white parchment

Steven Avery

white parchment - A Tale of Two Manuscripts

Greetings to the research!

The question of the white parchment anomaly in Sinaiticus developed slowly.

We are examining:

a) Codex Frederico-Augustanus, which went from Sinai-->Germany in 1844 in a fast and spirited manner.

b) Codex Sinaiticus (the rest of it, 90% of the origianl) which is today mostly in England, having first gone to Russia (pieces remain in Russia and Sinai) and for which there was plenty of opportunity for tampering both at the Sinai monastery over some years, and in Cairo in 1859. And in fact, such tampering was alleged at the time.

The question at hand is simple:

Does the evidence indicate that the Codex Sinaiticus was coloured, yellowed, stained, treated to give an appearance of age anytime from 1844-->1862?

This was all one white manuscript in 1844, 10% went to Germany white, and the 90% that stayed in Sinai was subject to deliberate tampering, yellowing to give the appearance of age.

In the series of posts here, the basics will attempt to be explained how it developed and present it visually, give the history, attempts at explanation, assess the significance, and consider where we are today. Throughout the weekend (December 5-6, 2015) I plan to place in some posts and threads here close to all the information currently available on the white parchment anomaly.


Why is this only coming to the fore after 2009?

Many elements contributed to the white parchment discovery, here are some of the major elements.

a) the Codex Sinaiticus Project placing the ms. online in 2009 was a huge help. Plus their excellent tech skills in areas like photography, making sure that the same techniques were used in Leipzig, Germany, the English British Library,Russia and Egypt. And the acknowledgment that basic testing in areas like material and ink chemical composition has never been done. (Some testing has been planned in Germany, but there is no public word on whether this has occurred.)

b) the fortuitous Wikipedia extract of Uspensky, in Russian, helped. This was placed in Wiki in 2008 and discovered by Sinaiticus researchers and translated around the end of 2013. Note that that extract also has great bearing on other issues, like the book binding.

c) The interest generated by the Chris Pinto video Tares Among the Wheat in 2012, which included video of a discussion held in the British Library. And which focused on the Simonides and Tischendorf questions in regards to Sinaiticus.

d) the debate between Chris Pinto and James White on December 11, 2013. Personally, I became interested in the issues, while being very cautious, simply because I felt that Chris had raised some interesting issues and was not being treated fairly in the mainstream Bible internet media. And I began to research certain areas. Chris later focused on some other fascinating new issues, such as the Barnabas issue.

e) The internet ability, with google books and many other resources, to bring forth the historical material from the 1800s. (Often in a much more complete way than the 1900s.) Also making it easier to have quick communication with scholars and principles throughout the world

f) The corroborative nature of the Facebook studies. And that brought forth extra input, including the research abilities of David W. Daniels, who immediately understood the white parchment significance.

g) The availability of books and papers on the overall topic, such as that of James Keith Elliott in 1982, Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair. Or Dirk Jongkind, Scribal Habits of Codex Sinaiticus. Later, a bibliography is planned.


After 1859 - A Tale of Two Different Manuscripts


1845 visit to Sinai - Uspensky (book published in 1856) describes seeing Sinaiticus, "white parchment"

This is ALL of Sinaiticus, in one volume, (minus the CFA) including all thatis now stained and yellowed.
Uspensky was not describing the Codex Frederico-Augustanus (CFA) since that had been spirited up to Germany in 1844.

Let us start with the Wikipedia extract.

Leszek Jańczuk

Leszek did a lot of the ms. work on Codex Sinaiticus. His background is Ukrainian and Polish, with solid Russian skills. He added to on the Wikipedia page on November 2008 a Russian extract from the book about the 1845 visit to the Sinai Monastery by:

Porphyrius Uspensky


Uspensky had seen the ms. in his visits to the monastery in 1845 and 1850. His two books on the visits were published in 1856 and 1857. Note that all this is in between the first removal of the Codex Frederico-Augustanus by Constantine Tischendorf in 1844, which went to Germany, and the final heist in 1859, sent to Russia.

In 1845, Archimandrite Porphyrius Uspensky (1804–1885), at that time head of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission in Jerusalem and subsequently Bishop of Chigirin, visited the monastery and the codex was shown to him, together with leaves which Tischendorf had not seen.[n 5]

  1. Uspienski described: "Первая рукопись, содержащая Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием ап. Варнавы и книгой Ермы, писана на тончайшем белом пергаменте. (...) Буквы в ней совершенно похожи на церковно-славянские. Постановка их прямая и сплошная. Над словами нет придыханий и ударений, а речения не отделяются никакими знаками правописания кроме точек. Весь священный текст писан в четыре и два столбца стихомерным образом и так слитно, как будто одно длинное речение тянется от точки до точки."(Порфирий (Успенский), Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь в 1845 году, Petersburg 1856, с. 226.) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#cite_note-92
Первое путешествие в Синайский Монастыŕ в 1845 году Архимандрита Порфиря Успенскаго (1856)
Порфирий Бишоф в. Чигирин
(Google translate: First trip to the Sinai Monastary in 1845 by Archimandrite Porfiry Uspensky- Porphyry Bishop of Chigirin)
"The first manuscript, containing the Old Testament is incomplete and the entire New Testament with a message up. Barnabas and Hermas book, writing on the thinnest white parchment. (...) The letters in it quite similar to the Church Slavonic. Statement of their direct and continuous. Above the words, there is no signs and accents and sayings are not separated by any signs spelling except for points. All the sacred texts were written in four columns and two stihomernym way and so together, as one long utterance stretches from point to point. "(Porfiry (Uspensky), the first trip to the Sinai Monastery in 1845

This google-based translation can use some tweaking from anyone Russian fluent. The white parchment has been confirmed by my Rego Park Russian friends.


First Manuscript - based on the description of the pristine Friderico-Augustanus, housed in Leipzig, Germany, Sinaiticus was said to be "white parchment" into the 1910s.

The idea that Sinaiticus was white parchment remained (although not in Russia, where the stained document was housed, and not in the writings of Tischendorf)
Here are some examples.

Ernst von Dobschütz (1870-1934)

Encyclopædia of Religion and Ethics: Bible in the Church (1910)
Ernst Von Dobschutz

The wonderfully fine snow-white parchment of the Sinaitic MS seems to be of antelope skin.

James Alexander McClymont (1848-1927)

Dobschütz was in Halle, near to Leipzig, so he would surely have actually seen the CFA ms. His description matches that of Uspensky.


New Testament criticism; its history and results (1913)
James Alexander McClymont

Sinaiticus .. It is written on snow-white vellum, supposed to have been made from the skins of antelopes.


Second Manuscript - when the 1859 full "Sinaiticus" ms, the later haul, was described by Tischendorf in 1862, the ms. was now "sufflava", "yellow with age".

Christian Remembrancer (1863)
Review - 1862 Imperial Edition of the Codex Sinaiticus -bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus - Tischendorf

The parchment is generally 'sufflava' in colour, think and smooth, although of course the leaves vary; some are worm-eaten.

Saturday Review of Politics, Literature Science and Art
The Codex Sinaiticus (1864)

"vellum sheets, are now yellow in age" - F. H. A. Scrivener, 1864
A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus (1864)

"Nor, in estimating its date, must we forget the quality of the material on which it is written, or its present look and condition. The vellum leaves, now almost yellow in colour, are not only the largest, but among the finest and smoothest yet known ; if not quite so thin as those of the Codex Claromontanus of St. Paul's Epistles, the skins of none but the very oldest documents can be compared to them in beauty"
Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical Theology (1870)
John Henry Blunt
"non tam alba quam sufflava"
Introduction to the Study of the New Testament (1872)
James Austin Bastow


Sinaiticus .. is written on parchment, supposed to be made of antelope skins, but it is now quite yellow with age.
Introduction in sacram Scripturam (1877)
Thomas Joseph Lamy
"membrana tenuis et sufflava"

How the Codex Was Found: A Narrative of Two Visits to Sinai (1893, 2010 edition)

Margaret Dunlop Gibson

"Of this venerable relic of so many ages, written on fine yellow vellum" - Perikles Gergoriados, 1875


Scholars in 2015 still do not know the basics

Even in 2015, the scholars are getting this all wrong. Many are far worse than the situation in 1900. Here is a recent example. Stanley E. Porter gives the story from Tischendorf of the basket, mouldered by time, committed to the flames. The 1860 Tischendorf saved from burning account of what happenned in 1844. And Porter writes:

The above version is the traditional one usually found summarized in recountings of the fortunes of the manuscript, as well as being found in the official version published by the British Library. Not all have been convinced by this account, however. The doubts that have emerged have been several, and include the following issues:

(1) the pages that were rescued were in better shape than Tischendorf's account seems to give warrant for .... The first argument, regarding the condition of the manuscript pages that Tischendorf found, is called into question by the evidence in two significant ways. The first is that anyone who has examined the manuscript of Codex Sinaiticus will notice that it does show signs of age and wear. In fact, when I was in Leipzig not too long ago, I was unable to see the manuscript pages held there because it was in the process of restoration. The remains of the manuscript that appear to have been in the basket found by Tischendorf, the rest of the 129 sheets, as well as the rest of the manuscript that he eventually found in 1859. Now suppose one had taken an entire manuscript from Genesis to Revelation and beyond and wanted to divide it up for some further use, such as reinscribing or cutting up for bookbinding material or burning for heat (whether such is a good idea or not)—we do know that Sinaiticus had apparently already been divided up in some way and some parts had already apparently been re-used by the monks at St Catherine's. Let us say you had thrown the entire manuscript in a couple of baskets, and then grabbed some off the top for this further use, and then were going to start taking the top pages and casting them into a fire. Which ones would you expect to be missing? Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc. because you took at least some of these for further use, and then the rest for casting into the fire—in other words, the very pages that are generally missing, starting from the top and working down. The extent of the remains of the manuscript tends to confirm rather than refute Tischendorf's story. As a result, I cannot accept Parker's conclusion that the throwing of Sinaiticus in the fire “is disproved by the discovery of fragments used in bookbinding and above all by the New Finds of 1975.”63 To the contrary, the splitting up of the manuscript, the designation of it for re-use in a variety of ways, and the state of preservation of the manuscript—along with the oddness of Tischendorf’s story if it is not true (why make up such a story?)—clearly indicate that the story is, if not proved beyond doubt, certainly plausible and more believable than the proposed alternatives. ... 63 Parker, Codex Sinaiticus, 132.......... ..... Constantine Tischendorf: The Life and Work of a 19th Century Bible Hunter, p. 26-28, 2015 by Stanley E. Porter.

Stanley Porter simply shows no indication of knowledge of the fact that the 1844 ms. looked as fine snow-white parchment to Uspensky and Dobschutz in the 1800s. And retains its fine appearance at the Leipzig library today, as can be seen at the CSP. He has an excuse that he did not see it in Germany, but it is up on the CSP site! Thus Porter supports the Tischendorf myth through super-convoluted reasoning against the hard physical evidence and the contextual historical reasons given by David Parker. And the motive for Tischendorf's "oddness" is trivially simple .. Tischendorf trumped up support to combat the charged accusations of theft by simply lying 15 years later, after the previous private stark language of theft "I have come into possession" of the leaves ... and making himself into the savior of the manuscript. A crafty politician, or a charlatan.


Returning to the white parchment, the big question is .. why are the pages that stayed in Sinai until 1864 yellow and aged, and pages that went to Germany in 1844 are pristine in white? Are there any natural explanations? Or was the simplest answer the one that applies:

The pages in Sinai were yellowed deliberately. (Perhaps in the somewhat unusual months in the 1859 period in Cairo. In that period Tischendorf worked on a transcription, apparently never used. He said he worked with two Germans, who were only vaguely identified.)


A possible objection answered

It is important to remember that the 2009 CSP Project has shown us that this distinction between the two mss is radical and complete. Any objection based on subjectivity of colour analysis is thus answered. Later we will discuss any alternate possible explanations, other than deliberate colouring. Plus, if there is deliberate colouring, then we have the issue of what that means about the history, provenance and antiquity of the ms.

Does a 1840s or 1850s staining, discolouring and yellowing of the ms. mean ipso facto that it is not Ancient?

Not necessarily. However, it definitely changes the history and all the scenarios proposed. It would definitely indicate collusion to deceive the public as to the age and would be consistent with modern production theories.



Sinaiticus - Facebook
Uspensky and the White Parchment Manuscript - March 14, 2014

Bible Criticism and History Forum
Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus - Oct. 28, 2014

Tischendorf Discussion - (TC Alt List - Feb 1, 2014)

The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as reported in the personal letters of Konstantin Tischendorf
Jeffrey-Michael Featherstone


Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus - May 2009
Gavin Moorhead



December 2015 Videos Highlighting Sinaiticus Issues, the First One is "white parchment" Anomaly.

Is Sinaiticus a Fake? - Youtube - David W. Daniels

Look What's Missing? - David W. Daniels -

Sinaiticus - https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/permalink/551086928401450/

PureBible - https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible/permalink/896920090399881/

Last edited:

Steven Avery


We have shown the tale of two manuscripts, Sinaiticus as a whole (other than Frederico-Augustanus) described as yellow, while Frederico-Augustanus is white parchment, even fine snow-white parchment, per Dobschutz.

Now for a timeline.

Note, I have included some of the Tischendorf theft timeline material as well. The reason is that it shows he had motivations to make up cover stories as to his actions in this era (1844-1862). And he could try to claim the mantle of manuscript saviour from ignorant monks (who, in this scenario, after preserving manuscripts for over a millennium, were supposed to be burning them the very day that Tischendorf is sitting in the monastery. Bridge for sale.) Very little that he states about the procurement of manuscripts should be accepted at face. Tischendorf said little about the color and conditions of the manuscript in this period, more was written after he had completed the heists. I have also included a few quotes that show the contemporary concerns that the manuscript stories from Tischendorf were largely fabrications of conveneience.


Timeline - Colour Emphasis

before 1844 - puff providence, nothing tangible about Sinaiticus

1839-1844 - if a 19th century ms. production would be in these years, could be building on earlier ms work. The possibility of this having occurred was reconsidered by James Anson Farrer, in Literary Forgeries, see 1895, 1900 and 1907 above.

1843 - Tischendorf Vatican visit, reported he sees it for three hours (however see 1871 for what he wrote in Die SinaiBibel.)

1844 - first Tischendorf Sinai visit

1844 - 43 leaves heisted out to St. Petersburg ("Codex Frederico-Augustanus"). The later 1860 Tischendorf report had these as part of 129 saved from burning.
Tischendorf claimed "the papers were mouldered by time", ready to be burned. Yet the ms was white parchment for Uspensky the next year, and the 43 leaves are clean white parchment today in Leipzig.

The Discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus as reported in the personal letters of Konstantin Tischendorf - Jeffrey-Michael Featherstone

"He has come into possession of [=ich bin in den Besitzgelangt von] 43 parchment folia of the Greek Old Testament which are some of the very oldest preserved in Europe." - Featherstone

His brother was the only person he confided in. Immediately after returning to Cairo in June 1844, he listed the results of the expedition. Listen now to the substantial products of my research. I have come into possession of 43 Parchment sheets (correction, leaves or folia) of the O.T. in Greek, which are the very oldest of any such possessed by Europe. I believe them to date from the middle of the 4th century. That is a quite inestimable treasure, which, apart from its incomparable antiquity, abounds in remarkable features. I also possess 24 sheets of palimpsests in Arabic script from the 12th century and one in Greek from the 8th to 9th; furthermore 4 similar palimpsest sheets, and, finally, in addition to other less important items, 4 mutilated sheets of a Greek manuscript of the N.T. from 7-800. These things will cause a great stir. (3) Bottrich: Tischendorf-Leesbuch p. 95. The Bible Hunter: The Quest for the Original New Testament, Jurgen Gottschlich, p. 97-98, 2013 (German, 2010)
In a subsequent letter to his brother, Tischendorf referred to "my principle conquest in the way of manuscripts...". As Jurgen Gottschlich summarizes "he was firmly resolved to use his discovery to secure his financial position".

Ahh, the brazen language of theft, whispered to family. "I have come into possession". It would make Willie Sutton or Danny Ocean proud. And there is no indication that any of this was known, legal or allowed when he left. Thus he never wrote where he got these manuscripts, and in some cases, they ended up as his personal treasures to be sold at convenience.

Notice that the 43 leaves are not mouldered or mutilated, despite the latter tissuedorf.

Indeed, the 43 parchment leaves were in suspiciously good condition for something consigned to the trash. -- James H. Charlesworth, foreword, Secrets of Mount Sinai: the Story of the World's Oldest Bible - Codex Sinaiticus, by James Bentley (Garden City, New York: Doubleday, 1986),pp. 87-88. https://books.google.com/books?id=DLSMIdACXbUC&pg=PA87
1866 - Tischendorf 2nd Vatican visit, leads to 1867 Vaticanus edition
"Cardinal Mezzofanti honored me with some Greek verses composed in my praise"

1844-1845 - Theorized quick rebinding before Uspensky, per CSP, more likely Tischendorf simply disassembled the Codex later and had taken the 43 CFA leaves from the Codex.

1845 - Uspensky describes a white parchment manuscript in the 1856 book on this visit. Matching precisely what left Sinai in 1844 and sits in St. Petersburg today as Codex Frederico-Augustanus. See 1856.

1845 - Letter from Kallinikos, published Jan, 1863, dated Aug, 1858 (an example of the controversies of the time, and an alternative 1844 history, the authenticity of the letter was challenged)

the manuscript in question is now in Mount Sinai ... I saw it there with my own eyes when I was in the Monastery of St. Catherine in 1845 in the month of July, and handled it with my own hands, and found it very defective, and somewhat changed; and when I asked the reason, I understood from Gabriel, the keeper of the treasures, that his predecessor had given the manuscript to a German, who visited the monastery in 1844 in the month of May, and who having had the MS. in his hands several days, secretly removed a part of it, and went away during the time that the librarian lay ill, afflicted with a typhoid fever
Journal of Sacred Literature, 1863, http://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA223
1846 - Frederico-Augustanus published (portions of 1 Chronicles and Ezra, Nehemiah and Esther, Tobit)
Codex Frederico-Augustanus sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti e codice Graeco omnium qui in Europa supersunt facile antiquissimo in Oriente detexit in patriam attulit ad modum codicis edidit Constantinus Tischendorf.
(Available in libraries in Germany.)

1846 - Reise in den Orient (Travels in the East)

Sinai in 1844 - To my astonishment I discovered amongst the Greek manuscripts which I brought home, a document with the superscription "Golden Bull which the celebrated Emperor Justinian gave to the Abbey of the Monastery of the Holy Mount Sinai." ... I shall not defer its publication. But this is not the place for an account of my own labours respecting the MSS. in the monastery, and I shall merely mention that I found in a modern Greek manuscript treatises upon astrology, natural history, medicine, and other similar studies, treated of in a peculiar manner. p. 107 ... I quitted the monastery early on the 1st of June. p. 112
1853 - "Westcott .. and I are going to edit a Greek text of the N. T. some two or three years hence, if possible. Lachmann and Tischendorf will supply rich materials" - Hort, 1853 letter to John Ellerton

1853 - second Tischendorf Sinai visit

1856 - Uspensky description from 1845 visit, book published in 1856

Первое путешествие в Синайский Монастыŕ в 1845 году Архимандрита Порфиря Успенскаго
Порфирий Бишоф в. Чигирин
"Первая рукопись, содержащая Ветхий Завет неполный и весь Новый Завет с посланием ап. Варнавы и книгой Ермы, писана на тончайшем белом пергаменте. (...) Буквы в ней совершенно похожи на церковно-славянские. Постановка их прямая и сплошная. Над словами нет придыханий и ударений, а речения не отделяются никакими знаками правописания кроме точек. Весь священный текст писан в четыре и два столбца стихомерным образом и так слитно, как будто одно длинное речение тянется от точки до точки." (Порфирий (Успенский), Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь в 1845 году, Petersburg 1856, с. 226.)
1857 - Uspensky book of 1850 visit (Tischendorf later claimed that all this was unknown)

Feb 24, 1859 - 3rd Sinai visit, "discovery" of full manuscript -
March-April, 1859 - ms. is in Cairo with two variously identified Germans and Tischendorf, for a transcription, two months of labour in Cairo

Sept 28, 1859 - ms. is placed in the hands of Tischendorf, and there is a signed document. Tischendorf always omits this document from his versions of the history.
"This manuscript I promise to return, undamaged and in a good state of preservation, to the Holy Confraternity of Mount Sinai at its earliest request."

Nov 1859->July 1860 - almost all of the ms ends up in Leipzig for printing

As with 1844, the Tischendorf account should not be trusted. The barrister William George Thorpe (1828-1903) had a very different scenario, which he heard in the Suez Bazaar. Also see the barrister Bernard Janin Sage (who notes some Scrivener wording). This relates a Tischendorf heist going quickly to the Russian Consulate in Cairo, after getting monastery guardians intoxicated. It is explained that a cover story was arranged, using the Russian gelt. Once the manuscript was with the Russians, the leverage was totally different. It would take some effort to find strong evidences that favored either story line. (I'll plan on extracting the sections separately.)

Similarly, a different 1859 history was published in the Journal of Sacred Literature in 1863, said to be a May 1859 letter. Note the accuracy of the prediction that the manuscript would not be restored to Sinai, despite the earlier guarantees. (Ironically, there is also a discussion of Tischendorf's bumbling Greek as seen by the monastery individuals. This was essentially confirmed by later Tischendorf writing, that he would flunk their Greek pronunciation tests.) Emphasis added.

"This manuscript then being thus estimated (as very old) by the German Tischendorf, was snatched away from the monastery, was afterwards transferred to Cairo, and after a few days was lent to Tischendorf, by the mediation of the Russian consul in Egypt. And it is said that the restoration of the Codex after its publication was guaranteed by the Russian ambassador in Constantinople. But I do not believe in any promise of the ambassador or the consul for the restoration of the Codex, and even if they did promise it, I do not believe that they would ever restore it to the monastery of Sinai. I judge from previous events. .... I am not surprised at any of the circumstances, but only at the fact that this Codex, recent as it was, and thy handiwork, was ascribed to the fourth century... The Codex in question, as we are now quite certain, was transported to St. Petersburgh to be published, and its antiquity was established by the learned there. Now we shall see whether they will endorse the vain talking of Tischendorf, whom I have myself seen and conversed with four times, and whom I found superficial in all things, and quite ignorant of the language of our immortal ancestors. ... " Journal of Sacred Literature, 1863, http://books.google.com/books?id=gnstAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA224
1862 - Tischendorf offers Sinaiticus to Czar, 1859 signed document notwithstanding.

1862 - Tischendorf publishes 325 copies of Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus, also Aus Dem Heiligen Lande. Bibliorum has published iiterations of the stories about the basket, and mss being used in the fire.

Simonides had often been accused of aging mss. Here are accusations made that the Sinaiticus ms. had been aged.

1862 - "much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have" - Simonides, per his 1852 visit
“the same Codex was cleaned, with a solution of herbs, on the theory that the skins might be cleaned, but, in fact, that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow colour.”
(Kallinikos, The Literary Churchman, Dec. 16, 1862) (Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair by J.K. Elliott, p. 77)
1863 - "The MS. had been systematically tampered with, in order to give it an ancient appearance, as early as 1852" - Simonides, Jan, 28,1863 to the Guardian
1864 - “had also been cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of washing the vellum, but, in reality, to weaken the freshness of the letters.”
claim summarized by The Christian Remembrancer, (Elliott, p. 78)

1864 - Scrivener describes Sinaiticus as "vellum sheets, are now yellow in age". This becomes the more common description, likely based on the later Tischendorf descriptions.

1865 - Tischendorf -Novum Testamentum Graece - Ex Sinaitico Codice (1865) - Prolegomena
"Membrana codicis non tam alba quam sufflava est, mognaque ubique laevitate et subtilitate, quamvis singula folia satis inter se differant."

1865 - trash basket, saved from burning story is placed in, Wann wurden unsere Evangelien verfasst?, (1865) translated to English
When were our Gospels written? an argument, with a narrative of the discovery of the Sinaitic Manuscript (1865)

1866 - Tischendorf 2nd Vatican visit, leads to 1867 Vaticanus edition

1871 - Hort's new GNT published privately for Revision committee, theoretical base is Vaticanus, supported by Sinaiticus

1871 - Tischendorf in Die SinaiBibel p. 3f http://books.google.com/books?id=uhhKAAAAcAAJ&pg=PA3 writes that he had copied Vaticanus in the 1844 visit. Reported by Jurgen Gottschlich in The Bible Hunter p. 95. Gottschlich says "Tischendorf is mistaken here", however it is surely possible that Tischendorf's memory was fine, it was a major event and he was only 57 when he wrote. A simple explanation is that he was discarding an earlier cover story.

1881 - Revision Revised by John William Burgon highlights abject corruption of Sinaiticus ms

1881 - The Sinai and Comparative New Testament, Tischendorf - "Many obvious blunders which are found in the manuscripts are passed over in silence."

1895 - Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts on Mount Athos - Vol 1 - See 1907.

Sypridon Paulou Lambrou
https://archive.org/details/cataloguegreekm00lampgoog or http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034758881;view=1up;seq=8

1900 - Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts on Mount Athos - Vol 2 See 1907.
Sypridon Paulou Lambrou
http://books.google.com/books?id=1DdAAAAAYAAJ or https://archive.org/details/cataloguegreekm01lampgoog or http://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015034758873;view=1up;seq=8

1907 -Literary Forgeries p. 39-66
James Anson Farrer
Farrer researches Kallinikos, Simonides and Benedict, notes their activities in the 1841-1844 period on Mt. Athos, giving a strong confirmation to many aspects of the 1844 and 1859 history given above
(published in the Journal of Sacred Literature, Literary Churchman and other publications in the early 1860s.)

And the attempt to throw doubt on the existence of Kallinikos failed as completely as the attempt to dispose in the same way of Benedict. ... one has only to refer to Lampros' Catalogue of the Mount Athos MSS. to find Benedict's name appended to several MSS., and to one as late as 1844 ... (See Nos. 5999, 6118, 6194, 6360, 6362, 6393.) The same work attests as conclusively the real existence of Kallinikos. A MS. dated March, 1867, is signed with the hand of Kallinikos who is "also the least of the monks of the monastery of Russico" (i.e., Pantelemon) (No. 638). And there is another MS. at Pantelemon, copied by the hand of Constantine Simonides on 27th March, 1841 (6405), and two other copies of the same work by Kallinikos Monachos (6406, 6407), which prove that Kallinikos and Simonides were at Pantelemon at the same time and associated
in the same work. Farrer p. 61
(e.g. Benedict http://books.google.com/books?id=1DdAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA454
Kallinikos http://books.google.com/books?id=1DdAAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA381

Kallinikos, Simonides and Benedict were active in the scribal copying of mss at the Russico (Pantelemon) monastery in the period of 1841-1844.

This could also help account for work in 3 or 4 hands, in theories of Sinaiticus being of modern production.

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"

1922 -Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus et Frederico-Augustanus Lipsiensis by Kirsopp Lake - (pictures from both locations, first to show the two mss in one publication)

1933 - Codex Sinaiticus (2/3 of the Codex) sold to British Museum (now British Library) in England by Russians

1935 - Douglas and Sydney Cockerell place separate Old Testament and New Testament binding for the Codex

1938 - Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus, Skeat & Milne

1975 - New Finds discovery in Sinai - this includes later parts from Hermas right next to the Sinaiticus end-point and also the final parts of the text.
Consistent with the possibility that the abbreviation of the text was deliberate in the mid-1800s.

2005, March 5 - Codex Sinaiticus Online Partnership Agreement

"To undertake research into the history of the Codex . . . to commission an objective historical narrative based on the results of the research which places the documents in their historical context ...."
2009 - Codex Sinaiticus Project places full manuscript digitally online.

2009 - Codex Sinaiticus Project - CSP - Helen Shenton

One of the things we found is that the parchment, which is 1600 years old, is in phenomenally good condition. - Helen Shenton,
2009 - Codex Sinaiticus Project -CSP - Gavin Moorhead

"White sheep or calves and goats will tend to produce white parchment, whereas animals with darker coats will produce parchment showing shadowy brown patterns. ... The colour of parchment varies with animal type, making process and condition or state of decline. New parchment can be near white but as it ages or is exposed to detrimental factors it will start to yellow and go brown-black if left to degrade completely. The colour change can also be influenced by the type of degradation and degree of gelatinization. (see fig. 14)"

Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus Gavin Moorhead - May 2009
SA note: any day now this process will be beginning on the supposed 1650 year Leipzig pages. :)
Fig. 14 is now the study of special study.

2009 - Codex Sinaiticus Project - CSP -Sara Mazzino

"The Codex Sinaiticus inks have never been chemically characterized, and the type and proportions of ingredients mixed together have never been determined. Therefore, the composition of the writing media can only be roughly guessed by observing their visible characteristics and their degradation patterns. ... After more than 1600 years, it is clear that the quality of the writing medium originally used by the scribes was truly exceptional, as is the quality of the parchment. The ingredients appear to be well balanced creating a smooth and thin fluid perfect for writing on parchment. The recipe and the manufacturing technique seem to be exquisite too, revealing high craftsmanship and skilled experience for producing good quality inks. No significant degradation process seems to affect the writing media."

Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus
It is the intention of the conservators to continue the analysis of the parchment features. It is hoped that with the availability of all the documentation data, it can then be used to compare the differences in folios across all holding sites and to help draw some further conclusions. There has already been some work done on stain mapping consecutive folios that are in different locations and these will also be compared for differences in colour and dimension in the hope that any disparity can answer some of the questions that still remain.

2013 - Petition for C-14 dating of Codex Sinaiticus placed online

(SA Note: I believe there is far more important and effective materials testing than C-14)

2014 - First known reference anywhere (by our research team) of the colour distinction between Codex Frederico-Augustanus (1844) and Codex Sinaiticus (1859), the same original-source ms.

2014, Oct 21 - CSP gives first preliminary response as to various possibilties for colour anomaly. Debiberate discoloration is not mentioned as a possibility.

Gavin Moorhead ... initially there were plans to do a detailed study of the colour variance between parchment leaves, but for reasons of time and finances this was not followed through on, and instead the information was put up on the Sinaiticus website in the hope that researchers might be able to make some use of it.
2015 - German study on materials of Sinaiticus, using Leipzig ms, had been planned for April, 2015. This would be the first such materials scientific study on any Sinaiticus materials, including vellum and ink.
2015 - New director of the conservation department at Leipzig cancels the planned study. (Information from Dr. Ira Rabin.)

"the study that was scheduled for April 2015 was cancelled ... I am not sure we will be allowed to conduct it. There is a new director of the conservation department who decided that he isn't interested - Dr. Ira Rabin, BAM Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung

2015, Dec - David W. Daniels, Chick Publications, produces youtube video series Is Sinaiticus Fake? The first emphasis is on the white parchment anomaly.


Certain manuscript thefts and mutilations of Tischendorf were unrelated, but significant in that they show the tenor of the times, the need for coverups.
See the post further down this thread.

The Theft and Mutilation of Manuscripts



Aging of Manuscripts - A Common Technique using Tea, Herbs and more

It is no secret that parchment can be given an appearance of age using common household tools.

Detecting Forgery: Forensic Investigation of Documents (2005)
Joe Nickell


Paper, parchment, and vellum can be aged artificially quite easily, and all forgers have their own special brews and techniques for doing so. A weak tea solution can render a uniform brown tint. Licorice, tobacco juice, coffee, certain leaves and nut husks, and some kinds of soil have a similar effect. These substances are applied frequently to old maps, which fakers (and some buyers) seem to associate with browned paper and other damage—such as burns, wine stains, and candle wax—as if they have been pored over during the midnight watch by ancient mariners.
You might ask if the many stains in Sinaiticus (in the whole ms other than the Codex Frederico-Augustanus) have been subject to any examination. e.g. Chemical analysis. Afawk, none has ever been done.

Even young students can learn these techniques.

ART 494 illuminated manuscripts display - August 22, 2012
They found a multitude of ways to give an “old” look to paper and to duplicate the aged parchment of the Gradual and other manuscripts they saw: some stained the paper with tea, some burned the edges of the paper, some crumpled then flattened the sheets, some used a vellum-like paper. One student used actual sheep parchment!

And this was a specific accusation of the time, and came up a number of tiems..

the codex also was cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of cleaning its parchments, but in reality in order to weaken the freshness of the letters, as was actually the case. - Kallinikos Hiermomonachos - Journal of Sacred Literature - https://books.google.com/books?pg=PA212
Simonides in The Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, answered a question posed by Henry Bradshaw: “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 …

Kallinikos: the manuscript had been
“cleaned, with a solution of herbs, on the theory that the skins might be cleaned, but, in fact, that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow colour.” (The Literary Churchman, Dec. 16, 1862) (Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair by J.K. Elliott, p. 77)

The Christian Remembrancer, interprets it to mean that the manuscript had been:
“cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of washing the vellum, but, in reality, to weaken the freshness of the letters.” (Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair by J.K. Elliott, p. 78)
1862 - "much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have" - Simonides, per his 1852 visit

Timeline Resources

Christian Remembrancer (1863)

The treasures of the Holy Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai: from the treasurey of 6th century CE to the museum of 21st Century CE (2011)
Ahmed Shams, Durham University
The treasures of the Holy Monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai: from the treasurey of 6th century CE to the museum of 21st Century CE (2011)
Ahmed Shams, Durham University (note that he adds an 1854 visit by Tischendorf in Sinai)

Last edited:

Steven Avery

modern response from the CSP (British Library)

Correspondence with the British Library


This is from the 2014 correspondence with Cillian O'Hogan.
We were apparently the first people to ever discuss this colour variance, and took England and Germany off guard, and to their credit they did acknowledge the variance.

And then were scrambling for some response other than the obvious:

"hmmm.. maybe the ms. was stained and yellowed"

Plus, it is clear there were not aware of the historical variance. If somehow, Germany is conjectured to have become whiter by some unknown cleaning, then this does not explain why it was described as a white manuscript back from the Uspensky visit of 1845 into the 1910s.


Scot McKendrick
Head of History and Classics

Cillian O'Hogan
British Library, Curator of Classical and Byzantine Studies
Formerly University of Waterloo

Gavin Moorhead
Research Associate

Facebook - Sinaiticus - Oct 21, 2014
British Library on white parchment

Thanks again for your very interesting questions: after looking into them and consulting with colleagues in conservation, I've appended some responses, interspersed with your questions below.


Dear Steven,

I've now spoken with Gavin Moorhead, who was one of the conservators who worked on the project. He mentioned that initially there were plans to do a detailed study of the colour variance between parchment leaves, but for reasons of time and finances this was not followed through on, and instead the information was put up on the Sinaiticus website in the hope that researchers might be able to make some use of it.

Here is his response (I flagged up the distinction between Q37f3v and Q37f4r for him as a particularly striking example, in addition to the images you sent along):

Yes, there does appear to be a difference across the photographs.
But there was colour variance throughout.
This probably reflected the degree of parchment degradation of the individual leaves.
The folios that have been subjected to greater fluctuations in relative humidity, heat and light tend to show a higher level of degradation and gelatinisation. These folios tended to be more yellowish.
However, the sections were split between Q37 f3v and Q37 f4r and this makes them vulnerable to mechanical damage and dirt as well.
The Leipzig folios were bound and stored under different conditions than those that ended up at the BL, so Q37 f4r may have been more exposed for a longer period of time.
In relation to a difference between the BL and Leipzig folios, my fist impression was that the Leipzig folios were lighter.
However, they had been unbound, cleaned and flattened, so they appeared different anyway.
If you look at the web pages for each folio and click on 'Physical Description/Parchment/Colour' , the colour measurement of BL folio Q37 f4r is S1010-Y10R as opposed to S1005-Y20R for the Leipzig folio Q37 f3v. These colour values were measured under the same conditions at both sites as was the camera set up. The grading system is explained in the ' | 'info link adjacent to the word 'colour' on the web pages.

I hope this helps to answer your question. Just a quick additional note: (...a techie bit here about the captions on the pics, which leaf is which.)

With all best wishes,
Cillian O'Hogan


There was some continuation of this conversation, and I will see if any salient points make sense to include.
And, based on the CSP site, there has never been chemical and materials testing of the parchment or ink of Sinaiticus.

The scenarios proposed by the British Library for either discoloration or whitening in the 1900s are all very difficult. And they all run into the huge elephant in the living room.

The distinction between the two manuscripts is clear in the literature as early as 1862.

CFA in Germany is the white parchment ms. brought out in 1844, and described in the 1856 Uspensky book about the 1845 visit.

Sinaiticus in Russia (now also in England) is the yellow and sufflava ms. that was brought out in 1859.

The distinction in the ms had to be created between 1845 (more likely 1850, the second Uspensky visit) and the 1862 publication and description of Sinaiticus.


Steven Avery
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Let's Describe Some Basics

Mirrored at:

Let's Describe Some Basics
Steven Avery - Dec. 8, 2015


Let's describe some basics.

In 1844 Tischendorf spirited out 43 manuscript leaves, OT and Apocrypha, from St. Catherine's Monastery in Sinai. We can see those pages today on the CSP (Codex Sinaiticus Project) site and every one is a very nice white parchment, clean, largely stain-free. (Fifteen years later Tischendorf spun an Indiana Jones story about rescuing the leaves from the flames. Other stories circulated that make his ms. activities more on the level of stealth theft, plying with spirits and then spiriting out of Dodge.)

One year later Uspensky was there, in 1845. He described the full ms as white parchment, in the book published in 1856, which is 100% consistent with what left in 1844. He even mentioned Barnabas and Hermas, so it is clear he was describing the same ms. Likely, Hermas was complete at the time, Uspensky described it like Barnabas, and later parts of the end were found in the New Finds. There were controversies around Hermas in the 1850s that embarrassed Tischendorf, even to making an apology, the issues were complex, it is easy to understand though that Tischendorf could prefer a truncated Hermas. (Specifically, there could be sections that could be too similar to what he had accused of being from a medieval Latin origin.)

The 43 leaves were published in 1846 and placed in the Leipzig library. From this history and placement, Sinaiticus was described often as a snow-white parchment ms. Clearly, where that early tree fell, it had to stay. Thus, even in 1910, a scholar like Ernst von Dobsch?tz (1870-1934) would describe Sinaiticus as having "wonderfully fine snow-white parchment". Why? He was a Professor at Halle, not far from Leipsig. He reported what he saw.

In 1859 Tischendorf was loaned the remaining ms for transcription in Cairo. By getting the ms to Russia, over a decade the loan morphed into a gift, or trade, in controversial circumstances discussed often even today (once the ms was in Russia, they had the leverage.)

For a ms estimated at having 1500 years of use in various hands and bindings, the NT was amazingly complete, every chapter, including some cancel sheets. Barnabas was full, controversies arose there later. And Hermas was truncated, with parts of the end showing up in the New Finds in 1975, finds which included parts handled by Tischendorf and Uspensky. We have to simply mention the Hermas and Barnabas controversies, and move on.

Older mss are generally yellow with age, You can see the yellowness of Vaticanus, Alexandrinus and Bezae in the online digitalizations.

The techniques of yellowing a ms to make it look older were used in the 1800s. Tea, coffee, lemon juice and herbs were examples of the tools of the trade. No chemical tests have ever been done on Sinaiticus parchment or ink, not even of major stains.

How the Sinai ms was handled up to 1859, and then 1862, is an area of mystery and few hard facts. We do know that Tischendorf had friendly contacts and baksheesh was common. And we know that Tischendorf was accused of mangling and aging by colour the mss. There is little detail available month-by-month.

The ms. that Tischendorf took out to Russia in 1859 was published in 1862. It was described as sufflava, yellow. This description remained by many, parallel to the other description o fthe German CFA in Leipzig, which is white. You can see this by looking at the hundreds of leafs in the Codex Sinaiticus Project.

However, those two ms., 1844 and 1859, are definitely the same original ms. They fit textually on both ends, even with the leaves looking radically different.

Thus there was a large amount of yellowing and staining done to the bulk of the Sinaiticus ms. No earlier than 1845, likely no earlier than 1850 (Uspensky saw it again.) And no later than 1859, or 1862, when the ms. was variously in Sinai, Cairo and Russia. Largely under the control of Tischendorf.

The main person who had the means, motive and opportunity to have caused this change in the ms condidtion and colour was Constantin Tischendorf, in one or more of the three locales.

Either way, the fact that the ms change happened is incontrovertible, and this must be taking in consideration in discussing Sinaiticus provenance and authenticity. It immediately creates suspicions as to who knew what when. While an old, ancient, authentic ms. that looks white and pristine can be aged, the person who would do that must be considered to have unclean hands.

Looking back, if the whole large ms had looked like the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, clearly the issue of why the ms. never yellowed would have been likely to come up. Doubts galore. Maybe fairly new. And there were many authenticity and dating issues in the 1860s and 1870s, raised by scholars like Donaldson and Hilgenfeld, even beyond the direct Simonides controversies. Today there is mostly a wall of silence about the supposed 4th century dating

In fact, nobody noticed that the two sections did not really match up in terms of material (colour, staining) until almost 140 years later, with the advent of computer technology and the CSP of 2009. Two years ago it was noticed. There is no indication that the photographers of 1922 under Kirsopp Lake, or the later 1938 work under Skeat and Milne, noticed or cared about the differentiation.

It is our job to honestly point out the anomalies. And try to come up with sensible explanations of the history. This is true even if the modern scholars refuse to give consideration. Remember they did not even notice the major white parchment anomaly, in many books on the ms. So their skill sets have limitations. We have similar problems in the linguistic and historical considerations that were raised about Barnabas and Hermas.

Some considerations. More planned.

Psalm 119:140 (AV)
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

much ado about nothing?

The following is taken from the discussion on:

"Who Darkened Sinaiticus"
Facebook: PureBible - December 9, 2012


Good Afternoon Dr. Matto -

I think the color issue is much ado about nothing. That is my opinion anyway. Chris Pinto has copies of all the articles for Constantine Simonides that chronicles the his claims of having created the manuscript at Mt. Athos Monetary. It is just recently that I heard about the color issue. Having been an antiquarian Bible and manuscript collector, I also know that parchment can discolor over time especially if it is exposed to light.

Below is a link where some of this is discussed. I have not researched the issue enough to come up with any definitive opinion, though after reading some of the Simonides stuff, I lean in that direction.


Standing for the Enduring Words of God,

David L. Brown, Ph.D.
Ken Matto: Above is an e-mail I received from Dr. David Brown from the King James Bible research Council on the subject of the discoloration.


Steven Avery:
David L. Brown misses a couple of the major points that are covered by David Daniels on the video and my posts on the PureBibleForum Sinaiticus forum section (and the research cousin Sinaiticus forum on Facebook where David, Elisha, myself and others first hashed out this anomaly.) Using my iPad on the road I will briefly mention three

1) if the whole manuscript was snow-white and unstained, after supposed heavy usage over centuries, this would come up in evaluating dating theories as unusual for a 1500+ year ms. And the CFA, Uspensky and Dobschutz show us that the 1845-1850 manuscript was pristine white parchment.

2) discoloring can occur unevenly to an extent (although you would like sensible historical theories) however staining will not. And a common feature of the discolored bulk of the ms, non-CFA, is a large amount of staining, while the CFA is essentially stain-free. Tampering for artificial aging will result in stains, which will vary by the craftsmanship and tools of the one doing the aging. And it can take awhile to get the hang of it, after which the coloring by hand and herbs, or tea or lemon juice, becomes less stain-obvious.

3) the mass of the Sinaiticus ms. was "yellow with age" (Scrivener) by the early 1860s. This (along with 1) negates explanations about the storage conditions being radically different over the last 150 years.

In summary, one ms in 1840s. Two very different mss by 1862, one pristine snow-white parchment, the other yellowed, aged, stained. The sensible explanation, a bit of well-known manipulation. Which was, in fact, specifically accused.


David Daniels was very astute in realizing the significance, and took the actual page checking to a more comprehensive.level. Followed by the superb public presentation.

There are many other Sinaiticus authenticity anomaly issues, The Tale of Two Manuscripts is quite properly handled first, due to it's hard evidence nature. Noting also that the bumbling textual establishment missed it for 150 years, until we wrote to the British Library.


The CARM forum is quite problematic, I am constrained from pointing out all the problems, since that will likely result in CARM sanction. Feel free to bring any points here, or to the forums I mention above. Anyone could even discuss with me there, allowing that I have some of the most "prolific" posters on ignore, and related complications. Oh, the threads there poof away after a year or two, by periodic CARM purging.


For those of us who are TR and AV defenders, Sinaiticus is basically irrelevant, it is simply a trash ms of no import. This is the simple truth whether it was produced in the 4th, 7th or 19th century. The main feature is thousands of scribal omissions and singular blunders galore, ignored.

However, for the historical record, the provenance problem is one of the fundamental issues. And for many Sinaiticus has an allure, a fool's gold luster, that arose from the textual blunders and apostasy of the late 1800s. It is simply our reasonable service to point out the problems.


One final point. There is a possibility that the ms was pristine and aged, and then stained out of human pride and manipulation. However I that case the manipulator has unclean hands and other scenarios have to be given very earnest consideration, especially as Sinaiticus has a unique cache of provenance, historical and textual issues

Steven Avery


David W. Daniels:
I enjoyed reading today, as I snippetted-together a hidden article by occultist Manly P. Hall, how Tischendorf described the 1859 "find." I've read it countless times, but here is an 1866 account from The Baptist Magazine that is virtually identical:

"I unrolled the cover and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and, in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas."

So that means the 43 folia that Tischendorf took with him (and became the CFA --Codex Friderico-Augustanus) were grouped with 86 other folia. There is no mention that they were different colors, only that he was allowed to take 1/3 of them. Something so drastic as the color difference surely would have been noted. It is too different and too complete, not to mention too obvious. And yet, Tischendorf fully affirms that the 86 folia he was not permitted to take in 1844 were right there, in this red-cloth-covered manuscript. As he said, "...those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket..."

This is incontrovertibly his testimony.

Second, people talk about discoloration due to different conditions. I am a bookaholic. I have all sorts of books, including coffee-stained and weathered ones. Not one of my coffee-stained books or my weathered books was stained or weathered in a consistent fashion. Parts that were open to the weather (or coffee) are noticeably different. If the book were closed, the weathering is only on the outsides that were exposed to the weather. We have to posit some pretty weird events, to turn all pages and evenly expose them to the elements. If this were not such a complete and consistent a coloration, we never would have thought to comment on it. It is the consistency, like the liar who comes up with an answer for every detail of his or her testimony, that makes us suspect something not fully on the up-and-up. God bless you all!

Last edited:

Steven Avery

Metzger on James Anson Farrer

A related sidenote from the Bruce Metzger book

Reminiscences of an Octogenarian
Bruce M. Metzger

In drawing up an extensive bibliography on the subject, I came upon J. A. Farrer's
classic book Literary Forgeries, which was also translated into German. ....

Farrer's book is an essential resource in seeking to understand the Sinaiticus controversies involving Tischendorf and Simonides. The book was overlooked totally in the James Keith Elliott book. This deserves its own thread on the forum for historical and analysis perspective.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

pics of the tale of two manuscript

the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017#p21416 - p. 1
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017&start=10#p21469 p. 2

Facebook - A Tale of Four Pages - Checkerboard

We are working on having a special web page with these images. We are aware as well that the CSP images could be withdrawn from public visibility, due to the inquirty into age and provenance,

the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017#p21416 - p. 1
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017&start=10#p21469 p. 2

Facebook - Society of New Testament Study (public) - Nov 2, 2014

Facebook - Sinaiticus (public) - A Tale of Four Pages - Checkerboard - March 8, 2014
We are working on having a special web page with these images.

We are aware as well that the CSP images could be withdrawn from public visibility, due to the inquiry into age and provenance.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Kirsopp Lake on vellum and ink

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

The MS. is written on fine parchment made from the skin of some rather large animal—Tischendorf suggested an antelope, but in view of the manner in which this guess has been copied by successive writers on the text of the New Testament, and the certainly with which much repetition seems to have invested it in their eyes, it is perhaps not unnecessary to point out that there is nothing in the vellum to indicate an antelope rather than any other animal of the requisite size. It varies considerably in thickness: and the thicker leaves, which have generally preserved the writing better than the thin ones, are inclined to a yellowish tint. Many of the leaves are so thin that the writing from the other side is sometimes so plainly visible as to become confusing, and in a few cases the ink has eaten through the vellum so as to leave holes. As a rule, however, the vellum struck me as not quite so thin as that of the Codes Alexandrinus, and to have consequently suffered somewhat less from erosion.
Last edited: