The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus


This makes 20 reasons.

And the fact Snapp, post-stroke mind you, absolutely wiped the floor with Avery in their so-called "debate," pointing out how preposterous Avery's theory was and that Simonides never said NOT ONE THING he didn't already know about Sinaiticus that he didn't get from Tischendorf originally. We saw on video why Avery fears debate, as well he should. When you're robbed of the computer "I answered that in another post" fake objection, you lose every time.

I reiterate: Avery thinks he's solved the problem of the reality of multiple scribes by going with, "it was a group project," but never forget - "Everything A KJVO Touches Dies." Every single time a KJVOist comes up with a colossally stupid answer that seems to plug one hole in the boat, they hit an iceberg on the other side.

If Simonides DID have help like Avery asserts, he had NO REASON WHATSOEVER to not give names of the eyewitnesses. NONE!!!

I'm sure Avery's excuse for this - aside from the laughably absurd "hyperbole" claim - is, "Well, it didn't matter because the other two guys were both dead." But this wouldn't have stopped Simonides from naming them!! LOL!!!

Then you have Avery's equally preposterous claim that Simonides used Claromontanus for Sinaiticus. AGAIN - if this was true, WHY DIDN'T SIMONIDES EVER CLAIM THIS???

If Simonides was telling the truth, there was NO REASON for him to NOT say this. "See, I even took these readings right here from this manuscript right here" STRENGTHENS his case, and who can prove he didn't, right?

Simonides lied when he said he wrote it, he lied when he said it was a project, he lied about how long it took, he lied about it being too much for the calligrapher at Athos, he lied when he forged the Kallinikos letters, he lied again when he put content in those letters claiming to be Kallinikos's content, and he lied when he claimed he saw an altered manuscript in 1852, largely because he didn't know Tischendorf was never there between 1844 and 1853. He lied when he claimed he was on Sinai.

He lied about not only the day of his birth but the YEAR of his birth.
And if he did indeed fake his own death, he lied about that, too.

About the only thing Simonides might not have lied about - and even this is far from certain - was having an Uncle Benedict. But given his track record, I'm gonna need more than his say-so.
 
I will remind the readers of this commentary recently made by Dr. Tom Nichols, and his book is updated and coming off the presses:

"Conspiracy theorists manipulate all tangible evidence to fit their explanation, but worse, they will point to the absence of evidence as even stronger confirmation. After all, what better sign of a really effective conspiracy is there than a complete lack of trace that the conspiracy exists?...conspiracy theories are deeply attractive to people who have a hard time making sense of a complicated world...Such theories also appeal to a strong streak of narcissism: there are people who would choose to believe in complicated nonsense rather than accept that their circumstances are incomprehensible, the result of issues beyond their intellectual capacity to understand, or even their own fault. Conspiracy theories are also a way for people to give context and meaning to events that frighten them...The only way out of this dilemma is to imagine a world in which our own troubles are the fault of powerful people who had it within their power to avert such misery...Revelations of horrid behavior of a celebrity are not evidence that someone we admired is evil: it is a plot to smear a beloved figure...If trying to get around confirmation bias is difficult, trying to deal with a conspiracy theory is impossible...The people who think alien bodies were housed at Area 51 won't change their minds if they take a tour of the base (The alien research lab is underground, you see)."

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

Now tell me that isn't exactly what Avery is arguing here.


"Conspiracy theorists manipulate all tangible evidence to fit their explanation, but worse, they will point to the absence of evidence as even stronger confirmation.

See, Kallinikos didn't say "only." And there's no way to prove Simonides DID NOT do this!!

After all, what better sign of a really effective conspiracy is there than a complete lack of trace that the conspiracy exists?.

Sound familiar?

..conspiracy theories are deeply attractive to people who have a hard time making sense of a complicated world

Yes, insecure people desperate for validation.

...Such theories also appeal to a strong streak of narcissism:
Yep.

there are people who would choose to believe in complicated nonsense rather than accept that their circumstances are incomprehensible, the result of issues beyond their intellectual capacity to understand, or even their own fault.

And the Simonides Hypothesis is exactly that - "complicated nonsense."

Conspiracy theories are also a way for people to give context and meaning to events that frighten them...

If you think there's only one English Bible and you FEAR that your psychological insecurity cannot handle the truth....you invent a conspiracy theory.

The only way out of this dilemma is to imagine a world in which our own troubles are the fault of powerful people who had it within their power to avert such misery.

Which is why he blames the British Library (among others) - something about they have an agenda; never mind that he's the one with the KJVO agenda.

..Revelations of horrid behavior of a celebrity are not evidence that someone we admired is evil: it is a plot to smear a beloved figure

Finding out Simonides lied about, well, everything, isn't a lie, it's what Avery calls "Orange Man Bad"

...If trying to get around confirmation bias is difficult, trying to deal with a conspiracy theory is impossible

Which is exactly how conspiracy theorists like it.

...The people who think alien bodies were housed at Area 51 won't change their minds if they take a tour of the base (The alien research lab is underground, you see)."

This is the point I've made previously. Steven Avery has invested nearly 1/7 of his years on earth into this conspiracy theory. Therefore - it HAS to be true, he FEARS if it isn't (and it isn't). I've noted previously that if they ever DO test this manuscript and say "fourth century," he's going to say, "Yeah, the PARCHMENT is, I never denied that, even Simonides said that, but you have to test the INK!"

And guess what?

If they tested this tomorrow and the INK was proven to be old, guess what he would say?

"The people doing the testing are deeply entrenched and have reason to fear telling the truth about this so what do you expect?"

If you think he wouldn't say that then - HE'S ALREADY SAYING IT!!! Along with misrepresenting what others have told him about it that he never thought we could see on his forum.
 
Simple, Simonides badly hurt their reputation by connecting the monastery with forgeries, so everything would be remembered negatively, with minimum association. David Daniels shoes a first likely connection as Sophronius in 1837.

Yes, he made another ridiculous claim.

The same name (Sophronius) appears SEVENTEEN OTHER TIMES spanning the 16th through 19th centuries but Daniels KNOWS because this is the ONE date that falls during Simonides's known life that this MUST represent Simonides. There is literally NOTHING but a conspiracy theory at work here trying to put Simonides on Athos so he has longer to work on this so-called project.
 
So why did Leipzig cancel the testing?

You already know the answer to this. It was on your own blog until you removed it when we discovered it, but since it's entirely possible you deleted it fully, we saved it for posterity.

Lest he accuse me of making things up:
It was asked how I know this, about the planned Leipzig examination.

1) I was in contact with Dr. Ira Rabin, starting with her talk at Hofsta in 2014.

2) She discussed it, giving more details, and with emotion, on the Zoom conference about Sinaiticus, hosted by Brent Nongbri on July 1, 2020.

And Dr. Rabin, whom Avery ADMITS to having been in contact with in 2014, informed him quite well why Leipzig cancelled the testing:

Dear Steven,

Thanks a lot! Most interesting!

1. But I must assure you that the decision NOT to study was not dictated by fear of unpleasant discoveries. I was present at the main discussion. The fellow who knows nothing if this ms but happens to be simply the head of conservation was mad that the testing was decided without his knowledge but with blessing of the conservator of the ms. He made a dramatic speech that the name could be damaged by analysis and that HE doesn't need to know anything about the materials to preserve it.
2. Today some of the Leipzig leaves are completely eaten through ! But others are not . This was the main reason for the conservator of the manuscript to request the analysis .
The damage must have occurred in Leipzig but no one knows when.
I did want to test the inks - their composition is more than interesting for my inks studies!



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

He knew the answer to this question when he asked it, he just didn't realize that his settings on his forum enabled the rest of us to see what he thought he was hiding from us.
 
James White was truly a textual idiot in his commentary on John 1:18.

We will note for the record that Steven Avery does the exact same thing he does with others including me:
a) call people names online from the safety of his computer
b) doesn't even bother to call White with this challenge despite it being a toll free number.

You may disagree, but folks who have and - key thing here - ACTED LIKE ADULTS - can have a fair interaction with White.

The cowardice inherent in KJVOism always reveals itself on this front.
 
What you really want are variants with new phrases or words.

Give up on the James White thousands and try to find 10, or 5.

You've been informed of two things you keep pretending never happened:
1) SCRIVENER is the source of that claim originally, not James White
2) YOU HAVE THAT ON YOUR OWN WEBSITE!! (unless - like the incriminating letters from others against you - you removed it)
 
Actually, in 1871 Tischendorf did say he made a facsimile of Vaticanus in 1843 at the Vatican.

Yeah, but you keep telling us that Tischendorf is a thief, a liar, and a mutilator of manuscripts, not a single accusation of which you have any evidence of - but NOW that you can pretend Simonides had access to Vaticanus, you suddenly decide he's telling the truth?

As the Church Lady would say "How Con-VEEEEEN-ient!!!"
 
The Birch collation was not easily accessible. Simonides was no textual expert. Had he had access, he would have named his source as the Birch collation. But he did not, now did he. He had no reliable source for Vaticanus, as pointed out by Shoonra none existed then. He would need a full blown facsimile of Vaticanus to create Sinaiticus. Since he had none, he could not have created it.

This is why the SART-MOPS make zero sense.

They want to go with, "Simonides had access to ALL THIS STUFF," but then don't bother to realize that the more stuff he allegedly used, the EASIER it would be to prove himself as the author. It's the same thing their preposterous "he used Claromontanus" claim is so absurdly laughable. If he had, it would have been so much easier to prove his case, but he didn't mention it for two very good reasons: he didn't write Sinaiticus and he didn't use Claromontanus to do it.
 
James White did not lie. There are thousands of agreements between the Papyri and Sinaiticus. You are the one who back pedaled and said you accepted it.

it is impossible for a narcissist to admit to error. It is ALWAYS somebody else's fault.
 
Some more creative citation going on again, I see. Here's what the "researcher" left out:

"The text of the Codex Athous as printed by Lake(1) has been used in this conjectural restoration, a text from which the Sinaiticus varies in small details but apparently not in substance."​
(1) Facsimilies of the Athos Fragments of the Shepherd of Hermas, Oxford, 1907.

Every single time.

Do not believe a single notation from this man even if his keyboard fingers are notarized.
 
At the time of the theft, Tischendorf simply said the leaves came into his possession. (Thief's language.)

Given I refuted this nonsense of yours in this thread on this post nearly a year before you wrote this post, why do you continue with the ALREADY REFUTED POINT???


This right here is why you will never be taken seriously as ANY kind of researcher by anyone who has completed at least two years of college UNLESS that person is proud of your apologetic view.

===========

The problem is simple: you don't know German, you don't know anything about 19th century language, and you don't understand nuance of a language you don't know. There's no shame in not knowing, but that means you zip your lips about things you don't understand.

You WANT Tischendorf to be a thief (which it seems to me argues more for the OLD date), so you FIND EVIDENCE by imposing your conclusion over his letter.

Tell me this: how should Tischendorf had worded his letter, huh?
Answer the question.

If he had said, "Ich habe das Manuskript genommen," you'd STILL accuse him of stealing it!!!

(Genommen, for those not burdened with a lack of knowledge of German as Mr. Avery is, is the compound past tense of the verb "nehmen", which in the active voice is "take" or "am taking" if used as a participle). My German is a tad rusty as it's not like I use it every day, but I'm no slouch at it, either. No, I don't read French, folks, I'm not a PhD).

I would be willing to grant that if Tischendorf had used the cognate "stehlen" that it's a confession of theft, but he didn't.

So HOW would he have had to have written this for you to not make your accusation?
Hint: there was no way, it was all code in the mind of a conspiracy theorist.
 
Given I refuted this nonsense of yours in this thread on this post nearly a year before you wrote this post, why do you continue with the ALREADY REFUTED POINT???


This right here is why you will never be taken seriously as ANY kind of researcher by anyone who has completed at least two years of college UNLESS that person is proud of your apologetic view.

===========

The problem is simple: you don't know German, you don't know anything about 19th century language, and you don't understand nuance of a language you don't know. There's no shame in not knowing, but that means you zip your lips about things you don't understand.

You WANT Tischendorf to be a thief (which it seems to me argues more for the OLD date), so you FIND EVIDENCE by imposing your conclusion over his letter.

Tell me this: how should Tischendorf had worded his letter, huh?
Answer the question.

If he had said, "Ich habe das Manuskript genommen," you'd STILL accuse him of stealing it!!!

(Genommen, for those not burdened with a lack of knowledge of German as Mr. Avery is, is the compound past tense of the verb "nehmen", which in the active voice is "take" or "am taking" if used as a participle). My German is a tad rusty as it's not like I use it every day, but I'm no slouch at it, either. No, I don't read French, folks, I'm not a PhD).

I would be willing to grant that if Tischendorf had used the cognate "stehlen" that it's a confession of theft, but he didn't.

So HOW would he have had to have written this for you to not make your accusation?
Hint: there was no way, it was all code in the mind of a conspiracy theorist.

Same applies to his neurotic fixation with "mouldered by time"...and other phrases...
 
Given I refuted this nonsense of yours in this thread on this post nearly a year before you wrote this post, why do you continue with the ALREADY REFUTED POINT???


This right here is why you will never be taken seriously as ANY kind of researcher by anyone who has completed at least two years of college UNLESS that person is proud of your apologetic view.

===========

The problem is simple: you don't know German, you don't know anything about 19th century language, and you don't understand nuance of a language you don't know. There's no shame in not knowing, but that means you zip your lips about things you don't understand.

You WANT Tischendorf to be a thief (which it seems to me argues more for the OLD date), so you FIND EVIDENCE by imposing your conclusion over his letter.

Tell me this: how should Tischendorf had worded his letter, huh?
Answer the question.

If he had said, "Ich habe das Manuskript genommen," you'd STILL accuse him of stealing it!!!

(Genommen, for those not burdened with a lack of knowledge of German as Mr. Avery is, is the compound past tense of the verb "nehmen", which in the active voice is "take" or "am taking" if used as a participle). My German is a tad rusty as it's not like I use it every day, but I'm no slouch at it, either. No, I don't read French, folks, I'm not a PhD).

I would be willing to grant that if Tischendorf had used the cognate "stehlen" that it's a confession of theft, but he didn't.

So HOW would he have had to have written this for you to not make your accusation?
Hint: there was no way, it was all code in the mind of a conspiracy theorist.

He has Simonides working as an employee for the Russian government in St Petersburg without any concrete proof Simonides (the alleged Greek ancestor of Aristotle) could
  • Read Russian writing
  • Write in Russian
  • And translate things to or from the Russian language
  • Speak Russian fluently
Nothing concrete, nothing indesputable so far...
 
He has Simonides working as an employee for the Russian government in St Petersburg without any concrete proof Simonides

A year or two ago, I may have implied being an employee.

That was properly challenged, and accepted, so now I am more accurate to the report.

Also, very possible is that there was a quid pro quo arranged with Simonides. Since we quickly have the fake death and Simonides doing Russian historical document work in Tischendorf-Sinaiticus land, St. Petersburg.

There really is no doubt that Simonides was good at Russian, so I am bypassing your prattle on that point.

What is interesting is the new information that Russian scholars were actually looking for him, it was not an accidental meeting.
 
Back
Top