The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Name the specific monks who gave testimony to whom you are alluding.
First-person testimony.
You're alluding to the monks, cf. "They were hopeful of getting big $$ for the junque manuscript."

By this you mean Cyril, I suppose. If he were alive, he'd sue you for libel.
 
You're alluding to the monks, cf. "They were hopeful of getting big $$ for the junque manuscript."
By this you mean Cyril, I suppose. If he were alive, he'd sue you for libel.

There would be no suit, because we would have a wonderful discovery.

Btw, Cyril was deposed as corrupt, so he would have lots of people to unsuccessfully sue.
He was Tischendorf's main inside guy.

Hendrickson publishers gave us a tampered Sinaiticus book text in 2011, with all the colours smoothed out.
Nobody could explain how that happened.
 
You're alluding to the monks, cf. "They were hopeful of getting big $$ for the junque manuscript."
By this you mean Cyril, I suppose. ….

Any of the Sinaiticus monks would know the monasteries public position on the precious, ancient manuscript.

Plus, they could believe it was an ancient manuscript, even if they had an inkling about its 1840s arrival and knew that the ancient catalogues claim was a big lie.

After all, that is what they were told by Europeans waving $ and liquor and baksheesh.
 
You are not allowing the range of meaning of the word adduce.

“Adduce: To adduce is to cite or bring forward as an example or evidence. Example: The defense attorney adduced several witnesses to support his client's innocence.”

If you want to eliminate “cite” then you need a phrase like “physically bring forward”.

Verbal gymnastics to deny and avoid the obvious.

Objection over-ruled.
 
We have reached a point where it's not enough to defame Tischendorf but also to defame the Monks of St. Catherine's.
And at the same time ignore the reports and opinions of scores of experts who have examined the Sinaiticus.

Is it necessary to contrive such convoluted conspiracy theories when the simple explanation is so very probable?
 
And at the same time ignore the reports and opinions of scores of experts who have examined the Sinaiticus.
Oh, but he has him a fancy shmancy ‘puter with one of them thar flat screens so’s he kin get a gander at them mannerskript pages with his own spectacles and give them high-fallutin skolers wat fer!
 
Not true. Simonides clearly cited multiple people alive. Very clearly.

An actual independent inquiry would be best. In some cases there could be a hesitancy to assist Simonides due to other, later issues. A simple example is Anthimos IV, if the attempted apology from Simonides in 1856 had not resolved any concerns.

Instead we had the absurd lying of Nicolaides about Benedict, passed along by William Aldis Wright and the Investigatice Clowns.

This was an inquiry, not a law court. Learn the difference.

If they simply had compared two leaves from the two sections, the inquiry would have been over in about an hour. Simonides made the request, but he was in no position to produce the leaves.

Mordtmann, who was travelled around with Simonides in Constantinople, gave Anthimus' real answer in his article, that Simonides was rejected by the Patriarch and told to shove off.

A second witness, James the Blessed...


Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair: An Examination of the Nineteenth Century Claim that Codex Sinaiticus was Not an Ancient Manuscript.”
By James Keith Elliott
Patriarchikon Hidryma Paterikōn Meletōn
1982

Pages 115-118

[Page 115] In the light of the above Silvester Davies continued his investigations and made further enquiries about Kallinikos of Alexandria. The Guardian 2nd. December 1863 introduced the resulting correspondence and correctly assumed that these further revelations would close the Simonides controversy.

[...]​
[Letter of Amphilochius, Bishop of Pelusium, Alexandria, October 5, 1863, to Edwin J. Davies H.B.M. Consular Chaplain, Alexandria.]
[Page 118] There happened to be present, however, in the sacred Synod, his Blessed James, now Patriarch of Alexandria, then Metropolitan of Serres, who proved that Simonides was shamelessly telling falsehoods, since he, the then Bishop, was well acquainted with the holy mountain [i.e. Mt Athos] having often been there on ecclesiastical business. In consequence of this, being expelled and driven out from the sacred Synod of Constantinople, he departed into Europe; and, as it is reported on the holy mountain [i.e. Mt Athos], having traversed many parts of Europe, he passed over at last to England, where, as I think, he remains to this day.​
[…]​
Your friend, with respect and esteem,​
+ Amphilochius (Bishop) of Pelusium​
Alexandria, Egypt, the 5th Oct., 1863.​

(Translation of No. 4)

Cap 1.PNG

JAMES, Patriarch of Alexandria.​
I, the undersigned, declare that no monk of Mount Athos of the name of Kallinikos resided during the past summer in the Monastery of St. Saba, in this place. I know two monks of Sinai bearing that name, of whom one died some years ago, and the other is still living [i.e. Kallinikos of Sinai who sent the letter in 1863].​
Moreover when Mr. C. Simonides came to Alexandria in 1852, about the month of August, he resided on board the ship George and Minna of Maliaracades, Captain Nicolas, and sailed with that ship for England. He sometimes, however, slept at the wine—shop of the Cyprist, George Televantos; but I do not believe that he went to Mount Sinai; and he never resided in the Monastery of St. Saba.​
Alexandria, July 26th, 1863.​
Meletius of Syme, [= note he is from Simonides home island]
Prior and Archimandrite​
I certify the genuineness of the signature of the Archimandrite and Hegoumenos, Meletius.​


Note, James the Blessed, was a monk who had previously lived on Mt Athos.

What three interesting witnesses against Simonides ever being at Mt. Sinai...
  1. Amphilochius, was a monk in the Rossico monastery on Mt Athos at the same time as Simonides
  2. James the Blessed, who also lived previously on Mt Athos
  3. Meletius of Syme, from Simonides home island
 
Funny it is, given the large number of people at Mt. Athos, and elsewhere, and their relative importance in the church, and the sheer amount of resource that transcribing Sinaiticus would have entailed, that Simonides cannot adduce a single witness in his favor. And that is your problem: your lack of proof.

There is no onus to disprove Simonides, because Simonides hasn't even established a prima facie case. Tischendorf doesn't need to prove anything because he found the manuscript in Egypt. The monks don't need to prove anything, because bits of the manuscript were lying around in other places on the monastery and even incorporated into book bindings.

You are the person who needs to come up with the proof, but you don't have any, and neither did Simonides. Which is why he left England never to return. In any Court, your claim would be dismissed summarily without it ever going to trial. Such is also the judgement of scholars.

Makes me think of this review of Simonides Memoir...


The Literary Churchman
December 1st 1859

[Subheading]:
The Forgeries of Simonides.

[Review of]:
A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts.
By Charles Stewart (London. 78 pp. 5s.)

[First published in August,1859]

Pages 420-422


“The result of the whole matter is, that if we believe Simonides innocent, we must suppose the whole staff of German professors, Sir F. Madden, and Mr. Coxe, not only utterly incompetent to distinguish between false and genuine MSS., but actuated by envy, hatred and malice, and every other evil passion. We must suppose Lykurgos and Dr. Mordtmann guilty of shameless falsehood, and we must believe in a series of [i.e. Simonides] adventures and discoveries, to which we can liken nothing but the adventures of Sinbad the Sailor, or the story of Aladdin and his Lamp. ???Nor is this all, large as the demand is on our credulity; but we are actually required to believe that Lepsius, the ablest hieroglyphical scholar in Europe, is a complete charlatan in Egyptian lore, that all we have learnt from the researches of modern scholars as to the ancient Greek alphabet is mere moonshine, and that Boustrophedon writing was used in MSS., of which no example has ever yet been adduced. We are, moreover, expected to believe that an ancient Greek writer used the phrase kа7' un idear to express 'in my opinion,' which no Greek scholar of the present day will believe for one moment. Indeed, this little slip reminds one of a transaction which occurred in an examination some years ago. A gentleman, by permission, had copied his neighbour's Latin exercise, but asked vivá voce for one word which he had missed. He was told it was cœlum, on which he wrote down 'sealum,' and was of course detected. We shall say nothing more, but simply conclude by stating that, although all things are possible, it will require an astonishing amount of evidence to place Simonides in a condition even to entitle him to a new hearing, and that twenty tales such as those with which he now seeks to amuse the world, will have no weight whatever, without evidence, with men of sound minds. Those who wish to see the grounds on which we have made these statements of the evidence against these MSS., must consult the "Athenæum" of Feb. 16. Feb. 23, and March 8 of 1856. They will also find in the "Athenæum" of April 4, 1857, a letter from Sir T. Phillips, in which he expresses his own opinion that the Boustrophedon MS. of Homer (Iliad i.-iii.) which he purchased, is genuine, as well as some others which Sir F. Madden entirely rejected."


https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...+His+Manuscripts&pg=PA430&printsec=frontcover
 
You're alluding to the monks, cf. "They were hopeful of getting big $$ for the junque manuscript."
By this you mean Cyril, I suppose. If he were alive, he'd sue you for libel.

Btw, Cyril was deposed as corrupt

Do you have a source for this?

We have reached a point where it's not enough to defame Tischendorf but also to defame the Monks of St. Catherine's.

That Cyril, Tischendorf’s main inside man at St. Catherine’s, was ultra-corrupt was simply an historical fact.

While Janet Soskice mentions it in her book on Sinai, and even Stanley Porter gives a mention, many details are given in the superb scholarship of Anna V. Zakharova (noted excellently by David W. Daniels in his 2021 book, Who Faked the "World’s Oldest Bible"?. This is information omitted in most Sinaiticus “scholarship”.)

THE HISTORY OF THE ACQUISITION OF THE SINAI BIBLE BY THE RUSSIAN GOVERNMENT IN THE CONTEXT OF RECENT FINDINGS IN RUSSIAN ARCHIVES
Confrontation of Archbishop Cyril and Mt Sinai Brethren
https://nlr.ru/eng_old/exib/CodexSinaiticus/zah/2.html

Archbishop Cyril provoked increasing discontent among Mt Sinai community by tyrannical governing. He tried to weaken the community council in every possible way, sent away the elders he disliked, broke many rules and his own promises and embezzled community property and revenues … His stock embezzlement alone amounted to an astronomical sum of 58,383 Austrian ducats (by other estimates, 62,683 ducats) which at that meant about 180,000 silver rubles; in addition, there were multiple valuables, church utensils and documents he removed from St Catherine's sacristy and Cairo House. (continues)
 
Last edited:
Nobody went down there and interviewed the monks.

Yes they did.

The sent letters to ask them honest questions resulting from Simonides claims.

They gave honest answers!

The monks from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai (and the Rossico and Constantinople and elsewhere) gave their testimony in the form of genuine un-forged letters, (see J. K. Elliot, Pages 100-121) which cannot be said for Simonides (your split personality liar/non-liar forger's) letters Mr Avery.

Only one person in this entire controversy has the reputation for forging letters of testimony and recommendation, and that is Simonides.

Where has it ever been proved that Tischendorf forged a letter of testimony and/or recommendation in/on behalf of himself????????? Hmmmmm
 
Last edited:
Monks from the Rossico, the Island of Symi (or Syme = Simonides home island) Salonica (Thessalonika = Kallinikos' home city), the Great Lavra, the Xeropotaminos, the Holy Synod of Constantinople and Alexandria, the Great Saba monastery, etc etc all gave their answers...

Simonides was a liar!
 
Yes they did.
The sent letters to ask them honest questions resulting from Simonides claims.
They gave honest answers!
The monks from St. Catherine's monastery on Mt. Sinai (and the Rossico and Constantinople and elsewhere) gave their testimony in the form of genuine un-forged letters, (see J. K. Elliot, Pages 100-121

Kallinikos the Absent (Kallinikos of Sinai who was travelling in the 1840s and 1850 and said he learned his manuscript history from Cyril the ultra-Corrupt, Tischendorf's henchman.)

What else should we look at?

(Our context here was St. Catherine's in Sinai, I know you like to dance around.)

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

Btw, are you correcting the Uranios palimpsest picture claim?
 
Kallinikos the Absent (Kallinikos of Sinai who was travelling in the 1840s and 1850 and said he learned his manuscript history from Cyril the ultra-Corrupt, Tischendorf's henchman.)

What else should we look at?

(Our context here was St. Catherine's in Sinai, I know you like to dance around.)

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

Btw, are you correcting the Uranios palimpsest picture claim?

Weak, very weak, answers. Try again.
 
Kallinikos the Absent (Kallinikos of Sinai who was travelling in the 1840s and 1850 and said he learned his manuscript history from Cyril the ultra-Corrupt, Tischendorf's henchman.)

All the older monks who were there the entire time gave their testimony to Kallinikos of Sinai. Not just Kyrillos the Librarian.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top