the first public exposure of the 1844 theft of the white parchment leaves that Tischendorf took from Sinai to Leipzig

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Post Reply
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the first public exposure of the 1844 theft of the white parchment leaves that Tischendorf took from Sinai to Leipzig

Post by Steven Avery »

Today, pretty much everybody who looks at the details of the history of Codex Sinaiticus/Simoneidos will accept that the 1844 extraction by Tischendorf of the white parchment leaves to Leipzig was theft.

The details include:

[a) how Tischendorf wrote to his family, what
b) Uspensky wrote about his 1845 visit, the
c) fact that Tischendorf fabricated the "saved from fire" story 15 years later, when he needed political cover. that
d) the "saved from burning" story itself went up in flames
e) Tischendorf has a documented pattern of theft of manuscripts and pages
f) no hint of permission for the extraction has ever been published (other than Tischendorf's 1860s self-serving account)
g) the 43 folia included five full quires as 40 of the folia, that Tischendorf could easily extract without damage


However, this theft element of the 1844 white parchment leaves that were stashed at Leipzig was unknown at the time (Tischendorf even hid the fact that it was the same manuscript for some years.)

With the exception of the following quotes that were published in the early 1860s.
"A portion of this was secretly removed from Mount Sinai, by Professor Tischendorf, in 1844. The rest, with inconceivable recklessness, he mutilated and tampered with, according to his liking, in the year 1859. Some leaves he destroyed, especially such as contained the Acrostics of Sirnonides..."

The Journal of Sacred Literature (1864-04) from the Literary Churchman, Nov 1, 1863
http://books.google.com/books?id=l7cRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA227
"Simonides... not coming in time, neglected the matter altogether, until Dr. Tischendorf, coming to the Greek monastery of Sinai in 1844, in the month of May (if my memory does not deceive me), and remaining there several days, and getting into his hands, by permission of the librarian, the codex we are speaking of, and perusing and reperusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it, but left the largest portion in the place where it was, and departed undisturbed. And last of all, coming again to the same monastery, he obtained also the remaining portion of it through the Russian Consul, in exchange for hyperbolical promises, never, in my judgment, likely to be fulfilled."

The Journal of Sacred Literature (1863-04) Kallinikos letter from Oct 1, 1962
https://books.google.com/books?id=vvgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA212
That second quote accurately explains what happened in the second (1859) major part of the theft.
"the manuscript in question is now in Mount Sinai ... I saw it there with my own eyes when I was in the Monastery of St. Catherine in 1845 in the month of July, and handled it with my own hands, and found it very defective, and somewhat changed; and when I asked the reason, I understood from Gabriel, the keeper of the treasures, that his predecessor had given the manuscript to a German, who visited the monastery in 1844 in the month of May, and who having had the MS. in his hands several days, secretly removed a part of it, and went away during the time that the librarian lay ill, afflicted with a typhoid fever"

Journal of Sacred Literature, 1863 - letter dated Aug. 1858
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA223
Some of this is included in the Timeline.

PureBibleForum
white parchment
timeline
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 07#post207

Note that the colouring came later than the 1844 theft, in the 1850s.
Two distinct parts of the Tischendorf mangling of the manuscript.

And today we can see the BEFORE and AFTER of the colouring tampering, courtesy of the superb Codex Sinaiticus Project, which makes the crime easily visible. Rarely do we get presented with such an amazing, visible evidence of tampering and/or forgery!

That is covered in a separate set of quotes.

Spot for this post on PureBibleForum:
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 9#post1089

Steven
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: the first public exposure of the 1844 theft of the white parchment leaves that Tischendorf took from Sinai to Leipzi

Post by Maestroh »

I see that rather than engage the issue, you've opted to come running elsewhere. That's fine. You need to understand I can simply re-post your failure to answer the problems.

Folks - we have an individual here with an underlying agenda - Mr Steven Avery Spenser (his REAL name, which he hides by pretending his actual name is Steven Avery - all part of the ruse of phony transparency) is a KJV Onlyist. Hence, he wants to dismiss ALL the evidence that overthrows his pet notion of a pure and perfect English Bible.

He put these quotations on CARM last night.

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theol ... ost5203383

What he DID NOT do is tell you his source - the phantom Kallinikos.

Now - being familiar with this individual's hack non-scholarship, he will again erect the straw man. For reasons known only to him, he has cherry picked a timeline, and he has also quoted a farce. Note carefully what's missing from his quotes - WHOM precisely is being quoted. Of course, that's because the source is an embarrassment to anyone with a scintilla of knowledge of this subject (and no agenda).

He also didn't tell you that I exposed this. This is what you'll find. When you read ANY post by this dude just ask yourself - "What is he NOT telling me?" Scholarship by omission is indeed his trademark.

In the next post we'll get this all straight and maybe since he refuses to answer at CARM, he'll answer here. I doubt it, though.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: the first public exposure of the 1844 theft of the white parchment leaves that Tischendorf took from Sinai to Leipzi

Post by Maestroh »

Avery Spenser heads up the old Frederico-Augustas Research Team (the initials are actually quite fitting if you think about it).

Since he refused to engage the realities that overthrow his cherished myths, I've brought them here. If he's REALLY interested in "learning and sharing" and "iron sharpeneth" then conceding his timeline is a farce is a healthy first step.

(Yes - this is from CARM. See, I'm actually TELLING you BEFORE I do this).


November 1839 - Simonides claims he set sail for Athos from the Piraeus. This means the SOONEST he could have STARTED was November 1839.

April 1840 - monks of Rossico Monastery say that Benedict died.(and unlike anyone today, they were there)

May 1840 - date the bumbling imbecile J.E. Hodgkin claims that Melchisedec (don't ask) claimed Benedict died in his 12/1/1863 retort to Wright (Hodgkin doesn't bother with the fact this yet again contradicts what Simonides AND the biographer said)

August 29, 1840 - date Benedict died according to Simonides's biography (page 8) and Simonides himself says on 1/28/63

August 13, 1841 - date Simonides claims a letter was written by Constantinus (a letter he never produces yet somehow recalls verbatim over 20 years later, chuckle chuckle) and sent to him where Simonides had LEFT it (obviously prior to August 13, 1841....this rules out any trying to expand the time the lying forger Simonides had to work on it.

The dates are now set: he claims AT MOST to have done this in a period of about 18-19 months, a laughably absurd proposal. (He clearly claimed he did it in eight months, so let's aside these mythical time lines for the actual ones as stated by the one claiming to have done it).

November 1841 - Simonides claims he returns to Odessa (unless he lied about that, too)

1844 - Tischendorf takes 43 folia of white, unstained parchment to Leipzig (same colour today) - in "phenomenally good condition"

1845 - in an alleged (but unproven) 1858 letter, Kallinikos the Phantom tells us that the manuscript is already altered....(wonder why this isn't included in this fascinating timeline?)

1846 - Simonides claims he visits Constantius and is told that the document was sent to Mt Sinai

1852 - Simonides claims to have been to Mt Sinai and seen the MS......yet he never mentions ANY of this to his biographer and there is no evidence Simonides was EVER at Sinai. Yet he claims to have seen the manuscript and that someone had altered it to make it look older

February 1, 1856 - "Leipsic,— Today the police of this place arrested the well-known Greek, Constantine Simonides, in compliance with a request from the police director of Berlin, D. Stieter, who came here accompanied by Professor Lepsias. Simonides had received from Professor Lepsius, throng the hands of Professor Dindorf, a sum of ??? in advance of a Palimpsest, most skillfully forged containing three books of Uranioe, an Alexandrian writer, on the most ancient history of Egypt, and the purchase of which had been resolved on by the King of Prussia in compliance with the request of the Berlin Academy, Simonides had himself forged the MS., and had on his person a larger sum than what had been advanced, so that no one has sustained any pecuniary loss from the fraud in question" ("Morning Chronicle," February 8, 1956, 7)

March 3, 1856 - The British Museum bought some of the Simonides scrolls. Sir Thomas Philippe was also a purchaser. Simonides presented himself at the Bodleian, with some genuine MSS. ; his plan being to produce genuine articles first, and afterwards, as he found opportunity, to bring out his other wares. Laying down some real Greek MSS. he asked the librarian to what era they belonged. “ The tenth or eleventh centuries,” replied the scholar. Simonides took heart, and produced what he said was a very ancient MS. “ And what century,” he asked, “ do you think it belongs to.” Our librarian looked quietly in the forger’s face, and answered, “ M. Simonides,, I should think it belong» to the latter half of the nineteenth century." Simonides gathered up his scrolls, and quitted Oxford by an early train ("London Morning News," 3/3/1856, 2).

April 5, 1856 - " It is considered, that the points still to be settled at the Paris Conferences are but of minor importance. Both Count Buol and the Baron Manteuffei are to return to their respective courts. The Austrian and Prussian representatives usually resident at Paris will be left to arrange whatever remains to be agreed on. Simonides, the vendor of factitious Greek manuscripts, was sent from here to Leipzig, as the sale of the manuscript was effected at the latter place. Dondorf, the Leipsic professor, got back his money, and the authorities declined further proceedings. Next day they moved Simonides on to Vienna, where he has a brother." ("RETURN of the PLENIPOTENTIARIES. THE FORGED GREEK MANUSCRIPTS," London Morning News, 4/5/1856, 2).

5 August 1858 - there is an alleged letter from Kallinikos (whoo boy, we have EVIDENCE he witnessed this BEFORE Tischendorf ever got away with Sinaiaticus, LOL!).....in it he says, "I was in the Monastery at St Catherine's in 1845 in the month of July, and handled it with my own hands, and found it very defective, and somewhat changed..."

So this alteration we're being told:
a) Kallinikos is the star witness
b) it was in the 1850s

We NOW know Kallinikos (if this is an actual person and letter) ACTUALLY places the alteration (e.g. the aging) prior to July 1845.

1859 - Tischendorf takes about 350 folia of yellowed, strain and streaky parchment to St. Petersburg - in "phenomenally good condition"

1859 - Simonides's biography - probably an autobiography written under a pseudonym with the same initials (Charles Stewart) - is written to defend him from the charge of forgery. In this biography, not only does it NEVER mention Simonides being involved in this massive project with his uncle, does not mention him writing what came to be called Sinaiticus...DOES NOT CLAIM AUTHORSHIP OF THE CFA that Simonides knew was in Leipzig......but it DOES mention that Tischensdorf had discovered a manuscript that Stewart CLEARLY describes as Sinaiticus and claims they were written in the second century!! (p 61). Yes, I'm now supposed to believe that either: a) Simonides never mentioned this awesome work he did to his own biographer or never disputed the date; or b) Simonides himself wrote the "biography" and ACCEPTED an early date for the manuscript.

This biography, incidentally, was about as worthless as Simonides's claims. His own biography has him as only FIFTEEN years old when he allegedly began work on Aleph. Incidentally (since some wish to make a big deal about alleged letters from Kallinikos and TWO witnesses - there were, in fact, FOUR witnesses to Simonides's only being 15 in 1839: W.A. Wright, Henry Bradshaw, the biographer Stewart (twice in a biography - how in the world can you get it wrong twice?), and his arch defender Hodgkin. (So much for the sure to be said, "Oh, but Wright and Bradshaw were against him." So what in light of his own guys not getting it right). Simonides then blames it on his interpreter, a quite common thing. He's apparently not responsible for anything he says. His birth date is wrong and it's the fault of the biographer......or the interpreter. This happens throughout this whole thing btw. Now....the evidence seems to indicate that Simonides was, in fact, 19. Of course, anyone who actually believes that this guy forged this huge codex has to admit that forging a baptismal certificate (which was the main evidence presented) would not be all that difficult for that same person. I'm just saying.

January 1, 1862 - "Watchman and Wesleyan Advertiser" declares "Simonides...knows nothing about Byzantine art." (1862: 38)

September 3, 1862 - Simonides writes his letter making his grandiose claims. He even tells us he has eyewitnesses who can vouch for him - including Hadji John Prodromos, Constantius, and Hilarion. (Notably missing from his first list of eyewitnesses he never produces: the phantom Kallinikos!). Furthermore, Simonides also tells us - and I quote - "Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a manuscript of the present age." (This means no appeals to "he wrote it to make it LOOK like a fourth century writer" have any merit).

October 16, 1862 - the first letter from Kallinikos the Phantom appears. In it he CLEARLY states he knows ALL of what he knows by - key words here - "all these things, then, I know, BEING ON THE SPOT..." ("I myself saw him with my own eyes, in February 1840, writing it in Athos" - his words about Simonides). Truly amazing.....like Forrest Gump, this idiot Kallinikos is everywhere, too.

1863 - "The Literary Churchman," published by the defender of the forger (John Hodgkin, whose name sounds like a disease) claims TWICE that Simonides is writing a book to refute Tischendorf's claims....and it will be out before Tischendorf returns in May 1863. Tischendorf doesn't return but....there's also never a book. (Apparently, the guy who supposedly wrote the complex Sinaiticus in 19 months couldn't write a simple defense of it in over two years, which should end this nonsensical view to all rational persons).

January 21, 1863 - Simonides VERY CLEARLY states he wrote this by himself in eight months. He offers to prove it if only the inquisitors will deposit $10,000 in his name in the Bank of England. Incidentally, he also refers to himself as TWELVE years old again in 1837.....so we now have five witnesses claiming he was 15 when he did this.

February 2, 1863 - Simonides now tells us that not only was he at Sinai in 1852 (despite there being no evidence of this) but....voila!....he was also there in March of 1844 and saw the WHOLE THING! Amazingly enough, neither of these trips to Sinai is mentioned and there is zero corroborating evidence that either ever happened. (Even if they did - so what?)

February 11, 1863 - W.A. Wright obtains possession of one Kallinikos letter and one by Simonides and shows them together at the Royal Society of Literature. He proves conclusively that Kallinikos and Simonides's letters were written on the same kind of paper, the English writing in the address was identical with another letter by Simonides, and the Greek of Kallinikos's letter was identical with Simonides.....the English evidence is quite important since Simonides has already informed us that Kallinikos does not know a single word of English.

James Farrer, inept researcher that he was, tries to use the old, "Well nobody who was a handwriting expert ever proved they were the same!"

Of course, no handwriting expert ever PROVED they were different, either, now......did they?
More important (since we're going in this whole PROOF argument)......Simonides never produced Kallinikos EVER. He only produced letters he claimed were from Kallinikos. If he had an actual eyewitness then producing him shouldn't have been very difficult at all.

February 16, 1863 - "I shall confirm the genuineness of the letters of Kallinikos by convincing proof, and then I shall prosecute Mr. W. A. Wright for libel."(Simonides lied two more times since neither ever happened).

1867 - Simonides either assumes room temperature or fakes doing so and dies in 1890. Because this, of course, is what truth tellers do - fake their own deaths (he wasn't in MI6 so let's not pretend he was changing his identity in WITSEC).


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


Now just a note here: if he wishes to complain that he never gave me permission to expose his REAL name here, that's true. Of course, I never gave him permission, either. (My apologies in advance as the poster has a tendency to play word games and legalism and never address gaping flaws in his arguments).
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

historical forensics and abounding coincidences

Post by Steven Avery »

According to those against Simonides involvement in making the ms, he was not in Sinai and there was no Kallinikos.

Yet, they, with Benedict, were together in the right place at the right time (Athos, c. 1840) according to the Spyridon Lamprou catalog that was published in 1895 and 1900, long after the 1860s controversies.

Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts on Mount Athos - Vol 1 and 2

Again and again, Kallinikos and Simonides describe perfectly the ms. history. This thread highlighted the knowledge of the 1844 theft and 1859 bogus loan of Tischendorf. They were also right on small details like Tischendorf's bungling Greek. Simonides hit the nail on the head again in dismissing the supposed provenance claims of Sinaiticus being in any ancient catalog in Sinai.

They accurately described something that we can see clearly today, that the ms. was coloured and stained in the period between 1844 and 1859. Rarely does a tampering crime leave such an amazing BEFORE and AFTER evidence, along with a trail of flimsy and changing alibis and cover-ups.

The phantom claim is the idea that all this was just made up blind. Totally absurd. And the principles were just "coincidentally" in Athos at the right time. And just "coincidentally" published a Sinaiticus-related Barmabas in 1843 and a Sinaiticus-related Hermas in 1855.
Both of which show strong evidences of using Latin mss from a later period than when Sinaiticus is supposed to have been made.

A journalist or historian understands this, by historical forensics, which is why Chris Pinto raised the issue before the massive evidences like the 1843 Barnabas edition, the Donaldson linquistics, the sense-line homoeoteleutons that are consistent with Claromontanus as the source, the colour and staining and condition, and so much more, were available as corroboration.

There was plenty of time to do the work, since Benedict had worked on the project for many years in prep work. And had the Zosimas Moscow Bible available as a good starting point on the OT, as pointed out by Simonides. And multiple scribes were involved (Simonides may have been the NT scribe.)

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

Btw, I can respect someone who says "I am not convinced, I see the analysis and probabilities differently." That leads to excellent discussions, iron sharpeneth.

However, someone who says "no evidence" is just a charlatan.

Steven
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: historical forensics and abounding coincidences

Post by Maestroh »

I'll deal with the personal attack first and then unload on you in the following post. I don't expect you to have enough intelligence to abandon your conspiracy theory, but it will entertain everyone else here.
Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm However, someone who says "no evidence" is just a charlatan.

Steven
Charlatan - a person who pretends or claims to have more knowledge or skill than he or she possesses; quack.
http://www.dictionary.com/browse/charlatan

You know, like how YOU:
a) write about Greek grammar yet you don't even know the language (and you don't put a disclaimer on your site)

Example 1 - when you write about concord yet don't have a clue what you're talking about
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... nt-Q-amp-A

b) pretended to have read the Fickermann paper you had not (the site is malicious now but I documented this years ago on the link)

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleve ... t5694.html

c) pretended to read Petzer's work and then offered a critique that made it OBVIOUS you'd never read Petzer's article?

https://www.tapatalk.com/groups/bibleve ... t5503.html



In short, YOU are a charlatan, and the evidence shows it conclusively. (Don't bank on the notion that just because something is no longer on the web that no evidence supports the claim.


In the future, you would do well to drop the pretense.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: historical forensics and abounding coincidences

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm According to those against Simonides involvement in making the ms, he was not in Sinai and there was no Kallinikos.
We thank you for the straw man - please take it back to Oz. You KNEW this when you posted here, too.
Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm Yet, they, with Benedict, were together in the right place at the right time (Athos, c. 1840) according to the Spyridon Lamprou catalog that was published in 1895 and 1900, long after the 1860s controversies.

Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts on Mount Athos - Vol 1 and 2
Uh, you have EVIDENCE that these are one and the same or - like your ridiculous Theophilus proposal - is this one you want everyone to not question your naive assumptions?
Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm Again and again, Kallinikos and Simonides describe perfectly the ms. history.
Uh no.

Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm This thread highlighted the knowledge of the 1844 theft and 1859 bogus loan of Tischendorf. They were also right on small details like Tischendorf's bungling Greek. Simonides hit the nail on the head again in dismissing the supposed provenance claims of Sinaiticus being in any ancient catalog in Sinai.
"Hey everyone, I, Steven Avery, want you to IGNORE the facts that:
a) Simonides lied about seeing the MS altered in 1852
b) I, Steven Avery, LIED about this by omitting it from my history
c) Kallinikos didn't actually write the letters, they were written by Simonides and mailed back"

"IGNORE THIS and buy into my KJV Onlyism!!! I'm BEGGING you!!!"

(Jeez, what a maroon).
Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm They accurately described something that we can see clearly today, that the ms. was coloured and stained in the period between 1844 and 1859. Rarely does a tampering crime leave such an amazing BEFORE and AFTER evidence, along with a trail of flimsy and changing alibis and cover-ups.
I notice you keep ignoring ALL of the alibis and cover-ups by Simonides and yet call yourself a researcher.
Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm The phantom claim is the idea that all this was just made up blind. Totally absurd. And the principles were just "coincidentally" in Athos at the right time. And just "coincidentally" published a Sinaiticus-related Barmabas in 1843 and a Sinaiticus-related Hermas in 1855.
Both of which show strong evidences of using Latin mss from a later period than when Sinaiticus is supposed to have been made.
Only an absolute fool who is dumber than a Flat Earther actually believes that Kallinikos was on Mt Athos and SAW Simonides writing it and then on Sinai THREE TIMES and saw Tischendorf stealing it two separate times and saw him staining it and wrote a bunch of letters and yet.....nobody ever produced him....

Only a complete and utter fool believes that.
Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm A journalist or historian understands this, by historical forensics, which is why Chris Pinto raised the issue before the massive evidences like the 1843 Barnabas edition, the Donaldson linquistics, the sense-line homoeoteleutons that are consistent with Claromontanus as the source, the colour and staining and condition, and so much more, were available as corroboration.
You're simply listing claims you've listed elsewhere and totally ignoring everything that overthrows your prejdice.
Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm There was plenty of time to do the work, since Benedict had worked on the project for many years in prep work.
Once again, you say things that not even Simonides would claim. You are so far off the reservation here that you make HIM sound normal.


Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:34 pm And had the Zosimas Moscow Bible available as a good starting point on the OT, as pointed out by Simonides. And multiple scribes were involved (Simonides may have been the NT scribe.)
You admit Simonides lied when he claimed he did it alone. You won't use those words because you're incapable of evaluating anything but by the strictest black/white standards of ignorant fundamentalism, which you practice.

You admit Simonides lied when he claimed he saw it altered in 1852 (colored). Again, you won't say HE'S lying but boy, Tischendorf? You hate his guts, and it's pretty obvious that you're incapable of impartial judgment.

You're even admitting Simonides lied when he claimed the idea first came up in 1839 by your stretching of the timeline (once again).

It's why nobody who takes truth seriously takes your so-called investigation seriously. You'e begun with your conclusion and reinterpret the facts as you see fit. That might be your definition of journalism, but I find it as repugnant as I find your own form of charlatan practice.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Benedict is the major player in the Simoneidos project

Post by Steven Avery »

Simonides did clearly claim that this had been a long-term project by Benedict, and even mentioned that Benedict had been one of the crew also involved in corrections. David Daniels is doing excellent research to learn more about his life and Bible views and the Athos culture. So quite obviously Simonides was not claiming that it was his project alone, simply that he was a major player. I’ll look for the applicable quotes about Benedict’s involvement when back on the PC later.

Plus, Simonides even pointed out textual details about the project. He discussed a bit about source manuscripts, including the Zosimas Moscow Bible, which led to the OT of Sinaiticus being similar to that of Alexandrinus. The only comment that was made about the Zosimas by the scholars was that its TR text would not be a source for the Sinaiticus NT. Very true.

And it is very possible that Simonides was the scribe who did the whole NT and Barnabas. Especially as he published a closely connected Barnabas edition in Smyrna In 1843. What a “coincidence” :) Similar to the “coincidence” of publishing the Hermas edition in 1855, before Tischendorf even says he knew about the closely connected (see James Donaldson) Hermas in Sinaiticus.

Isn’t that something. Both incredible Greek ECW discoveries in Sinaiticus, “coincidentally” published earlier than the Sinai ms. by ... Simonides.

Can we absolutely prove that the Simonides, Benedict and Kallinikos that were working on mss at Athos at the right time in close proximity in the Athos library, documented in the Spyridon Lamprou catalogues of 1895 and 1900, are the three Codex Simoneidos gentlemen? Of course not. However, the circumstantial evidence is extremely strong. Thus, this was highlighted in the James Anson Farrer excellent article.

Beyond that, it got so that it was likely that they began to look at this manuscript as a first draft. Simonides was criticized for the incomplete aspect. That is a whole nother aspect.

Oh, did you notice that the colour tampering, 1844 BEFORE and 1859 AFTER, can actually be seen today in the CSP pictures. So many “coincidences.” :) And Kallinikos amazingly told us about the colouring, without, supposedly, even existing or having seen the ms. What a “coincidence.” 😊

Oh, and don’t forget to notice the wonderful, supple easy-peasy page turning “phenomenally good condition.” No grime on edges, no foxing, no edge-curling elements that are expected over time on a real ancient ms. used and kept in a warm, dry climate.

Again, I can easily accept someone being unconvinced, and attempting to offer counter-evidences. However, anyone who declares that there is “no evidence” of Simonides involvement is simply a charlatan.

Steven
Post Reply