Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

This comment by W. A. Wright is enlightening, in regard to comparing both the later 1862-63 letters from Simonides and Kallinikos with the 1859 (3-4 years earlier) Biographical Memoir by Charles Stewart:


THE JOURNAL OF SACRED LITERATURE AND BIBLICAL RECORD.
Edited by B. Harris Cowper
Editor of the New Testament in Greek from Codex A ; A Syriac Grammar, Etc.
Vol. III (New Serries).
WIlliams and Norgate,
16 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London;
20 South Frederick Street, Edinburgh.
April, 1863
Subheading: Miscellanies,
Page 211


Not a hint is given in the Memoir of the transcript for the Emperor of Russia, although in the letter this is the object for which he acquired the art of palaeography, which in the Memoir is turned [in]to [an] account in deciphering and transcribing the MSS. which had been buried
in the hidden library.”

(Emphasis added)​
 
Two interesting quotes:

The Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair
An Examination of the Nineteenth Century Claim that Codex Sinaiticus was Not an Ancient Manuscript
By James Keith Elliott, 1982
Page 33


"...Simonides certainly took good care, during his long stay at Leipsic, not to say that he was the writer of this much prized treasure
of the University library, where he was a constant visitor, since, in that case, a place would
doubtless soon have been found for him in a lunatic asylum..."

Obviously, studying the Codex Sinaiticus.

He also, during his long stay in Leipzig and constant visits to the Sinaiticus displayed at the University library, no doubt would have become aquatinted with:

Codex Friderico-Augustanus, sive, Fragmenta Veteris Testamenti : e codice graeco omnium qui in Europa supersunt
facile antiquissimo in Oriente detexit, in patriam attulit, ad modum Codicis Edidit.”
Sumtibus Caroli Francisci Koehleri,
E Lithographeo J. J. Uckermanni
Lipsiae, 1846

“The Codex Friderico-Augustanus, or, Fragments of the Old Testament : From, what is easily, the Oldest Surviving Greek Manuscript in the East
[Or: “Orient”] that has been produced in the form [Or: "manner"] of a Codex, brought to the Fatherland.”
Published by Charles Francis Koehler
From a lithograph by J. J. Uckermann
Leipzig, 1846


Note: 1846...


In one of Tregelles letters, he refers to this very lithograph:


Plymouth
Jan 15.1863

"In 1846, you will remember that the portion of the Old Test. of א brought to Leipsic two years before was published in a lithographed facsimile; and I quite believe that in some of the forgeries of Simonides, he tried to imitate the writing thus engraved: but it was like his imitation of Mr. Babington's editions of the Papyri of Hyperides clumsily managed: it was a continued attempt to disguise his own fine strokes. [...]

I remain
yours most truly
SP Tregelles​

Note also the comment:

Plymouth
Jan 15.1863


"and I quite believe that in some of the forgeries of Simonides, he tried to imitate the writing thus engraved: but it was like his imitation of Mr. Babington's editions of the Papyri of Hyperides clumsily managed: it was a continued attempt to disguise his own fine strokes..."

I remain
yours most truly
SP Tregelles​

The same conclusion drawn, more recently, by Malcolm Choat and Tommy Wassermann in:

“THE CABLE GUY”: CONSTANTINE SIMONIDES AND CODEX MAYERIANUS"
Tommy Wasserman Ansgar University College and Theological Seminary and Malcolm Choat Macquarie University
Bulletin of the American Society of Papyrologists 57 (2020)
Page 200, Paragraph 2
Page 2003, Paragraph 2


"It is quite apparent from the characteristics of the Hyperides papyrus as well as Babington’s ensuing edition that Simonides used the manuscript and its edition as models for Mayerianus. [...] [Page 203] It is thus likely that the Hyperides papyrus was the model not only for the format of Simonides’ biblical papyri, but also elements of their script. Simonides’ edition of Mayerianus also shares many similarities with Babington’s 1858 Hyperides edition. [...] It is interesting to note that two of Simonides’ worst critics, Constantine von Tischendorf and Samuel Tregelles, were included in the list of subscribers of Babington’s 1858 edition among many prominent scholars of the time. No doubt Simonides knew that his enemies would compare the two papyri..."

There's possible physical evidence that he may have traced some of Tischendorf's fascimilies:


Constantinos Simonides in the Gennadius Library"
By Pasquale Massimo Pinto
Page 99
Footnote 26


The letter is pasted onto the front endpaper of the volume bearing the call number BB 1226.69 and containing the works described just below under D. Here is the text of the letter from Farrer to Hodgkin: “50, Ennismore Gardens, Prince’s Gate. / Dear Mr. Hodgkin, I am leaving all the papers I took away the other day, except the curious uncial tracing, which seems to be from the Shepherd of Hermas. This I am anxious to compare at the Brit. Museum / with Tischendorf’s Facsimile of the same at the end of his Codex. I expect your volume of Lithograph letters contains a treatise by Simonides on Aγιογραφια, on the Church Art of Mt. Athos. A letter I found / from Alexander Sturzas (at least I think he is meant by A. S. S.) is dated from Odessa, April 14, 1852, and acknowledges the receipt of it. If so, the presumption is that the other letters were really also lithographed about that time. My arrangement of the papers is quite [a word was probably left out], but will, I hope, / facilitate reference for future use, should such ever be required. Yours very truly J. A. Farrer».

https://www.academia.edu/899443/Constantinos_Simonidis_in_the_Gennadius_Library

Hmmm

Tracings!

On tracing paper!

Of Tischendorf's fascimilies?
 
Note the direct implications of this statement, with the one's below:

The First Letter
By Constantine Simonides
September 3, 1862:
The Guardian
Subheading: "The Sinai MS of the Greek Bible."


"This together with - THE REMAINS OF - the seven apostolic fathers – Barnabas, HERMAS, Clement Bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and Dionysius the Areopagite..."​


Anybody catch that?


"...REMAINS OF ... Hermas..."


Compared with the once Patriarch of Constantinople Constantius, ALSO testifying in agreement with Simonides bed-time story, that he only transcribed:

Journal of Sacred Literature
Miscellanies
April, 1863
Page 216

Fake letter, from Constantius, from the Island of Antigonos, August 1841


"I have received your truly valuable transcript of ... the FIRST PART OF the pastoral writings of Hermas..."

https://archive.org/stream/journalsacredli15cowpgoog#page/n229/mode/2up

Note!

"...THE FIRST PART OF..."

Compare also:


A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts."
By Charles Stewart, 1859
Pages 61


“...M. Tissendorf also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well -
THE 1ST BOOK OF HERMAS - , all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago...”

Note:


"...THE 1ST BOOK OF HERMAS..."



This'll pop Avery's noodle...

Take a look at this folks...


Konstantin Tischendorf

"Vorworte zur Sinaitischen Bibelhandschrift"

Leipzig, 1862

Pages 11-12


"...In the afternoon [on the 4th of February 1859] [...] And as I instantly noticed, it was not only the books of the Old Testament I saved in 1844 from a basket, but also, something still of much greater importance – the whole New Testament, not with the smallest hole defaced, enriched even more by the complete Epistle of Barnabas, and, as I only noticed later, by THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. I was unable to conceal the mighty impression this find had on me..."​

Note:

"...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."

What a coincidence!

Now...Does that phrase sound familiar to you folks?

Hmmmmm

Where have I seen that before? ?

 Hmmmm


"...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."


Hmmmmm

Hmmm
 
Simonides phrase:

Constantine Simonides
September 3, 1862:
The Guardian
Subheading: "The Sinai MS of the Greek Bible."


"...First, I copied out the Old and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, - THE FIRST PART OF THE PASTORAL WRITINGS OF HERMAS - in capital letters (or uncial characters) in the style known in calligraphy as amphidexios. The transcription of the remaining Apostolic writings, however, I declined, because the supply of parchment ran short..."​

Kallinikos phrase:

THE JOURNAL OF SACRED LITERATURE AND BIBLICAL RECORD.
Edited by B. Harris Cowper
Editor of the New Testament in Greek from Codex A ; A Syriac Grammar, Etc.
Vol. III (New Serries).
WIlliams and Norgate,
16 Henrietta Street, Covent Garden, London;
20 South Frederick Street, Edinburgh.
April, 1863
Subheading: Miscellanies,
Page 210

Kallinikos Hieromonachos'
First fake letter to the Guardian,
November 5th 1863(?) from Alexandria


“copied out the Old and New Testaments, the Epistle of Barnabas, and - THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS -
when his supply of parchment ran short, the death of his uncle induced him to relinquish his task,
and the volume was left incomplete.”​

Note:

"...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."

Compare Tischendorf's phrase from the year before:

Konstantin Tischendorf
"Vorworte zur Sinaitischen Bibelhandschrift"
Leipzig, 1862
Pages 11-12


"...the whole New Testament, not with the smallest hole defaced, enriched even more by the complete Epistle of Barnabas, and, as I only noticed later, by THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS. I was unable to conceal the mighty impression this find had on me..."​

Note:

"...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."

Anybody think this is just a coincidence?

  • 1862, Tischendorf "...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."
  • 1862, September 3rd, Simonides "...THE FIRST PART OF THE PASTORAL WRITINGS OF HERMAS..."
  • 1863, November 5th, Kallinikos "...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."

Of course it's a mere coincidence...right?

Of course...it is....wink wink ?;)(y)
 
Last edited:
Mr Avery has kindly supplied more information...

Thanks very much ?

He quickly deleted it from his blog...

But...too late ???

He points to, what appears to be, both earlier and later references in German.

These are the references he posted:

1860

Nachricht von der im Auftrage seiner kaiserlichen Majestät Alexander II. unternommenen herausgabe der Sinaitischen Bibelhandschrift, nebst Auszügen aus dem Catalog der vom Herausgeber ... nach St. Petersburg gebrachten Handschriften ...

https://books.google.com/books?id=z52CS_M1jY8C&pg=PA6

1861

https://books.google.com/books?id=t4YDAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA86
https://books.google.com/books?id=4jo-AAAAYAAJ&pg=PA312

1862

https://books.google.com/books?id=T-BUAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA12

1863

https://books.google.com/books?id=9EGarlCb1XoC&pg=PA420

and more

https://www.google.com/search?rlz=1...kFHXn7DuQQ0pQJegQIFxAB&biw=1024&bih=641&dpr=2

”Und wie ich sogleich bemerkte, waren es nicht nur die von mir im Jahre 1844 aus dem Korbe geretteten Bücher des Alten Testaments, sondern auch, was noch von viel grösserer Wichtigkeit, das ganze Neue Testament, auch nicht durch die geringste Lücke entstellt, ja sogar noch bereichert durch den vollständigen Brief des Barnabas sowie, wie ich erst später bemerkte, durch den ersten Theil vom Hirten des Hermas.

Grazie! ?
 
Mr Avery has kindly supplied more information...
Thanks very much ?
He quickly deleted it from his blog...

Nope.
"Sinaiticus New Testament - every verse, word, letter preserved perfectly! 1500 years???"

And I am very thankful you found this incredible reference!
(Is it in Tischendorf Latin writings as well? ... hmmm. )
 
Novum Testamentum graece recensuit--- (1862}
Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=FYxpWeyd31wC&pg=PR14

In addition to many Vet. test. the books of the New Testament contain the whole, no lacuna deformed,

Praeter multos Vet. Test. libros Novum Testamentum continet totum, nulla lacuna deformatum, auctum vero etiam epistula Barnabae (cuius pars prior hucusque Graece deperdita erat) ac priore Pastoris parte.
 
Yet, a New Testament text with thousands of errors ("blunderama text" which was your pro-Sinaiticus, pre-Simonidian conversion description), which it was supposedly cleared/freed from...by years of comparisons, collation, and correcting by the world's (self proclaimed) best calligrapher...

The stories don't match.
 
Yet, a New Testament text with thousands of errors ("blunderama text" which was your pro-Sinaiticus, pre-Simonidian conversion description), which it was supposedly cleared/freed from...by years of comparisons, collation, and correcting by the world's (self proclaimed) best calligrapher...
The stories don't match.

Right.

The blunderama mixed vorlage and language text is hard to explain as 4th century.

The incredible pristine parchment and ink of every letter of the New Testament does not make any sense for the supposed 1500 years of use. While we have the supposedly torn and tattered Old Testament and apocrypha. (Although none of the pages really have the signs of long wear, acid-ink reaction, foxing, parchment losing flexibility.

Everything makes perfect sense for the 1800s production with amateur monastery scribes.
 
Last edited:
Deliberately over-exaggerated and sensationalized phrases.
It's like your master's hype, Simonides, with his "matters of great importance" punch line...

However, it is a simple fact that not one letter of the New Testament is torn, worn, or the parchment weakened by the ink-acid reaction, so that every single verse, word and even letter is readable.

You are upset because you put in so many posts trying to emphasize the wear and tear of the manuscript, but without dealing with this New Testament reading perfection.

If one page is essentially new and another page appears old, the manuscript is new.

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

The example of supposed corrosion on the CSP turned out to be an erasure!
And Sara Mazzrino said:

"conservation conditions of CS are absolutely perfect in is current state."

==============================
 
Last edited:
However, it is a simple fact that not one letter of the New Testament is torn, worn, or the parchment weakened by the ink-acid reaction, so that every single verse, word and even letter is readable.

Over-hyped...

Sensationalization...

And exaggeration...

The Codex Sinaiticus is not Simonides personal and distinctive handwriting that's found in his other simplistic bungling forgeries.

You are upset because you put in so many posts trying to emphasize the wear and tear of the manuscript, but without dealing with this New Testament reading perfection.

I'm crying my eye's out Steven...boo whoooo

Again...over-hyped...sensationalization...and utter exaggeration...

If one page is essentially new and another page appears old, the manuscript is new.

I'd love to talk to one of you're school teachers...

Fallacial...over-simplification...

You should be in the Olympics for such leaps in logic...

The example of supposed corrosion on the CSP turned out to be an erasure!
And Sara Mazzrino said:

"conservation conditions of CS are absolutely perfect in is current state."

Thank you for your text book example of Contextomy...
 
Just a coincidence?

  • 1860, Tischendorf himself (German) Page 6 "...den ersten Theil vom Hirten des Hermas..."
  • 1861, Tischendorf quoted (German) Page 86 "...den ersten Theil vom Hirten des Hermas..."​
  • 1861, Tischendorf quoted (German) Page 312 "...den ersten Theil vom Hirten des Hermas..."​
  • 1862, Tischendorf quoted (German) Page 12 "...den ersten Theil vom Hirten des Hermas..."​
  • 1862, Tischendorf himself (German) Page 12 "...den ersten Theil vom Hirten des Hermas..."​

German translated:

  • 1860, Tischendorf himself (English) Page 6 "...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."
  • 1861, Tischendorf quoted (English) Page 86 "...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."​
  • 1861, Tischendorf quoted (English) Page 312 "...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."​
  • 1862, Tischendorf quoted (English) Page 12 "...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."​
  • 1862, Tischendorf himself (English) Page 12 "...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."​
  • 1862, September 3rd, Simonides "...THE FIRST PART OF THE PASTORAL WRITINGS OF HERMAS..."
  • 1863, November 5th, Kallinikos "...THE FIRST PART OF THE SHEPHERD OF HERMAS..."


Simonides stance on the Codex Sinaiticus prior to 1862


"A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts."
By Charles Stewart, 1859
Pages 60-61


“As to the time of the duration of the manuscripts, it is to be observed that parchment, as it was prepared among the ancients, was much more durable than any other writing material employed by them. In the Library of the Vatican are more than 1500 years old, and in Spain and elsewhere there exist manuscripts of as ancient a date. [Page 61] Moreover, Sir T. Phillipps publicly announced in the Athenaeum (see No. 1536, April 4th, 1857,) that he had in his posession a Latin manuscript 1200 years old, and that it was in a state of complete preservation. M. TISSENDORF also lately DISCOVERED in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well a the 1st Book of Hermas, all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago. This MS. is reptesented to be in excellent condition. From this we may conclude that parchment manuscripts may be preserved for almost an unlimited period, for those that are kept in the Museums, even though they exceed 1000 years, have not lost a single letter. Nor is at all surprising that manuscripts on parchment should have been preserved for so long a time; for it must be admitted to be much more wonderful that the papyrus manuscripts which are so much more fragile than skins, should have come down to our times, well preserved, many of them more than 3000 years old. Those who please may at the British Museum and at Turin see many of them; even this is nothing startling, for corn and many other seeds have been found in Egyptian coffin which have been underground for perhaps 4000 years, and have not in the least lost their germinal powers. Many lock of hair, too, have been found in these coffins, preserved in a most perfect condition till the present day.* There can be no reasonable doubt as to the extraordinary durability of parchment, neither can it be questioned that at a very early period in the world's history skin of various kinds both prepared and otherwise were
used for the purposes of writing. It is, therefore, unnecessary to consider any further...”​
 
Um.

Did you notice yet another Simonidian slip!

Check this:

Constantine Simonides

"A Biographical Memoir of Constantine Simonides, Dr. Ph., of Stageira, with a Brief Defence of the Authenticity of His Manuscripts."
By Charles Stewart, 1859
Pages 60-61


"...M. Tissendorf also recently discovered ... the Old Testament - AND PART OF - THE NEW..."

Did you get that slip up?

 
Last edited:
If Simonide's wrote the Codex Sinaiticus Hermas text (which was a complete copy originally - see New Finds), why isn't it listed in his Memnon tabloid along with his other obvious Sinaiticus forgery in 1857 (the year after his arrest and imprisonment in Berlin instigated by Tischendorf)?

"Memnon"
By Constantine Simonides

[No page numbers are in this magazine]
Munich, 1857
[the year after Simonides' arrest and imprisonment in Berlin]

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/Memnon/Rh9BAAAAcAAJ?hl=en&gbpv=1&pg=PT19&printsec=frontcover

Discovery location: Τὸ ἀπόγραφον τοῦτο ἐν τῇ κατὰ τὸ Σίναιον ὄρος μονῇ τῷ 1852 ἀνακαλυφθὲν, "this copy was discovered in the monastery at Mt Sinai, in 1852"
Discovery date: 1852
Date written: 1st century A.D./C.E.​
Material: Papyrus​
Manuscript type: Palimpsest​
Language: Egyptian (Egyptian Greek?)​
Script: Unical​
Format: Four columns, fifty two verses,​
Copyist: Καλλίστρατος ἐκαλεῖτο ἐξ Ἀντιοχείας​
 
Last edited:
If Simonide's wrote the Codex Sinaiticus Hermas text (which was a complete copy originally - see New Finds), why isn't it listed in his Memnon tabloid along with his other obvious Sinaiticus forgery in 1857 (the year after his arrest and imprisonment in Berlin instigated by Tischendorf)?

1) the textual work was done by Benedict, he was only a scribe

2) it was a part of the SInaiticus project, not a separate publication in his name

What do you mean by a "Sinaiticus forgery in 1857"?
 
Back
Top