Catholicism versus Protestantism down the centuries

So evidence that Christians who copied the Bible gradually added more and more corrections and insertions is reason to suppose that older texts are less reliable than a Bible produced under the orders of a dictator with strict instructions that it comport with a church founded by his mother's father's uncle (who was also his father's mother's uncle) designed to emphasize the divine right of kings?

Maybe, but that's not the way I'm betting. Yes, it is corrupted. And it got all those corruptions over the course of 300 years or so. Providing evidence that Christians believed they could tinker. Which would imply later texts are less trustworthy as there has been more time for tinkering. He was a dictator. Is that a lie? Do 'good Christian's' typically torture women, and when they resist confessing, say that proves they are guilty?

quote:

---

further experience daylie proues how loath they are to confesse without torture, which witnesseth their guiltine

---

What about medical professionals?

quote:

---

Lastly he was put to the most seuere and cruell paine in the world, called the bootes, who after he had receiued three strokes, being enquired if he would confesse his damnable acts and wicked life,

---

'The bootes' were a device that crushed the feet.But of course they weren't finished with him yet. The king approvingly continues:

quote:

---

His nailes vpon all his fingers were riuen and pulled off with an instrument called in Scottish a Turkas, which in England wee call a payre of pincers, and vnder euerie nayle there was thrust in two needels ouer euen up to the heads. At all which tormentes notwithstanding the Doctor neuer shronke anie whit, neither woulde he then confesse it the sooner for all the tortures inflicted vpon him.

​

Then was hee with all conuenient speed, by commandement, conuaied againe to the torment of the bootes, wherein hee continued a long time, and did abide so many blowes in them, that his legges were crushte and beaten togeather as small as might bee, and the bones and flesh so brused, that the bloud and marrowe spouted forth in great abundance, whereby they were made unseruiceable for euer. And notwithstanding al these grieuous paines and cruell torments hee would not confesse anie thing, so deepely had the deuill entered into his heart, that hee vtterly denied all that which he had before auouched, and woulde saie nothing therevnto but this, that what hee had done and sayde before, was onely done and sayde for feare of paynes which he had endured.

---

Of course, the consequence of all this was

quote:

---

Wherevpon hee was put into a carte, and beeing first strangled, hee was immediatly put into a great fire, being readie prouided for that purpose, and there burned in the Castle hill of Edenbrough on a saterdaie in the ende of Ianuarie last past. 1591. The rest of the witches which are not yet executed, remayne in prison till farther triall, and knowledge of his maiesties pleasure.

---

So, good Christians are clearly horrendous sadists. If they ever got into power, they would dissolve the government if it displeased them and rule without one for 7 years as dictator. The things you teach me, Faith. Well, you know, when you force other Christians to deny their beliefs or suffer torture and execution, people will say bad things about you. Fortunately, the words above are James' own words so I guess you don't get to make that argument there.

Don't they have Google in your country?I even told you were I got it. From James VI of Scotland. In his book: Daemonologie. Printed by Robert Walde-graue, Printer to the Kings Majestie. An. 1597.Cum Privilegio Regio. It does doesn't it? Bloody Good Christians. I didn't say it was Christian. I said Christians tinkered with it. I know know, they probably didn't torture people and then kill them - but they meet my definition of the word Christian which is good because I was the one using it.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Is there some kind of context where a Christian can justify crushing someone's legs so much, their marrow spills out? That's right. And a discourse. Try a more scholarly source, rather than an obviously biased one - as your site omits the end of the thirde booke.Like Project Gutenberg, which includes Newes from Scotland as the correct and original ending.It's funny - since the Preface tells you this:

quote:

---

and the thirde, conteines a discourse of all these kindes of spirits, and Spectres that appeares and trobles persones: together with a conclusion of the whol work. My intention in this labour, is only to prove two things, as I have already said: the one, that such divelish artes have bene and are. The other, what exact triale and severe punishment they merite:

---

Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

I can't think of anybody in the 4th-6th Centuries that had power, money, education and motivation enough to make it, maintain it perhaps purchase it - other than Christians.So the original scribes and the correctors were probably Christians working for another Christian (or Christians). How have you ascertained this? Bayesian Reasoning? Please, off you go. And you know this because... It wasn't known to scholars. But since Biblical scholarship really started to kick off in the 19th Century, I fail to see your point.It was found at a monastery, in one of the largest libraries of ancient texts in the world. It's a good job I'm not relying on his biographers then isn't it?Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

By anti-King-James source you mean 'British education', then I guess so. He was, in a way, Britain's founding father after all. I didn't know the specifics before the debate but I knew that James had ordered the torture and execution of witches. But rather than rely on http://www.atheistsarecool.com like you might have done (probably different url though) I read around the subject a little bit.The History Learning Site Covering All Historical Topics
http://www.educationscotland.gov.uk/
Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaWere some sites I looked at according to my internet history. Eventually having read his account was in his book, then I did this search:Books: daemonologie (sorted by popularity) - Project Gutenberg Yes, he is. Indeed, one of those tortures (Agnes Sampson) occurred at Holyrood House under his direction. He approved of their treatment. Right, and I told you that the copy you had omits it, and is clearly pro-James biased. I think you call it a whitewash. Project Gutenberg has no stake in the James debate, my link went straight to the start of Newes From Scotland. It's 5,000 words of omission. I bet you get upset about the omission of Mark 16:9-20 as a vile corruption of the holy etc. Anyway at 5,000 words it is shorter than the first letter to the Corinthians. You know how Christians like yourself have a go at atheists for not reading the whole Bible in its context? You should try reading at least a few sections of the Newes from Scotland to avoid that same accusation along with some reference to beams and eyes.Newes from Scotland describes what should be done with sorcerers and witches. Torture them until they confess (and maybe torture them some more to confirm the confession) and then kill them. Well no. He says that by not confessing freely, and only confessing under torture this proves they are guilty.

quote:

---

Where are you getting that slander against King James? What source?

​

That sounds like the Inquisition though, they were definitely sadists.

---

I think a man who tortures people and then executes them is a sadist.
You think a man who tortures people and then executes them is a 'good Christian'...unless they were Catholic or God forbid - Muslim.If that's how you want to be, I'm not going to stop you. Well, it seems you obviously know next to nothing about King James. But why don't you educate me on the Codex... A universal negative with no evidence presented. Interesting. Well not quite. The Codex is huge. He actually described what he thought to be a little over 120 sheets.I'm sure there are books in the Vatican that have not been looked at for years. I'm not sure what you think your point is. You'll have to join the dots for me. Why is an ancient book in a large library in the middle of nowhere not having been read or even noticed for some time a clue that it is corrupt?The Aleppo Codex (early 11th century) sat in a cupboard or an iron chest for centuries, is that evidence of its corruption?Are the centuries of corrections in Codex Bezae evidence of its corruption? What's shady about it? A professor extraordinarius, specializing in the New Testament, with a mission to locate ancient manuscripts thinks to himself 'whether it was not probable that in some recess of Greek or Coptic, Syrian or Armenian monasteries, there might be some precious manuscripts slumbering for ages in dust and darkness? And would not every sheet of parchment so found, covered with writings of the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, be a kind of literary treasure, and a valuable addition to our Christian literature? ' and, after some considerable travelling finds some interesting manuscripts - and after a decade further (comprising of two additional trips to that particular monastery) is presented with the complete Codex. But what difference does that make?

Goes to the trials is an interesting term. Being one of the investigators, witnesses and alleged victims. He had at least one woman brought to his home so he could torture her there. But sure, you can just not read it and find out for yourself if you like. Well yes. He was the King. If he disapproved he could have stopped it quite easily.That he didn't is alone enough to condemn him. That he in fact believed it was the right thing to do is another nail. That some of it happened at his house under his personal direction, really drives the final nail into the coffin.Why is it happening 400 years ago (423 to be exact) of any issue? If he was mistaken - then he did not understand God's word, which I'm sure you think is clear that torture is not Christian, and yet you rely on a man who does this to innocent people? And the good Christian way of punishing is to rip their nails off, crush their feet and strangle them? But you believe that the people who were commissioned to write an edition of the Bible by him would not feel any coercion from him? Like when he told them to replace 'congregation' (ekklēsia) with 'church' (kurikon?)Again - feel free to side with a dictator.I'm sure if Obama took innocent American True Christian schoolteachers and tortured them (calling it a trial) and convicted them to die, if Obama dissolved Congress and the Senate and ruled as dictator proclaiming his divine right and asserting that all Protestants had to swear and oath of allegiance to him as head of the Church of Obama, and to appease the Mormons he releases an executive order for a new edition of the Bible to be created - you'd be totally on his side.I'm guessing you're a fan of James' son too? But I thought that he was a Good Christian? I thought Good Christians didn't torture people? I thought that was the Bad Christians? He very much did share the views of his contemporaries (many of whom were of course, Catholic) , although his 'witches' were hunted quite severely.North Berwick witch trials, circa 1590 - 100+ accused
The Great Scottish Witch Hunt of 1597 - 400+ accusedOccurred under him, and his lack of repealing the Draconian law helped legitimize several other witch hunts after his death. Wrong. If only James had written on the subject, right? Oh, he did? And we've been discussing it for some time now? Well what was the manner of this attack? Let's see in the presence of James VI:

quote:

---

She confessed that she tooke a blacke Toade, and did hang the same vp by the heeles, three daies, and collected and gathered the venome as it dropped and fell from it in an Oister shell, and kept the same venome close couered, vntill she should obtaine any parte or peece of foule linnen cloth, that had appertained to the Kings Maiestie, as shirt, handkercher, napkin or any other thing which she practised to obtaine by meanes of one Iohn Kers, who being attendant in his Maiesties Chamber, desired him for olde acquaintance betweene them, to helpe her to one or a peece of such a cloth as is aforesaide, which thing the said Iohn Kers denyed to helpe her too, saying he could not help her too it.

​

And the said Agnis Tompson by her depositions since her apprehension saith, that if she had obtained any one peece of linnen cloth which the King had worne and fouled, she had bewitched him to death, and put him to such extraordinary paines, as if he had beene lying vpon sharp thornes and endes of Needles.

​

Moreouer she confessed that at the time when his Maiestie was in Denmarke, she being accompanied with the parties before specially named, tooke a Cat and christened it, and afterward bound to each parte of that Cat, the cheefest partes of a dead man, and seuerall ioynts of his bodie, and that in the night following the saide Cat was conueied into the midst of the sea by all these witches sayling in their riddles or Ciues as is aforesaide, and so left the saide Cat right before the Towne of Lieth in Scotland: this doone, there did arise such a tempest in the Sea, as a greater hath not beene seene: which tempest was the cause of the perrishing of a Boate or vessell comming ouer from the towne of Brunt Iland to the towne of Lieth, wherein was sundrye Iewelles and riche giftes, which should haue been presented to the now Queen of Scotland, at her Maiesties comming to Lieth.

​

Againe it is confessed, that the said christened Cat was the cause that the Kinges Maiesties Ship at his comming foorth of Denmarke, had a contrary winde to the rest of his Ships, then being in his companye, which thing was most strange and true, as the Kings Maiestie acknowledgeth, for when the rest of the Shippes had a faire and good winde, then was the winde contrarye and altogither against his Maiestie: and further the saide witche declared, that his Maiestie had neuer come safelye from the Sea, if his faith had not preuailed aboue their ententions.

​

Moreouer the said Witches being demaunded how the Diuell would vse them when he was in their company, they confessed that when the Diuell did receiue them for his seruants, and that they had vowed themselues vnto him, then he would Carnallye vse them, albeit to their little pleasure, in respect of his colde nature: and would doo the like at sundry other times.

---

quote:

---

Item, he confessed that by his witchcrafte he did bewitch a Gentleman dwelling neere to the Saltpans, where the said Doctor kept Schoole, onely for being enamoured of a Gentlewoman whome he loued himselfe: by meanes of which his Sorcerye, witchcraft and diuelish practises, he caused the said Gentleman that once in xxiiij. howres he fell into a lunacie and madnes, and so continued one whole hower together, and for the veritie of the same, he caused the Gentleman to be brought before the Kinges Maiestie, which was vpon the xxiiij. day of December last, and being in his Maiesties Chamber, suddenly he gaue a great scritch and fell into a madnes, sometime bending himselfe, and sometime capring so directly vp, that his head did touch the seeling of the Chamber, to the great admiration of his Maiestie and others then present: so that all the Gentlemen in the Chamber were not able to holde him, vntill they called in more helpe, who together bound him hand and foot: and suffering the said gentleman to lye still vntill his furye were past, he within an hower came againe to himselfe, when being demaunded of the Kings Maiestie what he saw or did all that while, answered that he had been in a sound sleepe.

​

Item the said Doctor did also confesse that he had vsed means sundry times to obtain his purpose and wicked intent of the same Gentlewoman, and seeing himselfe disapointed of his intention, he determined by all waies he might to obtaine the same, trusting by coniuring, witchcraft and Sorcery to obtaine it in this manner.

​

It happened this gentlewoman being vnmaried, had a brother who went to schoole with the said Doctor, and calling his Scholler to him, demaunded if he did lye with his sister, who answered he did, by meanes wherof he thought to obtaine his purpose, and therefore secretlye promised to teach him without stripes, so he would obtain for him three haires of his sisters priuities, at such time as he should spye best occasion for it: which the youth promised faithfullye to perfourme, and vowed speedily to put it in practise, taking a peece of coniured paper of his maister to lappe them in when he had gotten them: and therevpon the boye practised nightlye to obtaine his maisters purpose, especially when his sister was a sleepe.

​

But God who knoweth the secrets of all harts, and reuealeth all wicked and vngodlye practises, would not suffer the intents of this diuilish Doctor to come to that purpose which he supposed it would, and therefore to declare that he was heauilye offended with his wicked entent, did so woorke by the Gentlewomans owne meanes, that in the ende the same was discouered and brought to light: for she being one night a sleepe, and her brother in bed with her, suddenlye cryed out to her mother, declaring that her Brother would not suffer her to sleepe, wherevpon her mother hauing a quick capacitie, did vehemently suspect Doctor Fians entention, by reason she was a witche of her selfe, and therefore presently arose, and was very inquisitiue of the boy to vnderstand his intent, and the better to know the same, did beat him with sundry stripes, wherby he discouered the trueth vnto her.

​

The Mother therefore being well practised in witchcrafte, did thinke it most conuenient to meete with the Doctor in his owne Arte, and therevpon tooke the paper from the boy, wherein hee should haue put the same haires, and went to a young Heyfer which neuer had borne Calfe nor gone to the Bull, and with a paire of sheeres, clipped off three haires from the vdder of the Cow, and wrapt them in the same paper, which she againe deliuered to the boy, then willing him to giue the same to his saide Maister, which he immediatly did.

​

The Schoolemaister so soone as he had receiued them, thinking them indeede to bee the Maides haires, went straight and wrought his arte vpon them: But the Doctor had no sooner doone his intent to them, but presentlye the Hayfer or Cow whose haires they were indeed, came vnto the doore of the Church wherein the Schoolemaister was, into the which the Hayfer went, and made towards the Schoolemaister, leaping and dauncing vpon him, and following him foorth of the church and to what place so euer he went, to the great admiration of all the townes men of Saltpans, and many other who did beholde the same.

​

The reporte whereof made all men imagine that hee did woorke it by the Diuell, without whom it could neuer haue beene so sufficientlye effected: and thervpon, the name of the said Doctor Fian (who was but a very yong man) began to grow so common among the people of Scotland, that he was secretlye nominated for a notable Cuniurer.

​

All which although in the beginning he denied, and would not confesse, yet hauing felt the pain of the bootes (and the charme stinted, as aforesayd) he confessed all the aforesaid to be most true, without producing anie witnesses to iustifie the same, & thervpon before the kings maiesty he subscribed the sayd confessions with his owne hande, which for truth remaineth vpon record in Scotland.

---

After the confession, the devil visits him, but he renounces him. But then strangely denies everything and

quote:

---

woulde saie nothing therevnto but this, that what hee had done and sayde before, was onely done and sayde for feare of paynes which he had endured.

---

Yep, one of his boats sank, and not being able to explain it, he tortured around a 100 people and 'found out' that through the use of some clothes, a toad, an oyster, bits of udder hair from a calf and a baptised cat - an assortment of Scottish people magicked his boat into sinking. Happy now? So was Jesus. I haven't celebrated it since I became an adult, finding the burning of effigies of Catholics, even murderous ones, distasteful.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Available? No, I said it was unknown to scholars, actually I said 'It wasn't known to scholars. '. I have no idea who, over the millennia did know about it. And you didn't provide evidence. Please tell me how you know that no human being in 1200 years was aware of its existence? Not being known to 19th Century scholars is not the same as nobody having known about it. Some of it was in good shape. Other bits were heavily damaged.The Codex Vaticanus is in pretty good shape too. Codexes of that type were priceless - and were too unwieldy for day to day use. How could that be known, if as you assert, nobody knew about it? I didn't say that. There really isn't a lot of history of it - which is your entire argument isn't it? I've merely read the English translation of Tischendorf's own account, which is largely all the primary historical evidence we have for it prior to it becoming 'public' knowledge. I also read some secondary sources, and some tertiary ones including websites that were ugly as hell and written by people of a similar mindset to you.Here's your knowledge of the history of it:

quote:

---

If Tischendorf, who claimed to have found it, can be trusted, it was in a wastebasket being used for fire kindling and he rescued it.

---

Here is mine:

quote:

---

Well not quite. The Codex is huge. He actually described what he thought to be a little over 120 sheets.
...
A professor extraordinarius, specializing in the New Testament, with a mission to locate ancient manuscripts thinks to himself 'whether it was not probable that in some recess of Greek or Coptic, Syrian or Armenian monasteries, there might be some precious manuscripts slumbering for ages in dust and darkness? And would not every sheet of parchment so found, covered with writings of the fifth, sixth, and seventh centuries, be a kind of literary treasure, and a valuable addition to our Christian literature? ' and, after some considerable travelling finds some interesting manuscripts - and after a decade further (comprising of two additional trips to that particular monastery) is presented with the complete Codex.

---

Which of us is exhibiting a better knowledge of the history of the codex? What gave you the impression that I thought it agreed with anything? Yes, that is the most likely hypothesis. Do you have a better one? You haven't told me anything I didn't already know. When I entered into a discussion on the subject - I read about it first. I'm like that. Many of my posts have several hours of reading behind them. I don't debate you to convince you, I have long considered that a Sisyphus like torment. I do it because it motivates me to read and I end up reading a lot of interesting stuff. Over time, scribes, theologians and other educated people involved in the preservation of Scripture introduced errors and outright falsehoods over time. Thus the older the manuscript the more likely it is to have been 'tinkered' with less. You keep failing, I'm afraid. Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

The thing is Faith, that paleography isn't merely 'subjective assessments'. There really were distinct styles considered 'correct form' in different centuries. For someone to invest in creating such a manuscript, they would certainly want it to be in the form believed most optimal for reading/aesthetics or whatever.You know all those corrections you asserted? You know that those corrections were principally detected by assessing the style of the writing? And they seem to be primarily 4th-7th Century.Furthermore, inclusion of certain texts and references in the margin help date it further. Which manuscripts did they use? Corrections are common. Yes, well I often trust the word of fraudsters. Especially fraudsters with a career of having his forgeries detected quickly. Especially when one of the people that exposed his forgeries was Tischendorf. Yeah, he hand wrote the entire Codex by copying a text that he never produced for someone who never acknowledged this witnessed by some unnamed people and a Greek guy who only ever appeared in letters and was so supportive of Simonides that he kind of sounded like a sock puppet, and instead of giving it to the patron in Russia, he gave it to some monks. Nor did they make much of an appearance. Who were they? You realize he was a professional con-man right? I'll grant he had skill, but not enough of it. By 'original' do you mean, a 14th Century manuscript found in Greece? Is that the one he stole several sheets of? I'm not sure why the Textus Receptus is relevant. That's a 16th Century printed collection of Greek texts. Why is it unusual for a 4th Century manuscript found in Sinai to be in the Alexandrian style? Yes, why would a forger bother to replicate 8 centuries worth of styles in his corrections if he intended to give it to an illustrious and powerful person as a gift?

What did I evade? Yes, might be an idea to read the thing you are talking about. Well, let's be clear. His fear of witches - and the instruction to kill them from the Bible, motivated him to torture and kill dozens of innocent people.I'm not sure Jesus said anything about that Jesus: He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her. James Smash her kneecaps! JesusAssuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me James Burn the witch! (She turned me into a newt!) Jesus For if you forgive men when they sin against you, your heavenly Father will also forgive you. But if you do not forgive men their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins. James Crush his feet!I see James was after all, a Good Christian. Just a frightened Good Christian. Yes, but her mother was accused of being a witch, and executed - and probably as a result she was far less extreme than James. Torture was not standard practice, and it may even have been forbidden by her in the case of witches. Of course I do. Remember this?

quote:

---

They attacked and murdered Waldensians, for instance, a group of Bible believers who had escaped to remote areas in the Alps to avoid the Roman Church but were hunted down and killed from time to time -- on the accusation of "heresy."

---

Wasn't the Duke of Savoy a man of his times? Should we not make allowances for him for doing as the Romans did, so to speak? I'm pretty much using your judgements against him. But sure - if you want to retreat to moral relativity that's fine - nice you came over to the dark side at last.

Someone is accused of a terrible crime. Crimes of this nature, if seen to go unpunished, could lead to anarchy, revolt, civil war (and maybe the wrath of God). Is it better to punish some innocents so that the perception of justice can be preserved in a time when justice was impossible to achieve? Yes. But, as with all governments - the Bible was as often as not used as justifications for the things they intended to do for other reasons.

quote:

---

For rulers are not a terror to good works... But if thou do that which is evil, be afraid; for he beareth not the sword in vain: for he is the minister of God, a revenger to execute wrath upon him that doeth evil.

---

Romans 13 is Christian, right? It's not about defending the Bible - but about defending the Bible King James commissioned. Faith has to choose between condemning James based on her sense of absolute morality, or retreating to moral relativity to try to excuse his behaviour.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Yes, but no justification of the tortures is present, but a disproportionate amount of energy on defending against charges of homosexuality. I can tell your priorities! I don't care about claims of his poor gait, bad eating habits or homosexual exploits. He's not on 'trial' here for any of that. I wouldn't consider any of that slander since it does not affect his reputation in my view. The accusation is that he tortured people. The evidence: his own testimony. He thought he could rule supreme over Parliament, and dissolved Parliament, making him a dictator and was quoted as saying, I am surprised that my ancestors should have permitted such an institution to come into existence. I'll let you judge for yourself, in James' own words:

quote:

---

Kings are iustly called Gods, for that they exercise a manner or resemblance of Diuine power vpon earth: For if you wil consider the Attributes to God, you shall see how they agree in the person of a King.

---

Well Catholics were forced to betray their understanding of God's Law, so you can understand why they were pissed off right? {Act of Supremacy 1558}

quote:

---

I, A. B., do utterly testify and declare in my conscience that the Queen's Highness is the only supreme governor of this realm, and of all other her Highness's dominions and countries, as well in all spiritual or ecclesiastical things or causes, as temporal, and that no foreign prince, person, prelate, state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority ecclesiastical or spiritual within this realm; and therefore I do utterly renounce and forsake all foreign jurisdictions, powers, superiorities and authorities...So help me God and by the contents of this Book.

---

Anybody in public office, religious office, or attending university had to essentially renounce the Pope. It was a criminal offence to refuse. There were resignations. Many Catholics lost their lands and properties. What do you think American Protestants would do if Obama treated them in a comparable fashion? Are you sticking to moral relativism in your defence of this claim? You've accused me of slandering James, but haven't proven anything I have said about him false. Instead you keep referencing people that defend him against charges of homosexuality. Which is worse according to God's law? Torture or gay sex?

Sorry I only referenced it in Message 653 and Message 659 and have been discussing and quoting it for some time. Newes From Scotland, printed at the end of Daemonologie

quote:

---

With the true examinations of the saide Doctor and Witches, as they vttered them in the presence of the Scottish King.

​

Discouering how they pretended to bewitch and drowne his Maiestie in the Sea comming from Denmark with such other wonderfull matters as the like hath not been heard of at any time.

---

No thanks. I abhor dictators whatever their religious preferences. Apparently - you don't mind as long as they Protestant dictators. More moral relativism. You really like it don't you? And whaddya know - the severe laws resulted in more Catholic unrest, not less. So James VI's behaviour was justified because of the actions of people that were mostly no longer alive? Either that, or they are not conspiring. Yes, but in so doing resulted in Protestants breaking stuff (Gordon Riots) and general anti-Catholic antipathy for centuries. Until about the middle of the 20th Century. We're still not there yet, there was Statute Law (Repeals) Act 1969 (around when The Troubles started) and Succession to the Crown Act 2013 was the last one I think.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Such as Sir Frederic George Kenyon, GBE, KCB, TD, FBA, FSA (15 January 1863 — 23 August 1952):

quote:

---

Since the year 1856 an ingenious Greek, named Constantine Simonides, had been creating a considerable sensation by producing quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous antiquity--such as a Homer in almost prehistoric style of writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew's Gospel on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension, and other portions of the New Testament dating from the first century. These productions enjoyed a short period of notoriety, and were then exposed as forgeries. Among the scholars concerned in the exposure was [Constantine] Tischendorf [the discoverer of the Sinaiticus manuscript--ed.]; and the revenge taken by Simonides was distinctly humorous. While stoutly maintaining the genuineness of his own wares, he admitted that he had written one manuscript which passed as being very ancient, and that was the Codex Sinaiticus, the discovery of which had been so triumphantly proclaimed by Tischendorf! The idea was ingenious, but it would not bear investigation. Apart from the internal evidence of the text itself, the variation in which no forger, however clever, could have invented, it was shown that Simonides could not have completed the task in the time which he professed to have taken, and that there was no such edition of the Greek Bible as that from which he professed to have copied it. This little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manuscript therefore rapidly passed away’ - Kenyon (1941, 4th ed.) Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, London: Eyre & Spottiswoode, p. 130

---

SourceOr Reverend Frederick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, LL.D.

quote:

---

The claim of Simonides [was] to be the sole writer of a book which must have consisted when complete of about 730 leaves, or 1460 pages of very large size (Collation, &c. p. xxxii), and that too within the compass of eight or ten months...(He would have written about 20,000 separate uncial letters every day)...it is at all events quite plain, as well from internal considerations as from minute peculiarities in the writing, such as the frequent use of the apostrophus and of [another] mark on some sheets and their complete absence from others (Collation, &c. pp. xvi-xviii; xxxii; xxxvii), that at least two, and probably more, persons have been employed on the several parts of the volume

---

SourceAnd of course Falconer Madan, Books in manuscript : a short introduction to their study and use. With a Chapter on Records, London 1898, p. 124.Your source?
Some guy with a radio show and who makes films with a explicit agenda of chronicling ' the chief evidence of our time that proves the word of God is true, and that Jesus Christ is coming soon'.And maybe you rely on James Anson Farrer? Literary Forgeries (1907) , p 39 onwards I'm not sure that is true, is it? The one where he claims that Tischendorf is essentially a buffoon because any paleographer could tell it was 19th Century? Why hasn't any paleographer said that in the last century, exactly? (Answer: Jesuits!)

quote:

---

Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able tell at once that it is a manuscript of the present age

---

And remember when someone who knew Simonides came forward?

quote:

---

It was there that I first became acquainted with Mr. Simonides, who assured me many times that he had lived in the sacred Russian monastery on the holy Mount Athos, and that the Reverend Deacon Benedict of that place was his uncle; also that this Benedict had sent him to study, and that on the conclusion of his studies he should return immediately to the holy mountain in order to become a monk, and afterwards a preacher, with other like things. But having attended, as I said before, for some few months only the lessons at Odessa , he was expelled from the school in consequence of his disorderly conduct, and for the same reason the Countess Etling and her brother, A. Sturtza, withdrew from him their patronage, and subsequently Mr. Simonides departed to Moscow .

​

‘‘About the year 1843, I, ...proceeded to the holy Mount Athos, and there entered the sacred Russian convent; and making particular inquiries there respecting Mr. Simonides, I was informed that he had indeed lived there, but had been dismissed in consequence of his disorderly and scandalous conduct, and that he had no relationship with the Reverend Benedict, excepting only that he was a fellow-countryman.

​

‘‘After the lapse of seven or eight years, Mr. Simonides gave out, both by word and by the press, that during the time that he resided in the Russian convent he had discovered, with the said Reverend Benedict, within the ancient monastery of the Russians, caverns containing many ancient parchment manuscripts, of which he had himself taken a quantity, including some of remarkable antiquity. These things being reported on the holy mountain, those who knew Mr. Simonides gave no hearing nor attention to such absurdities, but one of the principal persons of the holy mountain, the Superior of the sacred and greatest Laura, distinguished for learning and virtue, by name Hadgi Dionysius, induced by curiosity, wrote officially to our Hegoumenos of the sacred Russian convent, Gerasimus (who still worthily presides over it), asking him if there was any truth in Mr. Simonides' assertions respecting caverns and ancient books, &c. He, however, answered him officially by a monasterial note that these things were entirely without existence and without foundation.

​

‘‘After two or three years, however, Mr. Simonides came a second time, dressed in the European fashion, and I, reminding him of the words which he had spoken to me at Odessa ---- namely, that after he had finished his studies he intended to become a monk on the holy mountain, and ultimately a preacher ---- found him far from intending to carry out his professions, and engrossed by quite contrary ideas. As, however, our Hegoumenos would not allow him access to the library of our monastery, he went away to other monasteries on the holy mountain, that he might examine their libraries, but as in some of the said monasteries he mutilated many manuscript books, wickedly tearing out of them entire sheets, the entrance to many libraries of the said monasteries was forbidden him, and thus he departed from the holy mountain with disgrace.

---

Source for the last paragraph: Classical Victorians: Scholars, Scoundrels and Generals in Pursuit of Antiquity By Edmund Richardson. I found the preceding text in a more questionable setting And didn't someone once ask the pertinent question of why did he not write around the holes in the paper, but rather it had the appearance that the holes were through the writing? You know, if he was not trying to create a forgery. Such as? And why did he have the tools of a forger on him when arrested? Oh, because he liked the taste of iron. OK. I put the time in, it was quite entertaining. A secret Jesuit conspiracy, no less. Because: Chris Pinto, some guy.Edited by Modulous, : No reason given.

Pinto responded by repeating his normal tropes about Tischendorf that weren't really relevant and seemed equally unphased about the early/original Gospel of Matthew as you seem to have been.Edited by Modulous, : faith beat me to mentioning her blog entry about it by one minute