The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

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.
The only chance of redemption that he has is if he acknowledges Codex Sinaiticus is an ancient Christian Bible. He has seen tons of evidence that it is, and that Simionides is a fraud.
 
The only chance of redemption that he has is if he acknowledges Codex Sinaiticus is an ancient Christian Bible. He has seen tons of evidence that it is, and that Simionides is a fraud.
For Avery it's all about personalities. He detests Tischendorf because of his role in unearthing and publishing the old unical codexes (not just Sinaiticus); but he loves Simonides because Simonides went into print (in his Memnon publication) describing Tischendorf, in his opening paraqraph, as ὕβρις καὶ σκύβαλον "hubris and scybala (dung)", and saying that his pseudonym was Lycurgus (who was inflicted with madness and in this crazed state slew his wife and sons - his own death followed soon after) and that his name was amenable to the filthy Augean stables (which Hercules cleaned as one of his labors).

I am convinced that Sinaiticus isn't his main objective of attack: rather it is Tischendorf himself, and all those who have regard for his fruits of his work as more authoratative than the textus receptus.
 
Last edited:
For Avery it's all about personalities. He detests Tischendorf because of his role in unearthing and publishing the old unical codexes (not just Sinaiticus); but he loves Simonides because Simonides went into print (in his Memnon publication) describing Tischendorf, in his opening paraqraph, as ὕβρις καὶ σκύβαλον "hubris and scybala (dung)", and saying that his pseudonym was Lycurgus (who was inflicted with madness and in this crazed state slew his wife and sons - his own death followed soon after) and that his name was amenable to the filthy Augean stables (which Hercules cleaned as one of his labors).

I am convinced that Sinaiticus isn't his main objective of attack: rather it is Tischendorf himself, and all those who have regard for his fruits of his work as more authoratative than the textus receptus.


Reminder: there is NO SUCH THING AS EVIDENCE for a conspiracy theorist. Evidence that contradicts their pet theory was created in order to fool people.

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

Look at the latest: Damar Hamlin OBVIOUSLY suffered a heart stoppage during a tackle on MNF a few weeks ago. When nobody saw him for a few weeks, the anti-vaxxers (of which I remind you Avery is ONE of them) chirped, "He really died, that's why we can't see him! And he died of the jab!" Then Hamlin appeared at the Bills game last week and the conspiracy theorists all said, "Wow, we were wrong!"

Oh, who are we kidding?

They actually said, "That's a body double!"

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


You know how Avery is all mysterious about what might be on Mt Athos? Imagine we found a confessional letter from Simonides that he had made his entire story up. Do ANY of you think for even one moment that the "Late Sinaiticus" people would say, "Well, we were wrong"? Of course not - they'd say, "Tischendorf wrote that letter to cover his tracks, they were in cahoots!"

There is literally zero semblance of logic with a conspiracy theorist, of whom Avery is indisputably one.
 
===================

Look at the latest: Damar Hamlin OBVIOUSLY suffered a heart stoppage during a tackle on MNF a few weeks ago. When nobody saw him for a few weeks, the anti-vaxxers (of which I remind you Avery is ONE of them) chirped, "He really died, that's why we can't see him! And he died of the jab!" Then Hamlin appeared at the Bills game last week and the conspiracy theorists all said, "Wow, we were wrong!"

Oh, who are we kidding?

They actually said, "That's a body double!"

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

Actually, I said nothing at all about Damar Hamlin.
 
For Avery it's all about personalities. He detests Tischendorf because of his role in unearthing and publishing the old unical codexes (not just Sinaiticus); but he loves Simonides because Simonides went into print (in his Memnon publication) describing Tischendorf, in his opening paraqraph, as ὕβρις καὶ σκύβαλον "hubris and scybala (dung)", and saying that his pseudonym was Lycurgus (who was inflicted with madness and in this crazed state slew his wife and sons - his own death followed soon after) and that his name was amenable to the filthy Augean stables (which Hercules cleaned as one of his labors).

I am convinced that Sinaiticus isn't his main objective of attack: rather it is Tischendorf himself, and all those who have regard for his fruits of his work as more authoratative than the textus receptus.

You are a little wacky in this psycho-babble analysis..

The issue is Codex Sinaiticus, its provenance, history, textual elements and dating.
It is the contras who are obsessed with "personalities".
 
You know how Avery is all mysterious about what might be on Mt Athos?

And I believe Sinaiticus studies should give extra attention to manuscripts and editions available on Mt. Athos, and possibly Constantinople, that might have been used in the text or correction of Sinaiticus.
 
You are a little wacky in this psycho-babble analysis..

The issue is Codex Sinaiticus, its provenance, history, textual elements and dating.
It is the contras who are obsessed with "personalities".
You've tried to disparage Vaticanus in the past and you are clearly obsessed with denigrating Hort and Tischendorf,. You place great reliance on Simonides, whom by Jesus's analysis in Matt 5:22, as well as by his serial forgeries, put his soul at very significant risk of eternal damnation. It is difficult to see that he was even a Christian. I believe my analysis is fair.
 
You've tried to disparage Vaticanus in the past and you are clearly obsessed with denigrating Hort and Tischendorf,. You place great reliance on Simonides, whom by Jesus's analysis in Matt 5:22, as well as by his serial forgeries, put his soul at very significant risk of eternal damnation. It is difficult to see that he was even a Christian. I believe my analysis is fair.
Simonides was a fraud. A forger of documents and a thief, liar and slanderer. Yet a leader among a few King James Onlyist.
 
Simonides was a fraud. A forger of documents and a thief, liar and slanderer. Yet a leader among a few King James Onlyist.

Why would a wily Greek who helped make one of the worst manuscripts ever be a “leader”?

Contra nonsense absurdity.
 
You've tried to disparage Vaticanus in the past and you are clearly obsessed with denigrating Hort and Tischendorf,.

Burgon and many others showed the abject corruption of Vaticanus and the absurdity of Hort’s textual nonsense.

So, other than “obsessed”, I will receive your compliment.
 
Why would a wily Greek who helped make one of the worst manuscripts ever be a “leader”?

Contra nonsense absurdity.
He is your leader because he had nothing to do with the making of Codex Sinaiticus. He lied to slander Tishendorf and you follow him in his lies. Not one scholar agrees with you. No one normal does. No learned person does. Only those that do not want the truth do.
 
Burgon and many others showed the abject corruption of Vaticanus and the absurdity of Hort’s textual nonsense.

So, other than “obsessed”, I will receive your compliment.
As well as the absurdity of the KJVOnlyist non-truth telling about the Textus Receptus and King James Version. Burgon would and does reject everything about your position of Sinaiticus and the KJV. Why? Because he was a scholar and learned man. He handled manuscripts himself. You do not. He knows which readings are good and you do not. He knew the dates of the early Manuscripts and you do not. Burgon is opposed to everything you believe. You should listen to him but you won't because you have been mislead by onlyism and a known liar called Simonides.
 
Burgon and many others showed the abject corruption of Vaticanus and the absurdity of Hort’s textual nonsense.

So, other than “obsessed”, I will receive your compliment.
Even with trying to make best sense of your thesis.....

Burgon ceaselessly defended only the Textus Receptus (or biblical inerrancy).
While a few "scholars" still accept the readings present in the Textus Receptus, most serious
scholarly support of this text has now ceased and moved
over to the majority text approach which seeks to prove that the
supposed 'Byzantine' witnesses should be taken as essentially independent
witnesses.

The majority text view is based upon: the original reading of any particular passage is to
be found in a majority of the manuscripts.


Such isn't a scientific basis for credibility, because it says nothing
about early variants, but emphasizes only the predominance of the later texts.
 
Even with trying to make best sense of your thesis.....

Burgon ceaselessly defended only the Textus Receptus (or biblical inerrancy).
While a few "scholars" still accept the readings present in the Textus Receptus, most serious
scholarly support of this text has now ceased and moved
over to the majority text approach which seeks to prove that the
supposed 'Byzantine' witnesses should be taken as essentially independent
witnesses.

The majority text view is based upon: the original reading of any particular passage is to
be found in a majority of the manuscripts.


Such isn't a scientific basis for credibility, because it says nothing
about early variants, but emphasizes only the predominance of the later texts.
Just to be clear Burgon was all for revising the Textus Receptus and the King James Version knowing first hand they had errors needing to be fixed. But he disagreed with Hort's methods and explained why. He is no real friend of KJVOnly.
 
Last edited:
Nonsense.
Waste of time.
Like it or not you and him are co conspirators that share the false witness that Codex Sinaiticus was not an early Christian Bible but a gross forgery. No expert believes you whatsoever. You are not smarter than everyone else. You are not smarter than the whole of Christianity. You have been taken in by simonides, whom you let dupe you for your own misguided reasons. Try to be like Scrivener not simonides. Try to be like Burgon not daniels.
 
(in his Memnon publication) describing Tischendorf, in his opening paraqraph, as ὕβρις καὶ σκύβαλον "hubris and scybala (dung)", and saying that his pseudonym was Lycurgus (who was inflicted with madness and in this crazed state slew his wife and sons - his own death followed soon after) and that his name was amenable to the filthy Augean stables (which Hercules cleaned as one of his labors).

It's ironic then, that Simonides was actually the only person in this whole self-propelled egocentric drama who was actually (and I mean, in reality) psychotic.

The reason why he ended up on Mt Athos was because he tried to murder his step-parents.
 
Last edited:
It's ironic then, that Simonides was actually the only person in this whole self-propelled egocentric drama who was actually (and I mean, in reality) psychotic.

The reason why he ended up on Mt Athos was because he tried to murder his step-parents.
Do you know if he was gay or anything like that?
 
Do you know if he was gay or anything like that?

No.

Sorry. I don't know.

Rudiger Schaper has theories that could be interpreted as touching on that possibility in his Simonides Biography.

There's the "tripotages" comment from one of the Athos monastery's about his behavior among the male only inhabitants, which can have a sexual connotation attached to the word. But whether that was meant, or just the generic misbehavior, is simply open to speculation.

  • He didn't marry.
  • There's no talk of mistresses or girlfriends (that I've seen).
  • But there's no talk of homosexuality (at least that I know of) either, in the contemporary accounts I've read, so far.

I have to admit though, that, when I read about the American missionary guy (name?) persecutions in Greece, in the early 1840's, and how Simonides deviously tried to pin the false accusation of "orgies" on what's his name (sorry forgotten right now - it'll come to me later, Jonas something?), I did wonder if he was projecting his own behavior onto this guy (as he has done to others at other times). But that's nothing but pure speculation, for which I have no concrete evidence.
 
Last edited:
No.

Sorry. I don't know.

Rudiger Schaper has theories that could be interpreted as touching on that possibility in his Simonides Biography.

There's the "tripotages" comment from one of the Athos monastery's about his behavior among the male only inhabitants, which can have a sexual connotation attached to the word. But whether that was meant, or just the generic misbehavior, is simply open to speculation.

  • He didn't marry.
  • There's no talk of mistresses or girlfriends (that I've seen).
  • But there's no talk of homosexuality (at least that I know of) either, in the contemporary accounts I've read, so far.

I have to admit though, that, when reading the American missionary guy (name?) persecutions in Greece, in the early 1840's, Simonides tried to pin the false accusation of "orgies" on what's his name (sorry forgotten right now - it'll come to me later, Jonas something?), and I did wonder if he was projecting his own behavior onto this guy (as has done to others at other times). But that's nothing but pure speculation, for which I have no concrete evidence.
Interesting comment (you've probably already got it) in The Journal of The Royal Society of Biblical Literature 1863, Vol III at p.242 respecting its Jan 7. meeting leading to the exposure of Simonides:

"Mr. W. A. Wright read a paper on the Codex Sinaiticus, in which he recapitulated the chief points in its known history, and of the statements of Mr. Simonides on the subject. He drew attention to the letters professing to be from Hieromonachus Kallinikos, which have appeared in the Guardian newspaper, and the originals of some of which were produced. They appeared to be in a handwriting identical with that of Mr. Simonides, and "the paper of exactly the same kind as some letters of that gentleman."
 
Back
Top