The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

The more I read, the more forged works turn up.

He even claims to have had a ancient manuscript saved from a fire, from the great library of Alexandria...

He claims to have ancient Korans...

It's so incredulous...so bogus...
 
Nothing you're saying is convincing.

You're trapped in a real Simonides circularity.




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).


He’s also using the old trick of pretending “if someone doesn’t mention something specifically it means….whatever Spencer can imagine.”

This is NOT how inquiries by actual scholars are done; this is how unaccomplished online hacks whom the Internet has tragically shortened the distance between accomplishment and hackery argue.


It’s also why they avoid any actual interaction with actual scholars, preferring the email or online post hit and run over saying the trash posted online to the face of someone whose reaction would force you to drink your food through a straw for the next 6 months.
 
He’s also using the old trick of pretending “if someone doesn’t mention something specifically it means….whatever Spencer can imagine.”
Which only works until somebody applies that "logic" to other cases when something is not specifically mentioned. The results glaringly show the inconsistency, the illogical irrationality, of the one using that ploy.
Sad to say, there are those who gulp this Kool-Aid down, and ask for more.

--Rich
 
He’s also using the old trick of pretending “if someone doesn’t mention something specifically it means….whatever Spencer can imagine.”

Exactly. That's where he lives. In the gaps in between stories, making up old wives tales...

He'll be back... with a new one... coming your way soon...
 
An important post that vanished, about Uspensky, which TNC nicely quoted (thanks!) the context was the debate on the manuscript, including Uspensky.

TNC quoted post here:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...onides-regarding-sinaiticus.11880/post-993082

Small changes now.

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

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 Archimandrite 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 Hermas.

Note that Uspensky had actually raised specific verse issues from the manuscript in his 1856 book about his 1845 Sinai visit. All before the 1859 phony red cloth "discovery." He also copied in part of Psalms and Song of Songs.

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

Avraam Sergeevic Norov (1795-1869) wrote a defense, essentially Tischendorf's position that was put in his 1863 books.

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 (note: to his credit he defends the heavenly witnesses verse!)
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

In these books he is wildly attacking Uspensky, Simonides, Hilgenfeld and an anonymous English writer. I believe Tischendorf is a bit unbalanced in these books because he can sense that the whole charade (4th century, authenticity or both) can come crashing down. You can understand his concern with Simonides, however the others simply pointed out flaws in his 4th-century theory.

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

Christfried Bottrich in the Perspectives book, 2015

Codex Sinaiticus: New Perspectives on the Ancient Biblical Manuscript

Chapter 13
One Story - Different Perspectives:
The Discovery of Codex Sinaiticus
CHRISTFRIED BOTTRICH

p. 176

Uspenskij’s visit to the Monastery in 1845 may have provided the main impulse to reunify the separate parchment sheets and then to preserve them carefully. His first written report of 1856 was evidently known to the Holy Synod in St Petersburg and influenced its position during the negotiations before Tischendorf’s third journey under the Russian flag.21 These are Uspenskij’s principal contributions. In contrast, his 1862
treatise is of no scholarly value, reflecting only his personal resentment.22

AUTHORITY IN THE BACKGROUND -
THE HOLY SYNOD’S GUIDELINES

One of the most exciting documents offering a clear perspective on the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus is preserved in a statement formulated by the Holy Synod in St Petersburg in May 1858, concerning the planned send-off of Tischendorf to Sinai. This statement is part of a dossier produced by the Russian Minister of Education on 11 June 1862.23 The Holy Synod, having been asked for an opinion on the venture, warned the Minister about entrusting a German Protestant with such a complicated mission. The Synod advised that the mission could better be executed by an Orthodox scholar, who would be able to open the doors of Greek monasteries in the East. The Holy Synod therefore proposed Professor Viktor Ivanovic Grigorovic from Kazan and Archimandrite Porfirij Uspenskij for the mission, instead of Tischendorf.

Then there follows a very important demand: these Orthodox scholars should only register, describe and copy the manuscripts. The Synod advised that perhaps it might be useful to ask permission to transfer some manuscripts to Russia for a limited period for scholarly analysis. However, the purchase of manuscripts was to be forbidden absolutely! The basis for this prohibition was a consensus reached by the Ecumenical Patriarch and the Hierarchs of the Eastern Churches. This statement may have been based on negative incidents the churches and monasteries had already experienced. So the Holy Synod insisted on the untouched preservation of the original collections in situ. Only privately owned manuscripts were excepted from this guideline.

===============================
 
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

In these books he is wildly attacking Uspensky, Simonides, Hilgenfeld and an anonymous English writer. I believe Tischendorf is a bit unbalanced in these books because he can sense that the whole charade (4th century, authenticity or both) can come crashing down. You can understand his concern with Simonides, however the others simply pointed out flaws in his 4th-century theory.
Are you saying that your own attacks on Tischendorf are other than "wild and unbalanced?"

You seem to rely principally on (1) Simonides, whose mental instability was such that he wrote an autobiography of himself but pretended that it was a biography written by someone else (so much for his veracity as to authorship), (b) Uspensky, who daftly declared the World's oldest complete New Testament to be "heretical".

Are your own witnesses reliable?
 
Are you saying that your own attacks on Tischendorf are other than "wild and unbalanced?"

They are based on historical facts from many sources. They apply principally to Sinaiticus, although his vain-glorious mentality was a major contribution.
 
They are based on historical facts from many sources.

Nonsense.

You cherry pick sources, often misrepresent them, and pretend that everything Simonides said that you want to believe is true.

They apply principally to Sinaiticus, although his vain-glorious mentality was a major contribution.

In 30 years, you will be dead and forgotten and people will still know who Tischendorf was.

Remember that the next time you want to say something bad about the guy. He had far more reason for being arrogant than do you - but it never stops you, does it?
 
They are based on historical facts from many sources. They apply principally to Sinaiticus, although his vain-glorious mentality was a major contribution.
There is no logic in attacking Sinaiticus because you don't like Tischendorf. I am at a loss as to know your motives, your "historical facts" or your overall thesis. What does "major contribution" mean above? The history books are already written, and your account forms no part of them.
 
There is no logic in attacking Sinaiticus because you don't like Tischendorf. I am at a loss as to know your motives, your "historical facts" or your overall thesis. What does "major contribution" mean above? The history books are already written, and your account forms no part of them.

His motivation is KJV Onlyism.

That's all this is about.

"Well, they got two pillars but if I can knock down one" is driving all this insanity. Hatred of the fact God preserved a manuscript for 1400 years and it doesn't agree with the English Bible he likes translated by English people whose theology he hates.
 
His motivation is KJV Onlyism.

That's all this is about.

"Well, they got two pillars but if I can knock down one" is driving all this insanity. Hatred of the fact God preserved a manuscript for 1400 years and it doesn't agree with the English Bible he likes translated by English people whose theology he hates.
It's mostly about the missing Johannine Comma in Sinaiticus and all the other ancient Greek manuscripts, I sense. The whole enterprise to re-insert it is doomed however, and he knows it. He is making a last stand, as at the pass at Thermopylae.
 
Back
Top