Steven Avery
Administrator
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...-catalogue-s-plural.14121/page-4#post-1210344
Not at all.
Simonides knew there was no provenance for the manuscript before 1840. If he made up stories creatively about the trips to Sinai, using his creative writing style, it does not change the basic facts on the ground. Simonides could never change history, and real ancient manuscripts come with history and provenance and often catalogues, like Vaticanus in the 1400s. Simonides knew there was none of that, because he helped the early 1840s delivery of the manuscript to Sinai.
The history supports his fundamental account, including the Spyridon Lambros catalog, the Sinaiticus-sister Athous Hermas published while the SInaiticus Hermas was unknown, and the fact that the Russico Ramblers were in the perfect place at the perfect time to actually make the manuscript.
Did Benedict plan it as a forgery rather than a replica? Probably not, or maybe it was like a baseball trade .. a player to be named later. Was Simonides willing to have Anthimus and Constantius and Callistratus and John Prodromos think it was ancient? Very possibly.
And Simonides had tons of knowledge about the manuscript and the monastery that could only come from his visits, or Kallinikos, or your secret network of spies, being at the monastery.
Tischendorf and SImonides both were capable of making up stories, so that is a wash-out. The historical imperative, and the manuscript itself, tells us that the manuscript came from Mt. Athos, c. 1840.
========
Actually my post above, #68, is the heart of the matter - in line with all the manuscript anomalies and evidences galore.
Any good journalist or historian would understand this — outside of the intense propaganda barrage, “Orange man bad”. That is why Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) as a polymath and Chris Pinto as a journalist easily unraveled the basics, Simaiticus is not an ancient manuscript, and it is a rigged enterprise.
That is why the sublime irony is that we have, even in 2023, a whole cabal of modern hysterical Dindorfs, itching ears willingly fooled by Simonides. “No tests needed, censor the pesky considerations, hand-wave!” We have textual critics willingly duped by the Russico Ramblers, starring Constantine Simonides. And Constantine Tischendorf getting the award as Best Supporting Textual-Critic Actor, spinning faux palaeographic yarns, and keeping the manuscript sections separated and largely hidden. An amazing drama.
The “scholarship” became so deeply entrenched that even after the Codex Sinaiticus Project essentially (accidentally) exposed the charade in 2009, the Sinaiticus antiquity monkeys (simile, not insult) kept their hands firmly over their eyes, with at most tiny peeks.
Simonides could make all the amazing claims (including the aging by coloring) only because he knew the manuscript only had poof provenance, arising after 1840. He knew the coloring by the history, not visually, and it was confirmed in 2009, with the two sections comparable.
And truly ancient manuscripts come with history and provenance, written records and catalogues and passed-down explanations and internal proofs. Perfect New Testaments so not pop up in desert sands after 1,500 years of non-history.
A bunch of Greek and Arabic writers did have fun trimming and correcting and playing with the manuscript from 1840 to the 1844 colophons to the 1859 finishing touches. Voila!
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...-catalogue-s-plural.14121/page-4#post-1210344
Not at all.
Simonides knew there was no provenance for the manuscript before 1840. If he made up stories creatively about the trips to Sinai, using his creative writing style, it does not change the basic facts on the ground. Simonides could never change history, and real ancient manuscripts come with history and provenance and often catalogues, like Vaticanus in the 1400s. Simonides knew there was none of that, because he helped the early 1840s delivery of the manuscript to Sinai.
The history supports his fundamental account, including the Spyridon Lambros catalog, the Sinaiticus-sister Athous Hermas published while the SInaiticus Hermas was unknown, and the fact that the Russico Ramblers were in the perfect place at the perfect time to actually make the manuscript.
Did Benedict plan it as a forgery rather than a replica? Probably not, or maybe it was like a baseball trade .. a player to be named later. Was Simonides willing to have Anthimus and Constantius and Callistratus and John Prodromos think it was ancient? Very possibly.
And Simonides had tons of knowledge about the manuscript and the monastery that could only come from his visits, or Kallinikos, or your secret network of spies, being at the monastery.
Tischendorf and SImonides both were capable of making up stories, so that is a wash-out. The historical imperative, and the manuscript itself, tells us that the manuscript came from Mt. Athos, c. 1840.
========
Actually my post above, #68, is the heart of the matter - in line with all the manuscript anomalies and evidences galore.
Any good journalist or historian would understand this — outside of the intense propaganda barrage, “Orange man bad”. That is why Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) as a polymath and Chris Pinto as a journalist easily unraveled the basics, Simaiticus is not an ancient manuscript, and it is a rigged enterprise.
That is why the sublime irony is that we have, even in 2023, a whole cabal of modern hysterical Dindorfs, itching ears willingly fooled by Simonides. “No tests needed, censor the pesky considerations, hand-wave!” We have textual critics willingly duped by the Russico Ramblers, starring Constantine Simonides. And Constantine Tischendorf getting the award as Best Supporting Textual-Critic Actor, spinning faux palaeographic yarns, and keeping the manuscript sections separated and largely hidden. An amazing drama.
The “scholarship” became so deeply entrenched that even after the Codex Sinaiticus Project essentially (accidentally) exposed the charade in 2009, the Sinaiticus antiquity monkeys (simile, not insult) kept their hands firmly over their eyes, with at most tiny peeks.
Simonides could make all the amazing claims (including the aging by coloring) only because he knew the manuscript only had poof provenance, arising after 1840. He knew the coloring by the history, not visually, and it was confirmed in 2009, with the two sections comparable.
And truly ancient manuscripts come with history and provenance, written records and catalogues and passed-down explanations and internal proofs. Perfect New Testaments so not pop up in desert sands after 1,500 years of non-history.
A bunch of Greek and Arabic writers did have fun trimming and correcting and playing with the manuscript from 1840 to the 1844 colophons to the 1859 finishing touches. Voila!
Last edited: