Codex Sinaiticus & Constantine Simonides - Anthimus and Constantinople

Keep in mind that, in any such comparison, Sinaiticus has a variety pack of scripts a d signatures to compare.
Go, graphologists, go!

Yes. I welcome any forensic handwriting specialists into this.

I found this sentence interesting.

Odysseas Gillis
https://independent.academia.edu/OdysseasGilis

https://www.academia.edu/36392408/Οδυσσέας_Γκιλής_Κωνσταντ

Όμως τίποτα δεν είναι βέβαιο στη ζωή ενός ανθρώπου που φαίνεται να επινοεί τις σπουδές, τους φίλους και προστάτες, τις αυθεντίες που αργότερα εμφανίζει ως εγγυητές της γνησιότητας του έργου του. Άλλωστε, ο ίδιος ισχυριζόταν πως καταγόταν από τα Στάγειρα και ότι ήταν απόγονος του Αριστοτέλη.

"But nothing is certain in the life of a man who seems to invent the studies, the friends and patrons, the authorities he later presents as guarantors of the authenticity of his work. After all, he himself claimed that he came from Stageira and that he was a descendant of Aristotle."

https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...and-colonel-tzami-karatassos.3128/#post-13013
 
While Symais is wild, the letters of credence are meant to give the author scholarly legitimacy. It will be interesting to see them get an appropriate scholarly attention. From our -respective, especially Anthimos.
The "letter of credence" from Anthimos in Symais is the same letter of credence as reproduced on Page 9 of the Charles Stewart memoir, dated 1841. So a lot out of date by 1849 and long before he went to Constantinople for the third time in 1850/51.
 
The "letter of credence" from Anthimos in Symais is the same letter of credence as reproduced on Page 9 of the Charles Stewart memoir, dated 1841. So a lot out of date by 1849 and long before he went to Constantinople for the third time in 1850/51.

It says nothing about the✌️Simonideios project✌️either.
 
The "letter of credence" from Anthimos in Symais is the same letter of credence as reproduced on Page 9 of the Charles Stewart memoir, dated 1841. So a lot out of date by 1849 and long before he went to Constantinople for the third time in 1850/51.

Thanks for the connection. So you seem to acknowledge that it looks to be accurate for the early days of Simonides and Anthimos. (Which makes your theorizing that they never met a bit off tune and supports the account of Simonides of solid quality time with Anthimos. :) )

It would be nice to see the other two letters, but they don't have the same significance to Sinaiticus studies. Leila seemed to see this as a sensible letter of credence.

This is important enough for its own thread.

The fact that it was published way before the Sinaiticus controversies is extremely helpful. The various accusations of forgery of the letter, or doing it for Sinaiticus support, or Anthimos not being easily available to check the reference, now have a very tough row to hoe.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for the connection. So you seem to acknowledge that it looks to be accurate for the early days of Simonides and Anthimos. (Which makes your theorizing that they never met a bit off tune and supports the account of Simonides of solid quality time with Anthimos. :) )
He was only a boy at that time. I shouldn't imagine that they had any close relation. I could see such a letter given as a formality to anyone associated with Mt Athos. It's like when you leave a university, you may get a character reference from people who you never spoke to, or spoke to only once or twice, as a formality. Anthimos says that much of the reference comes from the testimony of Simonides' masters, so it doesn't suggest a close relation - just a school report, if you will, which he peddled around endlessly in later years.

Unfortunately it seems he went downhill somewhat, at least morally. Don't know what happened to him in Russia. That would be interesting.

It would be nice to see the other two letters, but they don't have the same significance to Sinaiticus studies, Leila seemed to see this as a sensible letter of credence.

This is important enough for its own thread.
 
Thanks for the connection. So you seem to acknowledge that it looks to be accurate for the early days of Simonides and Anthimos. (Which makes your theorizing that they never met a bit off tune and supports the account of Simonides of solid quality time with Anthimos. :) )

It would be nice to see the other two letters, but they don't have the same significance to Sinaiticus studies. Leila seemed to see this as a sensible letter of credence.

This is important enough for its own thread.

The fact that it was published way before the Sinaiticus controversies is extremely helpful. The various accusations of forgery of the letter, or doing it for Sinaiticus support, or Anthimos not being easily available to check the reference, now have a very tough row to hoe.

You should be following up the Istanbul (Constantinople) newspapers in 1850-1852 for Anthimus jumping to his defense publicly, if you're after facts. ??

A non Simon says circularity source.
 
Thanks for the connection. So you seem to acknowledge that it looks to be accurate for the early days of Simonides and Anthimos. (Which makes your theorizing that they never met a bit off tune and supports the account of Simonides of solid quality time with Anthimos. :) )

It would be nice to see the other two letters, but they don't have the same significance to Sinaiticus studies. Leila seemed to see this as a sensible letter of credence.

This is important enough for its own thread.

The fact that it was published way before the Sinaiticus controversies is extremely helpful. The various accusations of forgery of the letter, or doing it for Sinaiticus support, or Anthimos not being easily available to check the reference, now have a very tough row to hoe.

All this proves is that he practiced the psuedo-Benedict and psuedo-Anthimus storyline etc in selling his forgeries for an entire decade before deciding to include them in his Sinaiticus fantasy...
 
You should be following up the Istanbul (Constantinople) newspapers in 1850-1852 for Anthimus jumping to his defense publicly,

This would be long after the personal and special manuscript years with Anthimos.

You are most welcome to post any additional information, even if it does not really relate to the Sinaiticus issues.
 
All this proves is that he practiced the psuedo-Benedict and psuedo-Anthimus storyline etc in selling his forgeries for an entire decade before deciding to include them in his Sinaiticus fantasy...

This is rather a desperate interpretation attempt.

The fact that the SAD (Sinaiticus Antiquity Defenders) folks have to go to this theory is rather telling. As usual, cjab is making a more realistic attempt, albeit fraught with difficulties.

TNC picked up the hyper-conspiracy theory idea from good 'ol Kevin McGrane and shakes it and boils it and stains it for anything he can get. This hyper-conspiracy long-term preparation should be added as another one of the major McGrane weaknesses.

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

Now, to be fair to Kevin McGrane, he does not actually push this particular TNC absurd conspiracy theory with Anthimos. Here is his one mention of Anthimos in the Bill Cooper writing.


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

More particularly, if we take the accounts of Simonides (and Kallinikos, his invented correspondent) at face value then a large number of persons, including Orthodox patriarchs, saw the Greek version of The Shepherd of Hermas in Simonides’ manuscript well before 1855.180

180 Including Benedict and Dionysius at the Panteleimon monastery; the patriarchs Anthimus and Constantius, which latter was said to have referred to ‘your truly valuable transcript... of the pastoral writings of Hermas’; John Prodromos ‘who perused it with attention’ and ‘many persons’ as well in 1841; presumably also Germanus, who conveyed it to Sinai; Kallinikos who saw it in several times at Mt Athos and Mt Sinai; hieromonk Callistratus, who ‘undertook the comparison of it’, and who ‘inspected it in the common library’, plus anyone else who cared to examine it in the library, not to mention the ‘two’ librarians. - p. 79-80

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

It would have made an excellent additional question for Anthimos:

"Did you realize that the Greek Hermas in the manuscript was special from the point of view of apostolic Greek writings?"

This could have been asked by William Aldis Wright and the Investigative Clowns.

However, if they asked some questions, they would have been honest brokers, and not Tischendorf dupe-clowns.

===================
 
Last edited:
This is rather a desperate interpretation attempt.

The fact that the SAD (Sinaiticus Antiquity Defenders) folks have to go to this theory is rather telling. As usual, cjab is making a more realistic attempt, albeit fraught with difficulties.

TNC picked up the hyper-conspiracy theory idea from good 'ol Kevin McGrane and shakes it and boils it and stains it for anything he can get. This hyper-conspiracy long-term preparation should be added as another one of the major McGrane weaknesses.

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

Now, to be fair to Kevin McGrane, he does not actually push this particular TNC absurd conspiracy theory with Anthimos. Here is his one mention of Anthimos in the Bill Cooper writing.


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



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

It would have made an excellent additional question for Anthimos:

"Did you realize that the Greek Hermas in the manuscript was special from the point of view of apostolic Greek writings?"

This could have been asked by William Aldis Wright and the Investigative Clowns.

However, if they asked some questions, they would have been honest brokers, and not Tischendorf dupe-clowns.

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

No.

This is Steven Avery denial and evade mode.

He practiced and practiced his deceitful arts and storylines for a decade.

He refined and honed his tactics with the media.

He was a sadistic patricidal nut who used human skin for his forgeries.
 
This is rather a desperate interpretation attempt.

The fact that the SAD (Sinaiticus Antiquity Defenders) folks have to go to this theory is rather telling. As usual, cjab is making a more realistic attempt, albeit fraught with difficulties.

TNC picked up the hyper-conspiracy theory idea from good 'ol Kevin McGrane and shakes it and boils it and stains it for anything he can get. This hyper-conspiracy long-term preparation should be added as another one of the major McGrane weaknesses.

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

Now, to be fair to Kevin McGrane, he does not actually push this particular TNC absurd conspiracy theory with Anthimos. Here is his one mention of Anthimos in the Bill Cooper writing.


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



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

It would have made an excellent additional question for Anthimos:

"Did you realize that the Greek Hermas in the manuscript was special from the point of view of apostolic Greek writings?"

This could have been asked by William Aldis Wright and the Investigative Clowns.

However, if they asked some questions, they would have been honest brokers, and not Tischendorf dupe-clowns.

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

Again Steven Avery magnesium flares to throw you off the trail and distract you from the facts with garbage talk...

Again... what's with the confounding of me with Kevin McGrane, Steven?
 
This is rather a desperate interpretation attempt.

The fact that the SAD (Sinaiticus Antiquity Defenders) folks have to go to this theory is rather telling. As usual, cjab is making a more realistic attempt, albeit fraught with difficulties.

TNC picked up the hyper-conspiracy theory idea from good 'ol Kevin McGrane and shakes it and boils it and stains it for anything he can get. This hyper-conspiracy long-term preparation should be added as another one of the major McGrane weaknesses.

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

Now, to be fair to Kevin McGrane, he does not actually push this particular TNC absurd conspiracy theory with Anthimos. Here is his one mention of Anthimos in the Bill Cooper writing.


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



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

It would have made an excellent additional question for Anthimos:

"Did you realize that the Greek Hermas in the manuscript was special from the point of view of apostolic Greek writings?"

This could have been asked by William Aldis Wright and the Investigative Clowns.

However, if they asked some questions, they would have been honest brokers, and not Tischendorf dupe-clowns.

===================
You should have carried on to make it clear McGrane was only hypothesizing in your quotation on Page 79. For Mcgrane continues on p.80

"Back in the real world, the first time that Simonides saw a Greek copy of The
Shepherd of Hermas was in 1851, on his second visit to Mt Athos. Debarred by
hegumen Gerasim from entering the Panteleimon monastery library, he visited the
monastery of St Gregory on Athos and there found a copy (now known as the
Athous manuscript), from which he tore out and stole three leaves, and made a fair
manuscript transcription of the remainder, from which he made a deliberately
corrupt version to sell. It was with these that he turned up in Leipzig in 1855 with
an interest in making some money."

The 1855 Leipzig affair proved that Simonides was a common thief, as well as a forger. Astonishing that you continue to put your faith in this international crook. What does it say about your powers of judgement?
 
Last edited:
Rather: Simonides Addicted Dupes.

A reference to those who accept his contribution to “Codex Sinaiticus” as if it was. … guffaw …. a truly ancient manuscript!

Ironically, this makes you a double-dupe - Simonides and Tischendorf.
 
Last edited:
A reference to those who accept his contribution to “Codex Sinaiticus” as if it was. … guffaw …. a truly ancient manuscript!

Ironically, this makes you a double-dupe - Simonides and Tischendorf.
You're about the only person in the world who thinks the same way as you do. Even Daniels conceded Sinaiticus's antiquity, I note from a thread in the KJV only forum.
 
Sounds like you misread something.
Try this post:

"Jesus didn’t use this book [the Rahlfs-Hanhart Septuaginta from 2006], either. It’s actually a blending of the text critics’ 3 favorite codices: Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. Again, those big books were all written no less than three centuries after Jesus, not before.” (Daniels, Did Jesus Use the Septuagint?, pg. 31, Kindle edition)"
 
Try this post:

"Jesus didn’t use this book [the Rahlfs-Hanhart Septuaginta from 2006], either. It’s actually a blending of the text critics’ 3 favorite codices: Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. Again, those big books were all written no less than three centuries after Jesus, not before.” (Daniels, Did Jesus Use the Septuagint?, pg. 31, Kindle edition)"
Strange way of referencing a fabricated bible manuscript, don't you think?
 
"Jesus didn’t use this book [the Rahlfs-Hanhart Septuaginta from 2006], either. It’s actually a blending of the text critics’ 3 favorite codices: Alexandrinus, Vaticanus, and Sinaiticus. Again, those big books were all written no less than three centuries after Jesus, not before.” (Daniels, Did Jesus Use the Septuagint?, pg. 31, Kindle edition)"

Accurate.

Did Jesus Use The Septuagint?: Did The Hebrews Get It Wrong? (2017)
https://books.google.com/books?id=u5BODwAAQBAJ&pg=PT33

Here is a good section on the Psalm 14 (13 in the “LXX”) taking in text from Romans 3:13-18.

Did Jesus Use The Septuagint? (2017)
https://books.google.com/books?id=q_z4DQAAQBAJ&pg=PA18
 
Last edited:
…. Mcgrane continues on p.80

"… the first time that Simonides saw a Greek copy of The Shepherd of Hermas was in 1851, on his second visit to Mt Athos … the monastery of St Gregory on Athos and there found a copy

This was likely the main source used by Benedict in preparing the Sinaiticus Hermas. Simonides may have known about it from the Sinaiticus years. If so, that would have supplied the knowledge to help the bee-line, where to find the valuable Greek Hermas (without particular concern for the Latin retro-version elements in the late Greek manuscript.)
 
Back
Top