The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Unbound68 said:
Avery.
Daniels.
Cooper.
Ross.
Pinto.
Etc.
Click to expand...

Let's just be blunt: a group of KJVOists who were stuck in 1881 have simply moved the clock back to where they're stuck about 15-20 years.

This whole "they don't know the history" is laughable given even the "SART Team" can't give us the history, either.

That David Daniels killed a forest of trees for THIS nonsense ought to be embarrassing to both him AND the rest of the "team".

A few years ago they were going with the notion that Simonides used Claromontanus.
I don't know if they've abandoned that or if it's still an article of faith.

Of course, it begs the question whey Simonides didn't simply say that since it would have proved what he was claiming.
 
The Mount Sinai manuscript of the Bible (1935-4th edition)
https://archive.org/details/mountsinaimanusc0000brit_e2m8/page/n11/mode/2up
https://apostolicbible.com/mountsinai.pdf

It was during this time (in May) that he was seen by Mr. James Finn, Consul for Jerusalem and Palestine, at Jerusalem.3 Mr. Finn's diary contains a somewhat confused account of the case.

3 Diary of Mr. Finn, quoted by Miss Constance Finn in The Times, 1 February1934. Her letter is inaccurate in giving the impression that Tischendorf had the Codex with him; what the diary actually says is that he had had the Codex ‘conveyed to St Petersburgh in original’. Even this is incorrect; as we shall see, Tischendorf did not take the Codex until September of that year. A year later, 1 May 1860, the Archimandrite Porphyrius Uspenski (afterwards Bishop of Chirgin) told the diarist that he had discovered the Codex some time before and published something about it. This is the usual claim put forward in such circumstances by some one who ‘knew about it all the time’. Doubtless after Tischendorf found the 129 leaves in the waste-paper basket in 1844., Porphyrius or others looked for the rest and found it. What Porphyrius did do was, after Tischendorf’s first visit, to find in the binding of another book fragments of two leaves. This was in 1845. In 1863 he published a Russian brochure attacking the orthodoxy of the Codex. Porphyrius also told Mr. Finn that Tischendorf arrived at Sinai just when the Archbishopric was vacant, and promised Cyril, the ambitious president of the convent, to have him made Archbishop if he would make a present of the manuscript to the Russian Emperor. ‘This bargain has been fulfilled on both sides.’ We have to thank Miss Finn for permission to consult the actual text of the diary. (emphasis added by me)
Click to expand...

Steven Avery said:
What Porphyrius did do was, after Tischendorf’s first visit, to find in the binding of another book fragments of two leaves. (emphasis added by me)
Click to expand...

Fragments of the Codex Sinaiticus were found "b[ou]nd" up in "another book"?

And not by Tischendorf either.

Hmmm.

Why would Simonides bind up (stitch up? or placed in?) his work in "another book" if it was intended to be given as a special gift for the Tzar of Russia?

Why would Simonides hide part of it in "another book"?

Why would Simonides create part of it as "fragments"?
 
Last edited:
And the monks are in on all of this (i.e. they allegedly knew Simonides created this manuscript as a gift for the Tzar)?

Yet, someone in St Catherine's (other than Tischendorf) tears it apart, turns some leaves into fragments, and binds them up into other books?

Hmmm.
 
Last edited:
On Benedict preparing the ms. over many years, here are two additional quotes to go with the two before in #201 and #203 in this thread. By putting this all together we show that Simonides was very clear about the Benedict prep work. And David's book goes into Benedict's work even before Mt. Athos. This negates all the claims about Simonides himself having to use various manuscripts, do collation, etc. which is one of the most common contra objections.

Journal of Sacred Literature (April, 1863)
Miscellanies
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA227

“First, that my undo Benedict, being by profession a theologian, and versed in twelve languages, intending to publish both the Old and New Testaments, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers with exegctic scholia of the ancient commentators, and specially to reply to what had been written against the Septuagint, began this work while Professor in the College of Cydon in the year 1784. Having removed to Mount Athos in 1810 for the sake of retirement, and embraced the monastic life in the monastery of Esphigmenos, he was named Benedict (for surely they who adopt the monastic life ought to change themselves and their names as well as their lives), having formerly had two names, Basilaeus and Bessarion. While at Athos he gave himself up particularly to the study of the sacred Scriptures. He collected the most ancient MSS. of both Testaments and of their commentators, and at considerable expense prepared his work for the press. The Greek revolution interfered ... "
p. 227-228
Click to expand...

But Benedict, as well as the principals of the monastery, wishing to recognize with gratitude the munificence of the Emperor Nicholas on the one hand, and desiring on the other to acquire a printing-press without expense, and being unable otherwise to effect these purposes, decided that a transcript of the sacred Scriptures should he made in the ancient style, and presented as a gift to the Emperor Nicholos, and he found that all the heads of the monastery perfectly agreed with him. Accordingly, having again revised the books ready for publication, and first Genesis, he gave it to me to transcribe.
p. 228
Click to expand...

Pages where David Daniel's discusses this are online available in Google books.

Who Faked the "World’s Oldest Bible"? (2021)
By David W. Daniels
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ap83EAAAQBAJ&pg=PA62

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

Earlier quotes showing Benedict prep work - taken from #201 and 203

Christian Remembrancer (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rPQDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA396
" [...] he [Benedict] recalled me to Athos. I sailed from the Pireaus in the month of November, 1839, and landed again at Athos for the fifth time. After a few days I undertook the task of transcribing the Codex, the text of which as I remarked before, had many years previously been prepared for another purpose"
Click to expand...

The British Quarterly Review (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=TMNjkkJZw8UC&pg=PA355
"my uncle Benedict corrected the MS in many places; and as it was intended to be re-copied, he marked in many letters which he intended to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle I can of course point out; as also those of Dionysius, the caligraphist."
Click to expand...

==============================
Earlier URLS - 201 and 203
Steven Avery said:
one interesting point is that Benedict, from whom we do not have records, prepared before Simonides was involved.
Click to expand...
Steven Avery said:
Here is a spot where Simonides says that Benedict worked directly on the manuscript, and also Dionysius (his name is on the manuscript.)
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
And the monks are in on all of this (i.e. they allegedly knew Simonides created this manuscript as a gift for the Tzar)?
Yet, someone in St Catherine's (other than Tischendorf) tears it apart, turns some leaves into fragments, and binds them up into other books?
Click to expand...

We can not say that most of the monks knew. Plus there was no mention of a dedication to the Tzar when Uspensky saw it in 1845.

We do know the ms. has no provenance before c. 1840, so the monks would avoid any questions about the ms. history. Why wasn’t it in the catalog done in the 1700s? “Let’s not talk about that, isn’t the parchment beautiful?” :)

And Tischendorf is the most likely one to dismantle the manuscript, starting with his removing 43 folia in the 1844 theft.. And Tischendorf used the dump room for the embarrassing part of Hermas. Once he stole the section that went to Leipzig in 1844 he could not keep the ms. together, his earlier theft would be obvious. Plus the colouring project needed to work with the pages separately. Tischendorf's mangling the ms. was pointed out by Kallinikos and Simonides.

There were a few loose fragments, including fragments from a section highlighted by Simonides as relating to acrostics. Since the ms. was being mangled, this is no surprise. I think Uspensky had a Corinthians fragment, which is quite curious, and I’ll try to check into that later today.

=======

Btw, you change a quote from the British Museum into my quote.

‘What Porphyrius did do was, after Tischendorf’s first visit, to find in the binding of another book fragments of two leaves. (emphasis added by me)”

Anytime manuscript material leaves a monastery, the report of how it was found and left should be treated with skepticism. This applies to both Tischendorf and Uspensky. Plus the British Museum is a secondary source, that falsely accused Uspensky, so we have to find and use Uspensky’s account.
 
Last edited:
Maestroh said:
A few years ago they were going with the notion that Simonides used Claromontanus.
I don't know if they've abandoned that or if it's still an article of faith.
Click to expand...

There are corrections in the Sinaiticus text which clearly came from line skipping by the scribe, homoeoteleuton or simply a scribal skip. Yet this is rarely if ever discussed in Sinaiticus “science”. This should help with issues like manuscript source and row length in the exemplar(s) and whether they are standard lengths or fluid.

There are a few NT Epistle cases where Codex Claromontanus fits as the source text of the omission and margin fixing. It, or it’s sister ms., give evidence of use, however the surrounding sections have variation between Sinaiticus and Claromontanus.

Homoeteleuton - Text Omitted Because of Similar Endings
SART team
http://www.sinaiticus.net/homeoteleuton.html
 
Books on Sinaiticus Authenticity and Simonides

Bill W. R. Cooper passed away in 2021. He is known for creationary material. However, the books by Bill Cooper, David Sorenson and Jack Moorman, who also passed in 2021, are definitely not part of our research team. Although there may be some good points made in the books, there are problems, errors that we do not defend. Cooper's book especially may have original ideas worth researching, as long as it is done aware that the book is uneven.

Bryan Ross has gone back and forth a bit on his position, in fact we may have a conference in the months ahead, public or private or both, to review the material. He did a good job researching the "two streams" material, after he thought there were problems with the AV material and he saw my writing criticizing errors in that presentation.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
We can not say that .... Plus there was no mention of .... We do know .... “Let’s not talk about that... is the most likely one to ... I think ... should be treated with skepticism. ... so we have to find and use ...
Click to expand...

There's an unbelievable amount of conjectural reasoning (stretched and contorted reasoning) going on here.

Steven Avery said:
Plus there was no mention of a dedication to the Tzar when Uspensky saw it in 1845.
Click to expand...

I never mentioned the word "dedication".

wishing to recognize with gratitude the munificence of the Emperor Nicholas on the one hand and desiring on the other to acquire a printing press without expense and being unable otherwise to effect these purposes, decided that a transcript of the Sacred Scriptures should be made in the ancient style and presented as a gift to the Emperor Nicholas, and he found that all of the heads of the monastery perfectly agreed with him. (Emphasis and link to "munificence" definition added by me)
Click to expand...

It seems that "all of the heads of the monastery" were in on it.

Steven Avery said:
And Tischendorf is the most likely one to dismantle the manuscript, starting with his removing 43 folia in the 1844 theft.
Click to expand...

How long did this mangling take? (You say "starting with")
 
Steven Avery said:
We do know the ms. has no provenance before c. 1840,
Click to expand...
How do you factually know instead of merely assuming? Are you using a weak argument from supposed silence?

How do you know that there were no records or reports that could have been lost through the years? Are you claiming to be all-knowing?
 
Steven Avery said:
Conjectured, non-existing, theorized, lost, no-evidence. possible records are not counted as provenance.
Click to expand...

Coming from you!

This is hilarious. You are the King of non-existing, lost, no-evidence theories.

This is a keeper, and probably should be included in all future posts from now on.

Oh yeah, play on the "I meant bla bla bla" "I didn't say bla bla bla" ... "as provenance". This is a keeper.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Coming from you!
This is hilarious. You are the King of non-existing, lost, no-evidence theories.
This is a keeper, and probably should be included in all future posts from now on.
Oh yeah, play on the "I meant bla bla bla" "I didn't say bla bla bla" ... "as provenance". This is a keeper.
Click to expand...

What an attempted cover for the silly post from Rick Norris about invisible, conjectured provenance.
Good shill work!
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Why would Simonides bind up (stitch up? or placed in?) his work in "another book" if it was intended to be given as a special gift for the Tzar of Russia?
Why would Simonides hide part of it in "another book"?
Why would Simonides create part of it as "fragments"?
Click to expand...

The mangling and theft happened at Sinai, it was reported by Kanllinikos (including the 1844 theft), and Simonides was not the cause.
 
Steven Avery said:
The mangling and theft happened at Sinai, it was reported by Kanllinikos (including the 1844 theft), and Simonides was not the cause.
Click to expand...
Why no mention of Simonides tearing out leaves and stealing mss? McGrane explains with sources in his masterful review of Cooper.
 
Steven Avery said:
The mangling started with the 1844 theft by Tischendorf of 43 folia.
The terminus ante quem was the delivery of the ms. to Russia.
Click to expand...

Where specifically did Tischendorf himself allegedly say/write that he was the first person who did the unbinding of the manuscript when he visited the monastery and laid eyes on the manuscript for the very first time?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top