Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - was Simonides calligraphy skills good enough to forge the Codex Siniaticus?

But, you can see by my screen shots, that it is indisputably one and the same handwriting of Simonides, side by side.

It's the same UNCIAL handwriting in both manuscripts = Simonides regular UNCIAL handwriting!

Cap 1.PNG

Page 27

"It is clear that Simonides is not aware of my having procured, as soon as he had delivered to me his manuscript, a facsimile of the first page, which I enclose, with the request that you will return it to me in the course of this or the next month, after having used it for whatever purpose you please. It was made neither by myself nor by any other scholar,—who might possibly have applied to obscure passages his own criticism , as we have often observed in interpolated transcripts of effaced inscriptions or manuscripts , —but by an impartial person, a young lady, who did not understand a single Greek word, and reproduced, as well as she could , the uncial letters of the manuscript, in the same merely mechanical way in which she would have delineated Egyptian hieroglyphics or Turkish letters, and caring very little about the cursive letters in which the genuine text of the manuscript has been written, in the eleventh century, as you may see from the illegible fragments of cursive letters which she has mixed in her facsimile with the uncials. It was not, indeed, necessary for her to have troubled herself with copying the cursive writing, for I had told her that the uncials only were requisite for my purpose. The following facsimile contains the passage to which your letter refers:..."


Cap 5 - Copy.PNG

Whether I'm right or I'm wrong, my point was that whatever the text is in the Leipzig leaves, the handwriting is the same.

It is Simonides signature UNCIAL handwriting, which looks nothing like the Codex Sinaiticus' Scribe A, or Scribe B, or Scribe C, and I would hazard to conjecture nothing like any of the marginal notes etc!

That is my material point.

Cap 20a1.PNG

Cap 6e16.PNG

The calligraphy of the Sinaiticus is of a level far far superior to Simonides pathetic scribble. ???
 
Last edited:
Simonides did not, and therefore could not reproduce the script of the Codex Sinaiticus, in person, writing at normal speed, in front of witnesses (which is different to tracing a facsimile, or slowly taking your time to copy a facsimile, and send it in a letter, or put in one of his books (i.e. Mayerianus Papyri).

He copied Montfaucon's facsimiles.

Cap 1b.PNG

Cap 18 Page 514.PNG

Now compare Page 514 of Montfaucon's Greek Paleography to Page 49 of Simonides Mayerianus Papyri text.


Cap 18b Page 514 + Page 49 CM.PNG

Look familiar? Hmmmmm!

Or he could have traced the 1846 CFA facsimiles (note 1846, did you get that? 1846 facsimiles), which he admitted he had seen etc. Or! He could have slowly reproduced the script without witnesses around to see his mistakes and multiple tries and fails, alone in his studio.

 
Last edited:
Whether I'm right or I'm wrong, my point was that whatever the text is in the Leipzig leaves, the handwriting is the same.

Which Leipzig leaves?

The picture above this on the left of the text in the quotebox you used to call:
Uranius Palimpsest Forgery (O.N. Cod. Suppl. gr. 119)

What do you call that picture now?

Manuscript "Whether I'm right or I'm wrong" ?


Constantine Simonides' Hand Writing
Bottom right (above)
Uranius Palimpsest Forgery (O.N. Cod. Suppl. gr. 119)
 
Simonides did not, and therefore could not reproduce the script of the Codex Sinaiticus, in person, writing at normal speed, in front of witnesses (which is different to tracing a facsimile, or slowly taking your time to copy a facsimile, and send it in a letter, or put in one of his books (i.e. Mayerianus Papyri).
He copied Montfaucon's facsimiles.
Now compare Page 514 of Montfaucon's Greek Paleography to Page 49 of Simonides Mayerianus Papyri text.
Look familiar? Hmmmmm!
Or he could have traced the 1846 CFA facsimiles (note 1846, did you get that? 1846 facsimiles), which he admitted he had seen etc. Or! He could have slowly reproduced the script without witnesses around to see his mistakes and multiple tries and fails, alone in his studio.

You are jumping around, throwing around contradictory ideas.

We do know that Simonides sent Henry Bradshaw a letter in Oct. 1862 with the uncial script, which would be very easy.

What happened at the Society meeting is worth a review, but does not really prove anything. A lot of it was built on a mistaken idea of the speed of production, if Simonides had been the only scribe in an 8-month production. There was also some idea raised of how Sinaiticus handles line endings, if I remember right, involving consonants, and trying to see if Simonides would get that "right".
 
Last edited:
Page 27

"It is clear that Simonides is not aware of my having procured, as soon as he had delivered to me his manuscript, a facsimile of the first page, which I enclose, with the request that you will return it to me in the course of this or the next month, after having used it for whatever purpose you please. It was made neither by myself nor by any other scholar,—who might possibly have applied to obscure passages his own criticism , as we have often observed in interpolated transcripts of effaced inscriptions or manuscripts , —but by an impartial person, a young lady, who did not understand a single Greek word, and reproduced, as well as she could , the uncial letters of the manuscript, in the same merely mechanical way in which she would have delineated Egyptian hieroglyphics or Turkish letters, and caring very little about the cursive letters in which the genuine text of the manuscript has been written, in the eleventh century, as you may see from the illegible fragments of cursive letters which she has mixed in her facsimile with the uncials. It was not, indeed, necessary for her to have troubled herself with copying the cursive writing, for I had told her that the uncials only were requisite for my purpose. The following facsimile contains the passage to which your letter refers:..."


This section has to do with questions of the authenticity of the Mayer papyri.
Does it have any relevance?
 
In the end, I said ... Hodgkin's rejected him.

Hodgkin's disowned Simonides, because he finally saw through his charade.

Hodgkin's was sucked in deeply for many years, but saw the light in the end.

What did Hodgkin do “in the end” which would be after he assisted James Anson Farrer in 1907?

John Eliot Hodgkin (1829-1912) was a major help to Farrer.

Is there any reason you think that Hodgkin turned against the idea of Simonides being involved in the Sinaiticus production?
I ask because you keep repeating this claim, with no evidence, and against the Farrer evidence.

Plus, we may learn a lot when the Aussies eventually release the letter from Simonides to Hodgkin.
 
Last edited:
You are jumping around, throwing around contradictory ideas.

We do know that Simonides sent Henry Bradshaw a letter in Oct. 1862 with the uncial script, which would be very easy.

What happened at the Society meeting is worth a review, but does not really prove anything. A lot of it was built on a mistaken idea of the speed of production, if Simonides had been the only scribe in an 8-month production. There was also some idea raised of how Sinaiticus handles line endings, if I remember right, involving consonants, and trying to see if Simonides would get that "right".

His calligraphy skills aren't up to the task.

Simonides usual Uncial script - as is seen in his forgeries - is totally interior to the Scribes of the Codex Sinaiticus. There's no comparison!

Cap 29.png
 
What happened at the Society meeting is worth a review, but does not really prove anything. A lot of it was built on a mistaken idea of the speed of production, if Simonides had been the only scribe in an 8-month production. There was also some idea raised of how Sinaiticus handles line endings, if I remember right, involving consonants, and trying to see if Simonides would get that "right".

Your simply denying the obvious.

Simonides could (and did) gain access to Tischendorf's facsimiles. He copied the script, slowly, and carefully, and sent it in a letter (as forgers do).

But when asked to do it in person, in front of witnesses, FAILED!



Simonides regular UNCIAL script looks nothing like Scribe A, Scribe B, or Scribe C of the Sinaiticus.


Cap 20a1.PNG


Cap 6e16.PNG
 
Your simply denying the obvious.
Simonides could (and did) gain access to Tischendorf's facsimiles. He copied the script, slowly, and carefully, and sent it in a letter (as forgers do).
But when asked to do it in person, in front of witnesses, FAILED!
Simonides regular UNCIAL script looks nothing like Scribe A, Scribe B, or Scribe C of the Sinaiticus.​

1840 Sinaiticus was a ultra-carefully lined boxy format and three scribes were told to write in virtually identical script. It looks like the youth Simonides was the weakest in terms of itacisms, misspellings, etc. Which was a big part of Sinaiticus being a blunderama manuscript.

No difficulty at all, an easy script for a calligraphist, and any free-lance creative writing of Simonides 15-20 years later is quite irrelevant.

It would be interesting to see his letter to Henry Bradshaw of October 1862, which has a section written in a Sinaiticus style.
 
Last edited:
1840 Sinaiticus was a ultra-carefully lined boxy format and three scribes were told to write in virtually identical script. It looks like the youth Simonides was the weakest in terms of itacisms, misspellings, etc. Which was a big part of Sinaiticus being a blunderama manuscript.
So where does Simonides mention the other two? Isn't it intellectually dishonest after having spent so long treating the gospel of Simonides as inviolable that you now pretend that Simonides was just one of three scribes?
 
Last edited:
Isn't it intellectually dishonest after having spent so long treating the gospel of Simonides as inviolable

Quote, please.

Thanks!

+===========

Simonides mentions by name maybe three others who worked on the project. He does imply he wrote the original text, before corrections, which is probably true for the New Testament (plus more), but not the whole text.
 
Last edited:
Quote, please.

Thanks!

+===========

Simonides mentions by name maybe three others who worked on the project. He does imply he wrote the original text, before corrections, which is probably true for the New Testament (plus more), but not the whole text.
You're making it up:

The full letter as it appeared in The Guardian 3rd September 1862 is as
follows:
THE SINAI MS. OF THE GREEK BIBLE
.
.
.
"I therefore took possession of this book, and prepared it by taking out
the leaf containing the discourse, and by removing several others injured by
time and moths, after which I began my task. 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 άμφιδέξιος (amphidexios).
The trancription of
the remaining Apostolic writings, however, I declined, because the supply
of parchment ran short, and the severe loss which I sustained in the death
of Benedict induced me to hand the work over at once to the bookbinders of
the monastery, for the purpose of replacing the original covers, made of
wood and covered with leather, which I had removed for convenience - and
when he had done so, I took it into my possession.

Some time after this, having removed to Constantinople, I showed the
work to the patriarchs Anthimus and Constantius, and communicated to
them the reason of the transcription. Constantius took it, and, having
thoroughly examined it, urged me to present it to the library of Sinai, which
I accordingly promised to do. Constantius had previously been Bishop of
Sinai, and since his resignation of that office had again become Perpetual
Bishop of that place."
.
.
.
 
1840 Sinaiticus was a ultra-carefully lined boxy format and three scribes were told to write in virtually identical script.

Where's this stated in the Simonides story, that Benedict (Scribe A? B? C?), Simonides (Scribe A? B? C?), and...and who? (Scribe A? B? C?) were told to write in virtually identical script?

What newspaper letter is that stated by Simonides in?

It looks like the youth Simonides was the weakest in terms of itacisms, misspellings, etc. Which was a big part of Sinaiticus being a blunderama manuscript.

Not according to Simonides.

Your desperate fantasies are unreconcilable with his lies.

No difficulty at all, an easy script for a calligraphist, and any free-lance creative writing of Simonides 15-20 years later is quite irrelevant.

According to the living witnesses at the time, it wasn't easy for Simonides. When push came to shove, he FAILED miserably the test in front of real people.

It would be interesting to see his letter to Henry Bradshaw of October 1862, which has a section written in a Sinaiticus style.

Mr Bradshaw had seen the real Codex Sinaiticus in July 1862, and Simonides wrote a letter in front of him in October 1862, which FAILED to convince Mr Bradshaw.


Henry Bradshaw
The [Manchester] Guardian
January 28,1863


"...and he wrote the letter to which he refers, in the hope of convincing me. I told him as politely as I could that I was not to be convinced against the evidence of my senses..."

https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=4055


I would welcome all handwritten evidence from Simonides personal and distinctive hand, including the unconvincing letter he wrote to Mr Bradshaw.

Apparently, the newspapers and others, apart from Mr Bradshaw, who received the same sort of Uncial letters were unconvinced as well Mr Avery, otherwise you would have heard a lot more about these particular Uncial letters (so don't get your hopes up).
 
Henry Bradshaw
The [Manchester] Guardian
January 28,1863

"...and he wrote the letter to which he refers, in the hope of convincing me. I told him as politely as I could that I was not to be convinced against the evidence of my senses..."
https://www.historyofinformation.com/detail.php?id=4055

Was Bradshaw "not to be convinced" of the handwriting?

Or, the actual context, that Sinaiticus was not 4th century.
Whoops, you flunk CONTEXT 101 again.

Remember, Bradshaw gave a false and absurd palaeographic "proof" of Sinaiticus authenticity.

(not given on the historyofinformation site, interesting is the area around"I first replied that it was really difficult to define, that it seemed to be more a kind of instinct than anything else".)

So his testimony is basically a laugher.
It is not even clear that he saw the real manuscript, since his codicology description does not match the manuscript.

Your logic here is on a similar level of your trying to pawn off a Hermas palimpsest picture as Uranios, and refusing correction.
 
Last edited:
Was Bradshaw "not to be convinced" of the handwriting?

Or, the actual context, that Sinaiticus was not 4th century.
Whoops, you flunk CONTEXT 101 again.

Remember, Bradshaw gave a false and absurd palaeographic "proof" of Sinaiticus authenticity.

(not given on the historyofinformation site, interesting is the area around"I first replied that it was really difficult to define, that it seemed to be more a kind of instinct than anything else".)

So his testimony is basically a laugher.
It is not even clear that he saw the real manuscript, since his codicology description does not match the manuscript.

Your logic here is on a similar level of your trying to pawn off a Hermas palimpsest picture as Uranios, and refusing correction.


Are you trying to give the impression to your readers that your Greek paleographical skills are better than Mr Bradshaws... Mr Avery?

It's pretty clear Mr Bradshaw saw, smelled, and touched the Codex Sinaiticus at Tischendorfs house (just two months earlier), and was unconvinced by Simonides FAILED attempt at copying the Uncial script of the Sinaiticus from (possibly) Tischendorf's facsimiles.

Thus there was indeed plenty of opportunity for Simonides to copy (or make tracings of in a university library or an associate's house) from:

  1. 1844, (nearly two decades before) Tischendorfs' CFA facsimiles, or
  2. 1860, (a minimum of a year before) Tischendorfs Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum Sinaitici, facsimiles, or
  3. 1862 (same year) Tischendorf's Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, facsimiles


Constantinus Tischendorf, Codex Friderico-Augustanus sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti (Leipzig: Koehler and Uckermann, 1846)

Cap 2.PNG
https://digital.slub-dresden.de/werkansicht/dlf/206928/1?tx_dlf[pagegrid]=1&tx_dlf[pointer]=0&cHash=0656119e1fb17a7d9dc598e890da9b91

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


Cap 1b Page 125 Luke Facs..PNG

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edit...icis_Bibliorum_Sina/KZEu25mZdyQC?hl=en&gbpv=1

Tischendorf, Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (4 vols.; St. Petersburg, 1862)

Cap 1.PNG

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/fe/Codex_Sinaiticus_Paralipomenon_9,27-10,11.JPG

Plus, Simonides had seen the real thing (the CFA) in Leipzig with his own eyes in 1855-1856.

You're engaged in the worst kind of denialism, and you should be embarrassed.
 
Last edited:
Are you trying to give the impression to your readers that your Greek paleographical skills are better than Mr Bradshaws... Mr Avery?
It's pretty clear Mr Bradshaw saw, smelled, and touched the Codex Sinaiticus at Tischendorfs house (just two months earlier)

If he saw Codex Sinaiticus, then
why did Bradshaw make the codicology blunder?

(And create a false, bogus argument against the Athos Sinaiticus.)

"I had the satisfaction of examining the manuscript after my own fashion. I had been anxious to know whether it was written in even continuous quaternions throughout, like the Codex Beza:, or in a series of fasciculi each ending with a quire of varying size, as the Codex Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This, by-the־by, is of itself sufficient to prove that it cannot be the volume which Dr Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos." - Bradshaw p.97, "A MEMOIR OF HENRY BRADSHAW"

One possibility, he was shown another manuscript, or a copy, by Tischendorf.

Beyond this blunder, his description is exceedingly sparse.
 
Last edited:
P.S. You can add the cheaper, shorter, single volume facsimile version released in 1862 to that list as well.

So, Simonides had four facsimile resources of the Codex Sinaiticus that he could have used to make his Uncial letters to Mr Bradshaw etc etc.
 
Back
Top