotle, he lied about being a relative of Benedict.
And...
He casually lied about the details of his interactions and history with many other people at Athos.
They in turn (i.e. the monks at Athos) simply replied later on in 1863 with the truth, that Simonides was a lying sack of puss.
Ampholicus (himself and Athonite monk) also relates that before then (1863-ish), the majority of those who knew Simonides in the Panteleimon Monastery simply ignored Simonides blatherskiting most of the time. They were isolated in there own little world, busy with there monkish stuff.
His words:
"These things being reported on the holy mountain, those who knew Mr. Simonides gave no hearing nor attention to such absurdities..."
Simple.

Actually, there was no report from Hilarion. Since he knew the ms. and put his siggy on it, he was not asked.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Actually, there was no report from Hilarion. Since he knew the ms. and put his siggy on it, he was not asked.

Empty words.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

No, he didn't.

His FIRST CLAIM is the canonical one. Anything he said after it was pointed out he was lying is just another lie.

This was his first claim:
"the learned Benedict taking a copy of the Moscow edition of both Testaments...."

All his other nonsense that came later was nothing but making the lie bigger.



Also not true, he FIRST claimed the idea was conceived in 1839 and THEN he pivoted back to 1837.

It's you folks trying to defend him later that make it sound like this was decided 20 years before the library discovery, not Simonides.



He also specifically discussed doing it all by himself, Dionysius being excluded, and his forged letters purported to be from Kallinikos confirmed him as the only author.


He was lying - about it all.

And you know this.

I won't insult your intelligence by pretending you really believe what you keep saying here.

He said specifically "three manuscripts".

 

[Maestroh]

Actually, there was no report from Hilarion. Since he knew the ms. and put his siggy on it, he was not asked.

Speculation 160 years after the fact.

 

[Maestroh]

He said specifically "three manuscripts".

Yes except for the allegedly later time he said ONE (the Moscow Bible in the 1862 myth making).

The amusing thing is that when your entire position is "let me quote people," you can quote Simonides saying just about anything since he kept lying after getting caught.

 

[Maestroh]

He also deliberately conflated some of the details about the Benedict's, plural, and the Kallinikos's, plural.

He knew he could get away with it (pull the wool over people's eyes) for a while (but not forever!) with some people (but not all!)...

Yes, this is where conspiracy nuts always go - like when they created "the second Oswald" to come up with ridiculous theories when Oswald killed Kennedy in 1963.

there's always "that's a different person with the same name" in conspiracy theory circles.

 

[Maestroh]

They did not want to get Hilarion and Dionysius involved in the discussion. Even more so since they had left their siggies (and Dionysius a poem) on the manuscript.

If Tischendorf had represented their writings on the manuscript accurately, it likely would have torpedoed the Sinaiticus con.

He's back to, "Let me pretend Milne and Skeat and Jongkind didn't examine this manuscript" again.

 

[Steven Avery]

Empty words.

So what did Hilarion, Dionysius, Macarius and the others mentioned by Simonides “unanimously” say?

Did they ask Hilarion and Dionysius about what they wrote on the manuscript?

 

[Steven Avery]

He said specifically "three manuscripts".

As usual, you fail context.

 

[Steven Avery]

He also deliberately conflated some of the details about the Benedict's, plural,

Name ANY details that come from another Benedict other than Benedict Rossi of Symi.

Give the details and the Benedict from whom the details came.

Even ONE would help.

Thanks!

 

[cjab]

He said there were other source materials and that it had been a long-term project. He specifically discusses Montfaucon. So what is your point here?

The point about Montfaucon is discussed by Lycourgos at p.83 in Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios, 1856. Here Lykourgos shows that Simonides faithfully replicated Montfaucon's facsimiles in his Uranios forgery, but that was 15 years after his alleged involvement with Sinaiticus. Simonides nowhere mentions that he used Montfaucon's facsimiles in his Sinaiticus forgery, or that Montfaucon's Palaegraphy was at Athos.

Moreover Simonides never says it was a long term project of Benedict, but clearly infers it was a short term project largely undertaken by himself and in a very short period. All you are doing is engaging in deliberate, wanton concoction of the facts.

As for uncials at Athos, such as Codex Athous Panteleimon, Codex Athous Laurae, Codex Coislinianus: Simonides betrays no knowledge of any of these.

if Simonides had used a transcription of Codex Alexandrinus, he certainly would have mentioned other transcriptions such as of Codex Claromontanus, if he had used any others, but he didn't mention any others. The other manuscripts Simonides refers to were unknown manuscripts at Athos, but these would have been miniscules as Lykourgos says, who was acquainted with Simonides.

 

[cjab]

Check the "theological" background and credentials of Benedict and Procopius Dendrinos.

They would never have allowed a non-orthordox Alexandrian manuscript to be produced of the type Simonides claimed to have written, especially as a present to an Orthodox emperor, as to which gift there was, anyway, no reason to give, as the emperor had not then bestowed any favors on the Great Martyr Panteleimon monastery, as the monks declare.

Your attempts to find Benedict trying to fabricate a non-orthodox (i.e. a heretical) Greek manuscript is completely misconceived. The science of palaeography was at the time of the Greek revolution and subsequent political upheavals a western european science and not a Greek science, and confined to western academic institutions which possessed the ancient manuscript collections . The Orthodox Greek prelates were not interested in palaeography but far more interested in evangelizing Greek orthodoxy. Even Tischendorf commented on their ignorance of palaeography.

Hence your project, which imputes a lifelong interest in palaeography and in the Alexandrian text type to ultra-Orthodox Greek prelates, is completely misconceived. Their theology was Byzantine through and through.

 

[Steven Avery]

He also deliberately conflated some of the details about the Benedict's, plural, and the Kallinikos's, plural.

Name ANY details that come from another Benedict other than Benedict Rossi of Symi.
Give the details and the Benedict from whom the details came.
Even ONE would help.
Thanks!

Any response?

If you do not have any such details, just say so.
No harm, no foul.

The purpose here should be scholarship, not posturing.

 

[Steven Avery]

The point about Montfaucon is discussed by Lycourgos at p.83 in Enthüllungen über den Simonides-Dindorfschen Uranios, 1856. Here Lykourgos shows that Simonides faithfully replicated Montfaucon's facsimiles in his Uranios forgery, but that was 15 years after his alleged involvement with Sinaiticus. Simonides nowhere mentions that he used Montfaucon's facsimiles in his Sinaiticus forgery, or that Montfaucon's Palaegraphy was at Athos.

Moreover Simonides never says it was a long term project of Benedict, but clearly infers it was a short term project largely undertaken by himself and in a very short period. All you are doing is engaging in deliberate, wanton concoction of the facts.

As for uncials at Athos, such as Codex Athous Panteleimon, Codex Athous Laurae, Codex Coislinianus: Simonides betrays no knowledge of any of these.

if Simonides had used a transcription of Codex Alexandrinus, he certainly would have mentioned other transcriptions such as of Codex Claromontanus, if he had used any others, but he didn't mention any others. The other manuscripts Simonides refers to were unknown manuscripts at Athos, but these would have been miniscules as Lykourgos says, who was acquainted with Simonides.

You have been corrected on the scholarship milieu before, You give no sources so you write whatever is convenient.

Plus, you take too literally the boast about the teenage Simonides level of involvement in developing the text. He was learning from the ultra-skilled Benedict, who would know Montfucon and other sources,

You should read David’s section in Faked.

I may put together a montage of scholars and academies, starting with the world-class Eugenius Voulgaris.

====

Do you have the Lykourgas quote?