The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Maestroh

Well-known member
We will be looking at the constantly shifting and contradictory claims of Simonides regarding Sinaiticus as well as how the SART team likes to cherry pick the data. Let's begin with the letter Simonides had published first in September 1862, the entire contents of which can be viewed here.

Claims:
1) About the end of the year, 1839, the venerable Benedict, my uncle, spiritual head of the monastery of the holy martyr Panteleemon in Mount Athos, wished to present to the Emperor Nicholas I of Russia, some gift from the sacred mountain, in grateful acknowledgement of the presents which had from time to time been offered to the monastery of the martyr.

2) he consulted with the herald Procopius and the Russian monk Paul, and they decided upon a copy of the Old and New Testaments, written according to the ancient form, in capital, letters, and on parchment. This together with the remains of the seven apostolic fathers – Barnabas, Hermas, Clement Bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and Dionysius the Areopagite – they proposed should be bound in gold, and presented to the Emperor by a common friend.

3) Dionysius, the professional calligrapher of the monastery, was then begged to undertake the work, but he declined, saying that the task being exceedingly difficult, he would rather not do so. (note: this makes no sense if this was the team effort the Steven Averys of the world try to argue). "Hey, this is too hard for one person!"

4) In consequence of this, I myself determined to begin the work, especially as my revered uncle seemed earnestly to wish it.

5) Having then examined the principal copies of the Holy Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos, (he didn't examine the principal copies BEFORE this project was proposed in what is later alleged to be November 1839, so he's now telling us he examined some copies of....something....)

6) I began to practise the principles of calligraphy (fancy words for "I began doing this manuscript")

7) learned Benedict taking a copy of the Moscow edition of both Testaments (published and presented to the Greeks by the illustrious brothers Zosimas) - why this is necessary when this has already been done?

8) collated it with the ancient ones, (so Benedict began collating the entire Bible after November 1839 ACCORDING TO SIMONIDES.....in his first version of the tale)

9) and by this means cleared it of many errors, after which he gave it into my hands to transcribe. (interesting that Simonides is claiming here he had an exemplar. All he had to do to prove his case was produce the exemplar, but you can't produce what doesn't exist).
 
10) Having then received both the Testaments, freed from errors (the old spelling, however, remaining unaltered), being short of parchment, I selected from the library of the monastery, with Benedict’s permission, a very bulky volume, antiquely bound and almost entirely blank, the parchment of which was remarkably clean, and beautifully finished. This had been prepared apparently many centuries ago – probably by the writer or by the principal of the monastery, as it bore the inscription GREEK (a Collection of Panegryics), and also a short discourse, much injured by time.

And now you know where the SART team would go with this if the testing showed, "Hey this is fourth century!"

Uh yeah, but Simonides said the parchment was!!!

11) He then claims he started it and did the OT and NT and Barnabas and Hermas in uncials, but he ran out of parchment!!

12) Benedict died, which "...induced me to hand the work over at once to the bookbinders of the monastery, for the purpose of replacing the original covers, made of wood and covered with leather, which I had removed for convenience – and when he had done so, I took it into my possession."


"At once." And according to Simonides's biography, Benedict died at the end of August 1840. This date is moved up by other researchers but for the time being lets simply let it stand.

13) Some time after this, having removed to Constantinople, I showed the work to the patriarchs Anthimus and Constantius, and communicated to them the reason of the transcription. Constantius took it, and having thoroughly examined it, urged me to present it to the library of Sinai, which I accordingly promised to do. Constantius had previously ben the Bishop of Sinai, and since his resignation of that office had again become Perpetual Bishop of that place.

So he claims yet another witness, two in fact. And then fills us in with irrelevant information.

14) Shortly after this, I was placed under the protection of the illustrious Countess Etleng and her brother, A. S. Stourtzas, by the co-operation of the two patriarchs; but, before departing for Odessa, I went, over to the island of Antigonus to visit Constantius, and to perform my promise of giving up the manuscript to the library of Mount Sinai. The patriarch was, however, absent from home, and I, consequently, let the packet for him with a letter.

Keep reading - this is about to get hilarious..
 

15) On his return, he wrote me the following letter:
My dearly beloved Son in the Holy Spirit, Simonides; Grace be with you and peace from God. I received with unfeigned satisfaction your truly valuable transcript of the Holy Scriptures – namely, the Old and New Testaments, together with the Epistle of St. Barnabas and the first part of the pastoral writings of Hermas, bound in one volume, which shall be placed in the library of Mount Sinai, according to your wish. But I exhort you earnestly (if every by God’s will you should return to the sacred Mount Athos) to finish the work as you have originally designed it, and he will reward you. Be with me on the 3d of next month, that I may give you letters to the illustrious A. S. Stourtzas, to inform him of your talents and abilities, and to give you a few hints which may prove useful to the success of your plans. I sincerely trust that you were born for the honour of your country. Amen.

Constantius, late of Constantinople – an earnest worshipper in Christ.

Now ask yourself and obvious question at this point...if he actually had this letter, why wasn't this produced and authenticated?

Because do any of you believe for even one second that Simonides remembered verbatim a letter from 20 years earlier?

It should also be noted this locks in dates as well. Simonides BY HIS OWN TESTIMONY:
a) considered the project at the direction of his uncle
b) collated the entire Bible
c) wrote this entire manuscript

ALL BY HIMSELF


between November 1839 and sometime prior to August 1841. (He later claims he did it in eight months.
All. By. Himself.

16) After I have received the above letter, I again went to visit the patriarch, who gave me the kindest and most paternal advice, with letters to Stourtzas, after which I returned to Constantinople, and from thence went to Odessa in November, 1841.

17) In 1846, I again returned to Constantinople, when I at once went over to the island of Antigonus to visit Constantius, and to place in his possession a large packet of MSS. He received me with the greatest kindness, and we conversed on many different subjects, among others, upon my transcript, when he informed me that he had sent it some time previously to Mount Sinai.

18) In 1852, I saw it there myself, and begged the librarian to inform me how the monastery had acquired it but he did not appear to know anything of the matter and I, for my part, said nothing. However, I examined the MS and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have. The dedication to the Emperor Nicholas, placed at the beginning of the book, had been removed.


Hmm.....so Simonides tells us that he saw this manuscript in 1852, a "fact" that removes Tischendorf from being the suspect of this (not that this stops the SART team from falsely accusing him).
 
19) I then began my philological researches, for there were several valuable MSS. in the library, which I wished to examine. Amongst them I found the pastoral writings of Hermas, the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew, and the disputed Epistle to Aristeas to Philoctetes (all written on Egyptian papyrus of the first century), with others not unworthy of note. All this I communicated to Constantius and afterwards to my spiritual father, Callistratus at Alexandria.

Guy who claims he found first century manuscripts is lying..


20) The name of the professional calligraphist to the monastery of St. Panteleemon was Dionysius, the name of the monk who was sent by the Patriarch to convey the volume from the island of Antigonus to Sinai was Germanus.

If you notice, he keeps name dropping in an effort to persuade you that, "Hey, if he knows the name of that guy, he must have written this."
It's obvious reaching, just like when a guilty suspect is concocting an alibi.

21) The volume, whilst in my possession, was seen by many persons,

Amazing how a guy with so many eyewitnesses never produced even one....


22) and it was perused with attention by the Hadjii John Prodromos, son of Pappa Prodromos, who was a minister of the Greek Church in Tebizond. John Prodromos kept a coffee house in Galatas, Constantinople, and probably does so still. The note from Patriarch Constantius, acknowledging receipt of the MS, together with 25,000 piastres, sent to me by Constantius as a benediction, was brought to me by the deacon Hilarion. All of the persons thus named are, I believe, still alive, and could bear witness to the truth of my statement.

"I have a BUNCH of eyewitnesses, but we just can't seem to find any. EVEN I can't find any, LOL!!"

23) Of the internal evidence of the MS, I shall not now speak. Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present age.

This right here flushes any claim of "he did it to mimic writing in the fourth century." Avery, SART, anyone claiming he tried to write it as such is contradicting Simonides's own claim here.

24) But I may just note that my uncle Benedict corrected the MS. in many places, and as it was intended to be re-copied,

So everyone just to get this straight......not only was this a rough draft, it was a ROUGH DRAFT THIS MORON APPENDED WITH A NON-EXISTENT DEDICATION!!!

LOL!!!!

25) he marked many letters which he purposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle I can, of course, point out as also those of Dionysisus the calligraphist.

"Benedict is conveniently dead but YOU CAN TRUST WHAT I SAY!!"

Also - when did the calligrapher who couldn't do this decide to engage in corrections to a rough draft that allegedly had a dedication?

26) In various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different MSS. from which I had taken certain passages and readings. These initials appear to have greatly bewildered Professor Tischendorf, who has invented several highly ingenious methods of accounting for them.

It would have been actual evidence if he, you know, would have produced the actual MSS from which he took the readings.
Or the exemplar.
Or the people who helped him write it.
Or any of this myriad of witnesses he pretends to have.
 
27) Lastly, I declare my ability to point to two distinct pages in the MS., though I have not seen it for years, in which is contained the most unquestionable proof of its being my writing.

This would be more believable if he simply did it without seeing the MSS - since he claims to know so much.

28) In making this statement, I know perfectly well the consequences I shall bring upon myself but I have so long been accustomed to calumny, that I have grown indifferent to it, and I now solemnly declare that my only motive for publishing this letter is to advance the cause of truth, and protect sacred letters from imposition.

"I know that since I'm a liar I will be accused of lying, but I accept that's going to happen. Indeed, I have lied about everything all the time - but now I'm just a sincere saint telling the truth!"


29) In conclusion, you must permit me to express my sincere regret that, whilst the many valuable remains of antiquity in my possession are frequently attributed to my own hands, the one poor work of my youth is set down by a gentleman who enjoys a great reputation for learning, as the earliest copy of the Sacred Scriptures.


Simonides INDISPUTABLY claims he wrote it himself.
No help other than a dead guy not here to validate it and some other guy lightened some letters.

He will claim this again later - and yet even the SART team in their searching for a conspiracy theory rejects the idea Simonides wrote this on his own.

In other words - even the SART team, that's fond of calling Tischendorf a "liar" - knows Simonides is a much greater liar.


Remember that when the head honcho of the SART team comes here and tells you an argument that can be reduced to "Simonides says."
Which is all of them.
 
Steven Avery keeps dodging and avoiding a great deal of evidence.

One of his typical tactics is to pick some minor detail or comment, and then he will try to suggest that he has refuted all the major and important points by commenting on that one little matter.
 
The First Letter of Kallinikos the Phantom

Although he couldn't produce any of the multiple witnesses he claimed he could, out of the middle of nowhere (not to be confused with the collective intelligence of the SART team, if you'll pardon the redundancy) came a letter published in "The Guardian" on December 3, 1862.
The letter was dated October and postmarked in Alexandria - and after you read it (if you have a brain) you will come to the conclusion that Simonides the forger simply wrote another letter to try to pretend he had a witness. A longer version of the same letter appeared in The Literary Churchman under the publishing of Simonides's truckling sycophant, John Eliot Hodgkin (who was so diabolical they named an illness after him).

Read the letter - and then ask yourself if it sounds even remotely believable:
 
9) and by this means cleared it of many errors, after which he gave it into my hands to transcribe. (interesting that Simonides is claiming here he had an exemplar. All he had to do to prove his case was produce the exemplar, but you can't produce what doesn't exist).

Or it was unavailable, in an Athos cellar, or scrubbed or too worn to bother.?

=========

What happened to the copy that Tischendorf claims he made in Cairo with two German helpers?

Vanished … without a trace.
Russia? Leipzig?

Now, if the Tisch story were true, that would be valuable and helpful.
 
Steven, you throw out speculations concerning one of the many important points raised concerning Simonides' unproven claims or assertions. That does not at all answer all the other matters pointed out by Maestroh.
 
Steven, you throw out speculations concerning one of the many important points raised concerning Simonides' unproven claims or assertions. That does not at all answer all the other matters pointed out by Maestroh.

So what happened to the Tischendorf supposed extra copy?

Or was the story fiction?
 
So what happened to the Tischendorf supposed extra copy?
You do not apply the same measures/standards to the forger Simonides. You blindly accept his unproven claims and do not question and challenge them as you do those of Tischendorf. You are trying to divert away from all the other matters raised in this thread.
 
You do not apply the same measures/standards to the forger Simonides. You blindly accept his unproven claims and do not question and challenge them as you do those of Tischendorf.

Simply false.
Quote me blindly accepting claims of Simonides.

Many claims of Tischendorf around Sinaiticus are clearly lie.
 
Read the letter - and then ask yourself if it sounds even remotely believable:

In terms of Sinai, the key issue is how Kallinikos has so much inside information.

(Additional studies show Kallinikos working on manuscripts with Simonides and Benedict at Athos at precisely the right time (discovered from the Lampros catalogue published 1895 and 1900) and the amazing "coincidence" of the Simonides Sheperd of Hermas, for right now though we will stay with St. Catherine's. However, all of these are part of the historical imperative that prove, or at least give extremely solid evidence, that Sinaiticus was prepared at Athos. One reason that Chris Pinto understood what happened first is that he thought like a Journalist and Historian.)

Kallinikos and Simonides knew about:

======================

the 1844 theft of Tischendorf (where he actually stole five intact quires.)

the colouring and staining that became visible in 2009.

the phony 1859 loan of the ms.

Tischendorf's bumbling Greek

the youthful condition of parchment and ink

the lack of provenance

the lack of the supposed ancient catalog

the mangling of the ms.

======================

And I have a special page on these issues:

"Kallinikos exposes Tischendorf shenanigans - the historical imperative and impossible knowledge"

======================
 
Last edited:
In other words - even the SART team, that's fond of calling Tischendorf a "liar" - knows Simonides is a much greater liar.

Much ado about very little.

In other spots we learn about Benedict, Theophylact and perhaps Kallinikos being involved with the manuscript (from memory). Simonides was likely the scribe that contributed the most. So he boasted beyond his contribution in a short summary of precisely what had occurred 20+ years back.

If you want to compare this with:

==========

the Tischendorf thefts, including taking five quires surreptitiously from an intact manuscript in 1844, and his

amazing creative fabrication of saving the ms.from fire in 1844, a joke claim invented in 1859, and his

missing 1859 copy that was supposedly done in Cairo,

==========

Simonides will do fine in the comparison. Then we can discuss the coloring and staining by Tischendorf to give the appearance of age. However, only on the 1859 heist, too late for the 1844 heist.

Tischendorf even tried to publicly hide the connection of the 1844 Leipzig CFA and the 1859 St. Petersburg Sinaiticus. It wasn’t till 2009 than independent researchers could compare the two sections, rather than use the Tischendorf books that hid the salient features. Truly a con-job extraordinarie.
 
Last edited:
The First Letter of Kallinikos the Phantom

Although he couldn't produce any of the multiple witnesses he claimed he could, out of the middle of nowhere (not to be confused with the collective intelligence of the SART team, if you'll pardon the redundancy) came a letter published in "The Guardian" on December 3, 1862.
The letter was dated October and postmarked in Alexandria - and after you read it (if you have a brain) you will come to the conclusion that Simonides the forger simply wrote another letter to try to pretend he had a witness. A longer version of the same letter appeared in The Literary Churchman under the publishing of Simonides's truckling sycophant, John Eliot Hodgkin (who was so diabolical they named an illness after him).

Read the letter - and then ask yourself if it sounds even remotely believable:
Kallinikos and Simonides knew about:
Steven, you ignore the real possibility that the forger Simonides invented a supposed witness that did not exist. You believe the deceiver Simonides when he could have forged the letter. Simonides did not actually produce this claimed witness to testimony in person to what he claimed. Simonides is the known deceiver who kept changing his story. You try to rationalize, excuse, and justify the unproven and even false claims of Simonides.
 
Anyone who knows anything about Codex Sinaiticus knows it's not a forgery simply by it's text. If Tishendorf knew it was not genuine he would have thrown it away as being no good. If Simionides transcribed it he would be one of the most retarded people on this planet to make such a text. Truth be told no one could make up such a text. No one could have guessed such a thing.
 
Steven, you ignore the real possibility that the forger Simonides invented a supposed witness that did not exist. You believe the deceiver Simonides when he could have forged the letter. Simonides did not actually produce this claimed witness to testimony in person to what he claimed. Simonides is the known deceiver who kept changing his story. You try to rationalize, excuse, and justify the unproven and even false claims of Simonides.

Do you have a position on the date and authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus?
 
If Tishendorf knew it was not genuine he would have thrown it away as being no good. If Simionides transcribed it he would be one of the most retarded people on this planet to make such a text. Truth be told no one could make up such a text. No one could have guessed such a thing.

None of these claims are true.
 
Steven, you ignore the real possibility that the forger Simonides invented a supposed witness that did not exist. You believe the deceiver Simonides when he could have forged the letter. Simonides did not actually produce this claimed witness to testimony in person to what he claimed. Simonides is the known deceiver who kept changing his story. You try to rationalize, excuse, and justify the unproven and even false claims of Simonides.

Actually I point out that the truth of Codex Simoneides being written in Mt. Athos c. 1840 is not based on the veracity of all the statements and claims of Simonides.

EDITED RULE 12 VIOLATION
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top