Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

[Steven Avery]

Why didn't Simonides meet Tischendorf in England in 1865?

Good question, since Tischendorf had ducked the planned 1863 trip.

Note he also did not make it to the earlier German Oriental Society planned examination of both sections. That would have blown up his story.

So far it seems that Simonides likely was still in Liverpool in early 1865, based on the 1865 engagement report.
Tischendorf had 0 of the coloured and stained pages in hand.

Were any of the Tischendorf events announced in advance?
We don’t even have any indication that Burgon or Scrivener were there.

Also, very possible is that there was a quid pro quo arranged with Simonides. Since we quickly have the fake death and Simonides doing Russian historical document work in Tischendorf-Sinaiticus land, St. Petersburg.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Btw, Steven Avery AGAIN provides NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER to my question - NO EVIDENCE that SIMONIDES wrote Sinaiticus.

Logically, you'd think that Avery would bring a professional and qualified Graphoanalysist, or graphologist, or a forensic epigraphic examiner (or two or three or four) into this, with a peer reviewed study on the comparison of Simonides handwriting with the Scribes of the Sinaiticus (and Kallinikos letter's and Athos catalogue MSS).

Yet nothing.

Not one expert on handwriting has been called to testify for the S.A.R.T. Team (TMPK).

In addition to this.

I personally haven't seen (up till now at least) anywhere in which Simonides specifically and clearly mentioned that he was making even the slightest attempt to invite his witnesses (note, people other than himself) to testify in person (alongside him) in a face to face meeting with Tischendorf in a public (i.e. not private or secret) conference attended by the media witnesses, of any sort, after (*note, real time*) he posted his full claim in the English papers.

Nooo invite to Anthimos. No invite to Kallinikos. No invite to the Constantinople Coffee shop guy, no invite to Hilarion, no invite to Nicander, no invite to Germanus, or evidence of him inviting Stilpon (correction from Stiplon earlier) his half-brother from Alexandria.

Nada.

No indication of any intention to bring them IN PERSON, for a face to face meeting to testify in his behalf, of any sort.

Wherever Simonides was in 1865 (in hiding in England?) surely he would have got wind of Tischendorf's visit through the newspapers, Hodgkin's, Steuart, Rhodonakis, his friends and acquaintances etc etc. In view of his and his friends claimed media intake (scope, coverage, and reading etc) during the newspaper controversies, it's hard to explain how he could NOT know!

Footnote * "real time" meaning real dates and time compared to Simonides fake chronology.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Good question, since Tischendorf had ducked the planned 1863 trip.

Did he eventually come? Or not?

Answer = he did!

Answer = February 1865!

He took up the challenge!

Note he also did not make it to the earlier German Oriental Society planned examination of both sections. That would have blown up his story.

You're conspiracy spin doctoring is impotent.

Simonides likely was still in Liverpool in early 1865, based on the 1865 engagement report.

Thanks for the admission.

Bock bockkkk ... who was the chicken?

Answer = Simonides!

Tischendorf called his BLUFF!

Tischendorf answered his challenge IN PERSON!

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Since we quickly have the fake death and Simonides doing Russian historical document work in Tischendorf-Sinaiticus land, St. Petersburg.

I dispute this. This is hearsay level evidence.

Do you have any authentic documents from the modern Russian archives that he was employed by the Russian government, at that specific time, in specifically, St. Petersburg, doing exactly the job that was described in the report?

Where's the evidence he could read or write in Russian in the first place?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Yes, it does seem to have been placed as a footnote on a manuscript that is in Halki (Antigonus).

His forced (round about) admission of it being a quote of Simon sez provenance (which was my point) can be seen at the link below.

https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...ntius-with-simonides-in-1841.3971/#post-16621

Note his displayed translation and post wording has been edited and tweaked a couple of times.

P.S. Avery.

Guess what?

Simon sez...

 

[Maestroh]

I already showed-up at thi is a dumb question, showing only your ignorance, in discussing the Athos 1840 production of Sinaiticus.

Try to learn.

And you didn't provide even ONE THING that would qualify as evidence.

And again, you've got a big mouth for a guy ducking a debate.


You know what's funny? Steven Avery thinks, "Tischendorf ducked Simonides therefore Simonides was right!!"

And yet he's the one ducking me in debate.

So using HIS OWN logic......I'm right.


Of course, I AM right because at this point he has little more than a wild-eyed conspiracy theory.

 

[Maestroh]

Logically, you'd think that Avery would bring a professional and qualified Graphoanalysist, or graphologist, or a forensic epigraphic examiner (or two or three or four) into this, with a peer reviewed study on the comparison of Simonides handwriting with the Scribes of the Sinaiticus (and Kallinikos letter's and Athos catalogue MSS).

Yet nothing.

Not one expert on handwriting has been called to testify for the S.A.R.T. Team (TMPK).

In addition to this.

I personally haven't seen (up till now at least) anywhere in which Simonides specifically and clearly mentioned that he was making even the slightest attempt to invite his witnesses (note, people other than himself) to testify in person (alongside him) in a face to face meeting with Tischendorf in a public (i.e. not private or secret) conference attended by the media witnesses, of any sort, after (*note, real time*) he posted his full claim in the English papers.

Nooo invite to Anthimos. No invite to Kallinikos. No invite to the Constantinople Coffee shop guy, no invite to Hilarion, no invite to Nicander, no invite to Germanus, or evidence of him inviting Stilpon (correction from Stiplon earlier) his half-brother from Alexandria.

Nada.

No indication of any intention to bring them IN PERSON, for a face to face meeting to testify in his behalf, of any sort.

Wherever Simonides was in 1865 (in hiding in England?) surely he would have got wind of Tischendorf's visit through the newspapers, Hodgkin's, Steuart, Rhodonakis, his friends and acquaintances etc etc. In view of his and his friends claimed media intake (scope, coverage, and reading etc) during the newspaper controversies, it's hard to explain how he could NOT know!

Footnote * "real time" meaning real dates and time compared to Simonides fake chronology.

Aside from which he flops like a fish out of water and wants to say that if somebody else didn't handle the actual manuscript, their opinion doesn't count and yet he hasn't handled it, either.

As I've said repeatedly - there's a reason this pontificating putz is here and not making presentations before ACTUAL scholars who will embarrass him.

 

[Steven Avery]

Logically, you'd think that Avery would bring a professional and qualified Graphoanalysist, or graphologist, or a forensic epigraphic examiner (or two or three or four) into this, with a peer reviewed study on the comparison of Simonides handwriting with the Scribes of the Sinaiticus (and Kallinikos letter's and Athos catalogue MSS).

Sinaiticus was unique, with horizontal and veritical lines, and three scribes trying to follow one pattern.

Totally different than what Simonides did on his own when freelancing a decade and two later.

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

Now we do at times notice thinks that might be of interest to a graphologist.

Here is one of the quotes that could help begin such an inquiry.

The Guild of Bezalel
The Discovery of Codex Sinaiticus (2019)
Robin Phillips
http://guildofbezalel.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-discovery-of-codex-sinaiticus.html

In addition to its importance as an early biblical manuscript, it is also an outstanding example of scribal craftsmanship, as Robert Bringhurst has pointed out. The text is written with a very even hand in resplendent Greek uncial script, arranged in four narrow columns on each page. Careful analysis of the proportions used in the layout reveal a scheme of exceptional cleverness and subtlety – just the kind of game that scribes, typographers, and designers at the height of their craft have enjoyed playing for millennia. The four columns considered as a complete text block express the reciprocal proportions of the surrounding page (that is, they are in the same proportions, but rotated 90 degrees). But, almost miraculously, if one were to remove the gutters between the columns, the entire textblock would collapse into a rectangle in unison with the page itself (same proportions, in the same orientation, just at a smaller size)!

Similarly, a Bulgarian gentleman has raised many graphicological and codicology and epigraphy and calligraphy issues. He feels the technology for Sinaiticus features was not available in the 4th century. He is probably right, culling out the arguments and finding competent analysis is one of our projects.

So, yes, it is a worthwhile area for study.

 

[Steven Avery]

Aside from which he flops like a fish out of water and wants to say that if somebody else didn't handle the actual manuscript, their opinion doesn't count and yet he hasn't handled it, either.

We have 1000x more access through the CSP and the videos of the manuscript than ANYBODY objective before 2009.

The bottom line, the faux 4th century date was a con job, since the "consensus" was developed WITHOUT manuscript access to the two sections, an absolute necessity.

 

[Steven Avery]

... not making presentations before ACTUAL scholars who will embarrass him.

Each scholar is different, the most vocal want censorship.
Some are quite helpful.

As for the future, we are working on textual projects that should be in the sweet spot of many scholars, like the connection of the Zurich Psalter with Sinaiticus corrections.

 

[Steven Avery]

Good question, since Tischendorf had ducked the planned 1863 trip.

Note he also did not make it to the earlier German Oriental Society planned examination of both sections. That would have blown up his story.

So far it seems that Simonides likely was still in Liverpool in early 1865, based on the 1865 engagement report.
Tischendorf had 0 of the coloured and stained pages in hand.

Were any of the Tischendorf events announced in advance?
We don’t even have any indication that Burgon or Scrivener were there.

Also, very possible is that there was a quid pro quo arranged with Simonides. Since we quickly have the fake death and Simonides doing Russian historical document work in Tischendorf-Sinaiticus land, St. Petersburg.

Nobody has shown any advance announcement of any appearance.

Nobody has shown any real handling and questioning allowed about the manuscript.

Nobody has shown that the textual scholars, Burgon, Scrivener (even Tregelles or Bradshaw) were at any of the meetings.

It all seemed to be quite ad hoc, one big purpose was for Tischendorf to get an honorary doctorate.

 

[Steven Avery]

Where's the evidence he could read or write in Russian in the first place?

Russico monastery is known as Russian as well as a Greek monastery.

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

Simonides would be likely fluent in Russian at least from his time with

Aleksander Sturdza (1791-1854)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexandru_Sturdza

and

Roxanna Sturdza (1786-1844)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roxandra_Sturdza

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

"From the Cephalonia of the anti-British riots to the hyper-orthodox Russia of Nicholas I, and his advisor Aleksandr Sturdza, the step is a short one. And it is the step that Simonidis took between 1850 and 1851, as exhaustively testified by the collection of documents that constitutes, for Ca.'s care, the second part of the volume. What is presented here is an updated, enlarged and duly post-illustrated version of the dossier exhumed by Igor Medvedev three to twelve years ago, in St. Petersburg, at the Kunik fund of the Academy of Sciences archives14. This is once again an extraordinary example, so to speak, of litterature potentielle: namely, the list of ancient manuscripts (pp. 206-259) that Simonidis sent, in January 1851, to the Russian scholar Andrei Nikolaevic Muraviev, a leading figure of the time, approached perhaps through Sturdza, or perhaps known to Simonidis already from the time of his youth on Athos

That would be:

Andrei Nikolaevich Muravev (1806-1874)
https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Andrei_Nikolaevich_Muravev

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

Richard Janko, writing about the Artemidorus Papyrus even says Simonides has Russian publications.

Richard Janko
As you are obviously aware, there must be a huge amount of material on all this in Russia, but I had a hard time even trying to track down Simonides' alleged Russian publications, some of which clearly do exist. He is a fascinating figure.

There may be more on this in Luciano Canfora's Italian, Janko was favorable to the idea that Simonides had produced the papyrus, many of the arguments are very interesting.

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

Elliott p. 123


===============================
There were various trips to Odessa and St. Petersburg.

Genius

p. 111
The years that Simonides spent in England are worth reconsidering, in my opinion, because they mark a turning point in his career as a forger and a “poisoner” of scholarship, as well as in the public reception of his person. After travelling in the East, in Russia and in central Europe, within roughly a decade he

p. 119
The discovery of Heliotypy being a necessary study, I also endeavoured to learn the art. I began first at Odessa, in 1843, at the instance of my patron, the illustrious Alexander Scarlatus Sturtza, but soon set it aside, going into the interior of Russia. But about

p. 181
In 1847, a swindler, named Simonides, notorious throughout Turkey, Russia, and Greece as an impostor, counterfeiter, and cheat, published in the columns of the Age a description of certain pretended „orgies“ which he had witnessed at Dr. King’s house as religious ceremonies performed by him.

 

[Steven Avery]

Do you have any authentic documents from the modern Russian archives that he was employed by the Russian government, at that specific time, in specifically, St. Petersburg, doing exactly the job that was described in the report?

See the post above.

Also, very possible is that there was a quid pro quo arranged with Simonides. Since we quickly have the fake death and Simonides doing Russian historical document work in Tischendorf-Sinaiticus land, St. Petersburg.

What I wrote is consistent with the Tregelles extract.

The announcement of the death of Simonides in “ N. & Q.” was supposed to set all questions about him, in one sense, at rest; but only a few months had passed when he turned up in Russia, where the Rev. Donald Owen found him preparing for publication “Historical Documents of Great Importance in Connection with Claims of the Russian Government.”

Note that it does not say whether he was still using the name of Constantine Simonides, reported dead and likely to raise eyebrows in a negative way. A different name would makebfinding archive records ultra-problematic.

 

[Steven Avery]

Scrivener confirms the locale and the pseudonym usage.

Six Lectures on the Text of the New Testament and the Ancient Manuscripts which Contain it: Chiefly Addressed to Those who Do Not Read Greek (1875)
https://books.google.com/books?id=MAE-AAAAYAAJ&pg=RA1-PA40

Proportionally great was our relief about two years after to be told on the authority of the Rev. Donald Owen of St Petersburg that he had turned up again under a feigned name in that capital ...

It was a highly unusual event.

One wonders what Russian historical claims were involved.

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is the description of Tommy Wasserman and Malcolm Choat in:

"The Cable Guy ": Constantine Simonides and Codex Mayerianus
https://research-management.mq.edu.au/ws/portalfiles/portal/134232726/BASP57013.pdf

 

[Steven Avery]

Value-added:

Here is an account in German that gives some additional names and says that it was not all accidental, there was a search going on by St. Petersburg scholars to find out if Simonides was in Russia! (Working on historical documents is mentioned.)

In Sachen Simonides (1872)
L. Müller
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23215828?seq=1

There is some puzzlement since the Russians had given that famous nyet to Simonides in 1851.

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

So why would he be there?
Perhaps a quid pro quo.

This short article is clearly wondering why he would be in Russia.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Yes, it does seem to have been placed as a footnote on a manuscript that is in Halki (Antigonus).

Here's how this quote makes it's way to us.

From Avery

From Farmakidis

From Simonides

Simon sez Alexander Sturdza says

Simon sez Kapodistras writes

Here's the Greek text of Farmakidis, who omitted telling you that it's a direct quote from...you guessed it!

Simon sez...

A Simonides book!

ΝΙΚΟΛΑΟΥ
ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΩΤΑΤΟΥ ΕΠΙΣΚΟΠΟΥ
ΜΕΘΩΝΗΣ
ΛΟΓΟΣ ΠΡΟΣ ΤΟΥΣ ΛΑΤΙΝΟΥΣ
ΠΕΡΙ
ΤΟΥ ΑΓΙΟΥ ΠΝΕΥΜΑΤΟΣ
ΟΤΙ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ
ΠΑΤΡΟΣ ΟΥ ΜΗΝ ΚΑΙ ΕΚ ΤΟΥ ΥΙΟΥ
ΕΚΠΟΡΕΥΕΤΑΙ.

ΠΡΩΤΟΝ ΗΔΗ ΕΚΔΙΔΟΜΕΝΟΣ ΥΠΟ
ΚΩΝΣΤΑΝΤΙΝΟΥ ΣΙΜΩΝΙΔΟΥ
ΔΙΔΑΚΤΟΡΟΣ ΤΗΣ ΦΙΛΟΣΟΦΙΑΣ.

Page 115
Footnote 1​

Ἐν Οδησσῷ εὑρισκόμενος, καὶ ὑπὸ τὴν κηδεμονείαν τοῦ ἀοιδίμου Αλεξάνδρου Στούρτζα τοῦ κλεινοῦ ἐκείνου διατελῶν, καὶ λόγου γενομένου περὶ Βενεδίκτου, ἤκουσα αὐτοῦ λέγοντος τάδε·

" Ἰωάννης ὁ Καποδιστρίας, ὁ θεῖος ἐκεῖνος ἀνὴρ, ἔγραψέ μοι πολλάκις ταῦτα..."​

​

“Οὐδένα εὗρον ἐν Ἑλλάδι μέχρι τῆς ἡμέρας ταύτης παιδείαν ἔχοντα ἀληθῆ, πλὴν τοῦ γηραιοῦ Βενεδίκτου τοῦ Συμαίου, ᾧ μάλιστα καὶ τὴν ἄρτι συσταθεῖσαν ἐν Πόρῳ δογματικὴν σχολὴν ἐνεπιστευσάμην..."​

Source link:

https://books.google.co.nz/books?printsec=frontcover&id=5_cCAAAAQAAJ#v=onepage&q&f=false

Avery Translation

This is
Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father not the Son -
edited by Constantine Simonides
writing originally by Nicholas Methonis

[Personal Note Here: Notice Avery gives no details about date, page number, etc, or Simonides being the actual author of the publication, just a sheepish mention of "edited by"]

“Being in Odesa, and under the tutelage of the venerable Alexander Sturtzas, of that perpetual fame, and of the general account of Benedict, I heard this saying by Ioannes Kapodistrias, [of] the uncle of that young man, writing many of these..."There were no Europeans in Greece until that day who had a true education, except for the old Benedictus of Simaeus, who, indeed, founded a dogmatic school in Poros and entrusted me with it..."

My Rough Translation

OF NIKOLAOS
[HIS] HOLINESS THE BISHOP
OF METHONIS
[HIS] DISCOURSE TO THE LATINS
CONCERNING
THE HOLY SPIRIT
THAT IT PROCEEDS
FROM OUT OF THE FATHER,
[YET] NOT OUT OF SON ALSO

FIRST ALREADY ISSUED UNDER
KONSTANTINOS SIMONIDES
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY.

London, 1859

Page 115
Footnote 1​

"While I [Simonides] found myself in Odessa, and under the custody of the famous Alexandros Stourtza, well known for his accomplishments, and when he happened to say a word [Or: "happened to speak"] about Benedictos, I [Simonides] heard him [Stourtza] say the following,

"John Kapodistrias, the uncle of that man [???], had many times written to me [Stourtza] these things,​

​

"I [Kapodistras] could not discover a single person in Greece, up to that day, having a true education, except the old man Benedictos of Simaeus, by whom, in fact, the Arts were introduced, and in Poros a dogmatic school, with which I was entrusted..."​

​

[Names and emphasis added by me]​

Farmakidis trusts Simonides implicitly. He doesn't tell you where he actually sourced this quote from.

It is Simon sez...

From a Simonides book from 1859.

Key phrase = ἤκουσα αὐτοῦ λέγοντος τάδε·

"I [Simonides] heard him say [the] following"​

This entire quotation story here about what Stourtza and Kapodistrias supposedly said, rests solely on...

Simon sez ...

As the source.

Which was my point.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Simonides would be likely fluent in Russian at least from his time with

Speaking Russian? Or reading and writing?

Your opinion does not equate to proof BTW.

Where is it written in Simonides' (a Greek if you haven't noticed) own publications (specifically) that he could in fact read Russian? Let alone be competent enough to write documents in Russian for the Russian government.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Similarly, a Bulgarian gentleman has raised many graphicological and codicology and epigraphy and calligraphy issues. He feels the technology for Sinaiticus features was not available in the 4th century. He is probably right, culling out the arguments and finding competent analysis is one of our projects.

Such as?

 

[Steven Avery]

Value-added:

Here is an account in German that gives some additional names and says that it was not all accidental, there was a search going on by St. Petersburg scholars to find out if Simonides was in Russia! (Working on historical documents is mentioned.)

In Sachen Simonides (1872)
L. Müller
https://www.jstor.org/stable/23215828?seq=1

There is some puzzlement since the Russians had given that famous nyet to Simonides in 1851.

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

So why would he be there?
Perhaps a quid pro quo.

This short article is clearly wondering why he would be in Russia.

Three major takeaways to start.

1) Not an accidental “bump into”, scholars were concerned and looking.

2) Why Russia? Why St. Petersburg?
Unlikely spot for Simonides to show up.
And working with Russian history?

3) A follow-up to the fake death, soon after.
The fake death may have been designed to help his showing up in St. Petersburg