The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

[Maestroh]

All too vague.

Nothing I said was vague.
It wasn't vague in the other thread, and it isn't vague here.

Quit stalling and simply answer the points.

If you are reading off someone's script

Guy who posts same "script" time after time refuted time after time projects his methodology onto others.

you should point to it, so it can be checked for specifics.

You've been given specifics.

Now answer the question.

Looking at the Spyridon Lambrou catalog, this makes no sense.

The idea you've even read or researched this catalog - which is entirely in Greek - is amusing to say the least.

BUT...you don't look at a catalog compiled years after the fact to substantiate the authenticity of a letter.
And you know this.

Two different people, and they worked on the same manuscript on different days.

1) There's only one date in the book

2) None of this proves anything at all

3) Yes, there WAS a Kallinikos but it wasn't the one writing the letters Simonides signed his name to trying to pretend he was an independent witness.

And this was many years before there were any forgery accusations.

So on your calendar, 1895 (the date of the catalog) was before 1856?

That's an amusing admission.

(I already covered the problems with the date in post 43 on the other thread. If you want to read the details and respond, do so there.

 

[Maestroh]

The wonderful condition "phenomenally good" per Helen Shenton can also be seen on the BBC video, this amazing condition is with or without binding.

What date does Helen Shenton give Sinaiticus?
that's right, fourth century, so this is a frivolous objection.

Why phenomenally good condition?

Because it was in a monastery and not out in the Egyptian sand.

Simple, it is not a manuscript that was in the dry, hot desert climate for a millennium, nor was it made 1650 years ago. It is from the 1800s.

Following your line of reasoning, every single manuscript still on Sinai has to be less than 300 years old. Do you REALLY believe that?

No, you don't.

On the other thread it seems like Bill Brown claims that Simonides got back to Mount Athos (where he was not particularly welcome), got ahold of the catalog from 25 or 35 years

Why didn't you quote me or answer there?
Why this evasion tactic?


Also, 1895 was not 25 years earlier than the 1860s.

Well - not to most of us it isn't.

earlier, rigged and changed the entries, and then put it back.

Not only did I say no such thing, but this would be impossible to do in an 1895 catalog. Why do you keep straw manning this issue? Is it really that hard for you to answer?

Then, after he passed, the catalog was published in 1895 and 1900, helping to vindicate his claims on Codex Simoneidos.

That was the latest attempt by Bill Brown.

We will note for the record you made ZERO attempt to:

1) give a coherent rational for how Simonides could be on Athos in 1841 when he by his own testimony before he began making up tales about writing Aleph, he wasn't

2) why the Easter date is incorrect

Do you have any coherent explanation for this?

Or is this a question that the answer is too embarrassing for the SART team to handle?

And I also placed the Farrer section on the other thread.

You didn't deal with the issue, though.

And everyone reading this knows why, too.

 

[Maestroh]

Tischendorf stole the manuscript in two steps

And....this has WHAT to do with Simonides's claims other than nothing?

Also, you don't know this.

and pushed the 4th century date aggressively

Tischendorf was DEAD when Milne and Skeat handled it so try again.

and kept the manuscript itself hidden from scientists and scholars.

Okay, folks, so a manuscript ON PUBLIC DISPLAY IN LEIPZIG in 1856 is somehow in Steven Avery's world....hidden.

We'll set aside the fact that at no time in 1856 did Mr. Forger Liar step up and say, "This is my work!"

And in 1859 he made up a phantasmagorical lie about saving leaves from fire, when his own words to family were thieve's talk, the leaves simply came into his possession, along the lines of ... "Look what showed up in my pouch!"

The only thing this tells me is you are reading into words meaning that is only there in your mind.

Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1845-1946), a top Russian scientist, was one of the few exceptions, and when he saw the manuscript, he blew the whistle, bewraying the phony date. This, I believe, had a lot to do with the 1933 dump of the red herring, the sale from Russia to England. The Russians could breathe a big sigh of relief.

So a non-paleographer blew a bunch of smoke.
Got it.

Tischendorf aggressively pushed his facsimile and limited access to the Leipzig and St. Petersburg manuscripts.

He did?

You mean he put chains on every single person who wanted to see them?

Your story here is flat out absurd at every level and assumes a level of control that didn't even exist in Castro's Cuba.

He also kept them separated even conceptually as long as possible. So people like Scrivener ended up as shills falsely saying the manuscript was yellow with age, without ever seeing the manuscript.

But you've never seen the manuscript, either.......

And nobody ever tested the parchment or ink. Not even today. Leipzig ducked out the day of the tests!

Your same memorized word salad has yet to provide evidence of anything beyond your ability to repeat already refuted arguments.

If it hasn't been tested then YOU CAN'T DATE IT, EITHER!!!!

The manuscript only became publicly available in 2009

What he means is, "I first saw it online in 2009." You could have seen it at the British Library long before 2009.
So this suggestion of a cover-up by you is more of a case of "I only became aware of this in 2009."

It's a shortcoming of YOUR research, not the British Library.

What happened in 2009 is YOU became aware. The rest of us knew all this stuff years earlier.

This is no different than when Donald Trump went with "not many people are aware of this." What he meant, of course, was, "I just now found out about this," which in his case included not knowing which state the Kansas City Chiefs call home or what Pearl Harbor was.

and we quickly saw anomalies galore.

Yes, I believe you somehow saw something online that nobody in the nearly 150 years prior to its posting on the Internet EVER SAW before.
Sure, I believe that - just like I believe Simonides.

And get lots of double-talk.

The only double talker is Constantine Simonides, who lied about his birthday and everything else.

 

[Maestroh]

And we found out that Simonides and Kallinikos had spoken accurately on point after point,

You went to Loch Ness, heard there was a monster there, there was a stirring in the water - and you saw exactly what you wanted to see, a sea creature dating back at least 1500 years that looks like a dinosaur under water.
No, it doesn't exist, but this is the level of SART team research.

including the 1844 theft by Tischendorf.

This is an accusation you keep repeating, not a fact you have proven.
Learn the difference.

Simply Simonides knowing there was no provenance is a type of impossible knowledge, unless he was closely involved with the ms.

Again - this was refuted above.
DO YOU SERIOUSLY HAVE NOTHING TO PROVIDE TO DEFEND SIMONIDES OTHER THAN THIS REPETITIVE WORD SALAD THAT SAYS NOTHING AT ALL?

Then we get into the amazing condition and the colouring and many palaeographic absurdities, like the Three Crosses Note dated to hundreds of years after supposed production, or Goesche telling Tregelles the Arabic notes were "very recent". And many more.

All of this has been answered.
You just don't admit it - or acknowledge it, either.

However, for the textcrits there was a problem, the 4th century date was too deeply entrenched to allow an honest reevaluation. So they watch parchment and ink science change to match Sinaiticus, and put their hands over their eyes.

So you ARE alleging a conspiracy amongst the very same textual critics who exposed 2427, huh?
Really?
That's what you're going with?

So yes, the Tischendorf con is front and center.

No.

The problem is David Daniels says you're a researcher of biblical stuff and yet:
- you can't read Greek (or German or French or Latin)
- you've never handled a manuscript in your life, so you have nothing with which to compare
- you have no earthly idea how photographing of manuscripts works
- you have no idea how manuscripts are dated
And consequently you argue the tiny bit of data you DO understand, which is searching Google Books online and finding sentences that affirm what you already believe. Thus - for YOU - it's a case of "as long as I can ever prove Tischendorf lied about something, the rest doesn't matter."

The basic Simonides story fits the "facts on the ground"

There IS NO "basic Simonides story", which is why you don't answer the questions put forth here.
His biography that HE WROTE under a false name and distributed got his birthday wrong twice - if we believe his later tale.
He collated these manuscripts sometime after November 1839 - except when he changed his tune to "Benedict did it earlier"
He kept changing his story for one reason only - he was lying.
He claimed he wrote it by himself, which even you admit isn't true.
He claimed Benedict did the corrections - at a time he already claimed Benedict had an eye inflammation and couldn't have done this.
He claimed he saw the manuscript aged at Sinai in 1852 - except this was after NOT GOING to Sinai in 1852.
There is no "basic Simonides story"; if you have one, why not give it to us in narrative form of what actually happened?

much better than the Tisch con.

Once again - for the umpteenth time - the date does not depend on Tischendorf telling the truth about everything.
The Simonides date does.

As a wiley Greek, he may have played around on details,

"Played around" being your word for "he lied", right?
Why not just say that then?

Btw, what - in your point of view - did he "play around' (e.g.) about?

but the basic history works out extremely well.

There is no basic story; it's why you don't interact with the Simonides letters.

The big deception of the Sinaiticus defenders has been thinking the issue is Simonides Perfectionalism.

Nice of you to knock down this straw man, but the issue is he told DEMONSTRABLE LIES about his so-called project.

It is not. It is simply whether the manuscript was produced on Mt. Athos c. 1840. And that is where the evidence points.

It does?
Fine, I'm open to this.
Who wrote it?
Give us what ACTUALLY happened please.
You know the date, you know the location - give us more.
Just don't tell us Simonides wrote it when all of the evidence shows he didn't.

 

[Maestroh]

You are confused, again.

You're not a Jedi, so don't try that old one.

Try to follow.

The title of the thread I started is "The False Claims of Constantine Simonides."
Are you going to take a position on that?

Or are you going to continue to introduce red herrings?

The claim is made that Sinaiticus was impossible in 1840 because it was impossible to know the many Vaticanus readings that match Sinaiticus

What are you even saying here?

1) Did I make this claim? If so, quote me. If not, quit wasting my time.
2) Did Simonides ever claim he used Vaticanus? If so, show us. If not, quit wasting my time.

because it was impossible to know the many Vaticanus readings that match Sinaiticus.

For the second time, did Simonides claim he used Vaticanus?
If so, where?

If not, why are you even going down this path?

It could be a strong argument, if true.

What would be a stronger argument for Simonides, of course, would be if Sinaiticus matched the so-called Moscow Bible that he claimed in his first letter that he collated or that he claimed in his second letter his uncle collated along with Alexandrinus.

It doesn't, which is proof he was lying both times.

The textually extensive and easily available and widely used Birch collation (even in the Granville Penn NT) immediately proves the argument false.

Not until the day you prove Simonides used something even he didn't claim he used, it doesn't.

It is not necessary to have a record. Ironically, the question of a purchase or shipping record did come up on the Zosimas Moscow Bible, which was used in the OT.

None of this has anything to do with anything.

You are sounding here exactly as Chris Pinto did in that debate where he was a wheat field, and James White was a combine harvester. Over and over, Pinto went with "could it be" or "what might be on Athos" or all that other nonsense. White absolutely wiped the floor with Pinto, whether you ever admit this fact or not. EVEN JAMES SNAPP agrees on that point.

If you don't have any proof, simply say, "I don't have any proof at all."

If you DO have proof Simonides used this stuff, please provide it.

 

[Maestroh]

Here is Farrer:

Yes, And?

Bill Brown, you have some very strange ideas.

Not at all.

I'm applying YOUR standard.

"According to #6405-6407 above, Lampros found evidence of Simonides and Kallinikos both writing the same document, showing Simonides on Athos at Panteleimon on March 27, 1841."
David Daniels of the SART Team

A member of your very own SART Team is telling the rest of us, "If the date is on this entry, it means he was here."

It means no such thing, of course, but that's what you guys are saying.

Which means if you apply it consistently, Benedict was alive in 1844.

Except - according to Simonides, who lied about everything else, he wasn't.

I'm. Using. YOUR. Standard.

My idea can only be strange if the initial idea of the SART team is strange.

You wanna go with that?

Do you really think that Simonides could only work on the Easter manuscript of John of Damascus on Easter day?

You're pretending not to get it.

That Easter sermon wasn't Easter until 1842.

Again, I don't know why you continue to set up straw men except for the fact the claims of Simonides are so obviously phony and embarrassing that you find them easier to knock down.

If you're saying Simonides had to be on Athos on March 27, 1841 - and Daniels says this - then Benedict was there in 1844, even after he was dead. I mean, I'm sure there's probably some recorded citations of monks who died when they saw Benedict after they thought he was dead given all the mysterious things that allegedly exist there in theory.

Of course, it is entirely possible Benedict WAS alive in 1844, too, given how much else Simonides lied about. Just like it's possible they weren't even related.

In the end, a citation in a manuscript 50 years after the fact does not prove that any of those three were even there on that date.

In fact, we are told by Simonides that HE was not there then. We are told by Simonides that Benedict was dead. And we're told by the REAL Kallinikios Hiermanchos, who wrote and cleared up the fact Simonides wrote letters and signed his name to them that he was at Athos but left between 1838 and 1855.

In other words, none of those three - by the testimony of two - were actually there on that date.

And yet David Daniels claims they were, suggesting he thinks he knows more about the whereabouts of three guys on one day than do they.

 

[Maestroh]

Simonides Begins To Change His Story With A New Letter
(January 21, 1863)

An excerpt of this can be read here:

But because some observations of the frivolous defenders of the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex would fain lead us to believe that I contemplated receding from my statement respecting the genuineness of the manuscript, I am obliged to say briefly the following, particularly in reply to W.A. Wright.

Note he says he's not backing away from his statement out it being a fourth century manuscript.
Of course, he's about to step away and change his story about everything else but what's 1,000 story alterations, right?

Or is that "Wright"? LOL!!

First, that my uncle Benedict being by profession a theologian and versed in twelve languages, intending to publish both the Old and New Testaments, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers, with exegetical scholia of the ancient commentators and specially to reply to what had been written against the Septuagint, began this work while Professor in the College of Cydon in the year 1784.

Wow, this is amazing.

Want to know what makes it more amazing?

Steven Avery's blog (wrongly called a forum) dates Benedict's birth to 1768. So he began this WHILE A COLLEGE PROFESSOR at 16 years old?
Not buying this one.

But there's another problem. Keep reading.

Having removed to Mt. Athos in 1819 for the sake of retirement

Except that's not what Stewart's Biography of Simonides - pushed by Simonides himself - said.

On page 5, we're told that Benedict was forced to flee Caluaria due to "the death of Capodstrias."

One problem...Capodistrias died in 1831, so there's no way Benedict left 12 years beforehand.

So let's see, we have:
1) a change of birth date
2) changing the story from SIMONIDES doing this "prep work" in 1839 to Benedict doing it when (according to Avery) Benedict was 16
3) changing the story from "retirement" to being "necessitated" to remove from the island to Athos.

and embraced the monastic life in the monastery of Esphigmenos

Except in the biography (page 5), it says the "monastery of Rhosos".
In his 1862 letter, it says the monastery of Panteleemon.

Now he says Ephigmenos.

Rhosos and Ephismenos are two different monasteries, so which was it?

Or did he have a split personality?

Now as we continue - the story is going to continue changing, with Simonides coming up with new explanations that contradict (not supplement) his prior lying claims.

 

[Maestroh]

he was named Benedict (for surely they who adopt monastic life ought to change themeselves and their names as well as their lives), having formerly had two names, Basileus and Bessarion. While at Athos, he gave himself up particularly to the study of the Sacred Scriptures. He collected the most ancient MSS of both Testaments and of their commentators and at considerable expense prepared his work for the press. The Greek Revolution interfered: he withdrew after a little time to the isle of Hydra, thence to Cythera, thence to Petzaris, and finally to Caulaurrea, now Paros, where there is a famous monastery of the Virgin, in which he remained a long time, teaching theology to twelve Greek youths by the command of Capo D'Istrias, Governor of Greece. After the assassination of the Governor, he again removed to Mount Athos

ha ha ha ha ha.....

isn't this story with zero verification incredibly convenient? He didn't "take up residence" (as the biography asserts on page 5), he RETURNED in this changing of the story.

Is everyone keeping score at home?
Lied about the birth date
Lied about the collation
Lied about the monastery name
Lied about when, where, and why "Benedict" was on Athos
Lied about how many times he was there

Next he's probably gonna tell me that his "reached that celebrated place....November 1839" wasn't HIS first trip there, either, right?

THIS is exactly what liars do, folks. They throw in irrelevant material after irrelevant material to distract you from the fact they're lying - as Simonides is here.

where he continued until his death.

I was then sojourning at Aegina, and thence set out to Naupila, thence to Syme, Syria, back to Aegina, and other places.

Who cares? Tell us more about this so-called manuscript you didn't write.

I also visited Mount Athos in 1837

Except in the biography he first arrives on Athos at age 15 in 1839.

So are you now telling me this 13-year old was the Magellan of Greece?

He does this, of course, to fill in the gaps of "this didn't happen."

in which year the discovery of the library took place.

Except in the biography, this doesn't occur until after Simonides arrives in 1839.
Not one word is said about 1837 and Simonides being on Athos.

I remained fourteen months at Mount Athos, increasing my theological knowledge under my uncle, at the same time studying, scientifically, paleography and archaeology. When I say "scientifically," I do not mean mean what Mr Wright understands, but what he does not comprehend, and concerning which he is silent.

Yes, let's do nothing, call it science and oh yeah, insult the inquirer in the process.

Uh, Mr Wright wasn't the one backtracking from his wild fanciful stories here.


He's gone from his doing all this starting in November 1839 to changing his story to 1837.
I won't be the slightest bit surprised if he starts inventing OTHER trips to Athos just to make his colossal lie sound believable.

 

[Maestroh]

I was taught the means of knowing the ancient MSS of every period and of every nation, their changes from time, also the knowledge of the skins, and the chemical preparation of the different writing inks, and the effects of the atmospheric changes of the different climates of the world.

This provides a few observations:
1) if Benedict was THIS smart that he taught him all this stuff, where are his books of knowledge sharing all this stuff?
2) we now know what the excuse will be from the SART team's tautology if this manuscript is ever tested.

Wanna know what they'll say?

"Yes, but Simonides said the parchment was old AND HE ALSO SAID he knew about the skins and chemical preparation of inks and therefore it is possible that he DID THIS because he was SUCH A GOOD FORGER!!!"

This is why all this whining about "but they didn't let them do the testing" is literal nonsense being spouted by people who know they're spouting nonsense when they spout it. If the British Library did the testing tomorrow and authenticated it, every single reader here KNOWS this is exactly how the SART team will move the goalposts yet again.

Don't pretend otherwise. After all, they won't even tell us what parts of "the basic Simonides story" which is actually several stories is their working narrative.

Further, I acquired knowledge of the preparation of the skins of every city of the ancient nations and such other information as is requisite with regard to the indisputable evidence both of the spuriousness and genuineness of MSS. of every kind; which information, it is to be regretted, is not possessed by any of the archaeologists and paleographers of our day, as I was sufficiently assured by many circumstances, first and last, and more especially lately, when the pseudo-Sinaitic Codex appeared.

You have to love the oozing arrogance of this lying little forger. You see, if he says something and the world's experts say something else, THE EXPERTS ARE WRONG BECAUSE THEY ARE STUPID!!!! That's what Simonides is saying here.

It's almost like if a bunch of scientists were involved in, I don't know, launching a rocket to the moon several times and bringing them back alive along with stuff from the moon.....but then a guy watches a You Tube video and tells all of the rest of us that those scientists don't know as much science as he does, not that this would ever happen in this day and age.

 

[Maestroh]

The discovery of the above-mentioned library induced my uncle to establish a printing press at Athos, for the dissemination of the various unpublished MSS, and those which he was preparing for publication.

One wonders when Benedict or Simonides ever had time to do so much as eat or sleep.

For this purpose, I was urged by him to go to Athens and provide there everything requisite for printing. I went and placed myself under the direction of A. Caromela for a sufficient time, he then being the first printer in Athens, and on this account also some spoke disrespectfully of me. I wrote to my uncle from Athens duly, that it was impossible for anyone to obtain a proper printing press in Greece because the Greeks procured from France every requisite for printing. Being assured of this by others also, he recalled me to Athos.

So in three-plus years, we've moved from he was SEARCHING for Benedict and found him on Athos in November 1839 to he was commanded to RETURN to Benedict because of Trump tariffs placed on Chinese exports that rerouted through Greece something something.

I sailed from the Piraeus in the month of November, 1839, and landed again at Athos for the fifth time.

In one paragraph this yutz has gone from he arrived there the first time in November 1839 to he returned there to he was there FOUR PREVIOUS TIMES!!!

I can't imagine why anyone thought this guy was blowing more smoke than the Marlboro Man in the midst of a volanic eruption.

After a few days I undertook the task of transcribing the Codex, the text of which, as I remarked before, had many years previously been prepared for another purpose.

Except that's not all you said.

In the first version of this story, your uncle conceived of this idea in an entirely different monastery, decided to give a gift to the emperor in acknowledgement of GIFTS ALREADY GIVEN BY HIM (post 1), NOT "so we can get a printing press." Having then examined the principal copies of the Holy Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos - he examined them AFTER this decision was made in November 1839....Benedict took a copy and did a collation (despite, you know, suffering from an eye disease and knowing he was dying - Biography pp 5-7). In fact, note what Simonides actually said the first time:

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

He didn't say in his first letter that the TEXT or COLLATION had been done years before, he said the PARCHMENT had been prepared years before.

He was changing his story AND lying about what he had said previously.

But Benedict as well as the principals of the monastery

In the first letter, we were told, "Benedict, my uncle, spiritual head of the monastery of the holy martyr Panteleemon." Now it's a different monastery and we have "principals."

wishing to recognize with gratitude the munificence of the Emperor Nicholas on the one hand and desiring on the other to acquire a printing press without expense and being unable otherwise to effect these purposes, decided that a transcript of the Sacred Scriptures should be made in the ancient style and presented as a gift to the Emperor Nicholas, and he found that all of the heads of the monastery perfectly agreed with him.

It's almost as though he added this second reason to justify all the malarkey he was telling about all his trips that did nothing other than allow him to boast about things he probably never actually did.

Accordingly, having again revised the books ready for publication and first Genesis, he gave it to me to transcribe.
But you need not such examples, for they abound in ancient and modern history.

Yes, this guy collating AND transcribing this manuscript in a full eight months (which is what claims) ranks right up there with the Egyptian pyramids, the Resurrection, and the compilation of the LXX. Also, Superman stopping the bullet with his teeth.

Knowing this I say to you again that the MS of the Sacred Scriptures taken from Mt Sinai by Tischendorf is my production and by no means ancient.

Again claims he wrote it all by himself, which is what he said in September. It's pretty much the only thing he's still telling the same story regarding.

 

[Maestroh]

The Codex proclaims this itself, as shall be afterwards shown, when my proofs will speak for themselves. Words are therefore needless.

Says the guy who keeps adding words to his childish defense because he has no proof.

Truly I wonder how people can credit such unreasonable falsehoods, things wholly impossible, and believe the reports of Tischendorf - viz. that I prepared palimpsests, and wrote 10,000 pages of an Egyptian lexicon, 7,000 pages of the Alexandrine Philological Catalogue, 10,000 pages of Uranius! 8,800,000 pages of various other ancient writers on different subjects! That I corrected the corrupted texts of various classical writers, filled up many blanks of injured ancient MSS, and wrote and prepared papyri! And all this in a very limited space of time, for which work a life of two thousand years would not suffice me, had I two thousand hands and one thousand [heads?].Yet they consider it a wonder to have made a simple copy of the Old and the New Testament, done by me in my juvenile years. O wonder of wonders!

I have no earthly idea what he's talking about but that's okay - neither does he.

You prepared yourself my dear Sir for the defense of the Sinaitic Codex by swallowing indiscriminately all the falsehoods concerning its discovery, told by your famous Tischendorf. But what scientific proofs have you to confirm its genuineness?

Remember earlier when this guy was saying by science he didn't mean what others mean?
This is why.

Neither do I expect such from you nor from your friend Tischendorf for neither you nor he possess true knowledge of Paleographical Science!

Can't you just feel the love from this guy, a guy who apparently doesn't even possess true knowledge of manuscript he now claims he wrote.

You have only learned to say at random, this is genuine and this is spurious, but you do not know the reason.

The insulting rhetoric, of course, persuades us what a genius this guy is. I mean, he can't get his own birthday right, but I see a genius at work.

But although I possess many proofs of the spuriousness of the manuscript, I shall keep silent on these for the present.

What a two-faced hypocrite this Simonides is.

Blasts others for not having proof (again - there's a difference in proof existing and him admitting it)
Boasts of all his ways of proving his side of the story

Decides - like Senator McCarthy - that he might wind up with a ton of egg on his face and wants to know more about what everyone else knows. He's one of these deceitful little people you've dealt with, the ones who pretend online to know so much about a subject and get all brassy and boastful but can't back up their claims - and are terrified of face-to-face one-on-one combat.


"I've GOT ALL THIS PROOF (in loud voice).....but.....I'm not gonna show it to ya!"

 

[Maestroh]

First, because I intend to write a special work on the subject

he's going to make money selling his version of his story.

and secondly, because the Codex will prove this itself when published, and the portion published already partly shows this, and if you understood the twofold signification of the note which exists at the end of the fourth column on the eighth page of the pseudo-Frederico-Augustine Codex, you would repent of what both you and your patrons have stirred up against me inconsiderately.

We are not privy to the delusions of someone else's mind, so the so-called twofold significance means diddly to anyone.

 

[Maestroh]

We will await and see if the head of the SART team wants to provide any sort of defense of the Shenanigans of Simon Says.

 

[logos1560]

We will await and see if the head of the SART team wants to provide any sort of defense of the Shenanigans of Simon Says.

It appears that the "tons of evidence" claimed by Steven Avery amounts mostly to assumptions, conjectures, speculations, arguments from silence, and the unproven, conflicting claims of Simonides; and therefore, is not verifiable, sound evidence.

It is obvious that he applies different standards/measures to Tischendorf than he does to Simonides. He has no sound answers for your points.

 

[Shoonra]

It appears that nobody on this forum has seen the Sinaiticus with their own eyes, much less touched it, and nobody on this forum has any expertise in the conditioning of vellum. I am content to rely on the statements of the archivists who actually care for the Sinaiticus.

I am old enough to remember a time when there was a small group that suspected that the Dead Sea Scrolls were fakes. They're gone now. And so are most of the people disputing the age of the Sinaiticus.

For some information on books in vellum (including that it is supposed to be white and extremely durable):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.b4228524&view=1up&seq=11

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Bill. Did I see there, in one of your posts something about Benedict doing something with the "binding"?

I'm on my lunch break at work, so don't have time to go back find the exact post right now.

 

[Maestroh]

Bill. Did I see there, in one of your posts something about Benedict doing something with the "binding"?

I'm on my lunch break at work, so don't have time to go back find the exact post right now.

No sir.

 

[Shoonra]

I copy this out of The Text of the Greek Bible by Sir Frederic Kenyon, rev ed 1949, pages 78-79 (my emphasis):

A comic episode followed the announcement of Tischendorf's great discovery. An ingenious Greek, Constantine Simonides, had about 1855 brought to England a number of manuscripts, among which was one which purported to be a lost history of Egypt by on Uranius. The well-known scholar, W. Dindorf, accepted it as genuine and prepared an edition for the Oxford University Press; but when a few sheets of it had been printed, another German scholar detected that the chronology was obviously taken from a modern history, and after a short controversy the fraud was exposed and the edition suppressed. Tischendorf had taken a hand in denouncing the imposture, and Simonides took his revenge by declaring that, while Uranius was perfectly genuine, he had written another manuscript, viz. the Codex Sinaiticus, which he had copied from a Moscow Bible in about six months at Mt. Athos in 1840. The story was patently absurd; for in 1840 Simonides was only 15 years old, he could not have obtained 350 large leaves of ancient vellum (modern vellum is quite different), he could not have copied it in six months, and no Moscow edition of the Bible with a similar text exists. Moreover the codex is written by at least three different scribes and has a large number of corrections in various hands. The story is merely one of the comedies of crime, and is only worth mentioning because it has been recently revived.

 

[Maestroh]

I copy this out of The Text of the Greek Bible by Sir Frederic Kenyon, rev ed 1949, pages 78-79 (my emphasis):

A comic episode followed the announcement of Tischendorf's great discovery. An ingenious Greek, Constantine Simonides, had about 1855 brought to England a number of manuscripts, among which was one which purported to be a lost history of Egypt by on Uranius. The well-known scholar, W. Dindorf, accepted it as genuine and prepared an edition for the Oxford University Press; but when a few sheets of it had been printed, another German scholar detected that the chronology was obviously taken from a modern history, and after a short controversy the fraud was exposed and the edition suppressed. Tischendorf had taken a hand in denouncing the imposture, and Simonides took his revenge by declaring that, while Uranius was perfectly genuine, he had written another manuscript, viz. the Codex Sinaiticus, which he had copied from a Moscow Bible in about six months at Mt. Athos in 1840. The story was patently absurd; for in 1840 Simonides was only 15 years old, he could not have obtained 350 large leaves of ancient vellum (modern vellum is quite different), he could not have copied it in six months, and no Moscow edition of the Bible with a similar text exists. Moreover the codex is written by at least three different scribes and has a large number of corrections in various hands. The story is merely one of the comedies of crime, and is only worth mentioning because it has been recently revived.

With nothing but a wishful thinking fallacy from a group of non-scholars supporting it, I would add, nowadays.

 

[Shoonra]

. . . wishful thinking fallacy from a group of non-scholars . . .

I don't see a group, I see only one.