Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - St Catherine's manuscripts Catalogue(s) plural

[Steven Avery]

One has to question both Simonides story, character, and judgement...
... As to why the innocent and supposedly pius Simonides would so happily seek and take up lodging with such an excommunicated criminal in the first place?
His story is highly dubious and simply doesn't make sense - except - as a stupid and shallow attempt at character assassinating a potential witness against him for being publicly exposed as the writer of the Kallinikos letters... Do you really expect us to buy this garbage?

Nicolaides assassinated his own character, in the context of the Sinaiticus controversy, by the absurd attempt to say there was no Benedict.

British Museum publication

"five times visited Mount Athos .... threw doubts on the very existence of Benedict (The Parthenon, 28 February 1863)"

Elliott - p. 74

Nicolaides says (Parthenon, Feb. 28, 1863) -
«I am well acquainted with all the monasteries of Mount Athos.... I never heard of the monk Benedictus, and do not believe he ever existed».

Why were you duped by that garbage?

Was Nicolaides paid off by William Aldis Wright and the Investigative Clowns?

Why are you duped by the Athos-Simonides-Tischendorf Sinaiticus garbage manuscript?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Where's the original and full context of Nicolaides sentence in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus?

How can the impartial reader ever know that Simonides wasn't in fact hiding damaging testimony against himself and committing blatant act of contextomy? Unless the full context of the Greek language newspaper article is given and fairly translated into English?

Do you have the full context of the quote from the Telegraph of the Bosphorus?

Are you deliberately hiding this evidence from us?

Note the question marks above everyone...this is not an accusation, but a fair question (seeing he's been researching this for at least a decade longer, and more, than I have).

 

[Steven Avery]

Where's the original and full context of Nicolaides sentence in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus?
How can the impartial reader ever know that Simonides wasn't in fact hiding damaging testimony against himself and committing blatant act of contextomy? Unless the full context of the Greek language newspaper article is given and fairly translated into English?
Do you have the full context of the quote from the Telegraph of the Bosphorus?
Are you deliberately hiding this evidence from us?

The quote from the Telegraph, given in Elliott, lauding Benedict, was not given here and was not needed, now that we have Benedict’s history confirmed by Nikolos Farmakidis, who also confirms the writing about Benedict from David W. Daniels.

The Telegraph quote was not from Nicolaides.

Elliott p. 74
Melchisedec of Laura says (Telegraph of Bosphorus Dec. 8, 1861)
«That Benedict was distinguished both as a scholar and as a wise man, all those who knew his character admit»
.
That was compared to the Nicolaides quote in the Parthenon given above.

 

[Steven Avery]

“Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair: An Examination of the Nineteenth Century Claim that Codex Sinaiticus was Not an Ancient Manuscript.”
By James Keith Elliott
Patriarchikon Hidryma Paterikōn Meletōn
1982
Pages 100-102
Footnote 57​

[Page 100] The investigation of the authenticity of the letters [i..e. Kallinikos' letters] took two forms.

Too bad they could not spend an hour with a Leipzig leaf and a St. Petersburg leaf.

The controversy would have ended very quickly, and Sinaiticus would have been devalued to its parchment value.

Sinaiticus Jeremiah - light page from 1844 Leipzig next to the 'yellow with age' 1859 British Library page
https://forums.carm.org/threads/sin...low-with-age-1859-british-library-page.15655/

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The quote from the Telegraph, given in Elliott, lauding Benedict, was not given here and was not needed, now that we have Benedict’s history confirmed by Nikolos Farmakidis, who also confirms the writing about Benedict from David W. Daniels.

The Telegraph quote was not from Nicolaides.

Elliott p. 74
Melchisedec of Laura says (Telegraph of Bosphorus Dec. 8, 1861)
«That Benedict was distinguished both as a scholar and as a wise man, all those who knew his character admit»
.
That was compared to the Nicolaides quote in the Parthenon given above.

And you have investigated the full context of Hodgkin's quote (via "Simeon dicit") in the original article of "the Telegraph of the Bosphorus" (Greek language) newspaper???

Yes? or No? Mr Avery...

 

[Steven Avery]

And you have investigated the full context of Hodgkin's quote (via "Simeon dicit") in the original article of "the Telegraph of the Bosphorus" (Greek language) newspaper??? Yes? or No? Mr Avery...

What article and what quote?

 

[Steven Avery]

It;s saying that they are of the same recension. This implies the Latin is a translation of the Greek, because the Latin derives from the Greek. Even if Tischendorf doesn't say the latter, modern authorities do.

No, incorrect. (A possibility, only.)
Here was a bit from Francis Macatangay in our discussion.

As for the Vetus Latina, there is some possibility I think that it could have come from an Aramaic or Hebrew. As you know, the assumption often is that the lacuna in Sinaiticus could be filled with the Vetus Latina because of certain similarities. What if we assume for a moment that the Vetus Latina is useful for making sense of the Sinaiticus because it may have been a translation from an earlier Semitic version of Tobit.

 

[cjab]

No, incorrect. (A possibility, only.)
Here was a bit from Francis Macatangay in our discussion.

What he says doesn't help your case. And he is at odds with other scholars that say that the Vetus Latina came from a Greek Vorlage.

And where does he say it? What is "a bit from Francis Macatangay"?

He also says this in "The Wisdom Instructions in the Book of Tobit"

"Some scholars are convinced that the book achieved its present​

shape only after a long process of interpolations. Along its literary​

course, the core narrative grew and accrued from a variety of sources"​

and traditions as redactors worked and reworked the story for specific​

purposes. The apparent incongruities in the narrative are alleged to be​

the natural consequence of such redaction history. Had the Second​

Temple period Jewish author of Tobit employed the postmodern prac-​

tice of thorough footnoting, the matter would have been easily settled.​

As it stands, there does initially seem to be some validity to the claim​

that Tobit underwent significant accretions and expansions. In other​

words, whether Tobit is a product of considerable additions by an as-​

sortment of redactors or essentially a work of one author will be the​

concern of the chapter."​

This easily explains the difference between Sinaiticus Tobit and the Vetus Latina.

You haven't adduced a single witness that says that Sinaiticus came from the Vetus Latina.

 

[Steven Avery]

What he says doesn't help your case. And he is at odds with other scholars that say that the Vetus Latina came from a Greek Vorlage.
And where does he say it? What is "a bit from Francis Macatangay"?

Francis Macatangay refutes your idea that the Vetus Latina must have come forth by translation from a Greek text, something you insist upon again and again. You feel that in some obscure way, that Sinaiticus represents that text, and that it was long expected, despite big problems trying to explain differences, including the semiticisms that were in Sinaiticus and not the Vetus Latina. (The 1923 paper by Paul Jouon.) And with no reason to explain why it is essentially an orphan text against the massive support for the Vaticanus-Alexandrinus-Venetus vorlage.

Clearly, if the Vetus Latina came from the Aramaic, there would be no need for the square peg in a round hole attempt to make Sinaiticus its source.

This is from our email discussion.

 

[cjab]

Francis Macatangay refutes your idea that the Vetus Latina must have come forth by translation from a Greek text, something you insist upon again and again.

A Greek vorlage for the Vetus Latina is something that nearly all the scholars insist on, including Weeks.

Your Francis Macatangay quote is invalid, as there is no source to verify its context.

You feel that in some obscure way, that Sinaiticus represents that text,

Sinaiticus isn't that text, but a variant of it - may be a very different variant that separated from another line of Greek variants hundreds of years previously.

What is a very complicated issue, as acknowledged by all the scholars, is being reduced by you into simplistic dogmatisms based on your necessity to prove Sinaiticus was forged by Benedict. It is a most perverse kind of discussion that no scholar would entertain. Really this is utterly pointless, and way beyond anything that Simonides envisaged for Sinaiticus, which was a straight copy from the Greek.

and that it was long expected, despite big problems trying to explain differences, including the semiticisms that were in Sinaiticus and not the Vetus Latina. (The 1923 paper by Paul Jouon.) And with no reason to explain why it is essentially an orphan text against the massive support for the Vaticanus-Alexandrinus-Venetus vorlage.

Clearly, if the Vetus Latina came from the Aramaic, there would be no need for the square peg in a round hole attempt to make Sinaiticus its source.

I haven't found anyone saying that any of the Vetus Latina editions (there are multiple) comes directly from the Aramaic; and that would be impossible for you to prove, and it would prove nothing if any one of them did (which is highly unlikely),

This is from our email discussion.

 

[Steven Avery]

Your Francis Macatangay quote is invalid, as there is no source to verify its context.

I gave you the full quote, in context.
And it was 100% clear

Stop pretending to play lawyer.

 

[Steven Avery]

What is a very complicated issue, as acknowledged by all the scholars, is being reduced by you into simplistic dogmatisms based on your necessity to prove Sinaiticus was forged by Benedict.

I haven't found anyone saying that any of the Vetus Latina editions (there are multiple) comes directly from the Aramaic; and that would be impossible for you to prove, and it would prove nothing if any one of them did (which is highly unlikely),

I am simply giving evidence that your theory:

“Sinaiticus is the long anticipated missing link to the Tobit Vetus Latina”

Has major problems.

We do not know the VL language source.
Another is the semiticisms in the Jouon paper..
Another involves textual differences.
Another is the crippling circularity of Sinaiticus 4th-century dating.

 

[cjab]

I gave you the full quote, in context.
And it was 100% clear

Stop pretending to play lawyer.

Here is what MACATANGAY really says, and I'll give you the source and the context: p.207 "Apocalypticism and Narration in the Book of Tobit" in "Canoncity, Setting, Wisdom in the Deuterocanonicals, " 2014, edited by Friedrich V. Reiterer, Beate Ego, Tobias Nicklas.

"The G I and GII textual versions of this scene have slight va riations. GI, the shorter​

Greek version, states interestingly that the prayer of both was heard before the glory​

of the great Raphael, eivshkou,sqh h` proseuch. avmfote,rwn evnw,pion th/j do,xhj tou/ mega,lou​

`Rafah,l. GII, the longer Greek version, specifies however that the prayer of both was​

heard before the glory of God, eivshkou,sqh h` proseuch. avmfote,rwn evnw,pion th/j do,xhj tou​

qeou/. Since GI is likely later than GII, G I’s reading may attest to the growing impor-​

tance and popularity of Raphael as indicated in apocalyptic and later Jewish litera-​

ture. But GROSS, Tobit. Judit, 24, claims that the phrase tou/ mega,lou in GI is a title for​

God and that kai, should be inserted before the name of Raphael. Another significant​

variation is the indication in GII of the purpose for Tobit’s healing, namely to see the​

light of God with his eyes, an expression which is absent in G I. The VL and other​

Latin texts follow G II. A medieval Hebrew text (H3) states that the prayers were​

heard before the shekinah and the grea t throne of God. For the texts consulted, see​

WAGNER, Polyglotte Tobit-Synopse, 36-37, and WEEKS, GATHERCOLE and STUCKEN-​

BRUCK, Texts from the Principal Ancient and Medieval Traditions, 130-132. With a​

similar phrase “the light of heaven,” the purpose of the healing preserved in GII is re-​

flected in the Aramaic 4Q196 frg 7 line 2, which corresponds to Tob 3.17. See F ITZ-​

MYER, Tobit (DJD), 15. Unless otherwise noted, the text followed here is the long​

Greek text, GII"​

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is what MACATANGAY really says, Another significant variation is the indication in GII of the purpose for Tobit’s healing, namely to see the​

light of God with his eyes, an expression which is absent in G I. The VL and other Latin texts follow G II.​

The connection of Sinaiticus and the Vetus Latina was first pointed out by Tischendorf.

So they will agree on certain variants, which is what is actually said here.

Any reading in of chronology is just reading in the false Sinaticus date compared to other manuscript dates Scholars are not yet officially allowed to radically question the faux "consensus" Sinaiticus date.

 

[cjab]

Scholars are not yet officially allowed to radically question the faux "consensus" Sinaiticus date.

It's not a faux "consensus" Sinaiticus date: "faux" could only be justified by something called "proof" (a legal matter that you aren't familiar with) rather than personal delusion based on your undoubted skills in sophistry and casuistry,

 

[Steven Avery]

It's not a faux "consensus" Sinaiticus date: "faux" could only be justified by something called "proof" (a legal matter that you aren't familiar with) rather than personal delusion based on your undoubted skills in sophistry and casuistry,

The evidence on all sides is beginning to singe.

 

[cjab]

The evidence on all sides is beginning to singe.

You're kicking against the goads. Your end has come. You haven't got a single argument in your favor. Not one.

 

[Steven Avery]

You're kicking against the goads. Your end has come. You haven't got a single argument in your favor. Not one.

Your error here is one of the reasons that I have begun to put up various threads that show the true history of the manuscript.

 

[Steven Avery]

Where exactly did Tischendorf say: "mountain of Athos manuscripts"?
Work title, language, chapter, page numbers etc please.
We want to check the quote in situ.

My error.
Tischendorf simply said compared with Athos manuscripts.

I ran into a problem with the German font from the December 22, 1862 Allgemeine Zeitung and the word put into Google translate.. Something I should have caught on pass one. (Normally I would check key words individually.)

Thanks for asking!

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Your error here is one of the reasons that I have begun to put up various threads that show the true history of the manuscript.

What threads? Post a list.