When experts analyze  a person's statement of
  what he or she  witnessed or did,
  the experts say that  the simple sentence
  is more likely a true one.
  "I didn't eat the cookie."
  Subject - verb - object.
  When people try  to cloud the truth or lie,
  they often say a lot more  than "subject-verb-object."
  "How dare you say I ate the cookie!
  I would never do that!
  How rude can you get!"
  Experts say he  very possibly ate the cookie.
  When the statement is longer  or more complex,
  it is the added words  that often give them away.
  It is much harder on people  with a conscience,
  if they lie  while stating a simple sentence.
  So when I am searching for  what really happened in the 1800s
  regarding the creation  of Codex Sinaiticus,
  I am looking for the simple statements.
  I want to find  as many simple statements as I can,
  and then do what I can  in the present day to verify them.
  First, I'll list for you  the 4 levels of certainty and
  the 4 guidelines that I used  while looking for the truth.
  Then I'll summarize  what Constantine Simonides said
  was the history  of his great uncle Benedict.
  And I'll tell you what I found  to verify it
  or cast doubt on that history.
  Then I'll show you  where I found that information,
  so you can check for yourselves.
  After that, I will add the facts together  to create an hypothesis about
  what I think were  Uncle Benedict's real reasons
  for creating the codex Sinaiticus.
  You may want subtitles on.
  There's a lot of data here.
  Hi, I'm David Daniels  from Chick Publications.
  For a century and a half,  books and teachers have
  said that Constantin Tischendorf  found the "world's oldest Bible"
  in an orthodox monastery  in the desert of Egypt.
  Tischendorf named it Codex Sinaiticus.
  But one man, Constantine Simonides,  said, "NO!
  I made that Bible.
  I created it for my Uncle Benedict!"
  But why would  a Byzantine Orthodox monk like Benedict
  create an anti-Orthodox,  Alexandrian Bible?
  For over 150 years scholars and textbooks  have dismissed Simonides' claim as lies.
  They claimed that Constantine Simonides  made up people and events.
  That's what I once thought.
  But I had to know where he lied.
  Did he ever tell the truth?
  How would I find out,  over 150 years later?
  When a person makes up  dates, names, places, events, and people,
  that's a lot of details.
  They could easily make mistakes.
  Why don't we look for  Simonides' mistakes, then?
  And if he lied, where did he lie?
  But if we find out he told the truth,  then we really should admit it.
  In this video I want to see  if I can verify what Simonides said
  about his great uncle Benedict.
  To do this, I have  four levels of certainty
  and four guidelines.
  Here are my four levels of certainty:
  1.
  Historically verified.
  I have other evidence  that reasonably proves
  the events happened  the way they were described.
  2.
  Historically justified.
  The evidence doesn't prove  that the events happened that way,
  but that it makes perfect sense  that they would have.
  3.
  Historically probable.
  It is reasonable and maybe likely  that the events could have happened
  in that or a similar way,  but there's not enough information
  to say it's what happened.
  4.
  Historically possible.
  It was not impossible that it happened,  but there isn't enough evidence
  to lead you to any conclusion.
  There are four guidelines I use on  what Simonides (or whoever) testified:
  1.
  Corroborating Witness.
  If I find an eyewitness who was there,  or an institution
  with good historical information,  that agrees that an event happened,
  then that is a testimony  in, say Simonides', favor.
  2.
  Detailed Knowledge.
  If I find that Simonides  had detailed information
  about a place or event,  that most people
  likely would not have,  that is an indication that
  either Simonides was there,  or that information came from
  someone who was there.
  3.
  Time-Specific Knowledge.
  If I find that Simonides  lists events that happened
  for a limited amount of time,  within a narrow timeframe,
  and the story lists specifics  that were not common knowledge,
  that indicates that  either Simonides was there at that time,
  or that information came from  someone who was there,
  in that limited timeframe.
  4.
  Consistent Actions or Events.
  If someone's story tells about  a person doing something
  that I can historically find him doing  in another place around that time,
  then we can say that this event  is consistent with his behavior,
  and therefore plausible.
  The higher up the list we are able to go,  the more probable or
  the more certain we will be,  as far as we are able to tell in 2018.
  Why is this important?
  Realize that most of our professors,  Bible teachers and ministers
  were taught to believe  the lies about Tischendorf.
  We were expected to believe the story  about "the Great Tischendorf
  and his discovery of the Sinaiticus,  the world's oldest and best Bible."
  It can get you ridiculed  or even fired from some positions
  to even question it.
  I am not telling you  that your professor is wrong,
  and you must believe me.
  I am telling you  that your professor was taught wrong--
  and proving it.
  We are building a foundation  for a body of evidence,
  to get to the truth.
  I will quote what Simonides wrote.
  I'll show you what I found  when I looked it up.
  And I'll show you where I found it,  right on your screen.
  Constantine Simonides,  on January 21st, 1863
  wrote to the Guardian newspaper,  largely responding to a man
  named William Aldis Wright.
  (He's another story entirely.)
  Wright copied down  a summary of Simonides' statements
  about his great-uncle Benedict  and himself.
  It's filled with statements  that Simonides wants the reader
  to believe are facts.
  Are they?
  Let's find out.
  Various parts of Simonides' letter  were reprinted in two places:
  The Christian Remembrancer  and The Journal of Sacred Literature
  and Biblical Record.
  When I first read Simonides' story  a number of years ago,
  I thought he was making up  the names, dates and places.
  After all, who could verify  what Simonides said?
  Many of the people were dead.
  Cities were destroyed.
  Evidence would have been hard to find,  to see whether he told the truth.
  Another thing:  what reason would I have
  to doubt WA Wright?
  I have some of his books  on the King James.
  Then there's Frederick Scrivener.
  He published a Greek text  to go with the King James.
  And his books  said Simonides was a con man.
  These guys couldn't be  wrong about Simonides, could they?
  How could I find out whether  he really was a con man, or not?
  Remember these principles:
  Liars lie, even when they have  nothing to lose by telling the truth.
  Honest people tell the truth,  even if they've got lots to gain by lying.
  It would take something pretty big  to get a generally honest person to lie.
  So which is Simonides?
  Let's take Simonides' words  as we read them in English,
  in the Christian Remembrancer.
  Ready?
  "First, that my uncle Benedict,  being by profession a theologian,
  and versed in twelve languages,
  intending to publish  both the Old and New Testaments,
  and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers,  with exegetic scholia
  of the ancient commentators,  and specially to reply to
  what had been written  against the Septuagint,
  began this work  while Professor in the College of Cydon,
  in the year 1784."
  Let's take this apart.
  Is Simonides telling the truth?
  If he were making things up,  it would be easy to mix up
  his dates, places, events, and people.
  It turned out that  I was wrong about Simonides.
  1.There really was a College of Cydon,  or Cydoniae, or Ayvalik, or Aibali.
  It was started in 1780 as a smaller school,  in the courtyard of
  Virgin of the Orphans church,  or Panagia ton Orphanon.
  It turns out those buildings  were not destroyed in 1821, after all!
  The Muslims took them over  and still use them today.
  A numbers of pictures  were either found or taken in 2013
  by Dr. Emmanuel Paraschos  of Emerson College,
  when he was searching  for his roots on Aibali.
  He actually went to the city  and found the places.
  This is the school for boys.
  The school buildings still exist,  but Paraschos noted that
  they were enlarged a bit since then.
  By 1800 the school  had really expanded
  under Veniamin Lesvios  (Benjamin of Lesbos), this guy.
  It was made a full-out academy,  with printing press, scientific equipment
  and top-notch scholars, and  it was moved to the north side of town.
  More evidence is in  the Encyclopedia of the Hellenic World.
  According to the 1827 Monthly Review,  the college
  "became the most frequented of the East."
  And though Cydoniae  was in Muslim Ottoman Asia Minor,
  "Its inhabitants were entirely Greeks."
  2. At this point Simonides told us  Benedict's goals, as he knew them:
  to publish and Old and New Testament, a Bible,  together with the writings
  of the Greek so-called Apostolic Church Fathers,  with commentary.
  That's a huge project.
  It would take years to prepare it.
  And Simonides told us Benedict's reason:
  to prove how good the Greek Septuagint was,  to unnamed people
  who were writing against the Septuagint.
  Who were these unnamed people?
  Followers of Orthodox  and Catholic religion loved the Septuagint.
  The Catholic Latin Vulgate  was largely based on the Septuagint.
  That's in my Septuagint series  and the book Did Jesus Use the Septuagint?
  So who was Benedict talking about?
  There were two groups  that were against the Orthodox Septuagint,
  for completely different reasons.
  Bible-believing Protestants and Baptists.
  They knew the Septuagint isn't God's words.
  They:  a) trusted the preserved
  Hebrew Old Testament,  b) were against the
  Greek Septuagint  and its changed words and added stories,
  c) and, of course,  they trusted the
  preserved Greek New Testament.
  But as I showed you in the video  "Simonides Betrayed,
  Part 4: Raising Rebels,"  there was another movement.
  It was made up of:  Greeks and others who were Freemasons,
  revolutionaries who  wanted to create a new Greek empire,
  and so-called Enlightenment thinkers.
  They knew that  the current Orthodox Septuagint
  didn't support their narrative.
  They:  a) wanted a narrative
  of man rising to godhood
  b) were against  the current Greek Septuagint, which
  * shows God becoming a man  * shows Jesus as eternally God
  But:
  c) a bible could be made  with Gnostic texts
  to teach this man-to-god narrative.
  Now, if only  there were a manuscript collector
  who could create such a Bible.
  That could revolutionize (pardon the pun)  the whole Orthodox religion!
  3. Benedict started teaching in Cydoniae,  Ayvalik or Aibali,
  in the 4th year of the school, 1784,  when he was still a teenager.
  This was a regular practice  with schools of the day.
  While he was younger  He would have taught orphan children.
  Then he would teach adults  when he got older
  and became more educated himself.  "Adults," meaning teens, high school age and up.
  I'll show you Benedict  was one of the teachers in a bit--
  but under a different name.
  4. The Greek schools in Asia Minor  were filled with
  European Enlightenment thinking,  and this thinking got the schools
  in hot water with  the established Orthodox religion,
  in Constantinople.
  So if Benedict taught at Cydoniae,  then he was teaching
  Enlightenment thought,  not Orthodox religion.
  Now let's continue with what Simonides wrote.
  "Having removed to Mount Athos in 1819,  for the sake of retirement,
  and embraced the monastic life  in the Monastery of Esphigmenos,
  he was named Benedict  (for surely they who adopt
  the monastic life  ought to change themselves
  and their names as well as their lives),  having formerly had two names,
  Basilaeus and Bessarion."
  1.
  If Benedict retired in 1819,  it means he taught for 35 years.
  That's very reasonable.
  My mom taught elementary school  for 30 years before she retired,
  plus practice teaching years,  and getting her Bachelor's
  and Master's degrees.
  This is plausible.
  2. It was also plausible  to retire to a monastery
  like Esphigmenou,  because as it said
  in the 1827 Monthly Review,
  "The monasteries of Mount Athos,  and others, formed another substitute
  for colleges or seminaries."
  So former professors  retiring to become monks, and
  even teaching on the peninsula  called Mount Athos,
  were not an unusual event.
  But teacher Bessarion retired and  took on the monastic name Benedict,
  to do more textual studies, not to teach.
  And Esphigmenou  had a number of mouldering manuscripts
  for him to investigate!
  3. Note how Simonides said    Benedict's two names
  before he became a monk  were Basilaeus and Bessarion.
  The "B" in modern Greek  has become a "V,"
  so "Bessarion" would be "Vissarion."
  According to Simonides' biography  by Charles Stewart,
  Simonides' mom and her family  were from the Isle of Symi,
  northeast of the Isle of Rhodes.
  And Benedict (Vissarion) was  the uncle of Simonides' mother Mary.
  That would make him  Great-Uncle Benedict.
  Now look at the  Encyclopedia of the Hellenic world,
  same article about Ayvalik (Cydoniae).
  It lists the teachers at the school  which started in 1780
  and was incorporated in 1800.
  "In the school,  where there was also a library, taught ...
  Vissarion of Symi..."
  I've found Vissarion of Symi  listed in other articles of the Encyclopedia,
  and  even a Greek blog on the Academy of Cydoniae.
  So for 35 years Vissarion of Symi taught,  before he retired in 1819, and
  became a monk at the monastery  of Esphigmenou on Mt. Athos.
  And it was just in time, too!
  On June 15,1821  the people of Ayvalik / Cydoniae
  were massacred by the Muslim Ottomans,  trying to squash
  the Greek rebellion against their rule.
  This was in the first year  of the war for Greek independence.
  Now let's check  the next part of Simonides' statement.
  "While at Athos he [that is, Benedict]  gave himself up particularly
  to the study of the Sacred scriptures.
  He collected the most ancient MSS.  of both Testaments,
  and of their commentators, and  at considerable expense
  prepared his work for the press."
  This is perfectly plausible.
  Benedict / Vissarion,  was well-known and well-loved.
  His retirement was like  my professors' retirements have been:
  continued study and writing.
  So Vissarion, now Benedict,  continued to gather manuscripts of the Bible
  and ancient Greek so-called "Church Fathers,"  to make his big life goal come to pass.
  He'd have nothing but time.
  Except for one thing.
  Here's what Simonides said next.
  "The Greek Revolution interfered:  he withdrew after a little time
  to the island of Hydra,  thence to Cythera, thence to Patzaris,
  and finally to Calaurrea, now Paros,  where there is a famous
  monastery of the Virgin  in which he remained a long time,
  teaching theology to twelve Greek youths  by command of Capo D'Istrias,
  Governor of Greece."
  1.
  Benedict had been  at Esphigmenou monastery since 1819.
  The Greek Revolution started  under 2 years later on February 22nd, 1821.
  It spread quickly.
  The Ottomans moved all over to stop the revolt.
  2.
  The isle of Hydra was a defensive position  for the Greeks during the war.
  It is perfectly plausible  that Benedict would go there for safety.
  Remember, he taught ideas  in line with the revolutionaries, Masonry
  and the so-called Enlightenment.
  3.
  Kythira is a strategic island  and another safe place,
  off the south-eastern tip  of the Peloponnese peninsula of Greece,
  the furthest south of the 6 main Ionian islands.
  4. Patzaris must be Spetses,  an island that rebelled along with Hydra,
  also called "Pityoussa."
  They had a naval fleet, just like Hydra.
  Benedict taught at Spetses in 1828.
  5. Calaurrea is Kalavria.
  Paros is Poros.
  Kalavria and Poros are sister islands,  now just called Poros on maps.
  They are on  the other side of the peninsula
  from Spetses.
  They are also south of Aegina Island.
  I'll tell you about that in the next video.
  6. The monastery Benedict taught at  is called "Moni Zoodochou Pigis Kalavrias,"
  the Holy Monastery  of the Life-Giving Fountain of Kalavria.
  This refers to their doctrine  that Mary was the "mother
  or one who gave birth to God."
  7. 12 or 15 Greek youths  were taught at the secondary school
  started at this monastery,  in the eastern wing.
  It was the first ecclesiastical  secondary school, founded in 1830
  by command of Ioannis Kapodistrias,  the first governor of Independent Greece.
  8. Kapodistrias had used Poros island  since at least 1828.
  It is said that he "received strength"  during the war,
  by his devotion to the Mary icon  at the Zoodochou Pigis monastery.
  Kapodistrias set up  the first Greek navy at Poros.
  He also used Poros  to meet with ambassadors
  from Great Britain, France and Russia,  to negotiate what the borders
  of Independent Greece would be.
  In 1830, Simonides' great-uncle Benedict  sent a letter to Kapodistrias,
  asking that his native Symi  and the other Islands
  be included in borders of  the new independent Greece.
  He may have actually  handed the letter to Kapodistrias!
  It looks like they were in the same building!
  But the other nations didn't agree.
  So Symi and the other  Dodecanese Islands
  remained under Ottoman control  for another 80 years.
  Here's the last section we'll cover  of Simonides' 1863 letter.
  "After the assassination  of the Governor he [Benedict]
  again removed to Mount Athos,  where he continued until his death."
  1. On October 9, 1831,  Governor Kapodistrias was assassinated.
  The monks disbanded the school,  and left Benedict free to leave Poros
  and return to Mt. Athos,  this time to Panteleimon monastery,
  just like Simonides said.
  Let me stop right here.
  First, please note that  I have been able to historically verify,
  using the 4 levels of certainty and  the four guidelines,
  almost every single word  Simonides said about his great-uncle.
  That says a lot about Simonides' credibility.
  Nobody could have looked up  all this information
  and gotten all these answers.
  It took years and generations of people  to pick up the pieces and write about events.
  It took until today,  when we have access to online maps,
  photographs, histories, charts,  digitized books and testimonies,
  not to mention translation software.
  Simonides could have made up  a good half of all this,
  and nobody would have been  able to tell until now.
  So Simonides  had perfect opportunity to lie,
  but didn't.
  That's not the way liars operate.
  Based on what you have just seen,  now I will tell you my theory
  about the real reason  Benedict wrote what we call the Sinaiticus.
  Consider the facts:
  1.
  Benedict (Vissarion)  taught at the
  Academy of Ayvalik/Cydoniae  from 1784-1819 (35 years)
  2.
  The Academy was  a hotbed of Enlightenment thought
  3.
  Three groups  all had the same basic worldview:
  a. Enlightenment
  b. Masons
  c. Revolutionaries
  4.
  Their worldview had  man rising to godhood
  5.
  The present Bible  was not useful to the movement
  6.
  Benedict/Vissarion  wanted to make a new Greek Bible
  and include certain Greek "church fathers,"  including Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas
  7.
  Shepherd of Hermas  clearly had Jesus being adopted
  as God's son at his baptism,  so Hermas fit the narrative
  8.
  Gnosticism was also about  man becoming a god
  9.
  Gnostic New Testament writings  lowered Jesus to just another man
  10.
  If the Bible were rewritten  with Gnostic texts,
  it would teach man rising to godhood,  just like Masonry, Enlightenment,
  and revolutionary thought
  Where, who and what he taught  tells me that Benedict didn't want
  a Byzantine, Orthodox Bible.
  He wanted  a Gnostic Bible
  that would support the worldview  of the Masons, Enlightenment thinkers,
  and revolutionaries.
  So Benedict/Vissarion spent 3 decades  compiling a Gnostic-type Bible,
  from whatever Gnostic manuscripts he could  find.
  I believe he wanted to  present it to the Russian Tsar
  as an alternative to  their present Orthodox Bible.
  I believe Benedict  created and compiled Sinaiticus
  to aid the revolution  with an "enlightened" Greek Bible,
  for a new Greek religion,  and a new, "enlightened" Greek state.
  And that is why the Sinaiticus  in Mark 1 says
  that Jesus was just a man  who confessed his sins,
  was baptized by John the Baptist and  afterward adopted by God as His son.
  Benedict never told  his true reasons to Simonides.
  Simonides didn't need to know.
  He just mentioned the need  for a printing press,
  so dutiful Simonides  would do the work,
  copying from ancient manuscripts  into one "new" Gnostic Bible,
  that Benedict believed  would be copied and spread
  all over the world.
  This is the best theory I can find  that fits the facts.
  In the next video,  I will talk about Simonides' testimony
  about his own background.
  Then I will show how  this project was derailed,
  Simonides was betrayed,  and someone else got hold of Sinaiticus.
  Until then, God bless you,  and have a wonderful day.
     
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét