Utterly irrelevant. We know Simonides used real people as his alter egos. Your arguments amount to nothing, compared to the weight of evidence McGrane introduces. The fact is no-one matching the criteria of Simonides has ever been located.
Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - False Aliases
- Thread starter TwoNoteableCorruptions
- Start date
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Kevin told you that the Russian manuscript archives at the very same Rossico (Russians) monastery showed he's not Simonide's Arch-Bishop Ordained-Priest-Monk, Kallinikos of Thessaloniki or Alexandria.
These are among the many the extensive foreign language resources he mentioned in his email shot across the bow, that you (more than likely) haven't researched yet Steven.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Just pointing out to other reader's that the Rossico Russian manuscript archives records that show the "Kallinikos, a monk" in the Lambros catalogue entries Steven is harping on about, show that this is not the same identity as the full unabbreviated identity of the Kallinikos that Simonides gave fuller qualifying (i.e. identifying) details of, and is going to be in his upcoming book (yet unpublished).
So, be patient, and all will be revealed in due time (and more no doubt).
P.S. Mr Avery is well aware of this, and is in denial and diversion mode.
So, be patient, and all will be revealed in due time (and more no doubt).
P.S. Mr Avery is well aware of this, and is in denial and diversion mode.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You just do not want to admit the obvious:
Kevin McGrane blunders in trying to ignore the 3 1841 Athos Library entries, involving Simonides and Kallinikos, contiguous, on the same manuscript!
If you can’t acknowledge the connectedness of the three entries, Tisch has mushed your synapses.
You could still try to use McGrane on other matters.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
If Kevin McGrane can’t even acknowledge the 100% clear connection of the 3 library entries, published in AD 1900, he clearly is not reliable on any interpretation involving Kallinikos, Simonides and Russico.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Kevin McGrane, to his credit, totally rejects the Tischendort 4th century date, going hundreds of years later.
(There is tons of evidence against the 4th-century date.)
If the manuscript was written, say, AD 700, why did they use an antique script?
Or do we simply reject the Tischendorf palaeographic attempt as self-serving, flawed and worthless?
It would be wonderful if he could get his book out.
(There is tons of evidence against the 4th-century date.)
If the manuscript was written, say, AD 700, why did they use an antique script?
Or do we simply reject the Tischendorf palaeographic attempt as self-serving, flawed and worthless?
It would be wonderful if he could get his book out.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Last edited by a moderator:
McGrane was misled by Donaldson at this point. And it's all suppositional anyway.
But as Maestroh has discoursed at some length, Donaldson's scholarship with respect to Latin and Greek was limited to his time. For instance Maestroh says that "Maximw WAS KNOWN AS GREEK WORD - contra Donaldson and Tischendorf - for CENTURIES before the 4th century."
Do a forum search for Donaldson using Maestroh's user name. There's a lot of information.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So why are you and McGrane taking the totally absurd position that there is no connection of Simonides in 6405 and Kallinikos in 6406 and 6407 in the AD 1900 Athos Catalogue.
His whole position on Kallinikos and Simonides is rooted in that blunder.
Are you really that weak in simple logic?
His whole position on Kallinikos and Simonides is rooted in that blunder.
Are you really that weak in simple logic?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
And do you agree with Kevin McGrane that we should discard the 4th century theory of Sinaiticus?
That the 4th century claims were essentially a Tischendorf con, under the cover of bogus “palaeography”.
That the 4th century claims were essentially a Tischendorf con, under the cover of bogus “palaeography”.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
And do you agree with Kevin McGrane that the 1844 Leipzig leaves may have been changed in the Library, made whiter by a super-duper cleaning and lightening solution? Rather than the 1859 Brit pages being made more yekllow by a staining solution?
(However, this does not explain why the Brit pages are far more stained. However it does avoid yet another Sinai home run out of the park for Simonides and Kallinikos.)
(However, this does not explain why the Brit pages are far more stained. However it does avoid yet another Sinai home run out of the park for Simonides and Kallinikos.)
Last edited: