The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

[Maestroh]

The fantastic claim is from Tischendorf.

So your defense of Simonides is "well look over there at Tischendorf!!!"

That a fresh manuscript without significant parchment degradation or ink-acid reaction and wild colouring and no provenance and an extremely solid alternate creation with confirmations ... was actually from the 4th century.

The problem, though, is that Tischendorf isn't the only one who dated it to the fourth century.

You have fallen for the Tischendorf con.

So now instead of you defending anything about Simonides, you insult me?
Is that how strong your position is?

"Look, over there! - I made a facsimile. Trust me."

But this is what YOU are doing, not what I am doing.

What's funny is I'm the only one here actually answering TNC's questions, I'm the only one quoting what Simonides said, but you're the one who thinks he told the truth about writing it sort of.

What is in the British Library is NOT a facsimile.......

"Look, orange man bad"

So your way of defending Simonides's claims is:
- answer no questions
- attack James White
- attack Tischendorf
- insult me
- bring in Donald Trump, who wouldn't know Sinaiticus or Simonides if it hit him in the face.

Why not just quote Simonides and provide evidence he wrote it?

Is that simple demand REALLY that difficult?
Because if so, perhaps what you need to do is simply say, "I was wrong, Sinaiticus is not 19th century."

 

[Maestroh]

Correct, in a sense.

As explained before, quoting Simonides, the textual work was Benedict before Simonides was involved as a scribe. It is very possible that Simonides did not know how Vaticanus was used as a source, even if Birch was the source.

None of this matters at all.

Simonides didn't claim to use it.

Therefore, you even suggesting he did is nothing more than wild-eyed speculation at the least.

 

[Maestroh]

Here is a spot where Simonides says that Benedict worked directly on the manuscript,

Of course, you can also go to the Simonides biography and find out even this isn't true.

1859 A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts. : Charles Stewart : Free Download, Borrow, and Streaming : Internet Archive

This biography of Constantine Simonides contains details about Constantine Simonides, his great-uncle Benedict, his mother and father, Constantin Tischendorf,...

archive.org

Go to page 7 and you'll see:
a) Simonides arrives in November 1839
b) Benedict starts instructing him in paleography (despite bad eyes, which kinda renders his teaching meaningless)
c) "the manuscripts were difficult to decipher"
d) he "fell grievously ill"

But we're supposed to believe during this SAME TIME, Benedict was CORRECTING (which is all Simonides claimed btw) the manuscript....while he had bad eyes and was dying.

Yeah, right.

and also Dionysius (his name is on the manuscript.)

Of course it is.

Simonides knew that name was on there from the publication and ONLY THEN DID HE EVEN COME UP WITH THAT NAME!!!

LOL!!!!

Folks, these very points were made in the Elliott book Avery dismisses as "deficient," but he continues to restate the already refuted claims.

As in - "were refuted 160 years ago."

 

[Maestroh]

So Benedict himself said/wrote/left nothing about what specific manuscripts and NT printed texts he used in collaboration with Simonides in the alleged production of the Sinaiticus manuscript.

Of course not.

Benedict wasn't even Simonides's uncle...

Why am I not surprised at this.

So you have no factual information (documentary evidence) coming directly from Benedict himself.

Hmmm.

This entire case depends ENTIRELY on:
a) the lying claims of Simonides
b) one very active imagination and
c) a conspiracy theory

 

[Maestroh]

Except that you've never touched the Sinaiticus manuscript with your own hands, never been in the same room with it, nor can read it.

Neither has any member of the so-called "research team."

 

[Maestroh]

Three possibilities -

1) replica
2) fake
3) both possibilities intertwined

It got too messy, and the idea arose to use it as a proof copy.

No, there's a fourth: this entire story is a fraud.

However, the big fake turned out to be Tischendorf.
His long con continues.

Again defending Simonides with "Detective Mark Fuhrman said bad words years ago and THEREFORE, my client is innocent!"

 

[Maestroh]

Actually I point out that the truth of Codex Simoneides being written in Mt. Athos c. 1840 is not based on the veracity of all the statements and claims of Simonides.

Your ENTIRE CASE is based on "Simon Says" (in this case, Simonides Says), you just don't quote him because he's a lying forger - and you know it.

Notice how Rick Norris never offers quotes from me when he wants to misrepresent my position. Typical Rick Norris smoke and mirrors.

I quote you all the time but instead of answering the point, you throw in how someone else is in your opinion.

 

[Maestroh]

Nothing was said about Vaticanus, one interesting point is that Benedict, from whom we do not have records, prepared before Simonides was involved.

Yes, this is Simonides changing his story in January 1863 after he got busted lying in September 1862, where he claimed HE did it.

I mean, yes, absolute contradictions like this prove truth all the time.

Once again - SIMON SAYS!!!!

Thus, Simonides has only a partial understanding, at best, of manuscript sources.

Simonides didn't know diddly about manuscripts, which is why he kept getting caught as a lying forger, so much so Farrer included him in a book called "Literary Forgeries."

 

[Maestroh]

Nope. And not KJV-only.
Historically many others have seen through the Tischendorf con.

Thinking he lied about how he got the manuscript isn't the same as dating it.....

We look at the physical elements of the manuscripts,

You've never actually seen it, though....

historical imperatives

Only for your theology, not for reality.

(such as the Lambrou catalog published after Simonides passed)

Your conclusion contradicts what Simonides said about his whereabouts, but you've provided no reasonable answer to that, either.

and what we discovered about the manuscript especially from 2009,

Nobody discovered anything in 2009, it's just you could read it online.

Well, you can't, but people who can read Greek can.

and many sources kept mostly hidden,

How was anything actually hidden?

like the Tischendorf 1844 letter

irrelevant

and the consecutive quires stolen by Tischendorf,

An accusation by Simonides writing as Kallinikos......

the "coincidence" of Hermas

Nothing to this, either.

and then how it shows up in the New Finds, and numerous other historical imperatives.

So a bunch of jargon that says nothing.

This is called a WORD SALAD, readers.

The Simonides account fits the actual "facts on the ground" far better than the Tischendorf con.

It's not a matter of believing two stories, and you continue to not bother to defend ONE SINGLE WORD of what Simonides said.

It is true that the fact that Simonides contended that the ms. was made on Mount Athos helpful in looking at all the pieces of the Simoneidos puzzle.

He lied. Over and over he lied.

He lied about his birthday.
He lied about his uncle.
He lied about his sources.
He lied about writing Sinaiticus.
He lied about writing it himself.
He lied about collating it.
He lied about Benedict collating it.

And later - according to you - he faked his own death, which is also lying.

However, it is easy to see the evidence whatever you think of the veracity of Simonides.

You are literally the only one on this board doing this.

Remember, he had nothing to gain financially by being involved in Sinaiticus.

He had revenge to gain by embarrassing Tischendorf, who had exposed him.

Later, after the controversies Petersburg-ed out, he was working at the Russian Historical Archives in St. Petersburg, exactly where Tischendorf had placed most of the manuscript. My conjecture is a quid pro quo.

Given you deny the moon landing, the efficacy of vaccination, and suggest atomic bombs may not exist, this is not surprising.

It's ludicrous on its face, but not surprising.

 

[Maestroh]

Not that we have available, there may be info at Mount Athos.

Also known as, "If evidence there is no evidence exists actually did exist, I would be right."

 

[Maestroh]

Daniel Wallace has been very skeptical of the Tischendorf claims.

This is a distortion of reality, too.

Why not tell everyone what Wallace thinks of:
a) the date of Sinaiticus (fourth century)
b) Simonides (far lower on the honesty scale than Tischendorf's understandable lie to obtain the MS0


also, Wallace (unlike any member of the SART team) has seen Sinaiticus with his own two eyes, which makes his opinion far more informed than anyone who has not.

 

[Maestroh]

Simonides said it was a replica, and the hope was a printing press in return. I think we have covered this point.

That's not all he said.

Why not tell the rest?

 

[Maestroh]

And how does he feel about the Simonides & Benedict Inc claims?

They're good for a laugh.

 

[Steven Avery]

Simonides said it was a replica, and the hope was a printing press in return. I think we have covered this point.

Here is Simonides on the replica.

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
Miscellanies
The Codex Sinaiticus and its Antiquity
https://books.google.com/books?id=vvgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA228
p. 228-229

“The discovery of the above-mentioned library induced my uncle to establish a printing-press at Athos for the dissemination of the various unpublished MSS. and those which be was preparing for publication....

... Benedict, as well as the principals of the monastery, wishing to recognize with gratitude the munificence of the Emperor Nicholas on the one hand, and desiring on the other to acquire a printing-press without expense, and being unable otherwise to effect these purposes, decided that a transcript of the sacred Scriptures should be made in the ancient style, and presented as a gift to the Emperor Nicholos, and he found that all the heads of the monastery perfectly agreed with him.

And although I had a peculiar inclination for it, as well as for all the fine arts, I never became a professional caligraphist, because I had always more important and independent occupations in hand. But I was compelled to understand this work—first, to gratify my uncle ; secondly, as no one was there at hand at Athos to execute it; and thirdly, which was the most important to me, in the hope of obtaining the present of a printing-press. To these motives may be added my youthful ambition to become first of all at Mount Athos in the profession of caligraphy, which actually came to pass.

 

[Steven Avery]

So your defense of Simonides is "well look over there at Tischendorf!!!"
The problem, though, is that Tischendorf isn't the only one who dated it to the fourth century.

Tischendorf stole the manuscript in two steps and pushed the 4th century date aggressively and kept the manuscript itself hidden from scientists and scholars. And in 1859 he made up a phantasmagorical lie about saving leaves from fire, when his own words to family were thieve's talk, the leaves simply came into his possession, along the lines of ... "Look what showed up in my pouch!"

Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1845-1946), a top Russian scientist, was one of the few exceptions, and when he saw the manuscript, he blew the whistle, bewraying the phony date. This, I believe, had a lot to do with the 1933 dump of the red herring, the sale from Russia to England. The Russians could breathe a big sigh of relief.

Tischendorf aggressively pushed his facsimile and limited access to the Leipzig and St. Petersburg manuscripts. He also kept them separated even conceptually as long as possible. So people like Scrivener ended up as shills falsely saying the manuscript was yellow with age, without ever seeing the manuscript.

And nobody ever tested the parchment or ink. Not even today. Leipzig ducked out the day of the tests!

The manuscript only became publicly available in 2009 and we quickly saw anomalies galore. And get lots of double-talk.

And we found out that Simonides and Kallinikos had spoken accurately on point after point, including the 1844 theft by Tischendorf. Simply Simonides knowing there was no provenance is a type of impossible knowledge, unless he was closely involved with the ms. Then we get into the amazing condition and the colouring and many palaeographic absurdities, like the Three Crosses Note dated to hundreds of years after supposed production, or Goesche telling Tregelles the Arabic notes were "very recent". And many more.

However, for the textcrits there was a problem, the 4th century date was too deeply entrenched to allow an honest reevaluation. So they watch parchment and ink science change to match Sinaiticus, and put their hands over their eyes.

So yes, the Tischendorf con is front and center.
The basic Simonides story fits the "facts on the ground" much better than the Tisch con. As a wiley Greek, he may have played around on details, but the basic history works out extremely well.

The big deception of the Sinaiticus defenders has been thinking the issue is Simonides Perfectionalism. It is not. It is simply whether the manuscript was produced on Mt. Athos c. 1840. And that is where the evidence points.

 

[Steven Avery]

3) Easter Sunday was NOT on March 27, 1841 - which was a Saturday; it was on April 11th in both the Christian and Orthodox celebration.
But what makes this an after-the-fact attempt at trying to create evidence is this:

First simple question.

Are you really claiming that Simonides got over to Mount Athos and changed and rigged the catalog entries from 20+ years previous, without telling anyone, and the first inkling of this is when it was published after his death?

 

[Steven Avery]

Here is Farrer:

Literary Forgeries (1907)
James Anson Farrer
http://books.google.com/books?id=4lgLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA61

Yet one has only to refer to Lampros’ Catalogue of the Mount Athos MSS. to find Benedict’s name appended to several MSS., and to one as late as 1844 (though Simonides gave 1840 as the year of his death). (See Nos. 5999, 6118, 6194, 6360, 6362, 6393.) The same work attests as conclusively the real existence of Kallinikos. A MS. dated March, 1867, is signed with the hand of Kallinikos who is “also the least of the monks of the monastery of Russico’ (i.e., Pantelemon) (No. 638).

And there is another MS. at Pantelemon, copied by the hand of Constantine Simonides on 27th March, 1841 (6405), and two other copies of the same work by Kallinikos Monachos (6406, 6407), which prove that Kallinikos and Simonides were at Pantelemon at the same time and associated in the same work.

Bill Brown, you have some very strange ideas.

Do you really think that Simonides could only work on the Easter manuscript of John of Damascus on Easter day?

 

[Unbound68]

Do you really think that Simonides could only work on the Easter manuscript of John of Damascus on Easter day?

Way to not comprehend the point being made about Easter not being on March 27, 1841. ? ? ?

 

[Steven Avery]

None of this matters at all.
Simonides didn't claim to use it.
Therefore, you even suggesting he did is nothing more than wild-eyed speculation at the least.

You are confused, again.
Try to follow.

The claim is made that Sinaiticus was impossible in 1840 because it was impossible to know the many Vaticanus readings that match Sinaiticus. It could be a strong argument, if true. The textually extensive and easily available and widely used Birch collation (even in the Granville Penn NT) immediately proves the argument false.

It is not necessary to have a record. Ironically, the question of a purchase or shipping record did come up on the Zosimas Moscow Bible, which was used in the OT.

 

[Maestroh]

The key catalog entries are 6405, 6406 and 6407 from 1841.

Catalog entry number 6393 on page 452 has Benedict alive in 1844 using your same logic.

What do you think contradicts?

From post 43 in "The Fase Claims of Constantine Simonides Thread":

"Because of this entry, we know for sure that on March 27, 1841, Constantine Simonides was on Mt. Athos...and so was Kallinokos Monachos" - Daniels, 2017: 300

This is hilarious because according to SIMONIDES HIMSELF in the letter above, HE WAS NOT THERE on the day Daniels/Avery/Michie tell us all they have evidence he WAS there!!!

Simonides's claims:
"the severe loss which I sustained in the death of Benedict (who he claims died August 29, 1840) induced me to hand over the work at once to the bookbinders of the monastery...and when he had done so, I took it into my possession. Some time after this, having removed to Constantinople...." But lest you think I'm being too rigid, we have Stewart's biography that tells us:

"He (Benedict) then gave Simonides his blessing, and departed this life on the 29th of August 1840, to the great lamentation of all his family. Simonides dwelt for three months in Athos after the death of Benedict, and he then procured a private vessel and removed the library and antiquarian collection to Syme."

Even assuming Simonides told the truth about the date of Benedict's death (which is disputed).....he's gone from Athos before the beginning of 1841.

Furthermore, in his original letter claiming authorship, Simonides quotes (from memory) an alleged letter from Constantius dated 8/13/1841, where he says, "if ever by God's will you should return to the sacred Mount Athos".....

So he left in November 1840 (by his own words) and had not returned by August 1841 (by his own words).........meaning he could not possibly have been on Mt Athos on March 27, 1841, regardless of what David Daniels and Steven Avery wish anyone to think.


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

Simonides says he wasn't there.
You say an entry into a catalog years after the fact proves he WAS there.

Which is true, and how do you decide this?