As I have pointed out before, Simonides's other frauds were mostly detected quickly because he was kind of sloppy about anachronisms. Yet somehow, the Sinaiticus has never been identified as a fake by the scholars and technicians who have handled it. Considering he supposedly worked up Sinaiticus at age 15, the claim that he worked up a perfect forgery that he couldn't equal in his maturity is a bit hard to swallow. It's like the story of a swindling countertfeiter who attracts investors by showing them real currency and pretending it's his skilled counterfeiting.
Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
Name a single orthodox person apart from Simonides' alter egos who asserted they knew of it.
Among other reasons to doubt Simonides's story is his claim to have written all of Sinaiticus in the space of a few months. This means the whole of the LXX and the NT plus the Epistle of Barnabas plus a third of the Shepherd of Hermas (including portions not then available in Greek), all within three or four months, and without any defect in the fourth century handwriting. I doubt anyone could write that much in a whole year.
Even without Simonides's reputation as a forger, even without Tischendorf's more plausible narrative, the Simonides account just defies belief.
Even without Simonides's reputation as a forger, even without Tischendorf's more plausible narrative, the Simonides account just defies belief.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Simonides gave good names, but the Investigative Clowns either did not contact them, or was not happy with their replies.
Even with the monasteries on Athos, a good question would have been:
“Was Benedict involved with Bible copying?”
Instead they wondered only if he was uncle, or great-uncle, to Simonides.
By 1862, all the wagons were drawn, the monastery wanted to create distance from Simonides, who had hurt their reputation.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Greek pages of Hermas were on Mt. Athos, the full text, and led to:
1) the Simonides Hermas editions before 1859.
2) the Tischendorf claim that the Simonides Greek Hermas was a retroversion from the Latin
3) the Tischendorf ultra-awkward retraction of the retroversion claim when Tischendorf had to publish the very similar Sinaiticus Hernas
======================
Literary Forgeries (1907)
James Anson Farrer
http://books.google.com/books?id=4lgLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA60
Last edited:
A transparent attempt to reverse the burden of proof, which was on Simonides. Simonides also tried very hard to reverse the burden of proof.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Except.
Benedict and Procopius were both dead witnesses by the time the Sinaiticus controversy was created by Simonides.
Dionysius never took a trip to England, and Dionysius never invited the British media to a press conference, and sat down with Simonides, in person...and said "here I am"..."any questions"?...
Other living witnesses...Anthimos... Germanus... Kallinikos...the same...no show...in person.
Why did Simonides never invite any of the key (supposedly) living witnesses, to England, in person, to show themselves to the public?
Simonides CLAIMED to have living witnesses...but there was never ever any big or dramatic announcements (that you would expect) by Simonides... "THEY'RE" (i.e. credible witnesses) "COMING" "you'll see" bla blah bla... why is this Mr. Avery?
Why?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Why did Simonides not fulfil HIS burden of proof?
It's really him, that you should be pointing your finger at for a failure to invite his witnesses to testify in person.
There's no sign in any of the letters that I've read from Simonides, that he was ever going to, either invite them, or had invited them do that.
It's really him, that you should be pointing your finger at for a failure to invite his witnesses to testify in person.
There's no sign in any of the letters that I've read from Simonides, that he was ever going to, either invite them, or had invited them do that.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Actually the burden of proof was on Tischendorf, to show that this manuscript was at Sinai before 1841.
Tischendorf ducked the planned 1863 trip which would have had Simonides, Tischendorf and the manuscript in one place.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
In terms of paying for people to travel to England, Simonides was not in great financial shape.
William Aldis Wright and the Investigative Clowns had a number of people, alive and active, that they could have attempted to contact.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
The Monks from all across Mt Athos, not just in the Russoco, testified CONSISTENTLY against Simonides lies and distortions of the facts.
So consistent in fact...
That nearly a decade BEFORE either
Monks from all across Mt Athos were CONSISTENTLY testifying that he was lying and/or distorting real his narration of and/or about real events and/or persons in 1851 in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus (which your investigative team have failed to adequately explain or even give the FULL and MISSING CONTEXT from Hodgkin's snippets).
So consistent in fact...
That nearly a decade BEFORE either
- The Uranius controversy
- The Mayerianius controversy
- The Sinaiticus controversy
Monks from all across Mt Athos were CONSISTENTLY testifying that he was lying and/or distorting real his narration of and/or about real events and/or persons in 1851 in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus (which your investigative team have failed to adequately explain or even give the FULL and MISSING CONTEXT from Hodgkin's snippets).
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
The Monks from all across Mt Athos, not just in the Russoco, testified CONSISTENTLY against Simonides lies and distortions of the facts.
So consistent in fact...
That nearly a decade BEFORE either
Monks from all across Mt Athos were CONSISTENTLY testifying that he was lying and/or distorting real his narration of and/or about real events and/or persons in 1851 in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus...
Which your investigative team has also failed (as you admit) to adequately explain...
This adverse testimony from the Monks all across Mt. Athos pre-dates Simonides Emperor's Bible creation myth and is a lot more CONSISTENT than you've represented Mr. Avery.
And...your investigative team has failed (by your own admission) to give the FULL CONTEXT MISSING from Hodgkin's context-less snippets.
So consistent in fact...
That nearly a decade BEFORE either
- The Uranius controversy
- The Mayerianius controversy
- The Sinaiticus controversy
Monks from all across Mt Athos were CONSISTENTLY testifying that he was lying and/or distorting real his narration of and/or about real events and/or persons in 1851 in the Telegraph of the Bosphorus...
Which your investigative team has also failed (as you admit) to adequately explain...
- Why was Benedict's existence being questioned
- Why was Simonides honesty being questioned
This adverse testimony from the Monks all across Mt. Athos pre-dates Simonides Emperor's Bible creation myth and is a lot more CONSISTENT than you've represented Mr. Avery.
And...your investigative team has failed (by your own admission) to give the FULL CONTEXT MISSING from Hodgkin's context-less snippets.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The Forging Antiquities Project is sitting on correspondence between Simonides and John Eliot Hodgkin.
It is very possible they discusses these types of issues.
(There may also be material about the Odessa lithographing, mentioned in Farrer.)
They are also sitting on a letter from Simonides to Kallinikos, that may help on the Kallinikos history.
It is very possible they discusses these types of issues.
(There may also be material about the Odessa lithographing, mentioned in Farrer.)
They are also sitting on a letter from Simonides to Kallinikos, that may help on the Kallinikos history.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Folk's...if you didn't notice it...
Let's look at Steven's double standard in that last post!
So it's okay for Simonides not to be able to afford it...
But not okay for Wright not to be able to afford it...
Hmmmm
Do you think he's being impartial here?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
There are about 40 monasteries in Mt. Athos.
It would help if you list all the letters discussing Simonides.
It sounds like you are saying that Simonides could do something nefarious like take manuscripts from Mt. Athos, and bring them to Constantius, act as if Sinaiticus is old, and receive 25,000 piastres. That would upset the monastery!
Yep, its possible.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
None (note none) of them (any of the monastery's that did come forward) in either 1863...
Or today, have officially said that the Emperor's Bible myth of Simonides, either, really happened, or, hypothetically (which is over your head) could have happened (Cf. 1863, Russian Orthodox Review letter from the Mt. Athos quoted by Cjab)
None of the letters that we do have access to, have ever been proved publicly to have been forged by Simonides, as the Kallinikos letters were proven to be forgeries at the Royal Society of Literature meeting in February 1863. ?
Therefore they are a million times more trustworthy than Simonides version.
You (Steven)? You have, in all your investigative expertise, 100% verified that a record of the payment of the 25,000 piastres to the said Simonides, is for a fact in the Constantinople archives?
Such an expense would not go unnoticed, nor unrecorded, nor undated in the Constantinoplian Church archives.
You're bluffing speculation and bravado, that will inevitably follow, will be (I have no doubt) proven wrong one day.
You see Steven, you've got to remember that you're imagination is not considered evidence or proof in scholarly circles (the speculations of a lunatic are simply not worth much these days).
So is the discovery of an ancient manuscript among thousands of other ancient manuscripts at St. Catherine's. ?
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
And what are you hiding that could help us, or be potentially damaging to Simonides?
Hmmmm
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
For the record. I don't think the Forging Antiquities Project is "hiding" these letters.
The motives Steven implies. I categorically disagree with.
I just wanted to make that clear.
The motives Steven implies. I categorically disagree with.
I just wanted to make that clear.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Where did I say Simonides had to pay for their expenses?
I sad "invite".
The Arch-Bishops (Anthimos for example) could reasonably be expected to pay for their own travel expenses. If he paid 25,000 piastres as a mere thankyou gift, why couldn't he afford a boat trip to England from Constantinople?
Simonides lack of finances was a direct consequence of his dishonesty.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So you think that is why he received the money for Sinaiticus from Constantius?