The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Shoonra said:
(Nov 12th)
Do you have experts - real experts - who have actually examined the Sinaiticus and who insist on a 19th century origin?
Click to expand...
It is now one full month since I made this challenge to Avery, and I am still waiting for a response.

Why, WHY are we stuck on this topic, at the behest of one and only one member?! And this topic had metastasized to four threads -- which happens to be the number of members we are down to still participating. I don't know if the other members are gone for good because of the way this topic has monopolized this forum. I'd gladly participate in a thread about the Old Testament, the Apocrypha, the Apostolic Fathers, and even the New Testament (if it's not about the Comma!), maybe even the Dead Sea Scrolls. But it's past time to euthanize the threads about Simonides!
 
Last edited:
I highly recommend all concerned about Constantine Simonides and his forgeries have a read of the report at the link below.


Report of the Council of the Royal Society of Literature on Some of the Mayer Papyri, and the Palimpsest MS. of Uranius Belonging to M. Simonides With Letters from MM. Pertz, Ehrenberg, and Dindorf · Volume 3
By Royal Society of Literature (Great Britain), Wilhelm Dindorf, Georg Heinrich Pertz, Kōnstantinos Simōnidēs, 1863

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/_/4HpaAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA1​
 
DEBATE REVIEW OF STEVEN AVERY SPENCER VS JAMES SNAPP: FAKE OR REAL?

Introduction
4:56 - Avery starts by not giving his real name
5:10 - claims he was pro-Aleph at that point
5:14 - claims he wrote an article (does he mean BLOG POST) explaining why it was authentic
5:19 - "...but I did not like the way Chris Pinto was being treated when he raised some quetions"

(Note - the "just asking questions" fallacy)

5:27 - "I began to understand the Simonides story" (what you mean is, "I'd never heard this before")
5:35 - "what you might call the historical imperative" (not true - that's what YOU call it)

(So far, all he's said is he took the word of...Simonides...)

6:00 - SART team includes David Daniels and Kirk DiVietro, Mark Michie
6:10 - "make it a point to look into all these evidences, things that have been MISSED - about Uspenski, Mozorov, different people
6:30 - tells the moderator he can "take a minute off my other time" (nice of you to give permission)

6:43 - Snapp intro (short, succinct, and to the point)

7:59 - AVERY INTRODUCTION

- begins by praising Snapp for "integrity positions" - which include telling the Sinaiticus people what should be on their site and Avery's personal animus against James White (that Avery would hide behind someone else rather than confront White himself is not especially surprising).

8:56 - "I've run into many who were not the most hospitable" (says the guy who shows up insulting but cries when he gets hit back)
9:00 - "there's 3 possibilities: a 4th century date pushed by Tischendorf
10:58 - says the name of Sinaiticus was hidden when found in 1844 (but then knows the name of it...???)
11:34 - "did he steal it, did he make a loan - THAT'S NOT REALLY THAT IMPORTANT" (???????)
11:55 - tells us that in 1859 Tischendorf was nervous about Simionides (nice mind reading)
11:59 - backtracks and says Tishcendorf didn't actually say which story.....
12:00 - possible he was talking about something else....(he's going with possibility again....)
12:15 - possible Simonides knew "because he had worked on the manuscript
12:25 - tells the story broke in "the journals"
12:26 - Simonides explained how he worked on it
12:40 - working with his uncle OR mentor Benedict (?????) and another couple of people and they made this (??????) manuscript to be a replica for the czar
12:53 - we don't know if this is an honest story or not (your presentation isn't even honest.....)
13:07 - his story (Simonides') is that it was a replica for the czar with a nice cover page and nice binding
13:15 - got to St Catherine's and was extracted by Tischendorf
13:27 - first fishy point is the lack of provenance (critical issue for any manuscript)
14:31 - one claimed quote from the 1700s, but it's weak (as opposed to, say, the evidence for Simonides writing it, which is even weaker)
14:38 - no real provenance until 1845 (then uh what did Tischendorf "steal" in 1844???)
14:41 - okay, he at least corrects it
15:02 - fishy discovery story (all made up much later)
15:32 - "these leaves came into my possession", which is thief talk (nice how he can pretend he wasn't corrected on this by me....)
15:46 - "the amazing condition" (goes with the Helen Shenton distortion)
16:34 - "manuscripts are supposed to get old in time and heat"
17:43 - summary
18:13 - "the three crosses note"

KIRK DIVIETRO ENTERS
18:50 - Avery with a specific word in the Shepherd of Hermas
19:33 - Kirk enters after yet another ramble from Avery
20:00 - a discussion of Mazimw

He rambles on and on

23:30 - "it could be that Sinaiticus followed a very faulty manuscript"

Basically, he wants to die on the hill of "Mazimw"

24:31 - Avery wants to tell us this was "one part of a large exposition"

(He keeps name dropping as a substitute for presenting any sort of argument)

At this point, he wants us to pretend the Donaldson argument has merit. He was informed years ago by me that this has zero merit at all, so it's understandable why he'd never debate me on this subject.

25:30 - the usual mis-citation of Farrer as if he doens't call Simonides the lying forger he was
Avery then asserts on the basis of Donaldson (ends at 25:44)

SNAPP OPENING STATEMENT STARTS AT 26:57
27:58 - gets in the dig at James White, tells audience to ignore what White has written

He gives a good general overview (including dates) of the timeline pre-Simonides
29:16 - says Simonides claimed to have done this in 1839 through 1841 (not quite correct - even Simonides limited himself to ending in 1840)
Snapp then gives an overview of what Simonides claimed he had done with the manuscript

30:11 - mentions Uspenski
3048 - "it was obvious Simonides was a liar"
31:30 - cites his blog links with more details

Snapp then gives an overview of the claims of Simonides

34:21 - "Simonides is lying through his teeth" (he claimed he stopped after the start of Hermas - but
37:06 - Snapp presents a grid of the different parts of Hermas
37:45 - demonstrates Simonides was lying
39:27 - Simonides only knew what Tischendorf had told him about it
40:00 - lettering reinforcement (gives an example and defines)
44:35 - points out Simonides was a forger and gives examples
45:30 - cites "National" magazine about Simonides's 1856 arrest
45:58 - Snapp ends mid-sentence but was basically finished
 
30 MINUTE QUESTIONS PHASE

47:29 - an ad nauseum question about "the three crosses note" - would you agree this type of note is something a scriptorium or a monastery or a couple of scribes working together - in fact, they would probably try to fix it - would you agree this has the feel and sound of a scriptorium note?

Snapp pulls out the Parker book and points out this is covered and that Lake also covered it (it's on pp 66-7).

Avery then decides to go "can you repeat what they said" (49:12) -

Snapp states Lake and Parker affirm that this is from the scribes who made the codex (Snapp later in the comments section on the video concedes he misspoke and meant to say the scribe who CORRECTED the codex, which he actually points out later)

Avery then asserts Lake did not discuss it in 1911 but then admits he hasn't read what Lake said in 1922.

Steven Avery said:
Likely no mention of the three crosses note, definitely not in NT and the OT was "largely identical".
Click to expand...

Except the 1922 edition is 490 pages to the 295 pages that the 1911 edition is.
Most normal people would wait until they actually verified their information before going with a "he likely doesn't mention it" as an argument.

Then he decides he's going to tell us what Parker said AFTER asking James to find it. (Typical)

And then we get the typical condescension of how he can help James out and then basically says that Parker says what it was but..."cannot date the note" (50:39). "So I can save you a little bit of time."
And my question to you, "Why would somebody hundreds of years later try to get into the minds of the writer of the scriptorium?

I would object to the question on the basis YOU ALREADY ASKED YOUR QUESTION.

I would further object that this is a LOADED question - because nobody is trying to "get into the minds of the writer of the scriptorium."

What schoars are doing is they see something - meaning they're not hiding anything - and they have to decide, "Okay, what is the significance of this?" And it might be nothing and it might be something.

Doesn't it have the feel of a scriptorium note. (That's my question)
This isn't a question, it's a nested assertion stated with the infection of a question.

"Without checking what different say, that's not so important"
But you asked him to check.

Is your memory so poor you forgot what you asked him to do moments ago?

My question to you is "isn't it natural to accept this as a scriptorium note"?
(This was the most wasted time of a question since Roger Mudd asked Teddy Kennedy why he was running for President.
Snapp responds from page 81 Parker and summarizes
 
Snapp first question (53:00) - How do you explain Simonides saying he ran out of parchment when Hermas had more pages (up to chapter 93)
Outstanding question that has only one answer - Simonides was lying about writing Sinaiticus.
Unfortunately, that's not what the debater decided to answer.

Avery (53:21) - "at times Simonides said what seemed convenient at the moment
This is a ten-dollar way of saying "he lied."

- he knew about the fact that the only Hermas that had been discovered was the first 1/3 or 30%
Yes, he claimed he ran out of parchment because he only knew about that 1/3 BECAUSE HE DIDN'T WRITE IT!!!!

Also, 1/3 is 33% most places.
But this is an obvious problem for Simonides.
Not for the defenders of Old Joke (OJ) Simonides, though, it's a chance to, well....keep reading!

...and there are other possible explanations,
You don't give any.

but I'm very comfortable with the fact that Simonides at times said what was convenient to his debate.
In other words, you don't really care that the guy who lied about writing the MS LIED ABOUT WRITING THE MS!!!!

This includes, for example, when he said, 'I did the work' but in another place, this is the question you pointed up, he said and he talked all about how Benedict had spent YEARS preparing this work.

BAIT AND SWITCH WARNING!!!
This is precisely how KJVOs operate.
He admits Simonides said he "did the work" - which would include collating (first letter) and writing the entire thing himself in eight months.
Now Avery goes to a second Simonides quote that only came up AFTER someone pointed out why his first claim wasn't true.

This also doesn't even address Kallinikos ALSO claiming Simonides wrote the entire thing, LOL!!!

You know, so at one point he might make it sound like it was a cooperative venture at Athos
Not when it came to writing the manuscript, he didn't.....

and at another point he may say that it was him.
In most places outside of Queens, this is called a contradiction.

Simonides could not POSSBILY have:
a) written the entire thing himself AND
b) had someone else write portions of it.

Now when you get to the Hermas (case? sheets?), it would be very possible that he said what was convenient based on what was discovered because he didn't want to make a big issue out of it.

Given the fact it proved what a liar he was, one can readily see why he wouldn't want to talk about it.

He might have even known that he didn't do that.
The odds are 100% that Simonides didn't write Hermas - and of course he knew that. No "might" about it.

I think a more important question is "why did a major part of Hermas disappear?"
Ah, the GASLIGHTING!!!
Here we go!!!
You know what's coming....

There's no indication from Uspenski, who saw the manuscript, he only said that Hermas was in it.
Did Uspenski write a detailed book about every single thing in Sinaiticus? No?

This was 1845....then we turn around and when it's published, there's only 1/3 of Hermas.
Note that here he's trying to blame Uspenski for something HE DID NOT DO!!!

(Now he goes into his rehearsed points about Tischendorf and Hermas and NEVER ACTUALLY EXPLAINS ANY OF WHAT HE MEANS!!!)

But then we get the most ridiculous moment of the debate so far - go listen because it is one of the most mind-blowing things you will ever hear.

55:13 - "So I would say that a much more germane question is "how do we explain the disappearance of Hermas when it seems likely that it was intact in 1845 and 1850 when seen by Uspenski. I believe that the most sensible explanation is that Tischendorf felt that Hermas was too uncofmortable - since he had attacked it...so he reduced his vulnerability by eliminating it. And it ended up in the back room, in the dump room that we later call the New Finds.

AHHHH!!!!

He ASSUMES that because Uspenski didn't offer a detailed exposition of every point then that means HERMAS WAS ALL THERE!!
Bear in mind he has no reason to even say this level of mind-numbing speculation.
He then ACCUSES TISCHENDORF - without a shred of evidene - of tossing part of Hermas away!!!!
INCREDIBLE!!! We have ironclad proof his client is guilty - and hes blaming Tischendorf for a CRIME HE CANNOT EVEN PROVE EVER HAPPENED!!!
LOL! LOL! LOL!
 
But to answer your question,
Get ready, because here comes another non-answer

if your point is that if perhaps Simonides actually lied about where he stopped and why?
Note the ASSUMPTION SIMONDES WROTE IT!!!
He never tries to prove it - he simply asserts, reasserts, and attacks the straw man while pretending his position is already correct.

Okay. If we're gonna disqualify Simonides or Tischendorf for lying, then they're both disqualified.
Tischendorf, however, didn't claim to write the manuscript, did he??????

This is a false equialency fallacy shining large. It's like saying that if one person speeds and another person has a wreck and kills someone, both were speeding and therefore it's one and the same.

NO!!!

Only one of these guys was lying about being the author of the manuscripts - which is what the debate is about.

(He goes on a pre-programmed rant against Tischendorf).
56:28 - "Simonides might have fudged a couple of. His story is essentially ironclad, most of it.
He lied about writing it alone - even you admit that.

He lied about seeing it on Sinai already stained in 1852 - even Daniels admit that.

He lied about his birth date.

He lied about writing a book about writing Sinaiticus.

He lied about his so-called letter thanking him for the MS in August 1841.

There is literally nothing ironclad about his story EXCEPT for the fact he didn't write Sinaiticus.


57:00 - Avery then says that Snapp wants to say what a terrible liar, oh, he wants to take a point

"When you say that Simonides was a liar and a forger and a this and a that, won't you recognize the following three stages of Simonides?
1) He worked on other manuscripts in 1840 and 1841 it's documented at Mount Athos

Why is Avery hiding the fact we documented here as well as here that EVEN BY SIMONIDES' OWN ADMISSION he was not on Athos when Avery claims he was????

When Avery claims Simonides was on Athos AT A TIME EVEN SIMONIDES SAYS HE WASN'T......whom do you believe to know more about one's own personal travels, the one making them or the one making wrong assertions 181 years later?

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

11) Where was Simonides on March 27, 1841?

a) Simonides says he had left Athos in November 1840 and NOT returned by the time he got a letter from Constantius in August 1841

b) but the SART team tells us that the Lampros Catalog entry of that date proves he was there on that date.

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

Avery at this point goes with the filler material about Lampros and Kallinikos yadda yadda
At this point, Avery is going with "he wasn't a forger at that point"
The Simonides who may have worked on the manuscript, this has nothing to do with allegations of forgeries

This is the OJ Simpson lawyers talking about him winning the Heisman Trophy and pretending that means he didn't kill his ex-wife.

"They have nothing to do with what he did when he was 15 years old"
Another assertion that he wrote it.

ANd the third stage is 1859, when he first began to talk about the MS
Which begs the question how he didn't recognize his own work (the CFA) at Leipzig in 1856.

58:45 - at this point, even the moderator is eligibile for Medicare and tells him to ask the question
This is how you know one is losing the debate - instead of asking direct questions, they fill their question with assertions of fact that aren't facts.

"Do you agree the three stages of Simonides's life should be looked at independently?"
No.
If a guy kills puppies or animals as a child, it's a pretty indicator he might well become a serial killer (or nowadays a mass shooter) because you cannot compartmentalize things like this. This is a pathetic way of trying to say "any lies he told at Athos have nothing to do with other lies he told," which is ludicrous.

59:16 - Snapp rebuttal
1) we only have his word on his youth
2) he was well-known for forgeries, but Snapp makes the point of course he worked at times with authentic MSS
3) the claim he made about Sinaiticus was bogus

Points well made, except I would have thrown in - "EVEN YOU don't accept the idea he wrote Sinaiticus himself."

And my questions would have been right on that point, too.

1:01:51 - Snapp points out WHY Uspenski said what he said
 
DEBATE REVIEW CONTINUED

1:02:33 - Snapp confronts Avery with his own words about Simonides saying "what was convenient." He correctly notes that Simonides simply lied about Hermas because it was all he knew

1:03:35 - "it was not convenient, it was bogus."

Excellent close, makes the point that even Avery is admitting Simonides didn't actually know - ONLY because he didn't write it.

1:03:36 - Snapp question for Avery: why would Simonides claim he wrote the entire manuscript when it is obvious he didn't? (Summarizing). He goes through and lays out the evidence on this quite well. "How do you explain this? I would explain this by 'Constantine Simonides lied.'" How do you hold this position while maintaining that Simonides told the truth?

I would have framed this question differently and far more uncomfortable for Avery's bogus position, but I would also have insisted upon a "yes/no" section of questions, too. Now that being said, this is a well-aimed and formulated question.

"Did Simonides AND the letters attributed to Kallinikos BOTH claim Simonides wrote the manuscript entirely by himself?"

First, he would evade answering, and I'd be compelled to ask the moderator to force him to answer the question. If he said "no," I'd quote the relevant portion of the letters showing he did; if he said "yes," my next yes/no question would be "then isn't it accurate to say he LIED about writing it all by himself?" And either answer at that point would cause Avery some serious problems. AND THIS is his fear of me, not his "you're a mean poster" nonsense, I only hit back when hit first. He's welcome to tone down the insults ANY TIME HE WISHES.

Get ready, Pastor Snapp, for the most ridiculous attempt at answering a pretty straightforward question in world history.

1:04:55 "I will get to your question in a second but..I need to correct something you said about Uspenski."

Stall tactic and debate tactic.
This is what people do when they KNOW they're hung with the question. "Hey, he was wrong about this!"

1:05:12 "but if you read Uspenski's translation.
This man has zero shame
Avery is now in full stall mode.

1:06:12 - at this point he's reached a full minute of argument rather than, you know, answering the question
1:06:25 - "now to your question"
I'll be the judge of that...

1:06:29 - "there's two parts to this question, I'm prepared for one of them.

Admitting you entered a debate unprepared means you lost.

No, he just asked you one question, which is how you explain Simonides wrote the entire thing when it is obvious he didn't other than admitting he lied.

1:06:32 - "the idea that this was a one man procedure was not even "really" stated by Simonides

This statement is 100% false.

"First, I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas.." (9/3/1862 Simonides' first letter)

"I know that I wrote 1,205 pages in eight months and ceased from the work only because the skins failed.." (Simonides 1/21/1863)

Avery either does not know this or he's saying something he knows isn't true.
Bear in mind that this is but just two of what are 10-12 examples of claims Simonides wrote it on his own.

1:06:39 'He mentioned other people like Theophylact....Dionysius...as having worked at least on the corrections
But he never said they wrote the codex...nor is there any evidence such persons actually existed.

1:06:51 - "when he talked about Benedict..."
Avery further claims Simonides said Benedict moved to Athos in 1810, but the Stewart biography shows he moved in 1831, fleeing because of the assassination of Capodistrias.

1:07:12 - we are now two minutes into the 3 minutes and Avery has yet to answer the question he was asked.

1:07:23 - "there was multiple takes on creating Sinaiticus"
Which to normal people shows at least one of those "takes" is a lie.


1:07:28 - "it was not an OFF HAND job..."
Uh, Simonides himself claimed he did it himself.
So did the letters Simonides attributed to Kallinikos
(At 1:07:32, you can note Avery's borderline rage of discomfort - because he's caught).

1:07:35 - "gave himself a little bit more credit than he deserved"
In other words, he LIED, which is the point Snapp is making here. Not only that but it contradicts the claim you made just 63 seconds ago - THAT HE NEVER CLAIMED THIS!!!

1:07:38 - "he did a lot of scribal work on it"
He DID?
And you have PROOF of this???

1:07:39 - "he didn't really prepare it"
But he said he did.

"I selected...the parchment..." (Simonides, 9/3/1862)

"Having examined the principal copies...I began... (Ibid)

1:07:41 - "He wasn't the only scribe"

But he said he was - and the question you have STILL NOT ANSWERED is the one you were asked.

1:07:42 - "He made himself a little bit more important"
By...claiming he wrote it himself, which you claim he never said.

1:07:54 - "It's all pretty irrelevant"
The guy arguing Simonides wrote Sinaiticus is saying it's irrelevant what Simonides's actual contributions were to....Sinaiticus

1:07:57 - "he referenced other people who worked on it"
He never said they wrote the text...

1:08:00 - "and he referenced EXTENSIVELY the decade long background of Benedict in preparation"
He also EXPLICITLY referenced "hey, I wrote this thing in EIGHT MONTHS!!!"
More than once!!!

1:08:07 - so it was not an offhand job of his. I'd like YOU, though, to accept that correction about Uspenski
You would never have said this with me - I would absolutely devour you on this - and you know it.
Bell rings - and Avery has never even attempted to answer the question he was asked.

1:0824 - Steven's question to James now.
Delay due to the moderator having trouble finding the slide James requests
 
1:08:07 - so it was not an offhand job of his. I'd like YOU, though, to accept that correction about Uspenski



You would never have said this with me - I would absolutely devour you on this - and you know it.



Bell rings - and Avery has never even attempted to answer the question he was asked.



1:0824 - Steven's question to James now.



Delay due to the moderator having trouble finding the slide James requests



1:09:39 - Snapp shows "I copied out" from the original letter, refuting Avery's false claim that Simonides never said this



Snapp summarizes that the only stuff Simonides even knew about Sinaiticus was.....what Tischendorf told him. Correctly notes that if Simonides HAD, in fact, written the entire book, he would have said so.



1:11;17 - Simonides is a liar



1:11:22 - Snapp restates the same question - "How do you explain - without calling Simonides a liar - these lies?

Good job, Pastor Snapp. Stay on him until he admits the truth.



1:11:30 - "Well again, I will just repeat myself again.




1:11:35 - admits Simonides lied but in a backhanded theoretical way




1:11:46 - Snapp cuts in an levels him with the point that if Simonides HAD actually written it, he would have said so. Right or wrong?

Snapp pushes the question at Avery like a prosecutor while Avery sips whatever is in his glass



1:11:59 - Avery rudely then says, "Let me know when you get done asking the question and I'll answer."



He's only asking it a second time because you never answered the question asked the first time.




1:12:02 - "Here's my question - why, if Simonides had written the entire book of Hermas, would he have not said" and summarizes the accurate points.



I'm sure at this point, Avery is thinking "this wuth not a good idea on my part."



1:12:24 - Avery: "assuming he remembered what happened...22 years earlier



But you want us to believe he remembered who HELPED HIM and everything else about it but NOT what he wrote about Hermas.



1:12:30 - Avery - "Assuming he said what was convenient or he lied that would not mean" and then Avery tells us that people are committing a fallacy of composition



Well, he's correct; the "fallacy of composition" is that Simonides committed a fallacy when he said he composed ALL of Sinaiticus, LOL!!!



1:12:39 - "his general story was true"

except for him lying about writing all of it and lying about, well, everything else INCLUDING his birth date



1:12:42 - Avery now tells us - brazen at this is - that if Snapp uses the fallacy that Simonides lied, you have to dismiss everything Tischendorf said



Avery now starts to raise his voice in fear of the reality even he knows he's out to lunch on the subject.



This response is so brain dead - I'm guessing because Snapp is pummeling him effectively at this point - that Avery STILL HAS NOT ANSWERD THE QUESTION ASKED!!



1:12:55 - Avery raises his voice to talk about a "BRAZEN lie" from Tischendorf



Does Avery not realize that when you're the one defending the lying Simonides, your situational ethics mean your objection is moot?



Avery then goes on the pre-rehearsed rant about Tischendorf lying and stealing, not once documenting it.




1:13:35 - 'one minor issue about where Hermas stopped'

If that was the ONLY lie he told....but it wasn't



Avery then commits the all or nothing fallacy but inversely



1:13:50 "a lot of his story is verifiable"

Reality - NONE of his story is verifiable!



Here comes the list



The Lampro catalog



1:14:04 -Snapp notes the question isn't whether Tischendorf was a bastion of complete integrity and points out the subject is whether or not Sinaiticus is a fake. "Everything about his (Simonides's) story does not add up." Snapp summarizes the point - if Simonides had actually written the manuscript, he'd know whether or not he only wrote 1/3 of Hermas. Snapp notes that Simonides's claim that he didn't write all of Hermas "because the skins failed" is not true.



1:15:28 - Snapp - "you're trying to say he FORGOT WHAT HE WROTE?" (KNOCKDOWN - go to the corner, Snapp, for the mandatory standing 8 count...if he gets up)



PRE-posterous!!! (Avery looks like he wishes he was somewhere else)



1:15:39 - "I didn't say he forgot it"

Uh, you didn't use the word "Forgot," you used the words "assuming he remembered what happened" (1:22:24) and YOU WERE 100% SUGGESTING HE FORGOT!!!!



Then Avery goes back with "assuming he rememered it" (and Avery is saved by the bell) at 1:15:45



CLOSING STATEMENTS (5 MIN EACH)



1:17:52 - Avery thrusts with issues "we have not discussed".

You could have insisted on a longer debate - but we know why you didn't.



Avery summary - the staining (the two parts), the three crosses note and he goes on about what he thinks this must mean, "and nobody has really discussed this in scholarship circles



You had Snapp quote it from the Parker book. DO YOU NOT REMEMBER THAT PART????

By "nobody has discussed" he means "nobody doesn't really mean nobody"



1:19;14 - "the whole fourth century thing is phony bologna"

The debate isn't about the 4th vs 6th century; it's about Simonides writing it in the 19th century



beyond coloring, Maximw, beyond 3 crosses note, the lack of provenance, we have the incredible coincidence of the Simonides-Hermas, we have the linguistic attack on that by Tischendorf



Who had no problem using that very argument to date it to the.....fourth century......




1:19:53 - amazing condition, unparalleled, fishy discovery story



But he believes the far more fishy "I wrote it" story.



1:20:04 - "alternate production story holds up quite well"



Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha



The Lampro catalog that substantiates Simonides, Benedict, Kallinikos working together at exactly the right time, we have Morozov saying it isn't old (but even he says it's older than 70 years at the time), Simonides had nothing to gain, the revenge idea is quite weak, the impossible knowledge (get ready for his example)



He's talking out of both sides of his mouth here. Out of one, he's suggesting Simonides might have forgotten the details, out the other - he knew details nobody could know!!



1:21:06 - Kallinikos said Tischendorf had stolen the manuscript! And nobody knew about that!



Neither did Kallinikos given he was a phantom



1:21:11 - nobody wrote about that! How did he know that? Because he was there! And somebody told him or he saw it

That's not what he said. He said he saw it.



1:21:20 - a lot of impossible knowledge about that, the history from Simonides and Kallinikos to support their story, far more important than whether Simonides might have fudged something.



"It doesn't matter to me that Simonides lied. In fact, I'm gonna lie and say he didn't tell the lie he did, in fact, tell!"



1:21:37 - let's assume Simonides said some things that were wrong

You mean, lied?



1:21:38 - so did Tischendorf!

Not the issue. And you know this isn't the issue.



finishes by claiming it was a team project in 1840



Avery is basically yelling at the end, presumably trying to cover his weak argument with false assurance, ends at 1:23:18



1:23:49 - Snapp closing statement. Reiterates the Hermas issue and Simonides not knowing about the fact all of Hermas DID exist. Summarizes the quote from Simonides in the Jan 1863 letter. Notes this proves he didn't write it. Snapp also notes the writing of two different scribes at the ed of Judith and the beginning of Maccabes. Notes Simonides claimed when he started and ended. Snapp also shows the cover sheets, which shows it was made in a scriptoriu in the 4th century. Shows the Simonides quote from 1852 and the claim he saw something he didn't. Shows that Simonides OPPOSED the KJV and TR



(this is the delicious irony given the KJV/TR folks are wanting to claim Simonides



1:26:57 - shows Simonides DID have motive to seek revenge on Tischendorf, who had Simonides arrested from Simonides. Snapp then noted that corrections exist on the basis of an actual exemplar. Cites the page of Hermas NOT in prisitine condition. Appeals to the rebinding, noting that the binding now is new because it was done later.



Ends at 1:29:01



Audience Questions (who cares?)



Gregory is clearly an Avery plant. Don't you love when these people do this (like when Riplinger had Judy Pinalto call James White)..



Avery tells us they ought to test this and that and goes with the "



1:31:27 - an utterly embarrassing face that I imagine is the one you have every time you post.




Snapp is fine with the British Museum using whatever tests they want. Snapp then notes that even if they came back with an old date on the parchment, Avery et al would simply move the goalposts and say "well, yes, the parchment is old but not the contents!" Because Simonides said.



He's absolutely correct on this.



Nick Sayers shows up and thinks this needs to be scientifically examined.

I'd be very interested in which sciences Nick REJECTS but wishes to use here......



1:35:15 - Avery - textual scholarship always run under the presupposition of the Tischendorf date

Will literally tell ANY lie, say anything



And it was the CT side that exposed archaic Mark (but.....you didn't mention that for some reason...)



1:35:35 - "we are looking to make up for the failings of the textual scholars who should have been looking at this years ago."

I'm not sure whether the arrogance of this statement or ignorance is more egregious.



Avery then tries the old "maybe Zosimas was used for the OT', and Snapp calls him out on it.





The ending falls apart. I'm done except for a verdict and review.
 
We all know it doesn't matter.

Avery has been caught red-handed and like everyone else caught red-handed, he points the finger at someone else to blame and ACCUSES THEM of doing what HE is doing (gaslighting folks. Projection).


So even though this will not go any better for him - I knew he was going to do this and prepared this in advance (LOL!) - let's take the full context of his made up stuff:

First of all, the idea that this was a one-man procedure was not even really stated by Simonides. he mentioned other people like Theophylact and I think maybe Dionysius as having worked at least on the corrections but he talked about Benedict. He said, "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" and I'll skip a little here. Or 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." So there was multiple takes on creating Sinaiticus. It was not an offhand job If...if Simonides 20 years after the fact gave himself a little bit more credit than he deserved for what he did when he was (??), he did a lot of scribal work on it. He didn't really prepare it, he wasn't the only scribe. And he made himself a little bit more important because then he made a challenge "pay me 10,000 thalens and I can do so many pages..

Here is a list of his false statements, which are more simply than just the one documented in the first video.

FIRST FALSE STATEMENT
1:06:32 - "First of all, the idea that this was a one-man procedure was not even really stated by Simonides

What did Simonides say?

"First, I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas.." (9/3/1862 Simonides' first letter)

"I know that I wrote 1,205 pages in eight months and ceased from the work only because the skins failed.." (Simonides 1/21/1863)

(Wanna know the best part? SIMONIDES SAID THIS IN THE VERY LINK AVERY WAS READING THE QUOTE ABOVE ABOUT 1810 - he just conveniently hid that from the debate).

:)

FALSE STATEMENT #2
1:06:39 - "he mentioned other people like Theophylact and I think maybe Dionysius as having worked at least on the corrections

He dropped names. Never once did he say, "Theophylact wrote the book of Nahum" or anything like that. And guess what he said about Dionysisus? 1) that the job was too big for him; 2) that Dionysius RESIGNED from the monastery as calligrapher

(But sure -he hung around to do corrections)

FALSE STATEMENT #3

1:06:49 - but he talked about Benedict. He said, "Having removed to Mount Athos in 1810 for the sake of retirement,
But this contradicts page 4 of the 1859 Simonides autobiography written under the pseudonym, where he claims that Benedict had to flee to the island in 1831. But hey, what's 21 years among tall tales, right?

and embraced the monastic life in the monastery of Esphigmenos, he was named Benedict" and I'll skip a little here. Or 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."

FALSE STATEMENT #4
So there was multiple takes on creating Sinaiticus."

Avery is hoping nobody notices that the "multiple takes" are from the same lying forger, Constantine Simonides. Furthermore, this statement is false because NOWHERE did Simonides EVER say that anyone but himself actually wrote the TEXT of the manuscript. He did not say Dionysius made corrections (Avery said that).

So, yes - there were multiple "takes" if by "takes" you mean DIAMETRICALLY DIFFERENT STORIES TOLD BY SIMONIDES!!!

But this is also an intentionally misleading statement on Avery's part.

FALSE STATEMENT #5
Note also that Avery is being incredibly disingenuous here by simply quoting a second version of the story by the same guy who lied the first time. Furthermore AVERY COMPLETELY DOESN'T DISCLOSE WHAT THE VERY SOURCE HE'S CITING SAYS JUST A FEW PAGES LATER!!!

Simply go two pages down and you'll see this:

"I undertook this work...I was compelled to understand this work. First, to gratify my uncle; secondly as no one was there at Athos to execute it...I undertook the work and began immediately after the resignation of Dionysius...Besides, the penmanship of the Sinaitic Codex is more my usual style....I know that I wrote 1205 pages..."

The. Very. Source. He's. Reading. Has. Simonides. Saying. He. Alone. Wrote. The. Manuscript.

But Avery HID that from the debate.

FALSE STATEMENT #6
1:07:28 "If...if Simonides 20 years after the fact gave himself a little bit more credit than he deserved

Avery wants us to believe here that Simonides somehow didn't remember:
a) that he only worked on part of the manuscript
b) the names of anyone else who wrote the TEXT with him.

FALSE STATEMENT #7
1:07:36 - "for what he did when he was (??), he did a lot of scribal work on it.
This isn't true at all - Simonides didn't know these things because he didn't work on it.
AA lot" can only be true if when Avery says "a lot", he means "nothing at all."

FALSE STATEMENT #8
he wasn't the only scribe
Of course, because he didn't write it. That being said, he wasn't the only scribe even if he DID write it.

FALSE STATEMENT #9
And he made himself a little bit more important

Nah, he made himself seem to be the only guy that wrote it. You see, when he says "I did 1205 pages in eight months," that means he's making himself the only one who did it.

BOTTOM LINE:
Steven Avery claims Simonides never claimed he did it himself.

FACT:
Simonides DID claim he did it himself.

CONCLUSION:
Steven Avery stated something he knows is not correct. When confronted with this, he gaslights.

ADDENDUM:
The fact Avery NEVER interacts with Simondes making the claim proves EVEN STEVEN AVERY knows he DID make the claim Avery denies he ever made.
 
This is reminiscent of the time ten years ago when Steven Avery got caught pretending he'd read a work he had never opened.
Worse - he could have read the entire thing free online...

AVERY:
Rather than sharing precisely what is in each Old Latin manuscript. After all, often in a study there are only 10 Old Latin manuscripts involved anyway and they are virtually impossible to classify in any regular system.

MAESTROH:
Once again, if you had READ THE ARTICLE you would know the answer to your question.

"What do these editions look like? Their overarching goal is to present as comprehensive and as detailed a picture as possible of the evidence concerning the (Old) Latin Bible up to the ninth century. Consequently, the editions include the redaings of all Latin MSS with an at least predominantly OL text and all Vulgate (Vg) MSS up to the ninth century. In a patristic apparatus every citation from and allusion to the Latin Bible in ecclesiastical writings up to this time are recorded in full." (115).
 
Maestroh said:
My question to you is "isn't it natural to accept this as a scriptorium note"?[/B]
(This was the most wasted time of a question since Roger Mudd asked Teddy Kennedy why he was running for President.
Snapp responds from page 81 Parker and summarizes
Click to expand...

Leaving the question unanswered.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top