This
third post in my series on the Bible’s textual history is somewhat of a
departure from the first two in that manuscript in question is not a
possible ‘forgery’ in a strict sense, but rather it may be a 19th
century production that was originally intended to be a gift, rather than a
forgery meant to pass off as an actual ancient work.
The
document in question is one that Constantine Tischendorf first laid eyes in
1844 in St. Catherine’s monastery “at the foot of Mount Sinai", which
became known as the Codex Sinaiticus. Concerning this ‘discovery', Tischendorf
wrote:
It was
at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the Convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered
the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in
the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and
wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of
information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time,
had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid
this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old
Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had
ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a
third of these parchments, or about forty-three sheets, all the more readily as
they were destined for the fire. But I could not get them to yield up
possession of the remainder. The too lively satisfaction which I had displayed
had aroused their suspicions as to the value of this manuscript. I transcribed
a page of the text of Isaiah and Jeremiah, and enjoined on the monks to take
religious care of all such remains which might fall in their way. (When Were
the Gospels Written?, Second
Edition 1867, pp. 23, 24 – link)
Two
important elements of the above story related by Tischendorf have been
repeatedly denied by the monks at St. Catherine’s: first, that the manuscript now
known as the Codex Sinaiticus was in a “wide basket full of old
parchments"; and second, "that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered
by time, had been already committed to the flames.”
Tischendorf
returned to Saxony with the “forty-three sheets". He continued his
narrative concerning the Codex Sinaiticus with the following:
On my
return to Saxony there were men of learning who at once appreciated the value
of the treasure which I brought back with me. I did not divulge the name of the
place where I had found it, in the hopes of returning and recovering the rest
of the manuscript. I handed up to the Saxon Government my rich collection of
oriental manuscripts in return for the payment of all my travelling expenses, I
deposited in the library of the University of Leipzig, in the shape of a
collection, which bears my name, fifty manuscripts, some of which are very rare
and interesting. I did the same with the Sinaitic fragments, to which I gave
the name of Codex Frederick Augustus, in acknowledgment of the patronage given
to me by the King of Saxony ; and I published them in Saxony in a sumptuous
edition, in which each letter and stroke was exactly reproduced by the aid of
lithography.
But
these home labours upon the manuscripts which I had already safely garnered,
did not allow me to forget the distant treasure which I had discovered. I made
use of an influential friend, who then resided at the court of the Viceroy of
Egypt, to carry on negotiations for procuring the rest of the manuscripts. But
his attempts were, unfortunately, not successful. "The monks of the
convent," he wrote to me to say, "have, since your departure, learned
the value of these sheets of parchment, and will not part with them at any
price."
I
resolved, therefore, to return to the East to copy this priceless manuscript. (Ibid.
pp. 24, 25).
Tischendorf
returned to St. Catherine’s in 1853, but was unable to obtain the rest of “this
priceless manuscript.” Six years later (1859), on his third visit to the
monastery, he was able to obtain the rest of the manuscript he had first seen
back in 1844. He convinced the monks to give him the manuscript under the
pretense that it was only going to be a loan, and that when he had finished
making a copy, it would be returned. As we now know, he did not keep his
promise. (The manuscript now resides in the renowned British Museum/Library—it
has been there since its purchase from the Soviet Union in 1933.)
Tischendorf’s
version of the 'discovery’ of an ancient manuscript in the St. Catherine
monastery at Mount Sinai is the one that most folk are familiar with. However, there is another version that came
to light three years after Tischendorf had obtained the Codex. On
September 3, 1862 a letter by Constantine Simonides was published in The
Guardian (a London newspaper), wherein he emphatically claimed that the
Codex Sinaiticus manuscript was not produced in the 4th century as
claimed by Tischendorf, but rather that it was written by Simonides himself.
The
entire letter was republished the next month in The Journal of Sacred
Literature and Biblical Record (Volume II—New Series—October, 1862, pp.
248-250 – link), and is quoted in full below:
THE
SINAI MS. OF THE GREEK BIBLE.
“ As you
have, in your impression of August 13, published a letter from a correspondent,
signing himself F. J. A. H., in which reference is made to me, I must ask you
for permission to make a statement in reply. Your correspondent favours you
with some extracts from a letter written by Dr. Tregelles, in which the
following sentence occurs: ‘I believe that I need hardly say that the story of
Simonides, that he wrote the M8., is as false and absurd as possible.’
“The MS.
referred to is that called the Codex Sinaiticus, now being published under the
editorship of Professor Tischendorf, at the expense of the Russian government.
As what Dr. Tregelles calls my ‘story’ has never been published, and as that
gentleman can only have heard of it through an indirect medium, it may interest
both Dr. Tregelles and your readers to have the ‘story’ direct from myself. I
will tell it as briefly as possible.
“ About
the end of the yer 1839, the venerable Benedict, my uncle, spiritual head of
the monastery of the holy martyr, Panteleemon, in Mount Athos, wished to
present to the Emperor Nicholas I., of Russia, some gift from the sacred
mountain, in grateful acknowledgment of the presents which had, from time to
time, been offered to the monastery of the martyr. Not possessing anything
which he deemed acceptable, he consulted with the herald Procopius and the
Russian monk Paul, and they decided upon a copy of the Old and New Testaments,
written according to the ancient form, in capital letters, and on parchment.
This, together with the remains of the seven apostolic fathers,—Barnabas,
Hermas, Clement bishop of Rome, Ignatius, Polycarp, Papias, and Dionysius the
Areopagite,—they proposed should be bound in gold, and presented to the emperor
by a common friend. Dionysius, the professional caligrapher of the monastery,
was then begged to undertake the work, but he declined, saying that the task
being exceedingly difficult, he would rather not do so. In consequence of this,
I myself determined to begin the work, especially as my revered uncle seemed
earnestly to wish it. Having then examined the principal copies of the Holy
Scriptures preserved at Mount Athos, I began to practise the principles of
caligraphy; and the learned Benedict, taking a copy of the Moscow edition of both Testaments (published and
presented to the Greeks by the illustrious brothers Zosimas), collated it with
the ancient ones, and by this means cleared it of many errors, after which he
gave it into my hands to transcribe. Having then received both the Testaments,
freed from errors (the old spelling, however, remaining unaltered), being short
of parchment, I selected from the library of the monastery, with Benedict’s
permission, a very bulky volume, antiquely bound, and almost entirely blank,
the parchment of which was remarkably clean, and beautifully finished. This had
been prepared apparently many centuries
ago—probably by the writer or by the principal of the monastery, as it bore the
inscription, EΚΛΟΓΙΟΝ ΠΑΝΗΓΥΡΙΚΟΝ (a
Collection of Panegyrics), and also a short discourse much injured by time.
“ I
therefore took possession of this book, and prepared it by taking out the leaf
containing the discourse, and by removing several others injured by time and
moths, after which I began my task. First, I copied out the Old and New
Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of the pastoral
writings of Hermas in capital letters (or uncial characters) in the style known
in caligraphy as ἀμφιδέξιος (amphidexios). The
transcription of the remaining apostolic writings, however, I declined, because
the supply of parchment ran short, and the severe loss which I sustained in the
death or Benedict induced me to hand the work over at once to the bookbinders
of the monastery, for the purpose of replacing the original covers, made of
wood and covered with leather, which I had removed for convenience—and when he
had done so, I took it into my possession.
“ Some
time after this, having removed to Constantinople, I shewed the work to the
patriarchs Anthimus and Constantius, and communicated to them the reason of the
transcription. Constantius took it, and, having thoroughly examined it, urged
me to present it to the library of Sinai, which I accordingly promised to do.
Constantius had previously been bishop of Sinai, and since his resignation of
that office had again become perpetual bishop of that place.
“ Shortly
after this I was placed under the protection of the illustrious Countess Etleng
and her brother, A. 8. Stourtzas, by the co-operation of two patriarchs; but,
before departing for Odessa, 1 went over to the island of Antigonus to visit
Constantius, and to perform my promise of giving up the manuscript to the
library of Mount Sinai. The patriarch was, however, absent from home, and I,
consequently, left the packet for him with a letter. On his return, he wrote me
the following answer:—
“ ’My
dearly beloved son in the Holy Spirit, Simonides; Grace be with you and peace
from God. I received with unfeigned satisfaction your truly valuable transcript of the Holy Scriptures—namely, the Old
and New Testaments, together with the epistle of St. Barnabas and the first
part of the pastoral writings of Hermas, bound in one volume, which shall be
placed in the library of Mount Sinai, according to your wish. But I exhort you
earnestly (if ever by God's will you should return to the sacred Mount Athos)
to finish the work as you originally designed it, and He will reward you. Be
with me on the 3rd of next month, that I may give you letters to the
illustrious A. 8. Stourtzas, to inform him of your talents and abilities, and
to give you a few hints which may prove useful to the success of your plans. I
sincerely trust that you were born for the honour of your country. Amen.
“’CONSTANTIUS,
late of Constantinople, an earnest worshipper in Christ.
“ ’Island
of Antigonus, 13th August, 1841,’”
“ After
I had received the above letter, I again went to visit the patriarch, who gave
me the kindest and most paternal advice, with letters to Stourtzas, after which
I returned to Constantinople, and from thence went to Odessa in November, 1841.
“ In 1846
I again returned to Constantinople, when I at once went over to the island of
Antigonus to visit Constantius, and to place in his possession a large packet
of MSS. He received me with the greatest kindness, and we conversed on many
different subjects, amongst others upon my transcript, when he informed me that
he had sent it some time previously to Mount Sinai.
“ In 1852
I saw it there myself, and begged the librarian to inform me how the monastery
had acquired it; but he did not appear to know anything of the matter, and I,
for my part, said nothing. However, I examined the MS. and found it much
altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have. The dedication to
the Emperor Nicholas, placed at the beginning of the book, had been removed. I
then began my philological researches, for there were several valuable MSS. in
the library, which I wished to examine. Amongst them, I found the pastoral
writings of Hermas, the Holy Gospel according to St. Matthew, and the disputed
Epistle of Aristeas to Philoctctes (all written on Egyptian papyrus of the
first century), with others not unworthy of note. All this I communicated to
Constantius, and afterwards to my spiritual father, Callistratus, at
Alexandria.
“ You
have thus a short and clear account of the Codex Simonideios, which Professor
Tischendorf, when at Sinai, contrived, I know not how, to carry away; and,
going to St. Petersburg, published his discovery there under the name of the
Codex Sinaiticus. When, about two years ago, I saw the first facsimiles of
Tischendorf, which were put into my hand at Liverpool, by Mr. Newton, a Friend
of Dr. Tregelles, I at once recognized my own work, as I immediately told. him.
“ The
above is a true statement of the origin and history of the famous Codex
Sinaiticus, which Professor Tischendorf has foisted on the learned world as a
MS. of the fourth century. I have now only one or two remarks to make. The name
of the professional caligraphist to the monastery of St. Panteleemon was
Dionysius; the name of the monk who was sent by the Patriarch Constantius to
convey the volume from the island of Antigonus to Sinai was Germanus. The
volume, whilst in my possession, was seen by many persons, and it was perused
with attention by the Hadji John Prodromos, son of Pappa Prodromos, who was a
minister of the Greek Church in Trebizond. John Prodromos kept a coffee house
in Galatas, Conatantinople, and probably does so still. The note from the
Patriarch Constantius, acknowledging the receipt of the MS., together with
25,000 piastres, sent to me by Constantius as a benediction, was brought to me
by the Deacon Hilarion, All the persons thus named are, I believe, still alive,
and could bear witness to the truth of my statement.
“ Of the
internal evidence of the MS. I shall not now speak. Any person learned
in palæography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present
age. But I may just note that my uncle Benedict corrected the MS. in many
places, and as it was intended to be re-copied, he marked many letters which he
proposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle I
can, of course, point out; as also those of Dionysius the caligraphist. In
various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different (SS. from
which I had taken certain passages and readings. These initials appear to have
greatly bewildered Professor Tischendorf, who has invented several highly
ingenious methods of accounting for them. Lastly, I declare my ability to point
to two distinct pages in the MS., though I have not seen it for years, in which
is contained the most unquestionable proof of its being my writing.
“ In
making this statement, I know perfectly well the consequences I shall bring
upon myself; but I have so long been accustomed to calumny, that I have grown
indifferent to it; and I now solemnly declare that my only motive for
publishing this letter is to advance the cause of truth, and protect sacred
letters from imposition.
“ In
conclusion, you must permit me to express my sincere regret that, whilst the
many valuable remains of antiquity in my possession are frequently attributed
to my own hands, the one poor work of my youth is set down by a gentleman who
enjoys a great reputation for learning, as the earliest copy of the Sacred
Scriptures.
“ C.
Simonides.”
[In
addition to the two sources mentioned, the letter was also published in The
Literary Churchman 16th December, 1862 and in J. K. Elliott’s
book, Codex Sinaiticus and the Simonides Affair (1982) pp. 28-30.]
The
above letter precipitated a voluminous exchange of letters that pitted Tischendorf and his supporters, against
Simonides and those who came to his defense—letters that were published from
September 1862 through end of 1863. Tischendorf’s claims became the accepted
version after this extended, controversial exchange. In fact, for nearly 150
years, it became somewhat of a rare occasion that Constantine Simonides'
version was delved into when the Codex Sinaiticus was discussed—Elliott’s 1982
book was a notable exception.
However,
shortly after the British Museum/Library published a digital version of the
Codex Sinaiticus online in 2009, the long-standing neglect of Simonides' version
came to an abrupt end…more later, the Lord willing.
Grace
and peace,
David
