The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

[Steven Avery]

This is nothing but an opinion - and an ignorant one at that.

Actually it is very true.
Cjab knows how to quote and post. His analysis is sometimes strong, sometimes weak, but he is looking for substance.

Your posts are generally competitive as the very worst, because they are pushed by your animus.

 

[Steven Avery]

?Why? would the monks forget so quickly the supposed importance of Simonides gift for safe keeping, and sew parts of the Sinaiticus manuscript into the bindings and covers of other manuscripts, such as those discovered and taken by Uspensky in 1845??

The theory of the Sinaiticus authenticity pushers is that they created a new cover and binding for Sinaiticus between 1844 and 1845. So there is nothing difficult with some fragments being used in the 1840s in various ways. Until the 1844-1845 visits it would be seen as a red herring. Read what Kallinikos said about Simonides abandoning the project.

As for the monks as a whole, only a couple at most would know the history of the aborted project text from Athos to Constantinople to the monastery. The big surprise came when the Europeans started waving money (and plying with liquor, see Tischendorf's French account.)

 

[Steven Avery]

NOTE: I'm aware of the skepticism of Tischendorf's story stated in the context of the above quote. But it still demonstrates the unconventional (even bizarre) habits of the isolated and idiosyncratic community at Sinai, and that Tischendorfs' story isn't as far fetched as you (Steven) make it out to be.

In the full context, it was simple theft. The letter to his brother Julius supports that. And the 100% accurate report from Kallinikos. Also the fact that the supposed random pages were actually five full quires and part of a sixth. Also Uspensky seeing the full codex, except for the Tischendorf theft, in 1845. Also how Tischendorf hid the source of the CFA even after the 1859 theft. Also how it took 15 years to come up with the basket and fire story, as a cover for the earlier theft.

 

[Steven Avery]

TNC was very selective from Nicholaos Fyssas:

Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript (2015)
Ch 14 The Recent History of Codex Sinaiticus: Insights from the Sinai Archives
Nicholas Fyssas

SINAI AND TISCHENDORF

The modern history of Codex Sinaiticus is linked to Constantin Tischendorf, renowned scholar, editor of the Greek New Testament, and explorer. The details of his travels to Sinai and the location of Codex Sinaiticus are well known. As for his first trip in 1844, which provided him with the forty-three folios now in Leipzig, it should be remembered that all we have is his own account, written twenty-one years after the event in 1865; this happened after all the then known parts of the Codex had left Sinai, requiring in one or the other way some kind of legitimacy or justification.

Tischendorf was a child of his era, his travels to the East being to some extent a chase that provided Western libraries with manuscripts, some of which he himself sold. So Tischendorf's story of parts of the Codex in a basket, destined for the fire in the oven, although the only version of the events that came down to us, poses some critical questions:

a) Even if the leaves of the Codex had been really found in a basket, it is known that manuscripts were often stored in baskets, and they are often represented this way in Byzantine iconography. As for Sinai, in 1893, Margaret Dunlop Gibson made a catalogue of the Arabic manuscripts, which were brought to her in baskets. By 1895, the last of the manuscripts had been placed on shelves, and the baskets phased out. When the New Finds were discovered in 1975, a number of the manuscripts were stored in baskets.

b) Even if in a basket (according to Tischendorf's description) the parchment leaves, made from animal skin, could not be used in the oven, since they do not readily burn and they produce a terrible smell. Also, Tischendorf's claim to this effect remains the only allegation that the monks of Sinai were burning parchment manuscripts.

These observations may also urge us to take with some reservation Tischendorf's claim that be was allowed to take the forty-three folios. During his second visit to Sinai in 1853, the leaves of the Codex he had seen earlier could not be located, although Porfirij Uspenskij and possibly Major Macdonald had seen them in the intervening years. And during his third trip the whole Codex was traced in the hands of the Oikonomos (steward).

There seem to be some lacunae in this story; of course they should not be considered as tokens of a supposed forgery of the true events by Tischendorf. But since his version justifies his acts, as saving the manuscript from its ignorant owners, one should be very cautious in accepting it without serious reservations. Even Scrivener, in his book on Codex Sinaiticus in 1864, refers to a letter of Callinicos of Sinai in the Guardian newspaper about the manuscript, saying that the manuscript was always kept in the library and was inserted in the old catalogues of the Monastery. p. 189

While Fyssas omits many salient facts, he also makes good points.
One critical gap.

"although the only version of the events that came down to us"

Wrong. Kallinikos explained the theft c. 1862. Plus, the monastery always said no to that fabrication from Tischendorf, that he foisted on everyone 15+ years later. One writer wrote of the irony of Tischendorf trying to ply this story on the monastery c. 1860.

 

[Steven Avery]

Who cares?

Only people interested in the truth about Sinaiticus.

 

[Maestroh]

Only people interested in the truth about Sinaiticus.

If you were actually interested in the TRUTH about Sinaiticus as opposed to spouting KJVO propaganda, you wouldn't be posting here.

You'd be writing ACADEMIC papers that delved into the MANUSCRIPT, not a junior high grade "slam book" (remember those?) level of reading comprehension that taxes neither your intellect nor your conscience. You wouldn't be engaging in your childish "Tischendorf this, Tischendorf that," which - for the umpteenth time - has ZERO to do with the AGE of the manuscript.

But you don't do that.
You don't do the hard work.

You just click a phrase into a google search and then demonstrate how poor both your propaganda skills AND your research actually are.

You've been informed repeatedly here by me that your cockamamie story about Simonides does not work. You have him on Athos when even he doesn't have himself on Athos, and when someone calls you out on your nonsense, you get all pouty.

Fact - you wasted your life.

The end.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The theory of the Sinaiticus authenticity pushers is that they created a new cover and binding for Sinaiticus between 1844 and 1845. So there is nothing difficult with some fragments being used in the 1840s in various ways. Until the 1844-1845 visits it would be seen as a red herring. Read what Kallinikos said about Simonides abandoning the project.

As for the monks as a whole, only a couple at most would know the history of the aborted project text from Athos to Constantinople to the monastery. The big surprise came when the Europeans started waving money (and plying with liquor, see Tischendorf's French account.)

Did either Simonides, or (his alter-ego) Kallinikos, specifically say anything directly (in unambiguous words) about "fragments" of their manuscript having been "sewn into the covers of other" books or manuscripts specifically within the Sinai monastery???

Note "sewn into" and "other" books or manuscripts.

Not taking off, the Sinaiticus' old cover, which is simply not what I'm talking about.

And did they specifically say "Tischendorf" "sewed" these "fragments into other" books and manuscripts???

Your personal idea's, Steven, are of zero value and/or authority when it comes to the real (contra imagined) events of 1839-1845 in St Catherine's. If Slimy and Colonel Klink didn't say it, then it didn't happen.

 

[Maestroh]

Did either Simonides, or (his alter-ego) Kallinikos, specifically say anything directly (in unambiguous words) about "fragments" of their manuscript having been "sewn into the covers of other" books or manuscripts specifically within the Sinai monastery???

Note "sewn into" and "other" books or manuscripts.

Not taking off, the Sinaiticus' old cover, which is simply not what I'm talking about.

And did they specifically say "Tischendorf" "sewed" these "fragments into other" books and manuscripts???

Your personal idea's, Steven, are of zero value and/or authority when it comes to the real (contra imagined) events of 1839-1845 in St Catherine's. If Slimy and Colonel Klink didn't say it, then it didn't happen.

Get ready - here comes his pre-rehearsed accusation about "Simonides perfctionalism" and "oh Tischendorf lied and stole!"

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Did either Simonides, or (his alter-ego) Kallinikos, specifically say anything directly (in unambiguous words) that shows they had direct knowledge, and knew without a doubt of the existence the what you call the "dump" room, and that it was located specifically "on the north wall" and that it was "buried in an earthquake" at Sinai monastery???

 

[Maestroh]

Actually it is very true.
Cjab knows how to quote and post.

You stating it a second time doesn't magically make your opinion a FACT.

His analysis is sometimes strong, sometimes weak, but he is looking for substance.

The opposite of what you're seeking is noted.

Your posts are generally competitive as the very worst, because they are pushed by your animus.

Again - that's nothing more than the opinion of a man who never even finished college and yet thinks a bunch of PhDs are going to be impressed with his Google searches.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

BTW, please note everyone.

It was not/neither the (Simonidal Klinkish fairytale version of the) old book binding or volume cover of the Codex Sinaiticus, that was actually found sewn into, or pasted into other manuscripts etc in the Sinai Monastery by Uspensky, the Society of Lovers of Ancient Literature in Saint Petersburg (OLDP), or Nikolas Sarris.

We're being specific in these questions about real world facts and tangible evidence here.

 

[Maestroh]

In the full context, it was simple theft. The letter to his brother Julius supports that.

You mean the same letter YOU MISUNDERSTOOD THE GERMAN?????

Or is there another one?

And the 100% accurate report from Kallinikos.

This would be the same report where Kallinikos very explicitly states ONLY SIMONIDES wrote Sinaiticus?

THAT is the source you're saying is 100% accurate?????

Also the fact that the supposed random pages were actually five full quires and part of a sixth.

You don't know this.

Also Uspensky seeing the full codex, except for the Tischendorf theft, in 1845.

You're the one who told us Uspenski is a liar!!!!

Also how Tischendorf hid the source of the CFA even after the 1859 theft.

What do you mean he hid the source?

You're again calling theft what (wait for it) HE HAD A RECEIPT!!!

Also how it took 15 years to come up with the basket and fire story, as a cover for the earlier theft.

You don't know this, either.


Every time I think you cannot get more ridiculous, you prove me wrong.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

.Also the fact that the supposed random pages were actually five full quires and part of a sixth.

I find it amazing that it doesn't simply occur to you that "five full quires and part of a sixth" actually consist of "pages".

This is you framing evidence.

"Pages" is a generic way of describing what he took, to his brother. Just because he didn't put it the way YOU SAY he should, doesn't make his word's untrue or dishonest or conspiratistic.

This is just another example of you manipulating and misrepresenting evidence (which you have a reputation for).

 

[Maestroh]

I reiterate another point I've made previously: Avery DOES NOT REALLY CARE about the testing of the manuscript.

Tell me how in the world someone dating the manuscript CHEMICALLY to the fourth century will refute (in his mind) his "but Hermas" argument, which is based on the contents NOT the chemical composition of the manuscript.

Like I said - he's already come up with new objections to the argument because KJVOs are like atheists.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The theory of the Sinaiticus authenticity pushers is that they created a new cover and binding for Sinaiticus between 1844 and 1845.

Where exactly do they say that, using the specific dates you say (represent) they used???

Your not framing evidence again are you??? Committing contextomy??? Or simply misrepresenting people are you???

 

[Maestroh]

Read what Kallinikos said about Simonides abandoning the project.

Guy who doesn't believe Kallinikos goes Full Carnival Barker with "believe Kallinikos."

 

[Steven Avery]

Guy who doesn't believe Kallinikos goes Full Carnival Barker with "believe Kallinikos."

The Kallinikos account of Sinaiticus at St. Catherine's, and the problems they had with manuscript thieves (specifically mentioning Uspensky as well), and the 1844 theft abstraction, and the 1859 bogus loan, and the colouring of the manuscript, is far more accurate that the many Tischendorf fabrications.

A major point made by Simonides was the lack of any provenance, no catalog, he knew that was impossible because the ms. arrived in SInai after 1840.

The contras cannot discuss this intelligently so they go the orange man bad route.
They have no sense of the historical imperatives involved.

 

[Steven Avery]

Where exactly do they say that, using the specific dates you say (represent) they used???

This is in many accounts (even though there really is no evidence, I went over some of these issues with Flavio Marzo, who was very helpful.)

Here is one.

The Collected Biblical Writings of T.C. Skeat (2004)
Introduction by James Keith Elliott
http://books.google.com/books?id=td_OLXo4RvkC&pg=PR12
(this page may not come up in Google books, there is more on PBF. )

"... this binding was after Tischendorf's 1844 visit ... the binding applied by the monks must have been executed between Tischendorf's departure in May 1844 and 1845."

Should be sufficient for your inquiry.

 

[Unbound68]

(this page may not come up in Google books,

Says it all right there.

Quoting from a work you don't actually have in your possession (in any form), and that you can't immediately refer to, is the height of intellectual dishonesty and sham research.

This is the exact reason why you wouldn't last 2 minutes in an actual in-person debate with ANYONE familiar with the history of Sinaiticus (scribes and correctors), Simonides, the Greek language, paleography, and manuscripts.

You're like the character Jared on The Pretender, except things go badly for you when you continually assume roles for which you aren't in the least qualified.

So I guess the only similarity you really have with him is the title.

 

[Steven Avery]

The Acts of the Apostles: The text of Acts, by J.H. Ropes (1926)
James Hardy Ropes (1866-1933)
https://books.google.com/books?id=8HTLwvfUpSkC&pg=PR48

Codex Sinaiticus is carelessly written, with many lapses of spelling due to the influence of dialectal and vulgar speech, and many plain errors and crude vagaries. Omissions by homeoteleuton abound, and there are many other careless omissions. All these gave a large field for the work of correctors, and the manuscript does not stand by any means on the same level of workmanship as B.

Common knowledge.

The scribal blunderama was also pointed out by Adolf Hilgenfeld (1823-1907) as described in the Theological Review:

The Theological review [ed. by C. Beard]., Volume 1 (1864)
https://books.google.com/books?id=QUAEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA220

p. 214
Undue weight, in his opinion, has been attached by the editor to the beauty and form of the uncial characters. An un-theological friend well versed in palaeography, whose opinion he asked, drew from an inspection of the writing the same conclusion at which Hilgenfeld had arrived through another process,—viz. that the MS. could not be older than the sixth century. It is curious to notice how learned and ingenious men deduce opposite inferences from the same data. The text of this Codex of the New Testament is disfigured by constant mis-spellings, and abounds in violations of all the laws of flexion and syntax.

p. 220
"hasty transcript by ignorant and incompetent scribes, whose astounding blunders have caused endless troubles to its numerous correctors . It abounds in omissions ; which can only be ascribed to haste, as this is not a usual fault in the worst manuscripts. Hilgenfold has given a list of these. Some blunders, resulting obviously from the same cause, are scarcely credible.

...

Judging from the instances alleged by Hilgenfeld, which have been taken from all parts of the New Testament, and which we have in every instance carefully verified by a reference to the original text, we should say that the Sinaitic text is generally very corrupt, abounding with extraordinary violations both of grammar and of sense. We have rarely turned to a single passage referred to by Hilgenfeld, without finding in the context some other example of corruption.