The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

[Steven Avery]

I have suspected it as of late. Thank you for pointing it out.

I went to the apparatus and showed your claim to be false in the area you highlighted (Josef Schmid and Revelation) with the sampling of the first ten verses from P47. You have not come up with anything.

So your summary is humorous. You so much wanted to believe the James White big lie.

 

[Steven Avery]

Then even you have proven that simonides is a fraud. Because if he was true p47 could not agree with Aleph even once. ?

This is so logically absurd and inept that it can just be noted, laughed at, and move on.

 

[Maestroh]

Actually, today we know that this is incredibly accurate in describing the actions of Tischendorf and Uspensky.

This thread is about Simonides, but all you seem to be interested in doing is two things:
1) Avoiding the ramifications of Simonides's lying
2) pointing the finger elsewhere

And now we get the way cults answer things which is why I've always said the KJVO view is cultic to its core. We're going to get a restatement of already refuted things.

Accurate about Tischendorf’s 1844 theft-secret extraction.

It couldn't have been too secret if Kallinikos/Simonides knew about it. Of course, that begs the question why he didn't open his mouth in 1856 in Leipzig, but I can understand why you wouldn't want to deal with that one. Indeed, it begs the question how if Kallinikos saw this thievery in 1844 and was so intimate with Simonides......why did he not mention it for 18 years?

Accurate about Tischendorf’s bogus loan-theft in 1859

Has anybody else noticed Avry is INTENTIONALLY OMITTING claiming that Kallinikos saw Simonides writing this all by himself????

Indeed, every time I point out what a liar Simonides is, at no time do you seem capable of doing anything except gaslighting and going with "But Tischendorf."

Can you actually provide a coherent defense of Simonides's lying?

Accurate about Porphyrius Uspensky as a manuscript thief

Again, you have no footnotes, nothing at all but CLAIMS.

I can understand why you never debate this stuff - because you cannot provide a coherent rationale for your position.

Thanks, Bill Brown, for helping explain the historical imperative.

I'm glad you appreciate me pointing out that your only historical imperative is to defend the lying forger Simonides at all costs.

But I can't understand why someone who thinks he knows so much about the subject can do nothing more than make assertions and then go throw a fit over on your own blog. Why not just say your angry stuff here?

Wrong.
There can not be other supports of the variant.

CANNOT?

The only "cannot" I know is that even you admit Simonides cannot possibly have been telling the truth when he claimed he wrote Aleph all by himself.

James White fabricated the idea that there were thousands of papyri matches that would be impossible in the 1800s.

This statement is 100% false - not only that, Avery knows it is false, as I will show momentarily.

A joke. You embarrass yourself aligning with a lie that was even picked apart on the contra BVDB forum.

You mean the same posters and posts that tore you and Pinto to shreds?

That's what you're going with today?

If there are a number of variants where P47 and Sinaiticus agree alone, that would be a strong evidence, but we have not seen that.

Of course you haven't - because you can't read either one but more importantly, you haven't even bothered to look.

The Sinaiticus Revelation has many anomalies, sometimes it is connected to Alexandrinus.

This connection exists only in the minds of conspiracy theorists.

It is supposed to be a precursor of the Andreas commentary. That commentary is about AD 600 and the theory makes absolutely no sense, it is more Sinaiticus upside-down cake. And that upside-down theory is strong evidence that Sinaiticus was actually written after Andreas.

Not one word of this is actually true readers.
What's more - he knows it.

That's why we're getting all this emotional firing as much against the wall as will stick but not a single actually spelling out of anything, just mere assertions by a man who cannot even read these manuscripts.

So far you have shown .. 0.
James White claimed thousands. He was lying, or at best abysmally ignorant.
I hope you can do better.

Really brave here online.
But I never see you call "The Dividing Line" to talk about this, either.

If you'd like, I can arrange for James to know you're gonna call and set him straight. I'll even tell him what your challenge is so he'll have a list for you if you'd like. Of course, we all know you'll come up with excuses - you keep doing it for Simonides.

If you're not mature enough to actually do that, why do you insist on all the bold talk here?
Is it because you feel safe doing this when you know he's not around?

That's what you've done with me. You will say all manner of false things about me - but when I show up, you never have anything to say at all other than "nuh uh" and restating debunked arguments.

I'm going to go on through this. If you cannot provide any better defenses for the Federico Augustus Research Team than you've given here, it's time for you to turn the leadership over to someone who actually can.

The cholesterol in eggs is unrelated to human cholesterol issues, which involves the human production of cholesterol.

You literally did not understand the level of rip that was on you.
If you even thought this was serious, you really need to chill out.

My understanding to date:
If there is not sufficient velocity for the blood due to insufficient elasticity in the arteries (e.g. too much salt), then cholesterol is produced and the arteries are made smaller and the velocity will increase. Bernoulli's principle.

Not only did I not ask for the understanding you just quickly Googled five seconds before you posted this, but you should realize cholesterol is part of my job.

And unlike you, I've been to medical school.

So why not use the discretion being the better part of valor and just drop this serious response to something that was nothing more than a critique of your so-called resarch methods that convinced you that the moon landing was fake.

Presumably you mean ALL of them were fake.

 

[Maestroh]

Can you list 10 of the thousands of papyri variants.
James White indicated none.

This is absolutely 100% incorrect - and given you've cited from the debate, you KNOW this is incorrect, so why did you say this?

Remember when you said that Simonides would never be dumb enough to make a claim if he knew there was a catalog that could refute him?
Why would you believe this when you clearly are making a statement YOU KNOW can be debunked in about five seconds?

During the White-Pinto debate starting at 1.00.27

White gave TWO citations, Matthew 14:30 and John 1:18.


Now...why in the world would you "James White indicated none" when he, in fact, indicated TWO?

Did you just - yet again - think nobody would check out what you said?
This seems to be a common tactic of yours, but so long as you insist on being Wile E. Coyote, we can't stop you.

But what makes this more ridiculous are these two facts:

1) White was QUOTING Scrivener.


But even more ridiculous?

2) Steven Avery actually HAS THIS VERY CITATION ON HIS PAGE - and it's been there since 2016!!!

Scrivener defense of Codex Sinaiticus authenticity

This 1864 piece by Scrivener was, quite amazingly, used as the supposed evidence for Sinaiticus authenticity. Despite the fact that many of the major problems with the Sinaiticus authenticity position were not even yet known. See the discussion on Facebook involving James Snapp. Read the...

purebibleforum.com

ad Benedict been the most acute and accomplished Biblical scholar in Christendom he could not have anticipated in 1839 the results of the discoveries of the last twenty years; no one who in his time sat down to construct an ancient text, which should resemble that of the earliest manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers, could possibly have been led to the results embodied in the Codex Sinaiticus; not even though to their deep and comprehensive learning be added the fortunate daring of a Bentley, the tact and ripe judgment of a Griesbach. One example will illustrate our meaning as well as a thousand, which the student may readily find for himself in the following collation. In Matthew 14:30 Codex Sinaiticus omits ισχυρον after ανεμον. In 1839 no other document, manuscript, version,45 or Father was known to countenance such a variation; it has no such inherent probability as to have suggested itself to Benedict, or to any one else. When Rulotta’s revised collation of the Codex Vaticanus was brought to light again in 1855, it first became known that that venerable authority contains the word only in a later hand; in 1857 Tregelles published his collation of the important cursive Codex 33, made seven years before; this copy also omits ισχυρον. Thus, were we now engaged in forming a text that should seem ancient, here is just such a textual variant as we should adopt for our purpose; it could not have been so employed twenty-four years ago, since the omission in any one codex was completely unknown, and would not have been conjectured.

======================


So your statement White didn't give any examples is not only wrong but YOU KNEW it was wrong when you've been making your erroneous accusations here.

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is James Snapp, no friend of Sinaiticus non-antiquity, about the joke claim.

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism
James Snapp

James E Snapp Jr

Steven - I basically agree. White basically claimed that Sinaiticus contains *thousands* of readings that were otherwise unknown until the 1900's, when the papyri-research began after Grenfell and...

www.facebook.com

Steven - I basically agree. White basically claimed that Sinaiticus contains *thousands* of readings that were otherwise unknown until the 1900's, when the papyri-research began after Grenfell and Hunt. If Pinto had responded, "Really? Name three." . . . I wonder what White would have done.

Bill Brown is mixing up papyri issues with Vaticanus, so his claim above is irrelevant to the papyri discussion.

 

[Maestroh]

Here is James Snapp, no friend of Sinaiticus authenticity, about the joke claim.

Steven - I basically agree. White basically claimed that Sinaiticus contains *thousands* of readings that were otherwise unknown until the 1900's, when the papyri-research began after Grenfell and Hunt. If Pinto had responded, "Really? Name three." . . . I wonder what White would have done.

Bill Brown is mixing up papyri issues with Vaticanus, so his claim above is irrelevant to the papyri discussion.

He cited John 1:18 FROM THE PAPYRI......


So try again.


And yes, I can understand why it is to hard for you to say, "I was wrong."

You're caught wrong in black and white - and your response is to quote someone else and that somehow makes you being wrong okay.

We know you'll never admit messing up - but it's obvious to everyone INCLUDING you.
You just can't admit it because that's how fragile your ego is.

 

[Maestroh]

Also, he was citing Scrivener as did you.

If you and Snapp both were simply not paying attention to his quotation, it's not his fault.

And the fact you had that same citation that you now pretend wasn't documented only makes it worse.

 

[Steven Avery]

He cited John 1:18 FROM THE PAPYRI......

Which just shows the James White ignorance and your confusion.

John 1:18 (AV)
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

The reading in Sinaiticus has lots of support outside the papyri.

Here is LaParola. The papyri are split among two variants, "begotten God" and "the begotten God" both of which have lots of sources at the time that Benedict prepared Simoneidos.

1:18 (Münster)

μονογενὴς θεὸς] p66 ‭א* B C* L pc syrp syrh(mg) geo2 Diatessarona Valentiniansaccording to Irenaeus Valentiniansaccording to Clement Ptolemy Heracleon Origengr(2/4) Ariusaccording to Epiphanius Apostolic Constitutions Didymus Ps-Ignatius Synesiusaccording to Epiphanius Cyril1/4 WH NRtext Nv NM

ὁ μονογενὴς θεὸς] p75 ‭א2 33 pc copbo Theodotusaccording to Clement(1/2) Clement2/3 Origengr(2/4) Eusebius3/7 Serapion1/2 Basil1/2 Gregory-Nyssa Epiphanius Cyril3/4

ὁ μονογενὴς υἱὸς] (see John 3:16; John 3:18; 1John 4:9) A C3 E F G H K Wsupp X Δ Θ Π Ψ 063 0141 f1 f13 28 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 Byz Lect ita itaur itb itc ite itf itff2 itl vg syrc syrh syrpal arm eth geo1 slav Theodotusaccording to Clement(1/2) Theodotus Irenaeuslat(1/3) Clement1/3 Tertullian Hippolytus Origenlat(1/2) Letter of Hymenaeus Alexander Eustathius Eusebius4/7 Hegemonius Ambrosiaster Faustinus Serapion1/2 Victorinus-Rome Hilary5/7 Athanasius Titus-Bostra Basil1/2 Gregory-Nazianzus Gregory-Elvira Phoebadius Ambrose10/11 Chrysostom Synesius Jerome Theodore Augustine Nonnus Cyril1/4 Proclus Varimadum Theodoret Fulgentius Caesarius John-Damascus Ps-Priscillian ς NRmg CEI ND Riv Dio TILC
μονογενὴς υἱὸς θεοῦ] itq (copsa? θεὸς) Irenaeuslat(1/3) Ambrose1/11(vid)

ὁ μονογενὴς] vgms Diatessaron Jacob-Nisibis Ephraem Cyril-Jerusalem Ps-Ignatius Ps-Vigilius1/2 Nonnus Nestorius

 

[Maestroh]

White quote:
"Let me give two examples, one drawn from Scrivener and one drawn from my own studies. Scrivener points to Matthew 14:30, where all later manuscripts have the term "boisterous" after the term "wind." Yet Sinaiticus omits the term boisterous as does Vaticanus, though it IS inserted in Vaticanus in a later hand. The reader was not, uh, the reading was not known as Alexandrinus does not contain this portion of Matthew, and no Moscow Bible lacks the phrase. Scrivener comments, " One example will illustrate our meaning as well as a thousand, which the student may readily find for himself in the following collation." That is, there are literally thousands of places where Sinaiticus contains readings confirmed by later discoveries, discoveries unknown even in Scrivener's time - in the papryi - that would have been completely unknown to Simonides or anyone living in his day. To attribute these readings to mere chance is, of course, inconceivable."


And btw - you really don't think White anticipated Pinto might have done that ("name three") and had a list?

He made crystal clear he cited two for brevity's sake.

Bear in mind that you're evading the point intentionally, which is that Simonides did not use Alexandrinus for two reasons:
1) he didn't write Sinaiticus
2) Sinaiticus is older.

 

[Maestroh]

Which just shows the James White ignorance and your confusion.

1) You said he didn't give any examples, which was a fabrication on your part.
2) Now that you're caught dead to rights being wrong, you point fingers.

The reading in Sinaiticus has lots of support outside the papyri.

You literally did not listen to the point.

You're wrong, you have egg on your face, you made a false statement, you got caught - and now you can't deal with it

Your refusal to simply say, "I was wrong, White DID give two examples, including an example from the papyri, he DID give two examples in the debate, and although I disagree with his conclusions, I was in error when I stated he didn't."


The fact you can't do that simple acknowledgement but continue down the path of slander is a big reason the rest of us know you're not a representative of God.

 

[Maestroh]

Although Mr. Avery-Spencer has hijacked the thread to share his personal animus with James White - as opposed to say, calling him on the phone or even emailing him personally to express the testosterone fueled words we get here - it isn't going to prevent me from shredding Simonides and quoting his ludicrous (and contradictory) claims here.

 

[Maestroh]

The papyri are split among two variants, "begotten God" and "the begotten God" both of which have lots of sources at the time that Benedict prepared Simoneidos.

But are in neither Alexandrinus nor the Moscow Bibles claimed to be the sources.......


So now you're adding "Simonides lied about his sources" to your argument??????

 

[Steven Avery]

1) White was QUOTING Scrivener.
But even more ridiculous?

2) Steven Avery actually HAS THIS VERY CITATION ON HIS PAGE - and it's been there since 2016!!!

Scrivener defense of Codex Sinaiticus authenticity

This 1864 piece by Scrivener was, quite amazingly, used as the supposed evidence for Sinaiticus authenticity. Despite the fact that many of the major problems with the Sinaiticus authenticity position were not even yet known. See the discussion on Facebook involving James Snapp. Read the...

purebibleforum.com

ad Benedict been the most acute and accomplished Biblical scholar in Christendom he could not have anticipated in 1839 the results of the discoveries of the last twenty years; no one who in his time sat down to construct an ancient text, which should resemble that of the earliest manuscripts, versions, and ecclesiastical writers, could possibly have been led to the results embodied in the Codex Sinaiticus; not even though to their deep and comprehensive learning be added the fortunate daring of a Bentley, the tact and ripe judgment of a Griesbach. One example will illustrate our meaning as well as a thousand, which the student may readily find for himself in the following collation. In Matthew 14:30 Codex Sinaiticus omits ισχυρον after ανεμον. In 1839 no other document, manuscript, version,45 or Father was known to countenance such a variation; it has no such inherent probability as to have suggested itself to Benedict, or to any one else. When Rulotta’s revised collation of the Codex Vaticanus was brought to light again in 1855, it first became known that that venerable authority contains the word only in a later hand; in 1857 Tregelles published his collation of the important cursive Codex 33, made seven years before; this copy also omits ισχυρον. Thus, were we now engaged in forming a text that should seem ancient, here is just such a textual variant as we should adopt for our purpose; it could not have been so employed twenty-four years ago, since the omission in any one codex was completely unknown, and would not have been conjectured.

======================

So your statement White didn't give any examples is not only wrong but YOU KNEW it was wrong when you've been making your erroneous accusations here.

Matthew 14:30 (AV)
But when he saw the wind boisterous,
he was afraid; and beginning to sink,
he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

This is more contra absurdity, just quoting Scrivener without checking ... anything.

First of all, the James White claim of thousands of variants from the papyri is now totally abandoned.

Second, there is nothing related to the papyri on Matthew 14:30.
So this is NOT an example of his repeated quotes about the papyri.

And, textually, it is simply the omission of a word, a common occurrence accidentally.

And the omission is in first hand of Vaticanus and other sources like ms, 33 "the queen of the cursives" per the textcrits.

Burgon discusses this word omission error in Sinaiticus, and these next are two good sources.

LaParola - Matthew 14:30
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=47&rif2=14:30

14:30 (Münster)

ἄνεμον ἰσχυρὸν] B2 C D E F G K L P W X (Y) Δ Θ Π Σ 0106 f1 f13 28 157 180 205 565 579 597 700 892 1006 1009 1010 1071 1079 1195 1216 1230 1241 1242 1243 1253 1292 1342 1344 1365 1424 1505 1546 1646 2148 2174 Byz Lect ita itaur itb itc itd ite itf itff1 itff2 itg1 ith itl itq vg syrc syrs syrp syrh syrpal (copmae) arm eth geo slav Origen Basil Gaudentius Chrysostom Chromatius Jerome Augustine ς (NA [ἰσχυρὸν]) (CEI) ND Dio TILC Nv

ἄνεμον ἰσχυρὸν σφόδρα] W (copmae)

ἄνεμον] ‭א B* 073 33 vgms copsa copbo copfay WH NR Riv NM

The Reviser's Greek Text (1892)
Samuel Worcester Whitney
https://archive.org/details/cu31924091301113/page/n113/mode/2up

This is a piddle word omission, the only question is accidental or deliberate? Accidental would be trivially simple (as occurred in Vaticanus, later corrected), but there are various possible exemplars for it to be deliberate.

The bumbling incompetence of the contras trying to shore up the James White lie is interesting to see.

 

[Maestroh]

Matthew 14:30 (KJV)
But when he saw the wind boisterous,
he was afraid; and beginning to sink,
he cried, saying, Lord, save me.

This is more contra absurdity, just quoting Scrivener without checking ... anything.

First of all, the James White claim of thousands of variants from the papyri is now totally abandoned.

Second, there is nothing related to the papyri on Matthew 10:30.

1) You're the only one talking about Matthew 10:30. Typo?

2) You still haven't corrected your blundering claim that White didn't cite an example, when he did.

Again - instead of ranting here in explosive rage, CALL THE MAN.

You're the one who wants it in public. So go for it.

Quit piddling around here and face him, show us your superior intellect at work.

And be prepared to apologize to him for your false claim about what actually happened.

 

[Maestroh]

As a reminder, this is why we're here at this point:

Steven Avery Claim

Can you list 10 of the thousands of papyri variants.
James White indicated none.

Reality
White indicated TWO.

And now Steven Avery is flopping every direction like a fish out of water to not say "I was wrong."

 

[Steven Avery]

1) You're the only one talking about Matthew 10:30. Typo?

Yes, you can see Matthew 14:30 three times in the post.
Thanks, I fixed the spot with 10:30.

 

[Maestroh]

The errors of James White are scrubbed from his forums.

Never existed in the first place is more like it.

Also, does he even have a forum?

Why his absurd blunder (it was said in multiple spots in the debate, it was his key attempt) is defended by the contra's here is a curious phenomenon.

Avery makes false claim and gaslights, claiming White is the one who is wrong about what Avery said.
Unreal.

 

[Maestroh]

Yes, you can see Matthew 14:30 three times in the post.

Can't even admit a typo?

 

[Steven Avery]

Reality
White indicated TWO.

White had numerous quotes, and some had THOUSANDS of places from papyri.

I gave you one carefully transcribed quote, and the audio is still up so anyone can check.

You are likely influenced by the nonsense and ignorance of James White in the debate with Chris Pinto.

"there are literally thousands of places where Sinaiticus contains readings confirmed by later discoveries, discoveries unknown even in Scrivener's time, in the papyri, that would have been completely unknown to Simonides or anyone living in his day. To attribute these readings to mere chance is of course inconceivable."

See also James Snapp
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...onides-regarding-sinaiticus.11880/post-910095

Steven - I basically agree. White basically claimed that Sinaiticus contains *thousands* of readings that were otherwise unknown until the 1900's, when the papyri-research began after Grenfell and Hunt. If Pinto had responded, "Really? Name three." . . . I wonder what White would have done.

 

[Maestroh]

More silly and sick personal attacks, simply because you are stuck now defending the James White blunder.

Once again, everyone here including you knows you messed up.

YOU said he gave no examples.
He gave TWO.

So you're wrong.

And I've not even defended the 1,000 examples.

I've just pointed out you're wrong to say he gave none.

apparently, it's too difficult for you to even admit.