The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Maestroh

Well-known member
Now take note of the incredulous use of the same name "Callistratus" in his two different account's of the same alleged discovery "at the Mt. Sinai monastary" (i.e. St. Catherine's) below.



"The Journal of sacred and Biblical Literature"
Vol. 3, 1863
"Miscellanies"
Page 216-217


"In 1852 [...] [Page 217] I then began my philological researches, for there were several valuable MSS. in the [St. Catherine's Mt. Sinai] library, which I wished to examine. Amongst them, I found the pastoral writings of, Hermas, the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew, and the disputed Epistle of Aristeas to Philoctetes (all written on Egyptian papyrus of the first century), with others not unworthy of note,
All this I communicated to Constantius, and afterwards to my spiritual father, Callistratus at Alexandria..."

[St. Catherine's, Mt. Sinai added by me]

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...AAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA215&printsec=frontcover


Did you note the name "Callistratus"?

Which in Greek would be Καλλίστρατος

This is the same fake name (supposedly) of his "spiritual father" in "Alexandria", which somehow, is the same name of the alleged writer - of the very same fake Hermas manuscript, which he's supposedly describing as being discovered, in his failed 1857 magazine "Memnon":


"Memnon"
By Constantine Simonides

[No page numbers are in this magazine]
Munich, 1857
[the year after Simonides' arrest and imprisonment in Berlin]
My summary

ΚΑΛΛΙΣΤΡΑΤΕΙΟΝ
ἀπόγραφον ( α )
ΑΙ ΠΟΙΜENIΚΑΙ ΓΡΑΦΑΙ ΕΡΜΑ ΑΣΥΓΚΡΙΤΟΥ ΛΑΟΔΙΚΕΩΕ ΤΟΥ ΑΠΟΣΤΟΛΟΥ.

KALLISTRATEION
Copy ( a )
"HOLY SHEPHERDS, A WRITING OF HERMAS FROM THE PEERLESS WORD OF THE LAODICIAN APOSTLE"

Discovery location: Τὸ ἀπόγραφον τοῦτο ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸ Σίναιον ὄρος μονῇ τῷ 1852 ἀνακαλυφθὲν, "this copy was discovered in the monastery on Mt Sinai in 1852"
Discovery date: 1852
Date written: 1st century A.D./C.E.
Material: Papyrus
Manuscript type: ἀπόγραφον "a copy"
Language: Egyptian (Egyptian Greek?)
Script: Unicial/Majuscule
Format: Four columns, fifty two verses,
Copyist: Καλλίστρατος ἐκαλεῖτο ἐξ Ἀντιοχείας "Callistratus, so-called, from out of Antioch"




This same name coincidence, is more than a little weird.


The Journal of Sacred Literature
By John Kitto, Henry Burgess, Benjamin Harris Cowper
Publication date 1848
Page 212, Paragraph 1


“Whereupon the holy monk Callistratus, having compared it [i.e. the Codex Sinaiticus allegedly] with other codices of the same monastery at the bidding of the Patriarch Constantius, and having corrected it in part, left it in the library, awaiting the return of Simonides.”

https://archive.org/details/journalsacredli15cowpgoog/page/212/mode/1up

I thought I'd just point this out, to show the snowballing incredulity in his continuous lies, and the characteristic anomalies that he unwittingly creates - as he creates yet more and more lies to cover over his even older lies, and as he gets roasted in the media, and called out, yardy yardy ya...along the way.

"Impossible knowledge"....if you eat paint chips regularly......
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
One thing that is becoming more and more apparent, as I dig deeper and deeper into this, is the share amount of lies that Simonides told.

It's a veritable tsunami of lies!

He's (IMO) deliberately overwhelming the moral sensibilities of the average Christian of the 1800's with the share amount of lies, ("surely no one would tell that amount of lies"!) and his brazen and shameless audacity.

I think he's counting on them giving up in there research, by the lengths he's gone to (as Rudager puts it)

  • SEEK / TARGET
  • RESEARCH
  • FORGE
... to make his stories sound and appear utterly plausible.

Maestro, who's done far more research in this than me, is absolutely right that he lies, lies, lies, and then LIES about his LIES...

Absolutely nothing he's says can be trusted.

The degree and volume of dishonesty involved exceeds anything I've ever seen (barring the Devil himself and his demon lacky's).

I know it's been stated, and... but... He casually lies about EVERYTHING, then lies about that...and never stops LYING...
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
One thing that is becoming more and more apparent, as I dig deeper and deeper into this, is the share amount of lies that Simonides told.

It's a veritable tsunami of lies!

He's (IMO) deliberately overwhelming the moral sensibilities of the average Christian of the 1800's with the share amount of lies, ("surely no one would tell that amount of lies"!) and his brazen and shameless audacity.

I think he's counting on them giving up in there research, by the lengths he's gone to (as Rudager puts it)

  • SEEK / TARGET
  • RESEARCH
  • FORGE
... to make his stories sound and appear utterly plausible.

Maestro, who's done far more research in this than me, is absolutely right that he lies, lies, lies, and then LIES about his LIES...

Absolutely nothing he's says can be trusted.

The degree and volume of dishonesty involved exceeds anything I've ever seen (barring the Devil himself and his demon lacky's).

I know it's been stated, and... but... He casually lies about EVERYTHING, then lies about that...and never stops LYING...
"This is a book about liars.....Lying liars who lie. These people seem to live and thrive on lies." - David W. Daniels, Is the Worlds Oldest Bible a Fake? pg. 25, Kindle.


He describes Simonides perfectly!
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
"This is a book about liars.....Lying liars who lie. These people seem to live and thrive on lies." - David W. Daniels, Is the Worlds Oldest Bible a Fake? pg. 25, Kindle.


He describes Simonides perfectly!

At least in that book he's willing to admit Simonides was a liar (in the epilogue).

Granted - he only did it because he wants to believe Tischendorf stained the manuscript.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
Maybe the next debate of Steven Avery needs to be with himself.

I guess he doesn't know that when you post stuff elsewhere, people can find it.

The scribal blunderama was also pointed out by Adolf Hilgenfeld (1823-1907) as described in the Theological Review:

[QUOTE="Steven Avery post_id=144028 time=1665407932 user_id=3049]
We all can chuckle at how easily the textual establishment was duped by Tischendorf, who pointed the scholars to his smoothed and tampered, deceptive facsimile edition rather than the actual manuscript.
[/QUOTE]


So folks couldn't make their minds up because "facsimile" but he then likes Hilgenfeld who only used......"facsimile"....

:)
 

Unbound68

Well-known member
I discussed this with Flavio Marzo, and there really is no hard evidence of multiple bindings.

This is in many accounts (even though there really is no evidence, I went over some of these issues with Flavio Marzo, who was very helpful.)
Emphasis mine.


First, ditto to what TNC previously said in response to your Marzo comments.

Second, I call BS. Why not share with us what his response was to the questions you asked him in that 2016 e-mail? How exactly was he "very helpful?" (Don't forget, I saved copies of those private correspondences before you hid them)
 

cjab

Well-known member
[QUOTE="Steven Avery post_id=144028 time=1665407932 user_id=3049]
We all can chuckle at how easily the textual establishment was duped by Tischendorf, who pointed the scholars to his smoothed and tampered, deceptive facsimile edition rather than the actual manuscript.
This is of course untrue. English scholars visited Tischendorf in Leipzig in to see the Codex Sinaiticus first-hand including Tregelles and Bradshaw:

"I had the satisfaction of examining the manuscript after my own fashion. I had been anxious to know whether it was written in even
continuous quaternions throughout, like the Codex Beza:, or in a series of fasciculi each ending with a quire of varying size, as the Codex Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This, by-the־by, is of itself sufficient to prove that it cannot be the volume which
Dr Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos." - Bradshaw p.97, "A MEMOIR OF HENRY BRADSHAW"

"On my return from Leipsic, and other places in Germany, I have
stayed for a few days in London; and just before leaving { find for the
first time that in the last number of your Journal (issued while I was
in Germany) a translation is given of the attacks made on me by Pro-
fessor Tischendorf in the prolegomena to his Greek Testament of
1859. I may reasonably ask why the same prominence has not been given
to my published answers, as has been accorded to Tischendorf’s attacks.
In the additions to my volume of Horne’s Introduction, edition 2, I
said all that I thought necessary; and in the preface to Codex Zacynthius
had the satisfaction of mentioning the result of my answer in
connexion with Tischendorf himself. When he was aware of the manner in which he had himself pro-
posed to me to edit the Codex Claromontanus together, and when he
remembered how I had acted on this proposition, he saw that I could
have made no intentional misrepresentation, and when he saw that he
had himself allowed me to remain in my mistake (if mistake it was),
as to having written to him in 1853 as to my intention of publishing
R, he was quite willing to write to me in a thoroughly conciliatory
spirit. It has been at his desire that I have been examining the Codex
Sinaiticus; of which he gave me the free use prior to its publication;
and of which I availed myself for several days at Leipsic.

It was, therefore, a great surprise to me to see charges reproduced
against me which Tischendorf would not now make; and that not in
the obscurity of a learned language, but translated into English.
August 27, 1862. S. P. Tregelles


p.178 "Jounal of Sacred Literature," 1862, October III
p.158 "The Life and Times of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles," Stunt
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
This is of course untrue. English scholars visited Tischendorf in Leipzig in to see the Codex Sinaiticus first-hand including Tregelles and Bradshaw:

"I had the satisfaction of examining the manuscript after my own fashion. I had been anxious to know whether it was written in even
continuous quaternions throughout, like the Codex Beza:, or in a series of fasciculi each ending with a quire of varying size, as the Codex Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This, by-the־by, is of itself sufficient to prove that it cannot be the volume which
Dr Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos." - Bradshaw p.97, "A MEMOIR OF HENRY BRADSHAW"

"On my return from Leipsic, and other places in Germany, I have
stayed for a few days in London; and just before leaving { find for the
first time that in the last number of your Journal (issued while I was
in Germany) a translation is given of the attacks made on me by Pro-
fessor Tischendorf in the prolegomena to his Greek Testament of
1859. I may reasonably ask why the same prominence has not been given
to my published answers, as has been accorded to Tischendorf’s attacks.
In the additions to my volume of Horne’s Introduction, edition 2, I
said all that I thought necessary; and in the preface to Codex Zacynthius
had the satisfaction of mentioning the result of my answer in
connexion with Tischendorf himself. When he was aware of the manner in which he had himself pro-
posed to me to edit the Codex Claromontanus together, and when he
remembered how I had acted on this proposition, he saw that I could
have made no intentional misrepresentation, and when he saw that he
had himself allowed me to remain in my mistake (if mistake it was),
as to having written to him in 1853 as to my intention of publishing
R, he was quite willing to write to me in a thoroughly conciliatory
spirit. It has been at his desire that I have been examining the Codex
Sinaiticus; of which he gave me the free use prior to its publication;
and of which I availed myself for several days at Leipsic.

It was, therefore, a great surprise to me to see charges reproduced
against me which Tischendorf would not now make; and that not in
the obscurity of a learned language, but translated into English.
August 27, 1862. S. P. Tregelles


p.178 "Jounal of Sacred Literature," 1862, October III
p.158 "The Life and Times of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles," Stunt

As a reminder:

1) Steven Avery will say ANYTHING - true or untrue - to hold to his delusions
2) He repeatedly claims, "Tischendorf kept the manuscript apart" - as if that somehow would keep someone from seeing them.

What Avery demonstrates most often is that he doesn't understand anything at all about either the subject or the time in which these people lived. Mobility was enough during the first century for manuscripts to be similar and all over the place; Leipzig is less than 650 miles from London. No, it's not down the street, but it's not impossible to do, either.
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
This is of course untrue. English scholars visited Tischendorf in Leipzig in to see the Codex Sinaiticus first-hand including Tregelles and Bradshaw:

"I had the satisfaction of examining the manuscript after my own fashion. I had been anxious to know whether it was written in even
continuous quaternions throughout, like the Codex Beza:, or in a series of fasciculi each ending with a quire of varying size, as the Codex Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This, by-the־by, is of itself sufficient to prove that it cannot be the volume which
Dr Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos." - Bradshaw p.97, "A MEMOIR OF HENRY BRADSHAW"

"On my return from Leipsic, and other places in Germany, I have
stayed for a few days in London; and just before leaving { find for the
first time that in the last number of your Journal (issued while I was
in Germany) a translation is given of the attacks made on me by Pro-
fessor Tischendorf in the prolegomena to his Greek Testament of
1859. I may reasonably ask why the same prominence has not been given
to my published answers, as has been accorded to Tischendorf’s attacks.
In the additions to my volume of Horne’s Introduction, edition 2, I
said all that I thought necessary; and in the preface to Codex Zacynthius
had the satisfaction of mentioning the result of my answer in
connexion with Tischendorf himself. When he was aware of the manner in which he had himself pro-
posed to me to edit the Codex Claromontanus together, and when he
remembered how I had acted on this proposition, he saw that I could
have made no intentional misrepresentation, and when he saw that he
had himself allowed me to remain in my mistake (if mistake it was),
as to having written to him in 1853 as to my intention of publishing
R, he was quite willing to write to me in a thoroughly conciliatory
spirit. It has been at his desire that I have been examining the Codex
Sinaiticus; of which he gave me the free use prior to its publication;
and of which I availed myself for several days at Leipsic.

It was, therefore, a great surprise to me to see charges reproduced
against me which Tischendorf would not now make; and that not in
the obscurity of a learned language, but translated into English.
August 27, 1862. S. P. Tregelles


p.178 "Jounal of Sacred Literature," 1862, October III
p.158 "The Life and Times of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles," Stunt

I read somewhere, in French material, someone saying (Lepsius? or Mordtmann?) that Simonides was a daily visitor of the Codex Sinaiticus the Leipzig University Library where it was on public display in the 1850's.

I'm going to find that quotation again one day, and I'll put it here.


There's also this, which was available from 1846 onwards for Simonides and Scholars to examine:


"Codex Friderico-Augustanus, sive, Fragmenta Veteris Testamenti : e codice graeco omnium qui in Europa supersunt
facile antiquissimo in Oriente detexit, in patriam attulit, ad modum Codicis Edidit.”
Sumtibus Caroli Francisci Koehleri,
E Lithographeo J. J. Uckermanni
Lipsiae, 1846

“The Codex Friderico-Augustanus, or, Fragments of the Old Testament : From, what is easily, the Oldest Surviving Greek Codex in the East
[Or: “Orient”], and brought to the Fatherland, published in the form of a Codex.”
At the undertaking of
[Or: “Published by”] Charles Francis Koehler
From a lithograph by J. J. Uckermann
Leipzig, 1846



Worldcat listing:

https://www.worldcat.org/title/code...ente-detexit-in-patriam-attulit/oclc/26928232

Saxon State Library — Dresden State and University Library (SLUB)

https://digital.slub-dresden.de/wer...ter]=0&cHash=0656119e1fb17a7d9dc598e890da9b91



Note: 1846...

In one of Tregelles letters, he refers to this very lithograph and how he believed Simonides used (i.e. abused) it for forgery purposes.


Plymouth
Jan 15.1863

"In 1846, you will remember that the portion of the Old Test. of א brought to Leipsic two years before was published in a lithographed facsimile; and I quite believe that in some of the forgeries of Simonides, he tried to imitate the writing thus engraved: but it was like his imitation of Mr. Babington's editions of the Papyri of Hyperides clumsily managed: it was a continued attempt to disguise his own fine strokes. [...]

I remain
yours most truly
S. P. Tregelles.​
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Note also the comment:

Plymouth
Jan 15.1863

"and I quite believe that in some of the forgeries of Simonides, he tried to imitate the writing thus engraved: but it was like his imitation of Mr. Babington's editions of the Papyri of Hyperides clumsily managed: it was a continued attempt to disguise his own fine strokes. [...]

I remain
yours most truly
S. P. Tregelles.​


The same conclusion drawn, more recently, by Malcolm Choat and Tommy Wassermann in:


“THE CABLE GUY”: CONSTANTINE SIMONIDES AND CODEX MAYERIANUS"
Tommy Wasserman Ansgar University College and Theological Seminary and Malcolm Choat Macquarie University
Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 57 (2020)
Page 200, Paragraph 2
Page 2003, Paragraph 2


"It is quite apparent from the characteristics of the Hyperides papyrus as well as Babington’s ensuing edition that Simonides used the manuscript and its edition as models for Mayerianus. [...] [Page 203] It is thus likely that the Hyperides papyrus was the model not only for the format of Simonides’ biblical papyri, but also elements of their script. Simonides’ edition of Mayerianus also shares many similarities with Babington’s 1858 Hyperides edition. [...] It is interesting to note that two of Simonides’ worst critics, Constantine von Tischendorf and Samuel Tregelles, were included in the list of subscribers of Babington’s 1858 edition among many prominent scholars of the time. No doubt Simonides knew that his enemies would compare the two papyri..."​



And he certainly did!
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Typo correction for page numbers above:

Page 203, Paragraph 2

Not page 2003.

Also, add "is" in "The same conclusion drawn, more recently" to read "The same conclusion is drawn, more recently."

Sorry, this is what happens when I post at ridiculous times of the morning, after an interrupted sleep (summer heat).
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
"Codex Friderico-Augustanus, sive, Fragmenta Veteris Testamenti : e codice graeco omnium qui in Europa supersunt
facile antiquissimo in Oriente detexit, in patriam attulit, ad modum Codicis Edidit.”
Sumtibus Caroli Francisci Koehleri,
E Lithographeo J. J. Uckermanni
Lipsiae, 1846

I think this represents the sense a bit better:

“The Codex Friderico-Augustanus, or, Fragments of the Old Testament : From, what is easily, the Oldest Surviving Greek Manuscript in the East [Or: “Orient”] that has been produced in the form [Or: "manner"] of a Codex, brought to the Fatherland.”
Published by Charles Francis Koehler
From a lithograph by J. J. Uckermann
Leipzig, 1846

 
Last edited:

Maestroh

Well-known member
the hardest thing to forge is provenance - a forger cannot alter the past

This is one of the few accurate things he's actually said.

Sinaiticus lacks any chain of custody,

Number of manuscripts in existence with chain of custody: zero.

one of the points that first hits the researcher.

No, it hits the FART team because they're trying to pick gnat dung out of pepper.


It suddenly appeared, in a time when three special Bibles in the monastery became four.

There's zero evidence this ever happened.

In fact, the forger can try to create a false past, up to a point, with additional supporting forgeries.

The more things you have to forge to make it work, the more likely you are to get caught.


e.g. an "ancient catalog" could have been brought forth from the 1700s, and any such catalog that was clearly authentic would have been a proof of authenticity,

But you'd simply deny the work described was Sinaiticus.

in the sense of not being an 1800s replica or forgery. In that case the past trumps the present. However, the catalog itself would be examined for provenance and authenticity.

Yes, and if the catalog wasn't described elsewhere, you'd complain about that, too.


However, on Sinaiticus, although such a claim was strongly made in the debate of the 1860s, (and Simonides, familiar with the monastery, gave details in declaring with full defineteness that there was no such document.) And no such catalog has ever showed up, authentic or not.

You don't know this; you've never been to the monastery. (If this is your argument for Simonides and Athos, you have no choice but to accept it when it's used against you).

My memory is that there was reference to a catalog being created at the time of the library restoration in the 1730s... and the lack of any catalogs showing up in Sinai becomes an evidence from silence against authenticity.

Double Standards Alert!!!


When there's no Greek citation of the Comma Johanneum, Avery tells us that's NOT evidence; now, he tells us silence IS evidence.

Someone needs to make up his mind which way he's facing.




Once Sinaiticus became a valuable international object, any catalogs that did not show the ms. (also any manuscript at the ms made by Simonides, as he claimed, although clearly that is historically more problematic) would be embarrassing in terms of prestige and finance. And would be likely to be crumbled, discarded or burned, or stashed away from searching eyes.

Avery literally just accused people of a massive conspiracy to lie about the date of Sinaiticus and to destroy evidence.

Basically, provenance is most helpful in establishing authenticity. There is usually nothing than can be done to eliminate an existing past that establishes authenticity for a document. However, Sinaiticus lacks any authenticity documents to even be examined.

The only thing lacking in authenticity in this discussion is the word of Constantine Simonides.

The other point that can bust a document is future elements, from the time of the writing. There is no time symmetry in palaeography. A writer in 700 AD or 1840 AD can easily write in the style of 350 AD.

Simonides denied doing that but whatever...


A calligrapher in 200 can write by hand how the AV looked printed in 1611, so that it is hard to tell which is printed and which is hand.

This imbecile just told us a person in 200 can write in 200 that looks like a book in 1611 that didn't exist....I can't even...


However nobody can copy what is only a future style of writing, nor can they write about future events. (The latter was claimed as the important point in at least one of the Simonides manuscripts.)

None of which has anything to do with Simonides, even though this claim contradicts your previous one.



However, keep in mind that looking backwards for future script has its limitations, in that the very definition of who contributed to the document is largely dependent on the script, so authenticity can be proclaimed in a circular manner. If a writer in 1840 had a document with his writing from 350 AD, and then writes a note on the document in a later script, (e.g. in the margin or bottom) it can just be said that the note was a later addition, after 350, by another hand.

In short, the only thing we have established is Avery has never studied paleography and knows nothing about it.
 

Buzzard

Well-known member
hey manestroh;
every time i click on the link to averys post
I Steven Avery said:

I get this

Can we agree that a civil war would be bad?​


do you have a better link
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
hey manestroh;
every time i click on the link to averys post
I Steven Avery said:

I get this

Can we agree that a civil war would be bad?​


do you have a better link
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member

If he had done real research, he'd discover he is wrong.

There definitely were manuscript and book catalogues of sorts (see what the Kallinikos of Sinai said about ancient "catalogues" plural).

It's documented/written in the St Catherine's manuscripts as well.

And there exists a manuscript and book catalog at St Catherine's.

But it's missing parts.

It's both missing parts and talks about manuscripts that are now missing.

Those missing parts, very well could have described what we now call the Codex Sinaiticus.

He also judges in and by retrospective hindsight.

He judges by anachronistic standards as well.

Gotta go to work 👈😉

NOTE: We'll revisit this when Avery 1. jumps to hasty inaccurate conclusions 2. makes up fake events out if his imagination without proof 3. hastily draws conclusions about my statements and 4. makes Strawmen out of my statements. Watch this space.
 
Last edited:

Maestroh

Well-known member
Maybe @Shoonra has it best - until Steven Avery comes up with any actual EXPERTISE...not conspiracy theory, not possibility, but EXPERTISE to make his case.....maybe only then should anyone even engage him.

He knows nothing about the subject at all.
He. Wasted. His. Life.

Pathetic. Sad but his choice.
 

Maestroh

Well-known member
hey manestroh;
every time i click on the link to averys post
I Steven Avery said:

I get this

Can we agree that a civil war would be bad?​


do you have a better link

Both times you've said this, I have hit "reply" on Avery's own website and copied and pasted.
I have no idea why this is sending folks elsewhere.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Top