Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?

Maestroh said:
"Mr Wright laid upon the table the original of the letter of Callinicus Hiermonachos which had, apparently, been written at Alexandria and which had certainly been sent thence to the Guardian office by the ordinary post. Mr Wright proved by comparison of the writing of this letter with other known specimens of the handwriting of Simonides that the letter of Callinicus must have been written by Simonides himself in England and sent hence to someone in Alexandria, who posted it to the Guardian."
W.S.W Vaux
"The Guardian, 18 Feb 1863
Click to expand...

The basic truth is the impossible knowledge and the historical imperatives that show Simonides and Kallinikos well aware of the manuscript. Including their working at Mount Athos on the same manuscript at exactly the right time in 1841. (Discovered in 1900, Bill Brown amazingly accused this of being a tampered library entry!!) Kallinikos called the 1844 theft perfectly, which nobody else understood (and some even struggle today.)

That combined with the tissues of lies and thefts from Tischendorf and other evidences, like the "coincidence" of the extremely similar Hermas from Simonides before Sinaiticus, (linguistically dubious as an early ms.) demonstrate the Athos creation. And the various palaeographic anomalies and the "phenomenally good condition" and the colouring and stains matching the Kallinikos account and more.

If letters from Kallinikos were edited, or even if they were to some degree Simonides creations, the basic evidence remains Athos, c. 1840. And I actually once had one of the letters in my hand in NYC at the Grolier Club, and may have the pictures still, from years back. When I went back earlier this year, that letter was not in the box. I hope they find it and connect it. There are probably other originals in London or Liverpool. Australia has correspondence from Charles Stewart, who is wrongly accused of being a phantom.

And I get a special smile about Tischendorf anxious about Simonides on his way to St. Catherines in 1859.

Some have written that they had a friendship, even a corroboration, that went south. However, the fact that Simonides was working at the Russian Historical Archives in St. Petersburg in the late 1860s is an evidence that they went back north, or at least had a quid pro quo.
 
Last edited:
Avery:
If letters from Kallinikos were edited, or even if they were to some degree Simonides creations, the basic evidence remains Athos, c. 1840
Click to expand...

You have, with that imbecillic statement, ONCE AGAIN given up the entire argument!

Simonides lies don't matter, says Avery.

Simonides and Kallinkinos could be one and the same person and it wouldn't matter, says Avery.

WHAT ON EARTH WOULD MATTER TO A GUY WHO ADMITS THAT ANY EVIDENCE THAT PROVES HIM WRONG DOESN'T REALLY MATTER AT ALL?

YOU ARE NO RESEARCHER.

Good grief. I see now how you can deny the moon landing and the atomic bomb (among other asinine beliefs of yours).
 
Last edited:
"Among the documents discovered during the past few years is the already mentioned June 1862 dossier of the Russian Minister of Education, Alexandeer Vasilevic Golovnin...Much more seriously, he [Golovnin] reflected on the ownership of the Codex. Here the siutation was complicated indeed. The Russian ambassador in Constantinople, Prince Lobanov, had provided a pesonal guaratee for the Codex during the time of its loan in September 1859 (the receipt for the manuscript was signed by Tischendorf). " (Bottrich, in "Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on an Ancient Manuscript," 2015: 178)

I don't know too many people who sign receipts when they steal stuff.

Maybe this is a delusional hallucination on the part of some people.

Using the standard “quoting people is all anyone has to do to prove a point,” we’ve now established anyone claiming Tischendorf stole it either is ignorant of this or knew it and decided to be dishonest anyway.
 
Maestroh said:
"Among the documents discovered during the past few years is the already mentioned June 1862 dossier of the Russian Minister of Education, Alexandeer Vasilevic Golovnin...Much more seriously, he [Golovnin] reflected on the ownership of the Codex. Here the siutation was complicated indeed. The Russian ambassador in Constantinople, Prince Lobanov, had provided a pesonal guaratee for the Codex during the time of its loan in September 1859 (the receipt for the manuscript was signed by Tischendorf). " (Bottrich, in "Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on an Ancient Manuscript," 2015: 178)

I don't know too many people who sign receipts when they steal stuff.
Click to expand...

This was long after Tischendorf stole the manuscript. Remember, James and Constance Finn confirm he had the ms. in January, 1859 at the Russian Consulate, which fits the theft report given by William George Thorpe, also reported by Bernard Janin Sage.

Then Tischendorf was holed up in the Russian Consulate with the ms. and there were negotiations. With possession being 99%, they had the upper hand.

This led to the later signature in 1859, about which this article is very helpful.

New documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus (1964)
Ihor Sevcenko
https://www.persee.fr/doc/scrip_0036-9772_1964_num_18_1_3197

You can read about the 1859 letter there and I want to highlight the fact that the Russians:

Russian Ambassador to Constantinople starting 1864.
Count Nikolai Pavlovich Ignatiev
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nikolay_Pavlovich_Ignatyev

even acknowledged that a theft was involved.

As for the "alleged admission by Count Ignatiew, in private letters” (and thus presumably of inferior value as testimony) to the effect "that he
had 'stolen’ the Codex,” the pamphlet writes it off as a joke on the part of that astute diplomat (ibidem, p. 11). But that ”alleged” admission is printed for all to read in Dmitrievskij’s work (as in note 6 supra), which the authors of the British Museum pamphlet did not directly quote,
but of whose existence they were aware. If they took the trouble to read Ignat’ev’s correspondence published there, they would have realized that Ignat’ev wrote in dead earnest and that, incidentally, he did not say that he had stolen the Codex, but that the Codex had been “stolen
by us,” I.e., by Russia.
Click to expand...

Sevcenko also points out errors of the British Museum related to Uspensky.

And does the "he" of Ignatiev mean Russia, or more directly, Tischendorf?

There was actually a double steal.
Getting the manuscript to the Russian Consulate, and then a veneer of legitimacy through the negotiations.

And Kallinikos gives additional details about the steal, including the use of Prince Regent (liquor) by Tischendorf.
 
Last edited:
Shoonra said:
Whether Tischendorf acquired the Sinaiticus honestly or dishonestly is unrelated to the issue of whether the Sinaiticus dates back to the fourth century.
Click to expand...

This is 100% correct.

EDITED BY MOD it’s not wrong of any of us to point out the alternative facts being posted here simply aren’t facts at all.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Shoonra said:
Whether Tischendorf acquired the Sinaiticus honestly or dishonestly is unrelated to the issue of whether the Sinaiticus dates back to the fourth century.
Click to expand...

The first point is that the standard defense of Sinaiticus is not the actual condition and facts and history of the manuscript, looking at provenanc and palaeography and historical imperatives, it is Simonides Perfectionalism. If Simonides can be attacked, that supposedly proves Sinaiticus is ancient. When we see the big con of Tischendorf it is obvious that the issues go much deeper.

Also the Tischendorf lies and thefts and creative story fabrication, self-serving, were also combined with a belligerent, aggressive attitude on the dating and also hiding the manuscript from examination. (You don't need the ms. simply use my books.) Tischendorf laid the groundwork for the long con.
 
Steven Avery said:
If letters from Kallinikos were edited, or even if they were to some degree Simonides creations, the basic evidence remains Athos, c. 1840. And I actually once had one of the letters in my hand in NYC at the Grolier Club, and may have the pictures still, from years back. When I went back earlier this year, that letter was not in the box. I hope they find it and connect it. There are probably other originals in London or Liverpool. Australia has correspondence from Charles Stewart, who is wrongly accused of being a phantom.
Click to expand...

One need's to ask, Steven, if you can't read Greek (as you've acknowledged in the past), how do you even know that this alleged letter in the Grolier Club, was from any said Kallinikos? Except you rely on the opinions of others. Which demonstrates that at the most fundamental level, you are incapable of analysing the evidence reliably, in a case about Greek manuscripts, Greek calligraphy, handwritten Greek letters, Greek catalogues (need I go on?...).

Effectively, from what I've seen so far, is that for every claim you've made, there's an equally valid counter claim.

One says Colonel Klink and uncy Bene were real, but on the other hand, an Athos monk says he committed identity theft from innocent people (stealing real people's names etc) whom he robbed, abused, and took advantage of.

Where is Simonides grave stone in Egypt? Or his death certificate in Egyptian archives?

Or is he burried, and has a gravestone with his name on it elsewhere on the planet?

Physical evidence of his death (a grave etc) could be a fundamental integrity test of Simonides' and his accomplices generic honesty regarding the final chapter of his sad life. Did he fake his own death by leprosy? There must be physical evidence of his death somewhere...

P.S. If a grave was found, because of the deceptive nature of this guy's history, I'd go to the extreme of encouraging exhumation and DNA testing etc for leprosy etc (before celebrating and kind of success), but this is highly unlikely and unrealistic to achieve.
 
Last edited:
As a reminder - Tischendorf had a receipt.

Shoplifters (thieves) do not have receipts.

What's the next claim? That he forged one? That would be a real hoot.

Does anyone here actually believe the British government was actually stupid enough to fork over the equivalent of over a million dollars DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION and AFTER THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION to a Communist government without due diligence that some chowderheads online with active imaginations suddenly noticed was a fraud that nobody else ever noticed for most of a century?
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
One need's to ask, Steven, if you can't read Greek (as you've acknowledged in the past), how do you even know that this alleged letter in the Grolier Club, was from any said Kallinikos? Except you rely on the opinions of others. Which demonstrates that at the most fundamental level, you are incapable of analysing the evidence reliably, in a case about Greek manuscripts, Greek calligraphy, handwritten Greek letters, Greek catalogues (need I go on?...).

Effectively, from what I've seen so far, is that for every claim you've made, there's an equally valid counter claim.

One says Colonel Klink and uncy Bene were real, but on the other hand, an Athos monk says he committed identity theft from innocent people (stealing real people's names etc) whom he robbed, abused, and took advantage of.

Where is Simonides grave stone in Egypt? Or his death certificate in Egyptian archives?

Or is he burried, and has a gravestone with his name on it elsewhere on the planet?

Physical evidence of his death (a grave etc) could be a fundamental integrity test of Simonides' and his accomplices generic honesty regarding the final chapter of his sad life. Did he fake his own death by leprosy? There must be physical evidence of his death somewhere...

P.S. If a grave was found, because of the deceptive nature of this guy's history, I'd go to the extreme of encouraging exhumation and DNA testing etc for leprosy etc (before celebrating and kind of success), but this is highly unlikely and unrealistic to achieve.
Click to expand...

Despite the efforts to turn this into an issue of the credibility of Tischendorf vs Simonides (which Tischendorf wins despite the constant whining), that's not even the issue. They're both long dead.

The issue is whether we take the reliability of all the people who have been closely involved with it all through the years (including the curators of the BL)......or the reliability of someone who has never actually seen it with his own two eyes.

That's not a close call at all.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Where is Simonides grave stone in Egypt? Or his death certificate in Egyptian archives?

Or is he burried, and has a gravestone with his name on it elsewhere on the planet?

Physical evidence of his death (a grave etc) could be a fundamental integrity test of Simonides' and his accomplices generic honesty regarding the final chapter of his sad life. Did he fake his own death by leprosy? There must be physical evidence of his death somewhere...

P.S. If a grave was found, because of the deceptive nature of this guy's history, I'd go to the extreme of encouraging exhumation and DNA testing etc for leprosy etc (before celebrating and kind of success), but this is highly unlikely and unrealistic to achieve.
Click to expand...

Afaik, we only have the newspaper announcement of his death in 1890.

There was a newspaper interview in Corfu a few years earlier, with a Vienna newspaper.

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

The leprosy announcement was in 1867, possibly to mask his working at the Russian Historical Archives.

1867 - leprosy death announcement in newspapers

1869 - working at the Russian Historical Archives in St. Petersburg, information from Tregelles in 1869 from Rev. Daniel Owen - would be sensible as a quid pro quo with Tischendorf
“Historical Documents of Great Importance in Connection with Claims of the Russian Government.”

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

I'll keep attentive for any additional information.
 
Maestroh said:
The issue is whether we take the reliability of all the people who have been closely involved with it all through the years (including the curators of the BL)......
Click to expand...

The curators are obviously not an objective party.
They know that any efforts to determine its actual age could be very embarrassing.
The Brits put a lot of prestige and $ on the purchase, and the Museum and Library like to play it up.

I asked for a list of the objective examiners of the two parts of the manuscript.
And even one part has been very rare.
 
Maestroh said:
Does anyone here actually believe the British government was actually stupid enough to fork over the equivalent of over a million dollars DURING THE GREAT DEPRESSION and AFTER THE COMMUNIST REVOLUTION to a Communist government without due diligence
Click to expand...

Do you have any record of tests done by the Brits?

How about an objective palaeographic analysis?

They accepted the cursory dismissal of Mt. Athos production, and were willing marks.
 
Maestroh said:
As a reminder - Tischendorf had a receipt.
Shoplifters (thieves) do not have receipts.
Click to expand...

This checkered receipt was part of the negotiations about 8 months after the theft.

It is a type of confession.

While the manuscript was safe at the Russian Consulate, a “loan” agreement was needed to complete the heist to Russia.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Afaik, we only have the newspaper announcement of his death in 1890.

There was a newspaper interview in Corfu a few years earlier, with a Vienna newspaper.

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

The leprosy announcement was in 1867, possibly to mask his working at the Russian Historical Archives.

1867 - leprosy death announcement in newspapers

1869 - working at the Russian Historical Archives in St. Petersburg, information from Tregelles in 1869 from Rev. Daniel Owen - would be sensible as a quid pro quo with Tischendorf
“Historical Documents of Great Importance in Connection with Claims of the Russian Government.”

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

I'll keep attentive for any additional information.
Click to expand...

A shady character with shady whereabouts.

The circumstances of his death are not even certain. Everything about this person appears to be devious.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
A shady character with shady whereabouts.
The circumstances of his death are not even certain. Everything about this person appears to be devious.
Click to expand...

So do you take the position that the Athos writing of Sinaiticus was devious, rather than a replica?

Would Sinaiticus be 1500 years earlier based on Benedict’s motive?
 
There's two competing stories/narratives going on here.

To me (just from a brief perusal of the history) the shady character of Simonides interactions with others, and his behaviour very much give the impression and profile of a liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top