Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides and Vitaliano Donati 1761

And there was "one Bible in particular" that stuck out to both Tischendorf and Uspensky.

They both ranked the Sinaiticus as "first" thee most extraordinary and/or outstanding one at St Catherine's.

This narrows and focuses the field directly in the direction of the Codex Sinaiticus as well.

Prior to 1860 even Simonide's agreed it was ancient (2nd century by his habitually exagertory estimation).

But we also know (don't we Steve) that he was prone to vengeance plots in the past, even before his 1856 arrest and imprisonment.
 
Last edited:
Ogvial = "curved" "oval" "circular"

Rotondo = "round" "rounded" "rotund" "circular" "spherical"

You seem to have forgotten that we had this review in January.

https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-30#post-1028729

Can't be more embarrassing than your "square" script to "squar-ISH" script backtracking within a matter of a few posts,

More TNC nonsense.
...
==============================

A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus (1864)
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=CNmOa7HaS6EC&pg=PA10

the square, plain, yet noble style of the hand-writing,

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

The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: And Other Critical Essays (1872)
On the comparative antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts of the Greek Bible
by Ezra Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=SpURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA152

(c) The writing in the Sinaitic is just as “even and square" as that of the Vatican.

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

An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1914)
Henry Barclay Swete revised by Richard Rusden Ottley
https://books.google.com/books?id=R-U7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA130

The characters are assigned to the fourth century; they are well-formed and somewhat square, written without break, except when an apostrophe or a single point intervenes; a breathing prima manu has been noticed at Tobit vi. 9, but with this exception neither breathings nor accents occur.

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

The Fourth Gospel: A History of the Textual Tradition of the Original Greek Gospel (1976)
Victor Salmon

There are four columns to a page, and the square letters are from 4 to 5 mm in size . - p. 25

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

Copying Early Christian Texts: A study of scribal practice (2016)
by Alan Mugridge
https://books.google.com/books?id=N_v1zQPNpFwC&pg=PA225
Hand: The two hands responsible for the NT section of this codex exhibit a fine, square uncial script, that is quite calligraphic and a good example of the Biblical uncial.

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

Here is the list of writers describing SInaiticus as round letters.

_____________________________________________
 
You seem to have forgotten that we had this review in January.

https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-30#post-1028729



More TNC nonsense.
...
==============================

A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus (1864)
Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=CNmOa7HaS6EC&pg=PA10



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

The Authorship of the Fourth Gospel: And Other Critical Essays (1872)
On the comparative antiquity of the Sinaitic and Vatican manuscripts of the Greek Bible
by Ezra Abbot
https://books.google.com/books?id=SpURAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA152



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

An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek (1914)
Henry Barclay Swete revised by Richard Rusden Ottley
https://books.google.com/books?id=R-U7AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA130



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

The Fourth Gospel: A History of the Textual Tradition of the Original Greek Gospel (1976)
Victor Salmon



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

Copying Early Christian Texts: A study of scribal practice (2016)
by Alan Mugridge
https://books.google.com/books?id=N_v1zQPNpFwC&pg=PA225


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

Here is the list of writers describing SInaiticus as round letters.

I've found out more since then.

Which modifies my stance.

Modifies even further in the direction that Vitaliano Donati did see the Codex Sinaiticus in 1761, a full hundred years before Simonide's decided to take revenge on Tischendorf for exposing his Uranius, and made up a story to implement it.
 
This narrows the field considerably of which manuscript Vitaliano was describing.

Up till 1840 many, mostly Europeans, visited with a variety of reports and nothing of Sinaiticus. Then after 1840 came Major MacDonald, Tischendorf and Uspensky, as the ms had arrived from Athos via Constantinople.

We covered a lot of that on the old CARM.
And I may put together a summary with names and dates.

In addition various manuscripts were taken out of the monastery and some were sent to Egypt.

The Donati account is a diversion and quite irrelevant.
The quotes above also teach you about the square script.

Have fun going nowhere.
 
Last edited:
Up till 1840 many, mostly Europeans, visited with a variety of reports and nothing of Sinaiticus. Then after 1840 came Major MacDonald, Tischendorf and Uspensky, as the ms had arrived from Athos via Constantinople.

We covered a lot of that on the old CARM.
And I may put together a summary with names and dates.

In addition various manuscripts were taken out of the monastery and some were sent to Egypt.

The Donati account is a diversion and quite irrelevant.
The quotes above also teach you about the square script.

Have fun going nowhere.

Your welcome to your opinions.

But there's more evidence than you realize or are aware of.

You've got the advantage here off having spent more time (years) on looking into this liar's tale, but you're not great on your research. Full stop.

And the wreckage from all your crashes (blunders) are all over the internet.
 
Up till 1840 many, mostly Europeans, visited with a variety of reports and nothing of Sinaiticus. Then after 1840 came Major MacDonald, Tischendorf and Uspensky, as the ms had arrived from Athos via Constantinople.

In the early 1840's Simonides made up patently false stories to sell forgeries, swell his ego, and out of nationalistic fervor. Then he made up even more fictitious stories in 1860.
 
Steven Avery
Tour in the Levant (1820)
William Turner
https://books.google.com/books?id=Y51jAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA443

Convent of Sinai ... To my inquires after manuscripts and a library, the priests answered, that they had only three bibles, and I took their word the more readily, as Pococke states that they had no rare manuscripts. But Mr. Bankes, by persevering and rummaging, found out a library of 2,000 volumes, of which three-quarters were MSS, and of these, nine-tenths were Greek. ....

See the new Uspensky quote, from the 1856 book, that there are four Bibles
"The best Greek manuscripts are stored in the priors’ cells. There are only four of them, but they are very precious for their antiquity, rarity and handwriting features, for their content, for the elegance of the beautiful faces of the saints and entertaining drawings and paintings."
Logically, the fourth was a nice addition of an ancient manuscript after 1820!, as a Bible under special care.

Emphasis added by me above.


Note straight away where Steven goes wrong and immediately misrepresents the text of both Uspensky and Turner.

Note that Uspensky didn't say

"the Best [Bibles] are stored in the Prior's cells. There are only four [Bibles]..."​

He actually said:

Первое путешествие в Синайский Монастыŕ в 1845 году Архимандрита Порфиря Успенскаго

First trip to the Sinai Monasteries in 1845 Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky
By Porfirij Bischof v. Tschigirin, 1856
Page 225


Самые лучшие рукописи греческие хранятся в настоятельских келлиях. Их только четыре;
но они весьма драгоценны по своей древности

"The very best Greek manuscripts are kept [Or: "stored" "conserved"] in the Father Superior's cells. There are only four of them;
but they are extremely precious because of their antiquity [Or: "of being ancient" "of their great age" "of being extremely old"]..."​


Самые = "most" or "the most"​
лучшие = "best" "fine"​
рукописи = "manuscripts"​
греческие = "Greek (ones)"​
The word Самые "most" preceding лучшие "best" makes up a superlative clause "the very best", clearly indicating that "the very best Greek manuscripts" are being compared to other "Greek manuscripts" which are not the best.

Logically, therefore, there must be more "Greek manuscripts" outside of the category of Самые лучшие "the very best" (or "the finest") to say they are "the best".
Steven Avery

See the new Uspensky quote, from the 1856 book, that there are four Bibles
Steven you're misrepresenting the evidence, and you've been caught again.
Uspensky did not say:

"There are only four [Bibles]..."
He said:

рукописи греческие [...] Их только четыре

"Greek manuscripts [...] There are only four of them..."​
 
Last edited:
Emphasis added by me above.
Note straight away where Steven goes wrong and immediately misrepresents the text of both Uspensky and Turner.

Thanks, that was something I put up in 2016.

More recently you can see I am working on all the additional people who looked for manuscripts at St. Catherine's, with no hint of Sinaiticus. That is in a 2023 post work-in-process on the same page.

Turner was quoted correctly, Uspensky I have now corrected.

In discussions about Sinaiticus I have never used the three/four argument because it has too many variables.
Thanks for the mini-correction on Uspensky.
 
Up till 1840 many, mostly Europeans, visited with a variety of reports and nothing of Sinaiticus. Then after 1840 came Major MacDonald, Tischendorf and Uspensky, as the ms had arrived from Athos via Constantinople. ...

In addition various manuscripts were taken out of the monastery and some were sent to Egypt.

As described here:

Traveling Through Sinai: From the Fourth to the Twenty-First Century (2009)
Deborah Manley, Sahar Abdel-Hakim
https://books.google.com/books?id=4h01YaOex1oC&pg=PA179

The Library, 1820
Sir Frederick Henniker

The library does not contain many books of value; all that were worth moving have been lately carried to Egypt; there still remain many scrolls of parchment, on which are written prayers in Greek and Syriac, and also some damaged Aldine editions; -
 
As described here:

Traveling Through Sinai: From the Fourth to the Twenty-First Century (2009)
Deborah Manley, Sahar Abdel-Hakim
https://books.google.com/books?id=4h01YaOex1oC&pg=PA179

The Library, 1820
Sir Frederick Henniker

The library does not contain many books of value; all that were worth moving have been lately carried to Egypt; there still remain many scrolls of parchment, on which are written prayers in Greek and Syriac, and also some damaged Aldine editions; -

Nearly every quote you post, you twist and distort it's contextual sense.

Busy working right now. But I'll come back to this.
 
St. Catherine Monastery
The Library
https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/library

In 1725, Nicephorus Marthalis was elected Archbishop of Sinai. He had been a scribe, and the library contains manuscripts written in his hand. He had a great concern for the manuscripts, and asked that they be gathered into a new location opposite the Archbishop's quarters, and that a catalogue of the manuscripts be drawn up.

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

Since the opponents of Simonides claimed that they could show Sinaiticus in the ancient catalogue, and since one should have been there from the 1700s, what happened? Did it vanish because it would be a bit uncomfortable for the big ticket item?
 
James Donaldson raised similar concerns about the lack of historical documentation regarding Sinaiticus. Donaldson had been first discussing some concerns about a manuscript, Codex Hierosolymitanus, from Philotheos Bryennios (Donaldson has Philotheus Bryennius) where there are difficulties and puzzles regarding the provenance and a library catalog.

The Theological review (1877)
The New MS. of Clement of Rome
James Donaldson
http://books.google.com/books?id=W0EEAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA35

Still more unsatisfactory is the absence of such external testimony when so important a Codex as the Sinaiticus is concerned. Tischendorf rescued a portion of this manuscript from the waste-basket in 1844. In 1853 he could hear nothing of it. In 1859 he accidentally found it in the possession of the steward, the most complete copy of the Old and New Testament in existence, with the Epistle of Barnabas and the Pastor of Hermas. Could not the monks state its history during the period of 1844 to 1859? Could they not have detailed the efforts they made to gather the scattered fragments together? Could not the steward have told when he became the custodian of the work? All this information would be exceedingly interesting in itself and very valuable for posterity. This generation may have perfect confidence in Bryennius and Tischendorf. But circumstances might arise at a long subsequent period which might awaken doubts as to the genuineness of the manuscripts. The appeal to internal evidence may prove to be unsatisfactory. And then what is there ? It might well be urged that if a Tischendorf were inclined to forge a manuscript, he had unrivalled opportunities of so doing. No one was so well versed in manuscripts as he. None knew so well as he all the forms of the letters, all the mistakes of copyists, all the various readings. And it might also be said that there is no guarantee that the terrible results of a discovery of such a practice would be sufficiently deterrent. Chatterton was not deterred. Constantine Simonides was not deterred. Nor were these influenced by a base love of gain, but an eager desire to shew their power. A fascination was upon them which blinded them to all consequences. We cannot therefore but think it a grave error both in Tischendorf and Bryennius that they have not adduced external testimony to the history of their manuscripts.
 
As described here:

Traveling Through Sinai: From the Fourth to the Twenty-First Century (2009)
Deborah Manley, Sahar Abdel-Hakim
https://books.google.com/books?id=4h01YaOex1oC&pg=PA179

The Library, 1820
Sir Frederick Henniker

The library does not contain many books of value; all that were worth moving have been lately carried to Egypt; there still remain many scrolls of parchment, on which are written prayers in Greek and Syriac, and also some damaged Aldine editions; -

Quote the rest of it.

Show the attitude of how the Head (Superior) Monk felt about the "old" manuscripts and books etc.

How Sir Frederick Henniker (or Mr Frognall Dibdin) said the Superior Monk said to him:

"told me to throw away the stupid old books, and look at some nice new ones"

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...1oC?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PA179&printsec=frontcover

This actually corroborates Tischendorf's account, more! Does it not! That it was the Monks who were throwing away "zerrissener und verderbter handschriften" "torn and ruined manuscripts"... :)

Again.

The context comes back to haunt you.
 
St. Catherine Monastery
The Library
https://www.sinaimonastery.com/index.php/en/library

In 1725, Nicephorus Marthalis was elected Archbishop of Sinai. He had been a scribe, and the library contains manuscripts written in his hand. He had a great concern for the manuscripts, and asked that they be gathered into a new location opposite the Archbishop's quarters, and that a catalogue of the manuscripts be drawn up.

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

Since the opponents of Simonides claimed that they could show Sinaiticus in the ancient catalogue, and since one should have been there from the 1700s, what happened? Did it vanish because it would be a bit uncomfortable for the big ticket item?

Simple.

The accounts of the lack of care taken by the monks in regards to the preservation of the manuscripts themselves, show clearly why and how a mere catalogue (or catalogues, or even parts of catalogues) could go missing or have been destroyed.

That's the only explanation needed.

It's honest, straight forward = the most obvious and simplest explanation (Occkam ?;)?).
 
Simple.
The accounts of the lack of care taken by the monks in regards to the preservation of the manuscripts themselves, show clearly why and how a mere catalogue (or catalogues, or even parts of catalogues) could go missing or have been destroyed.
That's the only explanation needed.
It's honest, straight forward = the most obvious and simplest explanation (Occkam ?;)?).

So why did the Tischendupes claim there was an ancient catalog that would support Sinaiticus?
 
Again.

Look at who you're quoting = St Catherine's, the Monk's themselves.

Look at where you're quoting from = St Catherine's website, again, from the Monk's themselves.

It's not Tischendorf saying it.

It's the Monastery residents telling you truthfully.

St. Catherine Monastery

The Library

"In 1725, Nicephorus Marthalis was elected Archbishop of Sinai. He had been a scribe, and the library contains manuscripts written in his hand. He had a great concern for the manuscripts, and asked that they be gathered into a new location opposite the Archbishop's quarters, and that a catalogue of the manuscripts be drawn up."



You misuse every resource you quote from.
 
"The Journal of sacred literature, ed. by J. Kitto. [Continued as] The Journal of sacred literature and biblical record.
[Continued as] The Journal of sacred literature."
Volume 3, 1863
Subheading: Miscellanies.
Page 493


"Here comes the original Greek of the letter of Kallinikos, but the English translation of it will be enough for our purpose.

“To the Most Venerable Priest, J. Silvester Davies, of Southampton, England.
From the Monastery of Mount Sinai, 1 (13) April, 1863.

"Most pious, and by me most respected, Sir—I received the valuable letter, brought to me from you, written at Southampton on February 25 of this same year, in which you ask me, in the first place, whether the letters published in several English journals under the signature ‘ Kallinikos Hieromonachos,” and defending Mr. Simonides, are indeed my letters or not; secondly, whether the said Mr. Simonides ever visited the monastery of Mount Sinai. In answer to your first question I reply, that besides myself there is no other Kallinikos Hieromonachos in this holy monastery. But I lived away from the monastery from the year 1838 to 1855, having been sent on different monastic services to Damascus, Rhodes, and elsewhere; and never anywhere have I made acquaintance with any Simonides. Since, then, there is no other Kallinikos Hieromonachos besides myself among the brethren of this monastery, and I have never known any Simonides, and consequently I did not write the aforesaid letters to shield him in his tricks, it follows that these letters have been forged by Simonides himself. To answer your second question, I sought to know for certain from my aged and long-standing brethren, whether they remembered any one called Simonides having come up to Mount Sinai, and having visited our holy monastery : and they all expressly assured me in the negative, that certainly never did any Simonides appear in this monastery. One of the brethren declared to me above all, that in the year 1852, being at Alexandria, he saw Mr. Simonides, who had landed there with the view of going thence to Damietta and Upper Egypt. But suddenly, without going anywhere, he went to England, having embarked in the ship Kasion,’ Captain Nicholas Maliaraki. Since, then, Mr. Simonides never visited Mount Sinai, but having only just come to Alexandria, immediately went thence to England; he lies when he positively affirms that the ancient MS. of the Holy Scripture, published by Mr. Tischendorf, is his work; because the MS. in question (as the librarian of our holy monastery, having been so from the year 1841 to 1858, assured me) belonged to the library of the monastery, and was marked in its ancient catalogue(s). The book, then, which the librarian who was appointed in 1841 found in this library, how could it possibly be the work of Simonides, who never set foot on Mount Sinai, but only got as far as Alexandria in 1852, and went back directly from thence without having visited any other part of Egypt? In every way, then, the assertion of Simonides is proved false, when he says that that ancient MS. was his work. As to myself, if the great distance of place and my own advanced years permitted, I would willingly deliver him over to the righteous dealing of the laws as having abused me, and forged under my name those letters to prop up his great charlatanism.—Accept, Sir, my unfeigned respect, with which I am your sincere friend, KALLINIKOS HIEROMONACHOS OF SINAI."

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/The_Journal_of_sacred_literature_ed_by_J/vvgDAAAAQAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&dq=the+Most+Venerable+Priest,+J.+Silvester+Davies,+of+Southampton,+England.+“++From+the+Monastery+of+Mount+Sinai,+1+(13)+April,+1863&pg=PA493&printsec=frontcover
 
Back
Top