The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

Elliott p. 104

J. Silvester Davies - Feb 25, 1863

Reverend Sir-It is known to you that the celebrated critic Dr. Tischendorf has obtained from the library of the Convent on Mount Sinai a codex
of the Sacred Scripture, which he assigns to a very early date.

It may also be known to you that the skilful palaeographist Constantine Leonidas Photius Simonides has astonished those who are interested in
this matter, by putting forward a claim to the authorship of the Codex, which Dr. Tischendorf is now publishing to the world as a work probably of the fourth century.


It is a matter of greatest importance that the truth should be known: and the question can, doubtless, be settled on the evidence of the MS. itself.

"It is a matter of greatest importance that the truth should be known: and the question can, doubtless, be settled on the evidence of the MS. itself."

Yep, if they had seen the two sections of the mansucript, the controversy would have ended in an hour!
 
Mordtmann, who was travelled around with Simonides in Constantinople, gave Anthimus' real answer in his article, that Simonides was rejected by the Patriarch and told to shove off.

You are mixing up events of he early 1840s involving Sinaiticus, the period when Simonides helped get the manuscript to Sinai and was given a letter of recommendation from Anthimus, with totally different events c. 1850.

Worthless non-scholarship.
 
Last edited:
You are mixing up events of he early 1840s involving Sinaiticus, the period when Simonides helped get the manuscript to Sinai and was given a letter of recommendation from Anthimus, with totally different events c. 1850.

Worthless non-scholarship.
Simonides never heard of Codex Sinaiticus in 1840. He had no clue that it even existed then. Not even a figment of his imagination!
 
~
Simonides never heard of Codex Sinaiticus in 1840. He had no clue that it even existed then. Not even a figment of his imagination!

Well, at least Sinaiticus was not yet divided into two sections, one pristine white parchment, the other "yellow with age" by staining.
 
I don't know how dramatic the difference in the color of the vellum pages are; for all I know the difference is very slight.
And I definitely don't know if the yellow pages were stained; it might well be a natural characteristic of aging or the results of the tanning process.
Conceding that they were stained, just because someone (who doesn't have any direct knowledge) says it, is halfway conceding to some hankypanky involving the Sinaiticus. If we suppose that the finished pages were stained, we have to ask "Why only some of the pages?" - a deliberate forgery would suggest that the forger would stain all of the pages the same way.
 
If we suppose that the finished pages were stained, we have to ask "Why only some of the pages?" - a deliberate forgery would suggest that the forger would stain all of the pages the same way.

Good question.

This is where Tischendorf likely had "thieves regret", for being so hasty. He ran the 43 stolen leaves to Leipzig in 1844, it was his test to see if he could pretend it was an ancient manuscript even in amazing, phenomenally good condition. Once the leaves were deposited at the Library, it was impossible to surreptiously stain them, since they were in the custody and observation of many at the Leipzig University Library.

Tischendorf probably had not even considered staining at that point.

Fifteen years later, in 1859, he took the bulk of the manuscript. (For awhile, he did not even publicly connect the two separated parts.) Those leaves, about 350, were made "yellow with age" by staining. And he got away with it for 150 years, long after he passed, nobody did the basic examination of the "facts on the ground".

And I recently discussed this with more details in two posts. (Fixing typos here, adding a few words.)

The denialism comes from those who can easily see the large colour difference with their own eyes .... and fish around for any explanation except the explanation that was specifically accused at the time .. colouring of the 1859 section of the manuscript to give the appearance of age.

While it was too late for Tischendorf or his associates to do similar with the 1844 section, since its white parchment was already under the lock and key of the Leipzig University Library. oops

This was an accusation that would have been totally absurd, ridiculous and self-refuting and self-defeating ... unless it were true!
Thus it counts as an historical imperative!

Notice how William Aldis Wright and his Investigative Clowns made no effort to check out the manuscript.

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

This gave Tischendorf a super incentive to:

a) point people to his book, that fakes out the colour difference and hides the actual ink and parchment condition

b) keep the Leipzig and St. Petersburg sections widely distant

c) encourage very limited access at the libraries (don't let anyone know about the phenomenally good condition and the easy-peasy page turning)

d) encourage scholars to pay a lot of $$ for his book (pointed out by Hilgenfeld), instead of offering manuscript access

e) never go anywhere with pages from both 1844 and 1859, since that would show that the jig was up! (To questioning eyes.) Thus the eventual, late, English trip in 1865 just took Leipzig pages.

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


Pictures are from the Codex Sinaiticus Project (CSP) and the SART team put them together as unified pictures to see the contrast from Leipzig University Library in 1844 and the British Library in 1859 (after their stay in St. Petersburg, Russia). They are used under "fair use" where the pictures themselves are a springboard for scholarly analysis.

On this forum (CARM) the other day, we showed the 1859 British Library page and received a lot of humorous response.
(Which will be better to discuss on this dedicated thread, we can add the closeup pictures.)

We also showed that the Elijah Hixson concern in a paper about the color charts ended up as a big nothing.
Unpublished paper: 'New' Evidence on "Is Codex Sinaiticus a Fake?"
We showed his gray charts next to the pictures (which he had omitted) and it was clear that the colour chart difference element was very small.

Beyond that, we come across a wide variety of excuses for the colour disparity, which can include brightening by reagents in Leipzig, the theory of Kevin McGrane, and the effects on parchment of the terrible Russian winters. The British Library also wrote acknowledging the colour disparity, giving similar conjectural explanations. You can get anything you want, in the Sinaiticus 4th-century restaurant.

In 1844 Tischendorf stole five intact quires (5 quires x 8 leaves = 40 leaves) and an additional three leaves as a part of a sixth quire (43 leaves total). Looking at the pictures below, one of these two pages in Jeremiah, the one on the right, went to Leipzig in 1844, before the colouring. The other page on the left, which is contiguous in the manuscript, was coloured before it went to St. Petersburg in 1859. You can see the sloppy staining that was done on the 1859 page.


This Tischendorf 1844 theft was explained excellently by Simonides from Kallinikos in 1862!
Similarly the colouring and staining, to try to give the appearance of age, was explained in a few quotes from 1862-63.
Tischendorf kept the two sections very distant from one another, and difficult to access.
"Buy and look at my facsimile book!" - a book that hid the colour disparity, the flexible parchment, the lack of ink-acid reaction, the phenomenally good condition.
(The same "smoothing" occurred in the recent Hendrikson edition.)
These "called shots" would have been absurd as accusations made in the dark ... except that they were true.
The colouring and staining only became publicly visible with the 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project. That part of the con had lasted about 150 years!
Nobody had checked the manuscript sections to see if there was, in fact, the colour disparity between the two sections!
The somnabulent textual criticism crew at work and play!

Let's note also that not one word of New Testament text was lost in the supposed 1500 years of usage before the c. 1850 find.
Amazing ... or, too good to be true!

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

What went to
Leipzig:


Quire 35 (8 leaves)
1 Chronicles - includes duplicate pages
2 Esdras and three crosses note

Quire 36 (8 leaves)
2 Esdras (colophon at end)
Esther

Quire 37 (3 leaves)
Esther (with colophon at end)
Tobit begins

Tischendorf stops the pages right at the crucial Esther colophon spot! Clever.
Or Tischendorf adds in the colophon at the spot where he stopped.

This area above was 19 leaves.

Then Tischendorf jumped over to Jeremiah for 3 intact quires, 24 more leaves, 43 total, as intact quires are relatively easy to extract.

** Right here are where we have the two pages below. **

On the left:
Last page of Quire 46, went to St. Petersburg 1859 to the British Library colored

On the right:
Followed by first page of Quire 47, Leipzig 1844

Leipzig:

Quire 47
(8 leaves)
All from Jeremiah - starting at 10:25

Quire 48 (8 leaves)
All from Jeremiah - starting at 27:9

Quire 49 (8 leaves)
Finishes Jeremiah at 52:34 and begins Lamentations 1:1 to 2:20

All carefully chosen!

The idea that these intact quires were just random pages in a basket is one of the humorous elements of the Tischendorf con.

Total 43 leaves

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

Looking at the two pages below!

British Library
Jeremiah, 9:20 - 10:25 library: BL folio: 73b scribe: B1
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=1&lid=en&quireNo=47&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Leipzig University Library -
Jeremiah, 10:25 - 11:23 library: LUL folio: xx scribe: B1, overwriting by corrector d
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=8&lid=en&quireNo=46&side=v&zoomSlider=0

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


1689736246003-png.4504
 
Last edited:
Good question.

This is where Tischendorf likely had "thieves regret", for being so hasty. He ran the 43 stolen leaves to Leipzig in 1844, it was his test to see if he could pretend it was an ancient manuscript even in amazing, phenomenally good condition. Once the leaves were deposited at the Library, it was impossible to surreptiously stain them, since they were in the custody and observation of many at the Leipzig University Library.

Tischendorf probably had not even considered staining at that point.

Fifteen years later, in 1859, he took the bulk of the manuscript. (For awhile, he did not even publicly connect the two separated parts.) Those leaves, about 350, were made "yellow with age" by staining. And he got away with it for 150 years, long after he passed, nobody did the basic examination of the "facts on the ground".

And I recently discussed this with more details in two posts. (Fixing typos here, adding a few words.)
Tischendorf stained nothing. He found an ancient, 1500 year old manuscript. Your confusing ancient with modern. Do you have anyone's writings where they claimed Tischendorf stained anything? Or is it merely a guess on your part?
 
English scholars visited Tischendorf in Leipzig in to see the Codex Sinaiticus first-hand including Tregelles and Bradshaw:

"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"

Gibberish.

This is your palaeogrphic defense of Sinaiticus?
 
how did Simonides and Kallinikos know about the colouring of the manuscript?
https://forums.carm.org/threads/how...-about-the-colouring-of-the-manuscript.15790/

The colour of the manuscript (a very minor point which is exaggerated to the heavens in your conspiracy theory) shouldn't be particularly hard to find out, especially post-February-March-April 1859.

1859 - 16/28 October - New documents on Constantine Tischendorf and the Codex Sinaiticus By Ihor Ŝevĉenko
Scriptorium Année
1964, l18-1, pp. 55-80
Germanos to Cyril Oct 16/28, 1859
Page 62 (35)


"Contrary to our recommendations and to his own promises, Tischendorf, as soon as he put his hands on the book, hastened to spread the news throughout the whole of Cairo, either out of vanity or for some other reason. We also learned that he had beforehand published an article on this subject in an English daily [Journal of Sacred Literature, July 1859]. Since by now [i.e. October] people here have no other subject of conversation..."
There are multiple choices and possibilities of where Simonides (or a friend of Simonides) could have found out the colour of the manuscript...(boy that's classified, isn't it! Top secret! X-Files level...bla bla bla)

Simonides could have heard it orally, or read it in print perhaps. Perhaps even from someone in Russia, through someone who had some access to information about Uspenky's research, or elsewhere in Europe from those Tischendorf mingled with on his post media release travels.
 
Simonides could have heard it orally, or read it in print perhaps. Perhaps even from someone in Russia, through someone who had some access to information about Uspenky's research, or elsewhere in Europe from those Tischendorf mingled with on his post media release travels.

Very creative.

The colouring of the Sinaiticus manuscript 1859 section took place in Cairo (with difficulties) rather than in Sinai. And Simonides picked it up from the Cairo Grapevine (which, incidentally, had other stories about how Tischendorf took the manuscript to the Russian Consulate, different than the Tischendorf cover story.) And maybe the coloring info was passed on to Simonides by Kallinikos of Alexandria. We know that TNC speculates that Simonides has spies and informants everywhere :).

All this is not likely, for various logistical reasons (much more safety and coverage and isolation and resources at Sinai) and it still does not explain why Tischendorf coloured the manuscript to make it "yellow with age".

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

In the 1930s some of the articles were more honest than today.

Religion: Stolen Codex?
Monday, Feb. 05, 1934
https://content.time.com/time/subscriber/article/0,33009,929681,00.html

Tischendorf took the Codex to Cairo pleading that he must study it in a warm climate. He went to the Russian Consulate and, thus on Russian soil, defied the monks to get their Codex back.

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

There is good evidence that Tischendorf took the manuscript surreptitiously, and made a beeline to the Russian Consulate, and then negotiated from Russian soil. Possession as 9/10th. Simonides and Kallinikos pointed out that the supposed loan was designed to be broken.
 
Last edited:
First, is this your claim as well as Bradshaw?
I can't say I fully understand Bradshaw's usage of technical terms, but I trust his expertise in this field as a keeper of manuscripts. If you wish to take objection, the onus of proof is on you, which you have yet to discharge. So don't start pretending you've discharged it when you haven't even raised a prima facie case.

You quoted it, so that would seem to indicate yes.
Letter to The Guardian, 21st January, 1863 Wright

"Simonides, in his letter to the Guardian of the 3rd of September,​
1862, claims to have seen his own MS. again in 1852. He simply says it was​
«much altered, having an older appearance th an it ought to have». In 1840
he had it newly bound. In 1844 it was entirely disintegrated, every vestige​
of binding had disappeared, and large portions of the MS. were lost. Had
he seen the MS. in 1852, he could not have described its condition as he has
done."
Also, according to Simonides, any "coloring" would have to have taken place prior to 1952 and not in 1859 as you allege. And Simonides is unable to explain why the manuscript became disbound so quickly, how its leaves became incorporated into the bindings of other books.

And then of course, there is that 1852 visit to Sinai that no-one knows anything about, and in an attempt to prove the same, he later forged his own Autographa (allegedly published in Odessa and Moscow circa 1954) the 1860s in order to conceal the fact (this was when he was in his alter-ego "Kallinikos" period).



 
Last edited:
I can't say I fully understand Bradshaw's usage of technical terms, but I trust his expertise in this field as a keeper of manuscripts.

Here you can see the Sinaiticus quires are all the same.

Recording the Physical Description of Codex Sinaiticus
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_physDesc.aspx

David W. Daniels explains that the Barnabas quire is the exception.

There are a few possibilities:

1) Bradshaw was incompetent

2) Bradshaw was lying, hoping to end the Simonides controversy

3) Bradshaw was looking at another manuscript (maybe what Tischendorf produced in Cairo)

4) Tischendorf was quire-playing (but the connectedness of the quires says no.)
 
Last edited:
There are a few possibilities:

1) Bradshaw was incompetent
Nope, that would be you.

2) Bradshaw was lying, hoping to end the Simonides controversy
Nope, that would be you.


Funny how you slander and falsely accuse anyone and everyone who has ever dated Sinaiticus to the 4th century as “incompetent,” “lying,” and a “dupe,” but somehow you — the one guy with too much time on his hands and absolutely no qualifications in any of the relevant fields of study — are none of those things. Amazing.

Judgement day is a comin.
 
Here you can see the Sinaiticus quires are all the same.

Recording the Physical Description of Codex Sinaiticus
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_physDesc.aspx

David W. Daniels explains that the Barnabas quire is the exception.

There are a few possibilities:

1) Bradshaw was incompetent

2) Bradshaw was lying, hoping to end the Simonides controversy

3) Bradshaw was looking at another manuscript (maybe what Tischendorf produced in Cairo)

4) Tischendorf was quire-playing (but the connectedness of the quires says no.)

Don't think everyone doesn't notice that you didn't answer Cjab's objection by changing the subject.

Cap 1.PNG

Your testimony does not agree with Simonides and/or Kallinikos, that the manuscript was altered/colored in and/or by 1852.

Your testimony is that the Sinaiticus MS color was altered in 1859, in Cairo (month?).

Three witnesses (Avery, Simonides, Kallinikos) who do not agree!
 
On another thread I very recently mentioned an 1872 article by Ezra Abbot on the antiquity of the Sinaiticus ....

https://www.jstor.org/stable/592128

... in which both F.H.A. Scrivener and Dean Burgon are quoted as assigning the Sinaiticus to the fourth century.
I don't think either of them was either incompetent or dishonest.

I would still like someone to get, from an expert on vellum, what significance there is to yellowed vellum, what causes it, etc.
 
On another thread I very recently mentioned an 1872 article by Ezra Abbot on the antiquity of the Sinaiticus ....

https://www.jstor.org/stable/592128

... in which both F.H.A. Scrivener and Dean Burgon are quoted as assigning the Sinaiticus to the fourth century.
I don't think either of them was either incompetent or dishonest.

I would still like someone to get, from an expert on vellum, what significance there is to yellowed vellum, what causes it, etc.

There is indeed a scientific reason for the yellow colour that occurs on parchment manuscripts (not just the Sinaiticus) that people who have corresponded by email with Steven Avery (and was accidentally left public by Mr Avery) said they were well aware of.

But in the meantime, I highly recommend the two PDF's below which also have a direct bearing on the question of colouring.

It is complimentary information in addition to the natural process that causes yellowing under certain conditions, at a microscopic and cellular level to parchment (i.e. dead animal skins).

Is David W. Daniels' "Codex Sinaiticus Evidence" a Fake?
By Kevin McGrane, 2018


https://www.academia.edu/37612776/Is_David_W_Daniels_Codex_Sinaiticus_Evidence_a_Fake

And the complementary work:

A Review of 'The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus' by Dr W.R. Cooper against detailed background of the discovery of the Codex
By Kevin McGrane, 2018


https://www.academia.edu/37556820/A...iled_background_of_the_discovery_of_the_Codex
 
Last edited:
Back
Top