Benedict as 106 years old when he passed?

And I do appreciate these nothing attempts.

They only arise because the Simonides history of Sinaiticus is detailed and sound, with superb references.

Like the deacon Hilarion, who likely has his siggy on the manuscript.

Similar with Dionysius, florid poetry and siggies on Sinaiticus, writer of the ms of the Painter’s Manual for Didron, a Simonides specialty.

So the contras are in desperation mode.
“Oh no, maybe Benedict was 78, not 70”
“Oh no, Sophronius used at Sinai”

This does not qualify even for majoring in the minors.

Then, icing on the cake, we have Easter Blunder Man.
 
Last edited:
Small uncertainties about the exact timing of his compatriot c. 75 years earlier.

That's a keeper folks!

He again admits the SART Team doesn't actually know which Benedict Simonides was actually with in Athos.

After how many years of research?

The I don't care attitude, is evidence of his hidden KJVO agenda "folks"...
 
He again admits the SART Team doesn't actually know which Benedict Simonides was actually with in Athos.

You are embarrassing yourself.
《《RULE 12 violation》》

Whether Benjamin Rossi of Symi, revolutionary compatriot of Ioannes Kapodistrias and Procopius Dendrinos, with a robust theological school background, was born in 1760, 1768 or 1770 does not change his identity or make him the 106 year old ancient one with none of that revolutionary background.

And I even showed you an 1832 Gazette article showing that revolutionary background.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
And I do consider searching out some Athos-connected manuscripts to be on a similar high level. One was used by Didron for his French translation of the Painter’s Manual. Where is that Greek manuscript today?

Digressing here, but I will stick to the timeline.

The manuscripts you seek won't help you prove anything except that Simonides doctored his version of the text in a couple of places, to do with the photography and dates.

The experts say the rest of Simonides version is a standard copy of the rest of the text, and doesn't deliberately deviate from the other extant manuscripts.

Not sure exactly what you hope to prove by this, but out of kindness, believe me, this will be a fruitless endeavour.

Timeline
 
And I even showed you an 1832 Gazette article showing that revolutionary background.

Did you miss that?

Have a think...

If Benedict was 106 years old at death in 1840, the real-world timeline for a Cydonia "Professor" named Benedict, would actually fit.

Chew on that one.

It makes better sense than a 14 year old "Professor".
 
Last edited:
Let's do the math.

1840 - 106 years = born 1734

1784 - 1734 = 50 year old "Professor" (makes much better sense)

1810 - 1734 = 76 years old when he enters the monasteries at Mt. Athos.

1840 - 1810 = 30 years on Mt. Athos.

"Hiero-Deacon and Teacher Benedict" dies at 106 years old.
 
They only arise because the Simonides history of Sinaiticus is detailed and sound, with superb references.

I'm not sure at this point whether this erroneous declaration or his preposterous claim that there was a typewritten note before typewriters were invented is the most asinine claim on this same subject by the same person.
 
They only arise because the Simonides history of Sinaiticus is detailed and sound, with superb references.

Again, I've made no bones about the fact Avery's crippling fear of debate is based not upon his false allegation that I'm making a bunch of errors I won't admit as it is that attempting to be the defense attorney for a shameless, narcissistic, vengeful twit like Constantine Simonides is pointless since his explanations, like the driving of many an old person, are all over the place.

1) Simonides only knew what Tischendorf had told him about the manuscript, there was no "impossible knowledge."

Snapp drove this point home in their debate, and Avery never even attempted to refute it. I have no idea - aside from either imprecise thinking, wishful thinking, or flat out blatant dishonesty - why Avery claims Simonides had ANY "impossible knowledge" because he didn't even know his own date of birth. "Here's some names on the manuscript" - "hmmm, I can just say those names were at Athos, who's going to know in 1863, I can always say they died."

2) Simonides could NOT have been any more explicit that HE CLAIMS he wrote the entire Sinaiticus by himself in eight months.

Truly one of the most absurd arguments - ranking right up there with what he just said about Simonides giving a detailed and sound history of Sinaiticus - was when in his debate debacle with Pastor James Snapp (at the 1:06:32 mark), Avery informed us all, "the idea that this was a one man procedure was not even "really" stated by Simonides."

It wasn't?????

a) September 3, 1862 letter:
First, I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas.."

Not we, but "I."

b) January 21, 1863 revision of his first nonsensical story:
"I know that I wrote 1,205 pages in eight months

I wrote. Not "we wrote." Not "this was a project." And he very clearly limits the time frame to basically the first eight months of 1840.

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

Here's the thing, folks: Avery KNOWS all of this. Seriously, he knows this - in fact, him knowing this is why he has concocted an amazing story that, well, is still as ludicrous as the one Simonides told, but Avery SOMEHOW has to come up with an explanation as to how a massive manuscript like Sinaiticus could have been written by a teenager in eight months. So out of one side of his mouth, Avery tells us - as he did in the debate with Snapp - "his general story was true' (1:12:39) and out the other, Avery makes up out of whole cloth an entirely new story to defend Simonides. It's amazing given he's saying things Simonides would never endorse in the first place - like he had help or it took longer than eight months.

Once he invested fully 15% of his life into this sojourn into futility, there were two options:

1) admit you were wrong - and in his case, apologize to all the people you insulted
2) pretend there's a scenario that you're not wrong under and defend that scenario instead of, you know, WHAT THE ALLEGED AUTHOR ACTUALLY SAID.

At this point, it just becomes a matter of making it to the grave without admitting you were wrong and then in your own mind, you win.

You "win" like an atheist, but you "win."
 
Consequently, we are told, "There was a guy named this and a guy named that there." Well, Simonides wasn't exactly going to say, "Oliver Cromwell of downtown London was there" when there was nobody there by that name.

Besides - is Hilarion at either Athos or on the document OR BOTH supposed to be a NAME or merely a TITLE?

Better yet - since Panteleimon Monastery is an EASTERN ORTHODOX monastery, was Hilarion the patron saint of someone whose birth name was something else altogether? I ask this simply because - yes - in 21st century America I've met people with actual REAL names who went by the name of their patron saint in church (this person was, yes, Irenaeus). It should not be any shock to anyone to find someone with the name of a patron saint at an Eastern orthodox monastery.

Guess what kind of monastery St. Catherine's on Mt. Sinai is?
Eastern Orthodox

Finding the name Hilarion at either Sinai or Athos given both are Eastern orthodox monasteries would be about as unsurprising as finding a person named Smith in the phone book.
 
Avery says Simonides himself was Scribe-A.

Did Scribe-A write 1,205 pages in the Codex Sinaiticus?

How many "pages" are in the Sinaiticus anyway?

The original estimate is around 730, but even if you assume Simonides was scribe A, you're stuck with his claim.

And that's a very SPECIFIC claim.
 
Digressing here, but I will stick to the timeline.
The manuscripts you seek won't help you prove anything except that Simonides doctored his version of the text in a couple of places, to do with the photography and dates.
The experts say the rest of Simonides version is a standard copy of the rest of the text, and doesn't deliberately deviate from the other extant manuscripts.
Not sure exactly what you hope to prove by this, but out of kindness, believe me, this will be a fruitless endeavour.
Timeline

Handwriting samples can be compared with Sinaiticus.

This especially applies to those who are named in the Sinaiticus manuscript.
Afaik, this nexus has never been examined, not in the 1860s, till today.

Beyond that, there are various additional elements to script questions.

This is totally different than variations, or doctoring, of the Painter’s Manual, which I think was the subject of your post.
 
Last edited:
That's a keeper folks!
He again admits the SART Team doesn't actually know which Benedict Simonides was actually with in Athos.

Your statement here was totally untrue, a fabrication.

You are the one who is confused trying to mix in the ancient, legendary one, 106-years old, with the Benedict Rossi of Symi, who mentored Simonides.
 
Let's do the math.
1840 - 106 years = born 1734
1784 - 1734 = 50 year old "Professor" (makes much better sense)
1810 - 1734 = 76 years old when he enters the monasteries at Mt. Athos.
1840 - 1810 = 30 years on Mt. Athos.
"Hiero-Deacon and Teacher Benedict" dies at 106 years old.

The ancient one had been at Athos for 70 years.

The Benedict of Simonides was involved with the Greek revolution, and was close to Dendrinos and Kaposistrias, and taught at other academies like Spetses. A strong variety of "theological" background.

Your math applies to no one.
 
Back
Top