Steven Avery
Administrator
Placed on CARM:
Simonides reports on Sinaiticus before the supposed red cloth Tischendorf discovery
theory consistent with Simonides-Kallinikos declaration of involvement in Sinaiticus
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthre...rf-discovery&p=7468353&viewfull=1#post7468353
And related to our discussion here:
Simonides reports on Sinaiticus before the supposed red cloth Tischendorf discovery
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/b.113
=========================================
which theory is consistent with the Simonides-Kallinikos declaration of involvement in Sinaiticus?
=========================================
There are really three overall possibilities for the Sinaiticus manuscript and the issue of the Simonides claimed involvement:
1) Simonides was involved in the production of the manuscript
a) his story was accurate
b) his story was fudged
We have seen above that (b) would make more sense, that there was some fudging in explaining the history. Simonides explained it as his personal efforts in the center, and a very altruistic purpose. However, if the manuscript was produced 1839-1843, with the Simonides involvment, he was likely fudging parts of the history. e.g. He had Benedict deceased, when the Athos Lambrou Catalog shows that he was alive, and thus Benedict could have still have continued to have an active hand in the manuscript, rather than simply having worked with an earlier base text.
2) Simonides somehow had worked on another manuscript and thought that was Sinaiticus.
This idea was mentioned by Scrivener and was given in the Homilist in 1864. It is rather far-fetched, and it attempts to preserve the Tischendorf position. And I don't think anyone really floats this idea seriously, it makes for a whole second level of amazing coincidences on top of the first level. Plus it fails for the same timing reasons as (3) below.
3) Simonides has simply vindicatively come up with the idea of having produced the manuscript to challenge his adversary Tischendorf. And Simonides utilized all the coincidences for this purpose.
(3) fails for a number of reasons, one of which is right in the above thread, Simonides reports on Sinaiticus before the supposed red cloth Tischendorf discovery. Simonides was asserting his involvement in Sinaiticus even before there was any fame or even public knowledge of the manuscript. (No specific source had been given for the CFA.) And even before the supposed red cloth discovery of Tischendorf. Simonides would have had to have had an amazing prescient vindictiveness to see ahead about a manuscript he supposedly knew nothing. Essentially (3), the popular idea of the time, especially from William Aldis Wright, must be discarded.
==========
The only motive from Simonides, (especially now that we know the 1840s to 1850s timing of Barnabas to Hermas to Sinaiticus, and the timing of the Sinaiticus objections) that fits the history is that he actually was involved in the production of Sinaiticus. The c. 1840s production is also the one theory that is consistent with the darkening and staining of 90% of the manuscript. And I believe it also does a better job of explaining manuscript and historical anomalies, starting with the poof provenance.
Ultimately, the one sensible motivation and history is (1). Simonides had worked on the manuscript, he had a sense of recognizing the CFA as his handiwork, while he was also hearing about Tischendorf's adventures directly from the monastery. This is the one sensible scenario. Only after the 1860 fascimile edition from Tischendorf was published, Simonides went public, as explained in the January 23, 1863 letter of John Eliot Hodgkin.
==========
Other theories might be remotely possible, but I have seen nothing that holds together. Authenticity proponents are welcome to try to offer a sensible and coherent theory that matches the actual chronology and history.
==========
Here would be an idea. Perhaps Simonides discovered Sinaiticus before, or around the same time as Tischendorf, as an ancient manuscript. Maybe it traveled from Athos to Sinai. Perhaps Simonides touched it up and added to it, placed in notes and corrections, and considered it his find or manuscript. Such a scenario, very difficult and unlikely, would be a hybrid attempt that would match some of the evidences. The white parchment pristine 1845 text, and the later colouring, would still be very difficult.
Steven Avery
Simonides reports on Sinaiticus before the supposed red cloth Tischendorf discovery
theory consistent with Simonides-Kallinikos declaration of involvement in Sinaiticus
http://forums.carm.org/vbb/showthre...rf-discovery&p=7468353&viewfull=1#post7468353
And related to our discussion here:
Simonides reports on Sinaiticus before the supposed red cloth Tischendorf discovery
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/b.113
=========================================
which theory is consistent with the Simonides-Kallinikos declaration of involvement in Sinaiticus?
=========================================
There are really three overall possibilities for the Sinaiticus manuscript and the issue of the Simonides claimed involvement:
1) Simonides was involved in the production of the manuscript
a) his story was accurate
b) his story was fudged
We have seen above that (b) would make more sense, that there was some fudging in explaining the history. Simonides explained it as his personal efforts in the center, and a very altruistic purpose. However, if the manuscript was produced 1839-1843, with the Simonides involvment, he was likely fudging parts of the history. e.g. He had Benedict deceased, when the Athos Lambrou Catalog shows that he was alive, and thus Benedict could have still have continued to have an active hand in the manuscript, rather than simply having worked with an earlier base text.
2) Simonides somehow had worked on another manuscript and thought that was Sinaiticus.
This idea was mentioned by Scrivener and was given in the Homilist in 1864. It is rather far-fetched, and it attempts to preserve the Tischendorf position. And I don't think anyone really floats this idea seriously, it makes for a whole second level of amazing coincidences on top of the first level. Plus it fails for the same timing reasons as (3) below.
3) Simonides has simply vindicatively come up with the idea of having produced the manuscript to challenge his adversary Tischendorf. And Simonides utilized all the coincidences for this purpose.
(3) fails for a number of reasons, one of which is right in the above thread, Simonides reports on Sinaiticus before the supposed red cloth Tischendorf discovery. Simonides was asserting his involvement in Sinaiticus even before there was any fame or even public knowledge of the manuscript. (No specific source had been given for the CFA.) And even before the supposed red cloth discovery of Tischendorf. Simonides would have had to have had an amazing prescient vindictiveness to see ahead about a manuscript he supposedly knew nothing. Essentially (3), the popular idea of the time, especially from William Aldis Wright, must be discarded.
==========
The only motive from Simonides, (especially now that we know the 1840s to 1850s timing of Barnabas to Hermas to Sinaiticus, and the timing of the Sinaiticus objections) that fits the history is that he actually was involved in the production of Sinaiticus. The c. 1840s production is also the one theory that is consistent with the darkening and staining of 90% of the manuscript. And I believe it also does a better job of explaining manuscript and historical anomalies, starting with the poof provenance.
Ultimately, the one sensible motivation and history is (1). Simonides had worked on the manuscript, he had a sense of recognizing the CFA as his handiwork, while he was also hearing about Tischendorf's adventures directly from the monastery. This is the one sensible scenario. Only after the 1860 fascimile edition from Tischendorf was published, Simonides went public, as explained in the January 23, 1863 letter of John Eliot Hodgkin.
==========
Other theories might be remotely possible, but I have seen nothing that holds together. Authenticity proponents are welcome to try to offer a sensible and coherent theory that matches the actual chronology and history.
==========
Here would be an idea. Perhaps Simonides discovered Sinaiticus before, or around the same time as Tischendorf, as an ancient manuscript. Maybe it traveled from Athos to Sinai. Perhaps Simonides touched it up and added to it, placed in notes and corrections, and considered it his find or manuscript. Such a scenario, very difficult and unlikely, would be a hybrid attempt that would match some of the evidences. The white parchment pristine 1845 text, and the later colouring, would still be very difficult.
Steven Avery