Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

[Steven Avery]

Not surprising that Memnon never went to a 2nd edition.

The book online combines the first two editions, Jan and Feb 1857.

There may be a third edition, I’ll post if I find out.

 

[cjab]

The book online combines the first two editions, Jan and Feb 1857.

There may be a third edition, I’ll post if I find out.

Mon faux pas: Memnon went to three editions, although I read somewhere it only went to one, but this must have been a mistake by whoever wrote it. However what I am reading from Constantinos Simonidis's Memnon from google is that Simonidis by no means agrees with anything Tischendorf says, whom he lambasts as if the devil incarnate and constantly hurls abuse at him. And why would Simonidis agree with Tischendorf's Maximus argument anyway? What makes you think that Simonidis would admit to reverse translating from the Latin? As Simonidis says, there are no Latin manuscripts at Mt. Athos, and never were (a similar argument that I made i.e. you haven't yet shown that the Palatine Latin version found its way to Greece or to the Levant). I feel that in citing Memnon, you have exposed the achilles heel in your thesis: Simonidis does not agree with Tischendorf but rather he seizes the opportunity to show himself the better scholar and exploit Tischendorf's mistake for all that it is worth:

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ̓́Αθῳ οὐδὲν ὑπάρχει, καθὰ καὶ προεἶπον, χειρόγραφον τι τῆς Λατινίδος φωνῆς, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ὑπῆρξε πώποτε. Δι' ὃ καὶ δύναμαι εἰπεῖν μετὰ πεποιθήσεως μᾶλλον ἐκ τοιούτου, ὡς ἔοικεν, Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐσφαλμένου χειρογράφου προέκυψεν ἡ Λατινικὴ μετάφρασις. Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀρθοτέρου χειρογράφου εὑρεθέντος ἐδιορθοῦτο τὰ ἐσφαλμένα τῆς Λατινίδος μεταφράσεως χωρία

So your good friend Simondis repudiates your Maximus contention. A house divided against itself will fall. Oh dear!!!!

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Now we have new information, missed once again by the scholars, written before Sinaiticus was extracted, that puts Simonides in Sinai in 1852. With no relationship to Sinaiticus.

If it's written by Mr Tracer of the Sinaiticus fascimilies, it can't be trusted.

Mr I'll copy Babingtons Hyperides for my NT Mayerianius forgeries is one of the most prolific liar's in all human history.

Mr gimme gimme 10,000 to demonstrate I've practiced copying the Sinaiticus fascimilies died in infamy, without ever showing he could actually write all the exact same, correctors, Arabic, and various Greek scripts found in the Codex Sinaiticus flawlessly, without a mistake, in real time, before an audience, before trustworthy and impartial witnesses.

Mr I tried to kill my mother and father when he was twelve is a nut job psycho 😱

😉

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

(Note: I did not take a position on the question.)

Nothing you write or say can be trusted, like Simonides.

Your yes doesn't mean yes, and your No does not mean no.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Mon faux pas: Memnon went to three editions, although I read somewhere it only went to one, but this must have been a mistake by whoever wrote it. However what I am reading from Constantinos Simonidis's Memnon from google is that Simonidis by no means agrees with anything Tischendorf says, whom he lambasts as if the devil incarnate and constantly hurls abuse at him. And why would Simonidis agree with Tischendorf's Maximus argument anyway? What makes you think that Simonidis would admit to reverse translating from the Latin? As Simonidis says, there are no Latin manuscripts at Mt. Athos, and never were (a similar argument that I made i.e. you haven't yet shown that the Palatine Latin version found its way to Greece or to the Levant). I feel that in citing Memnon, you have exposed the achilles heel in your thesis: Simonidis does not agree with Tischendorf but rather he seizes the opportunity to show himself the better scholar and exploit Tischendorf's mistake for all that it is worth:

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ̓́Αθῳ οὐδὲν ὑπάρχει, καθὰ καὶ προεἶπον, χειρόγραφον τι τῆς Λατινίδος φωνῆς, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ὑπῆρξε πώποτε. Δι' ὃ καὶ δύναμαι εἰπεῖν μετὰ πεποιθήσεως μᾶλλον ἐκ τοιούτου, ὡς ἔοικεν, Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐσφαλμένου χειρογράφου προέκυψεν ἡ Λατινικὴ μετάφρασις. Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀρθοτέρου χειρογράφου εὑρεθέντος ἐδιορθοῦτο τὰ ἐσφαλμένα τῆς Λατινίδος μεταφράσεως χωρία

So your good friend Simondis repudiates your Maximus contention. A house divided against itself will fall. Oh dear!!!!

I noticed that too when I was reading it.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The Maximus linguistic issue was raised by Tischendorf in 1856.

If you disagree, give your alternate view.

Thanks!

A weak (dead) non-issue that's simply not worth wasting anymore of your time on Mr Avery. Wake up and smell the coffee ☕.

 

[Maestroh]

The Maximus linguistic issue was raised by Tischendorf in 1856.

You really are incapable of anything except:
a) repeating the same mantras over and over
b) gaslighting your own sins onto others

That's really it.

It's a non-issue that you're simply not informed enough to know is a non-issue.

What's funny, though, is this - YOU are the one who has falsely accused EVERYONE ELSE of being some sort of slave to stuff Tischendorf said.

And yet - YOU ARE THE ONLY ONE doing it!!!

You really don't know anything beyond gaslighting, do you?

Again - you're here on a discussion forum because you know full well you'd get castrated by an actual expert in the field.
You get neutered here as it is, you just do like the tobacco companies insisting cigarettes don't cause cancer and deny it.

 

[Maestroh]

A weak (dead) non-issue that's simply not worth wasting anymore of your time on Mr Avery. Wake up and smell the coffee ☕.

He's coming across like Dan Quayle in the debate with Lloyd Bentsen.

He's been asked, "What's the first thing you would do" and because he doesn't have the first clue, he keeps repeating how long he's been in Congress and asserting he "has experience" and throwing around big words ("telemetry" and "encryption" for Quayle).

But even Avery knows how badly Quayle performed that day, so I can't imagine why he's mimicking it.

Well, I can - it's because he can't do anything else.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

And Memnon gives strong support to the 1852 visit.

Ohhhhhhhhh I get it... your ✌️new✌️ information is the Memnon lies...

Now we have new information, missed once again by the scholars, written before Sinaiticus was extracted, that puts Simonides in Sinai in 1852. With no relationship to Sinaiticus.

You saw my translation of "this copy was discovered in the monastery on Mt Sinai in 1852" and...it was a revelation... even though no one (I mean absolutely no one qualified) took Mr Sinaiticus Facsimile Tracer-man's Mem-non-sense seriously at the time...

This story of it's discovery is about as believable as the 1st century date assigned to a 2nd century work 👈😉👍 the Shepherd of Hermas...

"But Hermas wrote the Shepherd very recently, in our times, [i.e. 2nd century A.D.] in the city of Rome, while bishop Pius, his brother, was occupying the chair of the church of the city of Rome..." 👈 Sound familiar Mr Avery?

He told some really stupid lies...yet you want to believe them Mr Avery?

written before Sinaiticus was extracted, that puts Simonides in Sinai in 1852. With no relationship to Sinaiticus.

Mr Tracer of the Sinaiticus fascimilies says in his failed magazine, Memnon, that he was:

"in the monastery of St Catherine's, on Mt Sinai in 1852"

Which is where (i.e. St Catherine's monastery) - and when (i.e. 1852 the very date you're now hyping as a "new" revelation) - Tracer-man actually documents that he allegedly discovered a first century papyrus of the Shepherd of Hermas.

Explain precisely how can this Mem-non-sense Sinai trip is unrelated (even if it's not the same 1852 Sinai trip you're on about) to the events surrounding the Sinaiticus creation myth authored by Mr Liar-nades?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Since the staining came later, it is true that Simonides could not see a stained ms. In 1852.

You mean the claims of (your words) "staining" were retrospectively made up later, like your presently doing. 😉

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Since the staining came later, it is true that Simonides could not see a stained ms. In 1852.

Simonides clearly said:

"In 1852, I saw it there myself [...] I examined the MS and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have."

Note the date and the words:

1. "In 1852"
2. "I...found it much altered"
3. "Having an older appearance than it ought to have"

Effectively Steven Avery is claiming that the words "much altered" and "older appearance" are not talking about either:

1. Lemon "staining" or
2. Tobbaco "staining"
3. Other herbal "staining"

Steven Avery claims that "staining" didn't happen until later.

Note Steven's word's: "It is true".

 

[Steven Avery]

And why would Simonidis agree with Tischendorf's Maximus argument anyway? What makes you think that Simonidis would admit to reverse translating from the Latin?

Not at all the issue.
Maximus came from the Greek manuscript, Codex Athous Grigoriou 96, it has nothing to do with a reverse translation by Simonides.

Interestingly, the 1856 Anger-Dindorf Greek Hermas edition has a correct Greek text at this spot, without Maximus, and with the great tribulation.

 

[Steven Avery]

As Simonidis says, there are no Latin manuscripts at Mt. Athos, and never were

I think it is possible that you are mangling the context of the quote you gave. We would need the fuller quote, with context.

There have been many Latin manuscripts at Mt. Athos over the centuries.

 

[Steven Avery]

I feel that in citing Memnon, you have exposed the achilles heel in your thesis: Simonidis does not agree with Tischendorf but rather he seizes the opportunity to show himself the better scholar and exploit Tischendorf's mistake for all that it is worth:

καὶ γὰρ ἐν ̓́Αθῳ οὐδὲν ὑπάρχει, καθὰ καὶ προεἶπον, χειρόγραφον τι τῆς Λατινίδος φωνῆς, ἀλλ' οὐδὲ ὑπῆρξε πώποτε. Δι' ὃ καὶ δύναμαι εἰπεῖν μετὰ πεποιθήσεως μᾶλλον ἐκ τοιούτου, ὡς ἔοικεν, Ἑλληνικοῦ ἐσφαλμένου χειρογράφου προέκυψεν ἡ Λατινικὴ μετάφρασις. Μετὰ δὲ ταῦτα ὀρθοτέρου χειρογράφου εὑρεθέντος ἐδιορθοῦτο τὰ ἐσφαλμένα τῆς Λατινίδος μεταφράσεως χωρία

So your good friend Simondis repudiates your Maximus contention. A house divided against itself will fall. Oh dear!!!!

You are totally confused.
The issue is Hermas and Sinaiticus. And Tischendorf's excellent attack against the Athous text as being late.

There is no issue of Athous having a retro-version Maximus from Simonides. And there is more on the issue in Memnon than the lines you have above.

Issues become more involved after the first three pages, but Maximo is on p. 2 of the Athous ms. It is in the Greek ms. line, and the evidence is that it comes from the Palatine Latin.

In February I hope to have a fuller report on the Maximus issue, including direct writings by Tischendorf, Anger, Dindorf, Simonides and Jallabert all before 1859. And the editions.

The goal is also to include other Tischendorf attacks, especially those that also apply to Codex Sinaiticus. (And right now there is another book that is taking precedence, for about two weeks.)

If Simonides is right or wrong or mixed on the issue is simply a matter of study and the facts on the ground. I am perfectly happy in any way, since my interest is Sinaiticus and Hermas, not aligning with a "good friend".

On this issue, it is clear that the pre-1859 Tischendorf is very strong, and his post-1859 pseudo-retraction is a laugher. Absurdity taken to high art. As I taught you earlier, Tischendorf was involved in Sinaiticus protectia.

 

[Steven Avery]

Yes, some or all of the staining could have been that early

However, it is not a staining quote, for which there are two that are very specific, about lemon-juice and herbs.
So Simonides could be discussing the mangling of the ms., including damage from the Tischendorf cut-outs, the losing of the covers, et al.

Or Simonides could be thinking of the later discovery of the staining.

So I would agree that staining before 1853 would be unlikely.

 

[Steven Avery]

Nothing you write or say can be trusted, like Simonides.
Your yes doesn't mean yes, and your No does not mean no.

I defended Sinaiticus as authentic in 2011.
Still, I was cautious with my wording and changed my position as more information came forth.

Similarly, the idea of some staining before 1852 is possible, but unlikely. As my wording was imprecise, and I was going back and forth on the questions involved (I have been on other studies rather than Hermas recently) I apologise.

 

[Steven Avery]

You saw my translation of "this copy was discovered in the monastery on Mt Sinai in 1852" and...it was a revelation...

Nahh, we had that worked out already in PBF studies, where you will find on a Jan 18th post.
"1. allegedly discovered on Sinai in 1852, written by Kallistratos in the 1st century".

Granted there were some edits, but we were digging into the whole palaeographic description before your post. It is interesting since Friederike Berger equated that palaeographic description to Sinaiticus.

Your post was Jan 24.

And it is likely you only learned of Memnon from PBF.

Other references to Memnon are from Christian Gastgeber and Pasquale Massimo Pinto at the Gennadius library. However, it is Berger who goes into some of the Hermas issues, which is one of the papers in the 2017 Genius book from the 2014 Conference.

 

[Steven Avery]

For those really inclined toward Hermas studies, the following book is in the British Library, and could be an adjunct to the other pre-1859 material, including Memnon.
https://explore.bl.uk/primo_library...t0)=constantine simonides&dstmp=1674998825858

Σπουδαιον ὑπομνημα περι τε των ἑξ και ὀγδοηκοντα ἀπογραφων των ποιμενικων γραφων του ἀποστολικου πατρος Ἑρμα ... [and other manuscripts which Simonides professed to have discovered] και περι των μονων ἐν αἱς ὑπηρχον ἀποτεθησαυρισμενα, etc.
Constantine SIMONIDES
ἐν Μοσχᾳ, ͵αωʹνʹγʹ [1853]

Study note about the sixteen and eightieth transcripts of the pastoral writings of the apostolic father Hermas ... [and other manuscripts which Simonides professed to have discovered] and about the ones in the extant archives, etc.
Constantine Simonides
in Moscow [1853]

Not sure of the history of the work, and if the 1853 date would stand up to scrutiny.

 

[Steven Avery]

A weak (dead) non-issue that's simply not worth wasting anymore of your time on Mr Avery. Wake up and smell the coffee ☕.

Nice attempt to try to cover for the incoherent posting of Maestroh.

Maximus is actually an important issue, as a flagship of the Tischendorf strong linguistic argumentation that is one of many torpedoes into Ship Sinaiticus.

 

[cjab]

You are totally confused.
The issue is Hermas and Sinaiticus. And Tischendorf's excellent attack against the Athous text as being late

Tischendorf's issue was the Athos text as being derived from the Palatine Latin.

There is no issue of Athous having a retro-version Maximus from Simonides. And there is more on the issue in Memnon than the lines you have above.

There certainly was an issue, as raised by Tischendorf, of Athos being retro-translated from the Latin by Simonides or his colleages; and later resiled from completely, although he reserves judgement as to whether the originals first appeared in the Latin or the Greek (that may have been disingenuous by Tischendorf but no reason to disbelieve him at present).

Issues become more involved after the first three pages, but Maximo is on p. 2 of the Athous ms. It is in the Greek ms. line, and the evidence is that it comes from the Palatine Latin.

There is no such evidence: see Memnon by Simonides.

In February I hope to have a fuller report on the Maximus issue, including direct writings by Tischendorf, Anger, Dindorf, Simonides and Jallabert all before 1859. And the editions.

The goal is also to include other Tischendorf attacks, especially those that also apply to Codex Sinaiticus. (And right now there is another book that is taking precedence, for about two weeks.)

If Simonides is right or wrong or mixed on the issue is simply a matter of study and the facts on the ground. I am perfectly happy in any way, since my interest is Sinaiticus and Hermas, not aligning with a "good friend".

On this issue, it is clear that the pre-1859 Tischendorf is very strong, and his post-1859 pseudo-retraction is a laugher. Absurdity taken to high art. As I taught you earlier, Tischendorf was involved in Sinaiticus protectia.

I really don't think you know what you're talking about.