The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Steven Avery said:
Notice how Rick Norris never offers quotes from me when he wants to misrepresent my position.
Click to expand...
You fail to show that your unproven position is supposedly being misrepresented.

You have not proven your claims concerning this codex to be the truth. You are improperly trying to pass off speculations and opinions as supposedly being the truth. David Daniels also did not establish his claims concerning this codex to be verified fact or truth.

The unproven claims of forger Simonides and non-true KJV-only claims would be the smoke and mirrors.
 
Last edited:
logos1560 said:
You fail to show that your unproven position is supposedly being misrepresented.
Click to expand...
The problem is typical Rick Norris.

You claimed to be representing my position, but you gave not a single quote.

Run-of-the-mill worthless Rick Norris posting.
 
How could Simonides know the manuscript had no provenance before 1840?
(It would be foolish to make a claim that could be immediately refuted.)

=====

One catalog entry at the St. Catherine’s library would have sunk his account.

One person writing of the monastery receiving the manuscript.

One European traveler describing the ms. before Uspensky 1845.

One monastery monk writing of the manuscript.

=====

Major manuscripts come with provence and history.

When Simonides spoke up, how could he know the provenance began in 184)s?
There is one sensible answer.

Simonides knew because he knew the manuscript had no history before 1840. Thus there could be no e-card of it before that time. That is why he laughed at the fake claim that it was in an ancient catalog at the monastery.
 
Conan said:
They are both true. You don't know anything about it's text or you would know as well.
Click to expand...

You are likely influenced by the nonsense and ignorance of James White in the debate with Chris Pinto.

"there are literally thousands of places where Sinaiticus contains readings confirmed by later discoveries, discoveries unknown even in Scrivener's time, in the papyri, that would have been completely unknown to Simonides or anyone living in his day. To attribute these readings to mere chance is of course inconceivable."
 
Steven Avery said:
How could Simonides know the manuscript had no provenance before 1840?
(It would be foolish to make a claim that could be immediately refuted.)

=====

One catalog entry at the St. Catherine’s library would have sunk his account.

One person writing of the monastery receiving the manuscript.

One European traveler describing the ms. before Uspensky 1845.

One monastery monk writing of the manuscript.

=====

Major manuscripts come with provenance and history.

When Simonides spoke up, how could he know the provenance began in 1840s?
There is one sensible answer.

Simonides knew because he knew the manuscript had no history before 1840. Thus there could be no record of it before that time. That is why he laughed at the fake claim that it was in an ancient catalog at the monastery.
Click to expand...

Typos in bold fixed :).
 
OK, time for a show of hands. How many people here are persuaded that Simonides wrote the Codex Sinaiticus??
 
Steven Avery said:
You are likely influenced by the nonsense and ignorance of James White in the debate with Chris Pinto.

"there are literally thousands of places where Sinaiticus contains readings confirmed by later discoveries, discoveries unknown even in Scrivener's time, in the papyri, that would have been completely unknown to Simonides or anyone living in his day. To attribute these readings to mere chance is of course inconceivable."
Click to expand...
Wrong. Not the statement but that I ever heard a White/pinto debate. I am actually familiar with it's text in the Gospels. No one on this planet, not even if Tischendorf was dishonest like you say or simonides like we say would make up that text. Impossible.without knowing it, you saying both people are very stupid. Well I believe simionides is stupid. But even he is not that stupid to make up Sinaiticus' text.
 
Shoonra said:
Your "corrections and responses" mostly repeated speculations and misstatements that have already been refuted. There has to come a time when the nonsense comes to a halt.
Click to expand...
Sons like you are referring to Leipzig canceling the parchment and ink tests,
 
The First Letter of Kallinikos the Phantom

Although he couldn't produce any of the multiple witnesses he claimed he could, out of the middle of nowhere (not to be confused with the collective intelligence of the SART team, if you'll pardon the redundancy) came a letter published in "The Guardian" on December 3, 1862. The letter was dated October and postmarked in Alexandria - and after you read it (if you have a brain) you will come to the conclusion that Simonides the forger simply wrote another letter to try to pretend he had a witness. A longer version of the same letter appeared in The Literary Churchman under the publishing of Simonides's truckling sycophant, John Eliot Hodgkin (who was so diabolical they named an illness after him).

Read the letter - and then ask yourself if it sounds even remotely believable:
 
You are aware of all that the excellent and much enduring Simonides has published as to the Pseudo Sinaitic Codex abstracted from the library of the Greek monastery at Sinai by Dr. Tischendorf. The facts are really so. And I counsel you not to continue circulating contrary statements, for you will greatly sin in foisting on the world a new MS as an old one and especially a MS containing the Holy Scriptures. Injury to the Church must not accrue from all this even from the evidently numerous corrections of the MS. And that this is a new MS. I openly proclaim, both before the all-seeing God and before men;

Kallinikos, who is actually Simonides writing under another name and pretending to actually be Kallinikos, starts with bloviating.

And then we get....

and further, I protest to you Messrs. Editors, that with my own eyes in February 1840, writing in Athos,

Kallinikos was on Athos in1840 and saw Simonides ALL BY HIMSELF working on this.
So much for appealing to "this was a group project."

and owing to the death of the head of the monastery he left the work unfinished and went to Constantinople, taking the Codex with him, which he also delivered to the illustrious patriarch Constantius, and he sent it to the monastery in Sinai by a monk of that house named Germanus, whose subrodinate still lives in Athos to attest the writer. And the patriarch sent the Codex there, in order that the transcript might be compared with other copies of the Old and New Teatment, and then transcribed by the same Simonides, and sacredly presented to the Emperor of Russia, on the part, not of the monastery of St. Pantaleemon, according to the original intention of Benedict, but on the part of the patriarch Constantius.

This isn't confirmation, it's a guy knowing more than Simonides about what Simonides claimed happen.

but keep reading....
 
On this account, the hieromonk Callistratus, a wise man, and companion of the same house, undertook the comparison of it and did compare it with other codices of the same house by the command of Constantius, the patriarch. And he, having partly corrected it, left it in the library awaiting the return of Simonides, the first calligrapher in Greece. He not coming in good time, the work was altogether neglected, and remained in the common library of the monastery for some time:

The boasting of the reputation of Simonides here is a bit of a dead giveaway....but...

until Dr. Tischendorf (coming to the monastery in Sinai, in May, 1844, and spending some days there and having examined the MS. carefully and suspecting it to be ancient tore off a small part of it privately

43 pages.......

Also, how could he possibly even know this?

and went his own way as if nothing had happened, leaving the rest of it in the position which it had before. He perpetrated this wrong without scruple.

"Tischendorf was a bad guy. Sure, Simonides is a lying forger but look over there!"

Finally, coming again to the same monastery, he took also the remaining portion of the MS with the aid of the Russian Consul, on the promise that he would return it. And they both promised the Bishop of Sinai many gifts, which, in my opinion, they will never perform because at other times, many such promises were made by a certain Russian archimandrite named Porphyrius, who took away many MSS from the monastery of St Dionysius in Athos and from others and they were never fulfilled.

Literally none of which is verifiable and constitutes nothing but anecdote.


All these things I then know being on the spot,

Kallinikos is claiming he was an eyewitness on BOTH Athos AND Sinai.

Unbelievable - mostly because it isn't true.

and I declare them openly for the truth's sake. And I further assert that the Codex which Dr Tischendorf abstracted is the very same which Simonides wrote twenty-two years ago.

And yet Simonides DID NOT know this when he was at Leipzig with Codex Federico Augustus...

For I saw it in the hands of Tischendorf and recognized the work, and I first mentioned it to Simonides, who had no knowledge of the fact before.

Isn't it amazing Kallinikos knew more about Simonides's alleged work than Simonides did? :)

Evidently he knew not the abstraction of his work from the monastery in Mount Sinai. I read also at first this acrostic in it "Simonides' entire work": but after two days, the leaf containing this formal acostic had been removed

Kallinikos/Simonides here is claiming:
a) I'm an eyewitness to something that was in the manuscript
b) that claim ONCE AGAIN is that Simonides wrote the entire thing himself
c) and the suggestion is the deception of removal.

What we don't actually have is EVIDENCE THIS EVER EXISTED beyond the claims of a phantom.

- it being unknown as yet by whom this was done.

This is how conspiracy theorists work - "isn't it weird that" etc.


I know too, still further, that the same Codex was cleaned with a solution of herbs on the theory that the skins might be cleaned but in fact that the writing might be changed as it was too a sort of yellow colour.

So Kallinikos is telling us that the WRITING (not the parchment) color was changed.

How does he know this? Did he see this? When and where did he see this?

This is not "nothing"; it is much less than that.

These things then, Messrs. Editors, I have thought it my duty, unasked, to make know to you before I die - for I am an old man, and very near to death and you, being as you are, heralds of the truth - as such as you will greatly serve the truth, and those who follow truth, if you will exactly publish the contents of this my letter: or, otherise, you will give account to God in the Day of Judgment. Farewell in the Lord, etc.

Your devoted servant and earnest worshipper of God,
Callinicus Hieromonk

Kallinikos/Simonides is even building an escape hatch. "Hey, I'm old and about to die, which will be the excuse when you can't find me to actually ask me about these things!"


There's a whole lot more to go because Simonides couldn't keep his mouth shut OR his stories straight, even when he was signing the names of others to his letters.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top