Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

cjab said:
Just spurious objections.
Click to expand...

I'll go with David Daniels on this one, since he has lots of personal experience in this realm of book publication.

Also some of the Sinaiticus material is incredibly even on the horizontal lines, which would not be possible on an angled bound-book surface. Simply Logic 101.
 
Steven Avery said:
Take a bound book. Start writing inside it with the book open. Send us a picture of the ultra-straight, even lines.
Click to expand...
I said Siniaticus is not Vaticanus. Sinaiticus has wide margins and is flat when opened. Of course ruled lines were used, but they can be ruled inside a bound book.
 
Timeline related information for the readers ;):):giggle:





1846 - Codex Friderico-Augustanus sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti, Leipzig: Koehler and Uckermann, 1846 (Old Testament leaves facsimiles)

1855 - Monumenta sacra inedita: Nova collectio, Volume 1 (Isaiah 66:12-Jeremiah 1:7 facsimiles)

1857 - Monumenta Sacra Inedita, Volume 1, 1857 (Genesis fragments facsimiles)

1859 – (April 17th) - Leipziger Zeitung publishes in German a letter addressed to the Saxon Minister Von Falkenstein sent by Tischendorf from Cairo on March 15, 1859.

1859 - (July) - Journal of Sacred Literature publishes a translation in English of the letter to Von Falkenstein.

1859 – (Oct 16th [28th]) – Letter from Germanos to Cyril:

“Tischendorf, as soon as he put his hands on the book, hastened to spread the news throughout the whole of Cairo [...] We also learned that he had beforehand published an article on this subject in an English daily [JSL, July 1859 above]. Since by now [i.e. October] people here have no other subject of conversation than the affairs [i.e. concerning the Codex Sinaiticus] of Sinai...”​

1859 – (August) - Simonides Biographical Memoir is published by a Mr Charles Stueart

[Page 60] “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...”​
​


SIMONIDES

MASSIVE U-TURN

ON HIS STANCE OF CODEX SINAITICUS​


1860 – (January 4th [16th]) – Simonides first starts his lying rumors about the Codex Sinaiticus in a letter to Mr Charles Stueart

1860 – (Month?) - spreads his devious rumors further to J. E. Hodgkin

1860 - (Month?) - Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici auspiciis imperatoris Alexandri ii. susceptae. Accedit catalogus codicum nuper ex Oriente Petropolin perlatorum. Item Origenis scholia in Proverbia Salomonis, By Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Tischendorf · 1860 (contains facsimiles)

1861 – (Aug 2nd) – continues his rumors in a letter to Sir Thomas Phillips

1861 – (Dec 19th) – oral rumors are continued, as reported in a letter by F. J. A. Hort

1862 - (?) - Aus Dem Heiligen Lande, published by Tischendorf gives the most complete and detailed information up to that time of the CFA-Sinaiticus discovery.

1862 - (Sept-Oct) – Tischendorf's Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, becomes generally available??? (the first mention of the colour Lat., “sufflava” or Eng., “yellow-ish”, has Old Testament and New Testament facsimiles)

1862 - (Sept-Oct) - Simonides says (“last autumn” Jan. 23rd 1863) he saw in the hands of a Mr. Newton the facsimile of the Codex Sinaiticus, published by Tischendorf

1862 – (Sept 11th) – Simonides goes public for the first time in the [Manchester] Guardian newspaper

1862 – (Sept 25th) – Simonides second public letter to the Clerical Journal, refusing to reply to the anonymous critique of his views published in the issue of 11th September, 1862

1862 – (Sept 25th) – more rumor mongering in the same newspaper article by name drooping “Tregelles” as bait

1863 – (Jan 21st) - first lengthy reply to criticism of his obvious errors in his Codex Sinaiticus claim

1863 – (January 21st) – Simonides lets slip that he has in fact been investigating and mining Tischendorf resources and facsimiles for his lying stories in The Guardian newspaper:

“But although I possess many proofs of the spuriousness of the manuscript, I shall keep silent on these for the present. First, because I intend to write a special work on the subject and secondly because the Codex will prove this itself when published and the portion already published partly shows this.”​

1863 – (April) - Journal of Sacred Literature, Miscellanies, April, Page 217:

“When, about two years ago. I saw the first facsimiles of Tischendorf, which were put into my hand at Liverpool, by Mr. Newton, a friend of Dr. Tregelles, I at once recognized my own work, as I immediately told him.”​
 
Last edited:
Note Tischendorf's Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus in 1862 was definitely not "the first facsimiles of Tischendorf" (Simonides words above) of the Codex Sinaiticus (a.k.a. the CFA)


There was plenty of opportunity for Simonides to copy or make tracings of (either in the Leipzig University Library itself or an associate's house) from the following resources:

  1. 1846, CFA, Old Testament leaves facsimiles)
  2. 1855-1856 Simonides,becomes a frequent visitor (almost daily) to the University Library in Leipzig and has plenty of opportunity to (either openly or secretly while no one is looking) copy or make tracings of or take notes (gather intel) about the CFA manuscript itself
  3. 1855 Monumenta sacra inedita: Nova collectio (Jeremiah and Isaiah facsimiles)
  4. 1857 Monumenta Sacra Inedita (Genesis fragments facimiles)
  5. 1860 Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici, facsimiles
  6. 1862 Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, facsimiles



1846 - Codex Friderico-Augustanus sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti, Leipzig: Koehler and Uckermann, 1846 (Old Testament leaves facsimiles)

1855 - Monumenta sacra inedita: Nova collectio, Volume 1 (Isaiah 66:12-Jeremiah 1:7 facsimiles)

1857 - Monumenta Sacra Inedita, Volume 1, 1857 (Genesis fragments facsimiles)

1860 - (Month?) - Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici auspiciis imperatoris Alexandri ii. susceptae. Accedit catalogus codicum nuper ex Oriente Petropolin perlatorum. Item Origenis scholia in Proverbia Salomonis, By Lobegott Friedrich Constantin Tischendorf · 1860 (contains facsimiles)

1862 - (Sept-Oct) – Tischendorf's Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, becomes generally available??? The first mention of the color Lat., “sufflava” or Eng., “yellow-ish”, (Old Testament and New Testament facsimiles)
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
1862 - (Sept-Oct) – Tischendorf's Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, becomes generally available??? The first mention of the color Lat., “sufflava” or Eng., “yellow-ish”, (Old Testament and New Testament facsimiles)
Click to expand...

Only the 1859 St. Petersburg pages, not the 1844, which was described separately not as sufflava but as pallida. (Note: this has to be checked in the early writings about the CFA. including his 1855 writing.)

This distinction, that Tischendorf was only writing about the St. Petersburg pages, was pointed out to you earlier.

Steven Avery said:
If Sinaiticus were actually an old manuscript, the yellow/sufflava condition would be normal, it would be brittle and "yellow with age" and this would apply to the 1844 and 1859 sections.
Your yellow timeline is totally irrelevant.

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

And, you left out his calling the 1844 Leipzig pages pallida!
oopss...
So there must of been a lot of yellowing and aging from 1844 to 1859!
(More than the previous 1500 years!)
=================================
Click to expand...

Here is the full sufflava text, you can see that he wants to emphasize that the 1859 pages are NOT white. And I would say that Tischendorf wanted you to respect the extra labours needed to make the pages yellow.

"Membrana codicis non tam alba quam sufflava est, mognaque ubique laevitate et subtilitate, quamvis singula folia satis inter se differant."
Click to expand...

This description was first given in writing in 1860, not 1862.

Notitia editionis codicis bibliorum sinaitici: Auspiciis imp. Alexandri II. susceptae. Accedit catalogus cod. nuper ex oriente Petropolin perlatorum item Origenes Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis (1860)
https://books.google.com/books?id=DpI4EOWye7MC&pg=RA2-PA5
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
Only the 1859 St. Petersburg pages, not the 1844, which was described separately not as sufflava but as pallida. (Note: this has to be checked in the early writings about the CFA. including his 1855 writing.)

This distinction, that Tischendorf was only writing about the St. Petersburg pages, was pointed out to you earlier.



Here is the full sufflava text, you can see that he wants to emphasize that the 1859 pages are NOT white. And I would say that Tischendorf wanted you to respect the extra labours needed to make the pages yellow.



This description was first given in writing in 1860, not 1862.

Notitia editionis codicis bibliorum sinaitici: Auspiciis imp. Alexandri II. susceptae. Accedit catalogus cod. nuper ex oriente Petropolin perlatorum item Origenes Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis (1860)
https://books.google.com/books?id=DpI4EOWye7MC&pg=RA2-PA5
Click to expand...

A weak response.

The chronology alone blows open Simonides lies.

And thanks for letting us know (a tacit admission) that the "sufflava" coloring originated from Tischendorf, and not Simonides, even earlier (two years earlier) in the Notitia in 1860. :)
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
And thanks for letting us know (a tacit admission) that the "sufflava" coloring originated from Tischendorf, and not Simonides, even earlier (two years earlier) in the Notitia in 1860. :)
Click to expand...

Your welcome.

Of course Tischendorf did not tell anyone of the uneven colouring and staining of the 1859 pages.
And Tischendorf was silent about the difference between the 1844 and 1859 pages.

So the colouring accusation would make no sense and could have been easily refuted by examination - unless it were true.

Old manuscripts being yellow with age is simply par for the course, nothing unusual.
 
"Membrana codicis non tam alba quam sufflava est, mognaque ubique laevitate et subtilitate, quamvis singula folia satis inter se differant."
Click to expand...

Yes.

I could imagine Simonides reading Page XVII [Page 5, Google Books] Tischendorf's "Prolegomena cum Commentario", Subheading II., in his Notitia (published in 1860) during the small hours of the morning, and going "Ah ha! This is something I can use this!" (i.e. twist and make up lies about).

"Membrana codicis non tam alba quam sufflava est, mognaque ubique laevitate et subtilitate, quamvis singula folia satis inter se differant."​
​
"The parchment of the Codex is not so much white [Or: "gray" "pearl" "pale"] as it is a yellow-ish [Or: "blond"] color, present everywhere is a lightness and fineness of texture, although the individual leaves are quite different from one another."​

Simonides publicly admitted he was viewing Tischendorf's facsimiles and reading Tischendorfs work's.

This gave Simonides approximately TWO YEARS to invent his twisted version of the "a kind of yellow-ish color" (first mentioned by Kallinikos 1862, December 16th)

And gave Simonides approximately FOUR YEARS to come up with his "lemon juice" (first mentioned by Simonides 1864, January 1st) garbage.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
"Membrana codicis non tam alba quam sufflava est, mognaque ubique laevitate et subtilitate, quamvis singula folia satis inter se differant."
​
"The parchment of the Codex is not so much white [Or: "gray" "pearl" "pale"] as it is a yellow-ish [Or: "blond"] color, present everywhere is a lightness and fineness of texture, although the individual leaves are quite different from one another."​
Click to expand...

So you think Simonides compared this to the pale white pages in Leipzig to this sufflava and noticed that there was a significant difference?
(Which actually is reflected in the two sections!)

Nothing from Tischendorf noted the difference.
And afaik, there was no difference in his facsimile editions.

And nobody likes to point out the staining in the 1859 pages. :)
 
Steven Avery said:
So you think Simonides compared this to the pale white pages in Leipzig to this sufflava and noticed that there was a significant difference?
(Which actually is reflected in the two sections!)

Nothing from Tischendorf noted the difference.
And afaik, there was no difference in his facsimile editions.

And nobody likes to point out the staining in the 1859 pages. :)
Click to expand...

Sorry this post is too convoluted and incoherent to decipher.

Simply it, to make it understandable.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
Sorry this post is too convoluted and incoherent to decipher.
Simply it, to make it understandable.
Click to expand...

So you think Simonides compared this notation from Tischendorf of sufflava to the pale white pages he had seen in Leipzig ?
And Simonides saw that there was a difference.

(And that difference is actually reflected in the two sections!
So Simonides was actually safe in speaking of the colouring.)
 
Page XVII [Page 5, Google Books] Tischendorf's "Prolegomena cum Commentario", Subheading II., un his Notitia (published in 1860).

"Membrana codicis non tam alba quam sufflava est, mognaque ubique laevitate et subtilitate, quamvis singula folia satis inter se differant."​
​
"The parchment of the Codex is not so much white [Or: "gray" "pearl" "pale"] as it is a yellow-ish [Or: "blond"] color, present everywhere is a lightness and fineness of texture, although the individual leaves are quite different from one another."​

Please note Tischendorf's words readers.

I bring your attention to the part of the sentence that Steven Avery has to ignore to uphold his conspiracy theory.

"although the individual leaves are quite different from one another."​

The meaning of this part of the sentence is plain and obvious.

Steven Avery will have a problem with it in one way or another, because he has to uphold his KJVO beliefs over and above rational thinking.

The point is, that it has been shown to Steven in various ways, and he has been told straight forwardly that the Leipzig leaves are not as "white" in real life as he thinks they are, by those who have actually seen the manuscript, in person, with their very own eyes (unlike Steven who has never seen the manuscript in real life, never been in the same room with it, and is totally reliant on inconsistent digital photographic reproductions, and reliant on what other people have said or written about it).

He doesn't WANT TO believe what the eye witnesses have said. He has to dismiss them, and diminish in every way possible their reputation as actually having reliable testimony.

Therein, lies the real problem.

Simonides had plenty of time, ways, and sources of information about both St. Catherine's and the Codex to make up a plausible story, but was ultimately (and simply) just a compulsive and habitual liar.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top