The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

"The Leipzig leaves in actuality have a slight yellow tint that is exactly the same as, or very near to, the tint of some leaves in London." Peterson.

".....trading the truth of God for a lie, they bowed down and worshiped the {Simonides] that God made instead of worshiping the God who made {Simonides]."

"Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?" Rom 9:21.
 
Last edited:
"The Leipzig leaves in actuality have a slight yellow tint that is exactly the same as, or very near to, the tint of some leaves in London." Peterson.

This is from this link below:

THE TEXT OF THE GOSPELS
A blog by James Snapp, Jr. about New Testament textual criticism, especially involving variants in the Gospels.
What Darkened the Sinaiticus?
Friday, July 13, 2018


https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2018/07/what-darkened-sinaiticus.html
 
"The Leipzig leaves in actuality have a slight yellow tint that is exactly the same as, or very near to, the tint of some leaves in London." Peterson.

This is the Jacob Peterson that also wrote in our Facebook discussions:

"The Leipzig leaves are definitely lighter than the other leaves, but they do not have a cool grey tone. They look like well preserved parchment."

Peterson was confused, unreliable and trying all sorts of posturing, he was all over the map.
 
This is the Jacob Peterson that also wrote in our Facebook discussions:

Peterson was confused, unreliable and trying all sorts of posturing, he was all over the map.
He didn't ever deny it. What he says is that color difference, where it exists at all, is marginal. This is why he allowed for different climatic conditions to be also a factor. I'm not clear if he realized that the Leipzig leaves had been cleaned, which could easily have made a difference. The BL decided against cleaning as it could damage the ink.

And he color of the individual leaves of parchment is also dependant on the thickness of the parchment, which is to say color is variable.
 
. the Leipzig leaves had been cleaned,

You have been asked to supply documentation of this theorized cleaning.

Thanks!

I pointed out that the Germans are meticulouslous record-keepers.

=========

e.g. When, by who, records of the cleaning, methods, reagents, results, etc.

And if it was so fabulously successful, changing a stained yellow manuscript to a pale colour, why not use it on other manuscripts?

The CFA manuscript was professionally cleaned and which is why it looks whiter. Also the lighting conditions were different.
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.
Where is the German documentation of this event?
Where is the statement from their conservators?

What was the cleaning method?
What reagents were used?
Can BAM test for those reagents?

The Germans are meticulous record-keepers.

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

Will this amazing unknown method work on the Brit pages?
On Alexandrinus, Vaticanus and Bezae?

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

Or was this simply a claim of convenience, a cover story, crested out of nothing, after the CSP showed the colouring of the Brit pages and the whiteness of the Leipzig pages?

Have you been duped again?

Hmmmmm

==========

Since this theorized amazing cleaning is repeated again and again, time to give your evidence.

Or is your “evidence” circular, the Leipzig pages are “notable for their whiteness”, as said by Gavin Moorhead of the British Library. and you “know” the 1859 pages were not coloured to be “yellow with age”, therefore the German pages must have been whitened!

Circularity, the jewel.
 
Last edited:
And he color of the individual leaves of parchment is also dependant on the thickness of the parchment, which is to say color is variable.

So do you think all the Leipzig pages are thinner or thicker than all the Brit pages?

Any evidence?
 
You have been asked to supply documentation of this theorized cleaning.

Thanks!

I pointed out that the Germans are meticulouslous record-keepers.

=========

e.g. When, by who, records of the cleaning, methods, reagents, results, etc.

And if it was so fabulously successful, changing a stained yellow manuscript to a pale colour, why not use it on other manuscripts?





Since this theorized amazing cleaning is repeated again and again, time to give your evidence.

Or is your “evidence” circular, the Leipzig pages are “notable for their whiteness”, as said by Gavin Moorhead of the British Library. and you “know” the 1859 pages were not coloured to be “yellow with age”, therefore the German pages must have been whitened!

Circularity, the jewel.
Why are you asking me to supply evidence, when the evidence is from your own quote? Go and ask Moorhead if you doubt him.

Gavin Moorhead, British Library

"Yes, the Leipzig folios are notable for their whiteness.​
They were separated from the BL folios at a time unknown [no later than 1844 but possibly earlier].
They were bound into the Codex Friderico-Augustanus in honour of King Frederick Augustus II of Saxony, who had supported Tischendorf's journeys in the first half of the 19th century. After deposit in the Leipzig University Library they were unbound, cleaned, flattened and now live in an archive box, individually wrapped. It's speculative to say how they came to appear so different but it's fair to say it is due in part to the fact that they were separate and existed in different circumstances in the last 160 years to those folios which ended up at the BL.​
The BL folios were presented to Tsar Alexander II and for a time, lived bound but without cover boards, wrapped in cloth in a metal tin. A metal enclosure will make a poor micro-climate if there are moisture fluctuations in the environment. Prior to the recent know history, it is anyone's guess how the Codex was used and stored in the centuries before hand."​
Contrariwise Codex Sinaiticus (vis-a-vis cleaning - there is no record of any cleaning having been done on Sinaiticus).

"Conservation treatment of leaves was strictly limited to what was required to stabilise them for imaging."​
"Surface dirt/dust was defined as any dirty marks which could be easily removed if necessary.​

"Ingrained dirt was defined as dirty marks which are ingrained and whose removal would cause damage to the surface of the parchment.​
 
Last edited:
Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus
Herbert John Mansfield Milne, Theodore Cressy Skeat, Douglas Cockerell
British Museum, 1938

Chapter 10
Condition, Repair, and Binding of the Manuscript

Subheading 2.
State of Preservation
Page 71


“The vellum is generally in good condition, retaining its 'life' and toughness except where, as on some of the edges of the leaves, it has been wet. In those places it is brittle and liable to crack. On most of the edges there were numerous short slits, and the inner margins of many leaves were badly slit and damaged. Nearly all the inner margins had been contracted by the application of hot glue to the back in the course of successive bindings. A good many leaves were rather badly cockled all over, and some were locally contracted where spots of water appear to have fallen on them ; where these spots fell on the writing, the ink has run. There are also a number of brown stains, perhaps due to drops of oil or grease from the lamps and candles of pious readers in the past. The occasional flaying-marks, i.e. accidental punctures in the skin, which develop into oval or circular holes in the process of manufacture, have as a rule been covered over with thin vellum shavings...”

So, the appearance of "a good many" (note: "many") of the British "leaves" was a lot worse than what they appear today. Why?

Because they have had restoration work done on them.

Note how this "bad" cockling all over was mended.


cribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus
Herbert John Mansfield Milne, Theodore Cressy Skeat, Douglas Cockerell
British Museum, 1938

Chapter 10
Condition, Repair, and Binding of the Manuscript

Subheading 13.
Earlier Bindings
Pages 83-85


"When individual leaves were mended—and often more than a day was spent on mending one leaf—they were put between wooden frames having crossed strings stretched across them. The two frames were placed on a damp cloth, a second damp cloth placed over them, and the whole covered by a piece of waterproof sheeting. In this way the vellum leaves were subjected to a damp atmosphere without actually coming in contact with the damp cloths. After about an hour, or an hour and a half, the leaves became quite soft and limp and could be straightened out on the stretching-frames (Fig. 23). They were then left to dry in the frames, still under tension, and in a few hours could be removed and placed in the press without any danger of set-off. By this process the leaves were flattened, and although they became slightly uneven afterwards, they remain reasonably flat. Now that [[Page 84 had photograph] Page 85 continues text] the cockling has been eliminated the leaves show a marked tendency to curl towards the hair side, but this is a property common to all* thin vellum, old or new..."​


Thus the manuscript today appears to be in better condition than it should, not because it was a 19th century manuscript, but because a lot of the cockling has been removed from, note: "a good many of" the British leaves.

Not a minor detail that should be ignored.

P.S. Note that just "a few spots" of water/dampness (let alone "lemon juice" which is made up of a 88-to-90% water content anyway) would make the ink, what, lighter? = No! It would make the INK RUN! Not only that (according to the above) wetness makes the parchment brittle and liable to crack when dried.
 
Last edited:
Avery is very quiet today if you haven't noticed...

After having that bombshell about the Leipzig leaves having been "cleaned"...

Oh...did I say that the Leipzig leaves had been "cleaned"?

Ohhhh...I did say that the Leipzig leaves had been "cleaned"...

But just in case you missed it, the British Library, Gavin Moorehead said the Leipzig leaves had been "cleaned"...
 
Thanks to TNC, the hits just keep on coming.

Actually the information that the Leipzig leaves had been "cleaned" came from Cjab.

Gavin Moorehead from the British Library

"They were bound into the Codex Friderico-Augustanus in honour of King Frederick Augustus II of Saxony, who had supported Tischendorf's journeys in the first half of the 19th century. After deposit in the Leipzig University Library they were unbound, cleaned, flattened and now live in an archive box, individually wrapped."

https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...garding-sinaiticus.11880/page-63#post-1250713

What I can gather from this information (which may or may not be totally correct) is that, after the presentation to the Tzar, and return to Leipzig, they were:

  1. Unbound in Leipzig
  2. Cleaned in Leipzig
  3. Flattened in Leipzig
  4. Put in an archive box in Leipzig
  5. Individually wrapped in Leipzig

So, if you didn't notice, the post-Tzar presentation (1862) appearance was no doubt altered to some degree in Leipzig, not only by the cleaning, but by flattening the leaves (like the 1933 British Library flattening and removing of the bad cockling of "a good many" leaves, although perhaps not the same process) as well!

Thus a post-1862 partial altering of the appearance of the Leipzig leaves.
 
Last edited:
An 1863 letter from Tischendorf, from the Journal of Sacred Literature & Biblical Record (vol 3):

https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=hvd.hngdw6&seq=490

I am impressed that Tischendorf says that Simonides's claim could be refuted by any amateur with time on his hands.

I like this bit of the same article.

The Journal of Sacred Literature and Biblical Record
Volume 3
1863
Subheading: Miscellanies.
Page 479


"Allow me to restate two of the difficulties on Simonides' side of the question, which 'Causidicus' has represented wrongly or imperfectly. 1. Simonides does not claim to have written the Codex Sinaiticus in twenty but in eight months; in the interval, namely, between November, 1839, and August, 1840, when his uncle died. Rookwood' is not a parallel case. Tischendorf not only professes to have seen the manuscript in 1844, but to have brought part of it to Europe, which he deposited in the Leipzig University library, and -published in facsimile in 1846. As Simonides says he saw the manuscript entire in 1852, you will perceive that this considerably increases the difficulty of believing his story. We have, therefore, in this case something more than 'conflicting statements."​
 
Let me see if I understand the issue: To believe that the Codex Sinaiticus is a 19th century fabrication we have to accept the story told by a career (and convicted) criminal, an habitual forgerer (who was not particularly good at it, as many of his forgeries were detected), who told conflicting and improbable stories, including accusations against an entire group of monks, and whose allegations were thoroughly rejected by every expert who bothered to comment - in the 19th, 20th, and 21st centuries.

Did I correctly state the situation?
 
Actually the information that the Leipzig leaves had been "cleaned" came from Cjab.

Gavin Moorehead from the British Library

"They were bound into the Codex Friderico-Augustanus in honour of King Frederick Augustus II of Saxony, who had supported Tischendorf's journeys in the first half of the 19th century. After deposit in the Leipzig University Library they were unbound, cleaned, flattened and now live in an archive box, individually wrapped."

https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...garding-sinaiticus.11880/page-63#post-1250713

What I can gather from this information (which may or may not be totally correct) is that, after the presentation to the Tzar, and return to Leipzig, they were:

  1. Unbound in Leipzig
  2. Cleaned in Leipzig
  3. Flattened in Leipzig
  4. Put in an archive box in Leipzig
  5. Individually wrapped in Leipzig

So, if you didn't notice, the post-Tzar presentation (1862) appearance was no doubt altered to some degree in Leipzig, not only by the cleaning, but by flattening the leaves (like the 1933 British Library flattening and removing of the bad cockling of "a good many" leaves, although perhaps not the same process) as well!

Thus a post-1862 partial altering of the appearance of the Leipzig leaves.
So it is likely that the above processes respecting the Leipzig leaves were contemporaneous with the Sinaiticus digitization project. BTW the original Gavin Moorehead info. came from Avery.
 
Back
Top