The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Does Mr Snapp know about his dating of the parchment "production"?
Did Steven bring up his dichotomy of dating between the parchment and the text during the debate?
He should have... it's a key issue, is it not?

Only to those who falsely believe I ever wrote of 19th century parchment.

Afaik there was never an agreement.
 
Last edited:
Anyone who watched the discussion with James Snapp would have heard the superb discussion from Kirk DiVietro about Maximo in the Shepherd of Hermas showing that the Sinaiticus Hermas is not an early Greek version. The irony there is that the person who first pointed out this problem was ... Constantine Tischendorf in 1856.

Hermae Pastor. Gr. ed. ex fragmentis Lipsiensibus A.F.C. Tischendorf. Ex ed. Patrum apostolicorum Dresseliana centum exemplis repetitum (1856)
Constantine Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=osAHAAAAQAAJ&pg=PR15

Tischendorf made this point before the Hermas Sinaiticus text was known in any detail.

Has any scholar reviewed the Tischendorf attacks on the linguistics of Codex Athous?
Claiming a late date.

Part of that would be checking which attacks also apply to Sinaiticus, like Maximo.
 
A few hundred years back from AD. 1840.

The question (???) was not so much when (but your change of stance from the specific 1500's is duly noted) but rather, the scientific basis of how...you reach your date/dates...

But, in addition to this, why change from a more specific date range of the 1500's, to a more ambiguous "few hundred years back from A.D. 1840"?

How many centuries is a "few"?

Why...all this dating slipperiness?
 
Last edited:
Tischendorf in 1850 discusses the Three Crosses scriptorium note about the scribal blunder that led to duplicate pages.

Bibliotheca Sacra and Theological Review, Volume 10 (1853}
Prolegomena to Tischendorf's New Edition of the Septuagint (1850)
Translated from the Latin by Charles Short, M. A., Roxbury, Mass.
https://books.google.com/books?id=P_oRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA107

Constantine Tischendorf (1850)
“it is thus testified that these four leaves, along with three others long since destroyed, were not so much inserted in the codex in an improper place, as introduced by mistake on the part of the copyist and perhaps twice written on. It was for this reason, I think, they were passed over by the reviser.

“three others long since destroyed”

How could Tischendorf in 1850, after taking his 43 (basket?) leaves, possibly know of three leaves “long since destroyed” or lost? Was Tischendorf the one who discarded the leaves? The note itself gives no indication of any leaves destroyed.
 
Last edited:
Three Crosses Note

Scriptorium note describing the blunder of the scribes duplicating pages, likely with the idea that they should correct the problem.

1670244974023.png


Here is the Three Crosses Note seen online, courtesy of the Codex Sinaiticus Project:

1 Chronicles (duplicate), 18:15 - 19:17 / 2 Esdras, 9:9 - 9:11
Leipzig University Library (1844)
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=35&side=r&zoomSlider=0

‘at the sign of the three crosses is the end of the seven leaves which are superfluous and not part of Esdras’
.

English translation by Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, 1938, p. 2 and given by Dirk Jongkind in Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, 2013, p. 146

On the manuscript it goes like this:

μεχρι του ϲημειου τω
τριων ϲταυρων εϲτι
το τελοϲ των επτα
φυλλων τω
περιϲϲων κ(αι)
μη οντω
του εϲ
δρα
 
Last edited:
Scriptorium note
Interesting that you use the word scriptorium, which means it wasnt a private venture done by Simonides.


describing the blunder of the scribes
Scribes? Not Simonides then. Thanks for finally admitting that you've been pushing a ruse.



duplicating pages, likely with the idea that they should correct the problem.
Who's the "they?" Specifically?


Here is the Three Crosses Note seen online, courtesy of the Codex Sinaiticus Project:

1 Chronicles (duplicate), 18:15 - 19:17 / 2 Esdras, 9:9 - 9:11
Leipzig University Library (1844)
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=4&lid=en&quireNo=35&side=r&zoomSlider=0

‘at the sign of the three crosses is the end of the seven leaves which are superfluous and not part of Esdras’
.
None of which matters to anyone but you.



English translation by Milne and Skeat, Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, 1938, p. 2 and given by Dirk Jongkind in Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus, 2013, p. 146
Do you even own those works? Or are you just pretending from a Google search?



On the manuscript it goes like this:
You can't read Greek. How about some integrity to not pretend you're fluent in something you've never even studied?


μεχρι του ϲημειου τω
τριων ϲταυρων εϲτι
το τελοϲ των επτα
φυλλων τω
περιϲϲων κ(αι)
μη οντω
του εϲ
δρα
Whose Greek transcription is that? We certainly know you yourself can't read the manuscript to transcribe it....so whose work are you passing off as your own?
 
Constantine Tischendorf (1850)
“it is thus testified that these four leaves, along with three others long since destroyed, were not so much inserted in the codex in an improper place, as introduced by mistake on the part of the copyist and perhaps twice written on. It was for this reason, I think, they were passed over by the reviser.

“three others long since destroyed”

How could Tischendorf in 1850, after taking his 43 (basket?) leaves, possibly know of three leaves “long since destroyed” or lost? Was Tischendorf the one who discarded the leaves? The note itself gives no indication of any leaves destroyed.

Here is the Tischendorf Latin, asserting pages destroyed, refuting his own discovery story and pointing to Tischendorf as the destroyer, lacking another explanation.

Testantur igitur, ista folia quattuor una cum tribus aliis dudum deperditis alieno loco non tam codici inserta quam ex librarii errore illata ac fortasse bis exarata esse.

The Latin is from:

Vetus Testamentum graece juxta LXX interpretes (1850)
Prolegomena p. LI
Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=pQROAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR51

This de facto confession from Tischendorf was also published in 1856, 1860, 1869, 1875,1880 and 1887. However, it is most significant in 1850 and 1856, prior to the 1859 heist. The first time it was noted in any writing on Sinaiticus was the last couple of days. :)
 
[[

Steven;
one thread on this forum is

Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?​


reading along and watching the debate;
I am some what unclear on your position
are you saying this manuscript is a phony​

thankx for your reply in advance
 
[[


Steven;
one thread on this forum is

Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?​


reading along and watching the debate;
I am some what unclear on your position
are you saying this manuscript is a phony​

thankx for your reply in advance

What's he saying is a group in the 19th century wrote it and that it's not a 4th century uncial.
 
And of you read the Daniels book of the same name as that thread you'll see exactly WHY Daniels, Avery, Chris Pinto and a couple others believe Sinaiticus is a fake.

New world order.
Vatican.
Jesuits.
Textus Receptus the target.
 
are you saying this manuscript is a phony[/indent


Hi Buzzard,

Yes, created c. 1840 on Mt. Athos, at the Pantelemon (Russico) monastery. It was brought to Sinai via Constantinople and has no provenance before 1840.

It was said to be designed as a replica, a gift to the czar Nicholas by Benedict, hoping to receive a printing press in exchange. It is also possible that he hoped to pass it off as ancient. The project was aborted, but then Tischendorf ran with it “as is.”​
 
Thanks.
And I like this quote from Christopher de Hamel.

Medieval Craftsmen
Scribes and Illuminators (1992)
Christopher De Hamel, British Museum
https://books.google.com/books?id=9X1Vc393iPAC&pg=PA12 [bit separately quoted below is from the same post]
In the early monastic period of manuscript production parchment was often quite thick, but by the thirteenth century it was being planed away to an almost tissue thinness. [from same post as above]

https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-28#post-958772

You directly implied "thirteenth century" above. Though your "Yes" simply does not mean "Yes" evidently - Mr Avery.

No change of stance. I simply said it was a good estimate.

You offered 3 numbers, remember?

400s, 1500s,1800s
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-31#post-972004

Ahhh

So now, the 1500's is not "a good estimate"?

Again your "Yes" does not mean "Yes" and your "No" does not mean "No".

Evidently nothing you say can be trusted to mean what it actually says.
 
Back
Top