Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?

[Maestroh]

So you've read and studied Amy Myshrall's massive 821 page thesis on Siniaticus and its correctors, have you?

Have you told her that she wasted a good portion of her life researching, studying, documenting and examining Sinaiticus, when all she would've had to do is sit behind her computer screen and read the nonsense spouted all over the internet by yourself and David Daniels?

Have you told her she's been duped by Simonides?

Who told you handwriting can easily be copied?

Do you have experience in the field or are you just statng a bunch of nonsense that you arent even qualified to write one sentence about?

And why did the guy in Simonides's day (can't recall the name offhand) bail on him, saying it was too hard to do what you say is so easy?

Simonides claimed the calligrapher at Athos was Dionysius. He chose that name because he knew it appeared in Sinaiticus, so he could then say “see, that’s proof!” Never mind there’s not one shred of evidence this was even true. After all, folks ask Athos later and there’s no Dionysius, Simonides will just come back with, “Of course not, he’s dead,” which is what he did with Benedict.

Remember - we have NO PROOF Benedict was even his uncle….other than his say so. And given how much else he lied about - as in everything - I have no reason to believe any relationship at all.

He made up letters from a Kallinikos nobody saw and claims about a calligrapher nobody ever saw. He claimed exemplars nobody ever saw so it’s not impossible he either made up Benedict OR at least the idea of them being related.

And he got his own birth date wrong, too. TWICE!

He has less credibility on Sinaiticus than Trump has on fiscal responsibility, which is to say “none.”

 

[Maestroh]

Dionysius is the guy Simple Simon who was a Lying Man claimed bailed on him. Over Macho Grande.

 

[Steven Avery]

Remember - we have NO PROOF Benedict was even his uncle….other than his say so.

Many cultures will allow fluidity where a cousin or whatever might be called an uncle.

We know who Benedict is, and his background in Bible textual matters, and his closeness to Simonides.
Es suficiente.

 

[Steven Avery]

Do you think there might have been a chance of interaction of some kind or having something to do with each other before Simonides came to England to purvey his goods?

There were various places where they had interactions. Some theorize early connections, but that is mostly conjectural. They had the interplay in Leipzig, and thus today we have two editions of Hermas, the one from Simonides in 1855-56 (Anger & Dindorf) and then the similar edition edited by Tischendorf in 1856. The story of the Tischendorf accusation and retraction against the Simonides Hermas, very similar to the later published Sinaiticus Hermas, is rather amazing. Plus the argument that this text is much later than 4th century from James Donaldson has had a couple of dents, but still stands. There is some interesting checking that could be done today.

They may well have had a quid pro quo to end the Sinaiticus controversy, noting how Simonides ended up working at the Russian Historical Archives in St. Petersburg! This was the home city of most of Sinaiticus, where Tischendorf had strong connections with the governmental figures, and they were trying to end the Sinaiticus controversy with St. Catherine's. How would Simonides end up working there, without a nod from Tischendorf? Did the Russians want to use his "special set of skills"?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Anybody here actually interested in the manuscript?

Your thoughts on the Three Crosses note?

It was a very interesting note describing the blunder of duplicating text in the manuscript.

If you examine the manuscript, and the scholarship, interesting questions arise.

What's with the quoting yourself thing?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You probably are talking about the stash of manuscripts that Simonides inherited from Benedict.

Journal of Sacred Literature (1862)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA211

William Aldis Wright:
Benedict had in his possession a number of ancient manuscripts, and by information received from an aged monk, Gregory, on his death-bed, lie became the discoverer of a valuable library which had been buried in a secret hiding-place under the ruins of an extinct monastery.

He says this is from the 1859 bio, so you can get the exact words there from Simonides.

You knew what I was getting at.

They just have that fairytale aura about them...his stories...

An unnamed "extinct" monastery... Secret rooms... Ancient manuscripts... Jabba the Hutt...

Tischendorf is actually Simonides father... "NOooooooo...."

 

[Steven Avery]

Who said he was actually in the employ of the Russian government?

Where, and who specifically writes, and unmistakably says that Simonides was working for the Russian government, rather than just simply preparing more forgeries to dupe the Russian government into buying?

Perhaps.
The indication given by Owen is that he was a fixture there, meaning a worker. If he was presenting documents, it would be a brief visit, "would you like to buy this"?

Which leads us back to the fundamental question of what is very possibly a quid pro quo with Tischendorf. Tischendorf had ducked the challenge of Simonides to meet in London and waited for Simonides to be out of London before he came over with some CFA material. (So far, there is not a lot of information available about that trip in 1865.)

And I would expect that people working at the Russian Historical Archives are employed by the Russian government, directly or perhaps indirectly if there is a separate organization.

Unless you can show some bonafide/legitimate historial Russian pay slips and government documents specifically saying Mr (who knows what) FAKE NAME worked for da Comrades...your in dream land.

Nonsense. The information was passed by Tregelles. The demand for arcane documentation is irrelevant.

 

[Steven Avery]

You knew what I was getting at.
They just have that fairytale aura about them...his stories...
An unnamed "extinct" monastery... Secret rooms... Ancient manuscripts... Jabba the Hutt...

And I will definitely agree that it is very hard to determine the details of the manuscript stash spoken of by Simonides. There may be some information in the various Brit correspondence (some of which is in Australia.)

And I do remember reading about monasteries that are inactive on Mt. Athos, so there does not seem to be anything difficult about that part of the story. I thought that was your point, so mind-reading fails again.

 

[Maestroh]

Anybody here actually interested in the manuscript?

Sure.

When was the last time you saw it up close?

Your thoughts on the Three Crosses note?

Who cares?

"Hey, I have ZERO EVIDENCE Simonides wrote this, EVEN I admit he was LYING when he claimed he did it himself - but come explain this note" is not a persuasive argument to anyone with a functioning intellect.

It was a very interesting note describing the blunder of duplicating text in the manuscript.

If you examine the manuscript, and the scholarship, interesting questions arise.

None of those interesting questions involves Simonides being the author, though.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Perhaps.
The indication given by Owen is that he was a fixture there, meaning a worker. If he was presenting documents, it would be a brief visit, "would you like to buy this"?

Which leads us back to the fundamental question of what is very possibly a quid pro quo with Tischendorf. Tischendorf had ducked the challenge of Simonides to meet in London and waited for Simonides to be out of London before he came over with some CFA material. (So far, there is not a lot of information available about that trip in 1865.)

And I would expect that people working at the Russian Historical Archives are employed by the Russian government, directly or perhaps indirectly if there is a separate organization.

Nonsense. The information was passed by Tregelles. The demand for arcane documentation is irrelevant.

Where's any bonafide/legitimate documentation that actually says Constantine Simonides worked for the Russian government in the archives department? Are you going to cough up? Show it?

Where does Owen use the word "fixture"? Answer, he doesn't, you made that up.

Where does Owen use the word "archives"? Answer, he doesn't, you made that up as well.

"...when he turned up in Russia, where the Rev. Donald Owen found him preparing for publication “Historical Documents of Great Importance in Connection with Claims of the Russian Government. [...] that he had turned up again under a feigned name..."

Owen simply doesn't say what you represent him as saying.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Topic: Three Crosses note

Anyone who is actually interested in the date of Sinaiticus.

Make a thread and discuss that topic in that dedicated thread.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You don’t.

So let’s see if anyone else does.

I'm more interested in hearing some facts about Simonides attempting to poison his parents, according to Harris A. Caligra, and how he incited a mob hoping to have some missionaries killed in Greece, according to McGrane.

 

[logos1560]

Often, it is most interesting to actually discuss the manuscript and its puzzles and anomalies.

Are you suggesting that it is interesting for you to throw out strawman diversions?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You don’t.

So let’s see if anyone else does.

Nothing?

No Curriculum Vitae? I mean, real documentation, showing he (in reality) worked in the archives department for the Russian government (and not in your imagination only)?

No pay slips? No specific documentation from the likes of Upensky or Avraam Norov etc?

 

[Maestroh]

Perhaps.

Meaning you don't know.

The indication given by Owen is that he was a fixture there, meaning a worker.

Why should I believe this?

If he was presenting documents, it would be a brief visit, "would you like to buy this"?

Still not sure what this is supposed to prove about "guy in 1840."

Which leads us back to the fundamental question of what is very possibly a quid pro quo with Tischendorf.

More "you don't know"

Tischendorf had ducked the challenge of Simonides to meet in London and waited for Simonides to be out of London before he came over with some CFA material. (So far, there is not a lot of information available about that trip in 1865.)

"Ducked the challenge" says the same person ducking the debate challenge I issued him in 2009.

You might want to think of some more neutral language.

After all - Simonides never wrote his book telling the whole story either, but you give him a pass on that.

And I would expect that people working at the Russian Historical Archives are employed by the Russian government, directly or perhaps indirectly if there is a separate organization.

this is four speculations in one post.

I could speculate you're an undercover Russian agent with this level of speculation, too.

Nonsense. The information was passed by Tregelles.

The same Tregelles who called out Simonides as a liar and agreed with Tischendorf on the date of Aleph?

The demand for arcane documentation is irrelevant.

The problem is, you're simply dismissing the need to prove your speculations, which makes them worthless.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You don’t.

So let’s see if anyone else does.

You got a map of all the known monasteries on Athos?

You've looked into the archaeology of the area of any ancient monasteries around the monastery Simonides says he and Benedict was in? To check even the credibility of this story?

 

[Maestroh]

You think everyone on Mt. Athos knows exactly what monasteries and rooms were active 180 years ago?

There is nothing unlikely in the story of a cache of manuscripts.

The source of the tale makes it suspect.

Where are these invisible manuscripts now, huh?

All I see is a bunch of speculation here. And none of it really has anything to do with Simonides writing Sinaiticus in 1840. It’s all a bunch of filler material that even if true wouldn’t prove anything at all.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You think everyone on Mt. Athos knows exactly what monasteries and rooms were active 180 years ago?

There is nothing unlikely in the story of a cache of manuscripts.

Not to your biased thinking...of course.

But back on earth...

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

You think everyone on Mt. Athos knows exactly what monasteries and rooms were active 180 years ago?

There is nothing unlikely in the story of a cache of manuscripts.

In other words you have no real inclination to check the credibility (veracity) of Simonides (or Klink or Bene's) story by looking at the facts (i.e. truth) on (or in ?) the ground on Athos.

Predictable and disturbing, considering your hype about examining every minute detail about the Sinaiticus...ya know what I mean Steve...

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

The source of the tale makes it suspect.

Where are these invisible manuscripts now, huh?

All I see is a bunch of speculation here. And none of it really has anything to do with Simonides writing Sinaiticus in 1840. It’s all a bunch of filler material that even if true wouldn’t prove anything at all.

Ohhhh but Tischendorf and Simonides in a back alley...cash changing hands...wink wink etc etc

I would not be surprised if a unicorn becomes involved with this story...