The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Tischendorf mentions convictions in Greece.

Tischendorf mentions imprisonment in Germany.

Calligra mentions attempted poisoning of parents in Greece.

MacGrane mentions incitement of mob violence and death threats in Greece.

There's a lot that has "apparently" happened in Greece, that we're simply not hearing about from Avery's side.

Hmmmm.

"But look over there at TISCHENDORF!!!"

It's a Pavlovian reflex.
 
We go back to the Real issue: Is the Sinaiticus authentic?
It doesn't matter if Tischendorf was a thief and/or if he lied about how he acquired the Codex.
The Real question is the age of the Codex.
So far, no expert or technician who has examined it has denied that the Codex dates from the 4th century.
That's good enough for me.
 
We go back to the Real issue: Is the Sinaiticus authentic?
It doesn't matter if Tischendorf was a thief and/or if he lied about how he acquired the Codex.
The Real question is the age of the Codex.
So far, no expert or technician who has examined it has denied that the Codex dates from the 4th century.
That's good enough for me.

Exactly.

This is where the "give me the names of someone something" is irrelevant when combined with "they're all a bunch of dupes."

As a reminder - every single member of the SART team KNOWS DEEP DOWN that Simonides had nothing at all to do with that.

They just fake it because it allows them to defend their KJV, which is all this is about.

And they don't really dispute the moon landing, either; they just do that to get attention.
 
We go back to the Real issue: Is the Sinaiticus authentic?
It doesn't matter if Tischendorf was a thief and/or if he lied about how he acquired the Codex.
The Real question is the age of the Codex.
So far, no expert or technician who has examined it has denied that the Codex dates from the 4th century.
That's good enough for me.

Even if there was one, or even two, they would be a minority, with the vast majority against them.
 
It's possible that he was jailed awaiting trial, and subsequently acquitted or the case dropped, and so never convicted. I don't know, it's just a possibility.
 
You have the advantage of years of research. I've only looked into this, in the (approximately) last few weeks or so.
You tell us the facts, instead of hiding them (as you accuse others of ;)).
  • What was Simonides imprisoned for in Germany?
  • Why do you say he was not convicted of any crime?

Not hiding any facts.
You are making a claim claim, again and again, cutesy-style.

Journal of Sacred Literature (1856)
https://books.google.com/books?id=kvoDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA485
 
We go back to the Real issue: Is the Sinaiticus authentic?
It doesn't matter if Tischendorf was a thief and/or if he lied about how he acquired the Codex.
The Real question is the age of the Codex.

I agree, that is why I smile a lot at the contras trying to make the issue Simonides Perfectionalism.

The integrity of both Tischendorf and Simonides are reasonable discussions, with some significance, but the main issue does boil down to the history and condition and text and anomalies and provenance and phenomenally good condition and colouring and linguistics and palaeography of the manuscript.

And how deeply entrenched scholarship (think evolution as an example) works, or does not work, making for circular analysis as the norm.

Outside of that, the most important issue is the impossible knowledge of Simonides and Kallinikos and the absurdity of their claim if they did not have the inside track, e.g. if there was simply any provenance the issue would have been over in a matter of days.

"Look, here is the ancient catalogue, here is what the church figure wrote about it when it arrived, when it was put in the library, etc."

Simonides was not concerned with that one whit, because he knew 100% there was no manuscript before 1840. Nobody writes accurately about future manuscripts.
 
The Wikipedia article on BAM ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federal_Institute_for_Materials_Research_and_Testing#
... makes it sound more like an industrial testing and standards agency, not an antiquities examiner.
Putting "Sinaiticus" in the search engine in the BAM website produced nothing.

A good article.

Non-destructive testing
Art detective at BAM: testing, preserving, protecting (Oliver Hahn)
https://www.bam.de/Content/EN/Standard-Articles/Topics/Analytical-Sciences/art-detectives.html

Earlier info:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-24#post-949791
 
Last edited:
Not hiding any facts.
You are making a claim claim, again and again, cutesy-style.

Journal of Sacred Literature (1856)
https://books.google.com/books?id=kvoDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA485

Surely you have tried to authenticate the second hand reports by researching authentic German court records? Also, the German news papers must have covered the story.

Those tabloid clippings don't exactly say he was innocent. They just say (in effect) that no further legal action could be pressed by the accused, because the "his impositions" (i.e. forgeries) "were not practiced" i.e. personally and directly "against" the accused ("no charge" i.e. action "could be there" i.e. in Germany "legally substantiated against him"). And that's all, apart from his characteristic bravado and juvenile attention seeking behavior by coming back across the border etc.

Neither of the two tabloid quotes (JSL 1856, Pages 485-486) actually say that Simonides was either "innocent", or that he "didn't practice forgery" (i.e. "his impositions").
 
Neither of the two tabloid quotes (JSL 1856, Pages 485-486) actually say that Simonides was either "innocent", or that he "didn't practice forgery" (i.e. "his impositions").

True.
However, they make it clear that there was no conviction for any crime, which is the common false claim.

These reports are from the literary journals, not "tabloids".
The Journal of Sacred Literature was a superb publication.

And I even found the best census/registration article in it years back in the 1851 issue: A new Explanation of the Taxing in Luke II 1-5 . So I bought the edition, at the time the article was not on the net.
 
True.
However, they make it clear that there was no conviction for any crime, which is the common false claim.

These reports are from the literary journals, not "tabloids".
The Journal of Sacred Literature was a superb publication.

And I even found the best census/registration article in it years back in the 1851 issue: A new Explanation of the Taxing in Luke II 1-5 . So I bought the edition, at the time the article was not on the net.

The source of the information is not fist hand, directly from the (JSL) "Journal of Sacred Literature", but in fact tabloid quotes from magazines, the Literary Gazette and the Athenaeum, within the "Journal of Sacred Literature". Therefore, second hand reporting, and most likely third hand (likely getting there information from German newspapers) therefore, not as "superb" as you make it out to be.

You misrepresent (even if just a little) the facts at almost every turn, and in almost every post.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top