The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Maestroh

Well-known member
As I noted earlier: the apologists for OJ ('Old Joke') Simonides are every bit as projecting as those for OJ Simpson - which you only do when you're guilty. So let's continue:

Or it was unavailable,

Because it never existed.

in an Athos cellar, or scrubbed or too worn to bother.?

Or never existed - which is the Occam's Razor answer to this.


What happened to the copy that Tischendorf claims he made in Cairo with two German helpers?

Vanished … without a trace.
Russia? Leipzig?

So your chosen method of DEFENDING THE CLAIMS OF SIMONIDES is....(checks post).....pointing the finger at Tischendorf and saying "but what about this".

Is it really this difficult a task to defend Simonides's claims? Apparently.


Now, if the Tisch story were true, that would be valuable and helpful.

Amazing how a post about Simonides triggers irrelevant information from an individual claiming to be a member of a research team.

Do you have ANY defense of Simonides's claim to have written this alone - which even you don't believe?

Do you have ANYTHING to offer beyond "Simonides said" other than "But Tischendorf said."

I mean, your entire case here is based on nothing more than what people said.

That's not research, it's quote mining.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
You are likely influenced by the nonsense and ignorance of James White.....

Well, the most ignorant thing White ever said about Sinaiticus was this in November 2011:

"St. Catherine's monastery still maintains the importance of a letter,
typewritten in 1844 with an original signature of Tischendorf confirming
that he borrowed those leaves."

Two points:
1) The typewriter wasn't invented for another 20 years, so this was a literal impossibility.
2) This wasn't James White whose "research" said this, it was, in fact, Steven Avery.

Just a little tip for when Steven Avery Spencer wants to assert the ignorance of others.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
So why did Leipzig cancel the testing?

Why do you think the moon landing was faked?
I mean, some things have more than one answer.

And once again, this has nothing to do with Simonides's' claims at all.

Which would include the inks as well as the parchment.

Sentence fragments are unbecoming to put it mildly.

Ok, let's recap.

SO FAR, Avery's attempts to DEFEND THE LIES of Simonides are:
1) But Tischendorf said something
2) But what about Leipzig tests

It is obviously IMPOSSIBLE to defend Simonides, so this is the route his modern apologists go.
It's not any different than when "the other OJ's" lawyers pointed the finger at the cops......and the nurse.......and the labs......and the forensics....

In terms of Sinai, the key issue is how Kallinikos has so much inside information.

About the mountain or the manuscript? Clear it up please.

(Additional studies show Kallinikos working on manuscripts with Simonides and Benedict at Athos at precisely the right time (discovered from the Lampros catalogue published 1895 and 1900)

Folks, a catalog published in 1895 with an entry proves.....nothing at all. There were no "studies" on this issue. In fact, let it be noted that once again, the more information we have, the more we know Simonides is lying.

The citation the SART team makes great claim to is entry number 645 on page 454 of the Lampros Catalog

(click link to see: https://books.google.com/books?id=1...Jy4MKHaz7B2sQ6AEIKTAA#v=onepage&q=454&f=false )

But now we have even bigger problems for Simonides thanks to the Federico-Augustus Research Team.

1) The entry does show Simonides's name. But this is where knowing how to read Greek comes in as the entry says:

Canon of the holy and great Sunday of Easter, or "Resurrection of the Lord: Poems of the Holy Father John of Damasus," by Constantine Simonides. March 27, 1841.

And now both Simonides AND the SART team have a problem.

2) "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.

But there's an even bigger problem with this "evidence"
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
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:

4) Easter Sunday WAS, in fact, March 27, 1842.

So what happened? I have no idea.

But I know that the SART team so far has:
a) said Simonides didn't write it all himself though he and Kallinikos both say he did.
b) said Simonides was on Athos on a date Simonides himself says he isn't - and who is more likely to know?

5) But there's ONE MORE problem with using this "see, this date is here" as evidence like the SART team does...if this is the evidence they say it is then BENEDICT WAS STILL ALIVE IN 1844 DESPITE THE FACT this is the one issue everyone agrees upon, he died in 1840.

Farrer lists a number of entries that have Bendict's name. Daniels puts entry number 5999 (page 381) in his book. HE CAREFULLY DOES NOT INCLUDE entry number 6393 on page 452 - just two pages before the one he cites for Simonides. Why does he not include it (e.g. why does he hide information?)

Because if the date proves Simonides was on Athos in March 1841 (contradicting what he himself said), IT ALSO proves Benedict was alive four years after he died!!! And the SART team, transparent scholars they are, felt that would cause people not to believe their fantastical stories. Remember - they knew Farrer said this. They just hid it from you - transparency at it's er finest.

They cherry pick Simonides, cherry pick Farrer, and cherry pick the Lampros Catalog......but call themselves a "research team."


and the amazing "coincidence" of the Simonides Sheperd of Hermas, for right now though we will stay with St. Catherine's. However, all of these are part of the historical imperative that prove, or at least give extremely solid evidence, that Sinaiticus was prepared at Athos.

Actually, this is nothing but speculation and fantasy.

So far, your "evidence" is:
a) a guy who wrote a letter whom even you don't believe the key points
b) the leap of illogic that leads you to conclude - without any analysis whatsoever - that an entry in a catalog proves a person was somewhere on a particular day...in a catalog compiled a half century AFTER the fact. :)
c) a letter the same guy wrote and signed someone else's name to

You have:
no witnesses
no exemplars
no Bibles these readings could have been taken from

In short, you have nothing but the claims of a forger.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
One reason that Chris Pinto understood what happened first is that he thought like a Journalist and Historian.)

Chris Pinto engaged in hyperbolic speculation that would cause a normal human being with normal thinking capacity to blush in embarrassment.

Kallinikos and Simonides knew about:

As they're one and the same letters wise, they are HE no matter what pronoun you wish to use for him/them. And they even by the SART standards didn't know anything.

Now as is his custom when there's no evidence, Avery is going to start listing things without any footnotes, nothing more than speculative online assertions. I will detail the objections more later in another post but this will suffice for the moment.


the 1844 theft of Tischendorf (where he actually stole five intact quires.)

We know Kallinikos accused him of theft.
We also know that would be libel if Kallinikos actually did it.

But remember - you have to believe Kallinikos (whose letter is quoted in full above) was somehow capable of being everywhere.

the colouring and staining that became visible in 2009.

Simonides made this accusation. But by your own admission since it's never been chemically tested, it's amusing that you somehow know what chemicals are used to treat something you have no evidence was chemically treated AT ALL, much less in 1852, which means it wasn't Tischendorf who did it.

I mean, the whole "they haven't tested it chemically, but I, Steven Avery, know this manuscript was treated with chemicals" is laughably absurd in terms of logic.

the phony 1859 loan of the ms.

So far all you've done is slander Tischendorf.

Do you have ANY ACTUAL PROOF Simonides wrote it? I mean, this is not that difficult a question for most people.

Tischendorf's bumbling Greek

That's nothing but an accusation at this point - and irrelevant to whether Simonides wrote it.

the youthful condition of parchment and ink

The guy who wants it tested already knows the conclusion - so why test it?
Again - this is an ACCUSATION, not PROOF of anything.

Do you seriously not understand the difference between ACCUSING someone and PROVING the accusation?

the lack of provenance

Manuscripts cannot be found before they're discovered.
Snapp informed you of this years ago yet you keep it up.

the lack of the supposed ancient catalog

Again - this proves nothing about anything.

the mangling of the ms.

What does this AGAIN ALLEGATION.... prove?
How does this in any way help Simonides's claims?

And I have a special page on these issues:

You have a special page that makes a bunch of allegations against Tischendorf and you think it proves Simonides wrote Sinaiticus?
I'll pass.

"Kallinikos exposes Tischendorf shenanigans - the historical imperative and impossible knowledge"

So apparently the individual who thinks the moon landing was faked also thinks a guy managed to pop in and out of Athos and Sinai like Barbara Eden in "I Dream of Jeannie" and see all this stuff.

I mean, the best witness against this position is just to let the apologists for Constantine Simonides keep talking. The more they say, the more ridiculous the claims become.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
How could Simonides know the manuscript had no provenance before 1840?

He didn't.
But he knew it wasn't called the CFA or Sinaiticus, so he always had an out.
(Do I really have to do all the SART team's thinking for them?)

(It would be foolish to make a claim that could be immediately refuted.)

And yet he was foolish enough to claim he wrote the thing all by himself, which was immediately refuted....

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

Him claiming that he worked on this in his biography that came out right before this where Simonides himself APPEALED TO THE ANICENT DATE OF SINAITICUS would have helped, too.

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.

Libraries did not function like the Internet.
Do you seriously not know this, either?

Major manuscripts come with provence and history.

Really?
So you can give me a chain of custody of EVERY NT manuscript in existence?
Really?

That's news to me, and I've actually worked with this stuff, I wasn't just posting my opinion online.


When Simonides spoke up, how could he know the provenance began in 184)s?

Why didn't he know there were at least 3-4 different scribes when he was dumb enough to claim he wrote it?

So far, you continue to ask rhetorical questions that prove nothing save for your ability to avoid the issue.

There is one sensible answer.

Simonides knew because he knew the manuscript had no history before 1840.

And yet he didn't know it had 3-4 scribes and at least 10 correctors or that the first portion when he was at Leipzig was "his own work."

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.

His many lies and fraudulent claims are why the rest of us still laugh at him today, and he's nothing but a footnote to history to serve as a warning of what happens when you lie.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
OK, time for a show of hands. How many people here are persuaded that Simonides wrote the Codex Sinaiticus??

Nobody.

I should point out that not even Steven Avery believes Simonides wrote it.

He believes "he was involved" with it and there were more writers.

The fact that Simonides could have won the argument and closed it all out by producing one of the 3-4 other authors or one of the at least 10 correctors but failed to do so is proof positive against his claims.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
Steven Avery keeps dodging and avoiding a great deal of evidence.

One of his typical tactics is to pick some minor detail or comment, and then he will try to suggest that he has refuted all the major and important points by commenting on that one little matter.

It's a red herring fallacy.

It's generally what the spokespersons for politicians use.

"Hey, I'm not gonna answer your refutation, but I DEMAND that you answer my irrelevant point about this other subject over here."

I could care less whether Tischendorf was the Devil Incarnate - because the date of Sinaiticus does NOT depend upon his truthfulness and HAS BEEN VALIDATED by others going back as far as Lake and onward to Milne and Skeat.

Simonides's veracity, however, matters since he's the one making the big claims with no evidence.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
A look at the evidence.......and notice something.

the 1844 theft of Tischendorf (where he actually stole five intact quires.)

Simonides said this. Yes, he said it under the pen name Kallinikos, but Simonides SAID this is what happened:

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


the colouring and staining that became visible in 2009.

Simonides said this, too.

Simonides says it:
In 1852, I saw it there myself, and begged the librarian to inform me how the monastery had acquired it but he did not appear to know anything of the matter and I, for my part, said nothing. However, I examined the MS and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have.

Simonides pretending to be Kallinikos says this:
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.


the phony 1859 loan of the ms.

Simonides said this, too, as Kallinikos:
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.

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

Every single claim you make depends completely on the veracity of the lying forger - whom you refuse to call that even though his name is in a book called "Literary Forgeries" WHICH YOU CITE AS AUTHORITATIVE - and so do your other ones, but they require me to post more from Simonides and Kallinikos.

Such will be forthcoming very soon.
 

Conan

Well-known member
Can you list 10 of the thousands of papyri variants.
James White indicated none.
If I thought it important I could. All one has to do is look at an apparatus and find agreements between a Papyri and Aleph. Mine are packaged away and I don't plan to unbox them soon. But would it make a difference? If I gave you 10 out of the Gosples would it make a difference with you? If it showed you the truth it would be worth it. But now that i think of it all you have to do is look at p47 and Siniaticus agreements. Those two manuscripts are closest in the book of Revelation. They are the same family in the book of Revelation and are closest textual aligned manuscripts in Revelation. That alone proves your man simionides incorrect. I don't have easy access to an apparatus just now. But it very easily defeats simonides. Even you could see it by comparing readings.
 

Conan

Well-known member
For Stevev Avery.

"As already mentioned, Schmid analysed the manuscripts of the Apocalypse and found that
Aleph
stood almost alone; its only ally is P47. The other non-Byzantine witnesses tend to cluster around A and C rather than
Aleph
. The general sense is that the A/C type is the Alexandrian text (if nothing else, it is the largest of the non-Byzantine types, which is consistently true of the Alexandrian text). Certainly the A/C type is regarded as the best; the P47/
Aleph
type is regarded as having many peculiar readings."

", and in the Apocalypse, where Schmid classifies it in its own, non-Alexandrian, type with P47."

 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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....... (SA: leaves not pages, including extracting five intact quires)

Also, how could he possibly even know this? (SA: only one way, being at the monastery)

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. (SA: thus Uspensky in 1845 did not know what Tisch had taken)

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.

Actually, today we know that this is incredibly accurate in describing the actions of Tischendorf and Uspensky.

Accurate about Tischendorf’s 1844 theft-secret extraction.

Accurate about Tischendorf’s bogus loan-theft in 1859

Accurate about Porphyrius Uspensky as a manuscript thief.

==========-

Thanks, Bill Brown, for helping explain the historical imperative.
 
Last edited:

Shoonra

Well-known member
Reading some more about Sinaiticus, I found out that there are some obvious errors in its text - which are not mentioned in BHS, Septuaginta, or N-A, because obvious errors. These include misspelled names in the OT of the sort that suggests the scribe was hearing dictation rather than reading a copy. Few errors of that sort are found in the NT text, which suggests that for the NT a written copy was in front of the scribe ... but Acts 8:5, where Everybody has Samaria, the Sinaiticus alone has Caesarea -- it is speculated that this was a slip by force of habit which may indicate that's where the Codex was worked up.
 

Conan

Well-known member
Wrong.
There can not be other supports of the variant.
What the heck does that mean? You sound like an Alexandrian Text person denying there are Byzantine readings in the Papyri. You mean if Aleph agrees with P47 in the Book of Revelation it doesn't mean that your hero simonides couldn't have forged Aleph? You are beaten already. James White was apparently right on when he said simonides could not have anticipated Papyri/Aleph agreements. It destroys the theory of simonides forging Aleph. He couldn't have, because its an ancient manuscript, for it agrees with other ancient manuscripts discovered after simonides time on earth. Don't you see it? You can!
 

Conan

Well-known member
Edit per mod
You are defeated and don't even know it. All that wasted time you have spent on that goof ball theory. Your in denial. All you have to do is look at an apparatus! Wouldn't it be better for you to come to the truth on your own, instead of being defeated on this board? Think for yourself!
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Unbound68

Well-known member
Let me know when you have vetted some variants,

The fact that you support the big lie of James White is interesting.
Which is code for "I'm gonna let you do my research for me because I can't read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or French."

It's a trick. Don't let him fool any of you into doing his homework! He does this all the time.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You are defeated and don't even know it. All that wasted time you have spent on that goof ball theory. Your in denial. All you have to do is look at an apparatus! Wouldn't it be better for you to come to the truth on your own, instead of being defeated on this board? Think for yourself!

What a joke.
First you believe the big lie from James White about "thousands of variants.." blah blah.
Then you push it as your own.
Then you check ... nothing ... on the P47 info using the quote using Josef Schmid as the textual source, which you hoped would supply White some support.
And then, from nothing, you give the boorish posturing above. (That is the tackiest part.)

Using LaParola, I went through the first 25 variants with P47 in Revelation 9 and 10.

Accepting cases in parenthesis as a hit:
P47 agrees with Sinaiticus 14 times.
P47 agrees with Alexandrinus 14 times.
P47 agrees with Byz 7 times.

There are ZERO cases where P47 is alone, or even almost alone, with Sinaiticus.

The two are always with substantial additional textual support.

Here is an interesting example from:

Revelation 9:13
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=73&rif2=9:13

where the apparatus has P47, and two Sinaiticus entries, original and correction. Sinaiticus omitted the phrase, and then the correction matched P47 and Alexandrinus and many other manuscripts, versions and church writers.

μίαν ἐκ τῶν κεράτων]
p47 ‭א1
A 0207 94 1611 2053 2344 itar itc itdiv itgig ithaf itz vgww vgst syrh copsa(ms) copbo (copsa(ms) τοῦ κέρατος) eth Oecumenius Ps-Ambrose Bede Haymo WH CEI TILC Nv

μίαν ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων κεράτων]
P 046 205 209 1006 1828 1841 1854 1859 2020 2042 2065 2073 2081 2138 2329 2351 2432 2814 Byz itdem vgcl syrph Cyprian Tyconius Primasius Andrew Beatus Arethas ς (NA [τεσσάρων]) NR ND Riv Dio NM

μίαν ἐκ τῶν τεσσάρων ζῴων]
(arm ἃ ἦν ἐνώπιον τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου τοῦ θεοῦ for τοῦ θυσιαστηρίου... θεοῦ)

omit] ‭א*

The CSP page is here:
Revelation, 9:5 - 10:8 library: BL folio: 328b scribe: A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=90&side=r&zoomSlider=0

You can see the correction to the right of the second column, rows 6 and 7.
 
Last edited:

Conan

Well-known member
What a joke.
First you believe the big lie from James White about "thousands of variants.." blah blah.
Then you push it as your own.
Then you check ... nothing ... on the P47 info using the quote using Josef Schmid as the textual source, which you hoped would supply White some support.
And then, from nothing, you give the boorish posturing above. (That is the tackiest part.)

Using LaParola, I went through the first 25 variants with P47 in Revelation 9 and 10.

Accepting cases in parenthesis as a hit:
P47 agrees with Sinaiticus 14 times.
P47 agrees with Alexandrinus 14 times.
P47 agrees with Byz 7 times.

There are ZERO cases where P47 is alone, or even almost alone, with Sinaiticus.

The two are always with substantial additional textual support.

Here is an interesting example from:

Revelation 9:13
http://www.laparola.net/greco/index.php?rif1=73&rif2=9:13

where the apparatus has P47, and two Sinaiticus entries, original and correction. Sinaiticus omitted the phrase, and then the correction matched P47 and Alexandrinus and many other manuscripts, versions and church writers.



The CSP page is here:
Revelation, 9:5 - 10:8 library: BL folio: 328b scribe: A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=90&side=r&zoomSlider=0

You can see the correction to the right of the second column, rows 6 and 7.
Then even you have proven that simonides is a fraud. Because if he was true p47 could not agree with Aleph even once. Next you will will say that simonides had access to any manuscript that agrees with it. That simonides went threw 1000's of manuscripts to just which ever one happens to agree with the Aleph/p47 text is revelation. Simionides had no access to a full apparatus of Revelation. Your making things up, just like when you said there was no textual Variant in Matthew 9:4. It is impossible for simonides to have written Codex Sinaiticus because simonides could not have known about readings that came to light after simonides time. James White was correct. And so am I, independantly of White. Simonides is a fraud. Why do you preach the untruths of a fraud?
 

Conan

Well-known member
Which is code for "I'm gonna let you do my research for me because I can't read Greek, Hebrew, Latin, or French."

It's a trick. Don't let him fool any of you into doing his homework! He does this all the time.
I have suspected it as of late. Thank you for pointing it out. There is a reason he believes in frauds like simonides.
 
Last edited:
Top