Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

Back at my puter.

The details are in the James Keith Elliott book, p. 120.



So Constantius was a compatriot of Simonides, and knew where he went even in the 1850s. After he visited him.







The digging of TNC and cjab often end up confirming important elements of the Simonides account. Here there emphasis on the Amphilocius letter led to my careful reading of the full letter in

All he's saying is he was also from Greece.

You're really grasping at straws, and twisting the evidence (nothing new for you).

Your argument is as weak as a butterfly flying through a jet engine.

Your just latching onto the word "compatriot" and ignoring the context.

Look up the meaning of "compatriot" in a dictionary, and you will find that it doesn't mean a "friend", or "compadre", or "companion"...

Amphilochius said a "compatriot" = which has a completely different meaning.

This is not sound reasoning at all on your part. It's not a solid argument. It's as weak as an ant trying to lift a car.
 
Three witnesses Steven...

That agree as one...

There's three official replies from the Rossico (i.e. Pantameleon) monastery itself, that somehow, Steven imagines they don't count as trustworthy witnesses in this controversy.

  1. Wright's letter from the embassy in Salonika (another name for Thessalonica)
  2. Amphilochius' letter
  3. The Pantameleon monastery's letter to the Orthodox Review.

The Monastery, where it's all supposed to have happened, is unanimous in it's condemnation of Simonide's as a fraudster and a liar, and two of them (1 and 2) cross reference and corroborate each other.

Game...set...and match!
 
We plan to go into this question, which also gets into hard and soft breathing marks.
Maybe next week, as we have some very fine studies in play today.
As while you're about it, you will need to address why the 5th century Codex Alexandrinus has large spaces after its prima manus punctuation marks, and why the Codex Sinaiticus has none! If the punctuation in early Matthew was prima manus, and done by Simonides as the prima manus, then it would certainly have spaces in the text after the punctuation marks in early Matthew - proving that Sinaiticus originally had no punctuation marks. And why was the use of punctuation given up if it was prima manus?

And so why, if done by Simonides, would Sinaiticus have no prima manus punctuation marks? What exemplar did Simonides then have in 1840 that he would leave out the punctuation?

Your Simonides-authorship tale gets more fanciful every day. If done by a later hand, Codex Sinaiticus could only have been a project in forgery, rendering the entire Simonides 'project' a criminal conspiracy for mercenary reasons. Why then would it have been left at Sinai and have involved Anthimos? Which ever way you look it, your position is grossly insulting to the Greek church for being involved in such a criminal conspiracy.....

For a concise trashing of Bill Cooper's “The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus” see, this piece by Trevor R Allin 2022
 
Last edited:
Three witnesses Steven...

That agree as one...

There's three official replies from the Rossico (i.e. Pantameleon) monastery itself, that somehow, Steven imagines they don't count as trustworthy witnesses in this controversy.

  1. Wright's letter from the embassy in Salonika (another name for Thessalonica)
  2. Amphilochius' letter
  3. The Pantameleon monastery's letter to the Orthodox Review.

The Monastery, where it's all supposed to have happened, is unanimous in it's condemnation of Simonide's as a fraudster and a liar, and two of them (1 and 2) cross reference and corroborate each other.

Game...set...and match!

That "three in one" comment must really hurt... :)
 
For a concise trashing of Bill Cooper's “The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus” see, this piece by Trevor R Allin 2022

Bill W. R. Cooper (1947-2021) is an easy target, he was in over his head, and I have written in some depth on his errors.

That said:

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

p. 7
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus: “both written in the West”, in the 19th Century
Elsewhere (p. 25) Cooper states that “we are inclined to surmise that B [Vaticanus] and A [Sinaiticus] were both written in the West, probably at Rome.” (p. 25, words in square brackets in Cooper’s text). This contradicts his claim elsewhere that Sinaiticus was written in a Greek monastery by Constantine Simonides as part of the Jesuit plot.

Bill Cooper was quoting Westcott and Hort, the contraction is fabricated.

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

p. 8
Simonides was a convicted forger of ancient documents who had spent time in prison in Germany for fraud after selling fake documents there.

There was an arrest and a quick release, no conviction.

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

p. 9
He recognises that in the Hendrickson print of Sinaiticus13 the pages are all of the same colour (p. 79), as are the pages on the British Library website14.
13 “Codex Sinaiticus A facsimile”, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers Inc. and London: The British Library 2011
14 https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/ Accessed on 25.2.21

The colours are very different, and it does look like Hendrickson did conscious tampering to smooth out the CSP differences, rather than a "simple exercise in book design aethetics" (Cooper)

Cooper blundered badly in writing:

The British Librarie's website for Codex Sinaiticus also presents a standardized shade (almost monchrome) for the entire codex.

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

P. 13
Cooper claims that there are major “differences” between the Codex Sinaiticus and the text produced by Erasmus, but most of the differences consist of spelling variations that do not prevent the reader from recognising the word, and minor differences of word order that are generally untranslatable into English.

Here Trevor R. Allin spouts nonsense, and shows he is a textual ignoramus, since there are many thousands of substantive differences, hundreds of which are major.

=========================
 
So Constantius was a compatriot of Simonides, and knew where he went even in the 1850s. After he visited him.

Firstly, the context of your snippet from Elliot's book gives a fuller account of Davies investigations, which provides a perfectly adequate explanation.

The other letters accompanying Amphilochius' letter (i.e. the context), show that Alexandria had been scoured quite thoroughly for any information concerning Simonides and Kallinikos in all the monasteries and churches and places of lodging for a monk in that city. So there is no surprise that knowledge of his travels was shared and communicated to each other during and/or subsequent to the investigation.

Secondly.

You haven't provided (i.e. framed your argument - as someone has been trying to tell you) an accurate timeline of Simonides' travels in the 1850's. Note, I'm talking about your 1850's Simonides' timeline, not Daniel's timeline or from someone else.

Post your personal timeline here, and then I will continue with my answers.
 
Last edited:
Bill Cooper was quoting Westcott and Hort, the contraction is fabricated.
Westcott & Hort p.267

351. Taking all kinds of indications together, we​
are inclined to surmise that Aleph and B were both written in​
the West, probably at Rome; that the ancestors of B​
were wholly Western (in the geographical, not the textual​
sense) up to a very early time indeed ; and that the​
ancestors of Aleph were in great part Alexandrian, again in​
the geographical, not the textual sense. We do not​
forget such facts as the protracted unwillingness of the​
Roman church to accept the Epistle to the Hebrews,​
commended though it was by the large use made of it in​
the Epistle of Clement to the Corinthians : but the complex​
life of Christian Rome in the fourth century cannot​
safely be measured by its official usage ; and it would be​
strange if the widely current History of Eusebius led no​
Roman readers to welcome the full Eusebian Canon,​
with the natural addition of the Apocalypse, a book​
always accepted in the West. The supposition here​
made would account for all ascertained facts and contradict​
none. Yet we are well aware that other suppositions​
may be possibly true ; and we must repeat that
the view which we have here ventured to put forward as
best explaining the sum total of the phenomena is only
a surmise, on which we build nothing.

Yes, a very strange surmise given that Hermas was early out of favor in the Roman church, and both codexes were written in Greek and in the east at some point.

Shows that scholars can say bizarre things; but that Cooper fails to mention his sources shows that his work is not scholarly material - just junk not worth the read.

Cecconi p.5 Hermas:

"In the 4th and 5th centuries the Shepherd was not widely read in the Latin world,​
at least according to St. Jerome (De vir.ill. 10).17 When he says that earlier ecclesiastical​
writers often quoted him he seems to be alluding to Origen, who made rich use of​
Hermas and identified him with the disciple of Paul mentioned in Rom. 16,14. But in​
translating the works of Origen neither Jerome nor Rufinus of Aquileia used the Vulgata​
for the quotations from the Shepherd, though they are likely to have known it,​
but translated them afresh.18 Rufinus included Hermas within the corpus of authors​
who could be read during the liturgy but must not be used as normative sources for​
the dogma (Expositio symboli 36). St. John Cassian was of a similar opinion (Collationes​
VIII,17,1 and XIII,12,7).19 For their theories on Hermas both Rufinus and Cassian​
were severely censured by Prosper of Aquitaine (390–463), who considered both theologians​
as witnesses nullius utilitatis (Contra collatorem XIII,6).​
The Decretum Gelasii Papae de recipiendis et non recipiendis libris of 382 rejected​
the Shepherd; but its diffusion and its fame prevailed, and in the 5th century a second​
Latin translation, the Palatina, was composed."​
 
Last edited:
Possible anachronistic mistakes (which do not occur in Sinaiticus) include writing in minuscules, separating words, the use of punctuation, etc.

Circularity, the jewel.

Anachronism are abundant.

We start with the accents and there is in fact a fair amount of punctuation, including separators. Focusing on the accents, for which there is no sensible time or source.

There are textual-logical anachronisms like the
three crosses note
sophisticated formatting in Song of Songs
connection with the Andreas commentary in Revelation
Latinized linguistics in Hermas and Barnabas
conflations in the Eusebian tables
textual variant conflations

There was stuff that was removed from the edges. likely by Tischendorf, he had the opportunity to discard anything awkward.
Plus they simply just claim a late date on many anachronistic features.

The like-new condition of the parchment and ink, especially in the NT, is anacrhronistic to the antiquity claim.
 
Last edited:
Circularity, the jewel.

Anachronism are abundant.

We start with the accents and there is in fact a fair amount of punctuation, including separators. Focusing on the accents, for which there is no sensible time or source.

There are textual-logical anachronisms like the
three crosses note
sophisticated formatting in Song of Songs
connection with the Andreas commentary in Revelation
Latinized linguistics in Hermas and Barnabas

There was stuff that was removed from the edges. likely by Tischendorf, he had the opportunity to discard anything awkward.
Plus they simply just claim a late date on many anachronistic features.

The like-new condition of the parchment and ink, especially in the NT, is anacrhronistic to the antiquity claim.
All BS that we are fed up with pandering to. Not sure why you should be permitted to dictate the agenda. I think there must be better things to do in life than listen to you.
 
And the fact that they got together in Alexandria and Constantius knew his travels.

And this was when Constantius was very elderly.

Sounds like family.

Who is "they"?

In "they got together in Alexandria"...

Constantius was interviewed as part of the inquiry in Alexandria...and it's more interesting that he joined in testifying against (not for) the Sinaiticus claims of Simonide's, and that he didn't affirm the existence of Kallinikos of Athos and Thessalonica (i.e. Salonika) and Alexandria...

He didn't give any specific and unmistakable defense of Simonide's or his Kallinikos at all, when interviewed. Just wholehearted agreement with the other religious officials who were against Simonide's Sinaiticus fictions.

The Davie's letters from Alexandria and Sinai context (in Elliott, Pages 100-121) is totally hostile and negative in it's overall intent; negating emphatically the key elements of Simonide's Sinaiticus story.
 
“Lastly, I have informed by the Venerable Priest Constantius, of this place, who is also a compatriot of Mr. Simonides, that when the latter came here five or six years ago, he neither visited the holy Mount Sinai, nor Upper Egypt. - Amphilocius, Oct 5, 1863”

Notice that nobody asked Constantius the real questions that would tell the talen (or, if they did, suppressed the response)

“Constantius, do you remember Simonides bringing over a large Bible manuscript from Mt. Athos, that was brought to Sinai by Anthimos and Germanus”?

“Did Tischendorf discuss that manuscript with you, after he travelled to Sinai in 1844 ?”

===========

Wright and the Investigative Clowns did not want the historical truth, they thought they could support the Tischendorf con by “orange man bad.”
 
Last edited:
Tischendorf con
The original three who vouched for Sinaiticus's authencity were Dr. Tregelles, Prof. Tischendorf and Mr. Henry Bradshaw, keeper of the manuscripts at Cambridge Univerity.

And your professional qualifications in palaeography for controverting their integrity is what exactly?

The Simonides authorship claim is further repudiated by Simonides pretence (in 1863) to having in his possession a 1st century manuscript of 1 John containing the Johnannine Comma, which, although never published, was according to Simonides, "displayed at Christ’s College, Cambridge, for a week, during the meeting of the British Association, where it was seen by hundreds of gentlemen, among others by Mr. Babington and Mr. Bradshaw. It has been since exhibited in London, at the rooms of the Royal Society of Literature, on Jan. 7th, 9th, and 10th, together with the other MSS. discovered in the museum of M. Mayer." (p.122 Elliot).

Now why would Simonides have chosen to forge a copy of 1 John with the Johannine Comma when he must have been aware, as the author of Sinaiticus, that the Johannine Comma was missing from all early Greek manuscripts?

The answer is that in 1863 he was still clueless that the Johannine Comma was missing from all early Greek manuscripts, which shows that he didn't author Sinaiticus.
 
... vouched for Sinaiticus's authencity were Dr. Tregelles, Prof. Tischendorf and Mr. Henry Bradshaw, keeper of the manuscripts at Cambridge Univerity.

How much of the darker (coloured) bulk of the Sinaiticus leaves, with the full pristine New Testament, did this Tischendorf hero defender see and handle, and for how long?

When he decided "by instinct"?

And please try to explain how the quires convinced him of the antiquity of Sinaiticus.

Let's examine his "analysis".

Thanks!

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

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA480

But the great question was,' How do you satisfy yourselves of the genuineness of any manuscript ? ’ I first replied that it was really difficult to define; that it seemed to be more a kind of instinct than anything else.

Also in A Memoir of Henry Bradshaw.

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

Do you also believe the CFA proves Sinaiticus authentic 4th century?
 
Last edited:
Failed on the Cyrillic letter mirage...

Failed on the basic Greek alphabet recognition test...

Failed on the context of Montfaucon...

Failed on recognizing Constantius testified on Sinaiticus Authenticity side...

Just in the last two days...
 
Back
Top