PBF References
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...tudied-sinaiticus-for-two-hours-in-1862.3297/
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...or-by-chance-james-anson-farrer.101/#post-239
It is to be regretted that this matter was never cleared up at the time the claim was made. It cannot be said to have been settled by the mere opinions of Tregelles or Bradshaw, or by the more critical and palaeographical objections urged by Mr. Scrivener in his
Introduction to the Sinaitic Codex (1867). The two former
examined the Codex two months before Simonides had made his claim to it as his work, so that they had no reason to examine it with suspicion.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/current-post-on-textualcritcism-forum.256/
(The problems with the petty vindictive explanation were actually understood at the time, which is why it was common to say that Simonides must have
mixed up two mss. As suggested by Scrivener, Bradshaw and the Homilist. However, that has its own huge problems.)
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...rative-and-impossible-knowledge.107/#post-252
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...g-of-the-manuscript-kallinikos-simonides.490/
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/white-parchment.82/#post-207
Letter from Simonides to the Guardian Feb 4, 1863
Mr. Bradshaw's very
proper and natural query 'How is it possible that a MS. written beautifully, and with no intention to deceive, in 1840, should in 1862
present so ancient an appearance? 'I answer simply thus: The MS. had been
systematically tampered with, in order to give it an ancient appearance,
as early as 1852, when, as I have already stated, it had an older appearance than it ought to have had; and, from what I then saw, I am not surprised that Mr. Bradshaw should have been deceived in his estimate of its age.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...ldest-nor-best-david-h-sorenson.400/#post-803
Sorenson blunder of not seeing ms.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/tischendorf-ducks-the-english-trip.104/#post-247
Again. I seriously assert (as Mr. Bradshaw seems to think I am jesting on this grave subject) that I wrote the Codex, to portions of which Tischendorf has given the names of Friderico - Augustanus and Sinaiticus; and I
challenge him to produce these Codices in London. I will meet him there at any time he may appoint, and in a public meeting of literary men assembled for the purpose it shall be once and for ever decided whether he or Simonides has spoken truly.
https://books.google.com/books?id=vvgDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA485
https://purebibleforum.com/index.ph...hy-c-f-stunt-and-the-2020-book.122/#post-6056
Tregelles
Plymouth
Feb. 2.1863
I find that much discussion is going on about the assertions of Simonides. Mr. W. S. Wright of Trin. Coll. Cambridge, has taken the matter up, and he has kindly sent me some extracts from the “Guardian” in which statements on both sides appear. The matter is a serious one; for it is not, Is a particular MS ancient? but Have we any knowledge respecting the transmission of Holy Scripture? It is strange that the wholesale lies poured out by Simonides do not open the eyes of his admirers. Some of these, however, seem to be his coadjutors in fraud. I have sent Mr. Wright what I could that bears on the subject: it has necessarily occupied a good deal of my thoughts. There will be I find some part of next week a meeting in London to go into the matter fully: it is hoped that Simonides himself will be present when his assertions about this MS will be sifted.
Mr. Bradshaw the Librarian at Cambridge who has seen the MS will, I believe, be there: but probably no one else who has thus inspected: but his evidence ought to go very far.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/inde...e-about-sinaiticus-authenticity.240/#post-503
7) the lack of real palaeography referenced, (the physical condition of the manuscript is barely mentioned) and the scholars referenced as giving some sort of support for Tischendorf's declarations were
Scrivener, Bradshaw and Tregelles.
Scrivener having not seen the ms. and
Tregelles actually declaring for the 4th century even before he saw a bit in 1862 as Tischendorf's guest. Little or no mention, e.g. of Uspesnksy and Hilgenfeld and Donaldson and others who questioned the 4th century date.
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/wip-new-studies.198/#post-445
8
Henry Bradshaw, a British librarian known to both men, defended the Tischendorf find of the Sinaiticus, casting aside the accusations of Simonides. Since Bradshaw was a social 'hub' among many diverse scholars of the day, his aiding of Tischendorf was given much weight. Simonides died shortly after, and the issue lay dormant for many years.[107]
Tischendorf answered in Allgemeine Zeitung (December), that only in the New Testament there are many differences between it and all other manuscripts. Henry Bradshaw, a scholar, contributed to exposing the frauds of Constantine Simonides, and exposed the absurdity of his claims in a letter to the Guardian (26 January 1863). Bradshaw showed that the Codex Sinaiticus brought by Tischendorf from the Greek monastery of Mount Sinai was not a modern forgery or written by Simonides. Simonides' "claim was flawed from the beginning".[108] The controversy seems to regard the misplaced use of the word 'fraud' or 'forgery' since it may have been a repaired text, a copy of the Septuagint based upon Origen's Hexapla, a text which has been rejected for centuries because of its lineage from Eusebius who introduced Arian doctrine into the courts of Constantine I and II.
16
QUIRES
Added 3-30-2016
Henry Bradshaw in Jan of 1863 writing of 1862 visit
"On the 18th of July last I was at Leipzig with a friend, and we called on Professor Tischendorf. Though I had no introduction but my occupation at Cambridge, nothing could exceed his kindness ; we were with him for more than two hours, and I had the satisfaction of examining the manuscript after my own fashion. I had been anxious to know whether it was written in even continuous quaternions throughout, like the Codex Beza:, or in a series of fasciculi each ending with a quire of varying size, as the Codex Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This, by-the-by, is of itself sufficient to prove that it cannot be the volume which Dr Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos. "
Why quires of varying sizes?
Why a claim that this was contra Simonides?
Was Tischendorf still assigning quire numbers at that time?
What is the first historical reference to the quire numbers?
How identifialble is the handwriting?