Uspensky saw the ms. in 1845 and 1850, and called it white parchment.

The section that went to Leipzig was white parchment in 1844, and is white parchment today. And was noted as white parchment by Dobschutz in 1910.

The terminus post quem for the colouring of the 1859 section would be 1850.


In 1859, Tischendorf had the ms. in Cairo in rather suspicious circumstances with two mystery Germans. Then quickly to St. Petersburg. So 1859 is the terminus ante quem for any tampering with the ms.

Tampering could include eliminating a linguistically problematic part of Hermas, dumped into the New Finds, or parts with Simonides notes or acrostics, or trimming the ms to eliminate notes on the edges, or adding section notes and even various scribbles and notes. And the colouring.


The exact details given by Simonides are often fudgy. The motives for the production of the Codex Simeonides may not have been as pristine pure as he expressed. There could be a planned replica, or a forgery, or keeping the options over. There were a variety of motives involved over the years. And many hands involved, and many hands in the til as it looked like it was possible to pass the funny ms. off as ancient. (The 1844 CFA acting as a type of test of the gullibility of the establishment.)

David W. Daniels continues to research this history in depth.

The contra Bill Brown made one of his incoherent posts here:

The Utter Lie That Proves Nobody Darkened Sinaiticus And Steven Avery Is An Attention-Seeking Charlatan

However, to be fair, he at least, for once, works with a reasonable question, when did the colouring occur?

Bill Brown, as usual, works with the common fallacy (see James Snapp, James Keith Elliott, and others). If there is a hole or apparent contradiction in some elements of the story of Simonides, then he was not involved in the manuscript production. This is Fallacy 101 stuff. Compare to Tischendorf. His story is a tissue of lies, but that does not in itself prove the manuscript is a fake.

The proof of the pudding is simple. We can see the colouring today, and it matches the historical reports. The exact time span would be 1850 to 1859, and it was done by Tischendorf and/or people working with him, maybe at one time, maybe in spurts. And it was reported repeatedly as a major part of the Sinaiticus history, as shown in the following thread.

Kallinikos exposes Tischendorf shenanigans - the historical imperative and impossible knowledge

You can see that in one quote Simonides says he was there in 1852 and the ms. already looked older, which might imply the colouring. Was he really there in 1852? Was the ms. coloured by then? Good questions for now.

David and I have brain-stormed this question of exactly when the colouring occurred, and I believe the answer may become clearer as the studies continue. We can smile at the nonsense that says that if there seems to be hole in the Simonides story, then ... poof, the ms. becomes ancient, gains provenance, and the tissues of lies become true.

Steven Avery