In the Wake of Simonides

Wulfila

New member
In the Wake of Simonides​



Finnish ethnos through Elias Lönnrot’s Kalevala and Gaelic embers in James Mcpherson’s Ossian bear indirect echoes of Constantin von Tischendorf’s epic search for the ‘Manuscript’ (Sinaiticus) in the former and Constantine Simonides in the latter, both existed in the context of Europe during the first half of the 19th century. Tischendorf lived in a Manichean universe with his antagonist Simonides.

I believe as we look at Tischendorf’s motives, we need to see Europe through the lenses of historic-laden Romantics, who searched for the embers of epics and manuscripts to distill an original elixir. This type of Romantic dystopia was only stopped by the European implosion of 1945.

The Sinaiticus mania is taking the totality of our religion off the precipice through an endless catalog of ever-newer translations. This neurosis of Sinaiticus and its half-sister Vaticanus has shaped an unstainable narrative. The process of deconstructing the Authorized Version vis-à-vis the Sinaiticus has spawn translations, which has not only has weakened the spiritual fibers of Western civilization but corroded the cultural foundations of Anglosphere.

It is perhaps strange that I should write this as a non-native speaker of English who incidentally lives in Kyrgyzstan. However, not being part of Anglosphere and looking into the colossal monument of the Authorized Version, I have donned a different perspective. From the onset, I adhere to the notion that the Authorized Version is inerrant and infallible as Divinity's instrument in the cloak of the modern lingua franca (i.e. Anglo-American) to evangelize the world.

Could someone like Simonides have concocted Sinaiticus? Well, Macpherson probably created Ossian, just like Kalevala was strung together (manufactured) by Lönnrot. This age was the age of religious seekers who authored ‘new’ texts, e.g. Joseph Smith and James Strang, who used 'discovered' manuscripts (plates). David Daniels's extensive video catalog regarding Sinaiticus merits to be watched and re-watched. It is here that I have learned the little that I know about Sinaiticus; although I have a personal testimony of Authorized Version before becoming aware of the Alexandrine school of manuscripts.

I hypothesize that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are not part of Constantine’s 50 Bibles rather that they (50 Bibles) are the Majority Text’s antecedents. Simonides along with Tischendorf did play an essential role in unmooring Textus Receptus. There are many ancillary issues in search of the real Simonides, viz.
  • Greek Independence;
  • European Romanticism of ‘ethnos’;
  • The need for recognition; and,
  • Modernity vs. Byzantium (as a construct).
The search for Simonides in St. Catherine Monastery should instead be focused on Tischendorf. He, Tischendorf, could have as easily brought the ‘Manuscript’ to Mount Sinai. Again, I am not accusing Tischendorf of wrongdoing, but it is not just Simonides who is a spoke in the hub of the wheel but Tischendorf too.
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Hi Wulfia,

Greetings to Kyrgyzstan!

You raise some new history for me to study, and I will make sure David Daniels takes a look.

As for Tischendorf being involved in the creation of the manuscript, and/or helping transport it to the monastery, this is definitely an idea that is on our radar. If the Vatican Jesuits were involved, they could act as a push factor.

That said, the actual physical creation of the manuscript is really natural at Mt. Athos.

Steven
 

Wulfila

New member
Part of Tischendorf’s narrative has been dismissed based on the premise that he ‘found’ Sinaiticus at St. Catherine in the kindling baskets. However, if he brought the manuscript to Mount Sinai, what would be a better place to find (i.e. save) leaves of the Sinaiticus. Tischendorf may have been oblivious that vellum did not burn well. ‘Finding’ the Sinaiticus in kindling bins, he, Tischendorf, not only becomes the discoverer of the manuscript but ultimate its savior.

I have to be careful so I do not wrongly attribute something to Tischendorf that he may not have part of or party to. There still are nagging doubts that he was not just a passive participant but actively engaged in the plot.

If Simonides is the master forger, as he claimed, maybe then his ultimate aim in manufacturing the manuscript itself may not have been so much to introduce changes in the New Testament but rather to solidify the believability of the Septuagint as the source of the NT by having a partial OT as well as a partial Apocrypha to make it look feasible.

Rome’s hand in this cabal were it to be so, could be when the Sinaiticus was ‘discovered’ that it would catapult the Vaticanus into prominence, which had existed without a pedigree or provenance.
 
Last edited:

Wulfila

New member
Dear Readers:

Someone may ask the question, "Would there be individuals who could or would manufacture 'fake' manuscripts?" To this, I have to use the strongest affirmative, "Absolutely!" I maintain that individuals, mentioned in the introductory post, i.e. Smith and Strang, belong to this genre of literary creation cloaked in religious parlance along with Lönnrot and Mcpherson in regards to ethnos-shaping texts.
 

Wulfila

New member
There is something I missed with Tischendorf climbing Mt. Sinai for the Holy Text as his (un)continuous attempt to claim the mantle of Moses and the Stone Tablets. I do not know on what level these archetypal formulations exist but I presume that he must have been aware of the similarities.

There are several and disturbing echoes of Tischendorf and biblical imagery in his quest for ‘truth’ and shaping ‘truth’. His travels through Protestantism, Catholicism, and the Orthodox faith as an iconoclast must have been evident to him as well. In many ways, he is the Urfater for Westcott and Hort, the very Darwin of Biblical Criticism with Sinaiticus functioning as the Origin of Species.
 

Wulfila

New member
The difficulty with a riddle is that its solution still may be an enigma.

The issue with Sinaiticus is that the relevance of a decision between it and the Majority Text or Textus Receptus has already been made by most modern translators and textual critics. Hence the smirky query, “Why do you concern yourself with the irrelevance of Sinaiticus vis-à-vis Textus Receptus?” The difference in lexical distance between the above mss is not unlike the variances in the molecular differences between related, but different, species … MAJOR!

At this juncture, it is paramount to admit that I see myself as Authorized Version Only, although I am not a native English speaker, however, I do not pontificate on issues that invariably get woven into the fabric of the KJV Only Movement. To start with, I refer to the English translation of TR as Authorized Version, not King James, and view the AV 1611 as being equally spiritual and cultural in its brilliant totality. As a traditionalist, there are immutable realities, which I refer to as truths, which cannot be discussed in theological seminars where social/mental constructs, now override Hermeneutics, which were founded on a grammatical-historical paradigm.

Also, I need to reiterate ad nauseam that I do not consider Tischendorf or Westcott and Hort intellectually feeble or demonstratively wicked, but rather see them as great scholars who were mistaken in their spiritual and cultural rejection of TR for the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus. It is not about ad hominem attacks but rather about the provenance of the two above Mss and the underlying significance of rejecting TR in its spiritual garb, AV 1611.

If Sinaiticus' provenance is in question, along with Vaticanus, is it not paramount for us advocates of sola scriptura to seek and, once found, to hold on to the purest manuscript, which has produced an inerrant and infallible AV 1611.
 

Puxanto

New member
Hi...excuse for disturb... I'm not a JKOnly and I don't think it's the best ever, but reading the Greek of Sinaiticus and seeing some videos that deal with his text I don't understand how textual critics can give so much importance to this manuscript just because it is among the most ancient (at least so they say, it would take a C14 on many pages), they should give more importance to the quality of the writing.
There are readings in Sinaiticus that are not only strange but bordering on theological error
 

Steven Avery

Administrator
Tischendorf also said "many obvious blunders".

Hilgenfeld
"hasty transcript by ignorant and incompetent scribes, whose astounding blunders have caused endless troubles to its numerous correctors"

Burgon as well.

Uspensky showed the doctrinal mess in the 1860s.

They needed Sinaiticus as a Robin to roll with the Batman of Vaticanus.
The history shows this relationship.

Tischendorf simply duped the textual crowd, using lots of tricks.
 

Wulfila

New member
Dear Mr. Steve:

I concur totally with the following, which you wrote, " They needed Sinaiticus as a Robin to roll with the Batman of Vaticanus." The entire facade called Sinaiticus was about obfuscation, hiding Vaticanus' provenance from being the main issue. The latter is not one of Constantine's 50 Bibles ... if that had been the case the owners of this manuscript would have announced it on every rooftop in Rome. Any honest biblical critic, believer or not, needs to acknowledge the fact that the Vaticanus was 'off-hands' until Tischendorf discovery.

I know that is awful to attribute guild or incense to another man; however, I strongly sense that Simonides in his vanity or guilt (maybe one and the same) saw his creation benefit another man, Tischendorf. Are there really manuscript forgers some may ask? Indeed, look at Mark Hoffman, who duped the LDS faith with his forgeries. Elias Lönnrot’s Kalevala and Gaelic embers in James Mcpherson’s Ossian mentally shaped two whole societies, i.e. Scotland and Finland. People will believe almost anything that is 'supposedly' unearthed, e.g. Heinrich Schliemann's discovery of the Jewels of Helen.
 
Last edited:

Wulfila

New member
Hi...excuse for disturb... I'm not a JKOnly and I don't think it's the best ever, but reading the Greek of Sinaiticus and seeing some videos that deal with his text I don't understand how textual critics can give so much importance to this manuscript just because it is among the most ancient (at least so they say, it would take a C14 on many pages), they should give more importance to the quality of the writing.
There are readings in Sinaiticus that are not only strange but bordering on theological error
Dear Puxanto:

Two issues, i.e. Sinaiticus and KJVO.

Yes, the Sinaiticus is a curiously deviant manuscript vis-à-vis the Byzantine manuscript tradition. However, the Sinaiticus may (stress on ‘may’) be an attempt to get Vaticanus to be the ‘court eunuch’ to rule the kingdom.

KJVO is a misnomer since this is a designation, which covers many wearers. However, the Authorized Version for me is inerrant, infallible, and God’s Word not just for Anglosphere but the entire world. AV 1611 is better usage at least for us who live in non-English-speaking societies.
 
Top