Timeline Simonides 1852 and Kallinikos 1853

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM

1. Why does David believe Simonides was lying about his, allegedly 2nd, 1852 trip to St. Catherine's Monastery?
From the Kindle edition p. 352-353:

His statements of the changes to the Codex violate the timeline:

Simonides said that in 1852 the Codex was . .much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have....” And yet Tischendorf knew what the Codex had looked like in 1844. Had the Codex been changed by the time he saw it in 1859, Tischendorf would have known the difference between what he took in 1844 and its present condition, and certainly he would have called attention to it.

In 1853 Tischendorf went back to St. Catherine’s. During that time he got no sight of the Codex. The previous time he was there was 1844. But Tischendorf couldn’t have colored the Codex then, since 1) his own CFA is white, not yellowed, and 2) Porfiry Uspensky, seeing it in 1845, said it was white. That leaves (as we saw before) only 1859 for the coloring/aging of the Codex.

But Simonides’ statement shows that he does not know that most or all of at least 18 books of the Bible were missing! How can you forget to state that? And we know the state of the Codex. Porfiry Uspensky saw it in 1845 and 1850. He wrote a full description that was printed in 1856. That description exactly matches what was in the Codex in 1859 —except that by the time Tischendorf had it in Cairo, it had become yellowed, and it had Arabic notes.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
CARM

I think you mean was not ..

Who Faked the "World's Oldest Bible"?
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ap83EAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA25
Kindle Edition
p. 272-274

From the Journal of Sacred Literature with added titles, commentary and emphasis from David and I added the one color note
https://books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA212

Simonides Given a Limited Time to Respond

Kallinikos also said that Simonides had not come "in time.” There was a time frame set for Simonides to finish this project. And he was a no-show, even when asked by Constantius, the head of his religion!

Tischendorf Saw the Codex Numerous Times

Kallinikos had Tischendorf’s number. He knew that the wily German had been “perusing and reperusing" the Sinaiticus. That’s in line with Tischendorf’s testimony about Kyrillos/Cyril, the librarian. Kyrillos let him take any manuscripts he wanted to his room. But I think Kyrillos wanted to be paid for anything that Tischendorf decided he wanted to remove from the monastery. So he probably wasn’t happy when he discovered that Tischendorf had stolen 5 quires and 3 folia out of the Codex!

Tischendorf’s Insincere Promises

Kallinikos went on:

"And last of all, coming again [in 1859] to the same monastery, he [Tischendorf] obtained also the remaining portion of it through the
Russian Consul, in exchange for hyperbolical promises, never, in my judgment, likely to be fulfilled." 242

He was so right! The monks of St. Catherine’s still don’t have the codex in their possession in the 21st century. But note that Kallinikos said "coming again," not “coming a third time.” I don’t think Kallinikos was in St. Catherine’s in 1853, during Tischendorf’s second trip to the monastery.

Kallinikos Was a Primary or Secondary Eyewitness

“All these things I know, having been on the spot...”

This was mistranslated: it should say “intimately," or “from my residing in the vicinity" 243

"And I declare them now openly for the sake of truth. And I further declare that the codex which Dr. Tischendorf obtained is the identical codex which Simonides wrote[,] about twenty-two years ago, and none other; inasmuch as I saw it in the hands of Tischendorf, and recognized the work; and I first informed Simonides, who was previously in ignorance thereof, of the abstraction [removal] of his codex from the library of the monastery of Mount Sinai.” 244

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

242) JSL Vol. 3 (1863), pp. 212. Emphasis mine.

243) On Dec. 23,1862 (JSL Vol 3, p. 221), Frederick Field wrote that the phrase "on the spot” was translated incorrectly. He wrote:

"In The Guardian, of Dec. 10, Mr. W. A. Wright remarks, sneeringly, on the wonderful coincidence of Callinicus being on the spot, when Tischendorf
visited Mount Sinai in 1844, and again at his second visit in 1853." But I can not see anything like this in the letter, as printed by you. The writer only says, in conclusion, that he knows all these things έκ του πλησίον [ek tou plesion]; that is, I suppose, either intimately, or from my residing in the vicinity." So even if Kallinikos were told by an eyewitness monk, for instance, Kallinikos would still be writing the truth here.

244) JSL Vol. 3 (1863), p. 212. Emphasis mine.

Notice how Frederick Field (1801-1885) a top scholar, could tell that William A. Wright was not an honest broker, which I have pointed out numerous times.

As for your question, TNC, it looks like David sees Kallinikos as a secondary witness to 1853, in line with Frederick Field's translation correction.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Halfline goes with other acrostics and Genesis 24
-Ίίιμ&νίδυυ rb 2λον tpyov
Published 1863
Journal of Sacred Literature - also British Quarterly Review
https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA212


1703461469584.png
 
Top