Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

The Mt. Athos monasteries and compatriots reaction to Simonides lies were consistent.

Most of these remarks are dubious, indirect, they may be overlapping sources and some claims were imply wrong,

Most importantly, by 1860 Simonides was a major embarrassment to Athos, and the goal was to minimize the connection.

They also would not like the clear historical connection of the Sinaiticus con as originating at Mt.Athos, even if it was originally a good faith replica.
 
No one at St. Catherine's has ever independently verified from their archives that a Hiero-Monk Kuriakos Kallinikos Keraunos of Thessaloniki, of Alexandria, of Athos, was ever at their monastery at the time(s) Simonides said (= Simon sez)...

Ever.

And from the other end, Athos...

The consistently testify Simonides was a liar (see 1851 issues of the Telegraph of the Bosphorus, a decade before the English newspapers controversies about the Codex Sinaiticus and Simonides authorship, which was quoted by Bodgkin's).
 
"Sir, I ascertain, from letters received in the month of November last, that the Hiero-Monachos Kallinikos of Alexandria has written to you refuting the antiquity of the Codex Sinaiticus..."​
Interesting...
But look at his next words...
"and declaring that it was written in modern days and BY MYSELF.

Even there, where Simonides is referencing the later letter from Kallinikos, there is no “only”.

Simonides was the major scribe, likely the full New Testament.

At most, a smidgen of hyperbole.
 
Last edited:
Most of these remarks are dubious, indirect, they may be overlapping sources and some claims were imply wrong,

Nope.

Most importantly, by 1860 Simonides was a major embarrassment to Athos, and the goal was to minimize the connection.

This works against you.

They were embarrassed because Simonides WAS for a fact a liar.

Which is consistent with their story and with Simonides external history.

They also would not like the clear historical connection of the Sinaiticus con as originating at Mt.Athos, even if it was originally a good faith replica.

No they wouldn't like Simonides con originating at Mt. Athos.

This IS consistent with them simply telling the truth.

Still works against you, and creates no inconsistency in their story.

But IT IS IN-CONSISTENT with Simonides story.
 
Last edited:
Even there, where Simonides is referencing the later letter from Kallinikos, there is no “only”.

Simonides was the major scribe, likely the full New Testament.

At most, a smidgen of hyperbole.

Not consistent with

Σιμωνιδον το ολον εργον

"Simonides the entire work"


☝️😉☝️

Ooops!

Journal of Sacred Literature
April, 1863
(also British Quarterly Review)

Page 212


https://books.google.com/books?id=kR82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA212
 
Last edited:
Sure.

Simonides lied at times.

Every single time he said he wrote Sinaiticus, for example.

Tischendorf lied completely and totally in the basics of his Sinaiticus discovery accounts.

Uh, so did Simonides, but you don't seem to be willing to come right out and say that.

I wonder why (I really don't wonder why, I know why).


Simonides may have given Constantius the false impression that it was an ancient manuscript.
Which could arguably be a "lie".

Simonides never said one single word to Constantius in 1841 about a manuscript he didn't know about until 1859.
 
Even there, where Simonides is referencing the later letter from Kallinikos, there is no “only”.

There's also not a mention of a co-author, but this doesn't stop the SART Team of Misfits from enlisting him.


Simonides was the major scribe,

Only if by "major scribe" you mean "didn't know diddly about it."


likely the full New Testament.

At most, a smidgen of hyperbole.

Yes, folks, Tischendorf, he LIED, but Simonoides, well, let's just minimize it.

The mere fact you choose this line of defense is proof even you know how weak it is.
 
So do you think he may have given Constantius the impression in 1841 at Constantinople that the manuscript was ancient?

No, because this never happened. If it had, he would have shown us all the letter he was allegedly citing from 1841 when he first opened his mouth in 1862. It isn't too hard to figure out why we never saw that letter.

It was because.....well, we'll let you say it:

Simonides lied

Yep. He did.
 
I would allow for a 13-day variation in dates of certain events because Simonides was, apparently, an adherent of the Greek or Russian Orthodox Church, which used the old Julian calendar, while the rest of Europe (Catholic and Protestant) was using the Gregorian calendar. Simonides may have been offering the Russian dates to one audience and the Gregorian dates for the same events to another audience.

that's all fine and good.

It doesn't help him with the after-the-fact Easter blunder, where it was the same date in both traditions, though.

And there's no calendar involved in, "Well, I know I said I was born in 1824, but I was REALLY born in 1820."

It doesn't miraculous turn his November 1839 into August 1841 or any other such thing, either, which is what the SART Misfits of Psuedo-Science have to argue to make Simonides out to be something less of a liar if still a lying twit.
 
If Mt. Athos had a wealth of Russian mss, then howcome the Sinaiticus departs so markedly from the traditional Russian text of the NT?
 
If Mt. Athos had a wealth of Russian mss, then howcome the Sinaiticus departs so markedly from the traditional Russian text of the NT?

"Well you don't know that because YOU have to collate all of them first!"
SART Misfits of Pseudo-Science (henceforth, SART-MOPS).

That is NOT how investigations work.

It was never the responsibility of William Wright or anyone else to go traipsing all over the world to DISPROVE the claims of a man even James Farrer tells us is a lying forger. It has always been the responsibility of the "but Simonides" cluster to PROVE THEIR CASE.

The Sinaiticus is 4th century side has already proven theirs.

And btw, let's dispense with this childish objection, "But they didn't see both sections of the manuscript" argument being made by people who cannot even READ the manuscript. Unless Steven Avery or any of ther other SART-MOPS are suggesting that the manuscript in Leipzig is a COMPLETELY different manuscript, they didn't have to. This is just trying to set up an impossible burden of proof that even the ones setting it up cannot meet.
 
Back
Top