The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Steven why don't you say it was a fifth century A D. "short discourse" and "panegyric" parchment, with a 19th century A.D. "Zosamos(?) Septuagint" etc text?

That would have been much more than a millennium, not just many centuries.

The text was a 19th century Zosimas brothers, etc. text, which is why Sinaiticus kinship is with Alexandrinus.
 
So your correcting Simonides by overwriting his "MANY CENTURIES" with "A FEW" CENTURIES.

Please explain clearly how and by what process "MANY" centuries becomes "A FEW" centuries?
 
Last edited:
If (following your theory) Simonides did remove all the parchment pages (and bits of pages) "much injured by time" in his saga of the "prepared many centuries ago" manuscript; and let us indulge momentarily the engregios fairytale that Tischendorf yellowed the parchment with either lemon juice and/or herbal solutions. This still doesn't explain the reality of the gradual and multiperson discovery of what has been found at Sinai (in multiple book bindings, sealed rooms, and different places in the complex) i.e. many many pages of the Sinaiticus parchment which are indeed "much injured by time", real time!

Your trying to make it look like there's only the "exceptional quality" pages, whereas, there are many many pages which are simply mangled and mashed up "by time".

The reality doesn't jive with all the bad bits removed idea - at all. Your trying to sweep all the damaged pages under the carpet and yell "exceptional condition" "exceptional condition" bla bla bla!!!
 
Even when I thought wrongly that Sinaiticus was authentic, I still knew it was a blunderama manuscript. (Emphasis added)

So you admit you were prejudiced >> against << the Sinaiticus, even before you discovered Simonides story.

Now, that's a keeper. ?☝️

That is context - Mr Avery!
 
Last edited:
So you admit you were prejudiced >> against << the Sinaiticus, even before you discovered Simonides story.

Very simple.
I had read John William Burgon.

Similar is James Hardy Ropes.

The Acts of the Apostles: The text of Acts, by J.H. Ropes (1926)
James Hardy Ropes (1866-1933)
https://books.google.com/books?id=8HTLwvfUpSkC&pg=PR48

Codex Sinaiticus is carelessly written, with many lapses of spelling due to the influence of dialectal and vulgar speech, and many plain errors and crude vagaries. Omissions by homeoteleuton abound, and there are many other careless omissions. All these gave a large field for the work of correctors, and the manuscript does not stand by any means on the same level of workmanship as B.

Common knowledge.
 
This de facto confession from Tischendorf was also published in 1856, 1860, 1869, 1875,1880 and 1887. However, it is most significant in 1850 and 1856, prior to the 1859 heist. The first time it was noted in any writing on Sinaiticus was the last couple of days. :)

Putting aside the New Finds fragments, according to the CSP the following showed up in 1859, and are related to the duplicate section. This would be part of the "superfluous" text. However, in 1850 Tischendorf did not know about leaves and fragments that were brought out in 1859 and 1975.

Q34-8r - BL - 1 Chronicles 9:27 - 10:11 (duplicate)
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?book=7&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Q34-8v BL - 1 Chronicles 10:11 - 11:22 (duplicate),
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=8&lid=en&quireNo=34&side=r&zoomSlider=0

So did Tischendorf discard three leaves?
 
Very simple.
I had read John William Burgon.

Similar is James Hardy Ropes.

The Acts of the Apostles: The text of Acts, by J.H. Ropes (1926)
James Hardy Ropes (1866-1933)
https://books.google.com/books?id=8HTLwvfUpSkC&pg=PR48

Codex Sinaiticus is carelessly written, with many lapses of spelling due to the influence of dialectal and vulgar speech, and many plain errors and crude vagaries. Omissions by homeoteleuton abound, and there are many other careless omissions. All these gave a large field for the work of correctors, and the manuscript does not stand by any means on the same level of workmanship as B.

Common knowledge.
So instead dealing with the ancient manuscript as it is you listen to a liar's View and make it into something that it is not. Why not be like Burgon, instead of Simionides. If you listen to simonides you become like simonides, and not like Burgon.
 
So instead dealing with the ancient manuscript as it is you listen to a liar's View and make it into something that it is not. Why not be like Burgon, instead of Simionides …
Burgon did not have access to the ms.

It was the Leipzig Library while pulled out of the testing, so that is where you should be concerned with “dealing with the manuscript”.

Do you become a liar like Tischendorf simply because you support the authenticity of the ms.?
 
Last edited:
Very simple.
I had read John William Burgon.

Similar is James Hardy Ropes.

The Acts of the Apostles: The text of Acts, by J.H. Ropes (1926)
James Hardy Ropes (1866-1933)
https://books.google.com/books?id=8HTLwvfUpSkC&pg=PR48

Codex Sinaiticus is carelessly written, with many lapses of spelling due to the influence of dialectal and vulgar speech, and many plain errors and crude vagaries. Omissions by homeoteleuton abound, and there are many other careless omissions. All these gave a large field for the work of correctors, and the manuscript does not stand by any means on the same level of workmanship as B.

Common knowledge.
So instead dealing with the ancient manuscript as it is you listen to a liar's View and make it into something that it is not. Why not be like Burgon, instead of Simionides. If you listen to simonides you become like simonides, and not like Burgon.
Burgon did not have access to the ms.

It was the Leipzig Library while pulled out of the testing, so that is where you should be concerned with “dealing with the manuscript”.

Do you become a liar like Tischendorf simply because you support the authenticity of the ms.?
I am not a liar for seeing the ancient manuscript for what it is. A 4th century New Testament as acknowledged by all scholars. Simonides is the liar. And when you spread his lies you are unable to deal with the ancient manuscript for what it is. In other words, you attack the Word of God, as poor of a copy as it is.
 
I am not a liar for seeing the ancient manuscript for what it is.

Tischendorf brazenly lied, claiming in 1859 that he saved the ms. from the flames in 1844. Tischendorf actually pulled out intact quires in his theft.

By your logic, you are a liar if you support the Tischendorf claims.

What is your opinion of the three crosses scriptorium note, pointing out the blunder the scribes had made?
 
Steven Avery said:
Even when I thought wrongly that Sinaiticus was authentic, I still knew it was a blunderama manuscript. (Emphasis added)

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
So you admit you were prejudiced >> against << the Sinaiticus, even before you discovered Simonides story.

Now, that's a keeper. ?☝️

That is context - Mr Avery!
TwoNoteableCorruptions asks
Did you get that Buzzard?

Did you see how Steven's preconceived prejudices are heavily invested in this?
============================================

Yep; we are all "Waysiders" in one way or the other
at least Steven recognizes it and has dealt with it
and it is very true

Lk.6:39
He also told them this parable:
Can the blind lead the blind?
Will they not both fall into a pit?
40 The student is not above the teacher,
but everyone who is fully trained

will be like their teacher.
NIV

Imperative we chose our ""Teachers"" wisely
lest we also
IE: Will they not both fall into a pit
that same pit
/
 
Last edited:
Tischendorf brazenly lied, claiming in 1859 that he saved the ms. from the flames in 1844. Tischendorf actually pulled out intact quires in his theft.

By your logic, you are a liar if you support the Tischendorf claims.

What is your opinion of the three crosses scriptorium note, pointing out the blunder the scribes had made?
One thing is absolutely certain, the notes were made by ancient scribes and not simionides. Simonides was not even born when Codex Sinaiticus was made and corrected throughout the centuries as later Byzantine scribes made it into a better Bible. Tischendorf was correct that it was a fantastic find of an ancient Bible.
 
Including Alexandrinus or the Moscow Bible, which is only further proves the point Simonides didn't write it.
Thank you for pointing that out!

Of course neither Zosimas or Alexandrinus are a twin, since there were multiple sources used. They do have a textual affinity with Sinaiticus.
 
Tischendorf brazenly lied, claiming in 1859 that he saved the ms. from the flames in 1844. Tischendorf actually pulled out intact quires in his theft.

You don't know this.

By your logic, you are a liar if you support the Tischendorf claims.

Your ability to debate this subject is so poor that you keep repeating the same straw man argument - mostly, because YOU are the one wanting desperately to believe this is nothing but a 19th century sexual harassment case of "he said/he said," and it isn't.

This is your tactic of gaslighting to prevent scrutiny of your position.

Of course, your refusal to coherently attempt to answer the basic questions in this thread is pretty much a decisive refutation of your position anyway. NOTHING speaks louder to the known wrongness of the advocate of a wrong position as a refusal to answer BASIC questions.



What is your opinion of the three crosses scriptorium note, pointing out the blunder the scribes had made?

Gee, your very description would tell everyone around that this fact alone means SIMONIDES DIDN'T WRITE IT HIMSELF.

And my opinion and yours doesn't matter.

This is the OJ defense team trying to go with, "Yes, we know our client has no alibi for his whereabouts at the time of the murder (having given no less than 3 completely different versions - you know, like Simonides), we know he has no reasonable answer for how his blood is on the victims and how the victims's blood is in his Bronco. But you see, one of the lab tests showed EDTA on the chemical readout - and since EDTA is found as a preservative in blood tubes, WE CLAIM THIS PROVES the blood was planted by police!"

(Never mind that EDTA is found in detergent, you know, like on socks, and is also found in paint thinner, you know, like on freshly painted gates).

This is the law school dictum being followed:

"If you have the facts on your side, argue the facts
If you have the law on your side, argue the law;
If you have neither the facts nor the law on your side - CONFUSE the jury!"

That's all that's going on here.

The facts are not on Avery's side.
Neither is any meaningful application of logic in line with any law.

So we get irrelevancies designed to confuse.
 
Of course neither Zosimas or Alexandrinus are a twin, since there were multiple sources used. They do have a textual affinity with Sinaiticus.

What were the names of these so-called multiple sources?
And where are they?

And what proof do you have beyond "Simon Said" for this?
 
What were the names of these so-called multiple sources?
And where are they?

Covered earlier.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/is-the-worlds-oldest-bible-a-fake.11375/page-15#post-925581

We know where is the Zosimas edition, and various Alexandrinus editions.

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

Do you have a theory as to why the Claromontanus text matches the Sinaiticus homoeoteleutons perfectly in a number of spots?

Do you have a theory as to why the Sinaiticus corrector is so close to HPaul?
 
What is your opinion of the three crosses scriptorium note, pointing out the blunder the scribes had made?

Gee, your very description would tell everyone around that this fact alone means SIMONIDES DIDN'T WRITE IT HIMSELF.
And my opinion and yours doesn't matter.

So you do not have any theory as to this scriptorium note explaining the scribal blunders?

Why do you think my description prevents Simonides from being the author?
(We know there was more than one scribe, if that is your point.)

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

And how about the three leaves that Tischendorf in 1850 said had been long destroyed?
Did Tischendorf do the discarding?
 
Back
Top