TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
You're tacitly admitting defeat on this.
You can't find fault with his individual points.
You only stated a vague but but but (big picture) hand wave...
Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - St Catherine's manuscripts Catalogue(s) plural
- Thread starter TwoNoteableCorruptions
- Start date
You're tacitly admitting defeat on this.
You can't find fault with his individual points.
You only stated a vague but but but (big picture) hand wave...
Steven Avery
Well-known member
On what?
The Spyridon Lambros catalogue was an impossible evidence for McGrane, so he just threw sand, hoping to confuse the dupes.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
This is interesting (from a psychiatry point of view).
So when was it that you began confusing me with Kevin MacGrane?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You are strange. There was no confusion.
It was Kevin McGrane who stumbled badly trying to pretend that the consecutive entries involving copying the same manuscript were not ipso facto showing the connection between Simonides and Kallinikos.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
I believe you have emailed Kevin about the Lambros catalogue entries, and received a reply...
Which you accidentally left publicly available...
We're looking forward to seeing them ?
Which you accidentally left publicly available...
We're looking forward to seeing them ?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
I just want to get one thing very straight here for the readers!
When we're talking about Simonides's "Kallinikos" we are talking about, full title:
Let's not lose sight of either the:
Parts...in his full name and/or title...
Yes, "of Thessaloniki"....
He's not just any old "Kallinikos" from who knows where, but a Hiero-Monk, and specifically from "Thessaloniki".
Steven Avery doesn't tell you that...does he?
When was the last time you heard (think Snapp debates) or saw Steven Avery write in his posts here the full unambiguous title (with the cross + don't forget the cross symbol + preceding his signature, see Page 11 in the attachment below from the same "Autographa") that Simonides gave him as:
When we're talking about Simonides's "Kallinikos" we are talking about, full title:
+ Καλλινίκου Ιερομονάχου του θεσσαλονικέως
"+ Kallinikos Hiero-Monarchos of Thessaloniki"
"+ Kallinikos Hiero-Monarchos of Thessaloniki"
Let's not lose sight of either the:
- "Of Thessaloniki", or
- Hiero-Monarchos or Hiero-Monk (not just "monarchos" or "a monk")
Parts...in his full name and/or title...
Yes, "of Thessaloniki"....
He's not just any old "Kallinikos" from who knows where, but a Hiero-Monk, and specifically from "Thessaloniki".
Steven Avery doesn't tell you that...does he?
When was the last time you heard (think Snapp debates) or saw Steven Avery write in his posts here the full unambiguous title (with the cross + don't forget the cross symbol + preceding his signature, see Page 11 in the attachment below from the same "Autographa") that Simonides gave him as:
+ Καλλινίκου Ιερομονάχου του θεσσαλονικέως
"+ Kallinikos Hiero-Monarchos of Thessaloniki"
P.S. Simonides said that Kallinikos (like his own multiple fake alias') also has a fake alias'...I read it somewhere in the last few weeks, but forgot to write it down. Please keep an eye out for it, and share it if you find it."+ Kallinikos Hiero-Monarchos of Thessaloniki"
Attachments
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Keep the post above
and that full title:
In mind...
When reading the Lambros catalogue entries ??
and that full title:+ Καλλινίκου Ιερομονάχου του θεσσαλονικέως
"+ Kallinikos Hiero-Monarchos of Thessaloniki"
"+ Kallinikos Hiero-Monarchos of Thessaloniki"
In mind...
When reading the Lambros catalogue entries ??
Steven Avery
Well-known member
We had a text discussion.
His position was absurd.
I’d rather he was on the forum, but I may pull out the section from our discussion, it is an interesting study.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
I posted the same info on another thread.
Here's Kallinikos' alias' according to Simonides.
Literary Forgeries
By James Anson Farrer 1907
Page 60
Paragraph 1
"Simonides, who was always most precise in his information about real or feigned persons, declares that this Kallinikos was born in 1802, a Thessalian, named originally Kuriakos; on his admission to the Church he took the name of Kallinikos, and for his bravery in the war of the Greek Revolution he received the surname of Keraunos. Whether this was so or not, Kallinikos was a real person, and his intervention in the controversy with his attestation of having seen Simonides write the Codex cannot be brushed aside as the testimony of a fabulous being."
https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...MAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA60&printsec=frontcover
By James Anson Farrer 1907
Page 60
Paragraph 1
"Simonides, who was always most precise in his information about real or feigned persons, declares that this Kallinikos was born in 1802, a Thessalian, named originally Kuriakos; on his admission to the Church he took the name of Kallinikos, and for his bravery in the war of the Greek Revolution he received the surname of Keraunos. Whether this was so or not, Kallinikos was a real person, and his intervention in the controversy with his attestation of having seen Simonides write the Codex cannot be brushed aside as the testimony of a fabulous being."
https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...MAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA60&printsec=frontcover
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The Beneshevich book is helpful on early catalogues, and visitors to St. Catherine’s.
Will plan on posting this week, it is a good solid secondary priority.
Will plan on posting this week, it is a good solid secondary priority.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
So when we're talking about Simonides's "Kallinikos", we are talking about (a) "Kallinikos" who was:
We now have a more detailed and specific profile.
He was no mere "monarchos" or "a monk"...
- Born in 1802
- Originally named Κυριακός "Kuriakos"
- Was του θεσσαλονικέως "of (i.e. from) Thessaloniki", therefore a Thessalian
- For his bravery in the war of the Greek Revolution (circa. 1821-1829) he received the surname of Κεραυνός "Keraunos"
- He took the name of Καλλινίκος "Kallinikos" on his admission to the Church
- Was a Ιερομονάχου "Hiero-Monarchos" before he met Simonides
- Signed his signature as + Καλλινίκου Ιερομονάχου του θεσσαλονικέως "+ Kallinikos Hiero-Monarchos of Thessaloniki"
- Signed his signature with a cross in front + Καλλινίκου Ιερομονάχου του θεσσαλονικέως which at the time indicated high ecclesiastical office and/or ranking, a Bishop or an Arch-Bishop.
We now have a more detailed and specific profile.
He was no mere "monarchos" or "a monk"...
Literary Forgeries
By James Anson Farrer 1907
Page 60
Paragraph 1
“Simonides, who was always most precise in his information about real or feigned persons, declares that this Kallinikos was born in 1802, a Thessalian, named originally Kuriakos [Κυριακός]; on his admission to the Church he took the name of Kallinikos [Καλλινίκος], and for his bravery in the war of the Greek Revolution he received the surname of Keraunos [Κεραυνός]...”
https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...MAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA60&printsec=frontcover
By James Anson Farrer 1907
Page 60
Paragraph 1
“Simonides, who was always most precise in his information about real or feigned persons, declares that this Kallinikos was born in 1802, a Thessalian, named originally Kuriakos [Κυριακός]; on his admission to the Church he took the name of Kallinikos [Καλλινίκος], and for his bravery in the war of the Greek Revolution he received the surname of Keraunos [Κεραυνός]...”
https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...MAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA60&printsec=frontcover
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Duplicate posting.
Closer to the topic is the other copy:
Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - was Simonides calligraphy skills good enough to forge the Codex Siniaticus?
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...he-codex-siniaticus.14468/page-2#post-1134748
Notice that I put in a post about the Ancient Catalogues, the topic of this thread, two posts up.
Why try to block it with a totally unnecessary dup?
On another post above:
One reason to ignore your posts.
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
This is about as much information that we get out of Simonide's, at any time, in one hit at least, about his Kallinikos below:
The Literary Churchman
16th of June
1863
Page 107
Letter of Simonide's
"The Kallinikos who addressed the letters to the London papers on the subject of the Codex «Sinaiticus» is a Thessalonian by birth; his ancestors spring from the town of Niaousta, in Macedonia, and are related to General Karatasus. He was born in the year 1802, and named Kyriakos. He took the name of Kallinikos on his admission to the church; and having taken an active part in the Greek Revolution [i.e. 1821 to 1829/30], received the surname of Keraunos, on account of his bravery. He then ceased (as is necessary, according to our ecclesiastical law, in cases wherein a priest has taken up arms), from the profession of public sacerdotal duties, and spent a long time [1829/1830 to 1837 = 7 years?] in a monastery of Mt. Athos, where I made his acquaintance [1837 entered the Rossico, according Simonide's]. Since this time he has been engaged in semi— political missions, and I have had continued correspondence with him. He has travelled through Europe, Asia, and part of Africa, and the whole of the Archipelago, and has published at Moscow and at Odessa a number of my letters to him upon Archaeological matters?"
16th of June
1863
Page 107
Letter of Simonide's
"The Kallinikos who addressed the letters to the London papers on the subject of the Codex «Sinaiticus» is a Thessalonian by birth; his ancestors spring from the town of Niaousta, in Macedonia, and are related to General Karatasus. He was born in the year 1802, and named Kyriakos. He took the name of Kallinikos on his admission to the church; and having taken an active part in the Greek Revolution [i.e. 1821 to 1829/30], received the surname of Keraunos, on account of his bravery. He then ceased (as is necessary, according to our ecclesiastical law, in cases wherein a priest has taken up arms), from the profession of public sacerdotal duties, and spent a long time [1829/1830 to 1837 = 7 years?] in a monastery of Mt. Athos, where I made his acquaintance [1837 entered the Rossico, according Simonide's]. Since this time he has been engaged in semi— political missions, and I have had continued correspondence with him. He has travelled through Europe, Asia, and part of Africa, and the whole of the Archipelago, and has published at Moscow and at Odessa a number of my letters to him upon Archaeological matters?"
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
There is mention of catalogues plural, from St Catherine's monastery itself.
Note the witness of "the aged and long-standing brethren" of the monastery, and the librarian (quite possibly Kyrillos himself).
Simonides tried to play down this letter, and he tried to make a big deal out of the monks being moved on by (in effect) shooting the messenger.
But the simple fact was, that not every monk was moved around regularly; some stayed in place for very long periods of time, as can be seen from the honest testimony above coming from the "long-standing brethren", plus he goes back to the "aged" brethren who would have known exactly what had gone on or happened, in this particular monks absence from 1838 to 1855. Kallinikos of Sinai, was merely the messenger for the aged and long-standing brethren, and obviously annoyed at being dragged into to Simonides' garbage, by virtue of his name "Kallinikos", and gave honest testimony to what he knew to be the facts from the elders at St Catherine's monastery.
Then, Simonides, as he had done in the past many times, tried to assassinate the character of this "Kallinikos" and the monks at Mt Sinai by an underhanded smear campaign in the newspapers, writing letter pretending to be from his fictional monk "Kallinikos" saying these monks had been bribed and were wicked etc etc.
The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record
July, 1863
Subheading: Miscellanies
Page 493
Paragraphs 1-6
“To the Most Venerable Priest, J. Silvester Davies, of Southampton, England. From the Monastery of Mount Sinai, 1 (13) April, 1863.
Most pious, and by me most respected, Sir—I received the valuable letter, Drought 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. In answer to your first question I reply, that besides myself there is no other Kallinikos Hieromonachos in this holy monastery.
But I lived away from the monastery from the year 1838 to 1855, having been sent on different monastic services to Damascus, Rhodes, and elsewhere; and never anywhere have I made acquaintance with any Simonides. Since, then, there is no other Kallinikos Hieromonachos besides myself among the brethren of this monastery, and I have never known any Simonides, and consequently I did not write the aforesaid letters to shield him in his tricks, it follows that these letters have been forged by Simonides himself.
To answer your second question, I sought to know for certain from my aged and long-standing brethren, whether they remembered any one called Simonides having come up to Mount Sinai, and having visited our holy monastery : and they all expressly assured me in the negative, that certainly never did any Simonides appear in this monastery. One of the brethren declared to me above all, that in the year 1852, being at Alexandria, he saw Mr. Simonides, who had landed there with the view of going thence to Damietta and Upper Egypt. But suddenly, without going anywhere, he went to England, having embarked in the ship Kasion,’ Captain Nicholas Maliaraki. Since, then, Mr. Simonides never visited Mount Sinai, but having only just come to Alexandria, immediately went thence to England;
he lies when he positively affirms that the ancient MS. of the Holy Scripture, published by Mr.
Tiscendorf, is his work; because the MS. in question (as the librarian of our holy monastery, having been so from the year 1841 to 1858 [i.e. quite possibly Kyrillos], assured me) belonged to the library of the monastery, and was marked in its ancient catalogue(s). The book, then, which the librarian [i.e. quite possibly Kyrillos] who was appointed in 1841 found in this library [i.e. possibly referring to the event with Kyrillos and Tischendorf in 1844], how could it possibly be the work of Simonides, who never set foot on Mount Sinai, but only got as far as Alexandria in 1852, and went back directly from thence without having visited any other part of Egypt?
In every way, then, the assertion of Simonides is proved false, when he says that that ancient MS. was his work.
As to myself, if the great distance of place and my own advanced years permitted, I would willingly deliver him over to the righteous dealing of the laws as having abused me, and forged under my name those letters to prop up his great charlatanism.—Accept, Sir, my unfeigned respect, with which I am your sincere friend, “
« KaLLINIKOS HiEROMONACHOS OF SINAI.’
July, 1863
Subheading: Miscellanies
Page 493
Paragraphs 1-6
“To the Most Venerable Priest, J. Silvester Davies, of Southampton, England. From the Monastery of Mount Sinai, 1 (13) April, 1863.
Most pious, and by me most respected, Sir—I received the valuable letter, Drought 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. In answer to your first question I reply, that besides myself there is no other Kallinikos Hieromonachos in this holy monastery.
But I lived away from the monastery from the year 1838 to 1855, having been sent on different monastic services to Damascus, Rhodes, and elsewhere; and never anywhere have I made acquaintance with any Simonides. Since, then, there is no other Kallinikos Hieromonachos besides myself among the brethren of this monastery, and I have never known any Simonides, and consequently I did not write the aforesaid letters to shield him in his tricks, it follows that these letters have been forged by Simonides himself.
To answer your second question, I sought to know for certain from my aged and long-standing brethren, whether they remembered any one called Simonides having come up to Mount Sinai, and having visited our holy monastery : and they all expressly assured me in the negative, that certainly never did any Simonides appear in this monastery. One of the brethren declared to me above all, that in the year 1852, being at Alexandria, he saw Mr. Simonides, who had landed there with the view of going thence to Damietta and Upper Egypt. But suddenly, without going anywhere, he went to England, having embarked in the ship Kasion,’ Captain Nicholas Maliaraki. Since, then, Mr. Simonides never visited Mount Sinai, but having only just come to Alexandria, immediately went thence to England;
he lies when he positively affirms that the ancient MS. of the Holy Scripture, published by Mr.
Tiscendorf, is his work; because the MS. in question (as the librarian of our holy monastery, having been so from the year 1841 to 1858 [i.e. quite possibly Kyrillos], assured me) belonged to the library of the monastery, and was marked in its ancient catalogue(s). The book, then, which the librarian [i.e. quite possibly Kyrillos] who was appointed in 1841 found in this library [i.e. possibly referring to the event with Kyrillos and Tischendorf in 1844], how could it possibly be the work of Simonides, who never set foot on Mount Sinai, but only got as far as Alexandria in 1852, and went back directly from thence without having visited any other part of Egypt?
In every way, then, the assertion of Simonides is proved false, when he says that that ancient MS. was his work.
As to myself, if the great distance of place and my own advanced years permitted, I would willingly deliver him over to the righteous dealing of the laws as having abused me, and forged under my name those letters to prop up his great charlatanism.—Accept, Sir, my unfeigned respect, with which I am your sincere friend, “
« KaLLINIKOS HiEROMONACHOS OF SINAI.’
Note the witness of "the aged and long-standing brethren" of the monastery, and the librarian (quite possibly Kyrillos himself).
Simonides tried to play down this letter, and he tried to make a big deal out of the monks being moved on by (in effect) shooting the messenger.
But the simple fact was, that not every monk was moved around regularly; some stayed in place for very long periods of time, as can be seen from the honest testimony above coming from the "long-standing brethren", plus he goes back to the "aged" brethren who would have known exactly what had gone on or happened, in this particular monks absence from 1838 to 1855. Kallinikos of Sinai, was merely the messenger for the aged and long-standing brethren, and obviously annoyed at being dragged into to Simonides' garbage, by virtue of his name "Kallinikos", and gave honest testimony to what he knew to be the facts from the elders at St Catherine's monastery.
Then, Simonides, as he had done in the past many times, tried to assassinate the character of this "Kallinikos" and the monks at Mt Sinai by an underhanded smear campaign in the newspapers, writing letter pretending to be from his fictional monk "Kallinikos" saying these monks had been bribed and were wicked etc etc.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The fact that Kallinikos is copying twice the same manuscript as Simonides had copied in the previous entry is strong evidence that all three copies were made in 1841 and that the work of Kallinikos was directly related to the work of Simonides.
The attempt of Kevin McGrane to hide the basics here is a miserable failure by McGrane and TNC.
The funniest part is the "mere", when the identical nature of the three manuscripts is helpful in showing their connection.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Kallinikos of Sinai was not there for the whole period and his chief source of information on the manuscript was the Librarian, who was the partner in crime of Tischendorf, and who had received many gifts and liquor, and had made "private arrangements". Hmmmmm
Nothing from Anthimos, John Prodromus and others named by Simonides.
Note that Simonides stated that his name at the monastery was Sophronius :
... I was at Mount Athos for political reasons, and was habited as a monk, and was known as Sophronius and not as Simonides. These matters
would be well understood by those who know the peculiar relations of the Greeks, Roman Catholics, and Turks in those regions, but may bo incomprehensible to some of your readers.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
"Possibly referring to the event with Kyrillos and Tischendorf in 1844" .. you just blew up the store!
Far more likely, Kyrillos knew the manuscript which had come over from Antigonus c. 1841, and not pretending to repeat the big lie of Tischendorf about finding the manuscript being discarded, burned, saved by fire, etc.
As I noted above, Kyrillos was the partner in crime of Tischendorf, he got his gifts and made the "private arrangements" but he could not be expected to follow all the lies and fabrications of Tischendorf about the 1844 heist.
Thanks, TNC, an excellent find showing that the Tischendorf con gang could not keep their stories straight.
===================
Similar to this was Tischendorf trying to use the gold to buy the manuscript, as he knew about the NT from the 1844 beginning.
Both excellent finds.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Above you can see how Kallinikos the Absent Monk, conferring with Kyrillos the Kompromised Krook, totally blows up the fake story given by Tischendorf:
Tischendorf in many accounts:
Novum testamentum sinaiticum: sive, Novum testamentum cum epistala Barnabae et fragmentis Pastoris. Ex Codice sinaitico auspiciis Alexandri II. omnium Russiarum imperatoris
https://books.google.com/books?id=7odU1Rf97VwC&pg=PP26
Google translate with minor tweaks:
So nobody knew about the manuscript, not one of the brothers, no catalogue or anything in writing --- except that they also claim that Kyrillos learned about it when he became librarian in 1841 (nothing earlier!), which TNC tries to change to 1844!
And Kyrillos says, contra Tischendorf, that it was in the Catalogues too. Yet there is no known record anywhere, not in the ancient ones, not even in the 1840 one by Kyrillos! (Seen by Georg Ebers.)
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Answer this question. Are both of the "Kallinikos (a) monk" entries specifically dated to the year 1841 by Lambros himself in his catalogue, as the Simonides entry is dated? Yes? Or no?
The answer is no!
The is no date of 1841 with either, entry (6406), or entry (6407).
The facts are that entry (6406) and (6407) are both undated entries.
They could have been copied in 1844, or in 1853, or in 1855, or in 1859 for all you, or anyone knows. The dates are evidently not given in the two manuscripts (entries 6406 and 6407) copied by a "Kallinikos (a) monk" that Lambros catalogued.
You, Steven, are the one falsely inventing a date for the Kallinikos entries (6406) and (6407) in the Lambros catalogue that Sypridon Lambros himself never saw, nor put into his catalogue at entries (6406) and (6407).
Last edited: