No I didn't know - thanks. Do you have a title or imprint for the book by Farmakidis book on Simonides? Was it in Greek or translated into English?Nikolaos Farmakidis writes historically about the 1800s and Athos and Greece, including a book on Simonides that has a lot of information about Benedict and the textual scholarship milieu as well. He understands that Sinaiticus is a late creation.And the Tischenduper had help, including from the Pontifex Maximus, the Jesuit cardinal heads of the world's most secret library, and the Patriarch of Jerusalem. Quite a friends list for a young Lutheran pastor at age less than 30.
...
Ste. Katherines, although spectacular in its own right, is a much smaller operation.
He actually sees Sinaiticus as a collaboration involving Tischendorf and Sinai and, if I remember, notes the Tischendorf-Vatican -Jesuit connections. Similar to what you write above (not sure if you knew about his position.)
There was a collaboration involving Tischendupe and Sinai - the Greeks did the tea and lemon juicing for an extended period of time did they not? Did Simonides receive money from the Greeks? And the important parts of Sinaiatucus (was it?) Genesis ended up in the hidden/i-forget/the-wastebasket-was-in-the way part of the monastery for another 100 years?
But I sense something more: in addition to the Tischendupe - Vatican - Jesuit connections, and the Greek role in the servings of tea and lemon juice, there's the role of the patriarch of Jerusalem in the Codex Hierosolymitanus (H). I can't help but think the two Codices are related as Tischendupe vistited the library in Constantinople shortly before H was discovered I reject out of hand that they lay there undiscovered for centuries. T already had the Pontifex Maximus and Greeks and the Jesuit cardinal heads of the Vatican library, to which he seems to add the Patriarch of Jerusalem who conveniently leaves him alone in the library in Constantinople. The patriarchs or the oldest monestary of 3 of the oldest and biggest churches of Christendom working together with a young Lutheran pastor to lay the foundations for a bible - that's unheard of on millenial timeframes.
We all might be right: think bigger and treat it as an interlocking puzzle; the Simonides account muddied the waters, which would take the heat off of Sinai, perhaps as a result of a Greek protest. But that's not an either/or.Farmakidis actually sees the Simonides account as designed to take the heat off of Sinai.
It is an interesting theory, but to me there is too much pointing directly to the Athos-Benedict-Simonides and Friends creation of the manuscript.
The obvious working hypothesis is that the deviations in (Greek)Sinaiatics from the TR were to lay the foundation for the worldwide rewrite of the bibles that took place soon after. What role can H play in the laying or supporting those foundations?
I doubt it's Barnabas because no one likes it. I doubt it's the Didache as it's simple and innocuous.
Is there anything in the Epistles of Clement or the long version of the letters of Ignatius of Antioch that lends support for the deviations from the TR that the "experts" sold to the public, so that H adds interlocking support?
Has anyone evaluated the H version of the Epistles or Letters to point out what of significance is "new" in them, or are deviations from the heretofore accepted versions? I generally assume the Ignatius letters are too much of a mess to say anything, but maybe I'm wrong...
Thanks for the link to James Donaldson and I'll go through the (462 posts over 9 years - yikes!) the white parchment Friderico-Augusta thread. Although he was outspoken for his time in the face of the chorus of syncophants, he's too conservative and restrained for me considering that Sinaticus was being used as a pretext to rewrite the bibles worldwide. KJVs out/NIVs in all Church of England churches overnite?!
Statistics: Posted by ebion — Wed Jan 03, 2024 2:00 am