Essays - Simonides Imperative in the Tischendorf Revenge theory

Steven Avery

Also in RightNote
Better Copy on BVDB

Working with the Tischendorf Revenge Theory - the Simonides Imperative

It is 1859. Simonides is in England and hears about Tischendorf and a manuscript.
Simonides wants revenge. He was upset about the 1856 events in German, and also Tischendorf accusing his Hermas ms.

Granted, even if Simonides is recognized as the maker of Sinaticus, there is no payoff.
The ms. is recent, of little value to anyone. Maybe the parchment could be reused.

First problem: Simonides has to be somewhere 20 years back that can lead to the 1844 Tischendorf find.
Yay! .. he was working in Mt. Athos, in exactly the right time, with his Uncle who was solid on mss.
(this is supported by the Spryidon Lamprou catalog of Athos ms. published in 1900, including Kallinikos)
Yay! .. Simonides had solid connections with the Sinai Monastery, and had been on-site
Yay! .. Simonides had calligraphy skills at the right time

If he failed on any of those, he would not even be in the running.

Yay! .. the Tischendorf Sinaiticus ms. could not have ANY real provenance
even a catalog entry could squelch the claims immediately.
(Simonides knows there is no catalog entry, since the ms. arrived after 1840.)

Ok, that helps fit Simonides in place - it is all serendipitous for a claim of authorship

Next - can Simonides have a special link to the actual Manuscript text
Yay! - Simonides published a similar Hermas text years before it came out of Sinai.
Tischendorf even accused that text of being late-Latinized
Wow, he coincidentally published the first Greek Hermas just before the Sinai Hermas
And they are very similar (some of the Sinai Hermas was discarded)

Next - maybe Simonides can have inside information on the Monastery and Tischendorf?
Yay! - Simonides and Kallinikos knew all about the Tischendorf 1844 theft!
Yay! - they knew about the 1859 "loan" - that would never be coming back!
Yay! - they even knew smaller details, like Tischendorf's bumbling Greek

Now comes the real kicker:
Kallinikos and Simonides actually accused Tischendorf of coloring the ms. between 1844 and 1859.

This would be truly absurd, if it were not true -
It could be falsified so easily, but never was (because the 1859 leaves in St. Petersburg were stained and colored.)

When Tischendorf finally came with manuscript leaves to England on a quick visit in 1865, he brings only the uncoloured CFA.

Today - since 2009, we know the colouring occurred

Why did all this fit?
One reason - Simonides was involved in the creation of the Sinaiticus ms.

It would be impossible to go backwards amd create all this history.
Last edited: