The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

[Steven Avery]

The poster whose questions I bypass, due to the false liar accusations, I do generally read or skim. He could possibly make an interesting point and since my goal is real scholarship, there is no point in the "ignore" type of approach, where a poster becomes invisible. That function does work on CARM, but I never use it in the context of Sinaiticus discussions. As I could miss something helpful.

(In fact, I am considering starting fresh, taking any posters off ignore.)

However, I do not respond to his questions, one reason, because integrity first.

Then he falsely claims that I ignore his dozens of questions as an "excuse". The questions are so hard ... boo hoo. Anyone can see that I happily relate to a wide variety of questions and positions and quotes from posters.

If he wants interaction with his questions, he simply should retract the two-times false liar accusation. Ironically, the issue itself was minor (did I know that TNC was the BVDB poster?) but since I was falsely called a liar, based on the poster's weakness in reading comprehension, that ended our dialog. (One time I accidentally answered his question, but that was simply a slip-a-doodle.)

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Codex Sinaiticus (dated circa. 4th century A.D./C.E.)

CodexSinaitiucs.org

Webpage: See The Manuscript

British Library, Folio: 324, Column 1 (left hand side), Lines 15-18, Scribe: A

οτι οι τρειϲ ειϲιν οι μαρτυρουτεϲ το πνα και το ϋδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρειϲ ειϲ το εν ειϲιν

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...5&lid=en&side=r&verse=7&zoomSlider=0#55-5-7-6​

 

[Unbound68]

The poster whose questions I bypass, due to the false liar accusations, I do generally read or skim. He could possibly make an interesting point and since my goal is real scholarship, there is no point in the "ignore" type of approach, where a poster becomes invisible. That function does work on CARM, but I never use it in the context of Sinaiticus discussions. As I could miss something helpful.

(In fact, I am considering starting fresh, taking any posters off ignore.)

However, I do not respond to his questions, one reason, because integrity first.

Then he falsely claims that I ignore his dozens of questions as an "excuse". The questions are so hard ... boo hoo. Anyone can see that I happily relate to a wide variety of questions and positions and quotes from posters.

If he wants interaction with his questions, he simply should retract the two-times false liar accusation. Ironically, the issue itself was minor (did I know that TNC was the BVDB poster?) but since I was falsely called a liar, based on the poster's weakness in reading comprehension, that ended our dialog. (One time I accidentally answered his question, but that was simply a slip-a-doodle.)

Seems to me there IS an interaction going on, whether you care to admit it or not. You pretend to not interact with me while simultaneously responding to someone else about me.

Or, even better, you disguise a response to me by slyly posting a few days later, as if you just decided to bring up the very thing I mentioned. (Don't think I didn't see you directly quoting and responding to my list of names like COOPER, Daniels, etc the other day. You weren't quick enough with the edit buttom to make it look like you weren't actually responding to me. Your post #310 in response to my #302))

So either the so called non-interaction with me is a ruse and a convenient way for you to ignore points you can't answer, or I'm living rent-free in your head and you can't help but post ABOUT ME, rather than TO ME.

I still don't know what prompted you to post about me out of nowhere the other day. (Post #396)

Guilty conscience?

Or are readers messaging you privately asking why you're not responding to my points that obliterate your position, and you felt you needed to answer them publicly in this thread so as not to look like you were hiding?

 

[Steven Avery]

(One time I accidentally answered his question, but that was simply a slip-a-doodle.)

As I said.

And I also pointed out the reason for occasionally revisiting this history, the bogus claim about “excuse”.

Then he falsely claims that I ignore his dozens of questions as an "excuse".

Integrity first.

 

[logos1560]

Integrity first.

Your demand is empty and vain since you do not practice what you preach. You are in effect attacking the integrity of that poster.

You have repeatedly attempted to question or attack the integrity or honesty of other posters, and you have not apologized for your improper attacks on their motives and integrity.

 

[Unbound68]

As I said.

Wrong. It was more than one time.

There was the incident I referred to above, and then there was the time you quoted me 3 or 4 times in a row, thinking I was Shoonra.

Can we stop pretending now?

 

[Shoonra]

The Sinaiticus (the major piece of it) is in the custody of the British Library's Conservation section. As the name implies, their concern is the preservation of the Codex rather than investigating its age.
As far as I know, the British Library does not have a Let's Prove How Old This Is section.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi Shoonra,

Please notice that you are taking two opposite positions.

1) the ms. is old because that is the position of the British Library

2) the British Library does not do manuscript age analysis

The British Library is quite firm on its antiquity and, as a fellow librarian, I take them at their word.

The Sinaiticus (the major piece of it) is in the custody of the British Library's Conservation section. As the name implies, their concern is the preservation of the Codex rather than investigating its age.
As far as I know, the British Library does not have a Let's Prove How Old This Is section.

 

[Shoonra]

Not two opposite opinions. The British Library has accepted the date from a multitude of experts and technicians; so far, not one of them has insisted on 1840 as the date of creation.

 

[Steven Avery]

Not two opposite opinions. The British Library has accepted the date from a multitude of experts and technicians; so far, not one of them has insisted on 1840 as the date of creation.

So you go with the experts, despite the fact that solid tests have been blocked and they generally ignore and are ignorant of salient information.

It really has nothing to do with the British Library, who clearly will favor the conclusion that gives them a priceless manuscript over that which makes them look a tad foolish for being the Russian marks in 1933 and are still avoiding tests in 2022.

 

[Shoonra]

Yes, I go with the experts, including those who estimated the date of the Codex before the British Library purchased it.
As far as I know or can find, not a single scholar, scientist, or technician who has personally examined the Codex has endorsed the 1840 date.

 

[logos1560]

So you go with the experts, despite the fact that solid tests have been blocked and they generally ignore and are ignorant of salient information.

You fail to prove what you claim to be a fact to be an actual verifiable fact.

You do not at all prove that the experts "generally ignore and are ignorant of salient information." You seem to think that mere speculations, opinions, assumptions, and claims based on silence are salient information.

 

[Steven Avery]

You fail to prove what you claim to be a fact to be an actual verifiable fact.

Those who propose the 4th century date definitely do not prove their date.

 

[Unbound68]

Those who propose the 4th century date definitely do not prove their date.

O.M.G.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So you go with the experts, despite the fact that solid tests have been blocked and they generally ignore and are ignorant of salient information.

It really has nothing to do with the British Library, who clearly will favor the conclusion that gives them a priceless manuscript over that which makes them look a tad foolish for being the Russian marks in 1933 and are still avoiding tests in 2022.

Perhaps there's something really really fundamental, that you're not aware of - but they are (and/or were i.e Cockerell & Son etc etc etc), and what you refer to as "salient information" they genuinely consider ignorance, and therefore don't take you or any of your accomplices seriously.

And on the remote chance you are right.... and Simonides pulled off a swift one....🥁🥁🥁🥁 I don't think they are as unprofessional or conspiratistic as you make them out to be. They would eat humble pie (like the rest of us here possibly could), acknowledge it, adjust the history books, and move on. No one would be glorifying you as a hero, it would be "oh poop" and move on.

Buttttttt-T.

Here comes the qualification.

If you're wrong, how will you react?

That's a whole different story. Isn't it Mr Avery...

 

[Steven Avery]

Perhaps there's something really really fundamental, that you're not aware of - but they are (and/or were i.e Cockerell & Son etc etc etc), and what you refer to as "salient information" they genuinely consider ignorance, and therefore don't take you or any of your accomplices seriously.

Much of the information is simply factual and logical deductions. As an example, Dirk Jongkind thanked us for making the Uspensky text available. The letters, made available by Michael Featherstone, from Tischendorf in 1844 about getting the 43 leaves, in thief's talk. And his letter in 1859 en route to Sinai mentioning the stories from Simonides, exactly in the context of rushing to the monastery, are examples. More details and explanations about the 1844 and 1859 thefts, such as the simple fact that the 1844 theft included five full, intact quires, not loose random leaves. The Morozov account of the ms. is another. The Sypridon Lambrou catalog referenced by Farrer but missed by Elliott and most Sinaiticus writers. The documentation of what Simonides and Kallinikos actually said about the manuscript showing impossible knowledge if not involved. Often we point out obvious anomalies that should be considered in any true palaeography, such was the false idea that the Three Crosses Note was hundreds of years after production. Many other palaeography anomalies, including Tischendorf claiming words were cut at the margin. And exemplars available for the two colophons. The James Donaldson linguistic analysis and the need to include the New Finds Hermas compared to the Sinaiticus Hermas. The likelihood of Sinaiticus being an Andreas Revelation commentary pre-cursor. The comparisons to Alexandrinus and the many references matching Helen Shenton's "phenomenally good condition." The overlap of New Finds and Uspensky and Tischendorf material. The homoeoteleutons in Sinaiticus that can help place the exemplar. The Tischendorf attack on the Simonides Hermas as a late text followed by his ultra-awkward retraction when his very similar Sinaiticus Hermas was published. The tests that really would have shed light on the manuscript and ink, cancelled in Leipzig in 2015.

The list goes on and on.

"Salient information" that should be considered in any true analysis.

 

[Steven Avery]

And on the remote chance you are right.... and Simonides pulled off a swift one....🥁🥁🥁🥁

The long con was pulled off by Tischendorf.

Simonides was young when he helped with the Codex Simoneidos. There is no real indication that he was trying to pull a swift one, although I would agree that it is hard to tell for sure whether the original manuscript intent of Benedict was clean as the driven snow.

If you want to claim Simonides pulled a swift one in claiming to be a part of the Sinaiticus enterprise, then that is not my position.

 

[Steven Avery]

I don't think they are as unprofessional or conspiratistic as you make them out to be.

I've complimented the British Library on their openness. The Leipzig Library is another story, even more so when they cancelled the 2015 BAM tests. Those who claim authenticity to SInai have been led by Tommy Wasserman, who has been very unprofessional. One low-level opponent has been vulgar and coarse. And, as I mentioned, others, like Dirk Jongkind, have been excellent, even to the point of thanking us on some of the research.

It simply varies.

 

[Steven Avery]

They would eat humble pie (like the rest of us here possibly could), acknowledge it, adjust the history books, and move on. No one would be glorifying you as a hero, it would be "oh poop" and move on.
Buttttttt-T.
Here comes the qualification.
If you're wrong, how will you react?
That's a whole different story. Isn't it Mr Avery...

Not at all. I defended Sinaiticus authenticity when I thought that was where the evidence points. (Even making up a list of reasons why.) If somehow, Sinaiticus is really 4th century, or anywhere from 4th to 7th (as indicated by some scholars and researchers), I would be happy to know that it was our steadiness and persistence and skill that forced the issue.

All that is highly unlikely, as the Leipzig Library has run away from the real tests, and the textual criticism group has "deeply entrenched scholarship" that they do not want to see shaken and discarded. And there is a strange willingness to allow parchment and ink science to actually change to accommodate the textual critics view, still accepting the Tischendorf cons, of Sinaiticus.

Keep in mind that the scholars who are interested in an honest evaluation tend to be in the background. Folks who are on committees and receive grants and are eligible for tenure are not quick to come forth to publicly be attacked as wacky conspiracy theorists. There can be professional consequences.

 

[Unbound68]

Much of the information is simply factual and logical deductions. As an example, Dirk Jongkind thanked us for making the Uspensky text available. The letters, made available by Michael Featherstone, from Tischendorf in 1844 about getting the 43 leaves, in thief's talk. And his letter in 1859 en route to Sinai mentioning the stories from Simonides, exactly in the context of rushing to the monastery, are examples. More details and explanations about the 1844 and 1859 thefts, such as the simple fact that the 1844 theft included five full, intact quires, not loose random leaves. The Morozov account of the ms. is another. The Sypridon Lambrou catalog referenced by Farrer but missed by Elliott and most Sinaiticus writers. The documentation of what Simonides and Kallinikos actually said about the manuscript showing impossible knowledge if not involved. Often we point out obvious anomalies that should be considered in any true palaeography, such was the false idea that the Three Crosses Note was hundreds of years after production. Many other palaeography anomalies, including Tischendorf claiming words were cut at the margin. And exemplars available for the two colophons. The James Donaldson linguistic analysis and the need to include the New Finds Hermas compared to the Sinaiticus Hermas. The likelihood of Sinaiticus being an Andreas Revelation commentary pre-cursor. The comparisons to Alexandrinus and the many references matching Helen Shenton's "phenomenally good condition." The overlap of New Finds and Uspensky and Tischendorf material. The homoeoteleutons in Sinaiticus that can help place the exemplar. The Tischendorf attack on the Simonides Hermas as a late text followed by his ultra-awkward retraction when his very similar Sinaiticus Hermas was published. The tests that really would have shed light on the manuscript and ink, cancelled in Leipzig in 2015.

The list goes on and on.

"Salient information" that should be considered in any true analysis.

Hahahahaha......lol...lol...