I am one of the very few people who still converse with you. You have to grasp that your views have been excommunciated from the entire world of academia. The world has moved on from the 19th century, which you are still unprofitably stuck in. What was once contention 150 years ago is no longer contentious, except amongst people with fixations they can't seem to ever shake off.Nope, they simply have not really studied the manuscript or the history]
.
Read again what I wrote.
Codex Sinaiticus & Constantine Simonides - Anthimus and Constantinople
- Thread starter TwoNoteableCorruptions
- Start date
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
You mean the guy whom you agreed was "NOT ... TRUTHFUL" on another thread?
Re Simonides Symais (1849) - (p.32 of book)
"Contributing to the mystification of the fictitious author figure of Meletios is the form of communication chosen here, the letter as a self-testimony, as well as the signature of Meletios printed twice at the end in the form of a woodblock print, as well as the rich annotation apparatus and the editor’s notes Simonides, as well as his distancing as a simple ' mediator' or 'commentator' of Scripture. [9] It is also characteristic of the mystification itself that the reader keeps asking himself the question: “Who is speaking?”. Is it Simonides who is presented as the editor, is it Meletios who is presented as the writer of the Symais , are there other sources (fictitious or elsewhere) that are used to support what is said?
"Since even the supposedly 'real' character Simonides - rightly - had early doubts about his accurate biographical information , towards the end of the introduction and in the footnotes he adds three official letters of credence to the already widespread distrust of his person to counteract this, invoking the authority of the issuing officials : a) Anthimos, Archbishop of Constantinople, b) the Greek Consul General of Southern Russia in Odessa Xenophon Pappadatos, c) Colonel Tzami Karatassos and other Macedonian officers. Of course, the enclosed letters contribute nothing to the proof of the originality of the manuscript; they are only intended to prove the credibility of the publisher. Whether the letters are genuine or fake is unimportant here; they are nevertheless probable - and that is exactly what is at stake here, to convince the reader of the authenticity of the subsequent representation of the High School on Symi [10]
"Simonides closes his Prolegomena with the following sentence:
“Thank the professors who said that Simonides used to read the illegible and understand the unintelligible, and tell them: it will do you good to become a student of Simonides. And add: Simonides is wont to do this, but those who think themselves wise are wont to do evil things, such as betray traditions, and do everything in general, for the cowardly work for the alienation of the nation.”
[9] "The Symais is preceded by a terse letter from the monk Meletios of Chios to his colleague Methodios, in which he explains that he is now fulfilling his wish to introduce him to the most important painters of the Sacred Mount. Again, it is about the veracity of the account: “I have struggled long enough for true research, and found it unacceptable to confine myself only to the agiorietes, as you have already written, believing the work to be incomplete; I was often abandoned by the truth and was annoyed at the frequent dropouts”. 12 Since Meletios did not want to be limited to the hagiographers of Mount Athos, he goes back to the depiction of 377 AD. founded Apollonian school on Symi, from which emerged the first major school of hagiography (Simonides, 1849, 3 footnotes 1 and 61). However, the High School of Symi turns out to be a wondrous site in which not only did hagiography flourish, but all the great inventions and technological achievements of modern times were anticipated as early as late antiquity and the early Greek Middle Ages. The parallels to the school of Agia Marina that existed on Symi in Simonides' time are striking. Concerning the Apollonian school, the New Conversations Lexicon says:
[10] "This school is said to have been, according to the Manuscript, one of the most important of all times, and its brilliant teachers invented, among other things, paper, the telescope, the steamship, heavy artillery, copper engraving, the printing press, and the diving bell" (New Conversations Lexicon , 1865, 230)."
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Footnote 10 Is important, I have it as:
You have it differently, maybe you are taking it from the wrong spot.
It sounds like Lilia has seen the letters. Note that they could help on the Anthimos question, which has become a fundamental issue in looking at the alternate manuscript histories.
Highlighting this history, includuing Anthimos, has been one of the productive elements of the CARM studies.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Simonides may have been putting their Athos manuscript production, under Benedict, in a better light by describing it as a planned replica. David Daniels points this out as well.
Ironically, this was used as a major club to try to defend the Tischendorf con, by moving the discussion away from the manuscript (where the Literary Churchman had scored incredible points in 1859, 1862 and 1863 against antiquity) and shifting the discussion to “orange man bad.”
If the original purpose included the possibility of deception about the age of the manuscript, Simonides would want to keep that fudged, so Wright especially emphasized the point. Even though it was irrelevant to the fundamental issue, Sinaiticus being produced in Athos c. AD 1840.
“Orange man bad” is still the major SAD tactic. (Sinaiticus Antiquity Defenders.). The manuscript is indefensible.
Last edited:
Sinaiticus isn't a replica of anything; not even Vaticanus, and was way beyond the academic ability of the Greeks of his day to produce. You're wasting everyone's time by these perverse conjectures that cater only to your fantasies.
Yes, you are right: my Word doc automatically renumbered all the footnotes (I had translated quite a few others pages also), which made them all out of kilter.
The correct footnotes are:
[9] The work concludes with the woodcut of Meletios' signature and the reference that the work was written in 1236. On page 61 follows an addition (“ Αναττλήρωσις n Λεξικόν ") in which all teachers of the school are listed again with brief biographical information. The section ends again with the woodblock print of Meletios' signature (p. 174). On pp. 175-178 the testament of Meletios is attached . This is followed by the biography of Eulyros by Nikephoros Daidalou from Kerk yra (pp. 178-1Ö0).
[10] Whether these letters actually existed was not researched as part of this study ; however, they are similar to official letters of credence. In any case, the persons mentioned and their offices are not invented.
____________
The reference to "official letters of credence" again doesn't suggest a personal relation between Anthimos and Simonides, which given the use of these letters in this forged Symais document, is highly unlikely.
"The Συμαΐς (Symais) is a history of the great men of Simonidis’ native island, Symi. The history, which looks as if it were written by a monk of Chios in the 13th century, while Simonidis features only as editor, was exposed as a forgery by Alexander Rangavis in Pandora 2 (1851), pp. 595–601."
Simonides had little respect for the science of palaeography: Per Lykourgos, "Yes, he [Simonides] even dared to say that if one only wanted to publish books that contained nothing but truth, one should no longer publish Homer and Herodotus, in which it is known that so much untruth was contained!" Lykourgos 2 1856, 48, note 1.
____________
Simonidis was a supreme narcissist and fantasist, hiding his mental instability and greed beneath a veneer of orthodox piety and Greek nationalism, although Greek scholars such as Lykouros and much of the Greek press had disowned him long before he played his Sinaiticus card. In England, he found many still willing to credit him, and his «Ορθοδόξων Ἑλλήνων θεολογικαί γραφαὶ τέσσαρες» (Λονδίνον, 1858), which contains many allusions to paganism as well as to theology, as well as other diverse subjects, contains evidence of the high regard in which he was held there and in Europe even after the Uranios fiasco, and which regard caused astonishment in those who really knew him. It seems to have been this ongoing ability and willingness to deceive people and to garner disciples (although not perhaps the English academic establishment) which inspired him to his ultimate Sinaiticus fabrication/mystification, which led to his English downfall.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Right, a good case can be made that it was more a forgery attempt than a replica.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The more we study the manuscript, the clearer and clearer it becomes that Benedict used tools at hand and tools available. Like the Zosimas printed edition which explains why the Alexandrinus OT and Apoc in almost all books are close to that of Sinaiticus. And in the NT a source with the Alexandrinus Ammonian and Eusebian sections, possibly a printed edition like that of Woide. And even various manuscripts on Mt. Athos, including of course the Hermas "coincidence" which was published before Sinaiticus. And manuscripts that were even used for many corrections, a phenomenon that is unique to Sinaiticus among the great uncials. The homoeoteleutons are a special fascinating study. And very likely the Birch collation of Vaticanus. There is a question of the western readings in part of John that have affinity to Codex Bezae that needs study.
Our team is working to fill in the gaps.
Remember, Benedict worked on this for many, many years.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
And I am far more interested in the attempt to see these letters first, before speculations done without any knowledge of their content and authenticity. It definitely sounds like Lilia has seen the letters, so they may well be available. And without making any conclusion as to authenticity, Lilia seems to have a respect for their content. She definitely is one of the very top scholars on issues like this one, and was one of the organizers of the 2014 Simonides conference, and has even been over at Princeton for a season.
Last edited:
This is a fantasy.
Nothing is close to Sinaiticus except Vaticanus. Sinaiticus is sui generis.
The Eusebian sections aren't complete in Sinaiticus and may have been added later.
Neither Hermas nor Barnabas on Mt Athos resemble Sinaiticus.
As you see, collating the bible is itself a lifelong task. But you've no evidence that Benedict ever attemped such an enterprise. Where is the record of it independent of Simonides? Do you really expect people to believe that Benedict collated the bible in secret? Why didn't any of the other monks know?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
I've seen the manuscript.
It's a definite forgery. Definite.
It's a very poor example of a Simonides forgery. Quite amateurish. He's done way better work, IMO, on the Mayer papyri.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
I think we need a separate thread dedicated to Benedict alone.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
See the expose' pages (595-601) below:
Alexandros Rizos Rangavis
(27 December 1809 – 28 June 1892)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandros_Rizos_Rangavis
Πανδωρα Apr. 23rd 1851 Α.Ρ. Ραγκαβής, ΦΙΛΟΛΟΓΙΚΑ “Σιμωνίδου Χειρόγραφα”
Pandora Apr. 23rd 1851 A. R. Rangavis, PHILOLOGY, "Simonides' Manuscripts"
Πανδωρα 23-25 (Feb.-Apr. 1851)
Pages 551-555,
Pages 565-573,
Pages 595-602
https://pleias.library.upatras.gr/index.php/pandora/article/view/13792/13783
https://lekythos.library.ucy.ac.cy/...23256/pan_issue23.pdf?sequence=23&isAllowed=y
(27 December 1809 – 28 June 1892)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandros_Rizos_Rangavis
Πανδωρα Apr. 23rd 1851 Α.Ρ. Ραγκαβής, ΦΙΛΟΛΟΓΙΚΑ “Σιμωνίδου Χειρόγραφα”
Pandora Apr. 23rd 1851 A. R. Rangavis, PHILOLOGY, "Simonides' Manuscripts"
Πανδωρα 23-25 (Feb.-Apr. 1851)
Pages 551-555,
Pages 565-573,
Pages 595-602
https://pleias.library.upatras.gr/index.php/pandora/article/view/13792/13783
https://lekythos.library.ucy.ac.cy/...23256/pan_issue23.pdf?sequence=23&isAllowed=y
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Perhaps you'd like to do a side by side comparative photographic study of Simonides' "Symais" with the Sinaiticus manuscript?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Whatever you saw, did it include the text of the three letters of recommendation?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Actually. I think it's not the Symais, but another work by Simonide's.
I'll get back to you.
I easily found the Greek published text of ΣΥΜΑΪΣ of 1849, and it does contain the letter of ΑΝΘΙΜΟΣ. Decoding it, however, is going to be time consuming.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
While Symais is wild, the letters of credence are meant to give the author scholarly legitimacy. It will be interesting to see them get an appropriate scholarly attention. From our -respective, especially Anthimos.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Keep in mind that, in any such comparison, Sinaiticus has a variety pack of scripts a d signatures to compare.
Go, graphologists, go!