Codex Sinaiticus & Constantine Simonides - Anthimus and Constantinople

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Steven Avery gives a very brief summary on his Blog of what he thinks was Constantine Simonide's relationship and interactions with the Patri-Arch Anthimos.

Steven Avery​

First as a student.​

Then with the manuscript movement around 1843.​

He also was involved around 1851, which led to a falling out.​

Then in 1862 or 63 he later gave Anthimos as a reference.​

​

https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...fore-the-manuscript-movement.3081/#post-12836​

I couldn't help but notice a change in his stance, in the third line, were he says: "around 1851, which led to a falling out".

This is because the unpleasant events surrounding Simonides that took place in Constantinople in 1850-1851, which are not consistent with the dishonest twisted stories and fake letters of recommendation that Simonides published in his memoir etc etc.

Simonide's tried to apologize for these unpleasant events reported in the newspapers to Alexander Lycurgos whom he was sucking up to (for nefarious purposes) at the time.

A. Lykourgos
“The Exposing of the Simonades-Dindorfian Uranios”
Leipzig, 1856
III. Biographical sketch
Page 49-50
Footnote 1 (continued)

“In 1853 I received, quite unexpectedly, a letter from Simonides out of Smyrna, in which he attempted [Or: "tried"] to apologize for the [unpleasant] series incidences concerning him in Constantinople [i.e. 1850-1851], and proceeded to inform me of his new discoveries that he had made at Mount Athos.”​

NOTE: The German text for the "series of incidences" is an idiom that often carries a negative connotation, thus the "unfortunate" in brackets.

 

[cjab]

“In 1853....

I think it should be "In 1852..."

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

I think it should be "In 1852..."

Thanks. I'll have to check the German text after work. I don't have access right now. A small typo if so.

 

[cjab]

I would be surprised if Simonides had any personal interaction with or access to Anthimos IV, who was engaged in high politics in Constantinople; and wasn't at all empathetic to the Greek Nationalists and their attempts to secede from the ecumenical patriachate.

And TNC said earlier "Anthimos, in real life, wanted nothing to do with Simonides when he came to Constantinople to perform his acts of charlatanism and sell his forgeries."

Is there any evidence the two ever met, or communicated?

 

[Steven Avery]

This is because the unpleasant events surrounding Simonides that took place in Constantinople in 1850-1851, which are not consistent with the dishonest twisted stories and fake letters of recommendation that Simonides published in his memoir etc etc.

Was there a date on any letter of recommendation?

 

[Steven Avery]

I would be surprised if Simonides had any personal interaction with or access to Anthimos IV, who was engaged in high politics in Constantinople; and wasn't at all empathetic to the Greek Nationalists and their attempts to secede from the ecumenical patriachate.

And TNC said earlier "Anthimos, in real life, wanted nothing to do with Simonides when he came to Constantinople to perform his acts of charlatanism and sell his forgeries."

Is there any evidence the two ever met, or communicated?

So you want to have them have a falling out, that was noted by Mordtmann, but they never actually met?
hmmmm...

Also noting an apology from Simonides,

"The Patriarch (Anthimos) first asked for the details of the island and the monastery,"

Andreas David Mordtmann
Allgemeine Zeitung
Augsburg
November 28th, 1853
Col. 5307
Page 953
"The Literary Swindles of Simonides & Constantinople"
(Google translated from German into garbled English)
[English text edited and paraphrased by me]​

The Patriarch (Anthimos) first asked for the details of the island and the monastery, of which there are quite a number. But he did not want to get involved in this, and so the Patriarch refused permission. In order to take revenge on the Patriarch, he now had it circulated here [i.e. Constantinople] that he, like the Caliph Omar, had spoken as follows: “The acts of the Council of Antioch would be superfluous; they either confirm the canons of the Greek Church or contradict them ; in both cases it would be useless to dig." Soon

https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...garding-sinaiticus.11880/page-48#post-1052495​

And I also gave us an English version of the Mordtmann account.

Mordtmann's account is given in English in 1856, the printing is better in the GM than in the Athenaeum.

Gentleman's Magazine
https://books.google.com/books?id=Tg9IAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA270

Later by Sotheby in 1858.
Principia Typographica: The Blockbooks Or Xylographic Delineations of Scripture History, Issued in Holland, Flanders and Germany During the Fifteenth Century, Exemplified and Considered in Connexion with the Origin of Printing : to which is Added an Attempt to Elucidate the Character of the Paper-marks of the Period, Volume 2
.

Simonides, in reality was rejected by Anthimos in Constantinople in 1850-1851. Anthimos didn't want to have anything to do with Simonides' forgeries.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So you want to have them have a falling out, that was noted by Mordtmann, but they never actually met?
hmmmm...

Also noting an apology from Simonides,

"The Patriarch (Anthimos) first asked for the details of the island and the monastery,"



And I also gave us an English version of the Mordtmann account.

He said he'd be "surprised if..."

Don't twist his words Mr Integrity.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Was there a date on any letter of recommendation?

Put in context with the qualifying: "dishonest twisted stories and fake letters of recommendation"

Note:

A. Dishonest (i.e. not a 100% truthful)​

B. Twisted (i.e. distortions of truth)​

C. Fake (i.e. forgeries designed and made to look like the real thing)​

 

[cjab]

So you want to have them have a falling out, that was noted by Mordtmann, but they never actually met?
hmmmm...

The communication between them is limited to applying for permission to dig; and then Simonides spread a story about what Anthimos IV has "said" to him. Yet this could all have been done by writing, as persmission was sought of the Turkish government also. There is no confirmation of any private meeting taking place.

 

[Steven Avery]

Put in context with the qualifying: "dishonest twisted stories and fake letters of recommendation"

Note:

A. Dishonest (i.e. not a 100% truthful)​

B. Twisted (i.e. distortions of truth)​

C. Fake (i.e. forgeries designed and made to look like the real thing)​

“Orange man bad” can help the argument that the original goal of Sinaiticus may not have been as pure as stated by Simonides.

 

[Steven Avery]

The communication between them is limited to applying for permission to dig; and then Simonides spread a story about what Anthimos IV has "said" to him. Yet this could all have been done by writing, as persmission was sought of the Turkish government also. There is no confirmation of any private meeting taking place.

So it would have been extremely easy to contact Anthimos to inquire about his history with Simonides and the manuscript.

 

[cjab]

So it would have been extremely easy to contact Anthimos to inquire about his history with Simonides and the manuscript.

But Anthimos was not a public official in 1863 but was retired to his private house on Prince's Island. So your comment is pointless, and Anthimos was by no means obliged to reply to any such correspondence from foreigners for whom he must have had no little aversion to, given the history of British interference in Greece cf. its rule over the Ionian Islands, and also its role in the Crimean War, which entailed appalling loss of life.

 

[Steven Avery]

But Anthimos was not a public official in 1863 but was retired to his private house on Prince's Island. So your comment is pointless,

Nonsense. You simply send the gentleman an inquiry.
Your conjectures are pointless.

If he was so adverse to Simonides, and they never worked with the manuscript, he would be enthused to share that information.

Again, you are just making absurd excuses for the failures of William Wright and the Investigative Clowns. My conjecture is that they did not send out the really salient inquiries for fear that the result would be very very bad for their cause of defending the Tischendorf theft and ongoing con.

Simonides mentioned well-known people that could be contacted, essentially challenging the Sinaiticus Authenticity Defenders (SAD) to make the contacts. The best conclusion is that he did that because his history of how the manuscript got to Sinai was essentially accurate (leaving aside the whole replica or forgery question.)

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

Incidentally, Lilia Diamantopoulou in the 2017 Genius book p. 32 has a bit about the personal references regarding Simonides from three dignitaries including Anthimos. Those pages are showing up in Google Books nicely:

Die getäuschte Wissenschaft: Ein Genie betrügt Europa – Konstantinos Simonides (2017)
https://books.google.com/books?id=go7fDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32

So far I have only translated one paragragh in that section, there will be more context if we go backwards. And I copied out te other Anthimos references in PBF, so far the one from Lilia is the interesting one.

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

 

[cjab]

Nonsense. You simply send the gentleman an inquiry.
Your conjectures are pointless.

If he was so adverse to Simonides, and they never worked with the manuscript, he would be enthused to share that information.

On the contrary Simonides fully expected that Anthimos would make no response should any such nonense be put to him, but Princes Island was very far away from European civilization.

Again, you are just making absurd excuses for the failures of William Wright and the Investigative Clowns. My conjecture is that they did not send out the really salient inquiries for fear that the result would be very very bad for their cause of defending the Tischendorf theft and ongoing con.

No you are making excuses for the failure of Simonides to prove anything.

Simonides mentioned well-known people that could be contacted, essentially challenging the Sinaiticus Authenticity Defenders (SAD) to make the contacts. The best conclusion is that he did that because his history of how the manuscript got to Sinai was essentially accurate (leaving aside the whole replica or forgery question.)

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

Incidentally, Lilia Diamantopoulou in the 2017 Genius book p. 32 has a bit about the personal references regarding Simonides from three dignitaries including Anthimos. Those pages are showing up in Google Books nicely:

Die getäuschte Wissenschaft: Ein Genie betrügt Europa – Konstantinos Simonides (2017)
https://books.google.com/books?id=go7fDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA32

So far I have only translated one paragragh in that section, there will be more context if we go backwards. And I copied out te other Anthimos references in PBF, so far the one from Lilia is the interesting one.

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

May be I'll get around to it. But this statement from Niketas Siniossoglou at the beginning of the next chapter is interesting:

Constantine Simonides and Philosophy

Between Cynosarges and Kaiadas

Constantine Simonides is the founder of modern anti-philology, namely the systematic undermining of established philology by ostensible philological means, such as the edition and scholarly annotation of forged texts.

(Why anyone would put their faith in this Constantine Simonides is beyond reasoning.)

 

[Steven Avery]

On the contrary Simonides fully expected that Anthimos would make no response should any such nonense be put to him, but Princes Island was very far away from European civilization.

Nonsense.

You are saying whatever is convenient, looking for an out.

 

[Steven Avery]

(Why anyone would put their faith in this Constantine Simonides is beyond reasoning.)

And any reasonably intelligent person who studied the history and the manuscript would reject his "Codex Sinaiticus".

 

[cjab]

And any reasonably intelligent person who studied the history and the manuscript would reject his "Codex Sinaiticus".

So you condemn the whole world of academia as not "reasonably intellligent." But what credentials can you offer to show that you are more intelligent?

Nonsense.

You are saying whatever is convenient, looking for an out.

The British were then fanatically Russophobic and Anthimos IV, as also Simonides, was a Russophile, and under the influence of Russia, certainly in the 1840s. If Simonides was so familar with Anthimos IV, it was up to Simonides to adduce the evidence.

 

[Steven Avery]

May be I'll get around to it. But this statement from Niketas Siniossoglou at the beginning of the next chapter is interesting:
Constantine Simonides and Philosophy
Between Cynosarges and Kaiadas
Constantine Simonides is the founder of modern anti-philology, namely the systematic undermining of established philology by ostensible philological means, such as the edition and scholarly annotation of forged texts.

While Siniossoglou is humorous at times, and worth skimming, he also does not understand the history, he mangles an important and is good at psycho-babble.

p. 63
The hubris of Simonides’ anti-philology was best captured by the theologian Samuel Prideaux Tregelles (1813-1875), who noted that the insanity of his project was surpassed only by his sin.14 Tregelles’ vehement rejection of Simonides points to an understudied religious and moral aspect of the latter’s endeavour.
14 Elliott 1982, 79.

Siniossoglou apparently knows nothing about Sinaiticus, and thinks Tregelles is talking about a Simonides forgery project.

Plus he adds the word insanity instead of folly and does not understand that the issue for Tregelles is Holy Scripture.
Here is what Tregelles wrote.

To forge a MS. as if ancient is to endeavour to uphold readings in such a copy as if they had the vantage - ground of early authority; a procedure the folly of which is only surpassed by its sin: to pretend to have written a MS. really ancient, and thus to seek to make all palaegraphic facts matters of doubtful questioning, is a sin of a similar kind.

 

[Steven Avery]

So you condemn the whole world of academia as not "reasonably intellligent."

Nope, they simply have not really studied the manuscript or the history]
.
Read again what I wrote.

 

[Steven Avery]

The British were then fanatically Russophobic and Anthimos IV, as also Simonides, was a Russophile, and under the influence of Russia, certainly in the 1840s. If Simonides was so familar with Anthimos IV, it was up to Simonides to adduce the evidence.

As you point out, Anthimos was not, after 1850, a Simonides fan. They had had some difficulties. And the Simonides attempt to patch it up did not go far. So it would make much more sense for an inquiry to be made by a third party, like William Aldis Wright and the Investigative Clowns.

Btw, the apology attempt, mentioned by Lycourgas, is another evidence that they had a personal relationship.