The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

I was under the impression that Maestroh had fired the silver bullet into Simonides-ism, but it appears that the corpse is still twitching.
 
Last edited:
If he's holding to a dichotomy between the parchment production (meaning, the date when the cattle were breed and grown, slaughtered, skinned, tanned, scraped, processed etc) and a separate production for the writing of the text, then why does he hold his breath for BAM testing?

1) There is a huge difference between the parchment being made in c. AD 1500 and c. AD 300.

2) Many of the tests are independent of the parchment production date, such as the composition of the ink and the ink-parchment interaction. There can also be tests that show the locals where the parchment was situated.

My major point is that C-14 tests are not really the important tests, for many reasons. And since they destroy a tiny piece of parchment, they are used as an out by the British Library as to why they have not done any testing

devious and deceptive way of speaking/writing

That applies well to your convoluted questions.
 
Last edited:
And looking personally at Simonides many existing examples of his calligraphy, he's simply not up to the grade (nor does it match) the hand writing on the Codex Sinaiticus. As Kalliga said, he was a very "clumsy" forger.

The box script of Sinaiticus was exceedingly easy. You can find similar scripts in various manuscripts, and Mt. Athos is manuscript city.
 
The box script of Sinaiticus was exceedingly easy. You can find similar scripts in various manuscripts, and Mt. Athos is manuscript city.
NO!!!

We're not going on a snipe hunt here.

No "hey, maybe there might be thumthing on Athoth" from you.

GIVE EVIDENCE - or just admit you don't have any.

Not my job to hunt down your phantoms.
 
That applies well to your convoluted questions.

Asking you whether a dude dating a manuscript knows anything about dating manuscripts wouldn't bother you if he had any.

Same for the other questions.

Don't stand there with "the only reason you do this is you can't discuss issues" while YOU are the one refusing to answer basic questions.
 
Anyone who watched the discussion with James Snapp would have heard the superb discussion from Kirk DiVietro about Maximo in the Shepherd of Hermas showing that the Sinaiticus Hermas is not an early Greek version. The irony there is that the person who first pointed out this problem was ... Constantine Tischendorf in 1856.

Hermae Pastor. Gr. ed. ex fragmentis Lipsiensibus A.F.C. Tischendorf. Ex ed. Patrum apostolicorum Dresseliana centum exemplis repetitum (1856)
Constantine Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=osAHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR15

Tischendorf made this point before the Hermas Sinaiticus text was known in any detail.
 
Says the foolish pseudo-researcher who can neither read, speak, nor write Greek. Why didn't Dionysis help Simonides then?

There's a probable grain of truth in Benedict's supposed final words to Simonides "don't sell them".

These were likely/possibly a quote of Benedict's real word's at some stage to Simonides, the manuscript thief of Athos.
 
Last edited:
Speaking of Benedict.

What did Simonides say Benedict's age was (birth etc)? What date/dates did Simonides give of his death? Where does someone find Simonides account (or perhaps, later more conveniently adapted accounts) of Benedict's death?
 
The box script of Sinaiticus was exceedingly easy. You can find similar scripts in various manuscripts, and Mt. Athos is manuscript city.

If it was so easy, why did Simonides demand $10,000 (pounds? dollars? = going by memory here) to show a live demonstration of him (supposedly) easily writing the exact script of the Sinaiticus at normal handwriting speed before an audience?

And then chicken out...

A man of integrity would do it for free, would he not👉?👈 Hmmmm

Is this not a kind of extortion👉?👈

Certainly not the actions of a man of integrity. Hmmmm

But certainly the actions of a con-artist and a thief...

This kind of demand certainly fit's perfectly with his criminal profile...

NOTE: There's a difference between sitting down at a desk and hand copying a font for a lithograph, taking as much time as you want to get every curl and stroke correct, compared to doing a live demonstration at normal hand writing speed (which was what was what Simonides was supposed to do - but conveniently chickened out with lame excuses etc).
 
Last edited:
If it was so easy, why did Simonides demand $10,000 (pounds? dollars? = going by memory here) to show a live demonstration of him (supposedly) easily writing the exact script of the Sinaiticus at normal handwriting speed before an audience?
I wonder which part of the manuscript he was planning on demonstrating, since there were undeniably multiple scribal hands and correctors that worked on Sinaiticus.

Jongkind, Milne & Skeat, Myshrall, Lake, Parker, Paulson, and numerous others have all done detailed analyses of the various writing peculiarities from scribe to scribe and corrector to corrector.

Different quirks in how individual Greek letters were written.

Different corinis (signatures) at the end of the books.

Different notation styles.

Different ways of adding omitted portions of a verse.

Different ways the text was corrected.

The colophons at the end of Ezra and Esther.


........All of which is impossible if Sinaiticus is a 19th century production that Simonides wrote himself, like he claimed, as a gift for the Czar.

Avery won't touch this aspect of the history of Sinaiticus for obvious reasons.

He'll waste page upon page writing about the coloring nonsense, while conveniently saying nothing about the color of Fuldensis (it's white)

...but that's all he's got.

1) the lies of Simonides
2) his manuscript color straw man

The professionals who have seen it, handled it, and can read it are "dupes."

The near octogenarian who has never seen it, has never handled it, and who can't read it is on the cutting edge of truth with his self proclaimed "research team."

And up is down.
Left is right.
KJVOs are scholars.
 
Last edited:
My specific questions:

https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-31#post-972004

So, is the Codex Sinaiticus parchment itself, to you personally, an A.D. 1500's production (meaning grown, processed/tanned, prepared A D. 1500's)👉?👈

Or, is the Codex Sinaiticus parchment itself, to you personally, an A.D. 1800's production (meaning grown, processed/tanned, prepared A.D. 1800's)👉?👈

Or, is the Codex Sinaiticus parchment itself, to you personally, an A.D. 400's production (meaning grown, processed/tanned, prepared A.D. 400's)👉?👈

Your reply:

https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-31#post-972018

This is a good estimation.
 
So, is Mr Avery saying that the vellum/parchment of the Codex Sinaiticus came into existence (i.e. was made = cattle/sheep grown, slaughtered, skinned, tanned, processed/prepared etc) perhaps less than a hundred years before the King James Version, 1611?

Upon what scientific basis can he possibly arrive at this date?

After all.. he is arguing for a scientific inquiry, is he not? 👉💥💥BAM BAM💥💥👈;)👌
 
Last edited:
Does Mr Snapp know about his dating of the parchment "production"?

Did Steven bring up his dichotomy of dating between the parchment and the text during the debate?

He should have... it's a key issue, is it not?
 
Last edited:
Does Mr Snapp know about his dating of the parchment "production"?

Did Steven bring up his dichotomy of dating between the parchment and the text during the debate?

He should have... it's a key issue, is it not?

I haven't watched the whole thing.

It's a fair presentation of reality on one side - and the mindless meandering seen in a blizzard of ignorant posts on the other.

Imagine seeing the CARM threads being read by Walter Matthau but less articulate.
 
Back
Top