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

Questions.
  • How many letters exactly did Kallinikos write to Simonide's specifically on the subject of the Sinaiticus?
  • When is it declared he wrote these?
  • From where is it stated he wrote these letters?

All of that should be in Elliott.

One interesting point is that he used the Literary Churchman. This is one source that made a group of salient unanswered arguments against Sinaiticus antiquity in 1859, 62 and 63. Clearly, much of the Literary Chuchman material is mirrored in other pubs, like the Christian Remembrancer and the Journal of Sacred Literaure. However, the availability of the LC online is mixed, the 1862 and 1863 would be helpful. So there may be additional good material.
 
Last edited:
All of that should be in Elliott.

One interesting point is that he used the Literary Churchman. This is one source that made a group of salient unanswered arguments against Sinaiticus antiquity in 1859, 62 and 63. Clearly, much of the Literary Chuchman material is mirrored in other pubs, like the Christian Remembrancer and the Journal of Sacred Literaure. However, the availability of the LC online is mixed, the 1862 and 1863 would be helpful. So there may be additional good material.

Is Elliot's list of Kallinikos' letters correct in your opinion? Has he missed any?
 
Elliott probably is accurate about the letters that were brought forth in the 1862-1864 controversies about Sinaiticus.

He probably does not touch on anything dated 1853.

He only has to tweak two digits in a date during printing process. It's not the printer's responsibility to change the author's content, he just provides a service for x amount of $$$.

He could put whatever date he wanted, and the printer wouldn't stop him.

Anyway.

This is relevant to this issue.

Odysseas Gillis
https://independent.academia.edu/OdysseasGilis

https://www.academia.edu/36392408/Οδυσσέας_Γκιλής_Κωνσταντ

Όμως τίποτα δεν είναι βέβαιο στη ζωή ενός ανθρώπου που φαίνεται να επινοεί τις σπουδές, τους φίλους και προστάτες, τις αυθεντίες που αργότερα εμφανίζει ως εγγυητές της γνησιότητας του έργου του. Άλλωστε, ο ίδιος ισχυριζόταν πως καταγόταν από τα Στάγειρα και ότι ήταν απόγονος του Αριστοτέλη.

"But nothing is certain in the life of a man who seems to invent the studies, the friends and patrons, the authorities he later presents as guarantors of the authenticity of his work. After all, he himself claimed that he came from Stageira and that he was a descendant of Aristotle."

https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...and-colonel-tzami-karatassos.3128/#post-13013
 
This is what I see as likely to be very relevant, when it is available:

2019 Interns on the Forging Antiquity Project
https://markersofauthenticity.com/2020/08/07/2019-interns-on-the-forging-antiquity-project/

"One of the projects of my internship included translating the writings of the elusive Konstantinos Simonides, a notorious Greek forger of the 19th century. My primary focus was on Simonides’ letter to the fictitious monk Kallinikos, purporting to demonstrate the ‘correct’ reading of Egyptian hieroglyphs in opposition to that of Champollion. Throughout this year, I have the privilege of continuing my work on Simonides as a Research Assistant, transcribing and translating the letters between him and his once good friend John Eliot Hodgkin."

The letter itself should help us with the "fictitious" claim.
And shed light on many issues.
 
Last edited:
This is what I see as likely to be very relevant, when it is available:

2019 Interns on the Forging Antiquity Project
https://markersofauthenticity.com/2020/08/07/2019-interns-on-the-forging-antiquity-project/

"One of the projects of my internship included translating the writings of the elusive Konstantinos Simonides, a notorious Greek forger of the 19th century. My primary focus was on Simonides’ letter to the fictitious monk Kallinikos, purporting to demonstrate the ‘correct’ reading of Egyptian hieroglyphs in opposition to that of Champollion. Throughout this year, I have the privilege of continuing my work on Simonides as a Research Assistant, transcribing and translating the letters between him and his once good friend John Eliot Hodgkin."

The letter itself should help us with the "fictitious" claim.
And shed light on many issues.

I wouldn't get your hopes up to high Mr Avery. It may not have anything of value to your claims.
 
I wouldn't get your hopes up to high Mr Avery. It may not have anything of value to your claims.

The actual descriptions of the two letters are very interesting, and in both cases I know of nothing comparable that has been published.

One is said to be a letter from Simonides to Kallinikos on the fascinating issue of the hieroglyphics, and the competing interpretations of Simonides and Champollion. Offhand, I cannot think of any reason why Simonides would play-act on that topic, and it is likely totally unrelated to Sinaiticus provenance issues. It can also add to the hieroglyphic scholarship.

The other is an internal letter of the pro-Athos-Sinaiticus camp, with Simonides writing to Hodgkin.
Again, afaik we have nothing comparable published.

So there are a number of points where I keep my comments limited, until those two are published.

PS
There is some material in Australia archives, involving Stewart, Deane, Hodgkin (from memory) but Simonides is not writing.
 
Last edited:
The actual descriptions of the two letters are very interesting, and in both cases I know of nothing comparable that has been published.

One is said to be a letter from Simonides to Kallinikos on the fascinating issue of the hieroglyphics, and the competing interpretations of Simonides and Champollion. Offhand, I cannot think of any reason why Simonides would play-act on that topic, and it is likely totally unrelated to Sinaiticus provenance issues. It can also add to the hieroglyphic scholarship.

The other is an internal letter of the pro-Athos-Sinaiticus camp, with Simonides writing to Hodgkin.
Again, afaik we have nothing comparable published.

So there are a number of points where I keep my comments limited, until those two are published.

PS
There is some material in Australia archives, involving Stewart, Deane, Hodgkin (from memory) but Simonides is not writing.

I can see why you would be interested in these. I would be (and am) interested in these too.

All parties would welcome extra material to analyze.
 
The actual descriptions of the two letters are very interesting, and in both cases I know of nothing comparable that has been published.

One is said to be a letter from Simonides to Kallinikos on the fascinating issue of the hieroglyphics, and the competing interpretations of Simonides and Champollion. Offhand, I cannot think of any reason why Simonides would play-act on that topic, and it is likely totally unrelated to Sinaiticus provenance issues. It can also add to the hieroglyphic scholarship.

The other is an internal letter of the pro-Athos-Sinaiticus camp, with Simonides writing to Hodgkin.
Again, afaik we have nothing comparable published.

So there are a number of points where I keep my comments limited, until those two are published.

PS
There is some material in Australia archives, involving Stewart, Deane, Hodgkin (from memory) but Simonides is not writing.

"John Eliot Hodgkin, a Liverpudlian businessman and collector antiquities, who was the chief supporter of Simonides and his manuscripts in England at this time. Hodgkin engaged Deane, as well as his fellow scientists Francis Wenham and Richard Beck, to determine the authenticity of the manuscript. While the others declared it a forgery, Deane wrote a report asserting it was genuine. The manuscript of Deane’s report, along with briefer reports from Wenham and Beck, is now contained in the State Library, along with a small archive of letters, mainly from Hodgkin to Deane, concerning the latter’s work. These range over 1863 and 1864, and chronicle the progression in Deane’s opinions on the Uranius from his firm statement of its authenticity in 1863, to a complete reversal of this position – to the dismay of Hodgkin – in the following year [1864]. [...] These papers help tell a small part of the story of the attempt to scientifically authenticate the Simonides manuscript, which will be supplemented by the other side of the correspondence, which we will read again in the British Library when we visit England in September. And as we continue this work, we’ll bear in mind this connection with 19th century Australia, and the story behind these letters being in Victoria. Malcolm and Rachel."

https://markersofauthenticity.com/2...f-simonides-to-the-state-library-of-victoria/
 
"John Eliot Hodgkin, a Liverpudlian businessman and collector antiquities,

While the Uranios dispute is interesting, it is rather secondary to the Sinaiticus manuscript and history. Perhaps there are parts of those letters that veer into Sinaiticus, but that has not been indicated. My working, tentative, conclusion has been that Uranios is a forgery, those letters will shed more light on that secondary question.

No description there of the far more interesting two letters, actually more than two.

https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...ile-history-details.14597/page-6#post-1194604

2019 Interns on the Forging Antiquity Project
https://markersofauthenticity.com/2020/08/07/2019-interns-on-the-forging-antiquity-project/

"One of the projects of my internship included translating the writings of the elusive Konstantinos Simonides, a notorious Greek forger of the 19th century. My primary focus was on Simonides’ letter to the fictitious monk Kallinikos, purporting to demonstrate the ‘correct’ reading of Egyptian hieroglyphs in opposition to that of Champollion. Throughout this year, I have the privilege of continuing my work on Simonides as a Research Assistant, transcribing and translating the letters between him and his once good friend John Eliot Hodgkin."

You astutely said:

I can see why you would be interested in these. I would be (and am) interested in these too.
All parties would welcome extra material to analyze.

Incidentally, the letters in Australia also include Charles Stewart, which would be helpful.
 
Last edited:
We see clearly that they were unable to properly separate the wide scope of “Sinaiticus” issues from the “orange man bad” over-arching arguments about the history of Simonides.

As if Simonides producing later forgeries would be an argument against his ability to be involved in a replica or forgery production at Mount Athos.

The historical imperatives and manuscript “facts on the ground” destroy the Sinaiticus antiquity arguments.
 
My working, tentative, conclusion has been that Uranios is a forgery

Why "tentative"?

And why "has been"? Instead of is...

The writing is identical with other forgeries he made in the Mayer Papyri (as an example). The ink of the Uncial Uranius Greek text is uncoincidentally the color of brownish iron water...surprise surprise...and you know the story about his daily iron "tonic" water...

I have images, but the files are too large. I'll try and fix that (when I get time), and put them here and on the Berlin Trial thread as well.
 
While the Uranios dispute is interesting, it is rather secondary to the Sinaiticus manuscript and history. Perhaps there are parts of those letters that veer into Sinaiticus, but that has not been indicated. My working, tentative, conclusion has been that Uranios is a forgery, those letters will shed more light on that secondary question.

No description there of the far more interesting two letters, actually more than two.

https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...ile-history-details.14597/page-6#post-1194604

2019 Interns on the Forging Antiquity Project
https://markersofauthenticity.com/2020/08/07/2019-interns-on-the-forging-antiquity-project/

"One of the projects of my internship included translating the writings of the elusive Konstantinos Simonides, a notorious Greek forger of the 19th century. My primary focus was on Simonides’ letter to the fictitious monk Kallinikos, purporting to demonstrate the ‘correct’ reading of Egyptian hieroglyphs in opposition to that of Champollion. Throughout this year, I have the privilege of continuing my work on Simonides as a Research Assistant, transcribing and translating the letters between him and his once good friend John Eliot Hodgkin."

You astutely said:



Incidentally, the letters in Australia also include Charles Stewart, which would be helpful.

More on the correspondence.

Emphasis added by me.


Simonides in England: A Forger's Progress, in: A.E. Müller - L. Diamantopoulou - C. Gastgeber - A. Katsiakiori-Rankl (Hrsg.), Die getäuschte Wissenschaft. Ein Genie betrügt Europa – Konstantinos Simonides, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, Göttingen, 2017, pp. 109-126.
Pasquale Massimo Pinto

Page 122

On their first meeting, Hodgkin was certainly impressed by the Uranius. The letters in the Additional 42502 A and other documents show that this manuscript in particular assumed a central role in their relationship. After being persuaded by Hodgkin, Simonides agreed to exhibit it at a meeting of the Royal Society of Literature in London and also to part from it and leave it in the hands of an expert in microscope analysis, the chemist Henry Deane, from
June 1863 to April 1864. The letters between Hodgkin and Deane register Simonides’ growing annoyance as Deane’s suspicion increased over the course of the analysis. Deane’s investigation eventually led to a Report of the Royal Society of Literature in which the inauthenticity of the Mayer papyri and of the Uranius manuscript was declared.{44}

This was also one of the reasons for the end of the friendship between Hodgkin and Simonides. In a letter to Deane from April 1864, Hodgkin wrote:

‘Please give Simonides the Uranius. He has behaved so extremely badly, that I cannot take any further interest in his affairs […]. He seems to me to be the most impracticable of human kind’. {45}

After that, the Uranius palimpsest disappeared.{46} Apparently, the two men tried to heal the rift, but important pieces of information that might provide a clearer picture of the incident are missing. The letters also reveal a worsening of relations between Simonides and Mayer, who had decided at a certain point to stop financing Simonides’ publications and leave him at risk of arrest for debts and lawsuits.{47} Hodgkin did not hesitate to help the Greek on this occasion, as he had done also in other moments of illness or practical difficulty.{48}

[FOOTNOTE 44]:
Report of the Council of the Royal Society of Literature on some of the Mayer Papyri, and the Palimpsest Ms. of Uranius belonging to M. Simonides. With letters from MM. Pertz, Ehrenberg, and Dindorf, London 1863.
[FOOTNOTE 45]: Henry Deane sr. (1807–1874) was a fellow of the Linnean Society of London and of the Microscopcal Society of London. His papers, including the correspondence with John Eliot Hodgkin about Simonides and the Uranius ms., are now among Heny Deane jr.’s papers at the State Library of Victoria, Australia (La Trobe Library, Box 109/4 (a)-(d)).
[FOOTNOTE 46]: A few years later, on April 24, 1869, the journal Notes and Queries published a note on Simonides by Samuel Prideaux Tregelles that ended with the question: ‘On behalf of Prof. W. Dindorf, of Leipsic, I have also to ask: Whether the parchment MS. of the so-called “Uranius of Simonides” is preserved in the collection of Mr. Mayer at Liverpool or elsewhere? Ishall be glad to communicate to him the answer that I may receive’, cf. Tregelles 1869.
[FOOTNOTE 47]: In October 1862, a debt to Mayer had caused Simonides to be confined in the sponging house of Abraham Sloman, in 4 Cursitor Street, near Chancery Lane, cf. British Library, Additional 42502 A ff. 43r–46v.
[FOOTNOTE 48]: More details on the friendship and collaboration between Simonides and Hodgkin can be found in Canfora 2010.

https://www.academia.edu/33381674/Simonides_in_England_A_Forgers_Progress_in_A_E_M%C3%BCller_L_Diamantopoulou_C_Gastgeber_A_Katsiakiori_Rankl_Hrsg_Die_get%C3%A4uschte_Wissenschaft_Ein_Genie_betr%C3%BCgt_Europa_Konstantinos_Simonides_Vandenhoeck_and_Ruprecht_G%C3%B6ttingen_2017_pp_109_126
 
This was also one of the reasons for the end of the friendship between Hodgkin and Simonides. In a letter to Deane from April 1864, Hodgkin wrote:

‘Please give Simonides the Uranius. He has behaved so extremely badly, that I cannot take any further interest in his affairs […]. He seems to me to be the most impracticable of human kind’. {45}

After that, …. Hodgkin did not hesitate to help the Greek on this occasion, as he had done also in other moments of illness or practical difficulty.{

The letters from Simonides to Hodgkin need publication. As well as the personal letter from Simonides to Kallinikos on the hieroglyphic theories that are different than Champollion. They should not be hidden from the scholars and public for years.

It says that after the friendship ended, Hodgkin assisted Simonides. oops. Not really ended.

And we know Hodgkin remained actively involved with Sinaiticus by his assistance to Farrer. Does Pasquale Massimo Pinto know this history? Which is critically important for Sinaiticus studies. Afaik, Pinto has never studied or written about Sinaiticus

Was Simonides involved in the forgery/replica of Sinaiticus on Mount Athos? As one gentleman points out, other forgeries simply demonstrate his “credentials.”

==========

Charles van der Pool published the 1935 edition of the British Museum handwave (after the Ruskis used them as marks.)

The Apostolic Bible Polyglot Translator's Note
The Mount Sinai Manuscript of the Bible
http://www.apostolicbible.com/mountsinai.pdf

And Charles made an excellent, astute comment::

Lastly I find it somewhat comical that the charge against a forger was that he was convicted of forgery...that would seem to be more of a proof of his "credentials.”

==========
 
Last edited:
The letters from Simonides to Hodgkin need publication. As well as the personal letter from Simonides to Kallinikos on the hieroglyphic theories that are different than Champollion. They should not be hidden from the scholars and public for years.

If you haven't noticed, it is partly published. You just read part of it, in English...

This✌️hidden✌️business is quite ridiculous.

It's freely available on request in the State Library in Victoria, Australia. Get a plane ticket, and go visit...
 
It says that after the friendship ended, Hodgkin assisted Simonides. oops. Not really ended.

Like any good Christian would. Of course! He was simply following Jesus admonition to "love your enemies" (Matthew 5:44). Just like I'd help you if I saw you were injured or needed practical help in some way Steven. There's some things which are just more important than arguing and debating over things (from God's point of view) that are not as important as the 1st and 2nd commandments.

But it's obvious from the few words of his letter that we do have, that as far as the Sinaiticus debacle and his other forgeries (Mayerianus etc) was concerned, Hodgkin's was done! He was finished with Simonides nonsense.

NOTE: Reader's, with all due respect for Mr Avery, he will go into full denial and argue from silence mode on this one (as he does with many other points on this subject).
 
If you haven't noticed, it is partly published. You just read part of it, in English...

You did not include anything from the letters I mentioned that were used in the Forging Antiquities project by the intern.

They have letters and translation that should be publicly available, and, if delayed, at least the exact source of each one should be given.
 
You did not include anything from the letters I mentioned that were used in the Forging Antiquities project by the intern.

They have letters and translation that should be publicly available, and, if delayed, at least the exact source of each one should be given.

They're on there way according to you...

It was you who told us that Malcolm Choat was publishing a book...

So why all the hoopla?
 
Back
Top