Benedict as 106 years old when he passed?

While it is possible, especially for teaching youngsters, since Nikolas Farmakidis has his birth-date clearly stated as 1760, I lean to an error in the 1859 bio.

This is the bio that nowhere mentions Sinaiticus as a production of Simonides (or anything like that), hence, using the "Avery Theory Of Anything Not Mentioned Didn't Happen Until It Is Mentioned" means that Simonides didn't know he wasn't involved with it or claim he was until 1862.

It's amusing how often the biography of the guy AND the interpreters of the guy AND the guy himself cannot be trusted for any reliable information about the guy.
 
Three fundamental incongruities in the Memoir.

  • The August 1859, Biographical Memoir has no mention at all of the Codex Simonideos project

  • The August 1859, Biographical Memoir also has no mention at all of "(+) Hiero-Monachus Kuriakos Kallinikos Keraunos of Thessaloniki and of Alexandria and of Athos."

  • The August 1859, Biographical Memoir also has Simonides accepting the Codex Sinaiticus as genuine and dated to the second century.
 
  • The August 1859, Biographical Memoir has no mention at all of the Codex Simonideos project

An aborted, unfinished project full of errors, an embarrassment.

Also it looks like he had taken some good $ for the manuscript, and then left it undone.

The less said the better, until Tischendorf pulled off his master con!
 
  • The August 1859, Biographical Memoir also has no mention at all of "(+) Hiero-Monachus Kuriakos Kallinikos Keraunos of Thessaloniki and of Alexandria and of Athos."

True, however, our friends in Melbourne are sitting on a letter from Simonides to Kallinikos, it is hidden from examination, so it is hard to really make any Kallinikos comments until the document is brought forth.

It would be interesting to go through the Memoir and see who is mentioned, and who is passed by.
 
  • The August 1859, Biographical Memoir also has Simonides accepting the Codex Sinaiticus as genuine and dated to the second century.

This one is fascinating, we touched on it before.

"represented to be in excellent condition"

By who? Where?

e.g. I wrote this up years back.
Ironically, in his Memoir, Simonides used the superb conservation of Sinaiticus to argue that forgeries that he created could be thousands of years old even though the parchment or papyrus was in great shape. And how did he know the Sinaiticus parchment was in such superb shape in 1859? .... :) .... the answer is obvious ... the same reason that Tischendorf was concerned about the Sinaiticus "stories" when he was going to heist the manuscript. Personal involvement. Crafty fellow, that Simonides, he would use one dubious piece to support another.
 
Teaching youngsters, there were teachers young in the 1800s,

Wild guessing.

You're trying to sound intelligent but failing, because we all know you're pretending (faking to the audience) that you actually looked at firsthand evidence of the age's of both the students and teachers when Benedict was allegedly a 14 year old "Professor".

however if a full professor is implied, that would be less likely.

The implication and sense of Simonides context is he was already a "Professor" at the time he was teaching there... so the story gets more ridiculous, when you think of when he became a "Professor" before this!

At age what
? 13? 12? 11? 10?
 
So much denial, with so little proof.

Denial of what?

Are you still holding on to Parfeny’s 106 year-old-totally different Benedict?
Or you other Benedict from the 1870s?

And I most definitely support “denial” of contra absurdities.

The Kevin McGrane blunder is good for a laugh. Kevin was actually quite aggressive in attacking the true Benedict Rossios of Symi.

And I hope Kevin does not embarrass himself by sticking with the blunder in any new publication, if he gets permission to continue.
 
Last edited:
Its a good, albeit thin, account for a different person than Benedict Rossi of Symi, chosen to teach by Kapodistrias.

Has nothing to do with Benedict Rossi of Symi.

Parfeny's 106 year old Benedict just so happens to be in the right monastery, the Russoco monastery, was that simply a coincidence?

Parfeny's 106 year old Benedict was also revered as a spiritual mentor at the very same time, is that a coincidence?

Parfeny's 106 year old Benedict had major eye-sight problems at the same time as Simonides Benedict, was that also a mere coincidence?

Parfeny's 106 year old Benedict just so happens to die in the same place, in the same year...are these all mere fluke coincidences?

Or was your acknowledged liar (Simonides) just telling more lies than your prepared to admit?
 
Last edited:
An aborted, unfinished project full of errors, an embarrassment.

Also it looks like he had taken some good $ for the manuscript, and then left it undone.

The less said the better, until Tischendorf pulled off his master con!


Get ready folks, he's one step from telling us all that a unicorn absconded with the manuscript and flew it to Sinai - after all, we can't prove this DID NOt happen.
 
True, however, our friends in Melbourne are sitting on a letter from Simonides to Kallinikos, it is hidden from examination, so it is hard to really make any Kallinikos comments until the document is brought forth.

No, it isn't.
'
Simonides forged letters an signed Kallinikos's name to it, a fact conceded even by Hodgkin in 1863.

So no, we don't have to wait on this at all.
A guy who will forge a letter FROM a guy will also write a letter TO a guy that's a phantom, it carries less risk of exposure since it's FROM him.

Gee, this is not difficult.

Or - maybe - Simonides wrote the REAL Kallinikos who denied having anything to do with this and was away from the monastery at the very time the forged letters claim he was there.

It would be interesting to go through the Memoir and see who is mentioned, and who is passed by.

No, if he didn't mention them, they didn't exist.


That's what you say when it's anyone else, you don't get to change the rules now.
 
Get ready folks, he's one step from telling us all that a unicorn absconded with the manuscript and flew it to Sinai - after all, we can't prove this DID NOt happen.

This can be copied to the other special thread over as a perfect example of worthless reactive dribble and drivel posting.
 
Denial of what?

Are you still holding on to Parfeny’s 106 year-old-totally different Benedict?
Or you other Benedict from the 1870s?

And I most definitely support “denial” of contra absurdities.

The Kevin McGrane blunder is good for a laugh. Kevin was actually quite aggressive in attacking the true Benedict Rossios of Symi.

And I hope Kevin does not embarrass himself by sticking with the blunder in any new publication, if he gets permission to continue.

Have you decided it's better to abandon Simonides story, that Benedict was 70 years old in 1840...to make up your own one?

Hmmmm

Folks, think about this...why would a Symaian Politician (Farmakidis) defend a Symaian (Simonides)?

Hmmmm. Go figure folks.

Nationalistic pride perhaps?
 
Folks, think about this...why would a Symaian Politician (Farmakidis) defend a Symaian (Simonides)?
Hmmmm. Go figure folks.
Nationalistic pride perhaps?

Surely can be a factor.

Good example, his theory that the manuscript was a Tischendorf-Sinai collusion. And Simonides was simply trying to supply cover for St.Catherine’s.
 
Have you decided it's better to abandon Simonides story, that Benedict was 70 years old in 1840...to make up your own one?

I don’t see a possible 70 - 80 year question in a translated text as very significant. The Benedict and Procopius and Kapodistias history is extremely solid, so you go bananas on small stuff.

You got snookered by Kevin McGranr.
 
Back
Top