The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

What case do you have, other than conjecture?
Has any scholar, even one, construed Sinaiticus as having been dipped in tobacco water?

Hardly anybody objective could see the difference in colour until after 2009.

Kirsopp Lake would have seen it, on visits 10 years apart, 1912 and 1922, but his job was not to question authenticity. Afaik, he never discusses the parchment colour. He does say that thin parchment leaves should means more erosion (e.g. ink acid deterioration) which is what we do not have on Sinaiticus.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Very few knew that the accusation was very specifically and clearly made in 1862-63. Even fewer would understand the historical imperative, how it would be an absurd accusation to make ... unless it were true, and the colours were quite different and the 1859 pages were stained. In the 1860s till we saw the CSP, nobody checked! They took the "orange man bad" approach. True scholarship would have checked that in the 1860s, and then Sinaiticus would have been immediately rejected, or at least placed under a dark cloud.

There have been a couple of quasi-scholarly attempts to deny the colouring.

Kevin McGrane wanted to allow a reagent cleaning in Leipzig to explain the difference. Apparently, he decided that shot down his position, so he changed his paper. (here, cjab took a similar position about cleaning.)

Elijah Hixson's attempt exploded when we simply placed the colour charts next to the manuscript pictures.

Jacob Peterson made absurd claims that he could not support.

The British Library properly acknowledged the colour distinction, and then offered hand-wave conjectures.

Most simply claim 4th-century circularity, although that does not explain the darker 1859 pages.

That's about it.
 
Last edited:
The simple fact is that - if the dispute about the antiquity of Sinaiticus were a court case submitted to a jury - there would be hardly any delay in a unanimous decision upholding the fourth century origin of the Codex. ALL the tangible evidence supports antiquity, ALL the expert opinion supports antiquity, the only purported evidence for Simonides is conspiracy theories and odd suggestions mostly arising from ignorance about parchment and ink and handwriting.

This thread now covers more than 61 pages and contains more than 1200 back-and-forth arguments. Apart from the Flat Earth Society, I cannot imagine a more wasteful use of bandwidth.
 
The simple fact is that - if the dispute about the antiquity of Sinaiticus were a court case submitted to a jury -

Never happened.

The decision was made without even seeing the manuscript.
And especially, not comparing the two sections.

The main argument was "orange man bad", and also the Mayer papyri are fishy.
(Which tells us nothing about Sinaiticus.)

It is hard to overturn a false ruling, that is a general court truth, but it is happening. :)
 
ignorance about parchment and ink and handwriting.

The ignorance is thinking that a thin parchment manuscript goes through 1750+ years of use and remains youthful, flexible, like-new, pages turn easy-peasy, not one word of the New Testament lost, and no ink-acid destruction of parchment.

An obvious hokum myth.

Parchment science had to be turned upside-down to fit the textual con.
 
Hardly anybody objective could see the difference in colour until after 2009.

Kirsopp Lake would have seen it, on visits 10 years apart, 1912 and 1922, but his job was not to question authenticity. Afaik, he never discusses the parchment colour. He does say that thin parchment leaves should means more erosion (e.g. ink acid deterioration) which is what we do not have on Sinaiticus.

Out of sight, out of mind.

Very few knew that the accusation was very specifically and clearly made in 1862-63. Even fewer would understand the historical imperative, how it would be an absurd accusation to make ... unless it were true, and the colours were quite different and the 1859 pages were stained. In the 1860s till we saw the CSP, nobody checked! They took the "orange man bad" approach. True scholarship would have checked that in the 1860s, and then Sinaiticus would have been immediately rejected, or at least placed under a dark cloud.

There have been a couple of quasi-scholarly attempts to deny the colouring.



Most simply claim 4th-century circularity, although that does not explain the darker 1859 pages.

That's about it.
In other words, Sinaiticus was colored, because "Simonides sez."

Sorry, but Simonides is a proven liar, and his evidence wouldn't be credited in any Court.
 
In other words, Sinaiticus was colored, because "Simonides sez."

And the 1859 ‘after’ pages show the coloring.
And, amazingly, we can compare to the 1844 ‘before’ pages.

Symbiotic, corroborative evidences.

And the 1844 pages are too light.
And both sections are new, flexible, phenomenally good condition, supplying the motive, the manuscript should be “yellow with age”

Secret times and spaces and (corrupt) contacts at the monastery supply the means and opportunity. Similar in Cairo, for additional manipulations.

It is possible that an earlier friendship with Simonides, or mutual contacts in Sinai, helped with the education:). This type of knowledge is passed around quietly, back-channels.

And it would be the height of absurdity to make such a claim in the dark. Any good historian or journalist will understand this historical imperative. James Anton Farrer missed that element, Chris Pinto got it! Textual critics … nahhh.

TNC was funny, he theorized that Simonides learned about the colouring through the Cairo grapevine!

And nobody checked the manuscript sections!
 
Last edited:
Am I to understand that we were, for weeks, quibbling about the causes of the discoloration of some Sinaiticus pages, when, in fact, there was no discoloration at all??
 
Am I to understand that we were, for weeks, quibbling about the causes of the discoloration of some Sinaiticus pages, when, in fact, there was no discoloration at all??

There was enhanced coloration, very easy to see, since it only occurred on the 1859 leaves.
 
If it occurred only in the leaves obtained in 1859, might it be attributable to something done to package, store, or display those particular leaves in 1859?
 
Last edited:
If it occurred only in the leaves obtained in 1859, might it be attributable to something done to package, store, or display those particular leaves in 1859?
If it happened at all, and that is by no means certain, as the color of the Codex Sinaiticus is variable depending on the nature of the light that is shone on it - in this video "https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00dy1gc" it looks almost white.

Different kinds of light bulbs produce different shades of color, and it is obvious from the color charts that the BL bulb is not the same as the German bulb.

Another thing is cleaning: apparently the CFA was cleaned in Leipzig, that might have caused it to appear whiter than the non-cleaned Codex Sinaiticus.

As Codex Sinaiticus was stored in a metal box in St.. Petersberg (a very humid place) for a long time (circa 70 years) the damp might have got to it.
 
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".

The description of the Athenaeum "dipped" only applies to Simonides two forgeries mentioned.

It is not applied by the Athenaeum to the Sinaiticus.?
 
Kirsopp Lake ... Afaik, he never discusses the parchment colour.

"Never" is an all inclusive word.

But it's not true.

I saw a quote on your Blog just this morning!

1911 - Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus: The New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas by Kirsopp Lake

"the thicker leaves .. are inclined to a yellowish tint"​

Do you want me to ask you to correct, retract, apologize, and grovel - as you usually demand? Mr Avery?
 
Staining is not so likely to be immersion, although that should be checked with people who have distressed parchment.

Uspensky took a page from Judith that looks to have been immersed.

It may well have been a test gone awry.

Here is a bit about this Judith page.

index.php


It is interesting that nobody really talks about that washed page. The Russian site is excellent, and Stanley Porter mentions it in a footnote, without mentioning that it is "washed". The location is in the middle of the quires stolen by Tischendorf in 1843. I don't think there are any notes about when Uspensky's sticky fingers got what may have been an overly stained page.
 
Last edited:
"Never" is an all inclusive word.
But it's not true.
I saw a quote on your Blog just this morning!
1911 - Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus: The New Testament, the Epistle of Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas by Kirsopp Lake
"the thicker leaves .. are inclined to a yellowish tint"​

Thanks for the correction.
(I did have "afaik" but I needed to bookmark it from my white parchment page, and David and Nazaroo.)

And I don't think he adds anything in 1922, bringing over the text from 1911, but it is not easily available to check.
 
Back
Top