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

Steven Avery said:
1) 20 years gone by

2) different monastery reporting through a telephone-style routing

3) they desire to distance Athos monasteries from Simonides, who was an embarrassment

4) word-parsing

5) no specific discussion, e.g. the location of the library as given by Simonides.

Totally unreliable.

CNN style reporting - “safe and effective”
Click to expand...

Sooo...(let's try and follow this) the monastery where Simonide's say's it all happened (copying, collating, etc etc) and all the people in the monastery who knew Simonides personally are all a bunch of deliberate and calculating liars and their eyewitness testimony cannot be relied upon?
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Sooo...(let's try and follow this) the monastery where Simonide's say's it all happened (copying, collating, etc etc) and all the people in the monastery who knew Simonides personally are all a bunch of deliberate and calculating liars and their eyewitness testimony cannot be relied upon?
Click to expand...

So now you are speaking for “all the people in the monastery who knew Simonides personally”?
Names?
Affidavits?
I only see a note from a different monastery. Maybe too much of a hot potato.

Yet when it came to Anthimus and Germanus and John Prodromus named by Simonides as having actually seen and handled the manuscript, William WrIght and his Investigative Clowns made no attempt to make contact. Hmmmmmm.

========

And your refusal to answer this simple question is quite telling:

Steven Avery said:
Do you really believe Benedict was not related to Simonides?
E.g - his mom’s uncle?

If yes, why?

Even the contras acknowledge the same home island, Symi.
Click to expand...

You refuse to answer because the fella at the other monastery, not from Symi, gave an “answer” that you cannot trust.
Looks like a set-up.
 
Last edited:
Then you can explain why your investigative hero, William Wright, gave the false (lying, phony) report about the ancient catalogue supporting the antiquity of Sinaiticus.

Ooopppsss.

That was a very important claim, PROVENANCE, it could have ended the controversy in a day if it were true, and it was a total lie. So obviously Wright was not trustworthy.

And that was a current claim, not vague remembrances from 20 years earlier, around minor issues like whether Benedict was related to Simonide’s family.

See the Beneshevich 1937 book.

The Beneshevich 1911 book has information on manuscripts stolen from St. Catherine’s.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
1) 20 years gone by
2) different monastery reporting through a telephone-style routing
3) they desire to distance Athos monasteries from Simonides, who was an embarrassment
4) word-parsing
5) no specific discussion, e.g. the location of the library as given by Simonides.
Totally unreliable.
CNN style reporting - “safe and effective”
Click to expand...

Plus you omitted the Hodgkin excellent response, shows all sorts of problems with this attempt to separate Simonides and Benedict from their manuscript labour at Panteleimon.
 
Steven Avery said:
So now you are speaking for “all the people in the monastery who knew Simonides personally”?
Names?
Affidavits?
I only see a note from a different monastery. Maybe too much of a hot potato.

Yet when it came to Anthimus and Germanus and John Prodromus named by Simonides as having actually seen and handled the manuscript, William WrIght and his Investigative Clowns made no attempt to make contact. Hmmmmmm.

========

And your refusal to answer this simple question is quite telling:



You refuse to answer because the fella at the other monastery, not from Symi, gave an “answer” that you cannot trust.
Looks like a set-up.
Click to expand...

Like the convicted criminal, forger, and internationally renowned LIAR Simonides' can be trusted....

You've been deceived by a 19th century pathological liar...

The monastery's reply to Mr Wright's inquiry can be trusted because it has other witnesses to the veracity of it's contents from inside the Rossico monastery.

You, on the other hand, are only interested in downplaying (and denigrating) the facts, making mythical up patches 9from silence) in an attempt to aid and abet Simonides' dishonesty, ignore his fraudulent identity theft strategy, ignore his John Smith common name camouflage tactics, and swallow hook line and sinker the very clever web of plausible LIES Simonides' told.




Cap 5.PNG


Robert Curzon, Traveller and Book Collector
By Meridel Holland, M.A, Ph. D.
Harvard University

The Bulletin of the John Rylands University, Library of Manchester, Vol. 65, No. 2, 1983.

Pages 138-139

"The collector J. E. Hodgkin, who had befriended Simonides late in life when he was "discredited and almost destitute" wrote to Curzon to ask the whereabouts of a certain monk [i.e. Kallinikos], and his opinion as to the validity of Simonides' claim. Curzon wrote back a letter full of good paleographical sense about the Codex Sinaiticus, and [Page 139] demonstrating the speed with which he was capable of assessing manuscripts:

"Sir: It is so long since I have been in the Levant that I have at present no means of ascertaining anything about the monk Kallinikos. H.M. Consul at Salonika would probably be able to inform you, whether that person really exists, and what position he may hold in Mt. Athos if he does exist. With respect to the Mt. Sinai manuscript, I should be quite satisfied as to its authenticity, if I was allowed to examine it, for ten minutes, or if Sir F. Madden, or any other competent person, was permitted to do so. It would be very difficult to carry out so voluminous a forgery, in the writing, the nature of the vellum, the way in which the leaves were set together, and other peculiarities of a very early manuscript, that I should doubt whether Mr. Simonides would be competent to take in a person really conversant in such matters. From my own experience I should imagine it would be hardly possible to deceive any one, who has studied the matter 0carefully. I am, Sir, Yours faithfully."

[Footnote Page 138]
14 Curzon, Armenia (London, 1854), p. 237.

[Footnote Page 138]
13 Quoted by Munby, Phillipps Studies: IV (Cambridge, 1956), p. 118.

[Footnote Page 138]
1 Ibid., p. 131.

https://www.escholar.manchester.ac....amId=POST-PEER-REVIEW-PUBLISHERS-DOCUMENT.PDF​


William Aldis Wright had anticipated this idea, and had sent a letter to the Consul.



Cap 2c.PNG



Journal of Sacred Literature, Vol 5, April-July, 1864
April Miscellanies
Subheading: “M. Simonides and His Uncle”
Pages 228-229
[Digital Page #242]
HathiTrust Digital Library

M. SIMONIDES AND HIS UNCLE.

“Sir, On the 5th of June last I wrote to Mr. Wilkinson, Her Brittanic Majesty's Consul at Salonica, requesting him to obtain for me from the monks of Mount Athos answers to seven questions respecting Simonides. His reply reached me this morning. I enclose a copy of my questions, which you will see bear upon the story of Simonides as told by himself in the Guardian of Sep. 3, 1862.”

W. Aldis Wright.
Trinity College, Cambridge, Nov. 8.

Salonica, Oct. 23, 1863.

“Dear Sir, I have delayed replying to your letter of the 5th of June last, as I was in hopes of visiting Mount Athos in September. My occupations here having prevented me from carrying out my intention, I have been obliged to request the Archimandrite Dionysius of the monastery of Xeropotami, a person well acquainted with the history of the Holy Mountain, to furnish me with the information you require respecting Simonides. I have now the pleasure to enclose the Archimandrite's replies to your queries, from which you will perceive that your suspicions were but too well founded. The Archimandrite Dionysius is now, and has been for many years, the spiritual head of the monks of the Monastery of Xeropotami. He is a well-informed man, and his statement may be relied upon as correct. The Monastery of Xeropotami is situated close by the 'Rossico,' or St. Panteleemon. I send you the Archimandrite's own letter, but being written in rather barbarous Greek, I have added to it an English translation. … - Believe me, dear sir, yours faithfully.”

Richard Wilkinson.
“W. Aldis Wright, Esq., etc., etc., etc., Cambridge."​

Questions sent by me to Mr. Wilkinson, the English Consul at Salonica, to be answered by the monks of the Rossico Monastery.
- W. A. W. ​
Copy of answers, as translated by Mr. Wilkinson.
- W. A. W.​
Questions​
Replys​
1. “Was one named Benedict the spiritual head of the monastery between the years 1837 and 1840?”1. “Benedict belonged to the Russian monastery, but he was never the spiritual head of the monks.”
2. “Did he die in the year 1840, in the month of August?”2. “The said Benedict died in 1840, in the month of April, and not in August.”
3. “Was Simonides his nephew, and was he resident in the monastery between November, 1839, and August, 1840?”3. “Simonides was neither his nephew, nor was he otherwise related to him.”
4. “Did Benedict discover a hidden library in the year 1837?”4. “The alleged discovery by Benedict of a library is entirely false.”
[Page 229]​
5. “Did Benedict and the brethren of the monastery contemplate making a present to the Emperor Nicholas in the year 1839 of a transcript of the Scriptures in ancient characters on vellum?”
[Page 229]​
5. “The Rossico Monastery never possessed the Scriptures on parchment; it is impossible, therefore, that the monks should have ever contemplated presenting the emperor with any such.”
6. “Was Dionysius at that time the professional calligrapher to the monastery, and did he decline the task which Simonides undertook?”6. “In the Rossico there were many monks of the name of Dionysius, but none of them was ever a calligrapher.”
7. “Was Simonides ever at Mount Athos at all, and in what capacity was he known there?”7. “Simonides came twice to Mount Athos, in 1840 and in 1851. The last time (1851) the monks were so annoyed with his 'tripotages,' that they sent him away after a stay of only four months, during which he did nothing but visit some of the monasteries.”

 
Steven Avery said:
So now you are speaking for “all the people in the monastery who knew Simonides personally”?
Click to expand...

That's what you do all the time Steven. ;)

You're our local Dr Who who time travels and reports back (with your never emptying coffee mug cf. first Snapp debate video) what he saw while he was in the Rossico monastery in 1839-1840 and was holding hands with + [= Arch-Bishop] Kuriakos Kallinikos Keraunos the Ordained-Priest-Monk of Alexandria/Thessoloniki on Mt Sinai in 1844....
 
Last edited:
Why are you spamming the forum with repeated posts?

Is that your way of avoiding answering simple questions like mine about Benedict.

And avoid relating to the question of why Wright made no inquiries to the most important manuscript folks.

Posts 63, 64 and 65.

A bit transparent, TNC.
 
Steven Avery said:
Why are you spamming the forum with repeated posts?

Is that your way of avoiding answering simple questions like mine about Benedict.

And avoid relating to the question of why Wright made no inquiries to the most important manuscript folks.

Posts 63, 64 and 65.

A bit transparent, TNC.
Click to expand...

Mr Wright's efforts are now spam?

You asked, you got.

Your trying to hide contra Simonide's facts.

No matter. There's plenty more of that coming.
 
Steven Avery said:
Your repeating the same long posts is spam.

Your way of avoiding real discussion, iron sharpeners.

And avoiding the counterpoints of Hodgkin and yours truly.

See posts 63, 64, 65.
Click to expand...

Wasn't it Hodgkin's who (like you probably will) finally got it?

It was in the end, that he finally realized (by hard experience, by Simonide's true character finally becoming manifest, after being used by Simonide's abominably) that he finally realized and came to the conclusion, that Simonide's was simply and straightforwardly a LYING sack of...
 
Last edited:
And did Hodgkin's ever actually find the real person in the flesh who was + [= Arch-Bishop] Kuriakos Kallinikos Keraunos the Ordained-Priest-Monk of Alexandria and/or Thessoloniki?

After his long investigation?

No. He never did.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Wasn't it Hodgkin's who (like you probably will) finally got it? It was in the end, that he finally realized (by hard experience, by Simonide's true character finally becoming manifest, after being used by Simonide's abominably) that he finally realized and came to the conclusion, that Simonide's was simply and straightforwardly a LYING sack of...
Click to expand...

You are pretending those are words or thoughts from Hodgkin.
Tacky.

John Eliot Hodgkin (1829-1912) was very helpful in supplying materials and insight for James Anson Farrer’s excellent 1907 article on Simonides in his book Litersry Forgeries.

And Simonides spoke to Hodgkin about Sinaiticus as early as 1860, so he was involved for almost 50 years. :)

Hopefully we will have the Simonides-Hodgkin letter soon that is part of the Forging Antiquities research.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
You are pretending those are words or thoughts from Hodgkin.
Tacky.

John Eliot Hodgkin (1829-1912) was very helpful in supplying materials and insight for James Anson Farrer’s excellent 1907 article on Simonides in his book Litersry Forgeries.

And Simonides spoke to Hodgkin about Sinaiticus as early as 1860, so he was involved for almost 50 years. :)

Hopefully we will have the Simonides-Hodgkin letter soon that is part of the Forging Antiquities research.
Click to expand...

Hodgkin's disowned Simonides, because he finally saw through his charade.

I look forward to Malcolm Choat's research as well.

You on the other hand, are only looking for confirmation bias and something you think you can denigrate.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Hodgkin's disowned Simonides, because he finally saw through his charade.
I look forward to Malcolm Choat's research as well.
Click to expand...

That view is not consistent with Hodgkin's ongoing research on Simonides, including Hermas and Sinaiticus.

So far you have not quoted anything about the Hodgkin-Farrer correspondence except a smidgen about a Hermas tracing. So you seem to be whistling in the wind.

Constantinos Simonidis in the Gennadius Library
Pasquale Massimo Pinto
https://www.academia.edu/899443/Constantinos_Simonidis_in_the_Gennadius_Library

C. – To Hodgkin is also addressed a short undated Autograph Letter from Farrer returning to him some of Simonides’ MSS and tracings, which Farrer apparently utilised in his work on Literary Forgeries.26

These two facts point to friendly and close relations between Simonides and Hodgkin, who was an eminent Lawyer, a Quaker in persuasion, and whose library shows a love and tendency to what is strange and uncommon. He had evidently befriended Simonides and purchased more than one copy of his productions. Most of these, I have met with here for the first time. They are all lithographed from Simonides’ beautiful handwriting on the one side only of very thick paper of brownish or blueish tint.

Footnote 26 goes into the uncial tracing, the lithographs and a 1852 dated letter from Alexander Sturzas.

The part I highlighted for context you craftily omitted.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top