The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

[Steven Avery]

Where specifically did Tischendorf himself allegedly say/write that he was the first person who did the unbinding of the manuscript when he visited the monastery and laid eyes on the manuscript for the very first time?

Sure, thiefs always explain the details of their con. ... not!

Plus, the unbinding was likely after 1850.
In 1844 his main goal was simply to steal the 43 folia.

 

[Steven Avery]

In 1844 his main goal was simply to steal the 43 folia.

Smoking gun -
Tischendorf simply wrote to his brother Julius.

The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as reported in the personal letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
Jeffrey-Michael Featherstone
https://www.academia.edu/1123038/Th...he_personal_letters_of_Konstantin_Tischendorf

He has come into possession of [=ich bin in den Besitzgelangt von] 43 parchment folia of the Greek Old Testament which are some of the very oldest preserved in Europe. He believes they are from the mid-fourth century, and they are remarkable not only for their age but also other reasons. -
(Constantine Tischendorf to his brother Julius, Cairo, June 15, 1844)

Thieve's talk -- "look they came into my possession."
Nothing about loose leaves, or saving from fire, or monk's approval.

Tischendorf also went to lengths to hide the fact that he already knew of the New Testament, as we learn from Uspensky the full manuscript was one manuscript.

Daniel Wallace about the Tischendorf trash-can fire myth:

One suspects that he wrote this so that his removal of manuscripts from Sinai would look like a rescue operation and thereby gain sympathy in Europe.

Kallinikos blew the whistle on this theft as well.

"the manuscript in question is now in Mount Sinai ... I saw it there with my own eyes when I was in the Monastery of St. Catherine in 1845 in the month of July, and handled it with my own hands, and found it very defective, and somewhat changed; and when I asked the reason, I understood from Gabriel, the keeper of the treasures, that his predecessor had given the manuscript to a German, who visited the monastery in 1844 in the month of May, and who having had the MS. in his hands several days, secretly removed a part of it, and went away during the time that the librarian lay ill, afflicted with a typhoid fever"
Journal of Sacred Literature, 1863, note dated 1858
http://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223

"The latter, however, not coming in time, neglected the matter altogether, until Dr. Tischendorf, coming to the Greek monastery of Sinai in 1844, in the month of May (if my memory does not deceive me), and remaining there several days, and getting into his hands, by permission of the librarian, the codex we are speaking of, and perusing and reperusing it frequently, abstracted secretly a small portion of it, but left the largest portion in the place where it was, and departed undisturbed. And last of all, coming again to the same monastery, he obtained also the remaining portion of it through the Russian Consul, in exchange for hyperbolical promises, never, in my judgment, likely to be fulfilled. ... and I first informed Simonides, who was previously in ignorance thereof, of the abstraction of his codex from the library of the monastery of Mount Sinai.
Kallinikos Hiermonachos - Oct 15, 1862
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA211

 

[Unbound68]

Smoking gun -
Tischendorf simply wrote to his brother Julius.

The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as reported in the personal letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
Jeffrey-Michael Featherstone
https://www.academia.edu/1123038/Th...he_personal_letters_of_Konstantin_Tischendorf



Thieve's talk -- "look they came into my possession."
Nothing about loose leaves, or saving from fire, or monk's approval.

Tischendorf also went to lengths to hide the fact that he already knew of the New Testament, as we learn from Uspensky the full manuscript was one manuscript.

Daniel Wallace about the Tischendorf trash-can fire myth:


Kallinikos blew the whistle on this theft as well.

Letter of Amphilochius, Bishop of Pelusium, Alexandria, October 5, 1863, to Edwin J. Davies H.B.M. Consular Chaplain, Alexandria.

Amphilochius entered the Panteleimon monastery in 1843 and having known Simonides in Odessa enquired about him and ‘was informed that [Simonides] had indeed lived there, but had been dismissed in consequence of his disorderly and scandalous conduct, and that he had no relationship with the Reverend Benedict’.

The Panteleimon monastery subsequently made it a matter of public knowledge:

‘Benedict, who died in 1841, was neither Simonides’ uncle, nor a relative, but only a compatriot. This kind old man, whose example he should have followed, really interceded here for his fellow countryman, so that he could stay here for sometime for his spiritual good. But on account of his behaviour the young man did not justify the care of the elder Benedict, and therefore the future glorious adventurer was soon denied further hospitality here.’ Православное Обозрение, 1863, Х, p.362ff.

When Simonides paid a visit to Mount Athos again in 1851 he was refused entrance to the library of the Panteleimon monastery and so went to other monasteries, and was found ripping out and stealing sheets from precious manuscripts (three leaves of The Shepherd of Hermas was one example, which he subsequently sold in Leipzig) and, says Amphilochius who was there and met Simonides at the time, ‘he departed from the holy mountain with disgrace.'
(McGrane, Review of Cooper, pg. 56)

 

[Unbound68]

In the above post, besides the fact that Simonides is guilty of the same thing being alleged of Tischendorf, notice the fact that Benedict was NOT Simonides's uncle, and notice the year assigned to Benedict's death.

 

[Unbound68]

We’ve still gotten zero interaction from the head of the SART team with the documentation above.

Restating debunked arguments and not addressing the contradictions are typically not the normal expectations we can have of a research team.

Indeed. I've been all over the net tonight, having come across several different discussion forums that broached the topic of Sinaiticus and Simonides from 2017 to the present.

On each forum I saw the same inconsistent and contradictory arguments from Avery that he's been posting here, and I saw you dismantling them. At each and every forum (not including BVDB).

From as far back as 2017 (I know the conspiracy theories go back farther), the same speculative theories get posted, get completely debunked, and then repeated at a new forum by the head of SART, as if his arguments haven't been exposed as bankrupt.

Over and over and over.

And over and over again.

 

[Steven Avery]

edit

In the context of Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf was a brazen thief, a liar, and he concocted con-job cover stories, one highlight being that starting in 1859 he claimed that 43 folia he stole in 1844 were actually acquired by his humanitarian saviour action. (Kevin McGrane, btw, de facto argues that Tischendorf pulled a con in trying to pass off the ms. as 4th century.). And his 1859 theft also had its own cover stories.

It does help to look at specifics of the ms., not just the “phenomenally good” youthful parchment and ink, the stains and coloring, the pull-out from testing, but also the many palaeographic anomalies coming out of Sinaiticus science (oxymoron alert!) like the absurd date for the Three Crosses note.

In the context of Sinaiticus, Simonides gave a far more accurate account. David’s book helps with many important details, like Benedict’s history. The establishment did not like the “denigration” of Tischendorf’s heroic actions. The impossible knowledge Simonides had of the ms. history, his precursor Hermas and numerous other corroborations support his account. Nothing supports the Tisch lies.

 

[Steven Avery]

edit

Do you think Tischendorf has the basis for a libel case?

You are not even defending his accused thefts and lies right here. Go for it. Tell us you believe he had permission in 1844, or that he saved beautiful condition parchment (he lied and said it was “mouldered” by time) from being burned for heat, like we always burn leather shoes for heat. And after about 400,000 days at the monastery, they would burn it the day Tisch arrived! Amazing!

How many bridges have you bought this week?
The Poughkeepsie walking bridge is my local recommendation. Good exercise.

If your “libel” reference is elsewhere, please be specific.

Thanks!

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

Is this actionable libel (written) or slander (spoken) from Daniel Wallace?

Daniel Wallace about the Tischendorf trash-can fire myth:
“One suspects that he wrote this so that his removal of manuscripts from Sinai would look like a rescue operation and thereby gain sympathy in Europe.”

Note … “removal”.

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

 

[Unbound68]

In the context of Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf was a brazen thief, a liar, and he concocted con-job cover stories,

Sounds exactly like Simonides. Why won't you describe him in the same way you describe Tischendorf?

Do you deny Simonides was a brazen thief and a liar who concocted con-job cover stories?

Simonides lied about:
1. His age
2. His "uncle" Benedict
3. His part in the writing of Siniaticus
4. His "friend" Kallinikos
5. His trips to Athos
6. His qualifications
7. His biography

And then there's the brazen thief part mentioned in the letter posted above:

When Simonides paid a visit to Mount Athos again in 1851 he was refused entrance to the library of the Panteleimon monastery and so went to other monasteries, and was found ripping out and stealing sheets from precious manuscripts (three leaves of The Shepherd of Hermas was one example, which he subsequently sold in Leipzig) and, says Amphilochius who was there and met Simonides at the time, ‘he departed from the holy mountain with disgrace.'
(McGrane, Review of Cooper, pg. 56)

Do you dare try to tell us that the lies from Simonides enumerated above -- all easily proven by his very own words from his letters -- were NOT lies and concocted con-job cover stories?

Integrity?

 

[Maestroh]

In the context of Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf was a brazen thief, a liar, and he concocted con-job cover stories, one highlight being that starting in 1859 he claimed that 43 folia he stole in 1844 were actually acquired by his humanitarian saviour action. (Kevin McGrane, btw, de facto argues that Tischendorf pulled a con in trying to pass off the ms. as 4th century.). And his 1859 theft also had its own cover stories.

So?

The position of a fourth-century date for Sinaiticus doesn't depend on Tischendorf. Other people have examined the manuscript long after he was gone. You want to know how many people who have SEEN it who declare it is from the 19th century? Zero.

It does help to look at specifics of the ms., not just the “phenomenally good” youthful parchment and ink, the stains and coloring, the pull-out from testing, but also the many palaeographic anomalies coming out of Sinaiticus science (oxymoron alert!) like the absurd date for the Three Crosses note.

In other words, you cherry pick statements made BY PEOPLE WHO DATE IT TO THE FOURTH CENTURY and then you use those cherry picked out-of-context statements for your position.

In the context of Sinaiticus, Simonides gave a far more accurate account.

Uh, he gave SEVERAL ACCOUNTS because he was lying. So for you to say this may as well announce, "I don't care that Simonides lied but if Tischendorf lied about anything, it was proof Simonides was telling the truth."

Do you really not see how ridiculous that methodology is?

David’s book helps with many important details, like Benedict’s history.

David's book ought to be sentenced for tree murder for the uselessness of what those trees shared.

The establishment did not like the “denigration” of Tischendorf’s heroic actions.

We're back to a conspiracy theory, folks. "The establishment" - as if everyone thinks exactly the same. Never mind how many of these people themselves could be the HERO by proving the later date.

The impossible knowledge Simonides had of the ms. history,

Why do you keep telling this fabrication? Simonides had read and knew about it and the only things he actually knew about it were THINGS ALREADY KNOWN. That's how he knew to say he had written a dedication. No dedication is there and then he can say, "See, they stole it."

It's laughable.

his precursor Hermas and numerous other corroborations support his account.

NOTHING has "corroborated" his account. All you've got are some letters from a forger that contradict at every level - and yet when this is pointed out to you, you run to the other thread and act like nobody said anything about it.

Nothing supports the Tisch lies.

The manuscript itself supports an early date, not a late one.

That's the difference in someone playing a game with the words of dead people and actual expertise.

 

[Maestroh]

You are not even defending his accused thefts and lies right here.

Because his "theft" doesn't affect the date of the manuscript one way or the other. Tischendorf could have stolen this thing on an I phone, and it wouldn't alter the date.

The testimony of the guy claiming he wrote it - well, you know, that kind of has to add up. And even you admit Simonides lied, you just won't use that word for some reason. Fear, I guess.

Go for it. Tell us you believe he had permission in 1844, or that he saved beautiful condition parchment (he lied and said it was “mouldered” by time) from being burned for heat, like we always burn leather shoes for heat. And after about 400,000 days at the monastery, they would burn it the day Tisch arrived! Amazing!

This is called, "I can't defend my position, so let me set up a straw man caricature of the opposing position - because that's easier to knock down."

Let's note that at no time have you done what you are demanding others do:
- you haven't tested Sinaiticus, but you think it's ok for YOU to give a date...but nobody else
- you haven't determined whether Simonides was lying when he said, well, a lot

So maybe before you demand anybody else defend positions they don't endorse perhaps you should better defend one you do.

How many bridges have you bought this week?
The Poughkeepsie walking bridge is my local recommendation. Good exercise.

What does this "has nothing to do with anything in this thread" comment have to do with anything?

Daniel Wallace about the Tischendorf trash-can fire myth:
“One suspects that he wrote this so that his removal of manuscripts from Sinai would look like a rescue operation and thereby gain sympathy in Europe.”

Note … “removal”.

Now that you've cherry picked Dr Wallace, answer one simple question:

What date does Dan Wallace, who has actually seen Sinaiticus (when you have not) assign to Sinaiticus?

And then when you answer (who am I kidding? You're not going to answer that one, either) "fourth century," then you have to accept the reality that "Tischendorf telling the truth about everything" has nothing to do with the date OTHERS have determined.

That being said, we look forward to you dealing with what all has been posted already.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

So for you to say this may as well announce, "I don't care that Simonides lied but if Tischendorf lied about anything, it was proof Simonides was telling the truth." Do you really not see how ridiculous that methodology is?

Good point.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

That's the difference in someone playing a game with the words of dead people and actual expertise.

So true.

 

[Shoonra]

I had thought that the prolonged debate about the Comma was a waste of bandwidth, but this tedious back-and-forth about Simonides with just one advocate is worse.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

I had thought that the prolonged debate about the Comma was a waste of bandwidth, but this tedious back-and-forth about Simonides with just one advocate is worse.

This is the length's that Avery will go to, to diminish evidence against his pet verse (the Parenthetical Text - the Comma), unfortunately. I would not be surprised if he (or they, SART) try turn on other early Greek manuscripts like the Alexandrinus or the Vaticanus etc, by concocting some wild conspiracy theory. Would not surprise me in the slightest.

 

[Maestroh]

I had thought that the prolonged debate about the Comma was a waste of bandwidth, but this tedious back-and-forth about Simonides with just one advocate is worse.

There’s a long term positive, though, to this one.

As we post the contents of the letters and point out the inherent contradictions therein, it becomes ever more difficult for the rank and file online textual critic to be taken in by the utter nonsense of the “Simonides wrote this” position.

Trying to persuade the SART team they’ve wasted their time and lives is a foolish venture. Do you really think any of these (mostly) elderly men really ever are going to admit “I wasted a lot of my later years on nonsense”?

This has to remain in the realm of the hopes of preventing the misleading of the new rather than being concerned that the others won’t admit obvious flaws and errors. They’re all beyond rationale and logical persuasion at this point which is why the posts are lathered in accusations and insults but have the empty calories of chocolate covered cherries.

Simonides lied about pretty much everything. There is ZERO to their position that does not rely upon a lie from Simonides. All we can do is function on the hope others aren’t led astray.

Remember this: back in May, Avery was all sure he somehow “had me” and that I didn’t understand “the grammatical argument.” In point of fact I understood just fine there are multiple variations of the argument in the literature and I was under no obligation in 2012 to respond to the argument of a non-scholar in 2015, one who had his own name on a paper presenting the “grammatical” argument precisely in the terms he was denying were correct in 2022.

You’ll notice there’s been no attempt to even interact with that refutation -because none exists.

Same here.

The reason we don’t get even a minimal attempt at defending Simonides AS HE WROTE it is because his lies are obvious and an embarrassment, which is why the demand shifts to “but they haven’t chemically tested it!”

As I pointed out a few days ago - let that happen and they’ll turn right around and cite a different claim by Simonides regarding the age and the ink.

The fact they keep having to move the goalposts is all the proof needed of the bankruptcy of the position being defended.

 

[Unbound68]

I had thought that the prolonged debate about the Comma was a waste of bandwidth, but this tedious back-and-forth about Simonides with just one advocate is worse.

Lol....that's funny ?. I was just thinking yesterday that you were probably wishing we woulda stayed on the Comma debate...lol.

As Maestroh said, it's for the sake of the new and the uninitiated that we persist in exposing the lies about Sinaiticus, lies perpetrated by a select bunch of KJVOs.

As with the Comma, primary sources and other evidence relating to Sinaiticus is entirely cast aside in the name of KJVOism.

Isn't it funny how quick they are to point to a Roman Catholic Jesuit conspiracy in the case of Sinaiticus, but not with the Comma?

 

[Maestroh]

Smoking gun -
Tischendorf simply wrote to his brother Julius.

He has come into possession of [=ich bin in den Besitzgelangt von] 43 parchment folia of the Greek Old Testament which are some of the very oldest preserved in Europe. He believes they are from the mid-fourth century, and they are remarkable not only for their age but also other reasons.
(Constantine Tischendorf to his brother Julius, Cairo, June 15, 1844)

Mr Avery Spencer cites a SECONDARY SOURCE in a foreign language, mixes a "guilty before tried" fallacy - and demonstrates he doesn't know German gramar, either, invoking an incredibly active imagination to arrive at a ridiculous conclusion.

Thieve's talk -- "look they came into my possession."

Unfortunately for Steven Avery, some of us:
a) lived in Germany
b) took German FROM a German

Bear in mind that I'm stuck with the few words given here that lack a larger context.

However:

Ich - I
bin - am (have come, the passive form if used here is "gekommen")
in - a preposition that indicates either the accusative or dative case
Besitz - can indicate EITHER "possession" or "property"
gelangt - this is the past participle of "gelangen", which has a variety of meanings, including "reached" or "acquired"

We'll set aside the fact a singular "thieve's" is actually called a THIEF (thieves is the plural form in English) while dealing with the German-based fallacy.

And then bear in mind all we have is a PHRASE from a larger letter that is not provided.

Based on this one phrase and the chosen English translation, we have an amazing accusation from Mr Avery himself: Tischendorf is saying he stole it based upon.......the fact Avery doesn't know German at all!!!

“I have come into possession of” - ich bin in den besitz gekommen

I mean, how much more of this nonsense are we going to be subjected to, Steven?

I would need the fuller sentence that Avery didn’t provide while making his claim for a clearer context. But to jump to the idea “he’s telling us he stole it!” isn’t warranted by the verbiage used. If he knew German, he’d know that.

Is that a POSSIBLE rendering? Sure, if we see the larger sentence. Even then, this rigidly literal view of Tischendorf’s words is amusing more for what it says about imagination than anything else.

Nothing about loose leaves, or saving from fire, or monk's approval.

You don't know this. It's an EXCERPT from a larger letter that you can't read, didn't post, and have no idea what was said.

Tischendorf also went to lengths to hide the fact that he already knew of the New Testament, as we learn from Uspensky the full manuscript was one manuscript.

In other words, what you have here is:
a) Tischendorf said something
b) Uspenski said something else

Without any further discussion, you side with Uspenski (yet abandon him when he dates it to the fifth century).

This is not how research is done.

Daniel Wallace about the Tischendorf trash-can fire myth:

Dan has also seen it and dates it to the fourth century.

Kallinikos blew the whistle on this theft as well.

Only for people dumb enough to believe that Kallinikos eye witnessed a theft (which makes him a co-conspirator and his testmony suspect) and then (wait for it) DIDN'T TELL SIMONIDES ABOUT IT FOR FIFTEEN YEARS!!!!


This entire smoking gun is nothing more than an active imagination from someone who is imposing on a translation meaning that isn't there - and who can't even read the language he thinks vindicates his unusual position.

One has to wonder why if your position is so right it manages to produce no evidence other than imagined connections that one has to be one of the "chosen few" to see.

 

[Maestroh]

Four more letters from Kallinikos The Phantom were produced.

The first is (allegedly) dated August 1858 and would - if genuine - represent a serious issue for Tischendorf as well as support for Simonides. This extract is produced in the JSL, Volume 3, 1863:

...These also send thee gretting, the Deacon Hilarion, and they friends Nicander and Niphon, who lent thee the books of Esdras at the time when thou was preparing in Athos, at the exhortation of my (?) uncle, the present (of the Holy Scripturss) to the glorious Emperor Nicholas. They also wished to know whether the work was finished, and given to the Emperor, and whether thou wert suitably required for it because they had no certain knowledge about these matters. I told them all about it, and how the manuscript in question is now in Mount Sinai, and how thy indifference (forgive me, my son, for this true statement of mine) frustrated the original intention. I certified them that in this MS. of the Scriptures is still preserved in Sinai (as thou also knowest), because I saw it there with my own eyes when I was in the Monastery of St. Catherine in 1845

Keep reading - the comedy will be hilarious.....

in the month of July, and handled it with my own hands, and found it very defective, and somewhat changed, and when I asked the reason, I understood from Gabriel, the keeper of the treasures, that his predecessor had given the manuscript to a German, who visited the monastery in 1844 in the month of May, and who having had the MS in his hands several days, secretly removed a part of it, and went away

But back in post 40, Kallinikos tells us that the way he knows Tischendorf cut a part of it and got away with it is because:
All these things I then know being on the spot,

Now, he changes his story from "I know this because I was ON THE SPOT" to "Gabriel told me that while the librarian was out with (wait for it) TYPHOID, this German stole it!"

You really have to wonder why Gabriel didn't sound the trumpet on that one. Come to think of it, neither did Kallinikos.
Because why is he ONLY NOW TELLING THIS STORY in 1858??????

during the time that the librarian lay ill, afflicted with typhoid fever. Nothing more could I learn about it, but I hope (if God will) to go next year again into Egypt and thence to Sinai, when I shall search into all things, and send the result for thy information and that of they friends...

So at no time between July 1845 and August 1858 did Kallinikos ever mention any of this. Now - all of a sudden - Kallinikos suddenly "remembers" Simonides doing this work and oh yeah, some German stole part of it!!!

What's 13 years among friends, right?

Farewell, my son and pardon the garrulity of an old man
Thy Spiritual Father
Kallinikos Hieromonachos

The title or last name of Hire More Nachos makes me smile every time. But...if there really IS an 1858 letter then that changes the calculus considerably, wouldn't you say?

But here's the catch: NO INDEPENDENT VERIFICATION of this alleged letter ever occurred. J.E. Hodgkin, who spent the entire controversy acting like a gadfly, Mafia lawyer, or both, was the one who asserted he had such letters. But he refused to show it to others (hmmm, Steven, what can we deduce from THIS circumstance, huh? I mean, if the only reason that the Leipzig testing wasn't done was fear, what's the only reason Hodgkin didn't produce this alleged letter to be examined?). Hodgkin witheld the alleged letter from examination, whining that the outcome was already known, but he then claimed to have put the letter in the hands of a Reverend "Jeremy" Irons to have an expert validate. Hodgkin then backtracks and claims he acted in good faith. Hodgkin vacillates back and forth, saying he's only interested in the truth but not turning over the "evidence."

We are repeatedly being told things like Tischendorf refused to "show up" with Simonides (Pinto) and therefore, Tischendorf was wrong.
We are told that Leipzig not doing "the tests" is proof that the caretakers of Aleph are also wrong and scared of what will happen.

Should we not consider the same with Hodgkin, which puts this insane claim of Simonides writing it in a time capsule and shoots it off into space?

The reality is this: NOTHING vindicates Simonides's version of events.
NOTHING.

Simply go off of his FIRST testimonial letter and ask the obvious questions - not least of which is, "Why when he listed all of these so-called eyewitnesses did he NOT list Kallinikos?" This is even more bizarre for the SART team, who claims their names in a book compiled years later proves intimacy between them. They obviously exchanged letters even if Kallinikos DID wait 13 years to say, "someone stole yo manuscript, Simon!"

It's hilarious that the only "evidence" that can be produced to vindicate this forger's story are.....forged letters.

 

[Maestroh]

The Second Letter of Kallinikos the Phantom

This is the second of fourth letters SUPPOSEDLY introduced by Hodgkin before the disease was named after him.

November 9, 1861
Dear Son in the Lord, Simonides,
Grace be to thee and peace from the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, One God. That master and pupil of all guile and wickedness, the German Tischendorf, has unexpectedly rushed into thy net: for having inspected in the common library (where it was found a short time agao, and where it was placeed by thy spiritual father Callistratus when he went to Alexandria) the Codex, which thou wrotest at Athos, some 22 years ago

So Kallinikos says in this letter (as well) that Simonides and ONLY Simonides wrote it.

as a present to the deceased Emperor of Russia, Nicholas I, at the request of thy wise and distinguished uncle Benedict, and subsequently going to Constantinople after his death gavest unfinished to the blessed Patriarch Constantius, who sent it to Mount Sinai by the Monk Germanus of Sinai, whom thou knowest, and which afterwards given to the Hieromonachus Callistratus to be compared with the three Old Codices of the Sacred Scriptures (which thou knowest, and which are kept in the treasury)

Wait a second........we've gone from:
a) this was a beautiful copy for Nicholas I to
b) this was intended to be re-copied.....to NOW saying
c) it was supposed to be COMPARED to three old codices

But Callistratus SUPPOSEDLY sent a letter in 1841 asking him to come finish and PLACED IT IN THE LIBRARY (why would you do this for something to be re-copied?)

and was then disregarded because thou didst not make thy appearance at the proper time in Mount Sinai to transcribe it according to the earnest wish of the patriarch, has proclaimed it as genuine, and as the oldest of all the known Codices in Europe of the Old and New Testaments.

A little confusing with all the nonsense he packed into that burrito, but this is referring to Tischendorf (above).

 

[Maestroh]

The Second Letter of Kallinikos the Phantom, Part II (1861)


Alas for the palaeographical knowledge of such as he!

This is basically the same thing Simonides alleges later, that Tischendorf is so stupid he doesn't know palaeography.

And if, O my son, the sages of Western Europe take knowledge of and criticize matters in the same fashion as Tischendorf, the shallow leader of Leipzig, I must say that no true criticism or sound judgment in antiquarian matters remains there. This manuscript then being thus estimated (as very old!) by the German Tischendorf, was snatched away from the monastery, was afterwards transferred to Cairo, and after a few days was lent to Tischendorf, by the mediation of the Russian Consul in Egypt.

How is it even possible that Simonides (in 1862) didn't know Tischendorf had "stolen" it if Kallinikos had told him that in 1861?

And it is said that the restoration of the Codex after its publication was guaranteed by the Russian Ambassador in Constantinople. But I do not believe in any promise of the Ambassador or the Consul, for the restoration of the Codex, and even if they did promise it, I do not believe that they would ever restore it to the monastery of Sinai. I judge from previous events "For a Russian official (as the proverb says), a liar, and a thief, are synonymous."

So accorinding to Kallinikos, if Simonides is lying, he's also a thief and vice versa.

But let others treat of all this, as also of the arrangements, just or unjust, made by the Russian Consul and the guileful Tischendorf for the accomplishment of their purposes. I am not surprised at any of the circumstances, but only at the fact that this Codex, recent as it was, and thy handiwork

Once again, Kallinikos claims this is Simonides' work ALONE.

was ascribed to the fourth century. Here is a miracle forsooth, and yet people sneer at us for believing in miracles! This Codex, my son, I saw several times, and particularly three of the Acrostics which thou showedst me at Athos when I overlooked thee in that pleasant writing - room of thine.

In what will not shock anyone who has read so far, Kallinikos' passages for the three acrostics - CONVENIENTLY - are in what is known to not be possessed of the manuscript, LOL!!! Who didn't see that one coming?
One of those passages is Genesis 24 or so it says.

The first reads thus: Κ. Σιμωνιδου χειρ ιπιραιωσε με ("Conquered" with Constantine Simonides' hand)

The second - Κ.Δ. φ. Σιμωνιδου Μακεδονος εργον διαριστον ειμι ("I am the divisive work of Maceonia, K.D.F. Simonides")

and the third - Σιμωνιδου το ολον εργον ("entirely the work of Simonides")

I also saw the fourth and fifth, but do not remember them now; and also calligraphic symbols, and especially the numerous corrections, and corrections again of these, and annotations both of thyself and of thy uncle,

Now we go to Simonides not only wrote it ALL BY HIMSELF, he also helped with the corrections...in eight months

(Why would you need corrections on a GIFT? You're not gonna rush through and do this entire thing).