Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - St Catherine's manuscripts Catalogue(s) plural

St Catherine's is a primary source.

St. Catherine Monastery

The Library


"In 1725, Nicephorus Marthalis was elected Archbishop of Sinai. He had been a scribe, and the library contains manuscripts written in his hand. He had a great concern for the manuscripts, and asked that they be gathered into a new location opposite the Archbishop's quarters, and that a catalogue of the manuscripts be drawn up."

https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/library
 
Last edited:
Why aren’t you doing any primary source research?

Please share more of what you know about these three (pre-Simonides first visit and supposedly making of his own) catalogues Mr Avery, any time you like, from the primary sources you currently have available.

Those three St Catherine's manuscript catalogues:

  1. A first, but incomplete, catalogue by Cosmas dated early 1700's
  2. A catalogue by Nikephoros Marthalis Glykos dated 1734
  3. A catalogue by (a) Kyrillos dated 1840
 
Last edited:
  1. A first, but incomplete, catalogue by Cosmas dated early 1700's

Beneshevich 1937, p. 25 -
Les manuscrits grecs du Mont Sinaï et le monde savant de l'Europe depuis le XVIIe siècle jusq'à 1927
-
At the moment we do not have p. 26-27, working on it, this is the most important primary source on catalogues at St. Catherine's. And one of the Byzantine scholars pointed us to it, although he did not remember the specifics.

Beneshevich has a 1911 book, reprinted in 1965, that can help on thefts,

Catalogus codicum manuscriptorum Graecorum qui in monasterio Sanctae Catharinae in Monte Sina asservantur.

1685043784824.png


this footnote is to the 3rd line of p. 25
1685043906657.png
 
Last edited:
No one has ever EVER seen this catalogue claimed by Simonides:



“The Periplus of Hannon, King of the Karchedonians, Concerning the Lybian Parts of the Earth Beyond Pillars of Herakles, which he dedicated to Kronos, the greatest God and to all the gods dwelling with Him, by Hanno.”
London, Trübner & Co.
No. 60, Paternoster Row.
1864.
Liverpool :
Printed by David Marples, Lord Street.

Page 12 Publications List

WORKS BY DR. K. SIMONIDES
.
https://archive.org/details/periplusofhannon0000hann/page/n11/mode/1up


14. «Κατάλογος τῆς τοῦ Σιναίου ὄρους βιβλιοθήκης καὶ τῆς τοῦ ἁγ. Σάββα καὶ τῆς τοῦ βασιλόπαιδος Παύλου», (Κωνσταντινούπολις, 1850)

14. "Catalogue of the Mt. Sinai Libarry, and of the Holy Sabba and of the King's Son Paul." (Consantinople, 1850)






The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record
1863
Miscellanies, July, Pages 492-49
The Literary Churchman, June 16th, 1863
Letter from Simonides
Page 495
Paragraph 2


“I emphatically deny that the Codex Sinaiticus was inscribed in the Ancient Catalogue, for the good reason that no ancient catalogue exists ; there was none there whatever, till I made a catalogue, during my first visit, for the Patriarch of Constantinople, Constantius, who before was Archbishop of Mount Sinai.”

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/The_Journal_of_Sacred_Literature_and_Bib/_bYRAAAAYAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=Most+pious+and+by+me+most+respected+Sir+-+I+received+the+valuable+letter,+brought+to+me+from+you,+written+at+Southampton+on+February+25+of+this+same+year,+in+which+you+ask+me,+in+the+first+place,+whether+the+letters+published+in+several+English+journals+under+the+signature+"Kallinikos+Hieromonachos"+and+defending+Mr+Simonides,+are+indeed+my+letters+or+not;+secondly,+whether+the+said+Mr.+Simonides+ever+visited+the+Monastery+of+Mount+Sinai.&pg=PA493&printsec=frontcover


Where is it?
 
No one has ever EVER seen this catalogue claimed by Simonides:
Where is it?

Yet, Simonides knew the Tischendorf “discovery” manuscript had no ancient catalogue entry (think of Vaticanus with a 1400s entry as a comparison) and no provenance.

An unusual situation, especially if Simonides was flying blind.

Only one historical fact accounts for that confidence.

Simonides was involved with the manuscript traveling to the Saint Catherine’s monastery in the early 1840s.
 
Yet, Simonides knew the Tischendorf “discovery” manuscript had no ancient catalogue entry (think of Vaticanus with a 1400s entry as a comparison) and no provenance.

An unusual situation, especially if Simonides was flying blind.

Only one historical fact accounts for that confidence.

Simonides was involved with the manuscript traveling to the Saint Catherine’s monastery in the early 1840s.

He lied about him making one.

He lied about no catalogues at all ever existing apart from his one.

That's two count's out of three counts from his claim that were lies...

The likelihood of the third part of his claim being honest = very low.

Those three pre-1844 St Catherine's manuscript catalogues that according to Simonide's never ever existed:
  1. A first, but incomplete, catalogue by Cosmas dated early 1700's
  2. A catalogue by Nikephoros Marthalis Glykos dated 1734
  3. A catalogue by (a) Kyrillos dated 1840

Your logic is not impeccable Mr Avery, but the opposite.
 
Remember... you've already admitted he was lying about his visits to St Catherine's...
You're trapped in Simonide's travelogue (honest vs dishonest) circularity...

Not at all.

Simonides knew there was no provenance for the manuscript before 1840. If he made up stories creatively about the trips to Sinai, using his creative writing style, it does not change the basic facts on the ground. Simonides could never change history, and real ancient manuscripts come with history and provenance and often catalogues, like Vaticanus in the 1400s. Simonides knew there was none of that, because he helped the early 1840s delivery of the manuscript to Sinai.

The history supports his fundamental account, including the Spyridon Lambros catalog, the Sinaiticus-sister Athous Hermas published while the SInaiticus Hermas was unknown, and the fact that the Russico Ramblers were in the perfect place at the perfect time to actually make the manuscript.

Did Benedict plan it as a forgery rather than a replica? Probably not, or maybe it was like a baseball trade .. a player to be named later. Was Simonides willing to have Anthimus and Constantius and Callistratus and John Prodromus think it was ancient? Very possibly.

And Simonides had tons of knowledge about the manuscript and the monastery that could only come from his visits, or Kallinikos, or your secret network of spies, being at the monastery.

Tischendorf and SImonides both were capable of making up stories, so that is a wash-out. The historical imperative, and the manuscript itself, tells us that the manuscript came from Mt. Athos, c. 1840.
 
Not at all.

Simonides knew there was no provenance for the manuscript before 1840. If he made up stories creatively about the trips to Sinai, using his creative writing style, it does not change the basic facts on the ground. Simonides could never change history, and real ancient manuscripts come with history and provenance and often catalogues, like Vaticanus in the 1400s. Simonides knew there was none of that, because he helped the early 1840s delivery of the manuscript to Sinai.

The history supports his fundamental account, including the Spyridon Lambros catalog, the Sinaiticus-sister Athous Hermas published while the SInaiticus Hermas was unknown, and the fact that the Russico Ramblers were in the perfect place at the perfect time to actually make the manuscript.

Did Benedict plan it as a forgery rather than a replica? Probably not, or maybe it was like a baseball trade .. a player to be named later. Was Simonides willing to have Anthimus and Constantius and Callistratus and John Prodromus think it was ancient? Very possibly.

And Simonides had tons of knowledge about the manuscript and the monastery that could only come from his visits, or Kallinikos, or your secret network of spies, being at the monastery.

Tischendorf and SImonides both were capable of making up stories, so that is a wash-out. The historical imperative, and the manuscript itself, tells us that the manuscript came from Mt. Athos, c. 1840.
Fantasy.
 
Actually my post above, #68, is the heart of the matter - in line with all the manuscript anomalies and evidences galore.

Any good journalist or historian would understand this — outside of the intense propaganda barrage, “Orange man bad”. That is why Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) as a polymath and Chris Pinto as a journalist easily unraveled the basics, Simaiticus is not an ancient manuscript, and it is a rigged enterprise.

That is why the sublime irony is that we have, even in 2023, a whole cabal of modern hysterical Dindorfs, itching ears willingly fooled by Simonides. “No tests needed, censor the pesky considerations, hand-wave!” We have textual critics willingly duped by the Russico Ramblers, starring Constantine Simonides. And Constantine Tischendorf getting the award as Best Supporting Textual-Critic Actor, spinning faux palaeographic yarns, and keeping the manuscript sections separated and largely hidden. An amazing drama.

The “scholarship” became so deeply entrenched that even after the Codex Sinaiticus Project essentially exposed the charade in 2009, the Sinaiticus antiquity monkeys (simile, not insult) kept their hands firmly over their eyes, with at most tiny peeks.

Simonides could make all the amazing claims (including the aging by coloring) only because he knew the manuscript only had poof provenance, arising after 1840. He knew the coloring by the history, not visually, and it was confirmed in 2009, with the two sections comparable.

And truly ancient manuscripts come with history and provenance, written records and catalogues and passed-down explanations and internal proofs. Perfect New Testaments so not pop up in desert sands after 1,500 years of non-history.

A bunch of Greek and Arabic writers did have fun trimming and correcting and playing with the manuscript from 1840 to the 1844 colophons to the 1859 finishing touches. Voila!
 
Last edited:
What about all the other truly ancient manuscripts (hundreds of them) at St Catherine's that were not listed in an extant (emphasis on extant) or known (BTW something could still be found in hidden recesses of the monastery) catalogues in 1863 which we now know about?

Are they all Rossico frauds? Because they didn't have a known or extant catalogue reference in 1863? Does that make all of those Rossico Ranglers poof provenance?

There has to be a consistency and fairness in your methodology, which is lacking.

Your not addressing these manuscripts with the same scrutiny, which is clear evidence of prejudice and bias against the Codex Sinaiticus because of the KJVO historical imperative coupled with a poisoned well fallacy by Simonide's.
 
the KJVO historical imperative

Yes, that is a good apologetic for the AV, but not really relevant.

To give an example, Charles van der Pool writes with skepticism about the common Sinaiticus history, and his specialty is the Apostolic Bible Polyglot. Morozov knew that Sinaiticus was not ancient by observation from his science/polymath background, not Bible belief.

The real prejudice comes from the textual criticism cabal, trying to put off the day of Sinaiticus reckoning.

Remember, I happily defended Sinaiticus antiquity … until study triggered by the CSP 2009 and the studies of Chris Pinto, and a variety of Internet material, caused my integrity flip.

Before all this, the Sinaiticus manuscript was just an unclean nothing, textually dismantled by Burgon (and Hoskier) with no effect on the AV. Not one letter of the AV would be affected if the beautiful pristine NT of Sinaiticus was written by Eusebius, Athanasius and friends.:)
 
Last edited:
Morozov knew that Sinaiticus was not ancient by observation from his science/polymath background, not Bible belief.:)
First Morozov wouldn't have been credited as a Christian today: he was likely an atheist and distinctly anti-Christian. He seems far more crazier than you. He spent 29 years in jail for subversive political activities, and most if not all of his books were seen as anti-religious.

Morozov knew that Sinaiticus was not ancient
because in his opinion, the corners of Sinaiticus were not soiled by (1) thousands of monks having turned the pages over during the centuries, and (2) because the manuscript parchment had not fallen to bits.

These observations were predicated on naive assumptions, (a) that Sinaiticus was a "reading copy", but the evidence is that St. Catherines had other uncial codices that perhaps were reading copies but which didn't survive; (b) that uncial codices were "reading copies" at all - probably they were not, as reading copies were likely written in cursive; as to which presumably St. Catherines possessed numerous cursive papyri in addition to the uncials in is early history; (c) that parchment would literally "fall to bits after 700 years" which is absurd on its face, given the substantial number of other codices that exist prior to AD1000.

In fact Sinaiticus was probably St. Catherines' greatest treasure at one point, and so was likely handled with consumate care.

Morozov was primarily a politician,and a revolutionary (like you): he dabbled in science, but it appears his conclusions were often wrong. For instance he asserted the Book of Revelation was written in the 4th century AD. No-one credits it today because of clues in the visions pointing to the reign of the emperor Domitian, and other early references.

I conclude Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov's theories are as worthless as yours.
______________________________________________________________

Morozov From Russian Wikipedia page

Historical and cultural views and projects​



"Revelation in Thunder and Storm" and "Prophets"​



Coming out of prison, N. Morozov filled with numerous publications a variety of Russian magazines. " Herald of Knowledge ", 1907, No. 2

The first public speech by N. A. Morozov "Apocalypse from an astronomical point of view" took place on December 12, 1906 at a meeting of the Physics Department of the Russian Physico-Chemical Society . The text of the report was published in the Journal of Knowledge (1907, No. 2) [232] . However, his first historical and cultural work “Revelation in a thunderstorm and a storm. The history of the emergence of the Apocalypse ”(1907) Morozov had to publish at his own expense, having previously received a negative review of the manuscript from his colleague in Shlisselburg German Lopatin . Nevertheless, the book was sold out and went through two more editions until 1910, was translated into Estonian, Polish and German. Its content boiled down to the fact that the symbolsMorozov identified the revelations of John the Theologian ( horses and riders ) with celestial phenomena: horses are planets, riders are constellations. Nikolai Alexandrovich calculated that such an arrangement of the planets could be observed from the island of Patmos only on the night of September 30, 395. From this it followed that the Apocalypse was created in the 4th century, and not in the 1st, and its author was not the Evangelist John , but the famous preacher John Chrysostom . Further deductions led Morozov to the idea that Jesus Christ was in fact Basil the Great , Archbishop of Caesarea , a contemporary of John Chrysostom, and was crucified (“stoken”) on March 20, 368 [233] .


Professional historians and philosophers unanimously rejected Morozov's constructions. If N. P. Aksakov called his review "The Infinity of Ignorance", then a very deep analysis of the theory of Nikolai Alexandrovich was given by V. F. Ern . Recognizing the value of Morozov's approach to the history of religion (that is, attempts at anti-religious polemics based not on emotional denial, but on rational arguments), Ern noted dilettantism in its development and application. First of all, this concerned the non-obviousness of the identification of celestial phenomena with the symbolism of the sixth chapter of the Apocalypse [234]. V. Ern convincingly showed the unscientific nature of Morozov's reasoning, ignoring and distorting the context, that is, the uncriticality of the proposed methods. Ern explained his interest in the book by “sympathy for a man who fell to the exceptional lot of a surviving martyr”, and not by the scientific value of his thoughts [235] . The historian N. M. Nikolsky especially analyzed Morozov’s philological calculations in connection with the meanings of the word “Christ”, showing that “psychologically, Morozov’s book is understandable and valuable, and the Russian reader will understand it and even be carried away by it. But in order to be scientific research, it lacks the most important thing: the study of the subject and the scientific method . A negative review of the 1910 edition was also published by P. A. Yungerov [237].

{sounds pretty much like your style]

Abroad, "Revelation" caused some resonance. At the session of May 6, 1908, N. Morozov was awarded membership in the French Astronomical Society for the publication of this book [238] . The German translation [de] ( Die Offenbarung Johannis, eine astronomisch-Historische Untersuchung ) came out in October 1912 and only received favorable reviews from Arthur Drews . Professor Drews denied the historical existence of Jesus Christ, so he accepted all of Morozov's arguments and called them "a new era in the development of ancient history." Drews's book On the Personality of Christ was published in Russian translation in 1913 with Morozov's foreword; in the 1920s it was used for anti-religious propaganda[239] . .....

.
.
.
.
.
 
Last edited:
until study triggered by the CSP 2009 and the studies of Chris Pinto, and a variety of Internet material, caused my integrity flip.

Is this a narrative change here folks???

Wasn't he touting 2011 as his "integrity flip"?

I could be wrong...but my memory is telling me he used to say 2011...

Now it's 2009...

Did Maestro force a date change here????

These are questions here folks...
 
This statement right here about "happily defended":

Remember, I happily defended Sinaiticus antiquity … until study triggered by the CSP 2009 and the studies of Chris Pinto, and a variety of Internet material, caused my integrity flip.

Doesn't jive with the next sentence:

Before all this, the Sinaiticus manuscript was just an unclean nothing,

Anyone else pick that up?

"Happily"???

"Happily" defending something he considered "an unclean nothing"???

What's wrong with this picture folks?
 
Back
Top