The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

The text was determined by Benedict who was more of a textual liberal.
Dave Daniels goes into the details.

Thus the 1821 Zosima Moscow Bible edition was one of the sources used for the Old Testament and Apocrypha. If there was any NT use, it would only be for limited corrections, but even that is unlikely.

Anddddddd...

...the more than three feet long first century papyrus of 1 John 5, Simonides claimed he possessed???
 
‘[M]y late uncle…Benedict, the confidential adviser and spiritual father of John Capo-d’Istrias; and
after his death [in 1831], Superior of the Monastery St. Panteleimon (Rosicon), in Mount Athos’."​

This is from
https://books.google.com/books?id=cY1UAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA849
https://books.google.com/books?id=SLnkzlGzE2UC&pg=PA60

In the second book of David Daniels, "Who Faked the World's Oldest Bible" David documents a letter from Benedict, the monk from Symi, to Kapodistrias.

Kevin McGrane in his Bill Cooper paper twice refers to the "imaginary uncle Benedict", which sounds like he is questioning the existence of Benedict, as did some when Simonides wrote. However, McGrane does not mean that Benedict is an imaginary person, just that he was not literally the uncle of Simonides (while he does not deny that he could be family kin). In fact, McGrane shows Benedict to be the hierodeacon, the pious elderly deacon, of Pantelemon, and talks of an important visitor meeting with him, so it seems that a lot of the concern is quibble.
 
Last edited:
However, McGrane does not mean that Benedict is an imaginary person, just that he was not literally the uncle of Simonides (while he does not deny that he could be family kin). In fact, McGrane shows Benedict to be the hierodeacon, the pious elderly deacon, of Pantelemon, and talks of an important visitor meeting with him, so it seems that a lot of the concern is quibble.

Of course. Yes. Simonides abused Benedict's good reputation and committed identity theft. Come on, tell us something we don't know.

There were other witnesses, other than Simonides.

Far more credible witnesses.


The Pantameleion monastery itself gave their own testimony against Simonides false testimony.

They said (in effect/in my words):

  1. Benedict was not related to Simonides by blood.
  2. Benedict was not the Hegumen of the monastery.

Simonides lied on two counts about Benedict (this isn't even scratching the surface of his lies).

Simonides couldn't keep his sin covered up forever.
 
Мнение о Синайской рукописи, содержащей в себе Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием Св. Апостола Варнавы и книгою Ермы, (St Petersburg, 1862),

Google mangle:
Opinion on the Sinai manuscript containing the Old Testament incomplete and the entire New Testament with the epistle of the Holy Apostle Barnabas and the book of Hermas
or longer title
Opinion of the Archiniautirite Porphyry of the Assumption, regarding the Sinaitic MS., which contains the Old Testament incomplete, and the whole of the New Testament, with the Epistle of the II. Apostle Barnabas, and the Book of ITermas.

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

Avraam Sergeevic Norov (1795-1869) wrote a defense.

Защита синайской рукописи библіи от нападеній О. архимандрита Порфирія Успенскаго

(Zaščita sinajskoj rukopisi biblii ot napadenij O. Archimandrita Porfirija Uspenskago )
Avraam Sergyeevich Norov
https://books.google.com/books?id=HJdaAAAAcAAJ
https://books.google.com/books?id=yCKU5DacJzUC

Vindication of the Sinaitic MS. of the Bible from the Charges brought against it by F. Archimandrite Porphyry, of the Assumption. by A. Noroff. St.
Petersburg. 1863.

Journal of Sacred Literature
Review - shill for Sinaiticus
https://books.google.com/books?id=3h82AAAAMAAJ&pg=PA247
p. 247-251

Similar shilling for the corruption text contra Uspensky by:

Michael Luzin
https://azbyka-ru.translate.goog/ot...tr_sl=ru&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

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

Tischendorf has direct defense material too

Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel (1863)
http://books.google.com/books?id=577FhUUliFQC&pg=PA14

Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=rd1UAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA9

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

Christfried Bottrich in the Perspectives book, 2015




18 references the 1862 doctrinal book

19 P. Uspenskij, Kniga bytija moego. Dnevniki i avtobiograficeskija zapiski episkopa Porfirija Uspenskago. Izdanie Imperatorskoj Akademii Nauk* pod redakcieju P. A. Syrku Ipostumj, 8 vols
(St Petersburg, 1894-1902).

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

Do they defend the 1 John 5:7-8?
 
Do they defend the 1 John 5:7-8?
Russaian Othodox Bishop Michael (Mikhail) Luzin (1830-1887) is strong on the heavenly witnesses in that article that tries to defend Sinaiticus from heresy. The section is quite interesting and should be added to my section on Orthodox writers.

While Uspensky raises the omissions of the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae in his Sinaiticus heresy writing he does not raise the heavenly witnesses, based on the Norov and Tischendorf responses.
 
#1 would need real proof.
#2 is minor since Benedict had a high position at the monastery

Why would the Pantameleion monastery lie?

Simonides has multiple motives to lie, but not so the real, long time, and contemporaneous residents of the monastery (which Simonides simply and casually lied about, and misrepresented to the world).
 
Considering... Simonides claimed that he had for a fact found a 1st century A.D. papyrus manuscript of the Apostle John's First Epistle (more than three feet long) with the Comma, in full, spelled out, (apparently ?) in:

  1. the Guardian Newspaper, January, 1863
  2. the Literary Gazette, August 31st issue, also 1863.

And boasted about showing it off to the learned gentry in London and Cambridge...????????

Sidenote, nothing is sacred to this guy...
Only his ego, and money! ?
 
Russaian Othodox Bishop Michael (Mikhail) Luzin (1830-1887) is strong on the heavenly witnesses in that article that tries to defend Sinaiticus from heresy. The section is quite interesting and should be added to my section on Orthodox writers.

While Uspensky raises the omissions of the Mark ending and the Pericope Adulterae in his Sinaiticus heresy writing he does not raise the heavenly witnesses, based on the Norov and Tischendorf responses.

Do they defend Simonides as the writer of the Sinaiticus?

Answer, no.

These questions are about Simonides two contradictory versions of 1 John 5:7-8.
 
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.

Nothing you're saying is convincing.

You're trapped in a real Simonides circularity.


Simonides Circularity
Trying to prove Simonides IS in fact a liar, a thief, and a forger (i.e. a mentally disturbed parricidal nut job).
While simultaneously trying to prove Simonides is in fact NOT a liar, a thief, an a forger (i.e. a mentally disturbed parricidal nut job).

i.e. trapped in an endlessly circulating and unresolvable contradiction

You're trying to dismiss far more credible and honest witnesses, in favor of someone - even you say - is a liar and a forger (a false witness).

The emotional suspicion (i.e. a conspiracist) based mindset doesn't work for me.

I see in Simonides all the common/calssic characteristics of your average compulsive and habitual liars and thieves - the ones we've all met (not by choice of course) from our earliest years until now.

I see the same old scenario of making up an overly elaborate story line which gets caught on all it's inconsistencies, and the classic change of narrative when the evidence - just doesn't add up.

I see you inventing stories (aiding and abetting) to fill in these gaps and inconsistencies to justify your own personal belief system. That's all I see happening here Mr Avery.

The Pantameleion Monastery was simply being honest (unlike Simonides, they had/have no track record of being a systematic and cunning international fraudster).
 
Last edited:
Simonides claimed that he had for a fact found a 1st century A.D. papyrus manuscript of the Apostle John's First Epistle (more than three feet long) with the Comma, in full, spelled out, (apparently ?) in:

  1. the Guardian Newspaper, January, 1863
  2. the Literary Gazette, August 31st issue, also 1863.

And boasted about showing it off to the learned gentry in London and Cambridge...

Simonides also claims to have written the Codex Sinaiticus, and therefore by default, claims to have hand-written the Comma-less text of 1 John 5:7-8 in Codex Sinaiticus himself.

Codex Sinaiticus
British Library Add MS 43725
(dated circa. 4th century A.D./C.E.)

CodexSinaitiucs.org

Webpage: See The Manuscript

British Library, Folio: 324, Column 1 (left hand side), Lines 15-18, Scribe: A


ΟΤΙ ΟΙ ΤΡΕΙΣ ΕΙΣΙΝ ΟΙ ΜΑΡΤΥΡΟΥΤΕΣ ΤΟ ΠΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΫΔΩΡ ΚΑΙ ΤΟ ΑΙΜΑ ΚΑΙ ΟΙ ΤΡΕΙΣ ΕΙΣ ΤΟ ΕΝ ΕΙΣΙΝ

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...5&lid=en&side=r&verse=7&zoomSlider=0#55-5-7-6


He claimed knowledge of a first century A.D. papyrus with the Comma, but allegedly writes a Comma-less text for the Tsar...

This is Simonides two contradictory versions of 1 John 5:7-8.

Is this the final undoing in the Simonides story for the KJVO crowd? Has Simonides caught himself out by his own contradiction (inconsistencies)?
 
Last edited:
Simonides claimed that he had for a fact found a 1st century A.D. papyrus manuscript of the Apostle John's First Epistle (more than three feet long) with the Comma, in full, spelled out, (apparently ?) in:

  1. the Guardian Newspaper, January, 1863
  2. the Literary Gazette, August 31st issue, also 1863.

And boasted about showing it off to the learned gentry in London and Cambridge...

Simonides also claims to have written the Codex Sinaiticus, and therefore by default, claims to have hand-written the Comma-less text of 1 John 5:7-8 in Codex Sinaiticus himself.

Simonides also had this to say, in his publication of the so-called Codex Mayerianus:

FACSIMILES OF CERTAIN PORTIONS OF
The Gospel of St. Matthew,
AND OF THE
Epistles of Ss . James & Jude,
WRITTEN ON PAPYRUS IN THE FIRST CENTURY,
AND PRESERVED IN THE EGYPTIAN MUSEUM OF JOSEPH MAYER , ESQ . LIVERPOOL .
WITH A PORTRAIT OF ST. MATTHEW,
FROM A FRESCO PAINTING AT MOUNT ATHOS.
EDITED AND ILLUSTRATED
WITH NOTES AND HISTORICAL AND LITERARY PROLEGOMENA, CONTAINING CONFIRMATORY
FAC -SIMILES OF THE SAME PORTIONS OF HOLY SCRIPTURE FROM PAPYRI AND PARCH
MENT MSS. IN THE MONASTERIES OF MOUNT ATHOS , OF ST. CATHERINE ON MOUNT SINAI,
OF ST. SABBA IN PALESTINE, AND OTHER SOURCES.
BY CONSTANTINE SIMONIDES, Ph. D.
HON . MEMBER OF THE HISTORIC SOCIETY OF LANCASHIRE AND CHESHIRE , &c. &c. &c.
"Πάντ ' ανακαλύπτων ο χρόνος είς φως φέρει.“ Time bringeth to light all discoveries.'
cis
LONDON :
TRÜBNER & CO., No. 60 PATERNOSTER ROW .
ALEA=1861=MDCCCLXI.

Page 72


"...The papyri were procured by that gentleman several years ago from the Rev. Henry Stobart, who is very well known in England ; and not only were the five strips thus obtained in which, greatly to my surprise, I discovered portions of the Gospel of St. Matthew , but many other rolls of papyrus, most of which had not been opened when the discovery of the five fragments above named was announced in the newspaper, and the hope expressed that, as there were many more to unroll, other portions of the same gospel might be found. But, unfortunately, no other portion of this evangelist has been discovered except the two small fragments mentioned on page 27 ; the mention of the discovery of the portions of the Epistles of St. James and St. Jude was made on page 7. On the 2nd of the month of March, 1861, I discovered the whole of the third Epistle
of St. John, notice of which was given at a meeting of the Liverpool Historic Society on the 7th of the same month, which was thus noticed in the Daily Post and the Liverpool Mercury of Friday, March 8th,“ Dr. Simonides announced other discoveries amongst the papyri in Mr. Mayer's Museum, being the third Epistle of St. John, and two pages of the Works of Aristeas, both of the 1st century." While these pages have been going through the press, Ι have unrolled papyri from the same collection, which contain all the second part of the First Epistle of St. Peter, and a
small part of the First Epistle of St. John
, and the greater part of the Second and Third Epistles, and the first three chapters of the Apocalypse, besides one, the most recently opened, but perhaps the most interesting of all, which contains portions of the last chapter of the Gospel of St. John. What then was the error committed by the journalists, or, if you please, by Mr. Mayer and myself, in expressing joy at this wonderful and indisputable discovery ; or in giving expression to the hope ( unfortunately not realised) that some other portions of the Gospel of Matthew might come to light; an expectation which had its basis in the number of the unrolled papyri, and the appearance of Greek characters upon
their external surface ? Yet the hope so expressed has been greatly derided by Dr. Tregelles, in the rather hasty pamphlet which he has published on the subject of the Codex Sinaiticus, which he praises without discretion [= Simonides' seething jealousy is so evident], being guided entirely by the reputation of the editor, and not by any critical examination ; being led away, as many others have been, by the fame which the discoverer so unworthily enjoys.“ [= Simonides' jealousy again] 'Of a truth, says Jamblichus, “bad judgment is the cause of all evil ; as fire the gold , so time tries the wise.' To return to our text. According to the Codex Mayerianus, with many other ancient manuscripts still preserved..."

[Emphasis and comments in green added by me]​



Samuel Prideaux Tregelles had this to say:

S. P. Tregelles, "Codex Mayerianus and Simonides", Notes and Queries, Volume 4, Series 3, 24th of April, 1869

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...nd+Simonides&pg=RA1-PA389&printsec=frontcover


 
Is this the final undoing in the Simonides story for the KJVO crowd? Has Simonides caught himself out by his own contradiction (inconsistencies)?

Simonides was simply a major part of the Sinaiticus creation.

He was never a textual hero, and there never has been support for his NT papyri, which look to have been forgeries.
 
Back
Top