April 12, 2024
Hi David, to think about, you may not agree with this emphasis, it is Uspensky NOT talking of the first part of Hermas
Still no details on Simonides acrostic claims, in the words of Simonides himself! I wonder why? There are some quotes available. However the Falconer Madan sources clearly go beyond what was in the Journals. Plus the actual tracings referred to by Simonides were available into the 20th...
forums.carm.org
============================
Page 273: “I therefore took possession of this book, and prepared it by taking out the leaf containing the discourse, and by removing several others injured by time and moths, after which I began my task. First, I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of the pastoral writings of Hermas in capital letters (called uncial characters) in the style known in caligraphy [sic] as αμφιδεξιος (amphidexios). The transcription of the remaining Apostolic writings, however, I declined, because the supply of parchment ran short,
Page 278: Simonides continued: “The patriarch was, however, absent from home, and I, consequently, left the packet for him with a letter. On his return, he wrote me the following answer:— “‘My dearly beloved Son in the Holy Spirit, Simonides; Grace be with you and peace from God. “‘I received with unfeigned satisfaction your truly valuable transcript of the Holy Scriptures—namely, the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of St. Barnabas and the first part of the pastoral writings of Hermas, bound in one volume, which shall be placed in the library of Mount Sinai, according to your wish.
So that would make Simonides lying every time the first part of Hermas was mentioned. That includes the initial story of how he ran out of parchment as he was working on the codex he selected for the job. So any theory to deal with the extra pittances of broken up papers has to account for that -
even that he might have added something before it went to St. Catherine's the second time, since the ONLY people who would have seen it then are Simonides and whoever carried it to St. Catherines in 1843, as well as Callistratus and the inifidel Kyrillos.
That is still before 1844 or 45 - and it is after Constantius I saw it in 1841.
Which I would say after late 1842 and before May of 1843. That would fit the timeline perfectly, if he tried to do a little more. I would love to know if there are any chemical differences detectable in the vellum of the New Finds pieces, compared to what is bound in Hermas, or even if there is a point where the vellum changes in Hermas in the bound copy.
===========================
Yes, there are 3 major possibilities
1) it was simply first part, this leaves the New Finds with a big ?
2) it was the whole book, this means that some of Simonides writings were simply following the Tischendorf description, including at least the letter from Constantius about Sinaiticus (which was not produced afaik)
3) A hybrid two-step, where the later part is added after 1841
