Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

Overall, in Memnon, it is very interesting to see how Simonides approaches the Maximus issue raised by Tischendorf.
===========================
IOW, by incanting incoherent rambling nonsense.....which is what you specialize in. Not surprising that Memnon never went to a 2nd edition. Who on earth would want to read such garbage?
 
Last edited:
IOW, by incanting incoherent rambling nonsense.....which is what you specialize in. Not surprising that Memnon never went to a 2nd edition. Who on earth would want to read such garbage?

The Maximus issue was raised by a fellow named Constantine Tischendorf. Clearly you still do not understand the strong point made by Tischendorf. In that context, the fact that Simonides was involved in the discussion adds to the history, which has never been put together as one unit.
 
The Maximus issue was raised by a fellow named Constantine Tischendorf. Clearly you still do not understand the strong point made by Tischendorf. In that context, the fact that Simonides was involved in the discussion adds to the history, which has never been put together as one unit.
You know perfectly well that Tischendorf was under a misapprehension when he raised the point, resiled upon the discovery of Sinaiticus, and so never considered it a 'strong point'; and you have proved consistently unable to demonstrate why it was 'strong point'.
 
The Maximus issue was raised by a fellow named Constantine Tischendorf.

It is YOUR responsibility - not that of a dead man you've repeatedly called a liar and a thief - to BE UP TO DATE in your claims.

Quit trying to blame someone else for YOUR screwups.



Clearly you still do not understand the strong point made by Tischendorf.

I clearly DO understand you are FAKING IT, have zero knowledge of the subject, and have done nothing but made the same assertions over and over. Your polemics are no different than that of a Jehovah's Witness when confronted with their nonsense. Your style is cultic as is your viewpoint.

In that context, the fact that Simonides was involved in the discussion adds to the history, which has never been put together as one unit.

"Let me imagine connections that don't exist and argue as if they do."

You know, it must be pathetic to wake up and do this every day.

You.
Wasted.
Your.
Life.
 
You know perfectly well that Tischendorf was under a misapprehension when he raised the point, resiled upon the discovery of Sinaiticus, and so never considered it a 'strong point'; and you have proved consistently unable to demonstrate why it was 'strong point'.

Yeah, but he finds it easier to blame Tischendorf and accuse you than to update his research.

Tischendorf was simply wrong - because he wasn't omniscient or inerrant.
No shame in that, and if he were here now with what we know - unlike Avery - he'd admit it as would Donaldson.

There's a reason he's hanging his hat on "let me pretend nothing has been done since 1860."
 
You can get directly to the palaeographic description footnote referencing 1852 and Sinai using this url:

Alternatively you can put the book in PDF format and it is page 74 of 101.

This was written in 1857 and it gives support to Simonides being in Sinai in 1852.

There is ZERO evidence Simonides was on Sinai in 1852.
Zero.

There's less than zero that he saw a stained manuscript there.

As to the Callistratus text, I would not yet make any claims of authenticity or not. (Any writing can claim to be from a first-century author.) Some of the columns Simonides has in this book are clearly authentic.

The name appears rather common, so its appearing in a few spots is no surpise.

The same poster insulting people

Victor of Capua (Victor Capuanus)

This was one of your earlier typos.

now does it himself.

Maybe learn a little bit about grace and kindness while you're not learning anything at all about Sinaiticus.
 
You know perfectly well that Tischendorf was under a misapprehension when he raised the point, resiled upon the discovery of Sinaiticus …

A perfect example of … error begets error.

The blunder of Tischendorf claiming the 4th century Sinaiticus forced his hand to give us his humorous, awkward pseudo-retraction of his solid arguments for a late Athous. Since the arguments would sink the Ship Sinaiticus.

Note that Tischendorf never gave any linguistic reasons for the retraction, it was just Sinaiticus protectia.
 
The Maximus issue was raised by a fellow named Constantine Tischendorf. Clearly you still do not understand the strong point made by Tischendorf. In that context, the fact that Simonides was involved in the discussion adds to the history, which has never been put together as one unit.

Off topic. Read the first post of this thread.

This is a time-line thread. This is not a generic free for all, say anything you want about Simonides and the Sinaiticus thread.

I will report this.

Post on topic, no problem.

Off topic = report.

Simple.
 
Working on my own timeline details. Will probably take months to complete.

Got quite a bit done already.

Today, I'm quietly (in between other activities) working on the event's of 1855-1856 in Leipzig, leading up to Simonides arrest and imprisonment.
 
Since the staining came later, it is true that Simonides could not see a stained ms. In 1852.

So when Simonides said - "In 1852, I saw it there myself, and begged the librarian to inform me how the monastery had acquired it but he did not appear to know anything of the matter and I, for my part, said nothing. However, I examined the MS and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have. The dedication to the Emperor Nicholas, placed at the beginning of the book, had been removed," he was lying.

Right?

(Everyone pull up your boots for what's coming).
 
There's 2 reasons we know Simonides didn't see a stained Sinaiticus in 1852:

1) Sinaiticus has never been stained to make it look older
2) Simonides wasn't on Sinai in 1852 except in his tale told later.
 
2) Simonides wasn't on Sinai in 1852 except in his tale told later.

The contra complaint had been that Simonides came up with the claim of being in Sinai in 1852 as part of the Sinaiticus controversy. (Note: I did not take a position on the question.)

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.

What evidence do you have to prove this 1852 Sinai travel wrong?

Thanks!
 
So when Simonides said - "In 1852, I saw it there myself, and begged the librarian to inform me how the monastery had acquired it but he did not appear to know anything of the matter and I, for my part, said nothing. However, I examined the MS and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have. The dedication to the Emperor Nicholas, placed at the beginning of the book, had been removed,"

Thanks for the quote reminder, which corrects my earlier post.

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

And Memnon gives strong support to the 1852 visit.
 
The contra complaint

You're the one who holds the contra-scholarship position so this blame shifting is rich.

had been that Simonides came up with the claim of being in Sinai in 1852 as part of the Sinaiticus controversy.

Gee, I only quoted from his FIRST LETTER which elicited the controversy, but I can understand why you wouldn't want to put it that way.
It's the honest way, but I can understand why it embarrasses you.

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

Of course you didn't - because you want to believe Tischendorf altered the manuscript, and you have yet to come up with a way to have Tischendorf doing that prior to 1853.

Now we have new information, missed once again by the scholars, written before Sinaiticus was extracted, that puts Simonides in Sinai in 1852.

For those keeping score at home, we NOW have him mastering the art of looking two opposite directions at the same time.
He wants to blame Tischendorf and pretend "nothing the last 150 years matters" but when it's Simonides, well, NOW all of a sudden he's open to new stuff.

Reminder: here only for the SNL skit-level comedy, and SNL ceased being funny 20 years ago.




With no relationship to Sinaiticus.

What evidence do you have to prove this 1852 Sinai travel wrong?

Not my problem.


I have to prove something DIDN'T happen. That's not how things work. This is like me demanding you prove you're NOT a pedophile. Universal negatives by definition cannot be proven.

And you know this, so I guess you're siting there holding a pair of twos and trying to bluff your way through yet another hand.

(That's poker, since I doubt you have any idea what that even means, btw).
 
Thanks for the quote reminder, which corrects my earlier post.

You mean you don't even know Simonides's basic story from the first letter?
You need reminded on that?

REALLY?????

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

In light of the reality there is ZERO evidence any staining ever happened, I'm gonna say your suggestion here that this thing was stained more than once is more laughable than your prior assertion it was....stained at all.

And Memnon gives strong support to the 1852 visit.

One has to wonder how Simonides didn't bother to mention this in his 1859 autobiography - and didn't leave enough time for it to even happen.

"This author gives strong support" is Avery-ese for "I don't have any evidence that would withstand basic scrutiny."


How much longer will you to continue to be an embarrassment?
 
Thanks for the quote reminder, which corrects my earlier post.

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

And Memnon gives strong support to the 1852 visit.

You're not welcome for:
a) clipping the quote
b) not answering the quite relevant question

I guess those of you who live in a black and white world have a serious problem when your assumptions get challenged. You'd think after all these years there'd be a better argument - but you'd be wrong.
 
Back
Top