The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Two important things for the readers to know about the codexsinaiticus.org website and looking at images of the Codex Sinaiticus.

First, there are two photographic light settings for looking at photo's of the Codex Sinaiticus.

  1. Standard lLight setting
  2. Raking Light setting

The Standard Light setting for photo's is the default setting for photo's of the Codex Sinaiticus.

The Standard and Raking Light setting buttons can be recognized in the red square with the arrow in the image below.

Raking Light Button ( 1 ) (1).png


NOITE: The location where these buttons are can vary slightly depending on your the website settings (full screen etc) that you may choose in order to view the website images, and/or the browser or device you use.

The difference between the two light setting's color and texture can be quite dramatic, as illustrated in the image below.

Cap 27i.PNG

I'd suggest using the Raking Light setting more often.

Secondly.

The codexsinaiticus.org website provides more details about the manuscript Project, by the tick boxes and drop down menus to the right of the page. These helpful features can be seen in the red box in the image below:

Physical Description ( 2 ).PNG

One of those features in particular, the Physical Description tick box, is very important.

But unfortunately, not every book of the Bible in the Codex Sinaiticus at the codexsinaiticus.org website has a Physical Description. So when you tick the box, nothing displays below in the dropdown menu area.

But, the good thing to know is, that most, if not all of the NT, and Barnabas, and Hermas provide a Physical Description.

NOTE: I'm not sure if any of the OT books have a Physical Description function. Please check yourself, and let me know if any have it?

Click the tick box for Physical Description, then click the drop down menu below for Condition (see image below) to find whether an individual folio has ink corrosion or not etc etc.

Physical Description ( 1 ) (1).png


All people involved in this debate need to be informed (something Avery INC has not done sufficiently) about these two important features (light settings and tick boxes for the physical descriptions etc) of the CodexSinaiticus.org website.

Please pass it on.
 
Last edited:
I found another interesting video!

Of the same event in 1933, but from a different cameraman.

To my present knowledge, Avery INC hasn't showed a link to this one.

A must watch!


British Museum acquires Codex Sinaiticus (1933)
British Pathé

530 views Nov 12, 2020
GAUMONT BRITISH NEWSREEL (REUTERS)
FILM ID: VLVAD10UR0T6RL6UCQIG7DB2JPHCY
Archive: Reuters
Archive managed by: British Pathé






Compare the above with the video Avery INC like to point to.


Variant Readings
Newsreel Footage of Codex Sinaiticus from 1933
Posted on February 13, 2019 by Brent Nongbri


https://videopress.com/v/FdScOuZ6


Let me know what you think.
 
Last edited:
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...

You are jumping around in a very confused manner.

There is nothing here about his having saved the manuscript from fire in 1844.
Not even anything about baskets.
(You can see the discussion uphill a few posts up.)

This is all about his 1859 theft-in-progress, with the emphasis on the New Testament, along with Hermas and Barnabas.

Try to actually follow the conversation.
Thanks!
 
You are jumping around in a very confused manner.

There is nothing here about his having saved the manuscript from fire in 1844.
Not even anything about baskets.
(You can see the discussion uphill a few posts up.)

This is all about his 1859 theft-in-progress, with the emphasis on the New Testament, along with Hermas and Barnabas.

Try to actually follow the conversation.
Thanks!

Folks...

Repeating his denials and specious reasoning, doesn't negate a word I wrote.
 
Folks...
Repeating his denials and specious reasoning, doesn't negate a word I wrote.

You simply switched the conversation to make straw man points.
Charlatan writing.

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

The basket story was invented 15 years after the 1844 theft.

At the time of the theft, Tischendorf simply said the leaves came into his possession. (Thief's language.)


Kevin McGrane covers this fairly well.
There are a number of spots where he beats out the supposed Sinaiticus scholars.

Some details here
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...nides-regarding-sinaiticus.11880/post-1290667

Makes all the 1859 Tischendorf story-telling embarrassing and irrelevant to real scholarship and history.
The more you repeat it (your style) the more embarrassing it becomes.

Thanks for helping document this theft and tissues of lies.
 
Last edited:
You simply switched the conversation to make straw man points.
Charlatan writing.



The basket story was invented 15 years after the 1844 theft.

At the time of the theft, Tischendorf simply said the leaves came into his possession. (Thief's language.)


Kevin McGrane covers this fairly well.
There are a number of spots where he beats out the supposed Sinaiticus scholars.

Some details here
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...nides-regarding-sinaiticus.11880/post-1290667

Makes all the 1859 Tischendorf story-telling embarrassing and irrelevant to real scholarship and history.
The more you repeat it (your style) the more embarrassing it becomes.

In summing up your numerous specious reasonings and arguments that you've posted in favour of an 18th century Simonides production, it should be patently clear to even the average reader, that nearly every single description you've quoted and twisted Mr. Avery (i.e. grossly distorted and committed contextomy with), is either:

  1. Qualified by the context, and/or
  2. A relative statement

That's it all it breaks down to.

It's very simple.

Meaning, of course, your quotations from all scholars who hold to a 3rd, 4th, 5th century C.E. date (some even as late as the 7th century C.E.) for the writing and manufacture of the Codex Sinaiticus, that is, they hold to a clearly different date than you, and plainly deny a Simonides production or any genuine connection with him and the Codex, you abuse their word's and do injury to their true meaning when taken in the overall context of their (note: "their") conclusions.
 
Last edited:
Did you change one preposition or article?

If you think it is so important, you can start a new thread with this earth-shaking nothing.

If it's not a duplicate, and an "earth-shaking nothing" (as you say), one has to wonder then, why you made such a big deal of it in your previous post... crying to mommy to get it removed...

Hmmmm

Why spam the forum?

Your post is a duplicate.

This is being discussed here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/con...-and-subsequent-locations.16311/#post-1307252

You did not like the 15-year gap before Tischendorf fabricated his cover story for the 1844 theft?

Something in it made you hit the panic and alarm button ??
 
If it's not a duplicate, and an "earth-shaking nothing" (as you say), one has to wonder then, why you made such a big deal of it in your previous post... crying to mommy to get it removed...
Hmmmm
Something in it made you hit the panic and alarm button ??

I reported nothing. Was just helping you to learn how to post.
 
I reported nothing. Was just helping you to learn how to post.

Good.

And, I'm trying to help people to use their power's of discernment to see through your deceptions.

By posting information like the following.

Your numerous specious reasonings and arguments that you've posted in favour of an 18th century Simonides production, can be summed up with that nearly every single description you've quoted and twisted Mr. Avery (i.e. grossly distorted and committed contextomy with), is either:

  1. Qualified by the context, and/or
  2. A relative statement

Meaning, of course, your quotations from all scholars who hold to a 3rd, 4th, 5th century C.E. date (some even as late as the 7th century C.E.) for the writing and manufacture of the Codex Sinaiticus, that is, they hold to a clearly different date than you, and plainly deny a Simonides production or any genuine connection with him and the Codex, you abuse their word's and do injury to their true meaning when taken in the overall context of their (note: "their") actual conclusions.

That is going to help the readers put your ✌️quotes✌️ in perspective.
 
You should respond to the 15-year gap 1844-59 before the basket-fire story fabrication.

Instead of the 3-fold spam posting.
 
Readers, please learn to use your power of discernment carefully when it comes to Mr. Avery's assertions.

For instance.

When dealing with Mr. Avery's strong assertions and specious ✌️deductions✌️

Learn to clearly distinguish the difference between:
  1. Speculation, and
  2. Established fact
And also distinguish the difference between
  1. Mere information, and
  2. Evidence that is proven and incontrovertible
Otherwise you could be (i.e. might be) mislead.

Why do I recommend this?

Answer = Because Mr. Avery thinks that just because he (or someone else) can imagine a situation or a possibility, that it magically equates to, or becomes fact!

Folks (an Averyism), this is not how it works in the real world.

So, always remember that.
 
The codexsinaiticus.org website provides more details about the manuscript Project, by the tick boxes and drop down menus to the right of the page. These helpful features can be seen in the red box in the image below:


Here is one pic a little closer up.

CSP
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...R=01FB804F&book=61&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

1711755809043.png

You can see the wacky accents at the beginning of Hermas above.

Was somebody playing around?

Were they trying to learn the Greek?

Why are they omitted from the 1862 Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus?

When were these put on the manuscript?
How would you know?
Is there any reason why they could not be c. AD 1850?

There are also accents in a later spot in Hermas.

1711756586562.png

Wow.

What an incredible black ink!
 
Last edited:
Back
Top