deacon Hilarion (1810-1886), Simonides contact reference confirmed

Note that Hilarion was only about 53 during the controversies. Note that no effort was made to speak to him about the Sinaiticus manuscript or the Hilarion signature on the manuscript.

1) Simonides never presented this guy who - according to you - was alive, during this manufactured controversy. As HE was the one claiming HE had written it, HE had the onus of proof.

2) You don't know whether they made "no effort" or not.

You are ASSUMING this to be so. Bear in mind, I can do like you and just make up stuff, too.

So let's make some stuff up:

"It is likely they asked to speak to Hilarion but he refused."
"They probably asked to speak to Hilarion, but he probably refused."

And why would they speak to Hilarion about a manuscript Simonides wrote himself anyway?????


Why not just quit wasting everyone's time and the remaining years of the twilight of your own life to say, "Yeah, Simonides was lying and this is an old manuscript" and then go find another conspiracy theory to hawk?
 
1) Simonides never presented this guy who - according to you - was alive, during this manufactured controversy. As HE was the one claiming HE had written it, HE had the onus of proof.

However, Simonides was not real popular on Mt. Athos.
So he was not in a position to present people.

Tischendorf had the onus of proof to explain why the Russian section was stained and coloured, and the Leipzig section whitish and unstained. Instead he made sure access to the manuscript was very difficult. He also had the onus of proof to let experts examine the two sections, as was desired by the German Oriental Society. Poor fellow, got a fever, very convenient.

"onus of proof" runs in multiple directions.
 
Why not just quit wasting everyone's time and the remaining years of the twilight of your own life ...

Have you seen "Died Suddenly"? Do you read any news outside the Fakers?
Are you still getting jabbed? How many times a year?
How long do you think you have?
 
And why would they speak to Hilarion about a manuscript Simonides wrote himself anyway?????

The number of scribes is not relevant to Hilarion's involvement.

deacon Hilarion (1810-1886), Simonides contact reference confirmed

First, we note that Simonides and Kallinikos have two references to the deacon Hilarion:

=========================

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=vvgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA217#v=onepage&q&f=false

The note from the Patriarch Constantius, acknowledging the receipt of the MS., together with 25,000 piastres, sent to me by Constantius as a benediction, was brought to me by the deacon Hilarion. All the persons thus named are, I believe, still alive, and could bear witness to the truth of my statement.

=========================
....
Hilarion is especially interesting, as they could ask the deacon Hilarion if he inquired about the manuscript and even signed the manuscript!
4 Maccabees, 17:17 - 18:24 library: BL folio: 41b scribe: A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...TSif9zbIsvg0mEMf0QDYPhLKi0QdEWw04WHCRwcnzD0V6
 
Why not just quit wasting everyone's time and the remaining years of the twilight of your own life to say, "Yeah, Simonides was lying and this is an old manuscript" and then go find another conspiracy theory to hawk?
Maybe 'cuz he's getting attention here?
 
However, Simonides was not real popular on Mt. Athos.
So he was not in a position to present people.

Let me paraphrase: "He was just making stuff up," the end.



Tischendorf had the onus of proof to explain why the Russian section was stained and coloured,


Steven Avery is upset because something he has not even proven ever took place was not addressed by a guy who had no reason to think any such thing took place EXCEPT in Steven Avery's conspiracy theory.

I'm sorry if nobody informed you, but Tischendorf doesn't have to buy into YOUR assumptions.



and the Leipzig section whitish and unstained. Instead he made sure access to the manuscript was very difficult.

Folks, Tischendorf obviously chained every single person in Europe up to keep them from making trips to see one or the other.
I'm amazed that imprisonment was never recorded in history.

He also had the onus of proof to let experts examine the two sections, as was desired by the German Oriental Society. Poor fellow, got a fever, very convenient.

Again, you and the "two sections" when YOU YOURSELF don't dispute the two sections were written AT THE SAME TIME.

Which, of course, means one can examine ONE section and that's enough.
And that's been done by experts, you just don't like their answer.

"onus of proof" runs in multiple directions.

But the allegations you substitute as proof only run in one.
 
Have you seen "Died Suddenly"?

A guy who cannot even explain the function of the intrinsic pathway is asking me if I watched a You Tube video, as if that proves anything.


Do you read any news outside the Fakers?

Define "faker."


Are you still getting jabbed? How many times a year?
How long do you think you have?

We can debate this mano a mano - you deprived of the internet - if you'd like.

You cannot even answer a basic question of how immunology works, but sure, I give your opinion all due consideration by laughing at it.

Your guess is NOT as good as mine; mine are much better.

That's the difference between those who did and those who watched videos.
 
Back
Top