The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Already quoted.
To review, from my starting point.

First I mentioned the page-turning of the MANUSCRIPT.

Yes. YOU mentioned it. Not me. YOU.


You responded with what you thought was the page-turning of Codex Vaticanus.

No. The video doesn't even contain the pages of the facsimile being turned. You didn't even pay attention to the video. Your mistake. Not mine and I never said anything about "easy peasy" page turning in my initial post. Like always Avery, you don't pay attention and you live in imaginary scenarios in your head. No one is there in your head but YOU. I'm sure it is very scary in there.

At the time you did not realize that your page-turning "Same scholar. Same approach" was of the FACSIMILE BOOK of Vaticanus.

You don't think I know what a facsimile is? Vaticanus has been in the "Pope's library" for a very long time. What a facsimile does, like I SAID, it shows the photographic evidence that Vaticanus is very similar in material condition to Sinaiticus. I provided video evidence that you use yourself. The same scholar is doing the work. That is what I appealed to you and you can't quote me for referencing "easy peasy" page turning. I did reference "easy peasy" paging turning in later videos. You're ignore this. You're a "hack" of epic proportions.

If you posted honestly, you could have corrected that right away.
Now it is a perfect example of obstinate blunder posting.

Look at who is appealing to "honesty". You're the most dishonest KJVOist in existence. Most every KJVOist avoids you because you are an embarrassment to "the cause".

You are unable to admit your error simply because you through out gratuitous insults while you make the blunder.
So you dance and dance instead. It is actually pretty funny.

Why would I care what you consider funny? Again. You're living in your imagination. You're not dealing with what I wrote. You got caught with "your pants down".

You don't like it when your own methods are used against you.... Do you?
 
He is asserting something that he has never seen, nor handled. He will never handle Codex Sinaiticus. Yet he pretends to know it. All evidence leads against him, but he doubles down on fraud, and he doesn't even think to handle the manuscript. Not even to lay his own eyes on it.

and he doesn't like it when others use his own methods against him. He is unstable in this silly doctrine he is fabricating.
 
The Virgil video jumped around too much to know what was going on, and the voice was in Italian.

Amazingly, it looks like you are blundering yet again, acknowledging that you confuse facsimiles with manuscripts, thinking they can be compared as to the manuscript's flexible, youthful easy-peasy page turning.

You need to review the videos again. As always you're confused . The facsimile video I first posted doesn't show the facsimile being turned. Your imagination aren't real Avery. I can't respond to your imaginations.
 
You need to review the videos again. As always you're confused . The facsimile video I first posted doesn't show the facsimile being turned.

He is flipping the book with a block of pages around the 2:00 mark, lightly, carelessly (because it is a book, not a manuscript).

You actually wrote that this is Vaticanus!

Same scholar. Same approach.
Notice the condition of vaticinus. Very similar to the video you produced.

You did not realize that it was not the actual Vaticanus, but a book facsimile edition, so you thought it was like the Sinaiticus video.
You still do not acknowledge your error.

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

Nonetheless, I thank you for finding a manuscript with page-turning, the Archimedes Palimpsest.
Good job, and now on its own thread with Sinaiticus, showing the page-turning comparison.

Once again, the contras give us wonderful material for showing that Sinaiticus is a new manuscript.

=========================
 
Last edited:
He is flipping the book with a block of pages around the 2:00 mark, lightly, carelessly (because it is a book, not a manuscript).

You actually wrote that this is Vaticanus!



You did not realize that it was not the actual Vaticanus, but a book facsimile edition, so you thought it was like the Sinaiticus video.
You still do not acknowledge your error.

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

Nonetheless, I thank you for finding a manuscript with page-turning, the Archimedes Palimpsest.
Good job, and now on its own thread with Sinaiticus, showing the page-turning comparison.

Once again, the contras give us wonderful material for showing that Sinaiticus is a new manuscript.

=========================
The is no page turning around the 2 minute mark. I never said it was book Avery. It is not even bound. It is not a new manuscript. It is a facsmile. You know the same type of evidence you always use. A photographic representation. What is wrong with you. Your lies are getting worse and worse.

I didn't reference the Archimedes document. You're delusional.
 
I didn't reference the Archimedes document.

Right. Correction noted.

It was cjab who made the wonderful first find reference of the Archimedes Palimpsest page turning video, then you added a comment.

See how easy it is to make a correction.

Yet you still have not corrected your Vaticanus (misspelled) error, comparing it to Sinaiticus, when your Vaticanus was a facsimile book! So, uncorrected, obstinate, your error graduated to a blunder.
 
It is a facsmile. You know the same type of evidence you always use. A photographic representation.

More blunderama.
The Sinaiticus BBC video, which was the context of my post, is the actual manuscript, not a facsimile.

Are you really unaware of something so simple?

And even the CSP pictures are NOT a facsimile.

Vocabulary 101.

We may be getting closer to the root of your problem.
 
Right. Correction noted.

It was cjab who made the wonderful first find reference of the Archimedes Palimpsest page turning video, then you added a comment.

See how easy it is to make a correction.

Yet you still have not corrected your Vaticanus (misspelled) error, comparing it to Sinaiticus, when your Vaticanus was a facsimile book! So, uncorrected, obstinate, your error graduated to a blunder
You haven't corrected your false claims concerning me. Sure. I misspelled Vaticanus on my phone and didn't correct it before the time out. Wow. My mistake. Do I need to find every time you've blundered in similar manner? You're such a petty small child.
 
More blunderama.
The Sinaiticus BBC video, which was the context of my post, is the actual manuscript, not a facsimile.

Are you really unaware of something so simple?

And even the CSP pictures are NOT a facsimile.

Vocabulary 101.

We may be getting closer to the root of your problem.
More Weasel words from you. Vocabulary? I posted the definition of a facsimile. You're not paying attention. I've been communicating just fine.
 
More blunderama.
The Sinaiticus BBC video, which was the context of my post, is the actual manuscript, not a facsimile.

Are you really unaware of something so simple?

And even the CSP pictures are NOT a facsimile.

Vocabulary 101.

We may be getting closer to the root of your problem.
BTW... How much do you believe that facsimile cost? My bet is it cost more than your entire collection of evidence for anything you've ever personally owned yourself.
 
You haven't corrected your false claims concerning me. Sure. I misspelled Vaticanus on my phone and didn't correct it before the time out. Wow. My mistake.

You pretended that the video was about the manuscript Vaticanus.

It was a facsimile book edition that made no sense as a comparator to the Sinaiticus BBC video.
 
When did Tischendorf first tell the basket story?

The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as Reported in the Personal Letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
By J. M. Featherstone

Petersburg 20 November 1859 p. 398
PDF Page 16


"...Tischendorf told their Majesties the whole story, from the discovery of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus on ; the famous basket evoked shock and amazement. The emperor has little time, but listened for twenty minutes ; then he left, but said he would see the rest of the collection on Monday at 12 :00. The empress stayed twenty minutes longer ; she also wanted to hear about his earlier trip..."

https://www.academia.edu/1123038/Th...tters_of_Konstantin_Tischendorf?auto=download
 
When did Tischendorf first tell the basket story?
The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as Reported in the Personal Letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
By J. M. Featherstone
Petersburg 20 November 1859 p. 398
PDF Page 16

"...Tischendorf told their Majesties the whole story, from the discovery of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus on ; the famous basket evoked shock and amazement. The emperor has little time, but listened for twenty minutes ; then he left, but said he would see the rest of the collection on Monday at 12 :00. The empress stayed twenty minutes longer ; she also wanted to hear about his earlier trip..."
https://www.academia.edu/1123038/Th...tters_of_Konstantin_Tischendorf?auto=download

1859 - pretty late in the day, and still no mention of saving from fire

A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex - (2018)
Kevin McGrane
63 In private correspondence to his brother Julius on June 15, 1844, he merely states that as a result of his researches at St Catherine’s ‘I came into possession of’ (‘ich bin in den Besitzge langt von’) the 43 leaves, the propriety of which is hardly convincing. There is not the slightest mention of discovering them or finding them in a waste basket, or saving them from the fire. - p. 35

So it was all a cover story, confirmed by other elements like the other thefts at the same time, the five full intact quires, the strategic placement of the colophons and the Uspensky 1845 report and the Simonides-Kallinikos report of the theft.

Thanks for helping document this theft and tissues of lies.
 
Last edited:
1859 - pretty late in the day, and still no mention of saving from fire

It's not a word for word repetition of everything Tischendorf said. It's a brief summary/report (very brief). Who said Tischendorf had to have a secretary travelling with him everywhere he went taking dictation of everything single word he said Mr. Avery? And that it must be published in a newspaper? Or every time he told the story to someone of note, that every single minute detail must be recorded in a letter (or repeated over and over again)?

Your 20th/21st century retrospective parameters (hindsight framing) are totally unrealistic.

And if you (or the readers) haven't noticed - it's the same year 1859 - just a few months after he was given the bulk of the manuscript by the Spiritual Son of Cyril the Librarian (with several other witnesses/monks surrounding him in the Steward's room) at Sinai itself.

Your reasoning is quite specious.
 
Last edited:
1859 - pretty late in the day, and still no mention of saving from fire

A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex - (2018)
Kevin McGrane


So it was all a cover story, confirmed by other elements like the other thefts at the same time, the five full intact quires, the strategic placement of the colophons and the Uspensky 1845 report and the Simonides-Kallinikos report of the theft.

Thanks for helping document this theft and tissues of lies.

It's more likely, than unlikely, that he included the saved from the fire part.

Read the words again.

"...Tischendorf told their Majesties the whole story..."​
 
1859 - pretty late in the day, and still no mention of saving from fire

It is reported that from before October 1859...

Tischendorf industriously spread his story throughout the whole of Cairo.

New documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus By Ihor Ŝevĉenko
Scriptorium Année
1964, l18-1, Pages 55-80

Letter by Germanos to Cyril
Dated Oct 16/28, 1859
Page 62 (35)


"Contrary to our recommendations and to his own promises, Tischendorf, as soon as he put his hands on the book [i.e. the Codex Sinaiticus], hastened to spread the news throughout the whole of Cairo, either out of vanity or for some other reason. We also learned that he had beforehand published an article on this subject in an English daily [Journal of Sacred Literature, July 1859]. Since by now [i.e. October] people here have no other subject of conversation than the affairs of Sinai..."​



Tischendorf's story was the talk of all of Cairo...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top