Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - Kallinikos Profile, History, Details

Remember...

Avery is unwittingly revealing to you, that as far back as 1851 Benedict's existence was being questioned, and Simonides was involved in deep controversies about his honesty...

You need to ask WHY?

Why
was Benedict's existence in question?

Why was Simonides honesty a hot issue in 1851?

That's what you should takeaway from this...
 
Possibly available today in a Constantinople library.

Note his "Possibly".

What does this really mean folks?

It means he (Steven) has never read THE FULL CONTEXT of the December 1851 issue of "the Telegraph of the Bosphorus".

It means he's scoured the internet with mother Google and can't find it. He couldn't read it even if he could find it because he doesn't read Greek (modern, classical, or Koine).

What you should be asking "folks" is what was written in THE FULL CONTEXT?

What else did:

  • Melchisedec of the Great Lavra (Μεγίστη Λαύρα) monastery on Mt. Athos
  • Eugenius of the Xeropotamou (Μονή Ξηροποτάμου) monastery on Mt. Athos
  • Dionysious of the Xeropotamou (Μονή Ξηροποτάμου) monastery on Mt. Athos
  • Rev. Archimandrites Samuel Nicolaides (Νικολαΐδης) of Mt. Athos, who later came to England and became the minister of the Greek Church in Liverpool.

Write about Simonides' dishonesty?

What is Hodgkin's omitting? And why?

And you need to ask, if it's so obscure and so hard to find today (outside of Constantinople - remember Hodgkin's lived in England) with the help of the internet, then how on earth did Hodgkin's find it on his own without any help or information from Simonides whatsoever (remember Avery's words - his sweeping and all encompassing assumption) that this Greek language, Constantinoplian newspaper was "available to everyone" in (implied) England? Hmmmm

It just doesn't add up.

Secondly.

If (note IF) Avery has found the article and managed to get it translated by somebody (or Google Translate)...

Then you need to be asking the pertinent question:

Why is Avery HIDING this relevant (as he would call it ?) ✌️ "scholarship" ✌️?????


Wooo... sorry folks, trying to get off the floor from laughing so much...Oh boy ?

He's got a habit of making hypocritical arguments...accusing other people of deliberately "HIDING" stuff...when the reality is "folks" that he's deliberately holding lots and LOTS of stuff back himself...double standards... remember that "folks"...the next time you hear him wine about Malcolm Choat or Tommy Wasserman "HIDING" Kallinikos letters...
 
Last edited:
If (note IF) Avery has found the article and managed to get it translated by somebody (or Google Translate)...

Never wrote to the Greek-language libraries.
Seems very minor.

If you have the article, you could stop the posturing and simply share.
If not, your posturing is again a huge laugher.

Anyway, a little more checking is a fine idea.
 
Last edited:
Questions for Steven.

1. Do you at this time, actually have in your possession (digitally or otherwise) a copy of the full article of the December 1851 issues of "the Telegraph of the Bosphorus"?

Yes? Or no?

2. Do you currently have access to the full context of the quote snippets reported by Hodgkin's from the Telegraph of the Bosphorus?

Yes? Or no?

3. Have you read the preceding issue (obviously about Simonides) of the Telegraph of the Bosphorus that caused the letters to be sent to the editor of the Telegraph of the Bosphorus?

Yes? Or no?

 
Questions for Steven.

Have not seen the Telegraph of the Bosphorus article.

Think it might be interesting to have more than the current excerpts.

How about you?

(You are the consummate game-player. You repeatedly use the PBF for sources, which is fine, but then you whine and whine when something is not there.)
 
Have not seen the Telegraph of the Bosphorus article.

Think it might be interesting to have more than the current excerpts.

How about you?

Note readers, Steven's disingenuousness.

Is he deceiving us?

What do you think?

Because he's actually posted some earlier quotations (than the snippets from Hodgkin's) from the Telegraph of the Bosphorus, from earlier in the very same year on his blog.

Hmmm ?

Is he too stupid to remember?

Or is this a case of conscious deceit and hiding stuff?

What do you think?
 
Last edited:
Because he's actually posted some earlier quotations (than the snippets from Hodgkin's) from the Telegraph of the Bosphorus, from earlier in the very same year on his blog.

Then why not give my quote or url?
Generally I simply give my source with the quote.

And I do mention Anna Mykoniati, author of one of the Genius papers, from whom we have this in rough translation:

Simonides' close contact with Mayer's "Museum" in Liverpool and the papyri in his possession, resulted in his turning to Egyptology in the following years. However, his involvement with this field and especially with the decipherment of hieroglyphics went back several years. In the newspaper Telegraph of the Bosphorus of January 20, 1851, he had published a strange explanation of the hieroglyphics of an obelisk located in Constantinople.214 He claimed then that he learned to read this script after studying seven ancient writings on the subject. People were hearing them for the first time, as were their authors. Among them the Egyptians by Eustratius Memphitos, the Hieroglyphics by Eteocleus, the Constitution of Egyptian monuments by Democleus Peadaretus, etc. He therefore proposed that the hieroglyphic signs were neither phonetic nor ideographic;

214 In fact, under the title The Byzantine Obelisk, it was released the same year as an independent Pamphlet.

Which comes out of this paper.

Πλαστές Αρχαιότητες (Fake Antiquities)
https://www.academia.edu/6491196/Πλαστές_Αρχαιότητες

As I have had zero direct access to any issue of the Telegraph of the Bosphorus.

The reference from Anna is the same year, but quite unrelated. However, it would be interesting to follow up with her on the hieroglyphics interpretations issues.
 
And I do mention Anna Mykoniati, author of one of the Genius papers, from whom we have this in rough translation:

Which comes out of this paper.

Πλαστές Αρχαιότητες (Fake Antiquities)
https://www.academia.edu/6491196/Πλαστές_Αρχαιότητες

As I have had zero direct access to any issue of the Telegraph of the Bosphorus.

The reference from Anna is the same year, but quite unrelated. However, it would be interesting to follow up with her on the hieroglyphics interpretations issues.

No Steven. This is not the quotations I was referring to. This is yet another one. A different one.

Note readers!

Distill away Steven's blather and see what's really happening here.

There is A LOT (note that, ALOT) being posted about Simonides in this newspaper the Telegraph of the Bosphorus in 1851 (in multiple issues).

You need to think this through, and ask a few simple questions.

Why has Steven (the S.A.R.T. Team's representative on these forums) omitted either posting or researching all these different articles concerning Simonides honesty being questioned in 1851 and Benedict's existence being questioned in 1851 in Constantinople?

Why was Benedict's existence being questioned by several monks living on Mt. Athos, in 1851?

Why was Simonides honesty being questioned in 1851?

Why is Steven so hesitant and dismissive (i.e. very suspect folks) about looking deeper into the Telegraph of the Bosphorus?
 
Last edited:
Do you have the source on this?

Thanks!

Why are you pretending Steven that you don't know what letters or publications they are from?

See the lies (readers) about the Shepherd of Hermas told by Simonides below:

Simonides

"because the supply of parchment ran short"

Kallinikos is even more explicit about witnessing (note "witnessing") the alleged copying of the Codex Sinaiticus finishing at the first part of the Shepherd of Hermas.

Kallinikos

"the first part of the Shepherd of Hermas when his supply of parchment ran short"

"the volume was left incomplete"

"he left the work unfinished"

Neither Kallinikos or Simonides had handled, written, or seen the COMPLETE (note readers "COMPLETE") MANUSCRIPT, meaning all the missing parts together at any time.

They (lol ?) both LIED!

Both Simonides and Kallinikos DID NOT KNOW that the Codex Sinaiticus included the LAST PART of the Shepherd Hermas.

They couldn't, and didn't, and they KEPT UP THIS LIE until they died (in Simonides case, multiple times) and faded into oblivion.
 
Last edited:
Here are some other Bosphorus references from PBF, mostly from Nicolos Farmakidis, a fine resource!

Nikolos Farmakidis

Simonides himself, in a letter published in the newspaper "Telegraph of Bosphorus" (sheet 384, p. 3), on 28.4.1851, says: "So the tragic murder of the ever-mortal Kapodistrios, along with many others, brought about the destruction of the brilliant Orphanage in Aegina, where the seven hundred children of the Greeks who died and died in the wars were raised and taught, and then I, one of those who were reared there, after my brother Photios, who was born in the same name, went to Nafplio, and from there to Pechas, Hydra, and Syran, we both returned to Syme, seeking our father Simon. And having failed, we returned to our mother's house under the protection of the relatives of our mother Maria, who had been an Ethnikian for many years. After two years of living in Symi and studying with the then teacher of the island, Ierotheos Fotiadis of Symi, who was also a relative of our mother, we separated, and on 18 December 1836, I returned to Syros, and my brother stayed with his relatives".

In the "Telegraph of Bosphorus", No. 404, 15.9.1851, the editor of the newspaper, who is furious with him for having insulted him, writes about him: "...Simonides, as we have recently learned, was a miserable printer and a miserable binder, before he was surrounded by a lion's ransom". The final conclusion is that Constantine was in Syros and Athens between Dec. 1836 and 1839.

Henry Caillot will say, via the "Bosphorus Telegraph" on 13.8.1851, that he should repent and apologize to science.

The invention308 of finding the library is very well thought out. It first appeared in Athens and then worked out more and more through the years. The final version is that of "Telegraph of the Bosphorus", April 1851. The same is the case with the list of finds - manuscripts. The first is that of Elyros in the "Kefalonian" and the second is that to the Russians. They have minor differences, but they are very profound in the knowledge they contain and very well aimed for his purposes.


VI. 6. Simonides' study of the Egyptian column 238

The study that he makes for the description of the columns of the Hippodrome, as he tells us, he copied it from pages 74-77 of the book "CONSTANTINIA OLD AND NEVER AGAIN, THE DESCRIPTION OF CONSTANTINOPOLIS", Compiled by ANDROS PHILOLOGIST AND PHILARCHIOLOGIST (CONSTANTIN I ex-Patriarch) in 1844, who in turn copied Peter Gillios (lat: Petrus Gyllius; French: Pierre Gilles, 1490-1555), a French traveller, surveyor and translator, who was in Constantinople between 1544 and 1547 as an envoy of King Francis I of France for the discovery and study of ancient manuscripts. C-
During his stay there he discovered a manuscript of the geographical work of Dionysius of Byzantium from the 2nd century AD, whose text he translated into Latin, while during the same period he also compiled a topographical study of the city and a description of the Bosphorus. "De Constantinopoleos topographia libri IV, pp. 120-127.

Who Knew About the Athos Manuscript?

Markos and Dorotheos and Joasaph salute thee; they are going to-morrow to Jerusalem, and thence to Damascus. I copied exactly, and presentcd my work to one of my teachers, Gregorius Constantas, on his birthday. He accepted them most kindly, kissed me many times, called me young Stelokopes, and made me a present of books, especially of those which he had published in Vienna, one of which, The Letters of Synesius, was issued in 1792. 1 have preserved it carefully till now, and it contains the following presentation note:—‘To Constantine Simonides, the young Stelokopes, good and honourable youth, obedient, most studious and skilful copyist of the Antiquities of Aegina, this book is presented as a gift by his master Gregorius Constantas, Aegina, the year of salvation 1832, January 31st.'
“ I was also called the golden caligraphic pen, because I transcribed the rules of the college at Aegina in golden letters, and ornamented them with some devices. I also wrote caligraphic exercises for the instruction of my college companions; not only this, but on the death of Charilaos, our teacher of caligraphy, I succeeded him with the approbation of the directors of the college, although still very young. I also transcribed the Olynthiacs of Demosthenes in ancient characters, and declaimed them successfully at the public examinations, for which I was designated Demosthenic Rhyme, by Philetairos, Professor of Literature. I was also called Euclid's Compasses by Rhega, Professor of Mathematics, an embodied Genius by my uncle, an extraordinary Phenomenon by the Patriarch Constantius, Cheirographodephet by the Editors of the Telegraphs of the Bosphorus, Chalkenteros by the Messenger of the Byzantines, Indefatigable mind and pen by my companions, Lynceus by Dindorf, Hand of Daedalus by the Editors of the Athena, published at Athens, and by many others of whom it is needless to speak at present. Alexander V. Humboldt named me * a living enigma and indissoluble Gordian knot,* as C. Stewart, the journals— the Dial, January 17, 1862, and hath Chronicle, March 13, 1862, report.
 
Kallinikos is even more explicit about witnessing (note "witnessing") the alleged copying of the Codex Sinaiticus finishing at the first part of the Shepherd of Hermas.
Kallinikos
"the first part of the Shepherd of Hermas when his supply of parchment ran short"
"the volume was left incomplete"

"he left the work unfinished"

Just the other day I told you to check your Kallinikos quotes.

Do you have the source on this?
Thanks!

You are taking a William Aldis Wright summary that focuses on Simonides.

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
The Codex Sinaiticus and its Antiquity
October 27, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA210

And misrepresenting Wright as if your three quotes above are all Kallinikos!
Ooops

However, Kallinikos only has:

"he left the work unfinished"

Hermas is not mentioned.
(Nor running out of parchment.)


Remember, the original plan related from Simonides was to have more early church writers. Also the sense was that Simonides would somehow fix the mess, maybe with a do-over.


The Kallinikos letter is on p. 76 of Elliott.

Here it is for you, the Intro in picture, the letter in text.
And I had placed some in BOLD, and leave those words in bold.


1710534675202.png
16. 16th according to The Literary Churchman: 15th according to The Guardian.

You are aware of all that the excellent and much enduring Simonides has published as to the Pseudo Sinaitic Codex, abstracted from the library of the Greek monastery at Sinai, by Dr. Tischendorf. The facts are really so. And I counsel you not to continue circulating contrary statements, for you will greatly sin in foisting on the world a new MS. as an old one, and especially a MS. containing the Holy Scriptures. Injury to the Church must accrue from all this, even from the evidently numerous corrections of the MS. And that this is a new MS. I openly proclaim, both before the all · seeing God, and before men; and !further, I protest to you, Messrs. Editors, that this is a genuine work of the indefatigable Simonides. For I myself saw him with my own eyes, in February, 1840, writing it in Athos; and, owing to the death of the head of the monastery, he left the work unfinished, and went to Constantinople, taking the Codex with him, which also he delivered to the illustrious patriarch Constantius, and he sent it to the monastery in Sinai by a monk of that house, named Germanus, whose subordinate still lives in Athos to attest the writer. And the patriarch sent the Codex there, in order that the transcript might be compared with other copies of the Old and New Testament, and then be transcribed by the same Simonides, and sacredly presented to the Emperor of Russia, on the part, not of the monastery of St. Pantaleemon, according to the original intention of Benedict, but on the part of the patriarch Constantius. On this account, the hieromonk Callistratus, a wise man, and companion of the same house, undertook the comparison of it, and did compare it with other codices of the same house, by command of Constantius, the patriarch. And he, having partly corrected it, left it in the library awaiting the return of Simonides, the first calligrapher in Greece. He not coming in good time, the work was altogether neglected, and remained in the common library of the monastery for some time: until Dr. Tischendorf (coming to the monastery in Sinai, in May, 1844, and spending some days there, and having examined the MS. carefully and suspecting it to be ancient), tore off a small part of it, privately, and went his way, as if nothing had happened, leaving the rest of it in the position which it had before. He perpetrated this great wrong without scruple. Finally, coming again to the same monastery, he took also the remaining portion of the MS. with the aid of the Russian Consul, on the promise that he would return it. And they both promised to the Bishop of Sinai many and great gifts. which. in my opinion. they will never perform: because, at other times, many such promises were made by a certain Russian archimandrite, named Porphyrius, who took away many MSS. from the monastery of St. Dionysius. in Athos, and from others. and they were never fulfilled.

All these things, then, I know, being on the spot, and I declare them openly for the dear truth's sake. And I further assert, that the Codex which, per fas et nefas (SA: through right or wrong) Dr. Tischendorf abstracted, is the very same which Simonides wrote twenty - two years ago. For I saw it in the hands of Tischendorf, and recognised the work, and I first mentioned it to Simonides, who had no knowledge of the fact before. Evidently he knew not the abstraction of his work from the monastery in Mount Sinai. I read also at first this acrostic in it, «Simonides'entire work»: but, after two days, the leaf containing this formal acrostic had been removed - it being unknown, as yet, by whom this was done. I know too, still further, that the same Codex was cleaned, with a solution of herbs, on the theory that the skins might be cleaned, but. in fact, that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow colour.

These things then, Messrs. Editors, I have thought it my duty, unasked, to make known to you before I die-for I am an old man, and very near to death; and you, being as you are, heralds of the truth- as such you will greatly serve the truth, and those who follow truth, if you will exactly publish the contents of this my letter; or, otherwise, you will give account to God in the Day of Judgment. Farewell in the Lord, &c.

1710535619877.png

17 F. Field corrected the translation in a letter to The Literary Churchman. January 1st, 1863.

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

We can thank TNC for his error, since he ends up giving us additional evidence (there are quite a few in the letter) that Kallinikos is an independent source.

The contras do such a good job in focusing on evidence that supports the Athos creation of Sinaiticus!

=================================================================
 
Last edited:
Just the other day I told you to check your Kallinikos quotes.



You are taking a William Aldis Wright summary that focuses on Simonides.

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
The Codex Sinaiticus and its Antiquity
October 27, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA210

And misrepresenting Wright as if your three quotes above are all Kallinikos!
Ooops

However, Kallinikos only has:

"he left the work unfinished"

Hermas is not mentioned.
(Nor running out of parchment.)


Remember, the original plan related from Simonides was to have more early church writers. Also the sense was that Simonides would somehow fix the mess, maybe with a do-over.


The Kallinikos letter is on p. 76 of Elliott.

Here it is for you, the Intro in picture, the letter in text.
And I had placed some in BOLD, and leave those words in bold.


View attachment 5753
16. 16th according to The Literary Churchman: 15th according to The Guardian.

You are aware of all that the excellent and much enduring Simonides has published as to the Pseudo Sinaitic Codex, abstracted from the library of the Greek monastery at Sinai, by Dr. Tischendorf. The facts are really so. And I counsel you not to continue circulating contrary statements, for you will greatly sin in foisting on the world a new MS. as an old one, and especially a MS. containing the Holy Scriptures. Injury to the Church must accrue from all this, even from the evidently numerous corrections of the MS. And that this is a new MS. I openly proclaim, both before the all · seeing God, and before men; and !further, I protest to you, Messrs. Editors, that this is a genuine work of the indefatigable Simonides. For I myself saw him with my own eyes, in February, 1840, writing it in Athos; and, owing to the death of the head of the monastery, he left the work unfinished, and went to Constantinople, taking the Codex with him, which also he delivered to the illustrious patriarch Constantius, and he sent it to the monastery in Sinai by a monk of that house, named Germanus, whose subordinate still lives in Athos to attest the writer. And the patriarch sent the Codex there, in order that the transcript might be compared with other copies of the Old and New Testament, and then be transcribed by the same Simonides, and sacredly presented to the Emperor of Russia, on the part, not of the monastery of St. Pantaleemon, according to the original intention of Benedict, but on the part of the patriarch Constantius. On this account, the hieromonk Callistratus, a wise man, and companion of the same house, undertook the comparison of it, and did compare it with other codices of the same house, by command of Constantius, the patriarch. And he, having partly corrected it, left it in the library awaiting the return of Simonides, the first calligrapher in Greece. He not coming in good time, the work was altogether neglected, and remained in the common library of the monastery for some time: until Dr. Tischendorf (coming to the monastery in Sinai, in May, 1844, and spending some days there, and having examined the MS. carefully and suspecting it to be ancient), tore off a small part of it, privately, and went his way, as if nothing had happened, leaving the rest of it in the position which it had before. He perpetrated this great wrong without scruple. Finally, coming again to the same monastery, he took also the remaining portion of the MS. with the aid of the Russian Consul, on the promise that he would return it. And they both promised to the Bishop of Sinai many and great gifts. which. in my opinion. they will never perform: because, at other times, many such promises were made by a certain Russian archimandrite, named Porphyrius, who took away many MSS. from the monastery of St. Dionysius. in Athos, and from others. and they were never fulfilled.

All these things, then, I know, being on the spot, and I declare them openly for the dear truth's sake. And I further assert, that the Codex which, per fas et nefas (SA: through right or wrong) Dr. Tischendorf abstracted, is the very same which Simonides wrote twenty - two years ago. For I saw it in the hands of Tischendorf, and recognised the work, and I first mentioned it to Simonides, who had no knowledge of the fact before. Evidently he knew not the abstraction of his work from the monastery in Mount Sinai. I read also at first this acrostic in it, «Simonides'entire work»: but, after two days, the leaf containing this formal acrostic had been removed - it being unknown, as yet, by whom this was done. I know too, still further, that the same Codex was cleaned, with a solution of herbs, on the theory that the skins might be cleaned, but. in fact, that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow colour.

These things then, Messrs. Editors, I have thought it my duty, unasked, to make known to you before I die-for I am an old man, and very near to death; and you, being as you are, heralds of the truth- as such you will greatly serve the truth, and those who follow truth, if you will exactly publish the contents of this my letter; or, otherwise, you will give account to God in the Day of Judgment. Farewell in the Lord, &c.

View attachment 5754

17 F. Field corrected the translation in a letter to The Literary Churchman. January 1st, 1863.

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

We can thank TNC for his error, since he ends up giving us additional evidence (there are quite a few in the letter) that Kallinikos is an independent source.

The contras do such a good job in focusing on evidence that supports the Athos creation of Sinaiticus!

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

Answer the three questions on the Timeline thread first.

The narrative above only says "Callistratus" did comparison with manuscripts of St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai, and "partly corrected it".

That's all.

Means nothing, overrides nothing. Unless, there's a later add to the story which you're deviously omitting?

You need to answer the three questions on the Timeline thread first before I'll engage further on this.
 
Answer the three questions on the Timeline thread first.
The narrative above only says "Callistratus" did comparison with manuscripts of St. Catherine's Monastery on Mt. Sinai, and "partly corrected it".
That's all.
Means nothing, overrides nothing. Unless, there's a later add to the story which you're deviously omitting?
You need to answer the three questions on the Timeline thread first before I'll engage further on this.

You blundered, by giving supposed supposed quotes from Kallinikos, where you wrongly said, again and again, from Kallnikos:


  • 1863, November 5th, Kallinikos "...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."

Kallinikos = first part of the Shepherd of Hermas

Kallinikos
"the first part of the Shepherd of Hermas when his supply of parchment ran short"

That false quote you used as your chief evidence to claim that Simonides penned Kallinikos.

You need to acknowledge that error.
Instead of changing the topic.

First misquotes get corrected, then analysis continues.
 
Last edited:
Avery is unwittingly revealing to you, that as far back as 1851 Benedict's existence was being questioned,

This clearly needs a quote.

And make sure it is a real quote, not one like the Kallinikos "first part of Hermas".

Thanks!

and Simonides was involved in deep controversies about his honesty...

Actually his deep controversies go back into the 1840s.

Definitely the Jonas King controversies.
Probably the Symais controversies, Andreas Mustoxydes in 1849.

Maybe others.

As far as we can tell, he got away with the sale of Sinaiticus and some other manuscripts without controversy.
 
Last edited:
In the 1840s Simonides had worked on the Painter's Manuel of Manuel Panselinos (13th-14th century) and sold some copies.
 
Back
Top