The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

French, German and some Latin have been in play the last weeks.
What do you mean "in play?" You can't read ANY of those languages!


The purpose is to post the most relevant sections.
How would you know what the "most relevant sections" are when you can only read ENGLISH?


With the Latin, the section where Tischendorf attacks the linguistics of the Simonides Athous edition of Hermas is of major interest.
Why is that? You can't read Latin.



And some or all of thr Tisch attacks may be getting professional translation.
"MAY be?" That says it all right there.
 
The Kalligas writing came out around 2007.

And it did not make the 2015 book on Simonides.

These are serious questions that we expect you to be very well informed about (but perhaps you are actually uninformed ?).

These questions relate directly to how and why young Constantine ended up on Mt Athos in the first place.

Questions about young Simonides attempt at murder.

  1. Which specific relative did Simonides try to poison?
  2. With what did he try to poison this relative?
  3. Why did he try to poison this relative?
  4. What were the consequences of this attempted poisoning?
 
Did Simonides (alias Kallinikos) change his story about the Sinaiticus?

Kallinikos (alias Simonides), or is it Simonides (alias Kallinikos) said about the Sinaiticus, that it:

"had been prepared apparently MANY CENTURIES ago [...] much INJURED BY TIME."

But later it appears their story changed to (in effect) it was injured by Tischendorf...

Which story is true?

Did the Simonides/Kallinikos "team" believe it was injured BY TIME?

Or injured BY Tischendorf?

Which story did the Simonides/Kallinikos "team" believe was true?
 
Last edited:
It is now nine days since I made this challenge to Avery, and I am still waiting for a response.
Such is not likely to be forthcoming.

TNC has already made mention of the Wiki reference to Italian traveller, Vitaliano Donati, who visited St Catherine’s in 1761 and saw the Codex. This sighting is very signficant. His reference is in an as-yet-unpublished journal, "Del Giornale del viaggio fatto in Levante nell’anno 1759 d’ordine di Sua Maesta dal Medico".

His journal entry is alluded to in this Italian article "Lo scriba A del Codex Sinaiticus e il font Simonides" (Scribe A from the Codex Sinaiticus and the font of Simonides) in these terms (translated by Google translate):
.
"One year before his untimely death, way back in 1761, the naturalist Vitaliano Donati noted in his diaries that he had admired, following a visit to the monastery of Santa Caterina on Mount Sinai, "a Bible in beautiful membranes, very large, thin, and square, written in a round and beautiful font". He was already aware that he was holding a very ancient code in his hands, at least prior to the seventh century."
.
"The Codex Sinaiticus probably dates back to the fourth century and represents one of the oldest parchment codes, presumably drawn up in Alexandria or Caesarea. The text presents one of the most authoritative and complete repertoires of the Old and New Testaments, but it can also be considered the most valuable among the biblical Greek uncials. It is possible to distinguish the hand of three scribes, although the quill writing appears to be rather homogeneous Knight (2009); Parker (2010). Simonides takes his cue from scribe A, reproducing in detail a biblical uncial character, unanimously recognized as elegant and prestigious."
.
____________

On a separate point, it seems that its authorship by multiple scribes is far too well attested to be now put into controversy. E.g. SCRIBAL HABITS IN CODEX SINAITICUS, VATICANUS, EPHRAEMI, BEZAE, AND WASHINGTONIANUS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW by GREGORY SCOTT PAULSON [source].
 
Last edited:
His journal entry is alluded to in this Italian article "Lo scriba A del Codex Sinaiticus e il font Simonides" (Scribe A from the Codex Sinaiticus and the font of Simonides) in these terms (translated by Google translate):

Interesting, thanks!

Il Codex Sinaiticus e il font Simonide (2017)
Claudio Vincoletto, Massimiliano Dominic
https://www.guitex.org/home/images/meeting2017/pres/simonides-slide.pdf

The font is dedicated to the memory of Constantinos Simonides, a highly cultivated adventurer, skilled calligrapher, and famous for being considered one of the greatest forgers of all time. He asserted his authorship of the Codex Sinaiticus, sparking a debate among scholars on the authenticity of the manuscript that continues to the present day.

Translating from the Italian with help from Google Mangle.
 
Simonides said this, too, as Kallinikos:
Finally, coming again to the same monastery, he took also the remaining portion of the MS with the aid of the Russian Consul, on the promise that he would return it. And they both promised the Bishop of Sinai many gifts, which, in my opinion, they will never perform because at other times, many such promises were made by a certain Russian archimandrite named Porphyrius, who took away many MSS from the monastery of St Dionysius in Athos and from others and they were never fulfilled.

Thanks. This is from the Elliott 1982 book, p 77. (You should give the source.)
There is lots of excellent stuff in the letter,

And I just want to point out the truth here of the propensity of Uspensky for the theft of manuscripts. There would be no reason to even mention this, except that it was known by Kallinikos and Simonides. And it helped Kallinikos to be aware of the potential problem with Tischendorf.

Hardly anybody likes to point out Uspensky thefts.
Here is one of the exceptions.

From Mount Sinai to Michigan: the rediscovery of Menander’s Epitrepontes (part 2) (2012)
Allan Somerstein
https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/anci...rediscovery-of-menanders-epitrepontes-part-2/

Several years after Tischendorf’s visit, Porfiry Uspensky, then the head of the Russian Church Mission in Jerusalem, rediscovered these leaves at the monastery and was able to separate them from the book cover, eventually taking this and many other manuscripts back to St Petersburg. And again nothing happened; the leaves remained in Uspensky’s private collection until he sold it to the Imperial Library in 1883.
 
Thanks. This is from the Elliott 1982 book, p 77. (You should give the source.)

Person who has spent years not giving sources (and using secondary ones) now changes his tune and wants sources.

(And how do you know that isn't from JBL, hmm?)


There is lots of excellent stuff in the letter,

There's a lot of lies that Simonides told and signed someone else's name.



And I just want to point out the truth here of the propensity of Uspensky for the theft of manuscripts.
Ha ha ha.

You've gone from "Uspenski said" to "Uspenski was a thief" in record time.

Now.....did Simonides lie? Yes or no?
It's not a difficult question IF "the truth" is your concern.




There would be no reason to even mention this, except that it was known by Kallinikos and Simonides.

So again - your source is one guy who lied and pretended to be two.

You have ZERO in this entire thing besides, "I believe the lying forger Constantine Simonides."


And it helped Kallinikos to be aware of the potential problem with Tischendorf.

They're the SAME PERSON, LOL!!!

You keep pretending you don't know this, but even you gave the game away.



Hardly anybody likes to point out Uspensky thefts.

Hey folks, he's going with "Since Uspenski was a thief, NOTHING HE SAYS CAN BE TRUE!"

Yet he's cited Uspenski for the source of the so-called different colors of the MS for years.





Here is one of the exceptions.

From Mount Sinai to Michigan: the rediscovery of Menander’s Epitrepontes (part 2) (2012)
Allan Somerstein
https://blogs.nottingham.ac.uk/anci...rediscovery-of-menanders-epitrepontes-part-2/

Several years after Tischendorf’s visit, Porfiry Uspensky, then the head of the Russian Church Mission in Jerusalem, rediscovered these leaves at the monastery and was able to separate them from the book cover, eventually taking this and many other manuscripts back to St Petersburg. And again nothing happened; the leaves remained in Uspensky’s private collection until he sold it to the Imperial Library in 1883.

The part you quote does not establish theft.

Try again.


(Seriously - I understand why the words "I was wrong" are impossible for you based on your continued smearing of reputations of the very sources you've been citing, LOL!)
 
This quote needs the full context.

Feel free to quote the full context.

The full context makes little difference to the meaning of the words I quoted.

I'm focusing in on the what exactly they/he (Simonides alias Kallinikos) said was the cause of the "INJURY" to the parchment, and related questions on how the original story appears to have changed.

Simonides (alias Kallinikos) said that the Sinaiticus:

"had been PREPARED apparently MANY CENTURIES AGO [...] MUCH INJURED BY TIME"

How, when, and why did he/they (Simonides alias Kallinikos) change from "MUCH INJURED BY TIME", to injured by Tischendorf?

Simonides (alias Kallinikos) originally said (effectually) that the manuscript material was ancient "PREPARED...MANY CENTURIES AGO"

Three questions I want convincing answers to, in Simonides' and/or Kallinkos' own unambiguous words (not in the distorted and twisted words of latter 20th/21st century conspiracists)!

  1. Where did Simonides (or his alter-ego Kallinikos) them/him-self actually say that the parchment skin for their Tsar-project was actually grown, tanned, (i.e. manufactured) in the 19th century?
  2. How do we get from a carefully-selected ancient materials story, to a newly grown and tanned (19th century) parchment story?
  3. Where, and when did that change take place?

There are other more sinister and serious questions that we expect you to be informed about, but you are in fact trying to avoid publicity about.

These questions relate directly to how and why young Constantine ended up on Mt Athos in the first place.

Questions about young Simonides attempt at murder.

  1. Which specific relative did Simonides try to poison?
  2. With what did he try to poison this relative?
  3. Why did he try to poison this relative?
  4. What were the consequences of this attempted poisoning?
 
Have the SART team made there own story?

Simonides (as far as I can find) didn't say he used newly grown, slaughtered, tanned parchment from hundreds of cattle and sheep from the 19th century.

As far as I can find, he/they said he/they used many centuries old, much injured by time pre-existing parchment.

Someone appears to have changed the story somewhere.

Who?, and when?
 
Have the SART team made there own story?

The SART made their own story up out of the figment of an active imagination when they decided, "Even though Simonides obviously lied about writing it himself, lied about pretty much everything, and lied about the book he was writing to explain it all, we think he told the truth about it being from the 19th century BECAUSE HE WAS INVOLVED WITH IT."

You'd think a huge claim like that would have huge evidence, but all we get is:
- suggestions Tischendorf aged the manuscript so well it apparently fooled everyone
- Tischendorf stole it, even though he had a receipt, which they apparently gave to him AFTER he stole it in SART Team logic
- Kallinikos this, Kallinikos that - and might have even been the same guy
- hey, look at this entry in a catalog YEARS AFTER THE FACT - it proves EVERYTHING!!!

There are UFO sightings with more evidence than this.
 
On a separate point, it seems that its authorship by multiple scribes is far too well attested to be now put into controversy. E.g. SCRIBAL HABITS IN CODEX SINAITICUS, VATICANUS, EPHRAEMI, BEZAE, AND WASHINGTONIANUS IN THE GOSPEL OF MATTHEW by GREGORY SCOTT PAULSON [source].
Yup.

And there's the work of Milne and Skeat.

And there's the massive 800+ page thesis written by Amy Myshrall that deals with how the various correctors wrote various specific greek letters, how they specifically added words and notes in places, how they ended each line, how each corrector differed from one another, which ones were bad spellers, etc.

All works dealing with the correctors of Sinaiticus are completely ignored and bypassed by Steven Avery.

He has no explanation for the correctors of Sinaiticus, if Simonides supposedly wrote it.

He has no explanation for the 23,000+ variants in Sinaiticus, if Simonides supposedly wrote it.

He has said outright that the lies and fabrications of Simonides don't matter at all when dating Sinaiticus to the 19th century, a fairy tale INVENTED BY SIMONIDES HIMSELF.

DATING SINAITICUS TO THE 19TH CENTURY IS THE ONLY CONCLUSION AVERY WILL ACCEPT.
 
Last edited:
A fellow whos motif is childish psycho-babble insults thinks he is worthy of a debate ???

Amazing. :)

1) It's WHOSE, not "whos"
2) There's no hyphen in "psychobabble"
3) Guy whose entire internet history consists of little more than insults whines about insults (more gaslighting)

But it seems your forte is neither Greek NOR English grammar at this point.
Nor is it paleography or textual criticism.
Nor is it theology.

(It's more amusing you ASSUMED I was talking about YOU in the post you both had removed because it hurt your feelings but then quoted to maintain).
 

Common Narcissist Characteristics​

  • Inflated Ego
  • Lack of Empathy
  • Need for Attention
  • Repressed Insecurities
  • Few Boundaries
Many people may suspect someone they care about of narcissism, but the general population is unsure of what this term specifically entails. Narcissistic personality disorder is an official and recognized mental health condition that affects primarily males. In today's society, it tends to be thrown about rather freely and can often be misunderstood. Because of its prevalent and damaging nature, it is important that there is an understanding of the traits involved in someone with this type of personality, though. Let's take a look at five of the most common characteristics of a narcissist in order to create awareness.

1. Inflated Ego​

Those who suffer from narcissism usually seem themselves as superior to others. Their sense of self relies on setting themselves apart from the crowd. They will take purposeful steps in order to make sure they remain on top. These types of people tend to strive to be the best, most accomplished and beyond competent in their field. It's not unusual for them to be highly successful professionals. They also exhibit this tendency in their personal relationships. They need to be right, to have the last word and to always be in control. It's also possible for narcissists to shift this need for superiority to something negative. If they are experiencing difficulties or feel emotionally wounded, their situation suddenly becomes the worst. No one else's suffering compares.

2. Lack of Empathy​

Empathy is the ability to see things from another's point of view. A key characteristic of narcissism is the lack of this ability. Narcissists only see things from their view. Their feelings and comfort are of most importance. These folks tend to think that others are only capable of feeling or seeing things in the exact same was as they do. It doesn't occur to them that other perspectives may exist. They often lack remorse or guilt due to this trait.

3. Need for Attention (aka Wasting One's Life Posting Incessantly Online)​

Remember that big ego of the narcissist? Well, it must constantly be fed by others. They look outside themselves for validation. These individuals will soak up praise and affirmation whenever possible ("he thanked me"). If they aren't receiving the approval they seek, they will create scenarios in order to elicit it. It's not unusual for a narcissistic individual to ask those around them countless questions in order to keep the attention focused on them or to create unnecessary drama for that purpose.


4. Repressed Insecurities​

The person with narcissism often feels deep insecurity of some sort at their core. It's these insecurities that are the cause for the attention seeking behavior and the inflated ego. Such insecurities can play out in a number of ways, most of which are rarely healthy. Their underlying fear, anxiety, and shame leads them to seek excessive control in all situations. They rarely display vulnerability and tend to see things in black or white terms. Something is either entirely good or it's a complete failure.


5. Few Boundaries​

Narcissists have a hard time respecting boundaries (like throwing themselves into conversations on subjects they only wish they could understand). The line between themselves and others is blurred. They see themselves as being entitled to everything. These folks will frequently use manipulative tactics such as demanding, pouting, gaslighting or tricking to obtain the means to their end. Narcissists find it incredibly insulting to be told no.


Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition that wreaks havoc on relationships. Those dealing with narcissism, both the narcissist and the people around them, tend to have lives filled with much chaos.
 

Common Narcissist Characteristics​

  • Inflated Ego
  • Lack of Empathy
  • Need for Attention
  • Repressed Insecurities
  • Few Boundaries
Many people may suspect someone they care about of narcissism, but the general population is unsure of what this term specifically entails. Narcissistic personality disorder is an official and recognized mental health condition that affects primarily males. In today's society, it tends to be thrown about rather freely and can often be misunderstood. Because of its prevalent and damaging nature, it is important that there is an understanding of the traits involved in someone with this type of personality, though. Let's take a look at five of the most common characteristics of a narcissist in order to create awareness.

1. Inflated Ego​

Those who suffer from narcissism usually seem themselves as superior to others. Their sense of self relies on setting themselves apart from the crowd. They will take purposeful steps in order to make sure they remain on top. These types of people tend to strive to be the best, most accomplished and beyond competent in their field. It's not unusual for them to be highly successful professionals. They also exhibit this tendency in their personal relationships. They need to be right, to have the last word and to always be in control. It's also possible for narcissists to shift this need for superiority to something negative. If they are experiencing difficulties or feel emotionally wounded, their situation suddenly becomes the worst. No one else's suffering compares.

2. Lack of Empathy​

Empathy is the ability to see things from another's point of view. A key characteristic of narcissism is the lack of this ability. Narcissists only see things from their view. Their feelings and comfort are of most importance. These folks tend to think that others are only capable of feeling or seeing things in the exact same was as they do. It doesn't occur to them that other perspectives may exist. They often lack remorse or guilt due to this trait.

3. Need for Attention (aka Wasting One's Life Posting Incessantly Online)​

Remember that big ego of the narcissist? Well, it must constantly be fed by others. They look outside themselves for validation. These individuals will soak up praise and affirmation whenever possible ("he thanked me"). If they aren't receiving the approval they seek, they will create scenarios in order to elicit it. It's not unusual for a narcissistic individual to ask those around them countless questions in order to keep the attention focused on them or to create unnecessary drama for that purpose.


4. Repressed Insecurities​

The person with narcissism often feels deep insecurity of some sort at their core. It's these insecurities that are the cause for the attention seeking behavior and the inflated ego. Such insecurities can play out in a number of ways, most of which are rarely healthy. Their underlying fear, anxiety, and shame leads them to seek excessive control in all situations. They rarely display vulnerability and tend to see things in black or white terms. Something is either entirely good or it's a complete failure.


5. Few Boundaries​

Narcissists have a hard time respecting boundaries (like throwing themselves into conversations on subjects they only wish they could understand). The line between themselves and others is blurred. They see themselves as being entitled to everything. These folks will frequently use manipulative tactics such as demanding, pouting, gaslighting or tricking to obtain the means to their end. Narcissists find it incredibly insulting to be told no.


Narcissistic personality disorder is a mental health condition that wreaks havoc on relationships. Those dealing with narcissism, both the narcissist and the people around them, tend to have lives filled with much chaos.
Very interesting! A quick definition is, "someone whose favorite song is 'How great I am'." ? (if not "I AM" ?)

Thanks,
--Rich
 
The nine most common traits for Narcissistic Personality Disorder include:

  • Having an inflated sense of self-importance and entitlement. Deep down, you feel like you’re the best, most successful, competent, [insert praise here] in any situation.
  • Needing constant admiration. Your self-esteem is like a balloon without a knot, requiring a steady stream of attention, approval, and recognition to keep it inflated. No matter how much someone tells you that they love or look up to you, it feels like it's never enough.
  • Expecting special treatment. Whether it’s favors or apologies, whatever you want, you believe you deserve to have it—because you’re superior to everyone around you, and they know it and should comply.
  • Exaggerating achievements and talents. You have no problem embellishing the facts—or even outright lying—about your life, resume, and experiences.
  • Reacting negatively to criticism. Even though you crave control and take full credit when things are going well, you’re quick to blame others whenever a situation doesn’t go as planned. It’s extremely hard to accept criticism or admit to mistakes because, naturally, it’s always someone else’s fault, not yours.
  • Being preoccupied with fantasies about power, success, and beauty. You tend to create and believe exaggerated, unrealistic narratives around your success, relationships, even how good you look to help you feel special and in control. Anything that threatens the fantasy is rationalized away or simply ignored. You also want people to feel envious of you, and you feel pretty envious of people who have what you want.(like actual PhDs).
  • Taking advantage of others. You often don’t think twice about using or exploiting other people to achieve your own ends—whether maliciously or obliviously (like citing authorities who don't agree with you as agreeing with you). You care about your relationships and the people in your life on a superficial level—if they elevate your social status, or make you look or feel good, for instance—and you don’t really think about how your behavior might affect them.
  • Having an inability or unwillingness to recognize the needs and feelings of others. You’re super sensitive to how people treat you and react to your needs and feelings, but on the flip side, you can’t put yourself in other people’s shoes and empathize with their experiences. You might belittle others or even bully people to feel better about yourself. You never really “go deep” in any of your relationships, either—and, frankly, it doesn’t bother you all that much.
  • Behaving in an arrogant manner. With an inflated ego and sense of superiority and entitlement, you probably insist on having the best everything—the best car, office, designer clothes—monopolize conversations, look down on people you perceive as “inferior,” and only associate with those you think are equally special, successful, and talented.
 
Feel free to quote the full context.
The full context makes little difference to the meaning of the words I quoted.

You really are playing games here.
Simonides specifically tells you that he removed the leaves injured by time.
And you really struggled to hide the basic information.
Your feigned emphasis on "context" vanishes when you are posturing.

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

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
Miscellanies
https://books.google.com/books?id=_bYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA215
pp. 215-216
The Bible’s textual history: dubious theories and forgeries – part three (Codex Sinaiticus, Simonides and Tischendorf) (2022)
Articuli Fidei - David Waltz
https://articulifidei.blogspot.com/2022/02/the-bibles-textual-history-dubious.html
Who Faked the "World’s Oldest Bible"? p. 270-274 by David W. Daniels

About the end of the year 1839, the venerable Benedict, my uncle, spiritual head of the monastery of the holy martyr, Panteleemon, in Mount Athos, wished to present to the Emperor Nicholas I., of Russia, some gift from the sacred mountain, in grateful acknowledgment of the presents which had, from time to time, been offered to the monastery of the martyr. Not possessing anything which he deemed acceptable, he consulted with the herald Procopius and the Russian monk Paul, and they decided upon a copy of the Old and New Testaments, written according to the ancient form, in capital letters, and on parchment. This, together with the remains of the seven apostolic fathers,—Barnabas, Hermas, Clement bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and Dionysius the Areopagite,—they proposed should be bound in gold, and presented to the emperor by a common friend. Dionysius, the professional caligrapher of the monastery, was then begged to undertake the work, but he declined, saying that the task being exceedingly difficult, he would rather not do so. In consequence of this, I myself determined to begin the work, especially as my revered uncle seemed earnestly to wish it. Having then examined the principal copies of the Holy Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos, I began to practise the principles of caligraphy; and the learned Benedict, taking a copy of the Moscow edition of both Testaments (published and presented to the Greeks by the illustrious brothers Zosimas), collated it with the ancient ones, and by this means cleared it of many errors, after which he gave it into my hands to transcribe. Having then received both the Testaments, freed from errors (the old spelling, however, remaining unaltered), being short of parchment, I selected from the library of the monastery, with Benedict’s permission, a very bulky volume, antiquely bound, and almost entirely blank, the parchment of which was remarkably clean, and beautifully finished. This had been prepared apparently many centuries ago—probably by the writer or by the principal of the monastery, as it bore the inscription, EΚΛΟΓΙΟΝ ΠΑΝΗΓΥΡΙΚΟΝ [Elogion Panegyrikon] (a Collection of Panegyrics), and also a short discourse much injured by time.

I therefore took possession of this book, and prepared it by taking out the leaf containing the discourse, and by removing several others injured by time and moths, after which I began my task. First, I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of the pastoral writings of Hermas in capital letters (or uncial characters) in the style known in caligraphy as ἀμφιδέξιος (amphidexios). The transcription of the remaining apostolic writings, however, I declined, because the supply of parchment ran short, and the severe loss which I sustained in the death or Benedict induced me to hand the work over at once to the bookbinders of the monastery, for the purpose of replacing the original covers, made of wood and covered with leather, which I had removed for convenience—and when he had done so, I took it into my possession.
 
Last edited:
I don't agree with your conclusions.

Have a think about what idea Simonides was trying to convey/effect in people's mind's by writing the words "prepared apparently many centuries ago" and "much injured by time" (more than once) in this first attempt at a, I made it, story.

Because, the reality is, the Codex Sinaiticus was "prepared apparently many centuries ago" and, for a fact, is "much injured by time".

Simonides' lemon juice story (and many other aspects), is simply an elaborate fabrication.
 
Back
Top