3. Controversies over Codex Sinaiticus

Constantine Simonides: Newspaper authenticity debate

After the publication of Codex Sinaiticus, Tischendorf’s rival Constantine Simonides sought revenge by playing his card of being a Greek native speaker. Benefiting from his knowledge as a paleographer and icon dealer, he made a lot of money by selling allegedly antique Greek manuscripts to European private collectors and museums. The growing influence of protestant scholars in biblical studies, perceived as somewhat neutral in this interreligious environment, was even felt to bridge the gap towards orthodox Greek Christianity to which it was loosely linked. As typical for the 19^th century, a fierce battle of national and cultural narratives raged.

In 1855, Simonides had tried to sell forged ‚Uranios‘ manuscripts to the royal library of Saxony, but Tischen­dorf’s experienced eyes could not be deceived. Thanks to the Egyptologist Richard Lepsius, the manuscripts were not acquired in the end, and Simonides was arrested. In the wake, he longed for revenge. So, in 1863, the Guardian published an article by Simonides, claiming the Codex Sinaiticus was an early forgery of his (1839) that was presented to the monks of Sinai, where it was allegedly ‚discovered‘ by Tischendorf .

Tischendorf answered this devastating newspaper article with the essay ‚Die Anfechtungen der Sinaibibel‘ . In this booklet, he contested both the Simonides claim and Bishop Porphyrij Uspenskij for propagating heresy. Additionally, many reproached him for carrying out this interreligious project. He closed by praising secular culture and enlightenment.

It shows once more the evidential importance of the auxiliary field of paleography for cultural studies.

Tischendorf was one of the first manuscript hunters to visit St. Catherine’s in the 19^th century. When the Gibson and Lewis sisters visited the monastery in 1892, they were equipped for taking photographs of selected manuscripts in the monastery courtyard, without removing them.

What made Tischendorf sure about a production date prior to 350 AD?

Among a very large number of philological details, there were very obvious proofs of the manuscript’s exact age. These were convincing facts :

1. The monastery of St. Catherine’s had an ancient manuscript stock, judging by its foundation in the 6^th century.
2. The whole document was written in uncials, without any commas, interpunction, nor verses or chapter marks. He discovered many parallels to the oldest Latin version called Itala (end of 2nd century), itself holding many parallels to Syriac Gospel texts, which presumably come very close in time to the original Christian documents. The copyists of Alexandria who reproduced the text had poor Greek language skills and seem to have mechanically copied it as it lay before them. He discovered the end of St. Mark’s Gospel was missing (Chapters 9-20; indicating that it was added later).
3. In the Sinaitic text of the Pauline epistle to the citizens of Ephesus, the city of Ephesus was not yet mentioned. So he deduced that all Christian communities in Asia Minor were addressed, and the epistle might have been written originally in Ephesus.
4. In the Sinaitic text, the Bethesda healing in St. John’s Gospel is performed without an angel causing a tidal wave in the water. This initial explanation is missing in all early manuscripts, and it likely was added during the 4^th century when copyists unfamiliar with the location tried to explain the healing process.
5. Two documents incorporated here were later excluded from the biblical canon: the apocryphal Barnabas and Shepherd of Hermas; so, he reasoned, Codex Sinaiticus must date prior to the congregations of 364 (Laodicea) and 397 (Carthage), who established the definitive canon of the New Testament. This meant the final production of Codex Sinaiticus was completed prior to 350.

Read the public exchange between Simonides and Tischendorf .

Next, consider more recent evaluations of Simonides and the forgery claim: .

• What does the forgery dispute indicate about public impressions of „manuscript hunting“ in Tischendorf’s time?
• What was at stake in the question of whether Codex Sinaiticus was authentic?

Respond to one or more of the above questions by annotating the relevant passages using Hypothes.is or by selecting the question and posting a Hypothes.is comment.