Constantine Simonides and Codex Siniaticus - details of the lengthy process and protocols Tischendorf followed to acquire the Codex Siniaticus

… multiple scripts in Greek from various people over the centuries, similar to the Codex Sinaiticus.

What physical testing, parchment and ink, and proof do have for “over the centuries” in Sinaiticus?

===========

Milne and Skeat on the Tischendorf palaeography dating claims:

"The account of the hands given by Tischendorf, Prolegomena, pp. 8-8*, is repeated almost verbatim in two later publications, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum, 1863, p. xxi, and Novum Testamentum Graece ex Sinaitico Codice, 1865, p. xxx. In no case does he give any details of the characteristics of the various hands he professed to identify, and we must assume that, in the main, he was guided solely by the general appearance of the script” (Milne and Skeat 1938:18).

Joseph Verheyden calls it a "fairly disturbing comment"

===========

Can you date all uncial writing as ancient, before c. AD 900, even on copies, replicas and forgeries?
 
Last edited:
Would an honest manuscript broker help along his supposedly ancient manuscripts?
Tischendorf never pretended to own them, and had no financial interest in such frauds as you are alleging (such would have ruined his reputation for ever). As we here are aware, you do not hestitate to asperse absolutely any historical personage in order to further your ends, and without a shred of proper evidence. You create allegations difficult to disprove, but as TNC has observed, the onus probandi is entirely on you; and whilst Tischendorf became subject to such allegations due to his character defect of self-promotion and secrecy from scholars whom he viewed as desiring to steal his glory, such cannot substantiate the tawdry allegations of Simonidean dishonesty that you make. Simonides was in a league of his own as to dishonesty and his contempt for the protestant church. The authenticity of Sinaiticus is attested by the Greeks, who now universally reject Simonides. That's why your attachment to Simonides will be fruitless: he's universally regarded as a Judas-Iscariot type, whose scandalous behavior was condemned by everyone, excepting his close circle of anti-establishment friends. Even Judas Iscariot has friends in high places.
 
Last edited:
“It is possible that Tischendorf fabricated this coloring himself (as he is often, though I think grossly unjustly, accused of fabricating other things),“
Stanley Porter
Would an honest manuscript broker help along his supposedly ancient manuscripts?
What else has come under consideration for Tisch fabrication?

The colophons?

The Acts marginalia?

Extra color for age? Parchment and ink.


Inquiring minds.

========
Anything unusual on the CFA or unmentioned by Uspensky on the coloured and stained Brit pages comes to mind.

The colophons are especially interesting.
Tischendorf arranged his 1844 heist to Include the two colophons to add the cachet of age. Very clever.

The exemplar was likely Coislinianus (HPaul) where the NT text of the colophon involves an Epistles section. Tischendorf would know the text well from the Paris library.

I, Euthalius, wrote this volume of the Apostle Paul as carefully as possible in stichoi, so that it might be read with intelligence: the book was compared with the copy in the library at Caesarea, written by the hand of Pamphilius the saint.

The idea of two independent colophon traditions, one NT, one OT-Apoc, involving Pamphilius is highly unlikely. (A simple and compelling point that has been missed by the scholars, who are in fact often suspicious about the authenticity and accuracy of the colophons.) A far more Ockham-friendly analysis shows one as the exemplar for the other.

The scribe does nothing else on the manuscript, except possibly some quire numbers, which would fit very well as a late addition.

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

There are other important connections of Coislinianus and Sinaiticus.

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

The colophons came up in the Journals in the 1860s. Simonides, or an Athos or Antigonus scribe, is an alternate possibility. There is a need for additional study.

British Quarterly Review (1863)
The Sinaitic Codex
https://books.google.com/books?id=TMNjkkJZw8UC&pg=PA363

One circumstance we have not yet referred to deserves notice. On the occasion of the meeting of the Archaeological Association in October, l862. the fac-simile edition of the Codex-Fredericus was laid before Dr. Simonides, and the question plainly put to him, ' Did you write with your hands the MS. from which these fac-similes were taken ?’ The answer was at once, ‘ I did.’ He was then asked, 'Were the various subscriptions appended to the books your writing?’ ‘They were.’ 'And whatever was stated therein was true ?’ 'Most certainly.' The subscription on the thirteenth leaf was then shown him, which reads as follows : 'Compared with a very old copy, corrected by the hand of the holy martyr Pamphilius,’ &c., meaning the friend of Eusebius, who suffered A.D. 308. He was then asked, ‘Had you then at Mount Athos a copy of the Scriptures corrected ‘by the hand of Pamphilius himself?’ Here the interpreter for the first time was unable to make the Greek understand the import of the question ; and, strange to say, no answer was obtained to this simple interrogation until the next day. The reply when at length given was, that it was not Pamphilius’own copy, but a copy of that, which was still preserved in the Monastery of Mount Athos!

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

Earlier discussion of the authorship of the colophons:
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-37#post-1133660
 
Last edited:
Isn't it sad that he was involved in the lauded and praised Codex Sinaiticus?
"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 catalogues. 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
an.other part of Egypt? In every way, then, the assertion of Simonides is
proved false, when he says 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
 
"Since, then, Mr. Simonides never visited Mount Sinai … and was marked in its ancient catalogues. The book then, which the librarian who was appointed in 1841 found in this library,

The big lie about the ancient catalogues.
Looks like Cyrillos, Tischendorf’s partner in crime, who received gifts and made “private arrangements”.
Apparently Sinaiticus was not in an 1840 Cyrillus catalogue.

“Found in the library..”. … yep, after it arrived from Antigonus. .
Notice that it was a “book”!
Refuting the big lie of Tischendorf, it was the book seen by Uspensky, from which Tisch extracted five full, intact quires, and a special part of a sixth.

And how would a monk know all the monastery visitors for a decade and more?
By asking the corrupt librarian, Tischendorf’s henchman? …. hmmmm

How did Simonides get all his inside information about Sinaiticus, Tischendorf and the monastery?
Starting with the brazen theft of 1844,

Inquiring minds….
 
Last edited:
The big lie about the ancient catalogues.
Looks like Cyrillos, Tischendorf’s partner in crime, who received gifts and made “private arrangements”.
Apparently Sinaiticus was not in an 1840 Cyrillus catalogue.

“Found in the library..”. … yep, after it arrived from Antigonus. .
Notice that it was a “book”!
Refuting the big lie of Tischendorf, it was the book seen by Uspensky, from which Tisch extracted five full, intact quires, and a special part of a sixth.

And how would a monk know all the monastery visitors for a decade and more?
By asking the corrupt librarian, Tischendorf’s henchman? …. hmmmm

How did Simonides get all his inside information about Sinaiticus, Tischendorf and the monastery?
Starting with the brazen theft of 1844,

Inquiring minds….
In any event, not the Kallinikos that Simonides wanted anyone to hear from.
 
"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 catalogues. 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 another part of Egypt?

Kallinikos
Hieromonachos of Sinai

This fellow had no first-person evidence whatsoever!
Look what you omitted!

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA492

"... I lived away from the monastery from the year 1838 to 1855, having been sent on diifercnt monastic services to Damascus, Rhodes, and elsewhere"
 
Last edited:
This fellow had no first-person evidence whatsoever!
Look what you omitted!

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA492

"... I lived away from the monastery from the year 1838 to 1855, having been sent on diifercnt monastic services to Damascus, Rhodes, and elsewhere"
"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."

Hiero-Monachos Kallinikos of Alexandria


Have you ever counted up exactly how many historical persons you are accusing of lying?
 
The colophons are especially interesting.

A negative fabrication?

Another spot that might be the hand of Tischendorf is the spot where ink is covered up … by a deliberate ink blot.
Maybe India ink.

Q48-8r - LUL - Jeremiah, 38:40 - 39:26 - folio: xxxv scribe: B1
uhttps://codexsinaiticus.org/en/man...lioNo=7&lid=en&quireNo=48&side=v&zoomSlider=0

Nobody knows, and Tischendorf omitted this from his 1846 facsimile edition.
Suspicious.

The fella who decoded Codex Ephraemi could not give it a try.

If Sinaiticus was subject to real palaeography we would have:

multi-spectral imaging
chemical analysis of the inks
 
Last edited:
The big liars were the tag-team of Tischendorf and Cyrillos. Kallinikos of Sinai wasn’t there, he was simply following the lead,
Don't forget the entire 19th century, 20th century and 21st century academic establishments, including Greek, Russian, German and English scholars, and those from many other nations on earth. Must run into many hundreds, if not thousands.
 
Don't forget the entire 19th century, 20th century and 21st century academic establishments, including Greek, Russian, German and English scholars, and those from many other nations on earth. Must run into many hundreds, if not thousands.

There is quite a difference between being duped and being a liar.
 
A negative fabrication?

Another spot that might be the hand of Tischendorf is the spot where ink is covered up … by a deliberate ink blot.
Maybe India ink.

Q48-8r - LUL - Jeremiah, 38:40 - 39:26 - folio: xxxv scribe: B1
uhttps://codexsinaiticus.org/en/man...lioNo=7&lid=en&quireNo=48&side=v&zoomSlider=0

Nobody knows, and Tischendorf omitted this from his 1846 facsimile edition.
Suspicious.

The fella who decoded Codex Ephraemi could not give it a try.

If Sinaiticus was subject to real palaeography we would have:

multi-spectral imaging
chemical analysis of the inks

index.php
 
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 catalogues. 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
an.other part of Egypt? In every way, then, the assertion of Simonides is
proved false, when he says 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

Landing in Alexandria in 1852, is possibly straight after, but definitely after, his Constantinople escapades with the Turks, Arabs, Armenians, and his outright rejection by Anthimus (the real state of the relationship he had with him) etc.

He has a habit of disappearing when things turn pear shaped with his forgeries.
 
Landing in Alexandria in 1852, is possibly straight after, but definitely after, his Constantinople escapades with the Turks, Arabs, Armenians, and his outright rejection by Anthimus (the real state of the relationship he had with him) etc.

You are again confusing the 1850s with the early 1840s.

Check your timeline.
 
Landing in Alexandria in 1852, after, his Constantinople escapades with the Turks, Arabs, Armenians, and his outright rejection by Anthimus (the real state of the relationship he had with him) etc in 1850 to 1851.

He also (during his time in Constantinople) mailed a list of 81 forgeries to the Russian's in January 1851, which was also rejected (like his forgeries in Constantinople and Greece) by the Russian's in August 1851.
 
He also (during his time in Constantinople) mailed a list of 81 forgeries to the Russian's in January 1851, which was also rejected (like his forgeries in Constantinople and Greece) by the Russian's in August 1851.

None of this affects his 1840s activities with Anthimos, but you should give the documentation of the mailing.
 
None of this affects his 1840s activities with Anthimos, but you should give the documentation of the mailing.

Simonides forged supporting documents of all kinds, including fake letters and correspondence.

His letters, therefore (being a forger) to and from Anthimus cannot be trusted, in view also, of Anthimus' rejection of him at Constantinople (August 1st-3rd 1851).

Simon says is, therefore, not trustworthy provenance.

Simon says type evidence requires independent verification from non-Simonidian-Kallinikian sources.

From all directions... There is a pattern of contradictory evidence and testimony that just kept coming out of the woodwork (in the 18th century) after the reports filtered back to these isolated monasteries about his wild claims.

Therefore, 1840's Simon says (forged correspondence) about Anthimus, is logically unsound and a snare.
 
Back
Top