Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

A note on photography and St Catherine's.

Apparently they had a ban on visitors taking photos of their manuscripts, except for a few (very few) exceptions with the monastery's hierarchy's blessing, (TMPK) from Tischendorf's time until sometime in the 20th century.
 
Kirsopp Lake, Leiden, 1911, Preface, Page A3:

"The Tsar was pleased to accept the present brought by Tischendorf; in November, 1859, the MS. was exhibited for a fortnight, and was then taken to Leipzig, in order that Tischendorf might issue a facsimile edition in accordance with the Tsar’s orders. [...] When the MS. was no longer needed for the purposes of preparing this edition it was finally handed over to the Tsar, and deposited in the Imperial Library, where it is still to be seen in a special show case in the Great Hall."

In "the Great Hall" of "the Imperial Library" in a special display (note: "SHOW") case in St. Petersburg.

Note...St. Petersburg was renamed "Petrograd" from 1914 to 1924, and then changed to "Leningrad" from 1924 to 1991, and then changed back to "St. Petersburg" after the fall of Communism.

The manuscript therefore was not totally inaccessible.

It was on public display (on "SHOW" it would seem).
 
Last edited:
The 1922 facsimiles on the other hand, look far more like photographs.
A huge advance in quality, in just (circa) 10 years.

The Bookseller (1922)
https://books.google.com/books?id=CnxUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA78

THE OXFORD UNIVERSITY PRESS have nearly ready the superb facsimile of the Old Testament text of the Codex Sinaiticus, reproduced from photographs taken at Petrograd and in Leipzig in 1913 by Dr. and Mrs. Kirsopp Lake. A description of this famous Codex and an introduction to its history have been contributed by Dr. Lake. The production of this volume, completing the task begun by the Oxford University Press by the publication in 1911 of those parts of the Codex which contain the New Testament, was made possible by the enterprise and devotion of the editors and by the munificence of an anonymous benefactor, who, in 1913, made a most liberal gift to the British Academy for the purpose.

Note that $ came through the British Academy. That helps explain why Kirsopp Lake did not say anything about the whiteness of the Leipzig pages, or the very different uneven yellow staining of the St. Petersburg pages.

Once again, no objective palaeography.

(The "scholarship" was just becoming deeply entrenched, it got much worse later.)
 
The Bookseller (1922)
https://books.google.com/books?id=CnxUAAAAYAAJ&pg=RA5-PA78



Note that $ came through the British Academy. That helps explain why Kirsopp Lake did not say anything about the whiteness of the Leipzig pages, or the very different uneven yellow staining of the St. Petersburg pages.

Once again, no objective palaeography.

(The "scholarship" was just becoming deeply entrenched, it got much worse later.)

And his biscuit supply for the journey was supplied by Griffin's ginger-nuts...

You really have confused an imaginary situation as being a fact.

Not sound analysis Steven.

You need to keep your dreams separated from fact.

In the truest sense of the word your conclusion above is delusional.
 
(The "scholarship" was just becoming deeply entrenched, it got much worse later.)

Versus the deeply entrenched conspiracy thinking (particularly post-2009) by the KJVO agenda driven S.A.R.T team.

You're objectivity is distorted and very much unbalanced by your long held and well publicized religious pre-conceptions.
 
Last edited:
And his biscuit supply for the journey was supplied by Griffin's ginger-nuts...
You really have confused an imaginary situation as being a fact.
Not sound analysis Steven.
You need to keep your dreams separated from fact.
In the truest sense of the word your conclusion above is delusional.

A gibberish response.
 
Versus the deeply entrenched conspiracy thinking (particularly post-2009) by the KJVO agenda driven S.A.R.T team.
You're objectivity is distorted and very much unbalanced by your long held and well publicized religious pre-conceptions.

Again, you are very confused.

Remember, I happily defended Sinaiticus authenticity, until I changed by the force of the evidence.
 
Again, you are very confused.

Remember, I happily defended Sinaiticus authenticity, until I changed by the force of the evidence.

I also remember you we're heavily biased against the textual value of the Sinaiticus before your over-exaggerated U-TURN.

Your imaginary situation's should not dirty the waters of a balanced analysis of the real (note real) facts.
 
Back
Top