Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

T

The above and the1852 thing Avery simply will not deal with.

Mr Avery imagines that Tischendorf and Simonides were complicit (in cahoots) with one another, even suggesting that Tischendorf and Simonides perhaps met in a back alley after Simonides (first) fake death, and that Simonides was rewarded financially (given a back hander) for not fully exposing him.

He imagines Tischendorf (laughing with a villain's evil voice as he) tares apart, discards, and hides the later part of the Shepherd of Hermas text from the Sinaiticus at St Catherine's in 1859(?).

He takes the Kallinikon-ides story literally.

He suggests and promotes the conspiracy theory that Tischendorf did this to hide the similarity between Simonides pre-1859 Hermas text and the Codex Sinaiticus Hermas text, proving (allegedly) that he (Slime-onides) was the creator of the Sinaiticus text.

That, IMO, is what lies at the back of all this pathetic "Maximo" garbage.
 
Part of the conspiratorial framework is that he (Avery), of course, ignores or sweeps under the carpet the far more brazen and far more numerous retrospective element's in Simonides lie-corrects-lie-based mythology, and exaggerates Tischendorf's retrospective arguments completely out of proportion.

With the purpose of framing Tischendorf as the legendary villain within Simonides Codex Sinaiticus creation myth.

That's what's behind this Tischendorf "retraction" business, IMO.
 
Last edited:
Many scholars rejected the unscholarly (maniacal might be a good word) push of Tischendorf for a 4th century date, since there were so many counter-evidences that "prove too much" against the 4th-century theory.
This is mere propaganda. The majority accepted a 4th century date.

Apart from the Eusebian apparatus, which some including Tischendorf have speculated were added at a later date, there are some who opted for a date prior to the 4th century. I can't find any information to support Sir Frederic Madden's (1801–1873) view of a 6th century date, and it seems to have applied only to the Codex Fredrico Augustanus.
 
Uspensky, Hilgenfeld, Madden (if the CFA is later, then Sinaiticus is later) and Donaldson were among those who rejected the 4th century date in the 1860s. Benjamin Harris Cowper showed some of the problems with the early date. Tischendorf similarly had a few defenders of his early date position.

So the mere propaganda is fact.

It is best to examine the arguments rather than make silly propaganda pronouncements. Tischendorf became maniacal about his dating theory, as is seen in the titles and tone of his 1863 books. Generally Tischendorf did a poor job in actually addressing the arguments.

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

Also interesting is the fact that Tischendorf's attack on the Athous Hermas date is still in the 1863 Hermas edition. He never was able to justify his position of conveniently retracting the attack as soon as Sinaiticus was extracted.

Allard Pierson (1831-1896) also has a good Hermas section, including Maximus, quite extensive and overlooked in the scholarship.
 
Uspensky, Hilgenfeld, Madden (if the CFA is later, then Sinaiticus is later) and Donaldson were among those who rejected the 4th century date in the 1860s. Benjamin Harris Cowper showed some of the problems with the early date. Tischendorf similarly had a few defenders of his early date position.

Why not give the dates all those men ascribed to Sinaiticus? Like:

Uspensky — 5th century.

The way you have it, by merely saying they “rejected a 4th century date,” the uninitiated would think (and we all know this was your intent) they all believed Sinaiticus to have been written in the 19th century.

What dates do Hilgendorf, Donaldson, and Madden give for Sinaiticus?

Do you even know?

Have you actually READ the writings of those men?

Or does your “research” consist solely of putting the word “sinaiticus” into the search box on archive.org or Google books?
 
Why not give the dates all those men ascribed to Sinaiticus? Like:

Uspensky — 5th century.

The way you have it, by merely saying they “rejected a 4th century date,” the uninitiated would think (and we all know this was your intent) they all believed Sinaiticus to have been written in the 19th century.

What dates do Hilgendorf, Donaldson, and Madden give for Sinaiticus?

Do you even know?

Have you actually READ the writings of those men?

Or does your “research” consist solely of putting the word “sinaiticus” into the search box on archive.org or Google books?

He has read them enough to know the dates they give.

He knows...
 
He should be clear about Constantine's dating of Sinaiticus though. 😉

Actually a timeline just on Simonides dating of the Sinaiticus alone, would be helpful 👍 informative... educational...

Please feel free to post what you know about statements in Simonides works about his dating of the Sinaiticus from his pre-1862...
 
Last edited:
Has anybody noted the direct implications of this statement?


The First Letter
By Constantine Simonides
September 3, 1862:
The Guardian
Subheading: "The Sinai MS of the Greek Bible."


"This together with - THE REMAINS OF - the seven apostolic fathers – Barnabas, HERMAS, Clement Bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and Dionysius the Areopagite..."​


Anybody catch that?

He was saying he only had the "REMAINS OF" ... Hermas...

Meaning, not the entire book, (as he states elsewhere) as we now know, Post-1975, all of Hermas, was in the Codex Sinaiticus at some stage in it's history.

Simonides clearly didn't know that, when he first planned his vengeful plot to get back at Tischendorf and when he first conceived his devious Sinaiticus creation myth.

This is more corroboration of Simonides basing his lie upon Tischendorf's limited information.
 
Last edited:
He has read them enough to know the dates they give.

Outside of those who accepted the Mt. Athos production, the most significant late dater was the Russian polymath scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946). Morozov actually saw at least the Russian portion, rare before 2009.

And I conjecture that his evaluation affected the sloppy, lackadaisical handling of the ms, loose in a flimsy box, by the Russians. And their willingness to take the offer of the British marks.
 
Last edited:
Outside of those who accepted the Mt. Athos production, the most significant late dater was the Russian polymath scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946). Morozov actually saw at least the Russian portion, rare before 2009.

And I conjecture that his evaluation affected the sloppy, lackadaisical handling of the ms, loose in a flimsy box, by the Russians. And their willingness to take the offer of the British marks.

That's not the dates of the people he's been talking about, is it Mr Avery.
 
Have you noticed...

Mr Avery...

Simoniides has the once Patriarch of Constantinople Constantius, ALSO testifying in agreement with his own bed-time story, that he only transcribed:

Journal of Sacred Literature
Miscellanies
April, 1863
Page 216

Fake letter, from Constantius, from the Island of Antigonos, August 1841


"I have received your truly valuable transcript of ... the FIRST PART OF the pastoral writings of Hermas..."

https://archive.org/stream/journalsacredli15cowpgoog#page/n229/mode/2up

Note!

"...THE FIRST PART OF..."​

Because Simonides testifies (in a sacred oath) that the supply of parchment ran short (i.e. ran out)...

Simonides didn't claim to transcribe all of Hermas in the Codex Simonideios...as is now found in the leaves of THE LAST PART OF the Shepherd of Hermas from the Codex Sinaiticus New Finds.

Meaning...

NO PART OF the THE LAST PART OF the Shepherd of Hermas was ever transcribed by Simonides as ANY PART OF the Codex Sinaiticus -- or -- the Codex Simonideios!

Last Parts of Hermas in the New Finds

Shepherd of Hermas, 65:5 - 66:6 library: SC folio: scribe: B2​
Shepherd of Hermas, 67:1 - 68:5 library: SC folio: scribe: B2​
Shepherd of Hermas, 91:4 - 93:5 library: SC folio: scribe: B2​
Shepherd of Hermas, 93:6 - 95:5 library: SC folio: scribe: B2​

These never existed according to Simonides annnddd Constantius....

He's lyyyyying....

Liar, liar, Simonides' pants are on fire...
 
Last edited:
Note the direct implications of this statement, with the one's below:

The First Letter
By Constantine Simonides
September 3, 1862:
The Guardian
Subheading: "The Sinai MS of the Greek Bible."


"This together with - THE REMAINS OF - the seven apostolic fathers – Barnabas, HERMAS, Clement Bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and Dionysius the Areopagite..."​


Anybody catch that?


"...REMAINS OF ... Hermas..."


Compared with the once Patriarch of Constantinople Constantius, ALSO testifying in agreement with Simonides bed-time story, that he only transcribed:

Journal of Sacred Literature
Miscellanies
April, 1863
Page 216

Fake letter, from Constantius, from the Island of Antigonos, August 1841


"I have received your truly valuable transcript of ... the FIRST PART OF the pastoral writings of Hermas..."

https://archive.org/stream/journalsacredli15cowpgoog#page/n229/mode/2up

Note!

"...THE FIRST PART OF..."

Compare also:


A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts."
By Charles Stewart, 1859
Pages 61


“...M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well -
THE 1ST BOOK OF HERMAS - , all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago...”

Note:


"...THE 1ST BOOK OF HERMAS..."

 
Last edited:
Then we have Kallinikos testifying to the same thing:



THE JOURNAL OF SACRED LITERATURE AND BIBLICAL RECORD.
Edited by B. Harris Cowper
Editor of the New Testament in Greek from Codex A ; A Syriac Grammar, Etc.
Vol. III (New Serries).
WIlliams and Norgate,
16 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London;
20 South Frederick Street, Edinburgh.
April, 1863
Subheading: Miscellanies,
Page 210

Kallinikos Hieromonachos'
First (fake) letter first letter to the Guardian,
November 5th 1863(?) from Alexandria

“The Codex Sinaiticus — Sir, — In your impression of Sept. 3rd, there appeared a letter signed C. Simonides in which the writer asserts that the MS. to which Tischendorf has given the name of the Codex Sinaiticus, and which he has foisted on the learned world as a MS. of the fourth century, is in fact of a very modem date, and written by Simonides himself little more than twenty years ago. This statement, which has not been refuted in your columns, is accompanied by circumstantial details which I will now proceed to examine.
About the end of the year 1839, at which time Simonides was fifteen years old (he was born in the year 1824, on the 11th of November, about the hour of sunrise), his uncle Benedict, head of the monastery of St. Panteleemon on Mount Athos, conceived a wish to make a valuable present to the Emperor of Russia. After some consultation it was decided that the present should be 'a copy of the Old and New Testaments, written according to the ancient form, in capital letters, and on parchment,' together with the remains of the Seven Apostolic Fathers. The task was declined, on account of its difficulty, by Dionysius, the professional caligrapher to the monastery, but was undertaken by Simonides at his uncle's urgent request. After examining the principal copies of the Holy Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos, he then, a boy of fifteen, began to practice the principles of caligraphy. Benedict, meanwhile, collated a copy of the Moscow edition of both Testaments with the ancient ones (MSS., I presume), and having cleared it of errors, gave it into his nephew's hands to transcribe. The transcription went on apace, and Simonides had already copied out the Old and New Testaments, the Epistle of Barnabas, and - THE FIRST PART OF - the Shepherd of Hermas, when his supply of parchment ran short, the death of his uncle induced him to relinquish his task, and the volume was left incomplete.”

Note:


"...THE FIRST PART OF - the Shepherd of Hermas..."
 
Note Constantius' testimony:


Journal of Sacred Literature
Miscellanies
April, 1863
Page 216

Fake letter, from Constantius, from the Island of Antigonos, fake date August 1841


"I received your truly valuable transcript of ... the FIRST PART OF the pastoral writings of Hermas..."

https://archive.org/stream/journalsacredli15cowpgoog#page/n229/mode/2up


Note!

"...THE FIRST PART OF..."



Then compare the testimony of Charles Stewart:


A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts."
By Charles Stewart, 1859
Pages 61


“...M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well - THE 1ST BOOK OF HERMAS - , all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago...”
Note:


"...THE 1ST BOOK OF HERMAS..."


Then implied by what Simonides himself says:

The First Letter
By Constantine Simonides
September 3, 1862:
The Guardian
Subheading: "The Sinai MS of the Greek Bible."


"This together with - THE REMAINS OF - the seven apostolic fathers – Barnabas, HERMAS, Clement Bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and Dionysius the Areopagite..."​


Note:

"...REMAINS OF ... Hermas..."



Now compare Kallinikos' testimony as well:


THE JOURNAL OF SACRED LITERATURE AND BIBLICAL RECORD.
Edited by B. Harris Cowper
Editor of the New Testament in Greek from Codex A ; A Syriac Grammar, Etc.
Vol. III (New Serries).
WIlliams and Norgate,
16 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London;
20 South Frederick Street, Edinburgh.
April, 1863
Subheading: Miscellanies,
Page 210

Kallinikos Hieromonachos'
First fake letter first letter to the Guardian,
November 5th 1863(?) from Alexandria


“...The transcription went on apace, and Simonides had already copied out the Old and New Testaments, the Epistle of Barnabas, and - THE FIRST PART OF - the Shepherd of Hermas, when his supply of parchment ran short, the death of his uncle induced him to relinquish his task, and the volume was left incomplete...”​

Note:


"...THE FIRST PART OF - the Shepherd of Hermas..."
 
Back
Top