The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Unbound68

Well-known member
As with many personality disorders, those who are severely flawed of character, but especially the narcissist, when they face public disgrace, when they are outed as criminals or for their misbehavior, or when they fail in a very public way—that is when they become metastable, placing us as family, friends, co-workers, corporations, the public, or a nation in greatest danger.


When things begin to sour for the narcissist, here is what we can expect:

  1. They will falsely claim that everything is fine and that there is nothing wrong. They will try to first misdirect us or claim there is nothing to the allegations or circumstances.
  2. If evidence is presented, they will seek to have it invalidated or claim that it is false, fake, or a product of vague conspiracies, but most certainly not true.
  3. Any evidence presented, and those that present it will be attacked aggressively and vindictively. The better the evidence, the more aggressive the attack. Individuals who are doing the right thing by reporting criminal acts, unethical behavior, or failings are to be discredited, humiliated, hounded, and bullied—not even their families are to be spared if need be. The narcissist will engage supporters or enablers to simultaneously attack those who offer proof or evidence, even if it embarrassingly exposes their poodle-like behavior as that of spineless sycophants.
  4. Foolproof evidence will be portrayed as false and the result of pettiness, jealousies, bad actors, malicious individuals, negativity, haters, enemies, losers, conspirators, opposition, gain seekers, the faithless (usually seen in religious groups or cults), or as we are seeing now in American politics, “fake news” or “deep state” actors. There is always a large constellation of people to blame, the narcissist casts wide to see which vacuous claim resonates, especially with their supporters.
  5. As they lash out with vindictiveness, the malignant narcissist will continue to talk about themselves in glowing terms; irrespective of their actual situation, as they are incapable of introspection, much less contriteness. They will trumpet their greatness, their achievements (real or imagined), their faux infallibility, and even portray themselves as worthy of being revered rather than reviled.
  6. They will seek to find someone to blame for their troubles or downfall, preferably someone that cannot defend themselves. (like dead people). A scapegoat is always useful and when there is not a real one, one will be invented. If they are not promoted or fired, it is because a cabal at work was against them. If they cheat their business partners, it was because they deserved it. If the wife gets the kids in a divorce settlement, it is because of her dastardly attorney, not his abominable behavior. If they lose an election it is because of campaign managers, unappreciative voters, trickery, fraud, or some other kind of malfeasance on the part of a conspiracy (conspiracies are useful to the narcissist because they conveniently require no evidence). As they are not married to the truth, they will prattle countless baseless reasons that all point away, never at themselves.
  7. As circumstances become dire, the narcissist will not take any responsibility—ever. Anything that has gone wrong is the responsibility of others. They will blame spouses as undeserving of their greatness, ignorant colleagues who just don’t measure up, the disloyal (Oh, they love to blame the disloyal), those who abide by rules and laws because ironically, they abide by rules and laws, or those that just clearly did not understand the very specialness of the narcissist. Everyone, and I mean everyone from people long gone, to the peripherally connected, to the earthly departed will be blamed for the failure or downfall of the narcissist. Once more it is never their fault.
  8. In the process of casting blame, even the most loyal and stalwart will be discarded and denigrated if needed with reptilian indifference. For the malignant narcissist, there is only the “good” — those that provide blind, unwavering loyalty and who are useful, and everyone else who is an enemy, useless, and thus “bad.” Whether you are in or out, good or bad, is not determined by history, by friendship, sacrifices, or how well you have performed in the past—it is determined by the capricious and selfish needs of the narcissist, and that can change in a moment.
  9. Expect lies to increase and to be repeated exponentially. (Lying by omission is still lying). They will, even in light of factual evidence to the contrary, lie more profusely and adamantly. Lies are and always will be the number one tool of the malignant narcissist. The only difference now is that in facing failure or public ridicule, the lies must increase in frequency and audacity to the point of incredulity. The narcissist will expect supporters, the unethical, and enablers to lie for them or even create plausible alibies. That they imperil others by compelling them to lie is the collateral damage the malignant narcissist does as they thrash in despair when they are failing or caught.
  10. And while lies will increase, so too will be the need to devalue others in order to further value themselves. They will attack everyone and anyone in the most vicious and vindictive ways. This is when we see their rage come through. Not just anger, but unbridled rage. They will say things that shock the conscience and they expect everyone to swallow what they say, much as their enablers do. The most decent of persons will be attacked, mocked, ridiculed, and turned into a human chew-toy as the narcissist unleashes untethered rage and hatred. They will dip down into a bottomless cauldron of antipathy and like an arterial spurt, will spew this toxic brew far and wide with metronomic regularity.
  11. The malignant narcissist, lacking guilt or a conscience, is only concerned with respect and not being publicly shamed. Any kind of public embarrassment will cause them further anger, further rage, further attacks, further unethical comportment, and unprecedented incivility.
  12. If the narcissist is going to be brought down, they will also seek to bring everyone else around them down to vindictively make them suffer. How the narcissist vilifies, lashes out, or destroys others (spouse, friends, business partners, workmates, the general public) is up to the morbid creativity and depravity of the malignant narcissist, the viable tools they have available, and of course how dire or desperate the situation. The internet and social media are certainly useful as lives can be ruined with a single tweet. But so are guns and rifles, poison, and even assassins for hire. And if they command a country, they can put the security organs or the military to work on their behalf.
  13. In certain situations, as the end nears, the suffering of others is paramount to the malignant narcissist. It is their way of elevating themselves—sick as that sounds—by malevolently paying back society with even more suffering. As they lash out, they will show no concern or empathy because they have none. If others are suffering because of their actions, the narcissist simply does not care. Lacking a conscience or any kind of remorse, much like Robert Hare’s psychopath, they sleep very well at night while everyone else is anxious, worried, stressed, physically or psychologically traumatizes all the while nervously and justifiably pondering what further malevolence will take place.
  14. As they face failure, arrest, indictment, or dismissal, they will endlessly air their grievances. Narcissists are natural wound collectors and as such, they have been collecting and nurturing social slights and perceived wrongs just for this occasion. They will wallow in victimhood claiming they have been relentlessly and needlessly persecuted. They, of course, expect their attorneys, followers, or enablers to subserviently echo their flatulent claims.






Many of these and other common narcissistic tactics can be summarized with what sometimes is referred to as a Narcissists Prayer:

That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

And if I did… you deserved it.
Let's see how many of these occur in real time in Avery's "discussion" with Mr. Snapp.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
This is a good estimation.

Are you sure?

I'll tell you what doesn't make sense with your theory, is why would these poor monks on Mt Athos (renouncing worldly wealth for isolation) grow, tan, and prepare, these very "expensive" (Uspensky) "exceptional quality" (Helen Shelton) parchment hides in the 1500's A.D. for just a mere "short discourse" and a few "panegyrics"?

Certainly not the quality of parchment one would expect for such an (apparently 😉) unimportant work.

The story sound's fishy. To contrived.

It fits standard unforged story better.

P.S. Simonides is full of absolute garbage, and I simply don't believe his lies.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
As with many personality disorders, those who are severely flawed of character, but especially the narcissist, when they face public disgrace, when they are outed as criminals or for their misbehavior, or when they fail in a very public way—that is when they become metastable, placing us as family, friends, co-workers, corporations, the public, or a nation in greatest danger.

You do all this nonsense simply because you can not discuss Sinaiticus authenicity.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
You do all this nonsense simply because you can not discuss Sinaiticus authenicity.

More gaslighting in light of the fact I’ve got the letters on this thread, and you’ve been avoiding explaining HOW you come to conclusions when Simonides tells 3 different versions of the same story because he was a lying forger.

You’re literally blaming ME for YOUR FAILURES here, which is exactly why I posted the other info.

You should be more bothered by the problem than you are by the fact the problem has been pointed out to you. But that’s typical.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
Are you sure?

I'll tell you what doesn't make sense with your theory, is why would these poor monks on Mt Athos (renouncing worldly wealth for isolation) grow, tan, and prepare, these very "expensive" (Uspensky) "exceptional quality" (Helen Shelton) parchment hides in the 1500's A.D. for just a mere "short discourse" and a few "panegyrics"?

Certainly not the quality of parchment one would expect for such an (apparently 😉) unimportant work.

The story sound's fishy. To contrived.

It fits standard unforged story better.

P.S. Simonides is full of absolute garbage, and I simply don't believe his lies.

Neither does Avery, even he admits Simonides could not possibly have done this on his own.

He refuses to call that lie a lie - and then turns right around and cites the liar Simonides/Kallinikos as truth tellers despite he/them telling the same lie about Simonides writing it all by himself.
 

Shoonra

Well-known member
By the 15th century the NT canon and sequence of books was established. There would be no reason, in the 15th century, to producing a NT with so many departures from the Church's established text, such as the inclusion of two documents of the Apostolic Fathers and the placement of Acts after Philemon, and to do it deliberately in archaic style of writing. The monks hardly suggest themselves as innovators.

However, such things were not so settled in the 4th century. The Sinaiticus suggests itself, from many characteristics, to have its roots in the 4th century.
 

RiJoRi

Well-known member
As with many personality disorders, those who are severely flawed of character, but especially the narcissist, when they face public disgrace, when they are outed as criminals or for their misbehavior, or when they fail in a very public way—that is when they become metastable, placing us as family, friends, co-workers, corporations, the public, or a nation in greatest danger.


When things begin to sour for the narcissist, here is what we can expect:

  1. They will falsely claim that everything is fine and that there is nothing wrong. They will try to first misdirect us or claim there is nothing to the allegations or circumstances.
  2. If evidence is presented, they will seek to have it invalidated or claim that it is false, fake, or a product of vague conspiracies, but most certainly not true.
  3. Any evidence presented, and those that present it will be attacked aggressively and vindictively. The better the evidence, the more aggressive the attack. Individuals who are doing the right thing by reporting criminal acts, unethical behavior, or failings are to be discredited, humiliated, hounded, and bullied—not even their families are to be spared if need be. The narcissist will engage supporters or enablers to simultaneously attack those who offer proof or evidence, even if it embarrassingly exposes their poodle-like behavior as that of spineless sycophants.
  4. Foolproof evidence will be portrayed as false and the result of pettiness, jealousies, bad actors, malicious individuals, negativity, haters, enemies, losers, conspirators, opposition, gain seekers, the faithless (usually seen in religious groups or cults), or as we are seeing now in American politics, “fake news” or “deep state” actors. There is always a large constellation of people to blame, the narcissist casts wide to see which vacuous claim resonates, especially with their supporters.
  5. As they lash out with vindictiveness, the malignant narcissist will continue to talk about themselves in glowing terms; irrespective of their actual situation, as they are incapable of introspection, much less contriteness. They will trumpet their greatness, their achievements (real or imagined), their faux infallibility, and even portray themselves as worthy of being revered rather than reviled.
  6. They will seek to find someone to blame for their troubles or downfall, preferably someone that cannot defend themselves. (like dead people). A scapegoat is always useful and when there is not a real one, one will be invented. If they are not promoted or fired, it is because a cabal at work was against them. If they cheat their business partners, it was because they deserved it. If the wife gets the kids in a divorce settlement, it is because of her dastardly attorney, not his abominable behavior. If they lose an election it is because of campaign managers, unappreciative voters, trickery, fraud, or some other kind of malfeasance on the part of a conspiracy (conspiracies are useful to the narcissist because they conveniently require no evidence). As they are not married to the truth, they will prattle countless baseless reasons that all point away, never at themselves.
  7. As circumstances become dire, the narcissist will not take any responsibility—ever. Anything that has gone wrong is the responsibility of others. They will blame spouses as undeserving of their greatness, ignorant colleagues who just don’t measure up, the disloyal (Oh, they love to blame the disloyal), those who abide by rules and laws because ironically, they abide by rules and laws, or those that just clearly did not understand the very specialness of the narcissist. Everyone, and I mean everyone from people long gone, to the peripherally connected, to the earthly departed will be blamed for the failure or downfall of the narcissist. Once more it is never their fault.
  8. In the process of casting blame, even the most loyal and stalwart will be discarded and denigrated if needed with reptilian indifference. For the malignant narcissist, there is only the “good” — those that provide blind, unwavering loyalty and who are useful, and everyone else who is an enemy, useless, and thus “bad.” Whether you are in or out, good or bad, is not determined by history, by friendship, sacrifices, or how well you have performed in the past—it is determined by the capricious and selfish needs of the narcissist, and that can change in a moment.
  9. Expect lies to increase and to be repeated exponentially. (Lying by omission is still lying). They will, even in light of factual evidence to the contrary, lie more profusely and adamantly. Lies are and always will be the number one tool of the malignant narcissist. The only difference now is that in facing failure or public ridicule, the lies must increase in frequency and audacity to the point of incredulity. The narcissist will expect supporters, the unethical, and enablers to lie for them or even create plausible alibies. That they imperil others by compelling them to lie is the collateral damage the malignant narcissist does as they thrash in despair when they are failing or caught.
  10. And while lies will increase, so too will be the need to devalue others in order to further value themselves. They will attack everyone and anyone in the most vicious and vindictive ways. This is when we see their rage come through. Not just anger, but unbridled rage. They will say things that shock the conscience and they expect everyone to swallow what they say, much as their enablers do. The most decent of persons will be attacked, mocked, ridiculed, and turned into a human chew-toy as the narcissist unleashes untethered rage and hatred. They will dip down into a bottomless cauldron of antipathy and like an arterial spurt, will spew this toxic brew far and wide with metronomic regularity.
  11. The malignant narcissist, lacking guilt or a conscience, is only concerned with respect and not being publicly shamed. Any kind of public embarrassment will cause them further anger, further rage, further attacks, further unethical comportment, and unprecedented incivility.
  12. If the narcissist is going to be brought down, they will also seek to bring everyone else around them down to vindictively make them suffer. How the narcissist vilifies, lashes out, or destroys others (spouse, friends, business partners, workmates, the general public) is up to the morbid creativity and depravity of the malignant narcissist, the viable tools they have available, and of course how dire or desperate the situation. The internet and social media are certainly useful as lives can be ruined with a single tweet. But so are guns and rifles, poison, and even assassins for hire. And if they command a country, they can put the security organs or the military to work on their behalf.
  13. In certain situations, as the end nears, the suffering of others is paramount to the malignant narcissist. It is their way of elevating themselves—sick as that sounds—by malevolently paying back society with even more suffering. As they lash out, they will show no concern or empathy because they have none. If others are suffering because of their actions, the narcissist simply does not care. Lacking a conscience or any kind of remorse, much like Robert Hare’s psychopath, they sleep very well at night while everyone else is anxious, worried, stressed, physically or psychologically traumatizes all the while nervously and justifiably pondering what further malevolence will take place.
  14. As they face failure, arrest, indictment, or dismissal, they will endlessly air their grievances. Narcissists are natural wound collectors and as such, they have been collecting and nurturing social slights and perceived wrongs just for this occasion. They will wallow in victimhood claiming they have been relentlessly and needlessly persecuted. They, of course, expect their attorneys, followers, or enablers to subserviently echo their flatulent claims.






Many of these and other common narcissistic tactics can be summarized with what sometimes is referred to as a Narcissists Prayer:

That didn’t happen.
And if it did, it wasn’t that bad.
And if it was, that’s not a big deal.
And if it is, that’s not my fault.
And if it was, I didn’t mean it.

And if I did… you deserved it.
Wow! Just wow! 😲
I'm wondering – can entire organizations be narcissistic?

Thanks,
--Rich
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Yes.
There is no real problem in a parchment stash in Mt. Athos.

In London or St. Petersburg,. not so likely

Why, an (apparently 😉) saintly, innocent youth with a desire to please a Russian emperor one minute, but an untrustworthy, lying, thieving, money hungry huckster the next?

His later (Greece, Turkey, Russia, Germany, England, France, Egypt) criminal character, behavior, and profile is (even by your tacit concession above) more consistent with a devient youth who would indeed attempt to murder his parents and continually lie about anything and everything to make a buck and elevate his narcissistic personality!

Your story is falling apart at the seems.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
They looked at it for a couple of hours before finalizing the deal.

And when the ACTUAL SCHOLARS looked at Karen King's claim in 2012 about the papyrus fragment of Jesus' wife - THEY KNEW IT IMMEDIATELY.

You see, that's how expertise works, not that you have any in regards to NT scholarship or paleography or any other related discipline.

Apparently

Meaning, "I have no idea, I'm just making stuff up and hoping nobody notices."

they were checking that there was not a bait and switch to a newly copied ms. Afawk, they did not do any tests on parchment and ink. They were the marks.

Reminder:

Point 6 when things go sour for the narcissist:

They will seek to find someone to blame for their troubles or downfall, preferably someone that cannot defend themselves.

Dead people, of course, are the easiest to attack and insult as they have no rebuttal.


But consider the arrogance necessary for anyone nowadays to actually think "I know what they did BETTER THAN THEY DID!"
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
And we have a write-up by Snapp post-debate


Yesterday, I had the opportunity to debate Steven Avery on the subject of the genuineness of Codex Sinaiticus. He alleged that it was produced in the 1800s; I maintained that it was produced in the 300s. Our host was L. J. Thriepland, on the YouTube channel FollowInTruth LJ. The debate lasted almost two hours. (Those pressed for time may want to set the playback speed to x2.)

Proverbs 27:2 says, "Let another man praise thee, and not thine own mouth." So I welcome viewers/readers to watch the video, and ask themselves if there is any basis whatsoever for the claims about Sinaiticus that have been spread by Steven Avery, David Daniels, Chris Pinto, Bill Cooper, and David Sorenson. I think that the evidence I have presented make it absolutely clear that the only motive for their support of Simonides' demonstrably false claims is linked to their KJV-Onlyism.

Simonides' claims are proven to be false by the same evidence, and more, that Constantine Tischendorf pointed out in a one-page note on page 478 of the 1863 Journal of Sacred Literature:
the NT text in Sinaiticus "differs essentially (principiell) in several thousand places from all the Moscow editions [the primary source Simonides said was used], and all the manuscripts which have been written for the past thousand years; occasionally it stands quite alone in its readings; sometimes it agrees only with the Vatican or the Cambridge manuscripts, and contains many readings which must appear gross heresies in a copy destined as a present to the orthodox emperor."

Sinaiticus "in the Old Testament, the text of Judith and Tobit "are of quite a different recension - a recension still preserved principally in old Latin and old Syriac documents."

In addition to such proofs of Sinaiticus' antiquity, readers/viewers may consider the features of the manuscript that I pointed out in the debate:

l Multiple scribes worked in the manuscript's production, shown by their different spelling, use of space-fillers, and replacement-pages. This collides with Simonides' claim to have written the entire manuscript himself.

l The manuscript was used for centuries, as shown by layers of correction and annotations (some in Arabic).

l Reinforced lettering on multiple pages (in a manuscript that Simonides said was new in 1841).

l Extensive damage to the manuscript in the books on the Pentateuch (in a manuscript that Simonides said was new in 1841).

But I think the plainest evidence the Simonides lied habitually about the manuscript is his claim that after writing the Greek text of the Old and New Testaments, and the book of Barnabas, and the first part of Hermas, "the supply of parchment ran short." He stated this in print in the 1863 For the 1975 New Finds included pages from Hermas from near the end of the book. Simonides obviously did not know any more about the manuscript in 1863 than what he had read in Tischendorf's descriptions of it.

People might ask, "Why would Simonides make such a claim?" The answer is simple: his motive was simple revenge; he hoped to besmirch Tischendorf because earlier, in 1856, Tischendorf had exposed his attempt to con German scholars into buying one of his forgeries.

It is no wonder that Tischendorf called Simonides' claims an "insane fancy." He concluded his brief note in 1863 by saying, "Sound eyes and ordinary common sense are quite sufficient for the purpose of seeing the absurdity of the Simonides tale" - but, "mundus vulti decepi," and "volent non fit injuria."

(These two Latin phrase may be paraphrased as "The world wants to be fooled" and "to a willing person, injury is not done" - a way of saying that those who listen to Simonides, knowing he was a seller of forgeries, have only themselves to blame for being deceived. - A principle similar to, "You knew there was a risk of getting hit by a baseball when you went to the baseball game.")
 
Last edited:

Maestroh

Well-known member
Nonsense. Never said that.

You waste time with every post.

So now you're telling us she DOES believe it?

See - this is the problem - YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND HOW SCHOLARSHIP WORKS!!!

Nothing wrong with that...except after several of us telling you this - you get madder and angrier and post more and more ridiculous stuff.

The part you've still not been able to grasp is how many people would LOVE to be the scholar who exposed the fraud of such a thing.
Your opinion that scholars all walk in lockstep and do nothing but quote each other is laughable - but it's also more gaslighting from you since that's all you do.

YOU are the one who keeps MISREPRESENTING Helen Shenton, Brent Nongbri, Uspenski and literally dozens of other people.
You even misrepresent Simonides.

Nowhere on your Pure Bible Forum does it EVER say "Uspenski dated Sinaiticus to the fifth century."

And yet YOU are the one who accuses other people of "hiding things" - you do that which you accuse others (falsely might I add)
of doing. Hence - gaslighting.


If your OPINION is true on Sinaiticus, WHY do you have to resort to such tactics?
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
It is easy to document that the 1844 heist was a simple theft.

If it's so easy, this one should be a slam dunk.
Let's look at what we're told the evidence is as of nearly five years ago.


As Kallinikos saw and wrote,

So Avery's "proof" of thievery is...a letter written by Simonides under the name Kallinikos.....also known as HEARSAY evidence (in this case, a bald-faced lie).

THIS is his evidence, folks.

And I reiterate - he and the "this is fake" folks have NOTHING in their corner except letters from a lying forger.
NOTHING!!!


Tischendorf had been the receipient when the librarian 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".

It wasn't too secret if Kallinikos knew about it AND SAW IT.

But now we're right back to Bradshaw and Wright - why no mention of this anywhere for eighteen years?

And if we're going to say, "He DID tell Simonides," when did he tell him?
And why didn't Simonides thus know the CFA he saw in Leipzig was his own work?


Steven Avery
Jan 3, 2018

Now in light of this condescending snark less than 60 hours ago:
You do all this nonsense simply because you can not discuss Sinaiticus authenicity.

Sure appears like a simple question to me.

And I can understand why it is SO HARD for you to just say the words, "I'm wrong."

But you are.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
I focus here on Avery's (up until now) devious and deceptive way of speaking/writing about the "production" (key word "production") of the Sinaiticus. He's been holding to a hereto secret dichotomy of the word "production" until we forced his hand a couple of days ago (this Thursday, December 1st).

And we have a write-up by Snapp post-debate

Yesterday, I had the opportunity to debate Steven Avery on the subject of the genuineness of Codex Sinaiticus. He alleged that it was produced in the 1800s; I maintained that it was produced in the 300s.

But, Avery, now goes for a parchment production date of 1500's...

I asked him these very specific questions:

So, is the Codex Sinaiticus parchment itself, to you personally, an A.D. 1500's production (meaning grown, processed/tanned, prepared A D. 1500's)👉?👈

Or, is the Codex Sinaiticus parchment itself, to you personally, an A.D. 1800's production (meaning grown, processed/tanned, prepared A.D. 1800's)👉?👈

Or, is the Codex Sinaiticus parchment itself, to you personally, an A.D. 400's production (meaning grown, processed/tanned, prepared A.D. 400's)👉?👈

To which he replied at this link: https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-31#post-972018 citing this part of my post below:

So, is the Codex Sinaiticus parchment itself, to you personally, an A.D. 1500's production (meaning grown, processed/tanned, prepared A D. 1500's)👉?👈

[Emphasis added]

Saying:

This is a good estimation.

Pointing to a parchment production date of 1500's.

I ask, is this guy ever straight forwardly honest?

If he's holding to a dichotomy between the parchment production (meaning, the date when the cattle were breed and grown, slaughtered, skinned, tanned, scraped, processed etc) and a separate production for the writing of the text, then why does he hold his breath for BAM testing?

Because it gets down to paleography (the date of writing on top of the parchment)...does it not?

Slime-onides said in the Guardian 21st of January edition, 1863, that the parchment was "prepared for another purpose":

"...he [refering to uncy Bene] recalled me to Athos. I sailed from the Pireaus in the month of November, 1839, and landed again at Athos for the fifth time. After a few days I undertook the task of transcribing the Codex, the text of which as I remarked before,
had many years previously been prepared for another purpose..."​

Which going back earlier still, beyond this part of the story, to what Simonides said was the parchments it's original "purpose", is his very unlikely/improbable story, that the poor (wealth renouncing) Monks at Mt Athos using the highest ("exceptional" Helen Shelton) quality ("expensive" Uspenksy) parchment for a mere ambiguous "short discourse" and a few unexceptional "panergyics", which is obviously a load of garbage.

And looking personally at Simonides many existing examples of his calligraphy, he's simply not up to the grade (nor does it match) the hand writing on the Codex Sinaiticus. As Kalliga said, he was a very "clumsy" forger.
 
Last edited:

Maestroh

Well-known member
The following questions have been on the Internet for Steven Avery since 2015.
He has yet to answer them.

If he wants to go the "you waste time" etc route, let's see him answer ACTUAL questions rather that continue avoiding them.
This was originally on CARM in 2015. It has been posted on several sites - and he has continued to avoid answering.

1) Where did David Daniels train in paleography? (post 2)

2) How does the manuscript coming online in 2009 change Avery's 2011 strongly worded opinion about how if one is just familiar with the details, it's OBVIOUS that it is NOT a 19th century document? (post 27)

3) How many of these scholars have ever come down on the side of saying Simonides told the truth and Sinaiticus dates to the 19th century? (post 27)

4) Does ANY paleographer in the world date Sinaiticus to the 19th century? (post 31)

5) Who made the accusation that the manuscript was darkened? (post 31)

6) Where did Steven Avery study 'forensic history' (post 39)

7) How much study of paleography have you (note: Steven Avery) ever done? (post 58)

8) Does your source Brent Nongbri have ANY papyri that he thinks are dated wrongly by 1500 years? (post 58)

9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled? (post 62)

10) How are they to be handled? (post 62) as in 'what precautions are necessary?'

11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read? (post 62)

12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed? (post 62)

13) How is the lighting to be set? (Post 62)

14) How long did it take you to take the photographs? (post 62)

15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus? (post 65)

16) Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE with photographing manuscripts? (post 65)

17) Do any of the OTHER two members of the SART team have any REAL experience in linguistics? (post 65)

18) What are the published works of those in question 17? (post 65)

19) Do the people at the CSP who host the manuscript online SAY it is an 1800s production? (post 87)

20) What date then do they give it?

21) How does Steven Avery actually KNOW the manuscript at CSP is really Sinaiticus? (post 113)

22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied? (post 113)

23) How many experiments have you ever done on parchment? (Post 113)

24) In 2011, you claimed there was a typewritten note regarding Sinaiticus. Where is it?
 
Top