The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

With reference to the yellowing of some of the Sinaiticus pages and the suggestion that this was done with lemon juice, I found an article in The American Archivist, volume 1, number 1 (January 1938) on Manuscript Repair in European Archives: Great Britain. This article dealt at length with the Public Record Office but on pages 14-15 discusses the British Museum and especially the Codex Sinaiticus, which was received from the USSR in dreadful shape. Douglas Cockerell was entrusted with restoring the Codex.

"The most interesting piece of apparatus he had was his frame for stretching and flattening the parchment leave of the Codex, which of course had to be separated and repair individually. .... With this apparatus, damp felts were suspended above and below each parchment leaf in turn, which it was being pulled evenly in every direction by the clips and weights. There was no actual contact between the damp felts and the manuscript, hence no risk of causing the ink to run." (my emphasis)

While this was going on, the Codex was believed to be from the fourth century, so that one might suppose that by the 20th century the ink was Very Dry, yet there was concern that even dampness might cause the ink to run, even after fifteen centuries. If we are to believe that the Codex was a 19th century fabrication, then lemon juice - or any juice or fluid - applied to the pages to make them yellow would have caused the relatively recent ink to run. But there is no such running ink. I think this serves as evidence that nothing was poured, sprayed, or otherwise applied to the vellum to cause the pages to yellow.
 
With reference to the yellowing of some of the Sinaiticus pages and the suggestion that this was done with lemon juice, I found an article in The American Archivist, volume 1, number 1 (January 1938) on Manuscript Repair in European Archives: Great Britain. This article dealt at length with the Public Record Office but on pages 14-15 discusses the British Museum and especially the Codex Sinaiticus, which was received from the USSR in dreadful shape. Douglas Cockerell was entrusted with restoring the Codex.

"The most interesting piece of apparatus he had was his frame for stretching and flattening the parchment leave of the Codex, which of course had to be separated and repair individually. .... With this apparatus, damp felts were suspended above and below each parchment leaf in turn, which it was being pulled evenly in every direction by the clips and weights. There was no actual contact between the damp felts and the manuscript, hence no risk of causing the ink to run." (my emphasis)

While this was going on, the Codex was believed to be from the fourth century, so that one might suppose that by the 20th century the ink was Very Dry, yet there was concern that even dampness might cause the ink to run, even after fifteen centuries. If we are to believe that the Codex was a 19th century fabrication, then lemon juice - or any juice or fluid - applied to the pages to make them yellow would have caused the relatively recent ink to run. But there is no such running ink. I think this serves as evidence that nothing was poured, sprayed, or otherwise applied to the vellum to cause the pages to yellow.

Excellent observation.

Yes, if it was new in the 1840's-1850's (even late 1830's) it would have washed off very very easily.

If a minute tiny bit of humidity could even potentially make the ink run...lemon juice scrubbing would possibly/likely obliterate the writing...

You noting this Avery?

You see how improbable the fake Tischendorf vandalism story is, just from that point of view alone!

But of course you'll deny, denigrate, and distract/divert (wait for it - here it comes)

Besides, lemon juice needs heat for any brown colouring to occur...

Firrrrrre in the hole ??????
 
Last edited:
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.)
I am not sure you have provided an adequate proof for
you can see the Sinaiticus quires are all the same.
.A fascicle is group of quires stitched together. Bradshaw said "a series of fasciculi each ending with a quire of varying size." Where is Bradshaw disproved?
 
While this was going on, the Codex was believed to be from the fourth century, so that one might suppose that by the 20th century the ink was Very Dry, yet there was concern that even dampness might cause the ink to run, even after fifteen centuries.

Anyone could see that the parchment was young and fleixble and that the ink was relatively fresh, compared to ancient manuscripts, like the "limp, dead" Alexandrinus. So they would be careful about moisture.

However, they would not want to publicly question the age of the manuscript, and imply that the Russians had taken them for a ride.
 
.A fascicle is group of quires stitched together. Bradshaw said "a series of fasciculi each ending with a quire of varying size." Where is Bradshaw disproved?

We covered this on the other thread.

The quires of Codex Sinaiticus are almost all of one size, eight leaves to a quire.

Nobody defended the Bradshaw absurdity and error as an argument against Athos authorship, although it was mentioned quizzically in the Plain Introduction of 1894.
 
Yes, if it was new in the 1840's-1850's (even late 1830's) it would have washed off very very easily.

Generally, when staining is done, it is because the parchment or paper is relatively young, not yet truly "yellow with age".

Simonides was said to have used tobacco-water for some yellowing.

Did the ink wash off?

Have you spoken to anybody who has used these techniques?

Here is one that was:
"Vellum tinged yellow with tobacco juice".
https://books.google.com/books?id=QFleAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA409

Detecting Forgery: Forensic Investigation of Documents (2015)
Joe Nickell, forgery detector, tells how

Brown staining of a document suspected of having been aged with tea can be tested by a saturated solution of hydrated ferrous sulfate, which will cause tea stains to turn black. Of course, as discussed in chapter 5, other substances have been used to give the appearance of age,

And note these:

Athenaeum
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqFAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA438
1691374197780.png

Maybe those two can be tracked down, and we can compare the supposed technique of Simonides with that of Tischendorf and friends. They were apparently friends for awhile, maybe Simonides gave Tischendorf some tips.

The Phillipps Manuscripts: Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum in Biblioteca D. Thomae Phillips, BT : Impressum Typis Medio-montanis 1837-1871 (published 2001)
https://books.google.com/books?id=74AWAQAAIAAJ
 
Last edited:
We covered this on the other thread.

The quires of Codex Sinaiticus are almost all of one size, eight leaves to a quire.

Nobody defended the Bradshaw absurdity and error as an argument against Athos authorship, although it was mentioned quizzically in the Plain Introduction of 1894.
You're wrong, It's exactly as Bradshaw said. Varying quire sizes found:

At the end of 1 Maccacbees
At the end of Malachai
At the end of John
At the end of Revelation
At the end of Barnabas
 
Last edited:
You're wrong, It's exactly as Bradshaw said. Varying quire sizes found:

At the end of 1 Maccacbees
At the end of Malachai
At the end of John
At the end of Revelation
At the end of Barnabas

Bradshaw was double-wrong, and his "instinct" led him astray.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...forge-the-codex-siniaticus.14468/post-1248748

Part of the problem in the English controversies was that the Mayer papyri issues got mixed up with the Sinaiticus authenticity issues.


Psychologically, it was very hard to take the true position:

1) Mayer papyri look inauthentic, Simonides fits as "orange man bad"

2) Sinaiticus is a new manuscript, done on Mt. Athos, as Simonides said.
 
Generally, when staining is done, it is because the parchment or paper is relatively young, not yet truly "yellow with age".

Simonides was said to have used tobacco-water for some yellowing.

Did the ink wash off?

Have you spoken to anybody who has used these techniques?

Here is one that was:
"Vellum tinged yellow with tobacco juice".
https://books.google.com/books?id=QFleAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA409

Detecting Forgery: Forensic Investigation of Documents (2015)
Joe Nickell, forgery detector, tells how



And note these:

Athenaeum
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqFAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA438
View attachment 4615

Maybe those two can be tracked down, and we can compare the supposed technique of Simonides with that of Tischendorf and friends. They were apparently friends for awhile, maybe Simonides gave Tischendorf some tips.

The Phillipps Manuscripts: Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum in Biblioteca D. Thomae Phillips, BT : Impressum Typis Medio-montanis 1837-1871 (published 2001)
https://books.google.com/books?id=74AWAQAAIAAJ

Says "possibly... dipped in tobacco water"
 
Generally, when staining is done, it is because the parchment or paper is relatively young, not yet truly "yellow with age".

Simonides was said to have used tobacco-water for some yellowing.

Did the ink wash off?

Have you spoken to anybody who has used these techniques?

Here is one that was:
"Vellum tinged yellow with tobacco juice".
https://books.google.com/books?id=QFleAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA409

Detecting Forgery: Forensic Investigation of Documents (2015)
Joe Nickell, forgery detector, tells how



And note these:

Athenaeum
https:/books.google.com/books?id=lqFAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA438
View attachment 4615

Maybe those two can be tracked down, and we can compare the supposed technique of Simonides with that of Tischendorf and friends. They were apparently friends for awhile, maybe Simonides gave Tischendorf some tips.

The Phillipps Manuscripts: Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum in Biblioteca D. Thomae Phillips, BT : Impressum Typis Medio-montanis 1837-1871 (published 2001)
https://books.google.com/books?id=74AWAQAAIAAJ

It says: "seems to be.... dipped in tobacco water"
 
Generally, when staining is done, it is because the parchment or paper is relatively young, not yet truly "yellow with age".

Simonides was said to have used tobacco-water for some yellowing.

Did the ink wash off?

Have you spoken to anybody who has used these techniques?

Here is one that was:
"Vellum tinged yellow with tobacco juice".
https://books.google.com/books?id=QFleAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA409

Detecting Forgery: Forensic Investigation of Documents (2015)
Joe Nickell, forgery detector, tells how



And note these:

Athenaeum
https://books.google.com/books?id=lqFAAQAAMAAJ&pg=PA438
View attachment 4615

Maybe those two can be tracked down, and we can compare the supposed technique of Simonides with that of Tischendorf and friends. They were apparently friends for awhile, maybe Simonides gave Tischendorf some tips.

The Phillipps Manuscripts: Catalogus Librorum Manuscriptorum in Biblioteca D. Thomae Phillips, BT : Impressum Typis Medio-montanis 1837-1871 (published 2001)
https://books.google.com/books?id=74AWAQAAIAAJ

So you're claiming Tischendorf "dipped" (i.e. immersed) parchment (note parchment) sheets "in" (i.e. right into) tobacco water?

Just like Simonides "possibly" or "seems to" have done with Pansy what's a ma call it?

With the new ink writing still on the parchment!

And the writing is as pristine as it is now? Hmmmmm

You might want to THINK about that one for a bit longer Mr Avery...

THINK!

You brought this up... you're implying this stuff by your comparisons...
 
Last edited:
Or did Tischendorf "dip" the entire Gold Bound, Wooden and Leather covered, brand spanking new professionally done stitching etc Codex, whole, along with its virtually brand new ink, directly into a bath/bucket of tobacco water?
 
Last edited:
Or did Tischendorf carefully undo all the brand new, professionally done gold binding and spine and stitching, and take of the leather and wood covers...and dip each quire/leaf individually, one at a time into the tobacco water solution?
 
Bradshaw was double-wrong, and his "instinct" led him astray.
You don't even understand what he was talking about, You don't understand his technical terms, He was talking only about the method of binding the Sinaiticus quires into booklets or fasciculi. The size of the fasciculi is in itself irrelevant. That the fasciculi in Sinaiticus are relatively large is irrelevant. That most of the quires in Sinaiticus are 8 leaf is also irrelevant.

Jongkind said "Three quires have their last one or two folios cut out, apparently because these were left blank. Three other quires have less folios, because they were formed by using only one, two or three sheets."

What Jongkind doesn't say is what Bradshaw does say: which is that all (or at five) of these reduced quires are found always at the end of biblical books, suggesting that they only occur at the end of a fascicle, just as he said.

Of course Bradshaw is not excluding 8 folio quires at the end of biblical books, and therefore at the end of fascicles. Some books do end on the 8th folio of a quire. All he said was that the last quire of a fascicle is of variable size, and then cross-referenced Alexandrinus.
 
Last edited:
So you're claiming Tischendorf "dipped" (i.e. immersed) parchment (note parchment) sheets "in" (i.e. right into) tobacco water?

Nope, I never said your "quoted" word, simply that tobacco water, or herbs, or diluted lemon-juice, or another agent, was used for the staining. You can see stain marks, which would be more likely from a topical application than immersion.

Staining is not so likely to be immersion, although that should be checked with people who have distressed parchment.

The Athenaeum used the word "dipped".
 
Last edited:
Or did Tischendorf carefully undo all the brand new, professionally done gold binding and spine and stitching, and take of the leather and wood covers...and dip each quire/leaf individually, one at a time into the tobacco water solution?

Afawk, any gold binding and spine was gone by the time it went when to St. Petersburg. There were quires. There may have been some remaining stitching.

Uspensky might tell us more in his unpublished material. Kevin McGrane says one spot has over 20 pages on Sinaiticus, with no additional information. This is a high priority like the two Simonides letters. McGrane hints at other material, but the 20 pages has a name and looks to be the biggy. Note that McGrane either did not find, or did not want to tell his readers, the amazing and critical information that Uspensky called out the manuscript as not old in 1865! No wrinkles, no gray hair. So Uspensky might have more that relates to codicology.

A question arises as to whether Uspensky remembered, or placed the info in his diary. His published eight-volume autobiography works as diary notes, and has given us some wonderful stuff recently. It is possible there is more there, six of the volumes are online, but not Volume 8, the last one that goes for about 20 years of diary.

Staining was likely done on a page by page level. The Library of Stains, or a similar group, should be looking at the front and back of leafs.
 
Last edited:
The Athenaeum used the word "dipped".
The Athenaeum used "dipped in tobacco water" in relation to your hero, Simonides, alone.

It doesn't attribute anyone else with that practice, other than Simonides: a professional forger.

A possibility doesn't give rise to a prima facie case.

To allege it of Tischendorf is your fancy, your work of fiction, the purpose of your cult.

Can you even separate truth from lies?

What case do you have, other than conjecture?

Has any scholar, even one, construed Sinaiticus as having been dipped in tobacco water?
 
Back
Top