But as it turned out, the death of his uncle and the unavailability of enough parchment to complete the intended project left the work unfinished, and eventually he was persuaded to give what he had done so far to St. Catherine's monastery at what is supposed by some to be Mt. Sinai, for their library.
Which is where Tischendorf found it a few years later and mistook it for an ancient text, or at least feigned to regard it as ancient although there is some evidence that he knew better.
The information presented in the documentary is quite credible it seems to me, VERY credible, which makes the information to be found from the usual sources to be highly suspect such as this Wikipedia entry on Simonides. The lies on that page are staggering if what Pinto has presented is true, and I believe it is. Just one small point:
On 13 September 1862, in an article of The Guardian, he claimed that he is the real author of the Codex Sinaiticus and that he wrote it in 1839. According to him it was "the one poor work of his youth". According to Simonides, he visited Sinai in 1852 and saw the codex.It is quite clear from the letter Simonides wrote to the Guardian to give evidence that he was the creator of Sinaiticus, that he had done the work over a year at Mt. Athos monastery starting in 1839, and that a year or two later he GAVE the codex to the monastery at Sinai, and that after Tischendorf had published it he saw the Codex in Liverpool in 1860 and recognized it as his own work.
Apparently there are powers in this world with the intention and the ability to slander a man beyond recognition if it serves their purposes. After spending some time with Chris Pinto's work it's hard to avoid the impression that there really are true conspiracies in this world, one in particular for certain, or at least many emanating from one source in particular, the Vatican, in the service of their Antichrist project to bring down the true Church of Jesus Christ.
I would like to present more of the facts from the film here and Lord willing I may yet, but let's put it this way: I have some of the principalities and powers on my own case these days to such an extent that it's hard for me to get anything done at all.
I'm interested to know what actual evidence film provided to back up the claims. Is there written documentation? What year has it been dated to? Is this documentation recognised as authentic?
ReplyDeleteThe main evidence is that series of letters to the Guardian in which Simonides makes his claims, not long after the purported "discovery" of Sinaiticus by Tischendorf, which is what prompted Simonides to write the letters. I haven't yet checked out this evidence myself, but Chris Pinto argues effectively that it is convincing.
ReplyDeleteFor one thing, it's hard to imagine a motive to write such letters if it isn't true, it did him no good in any way. Also, he names people who were witnesses to his claim but oddly enough nobody checked them out.
As for the documentation being recognized as authentic, the letters do exist and can be read, but beyond that there seems to be a concerted effort to discredit Simonides in the service of authenticating Sinaiticus, so you have to decide on your own if his claims are credible or not.
This is a very powerful movie. I believe that Mr. Pinto is correct about the Codex Sinaiticus. I plan to do research on this myself and see if I come to the same conclusions. I listened to a couple of podcasts that Mr. Pinto did in Sept. 2012, were he rebuts the wiki pages on Simonides. Mr. Pinto says he was going to edit the article but the article remains intact on the wiki. I have always said wiki is worthless because you can publish anything without proof. I find it very interesting that the writer of the wiki says "Henry Bradshaw, a scholar, exposed the absurdity of his claims."
ReplyDeleteWhen Mr. Bradshaw's own words about the authenticity of Codex Sinaiticus "I first replied that it was really difficult to define; that it seemed to be more a kind of instinct than anything else" (A Memoir of Henry Bradshaw: Fellow of King's College, p.95) It's a google free book so you can look it up yourself. This is what wiki is calling "exposed the absurdity of his claims". That's absurdity in the wiki.
Thanks for your comment Moobacha.
ReplyDeleteYes, it appears that the authentication of ancient manuscripts is a pretty subjective thing, a matter of "instinct" indeed.
I hope you will let us know the results of your research.
“The romance of the Codex Sinaiaticus was not yet over, however. Since the year 1856 an ingenious Greek, named Constantine Simonides, had been creating a considerable sensation by producing quantities of Greek manuscripts professing to be of fabulous antiquity, - such as a Homer in an almost prehistoric style of writing, a lost Egyptian historian, a copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel on papyrus, written fifteen years after the Ascension (!), and other portions of the New Testament dating from the first century. These productions enjoyed a short period of notoriety, and were then exposed as forgeries. Among the scholars concerned in the exposure was Tischendorf; and the revenge taken by Simonides was distinctly humourous. While stoutly maintaining the genuineness of his own wares, he admitted that he had written *one* manuscript which passed as being very ancient, and that was the Codex Sinaiaticus, the discovery of which had been so triumphantly proclaimed by Tischendorf! The idea was ingenious, but it would not bear investigation. Apart from the internal evidence of the text itself, the variations in which no forger, however clever, could have invented, it was shown that Simonides could not have completed the task in the time that he professed to have taken; and this little cloud on the credit of the newly-discovered manuscript rapidly passed away.”
ReplyDeleteOur Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (4th ed.), Kenyon, Frederick G. (1939), Pages 123-124
Chris Pinto has dealt with allegations like this one already. Kenyon no doubt believed what he wrote here but if so it's he who has fallen for the fraud, the apparently well orchestrated effort to discredit Simonides and make him out to be a forger. Pinto has shown him to be a well respected paleographer, no forger at all. Simonides comes off as completely credible in everything I've seen of what he wrote about his work on the Sinaiticus ms., which he claimed to have done for his uncle to be a gift to the Czar of Russia which was never finished.
ReplyDeleteThe biggest problem with the Simonides claim is, why would an Eastern Orthodox calligrapher create a NT manuscript for an Eastern Orthodox Tsar that is so different from the traditional Orthodox, Byzantine text which would be the simplest and most logical thing to do?
ReplyDeleteThis is a very good point I meant to respond to earlier but forgot about it, sorry. That is definitely a good question. Maybe it's also a question about the manuscript itself. Why would the monastery have had it at all for Tischendorf to find?
DeleteC14 dating of Sinaiticus (and Vaticanus), which should have been done decades ago, could certainly eliminate or prejudice some false claims made for these MSS over the years. A recent radiocarbon date of say 1700s-1800s would affirm Simonides and discount the 4th century claims for the document. Conversely, a 4th century C14 date would be consistent with a Eusebius production while not necessarily affirming theological orthodoxy of the Sinaiticus. 'Old' is not necessarily
ReplyDelete'pure and uncorrupted', as most of the Alexandrian 'gnostic' productions attest.
Very good point. Chris Pinto has often remarked that it never was dated by C-14 and it really should be. Thanks.
DeleteI find it interesting that the wikipedia page fails to mention anything about the circumstances of his death.
ReplyDeleteWhat would have happened if there never were any perversions and the King James Bible was the only Bible known to western civilization? Would the entire course of western history have been better and would God have supernaturally made sure America and Europe and the Western world did not slide into chaos and disorder as it has been?
ReplyDeleteSorry I didn't see your comment until now.
DeleteSeems to me the Bible confusion is certainly related to the spiritual degeneration of western civilization, but unfortunately it's just one of dozens of attacks by the powers and principalities that the church has failed to recognize.