The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

I've complimented the British Library on their openness. The Leipzig Library is another story, even more so when they cancelled the 2015 BAM tests. Those who claim authenticity to SInai have been led by Tommy Wasserman, who has been very unprofessional. One low-level opponent has been vulgar and coarse. And, as I mentioned, others, like Dirk Jongkind, have been excellent, even to the point of thanking us on some of the research.

It simply varies.
Jongkind thanked you, huh?

What did you actually provide him with?

Did he blindly trust you, or did he do some sort of verification?

What did your "translator" actually translate from Uspensky?

Was it taken out of context?

Where is this Uspensky work online, so others can check the accuracy of your translator?
 
Not at all. I defended Sinaiticus authenticity when I thought that was where the evidence points. (Even making up a list of reasons why.) If somehow, Sinaiticus is really 4th century, or anywhere from 4th to 7th (as indicated by some scholars and researchers), I would be happy to know that it was our steadiness and persistence and skill that forced the issue.

All that is highly unlikely, as the Leipzig Library has run away from the real tests, and the textual criticism group has "deeply entrenched scholarship" that they do not want to see shaken and discarded. And there is a strange willingness to allow parchment and ink science to actually change to accommodate the textual critics view, still accepting the Tischendorf cons, of Sinaiticus.

Keep in mind that the scholars who are interested in an honest evaluation tend to be in the background. Folks who are on committees and receive grants and are eligible for tenure are not quick to come forth to publicly be attacked as wacky conspiracy theorists. There can be professional consequences.
All conspiratorialist nonsense. You will give account for misleading others all over the internet.
 
Much of the information is simply factual and logical deductions.

Your entire house of cards rests on the testimony of the liar Simonides. All of the other garbage you've been diverting the readers' attention with - like the ink, discolored pages, testing, etc. - is a tacit admission on your part that you have nothing. This is why you can't interact with the Simonides info.
 
You forgot to tell all those people you corresponded with, that it's actually all about this ?

Codex Sinaiticus (dated circa. 4th century A.D./C.E.)

CodexSinaitiucs.org

Webpage: See The Manuscript

British Library, Folio: 324, Column 1 (left hand side), Lines 15-18, Scribe: A


οτι οι τρειϲ ειϲιν οι μαρτυρουτεϲ το πνα και το ϋδωρ και το αιμα και οι τρειϲ ειϲ το εν ειϲιν

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...5&lid=en&side=r&verse=7&zoomSlider=0#55-5-7-6

Isn't it Mr Avery. ?

If Mr Jongkind saw what you normally post and say about people like him (i.e. your stereotypical "Text-Crit Dupe" etc) I think he would retract his "thanks" very quickly.
 
If Mr Jongkind saw what you normally post and say about people like him (i.e. your stereotypical "Text-Crit Dupe" etc) I think he would retract his "thanks" very quickly.

If I had a dollar for every time online posters pretend common professional courtesy in a response equals “he thanked me personally as if I’d done something that’s a major accomplishment,” I would be able to retire last year.

The fact anyone’s ego is that large is a psychological problem itself.
 
If I had a dollar for every time online posters pretend common professional courtesy in a response equals “he thanked me personally as if I’d done something that’s a major accomplishment,” I would be able to retire last year.

The fact anyone’s ego is that large is a psychological problem itself.

Name dropping.
 
We are all aware of the ongoing doubts and concerns about the dating of this extraordinary manuscript. - Peter Toth - British Library, Feb 9, 2021

Actually Kevin McGrane was told this in 2017, as he mentions, with no additional information, in:

A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex - p. 3
 
Name dropping.

Dirk has been very helpful in our conversations.
And we discussed a number of interesting issues.

About the Uspensky translation Dirk Jongkind wrote in Feb 2016:
"I appreciate your translation and I wished I had this available when writing my paragraphs on the topic. I will certainly file it away."

Clear enough.

Note: to his credit he did have some material on Uspensky, even without the translation.
 
Actually Kevin McGrane was told this in 2017, as he mentions, with no additional information, in:

A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex - p. 3

He does mention that they gave their excuse for not doing C-14 dating.
 
Steven Avery.

  1. Where did Simonides specifically and unambiguously say that he re-wrote letters from Kallinikos (and thereafter sent them to the newspapers, giving them no indication whatsoever in the letters themselves that he had done this for Kallinikos)?
  2. Where did Simonides specifically and unambiguously say that he wrote letters for Kallinikos (but nonetheless sent them to the newspapers without any indication whatsoever in the letters that he had done this on Kallinkos' behalf)?

Where's the concrete evidence in Simonides own words?
 
But as W.A. Wright noted...supposedly Kallinikos didn't speak a word of English AND YET...he was following this controversy written in LOCAL ENGLISH PUBLICATIONS IN ENGLISH while out in Never Never Land but was able to deciper it and respond.

Yes. They also had a very hard time swallowing the story that this English newspaper was readily, and daily available in Alexandria (??? going by memory = don't quote me).

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)

https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-17#post-921538

That's the post ☝️ I've been looking for. Excellent material.

From the Page 56 footnotes, in "A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex," By Kevin McGrane, 2018.

https://www.academia.edu/37556820/A...iled_background_of_the_discovery_of_the_Codex

This is very similar to the seven questions by W. Aldis Wright to Mr Wilkinson, the English Consul at Salonica (Greece), which were to be answered by the monks at the Rossico Monestary, in The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record, Volume 5, 1861, Pages 228-229, at the link below. ?

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...ossico+Monestary&pg=PA228&printsec=frontcover

Strangely enough, there is modern archeological evidence in Greece, corroborating such older accounts about Simonides deviousness:?

"His judgment got an unexpected boost with a letter published in the TLS on 14 March from a Greek architect, Ms. Haris Kalligas:
"...as my family originates from the same island (Symi, near Rhodes) as Simonides, I had the fortune to come across some new material, including his father’s will, when I was writing a short article on his family house, of which some parts are still standing.... Simonides forged his own descendancy, claiming that his ancestors originated through a direct line of eighty-eight generations from Stageira, the city Aristotle came from, and gives lots of other false facts. Apparently, as a young man he tried to poison his parents, and this was the reason he had to leave the island around 1840. He also forged Symi’s past, having composed a totally imaginary history: “Symais, or History of the Apollonias School in Symi … ” (1849), claiming that the author was a certain monk called Meletios, from Chios.
During my term of office as Director of the Gennadius Library in Athens, I had the chance to examine in detail various holdings of the Library referring to Simonides. To my great surprise his forgeries are so evident and so clumsy that I was really mystified as to how it could have been possible for him to fool eminent philologists of the nineteenth century, who should have been familiar with authentic manuscripts."

https://forum.kajgana.com/threads/Гејскиот-фалсификатор-constantine-simonides.30481/

Emphasis added.

Would be awesome if someone could track down and get the full article from the TLS, March 14th (2009 ???) issue mentioned above.☝️
 
They also had issues with Kallinikos' miraculous ability and absolutely splendiferous timing (coincidentally ✌️?✌️ of course) of just happening to be at (of all places) St Catherine's, at just the right time - the exact time in fact - he claims (but get this ???) but also in the exact same place within the monastery to be an eyewitness (yes, to actually ? ? SEE ?? with his own eyes) Tischendorf's alleged dirty deeds!!!

Isn't that incredible.

He's, what? Hiding behind the curtains? In the secret closet? Looking through the keyhole? Pretending to be a statue? Sipping latte's at the next table while (what?) working silently on a another "ancient style" prezzie for queen Victoria or the Kaiser?

Tischendorf is, "who's that guy?" Monk "oh that's just old Kallinikos'. In fact he gave us this manuscript bla blah bla...but nothing to worry about. Now, you were saying..."

We need a courtroom ⚖️?‍⚖️ reenactment and diagram of the scene of the crime from the SART team to see ? (?) how this works in real life.

I wonder what Judge Judy would make of this... Hmmmm
 
Last edited:
They also had issues with Kallinikos' miraculous ability and absolutely splendiferous timing (coincidentally ✌️?✌️ of course) of just happening to be at (of all places) St Catherine's, at just the right time - the exact time in fact - he claims (but get this ???) but also in the exact same place within the monastery to be an eyewitness (yes, to actually ? ? SEE ?? with his own eyes) Tischendorf's alleged dirty deeds!!!

Isn't that incredible.

Mt. Athos in 1840, too.

Somehow, this guy was on Athos in 1840 AND on Sinai in 1844 AND on Sinai in 1859 AND saw Tischendorf steal this stuff - and yet never mentioned it to Simonides.

Again - even the SART team doesn't REALLY believe that; it's why they talk in circles instead and use passive voice, the refuge of the scoundrels trying to deceive others.

He's, what? Hiding behind the curtains? In the secret closet? Looking through the keyhole? Pretending to be a statue? Sipping latte's at the next table while (what?) working silently on a another "ancient style" prezzie for queen Victoria or the Kaiser?

Tischendorf is, "who's that guy?" Monk "oh that's just old Kallinikos'. In fact he gave us this manuscript bla blah bla...but nothing to worry about. Now, you were saying..."

We need a courtroom ⚖️?‍⚖️ reenactment and diagram of the scene of the crime from the SART team to see ? (?) how this works in real life.

I wonder what Judge Judy would make of this... Hmmmm

Kallinikos was a phantom, created out of thin air by Simonides.

Well, he did exist, but the REAL one wrote the later letter exposing the shenanigans of OJ Simonides.

All those eyewitnesses of the work in 1840, all those exemplars to the left and the right, a shoddy made rough draft AFTERWARDS...and NONE of it could ever be produced.

Benedict? Conveniently dead.
Kallinikos? he only appears in letters proven to have been written by OJ Simonides (the DNA fits better than the glove)

There is zero reason to believe anything Simonides ever said.
 
Very much worth reading.
McGrane's Review of Cooper's The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus
https://www.academia.edu/37556820/A...iled_background_of_the_discovery_of_the_Codex

And I enjoyed conversing with Kevin McGrane. There are strengths and weaknesses in what he writes, and he has an unusual position on the date of Sinaiticus. And I believe there may be a direct response published shortly.

And it would be wonderful if he got his planned book out.
 
This is one difficulty when you are discussing events from 20-25 years back.

It's also incredibly convenient that nobody can go check out the story of a guy who lied about everyone else, too.

It's like when Ollie North and John Poindexter decided to go with "CIA Director Bill Casey told me to do it".....after Casey conveniently died.
 
Back
Top