Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:15 pm
One native Greek biographer of Constantine Simonides takes the position that he was covering for the monastery, in its cooperation with Tischendorf.
Fascinating - I didn't know that. If you have a citation for that it would be be a most welcome addition. because it buttresses ebion's theory. If you look at Simonides letter to the Guardian he's much more gracious than he could have been. The idea of covering for the monastery's cooperation with Tischendorf fit's with ebion's theory: the monastery would not do anything without the blessing, in advance, by the Patriarch, and everyone would cover for the slightest wiff of it.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:15 pm
And I agree that direct cooperation in such a venture between the Patriarch and the Vatican (Jesuits) is a difficult theory. However, Jesuits are not the most transparent group!
It's not just the typical lack if transparency of the Jesuits: there were 2 cardinals at the Vatican fawning/aiding-and-abetting the young Lutheran,
plus more than one private audience with Pope. This is a key part of ebion's theory: he's looking beyond Codex Simonides and has his eyes on Vaticanus as well. We cannot rule out that Tischenduper, who was later fawned over by the 2 cardinals who were the past and present heads of the most secret library in ecclesiastical history, was actually studying Vaticanus for a lunar year. With no visible means of support at a time he was supposedly broke...
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:15 pm
Anyone should smell the stench of the enterprise, especially when you see the beautiful condition of the supposedly ancient, supposedly heavily used century-by-century manuscript.
The stench of the Simonides enterprise turns putrid when the stinking Codex Simonides is combined with Vaticanus:
the S&H+V con job. Without which there would be no "New" bibles of the 1880s onwards.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:15 pm
And the visual 1844 and 1859 differences that match the Simonides-Kalliniikos colouring accusation, which was hidden until 2009. And there is the no-provenance element.
Plus all of the other
coincidences.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Feb 01, 2024 12:15 pm
However, many are entranced by the deeply entrenched Sinaiticus scholarship.
I think it's more than that: it is a coordinated establishment push to lay the foundations to argue that all the bibles in the world needed rewriting right away, in spite the putrid stench.And I've never met a Churchian pastor or priest who has the slightest idea of it, or the slighest inkling to look into it.