Posts Tagged ‘Chris Pinto’

James A., PhD

One of the accusations against Constantine Simonides’ claims to being the actual author of the Codex Sinaiticus is that he was a forger (you would think being a forger, if true, actual FAVORS Simonides, not discredits him!), and thus was a liar. Although, no accusation of forgery against Simonides was ever proven, and at least on one occasion, Constantine Tischendorf had to retract a claim against Simonides regarding the Shepherd of Hermes.

In a debate with Chris Pinto, James White sided with the Romanists that Simonides was a forger. But there’s a glaring omission in White’s debate tactic against Pinto. White demanded that Pinto point to the examplar that Simonides used for Codex Sinaiticus if there was to be any truth to Simonides’ claims. I personally thought this line of debate was irrelevant given that Simonides produced 2 Greek copies of Hermas and Barnabas unknown to exist any where else in Christendom, so he obviously had exemplars that nobody else seen, but I digress. What’s interesting about White’s logic is that not once did he ever attempt to point to any exemplars that Simonides used for his so-called “forgeries”.

Wouldn’t that be important? I mean, come on, if it was important for Pinto to produce evidence of the exemplar Simonides used for Sinaiticus, would it not be equally important to point to the exemplars that Simonides used in documents he was accused of forging? That fact that White omits this shows he knew that line of questioning was a red herring that had nothing to do with Simonides claims to the authorship of Sinaiticus.

The debate tactics and logic of the rabid anti King James Only crowd is nearly as bad as the fake news main stream media.

By Dr. James Ach and Dr. Elisha Weismann

James White recently produced a response to Chris Pinto’s documentary, “Tares Among the Wheat”, criticizing Pinto with a variety of rather silly attacks. Tares Among the Wheat is a documentary about the untold history behind the Codex Sinaiticus, one of minority texts used by liberal Bible “scholars” to undermine the King James Bible.

We are going to let Chris Pinto speak for himself by posting the links to his 2 responses to James White, as Pinto does a more than adequate job of addressing White’s “critiques”.  But there three things that we want to address before posting the links. First of all, James White and his sidekick, Fred Butler (Hip and Thigh) criticize the MUSIC used by Pinto in his documentary as “eerie” and argue that Pinto is using the music to prove a point in his documentary. James White claimed to have laughed hysterically when he heard the music. We here at DoRightChristians laughed hysterically when we heard James White use this as an argument against Pinto’s documentary, particularly when James White has done the exact same thing to Dave Hunt in his opening musical prelogue to his Radio Free Geneva show in cherry picking statements from Hunt about the Reformers and Calvinism while playing “eerie music” behind the quotes. Not only this, but James White has referred to the Ergun Caner controversy as “Caner’s JIHAD against Christianity”. Now we have already stated that we believe criticism against Caner has validity to it, but for White to call it a JIHAD AGAINST CHRISTIANS, and then claim that humble men like Pinto are painting false caricatures of historical characters such as Tischendorf is patently obnoxious and hypocritical. Of course, White has also done the same to us in that, since we are King James Only, we must not have the ability to understand the Trinity, Eternal Security, the virgin birth, Creation, the Resurrection, etc. According to James White, if you are not a Critical Text proponent, you can’t possibly have an accurate view of historical and Biblical Christianity.

Secondly, James White opens his show with comments that Pinto’s scholarship is not as good or as responsible as CNN journalism. So now when anyone critiques James White, they must be able to present scholarship that is as “good and responsible” as a liberal communist news organization. (Chris also addresses a hypocritical assessment White makes about a quote Pinto made from a BBC reporter which conflicts with White’s earlier CNN comment.)

This is the arrogant “Scholarship Only” attitude that men like White, Butler and practically all anti KJVO “scholars” take. If you don’t agree with them, you must not have “scholarship”. This is the same attitude that the Pharisees had against Christ: “How knoweth this man letters HAVING NEVER LEARNED” John 7:15. It is a deceptive tactic that White uses to inoculate his listeners before beginning his tirade against any KJVO apologist or those who support the Majority Text against the Critical Text. Butler uses the same tactics as well. He begins his articles with personal insults so that his readers begin with the idea that he is critiquing an absolute nut job and heretic before he even begins to address why he disagrees with the premise of his detractor’s arguments.

Here is just one comment Butler (five pointer) says about Pinto on his “Hip and Thigh” website,

The fact that Chris passes off his cherry-picked citations and sloppy research as “scholarship” and then reacts with hostility when people who know better challenge him also troubles me when you say he is a godly guy. 1

First of all, Chris Pinto never made the claim that his documentary was to be viewed as “scholarship”. But, since that is the criteria in which occult lovers like Butler base their judgments, thus the accusation follows. Considering that Butler himself has NEVER addressed the issue of Constantine Simonides on any of his anti KJV articles, and has only addressed it for the first time after Pinto’s documentary, shows that Butler himself never did the research on this issue before his unwarranted critique of Pinto’s video. Furthermore, Butler offered several opinions about Pinto’s documentary PRIOR to actually watching it, which he admits he just recently watched it for the first time in late November, 2013. Should we call that “sloppy scholarship” since Butler obviously “answered a matter before he heard it”? (Proverbs 18:13.) Then you will notice at the bottom of Butler’s comment he asks about finding Pinto’s church, denomination and pastor, matters which he could have easily  simply asked Pinto himself about, but instead, posts it to someone he really has no clue if they know this information or not, simply to give the reader the impression that there’s probably something even more sinister about Pinto if we all knew what his denomination was. A truly snake-in-the-grass tactic. Ironically enough, Butler recently posted an article about evangelism where he stated, “First, they mistakenly believe apologetics and evangelism is a discipline only carried out by trained professional like pastors, seminary grads, or those who have studied in some apologetic program.” Doesn’t seem like Butler practices what he preaches.

Chris never responded in hostility to White or Butler. According to Butler, anyone who disagrees with him and White are “hostile”, but yet would he consider himself “hostile” by his personal attacks on Pinto? Of course not, because he’s a hypocritical windbag. (And yes, you can call us hostile, we don’t mind 🙂 ) We have also shown how Butler does the exact same “cherry picking” that he accused Pinto of (although Butler and White’s accusation of “cherry picking” amounts to not presenting the Critical Text view in support of their arguments in which Pinto’s objective was rather to show history that has been neglected and has never been addressed by even White or Butler themselves until this documentary by Pinto was produced).

Fred Butler Uses The Force to Fight KJVO

Fred Butler Uses The Force to Fight KJVO

The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.” Malachi 2:12

Finally, the critical point that Pinto makes in his response is how the Codex Sinaiticus is used by skeptics and critics against Christians. Will Kinney recently demonstrated this in an article about the reading of Luke 23:34 where Muslims argue that the reading of “Father forgive them for they know not what they do” is not found in any of the so-called “earliest manuscripts”, and in support of their arguments, they QUOTE JAMES WHITE. (See article here). Pinto explains how the “scholarship” of James White and Butler actually help bolster Muslim and atheist attacks against the Bible, and how James White actually agrees with atheists like Bart Ehrman against Christians who believe that the Bible is the infallible word of God.  Thus so-called “scholarship” by White and Butler actually serves to embolden the beliefs that Muslims and atheists have against the Bible which in turn serves to create more confidence that Islam is right, and that Christianity is based upon a book that is full of forged documents and variants.

While James White and Butler think they are actually apologists defending Christianity, they have either by willful actions or just shear ignorance caused MORE harm to the belief in the validity and authenticity of the Scriptures and have rather helped to encourage the spread of Islam.



Additional Interesting Facts About White and Pinto

By the way, before James White changed over to the new Alpha & Omega Ministries website, we had document pictures of James White in the Caymen Islands donning a Scottish Kilt that had what appeared as a clear Freemason sporran (the purse like attachment worn in the front over the kilt). This photo has now been removed. It is also interesting that as an apologist, James White has never produced a definitive work on Freemasonry but makes only casual references to it in books and articles about Mormonism. In one article, (now removed) he merely shows how some of Mormonisms rituals were borrowed from Freemasons. However, this merely shows that the Mormon ritual was not original, it doesn’t make the case that Freemasonry in itself is inherently evil. Considering that White opposes Pinto’s view of possible Jesuit conspiracies, and Jesuits and Freemasonry have a very strong connection, it does not surprise us that White says very little publicly about Freemasonry.

White has also still refused to respond to us about the accusations that his sister leveled against him where she claims that he threatened her when she told them about their father sexually molesting her for several years. Response to James White.

Also read our article on how Muslims quote James White to prove that Luke 23:34 is not part of the Bible.


On Fred Butler’s older website, he gives a review of the Batman movie, “The Dark Knight Rises”. The article hosts a picture of Batman with the occultic Phoenix over Batman’s head. It is no wonder that the theme of the picture itself is titled “A Fire Will Rise” based on the Phoenix slogan “Out of the Ashes Beauty Will Rise”. This is the blatantly occultic theme of Freemasonry and other pagan religions that the Phoenix will one day arise from the ashes (bottomless pit, Rev 9:1) and recapture the world which he once lost because some angelic being (Christ!) stuffed him in this hole after burning him up in battle. Don’t believe us? See the explanation from a Masonic website for yourself. Or the following explanation from an admitted Illuminati website in the section, “New Word Order, Phoenix Resurgum“. The Phoenix is a very common occultic symbol which has been used in symbols everywhere from Freemasonry, the Roman Catholic Church, the US dollar bill, and even John Calvin’s college in Geneva.

Symbol of John Calvin's College with the Catholic Key, Phoenix and IHS Logo

Symbol of John Calvin’s College with the Catholic Key, Phoenix and IHS Logo

Butler gives the following rave review of the movie,

Overall, the movie is outstanding.

The main villain this time is an anarchist terrorist named Bane played by Tom Hardy.  The character has a lot of great lines and Hardy delivers them well, though his modulated voice reminded me of Christopher Plummer’s “General Chang” from Star Trek 6.

Butler even refers to film critics as APOLOGISTS, a term typically reserved for those who defend the Bible and Christianity.

I’m sure there are apologists who would say the battle started around 5 pm and by the time Batman gets in the mix, dusk had already fallen.  Maybe.

So ironic that Butler criticizes the length of Pinto’s documentary, but has no problem taking his wife and himself to see TRILOGIES of OCCULT MOVIES. Butler then goes on to state that, “What about any Christian-themed motifs seen in the film? I honestly did not go to this film looking for them…..That said, I didn’t go see The Dark Knight Rises because of the conservative themes or so-called Christian “redemptive” elements, though I will say the conservative ideas made the picture that much more enjoyable.” When Hollywood starts producing films with Christian motifs through movies like Star Wars, Batman, and Star Trek, we might as well agree with Darwin that humans came from monkeys and sit down and enjoy a banana or two with Fred.

So it is clear that Butler uses “the force” to gain his insights into “Biblical scholarship”. Perhaps if Pinto played the Batman Theme as the background for his documentary, Butler and White would have taken it more seriously. Would White criticize Butler over his affinity for occultic movies? Of course not-birds of a feather (or in this case, a Phoenix)……

This is your picture of how “scholarship” treats people that actually believe we have an inspired word of God that we can see, handle and read, and that the ordinary person can digest and study without having to get permission or authoritative interpretations from a priest. Not only have men like White and Butler actually helped the spread of Islam, but have attempted to bring Christians back into the Dark Ages where only the priest or “scholar” TRULY KNEW what the Bible REALLY said. And it is with this that we admonish our believers to file the “scholarship” of White and Butler, et al,  in the same place Tischendorf claimed to have found the Sinaiticus.


UPDATE 2/12/14

On James White’s 2/11/14 radio show, and on White’s Twitter account, White referred to me as a “loon” because I criticized his use of a Star Trek excerpt he used as an illustration in critiquing the Ken Ham vs Bill Nye Creation Debate. Anyone who saw this excerpt could see that White was quoting the lines before they played which means he had watched this video numerous times before. I stated that there were plenty of examples in the Old Testament that could be used for story lines that researching such occultic TV shows like Star Trek is unnecessary.

I also criticized a Tweet that James White sent out to Albert Mohler about Hardy Boys novels:

Listening to @albertmohler talk about reading the Hardy Boys series…just as I did. Still have my old set, considering some Kindle eds!

White referred to me as an “Ultra Fundy” because I said that God’s people should ACT like God’s people and not be entertained and fascinated with Hollywood movies and novels.

When the world doesn’t see that you act any different than they do, why should they take you seriously when you tell them that living a life in Christ is so much better than what the world offers?

White had several followers comment on the matter. One named Bob Willits, identified himself as a cigar lover with a profile picture that displayed him puffing on his favorite Cuban. Another, Crododuck, displayed a picture of a naked men holding 2 cats on his shoulder, and another picture with a woman in skant clothes spreading her legs. When you fail to demand separation from the world, these are the type of followers you get.

By Chris Pinto

Noise of Thunder Radio

Answering Dr. Daniel Wallace on Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair





“The history of this manuscript is wrought with mystery, politics, and perhaps even some deception …” 

Source: The Friends of CSNTM (Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts) website, featuring Dr. Daniel Wallace 

This is our second and more detailed response to a video that was posted concerning our film, Tares Among the Wheat.  The video in question features a presentation given by Dr. Daniel Wallace, who is a professor of New Testament studies at Dallas Theological Seminary, speaking on the subject of Constantine Simonides and his claim to have authored the Codex Sinaiticus in 1840 (a manuscript ordinarily dated to the fourth century).  Our film presents evidence from the 19th century that strongly suggests Simonides may very well have been the true author of the codex, and indeed, he went to his grave defending this claim.  However, Dr. Wallace supports the predominantly held view that his story was false, and presents a number of reasons for this belief.

Perhaps the most important part of Dr. Wallace’s argument is his assertion that the Codex Sinaiticus was actually seen by an Italian explorer in the year 1761 – long before Constantine Simonides was even born.  But was this the case?  Or has the good doctor overlooked important details?

The purpose of this article is to demonstrate the flaws in Dr. Wallace’s conclusions by examining the historic information he presents point by point.  We generally believe most scholars today are largely unaware of the specifics surrounding the discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus, and the story of Simonides in general.  Our desire is that a more perfect history be established concerning this controversy, for the benefit of the Biblical record and the understanding of the Church.



The first 43 leaves of the Codex Sinaiticus were found by the German scholar, Constantine von Tischendorf in 1844, at St. Catherine’s Monastery at the base of what is called Mt. Sinai in Egypt.  While he was very secretive about his original discovery, Tischendorf later claimed that the pages he found had been jettisoned by the Greek monks in a rubbish basket, and were destined to be burned in the fire.  The monks to this day claim that he stole them.  Tischendorf visited the monastery a second time in 1853, where he discovered a fragment of Genesis; but his next major discovery of the codex was in 1859, when he found the New Testament portion and part of the Old, along with the Epistle of Barnabas and a partial copy of the Shepherd of Hermas.  At this point, the manuscript was named Codex Sinaiticus, and declared to be the oldest Bible ever found.

Yet in 1860, when the Greek paleographer Constantine Simonides saw the first facsimiles in Liverpool, England, he said, “I at once recognized my own work.”  He claimed that he had created the manuscript twenty years earlier, and that it was intended to be a gift for the Czar of Russia, something planned by his uncle, (a Greek monk named Benedict) and carried out by Simonides as a young calligrapher.  The story was astonishing, and a debate concerning the issue raged back and forth from 1860 to 1864, much of it in the newspapers of England. In short, the critics of the 19th century rejected his claims.  Simonides published a final work in 1864, in which he reaffirmed all that he had said, and then left London, never to return.



Dr. Wallace mentions the opinions of the 19th century scholars, Samuel P. Tregelles and Henry Bradshaw, both of whom opposed the claims of Simonides.   But could it be said that these men in any way settled the issue? Tregelles had a comment published in the newspapers in which he said that: “the story of Simonides is as false and absurd as possible.”

Yet in response to this comment, a publication called The Literary Churchman, December 16, 1862, wrote the following:

“… we are not prepared, at this moment, to say, with Dr. Tregelles, that the statements of Simonides are ‘as false and absurd as possible.’  Tischendorf applies these terms ‘false and absurd’ just now to Tregelles himself: and indeed the proverbially furious way in which critics abuse one another, and the pettiness of their jealousies have had much illustration of late.”

In contrast, Henry Bradshaw actually met with Simonides and a friend of his at the Cambridge University Library. Simonides had written Bradshaw a letter, and provided examples of his own handwriting in ancient Greek characters to prove that he was the true author.  He said:

“… the penmanship of the Sinaitic Codex is my more usual style … I wrote letters not long since in the same style with a common pen and upon ordinary paper to … Mr. Henry Bradshaw, the keeper of MSS. in the university library of Cambridge; and to others … To Mr. H. Bradshaw I wrote as follows: — ‘Dear Sir – They who believe the Sinaitic Codex to be ancient are deceived, for I am the worker of the miracle, and many of the witnesses are still alive.  Farewell. – Christ’s College, Oct. 7, 1862.’

(Letter of C. Simonides, The Journal of Sacred LiteratureApril 1863)



It is strange that Bradshaw never commented on the handwriting of Simonides, to say whether or not it might have matched with the writing in Codex Sinaiticus.  It is also strange that Bradshaw showed no interest in learning more about the witnesses that were named either.  Instead, they had a debate about how to determine the genuineness of a manuscript.  Bradshaw wrote:


“But the great question was, ‘How do you satisfy yourselves of the genuineness of any manuscript?’  I first replied that it was really difficult to define; that it seemed to be more of a kind of instinct than anything else.  Dr. Simonides and his friend readily caught at this as too much like vague assertion, and they naturally ridiculed any such idea …”


Bradshaw then goes on to describe their conversation further, telling us that Simonides refused to accept his scholarly instincts in favor of the codex as a fourth century manuscript.  After repeated objections, Bradshaw said:


I told him as politely as I could that I was not to be convinced against the evidence of my senses.”


(Henry Bradshaw, Letter to the Guardian, January 28, 1863)


Notice that Bradshaw’s conclusion (much like that of Tregelles) was not particularly scientific or based on some in-depth textual analysis.   It does not appear that either of them examined the codex from the perspective that it might be a forgery.


While Dr. Wallace finds the assertions of Bradshaw and Tregelles to be authoritative, it is important to consider that their opinions were dismissed by renowned scholar James A. Farrer in his classic work, Literary Forgeries(1907).  After examining the Simonides controversy, he wrote:


“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…. 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…. The question therefore, pending the acquisition of further evidence, must remain among the interesting but unsolved mysteries of literature.”  (Farrer, pp. 64-65)


Note that in the year 1907 (decades after the smoke had cleared, so to speak) Farrer refers to the subject of Simonides as an unsolved mystery.  We believe this is the only conclusion that one could come to at that point in history, after having examined the many writings and newspaper articles on the subject.  The reason the matter was never resolved is because the textual critics of the 19th century simply refused to investigate Simonides’ claims.  They relied on little more than their own academic credentials for proof, and found it more convenient to search for ways to discredit him, rather than discover whether or not he was actually telling the truth.




For a more modern reference concerning the mysterious nature of the manuscript’s history, we present this quote from the British Library’s official website for the Codex Sinaiticus, in which they declare that:


“… events concerning the history of the Codex Sinaiticus, from 1844 to this very day, are not fully known; hence, they are susceptible to widely divergent interpretations and recountings that are evaluated differently as to their form and essence.”  


When compared to the unverifiable fantasies concocted by the critics who have invented countless historic details for the codex that are often filled with incredible contradictions, the story of Simonides can be rightly called a “divergent interpretation” of the history of Codex Sinaiticus.  The difference is that there is much more documentation to support the assertions of Simonides than a vast majority of what is claimed by textual critics today.





Dr. Wallace says of Simonides that:


His wealth would have had to have been vast in order to produce this manuscript … the cost of production would be worth the equivalent of a lifetime of work.”


It is worth noting that during the debates in the 19th century, we find no record of anyone making this argument. In London, Simonides had more than 2,000 manuscripts in his possession, and these were seen by many witnesses (as recorded by Mr. Charles Stewart, his biographer).  As such, he obviously had access to lots and lots of vellum parchment.


More importantly, Simonides openly declared that he obtained the vellum used for Sinaiticus from a Greek monastery on Mount Athos in the year 1839, and that it was already of ancient character when he found it.  In the account he published in the Guardian on September 3, 1862 Simonides wrote:


“… 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 principle of the monastery, as it bore the inscription (a Collection of Panegyrics), and also a short discourse, much injured by time.”


So, he tells us the parchment had been prepared centuries earlier for a Collection of Panegyrics (i.e. works ofelaborate praise or laudation), but the work was begun and never finished, leaving a healthy amount of blank vellum pages.  Simonides would have gained the permission to use the parchment from his uncle, Benedict, who was a leader in the Greek Orthodox Church at that time.  It was he (along with other leaders) who wanted the manuscript created as a gift for the Czar of Russia.  So, the vellum was simply acquired through the resources of the monks on Mt. Athos, and it would not have been at all necessary to purchase it.





It was also in his first letter to the Guardian in Sept. 1862, that Simonides described how the work was “written according to the ancient form, in capital letters, and on parchment.”


This detail, along with the fact that the vellum he used was already ancient, becomes very significant once a person understands the principles of paleography – the science of dating ancient manuscripts.  The short definition for paleography is “handwriting analysis.” The chief considerations of paleography have to do with analyzing of the style of a scribe’s handwriting, and comparing it with the handwriting of known documents from a particular century.  This analysis is combined with identifying the character of the papyrus or parchment used for a particular codex.  Papyrus was typically used in the first three centuries of Church history, while vellum parchment (made from animal skins) came into regular usage about the fourth century.


Depending on how letters are shaped and words are spelled (i.e. whether ancient or modern) determines the core of how paleographers date a codex.  Hence, if Simonides wrote in ancient Greek characters, and on vellum that was already ancient, it becomes very possible that he could have created a work that would have deceived Western scholars, because of the methods they use for dating manuscripts.





Perhaps the most significant point made by Dr. Wallace is the assertion that an Italian explorer mentioned seeing Codex Sinaiticus in the year 1761, after a visit St. Catherine’s Monastery.  Dr. Wallace tells us:


“In 1761 an Italian scholar, Vitaliano Donati visited St. Catherine and described a manuscript he saw there that matches Sinaiticus to a tee.  This was 79 years before Simonides forged it, and 59 years before Simonides was born.”


If this were true, it would shatter the story of Simonides with a single stroke.  But did the Italian explorer describe Sinaiticus “to a tee” as Dr. Wallace asserts? An examination of Donati’s journal entry reveals the contrary. Thankfully, the specific words he wrote are recorded by the British Library on their website under the history section for the codex.  They tell us that:


“The first written record of the Codex Sinaiticus may be identifiable in the journal of an Italian visitor to the Monastery of Saint Catherine in 1761. In it the naturalist Vitaliano Donati reported having seen at the Monastery ‘a Bible comprising leaves of handsome, large, delicate, and square-shaped parchment, written in a round and handsome script’.”


Notice that the scholars at the British Library tell us this may be a reference to Sinaiticus.  They are not quite as confident as Dr. Wallace.  This is because Donati’s description is relatively vague, and can scarcely be called precise, or “to a tee” as Dr. Wallace said.


Donati writes about the Bible he saw in terms that might also apply to a thousand other works, depending how a person defines what it means to be “handsome” in the world of manuscripts. We also consider that there are currently more than 3,000 manuscripts at St. Catherine’s Monastery, and there may have been many more back in 1761.


If a man claimed to see a beautiful painting in a room filled with 3,000 paintings, would you know which one he meant?





Despite Dr. Wallace’s claim, none of the very unique features of Codex Sinaiticus were mentioned by Donati in 1761.  If he had truly seen it, his description would most likely have included at least one of the following prominent details:


1) Codex Sinaiticus is written in a four-column format (a rare featurewhile Dr. Wallace says it is the only one of this type, the British Library says it is one of very few)


2) The manuscript has 23,000 corrections, an average of 30 corrections per page (it is the most corrected Biblical manuscript in history)


3) It is one of only two Greek manuscripts that deliberately omits the last twelve verses of the Gospel of Mark.


The other manuscript that contains the shorter ending of Mark is the Codex Vaticanus, which, prior to the 19thcentury, had been hidden away in the Vatican Library, unavailable to most scholars.  Most all the other Greek manuscripts that include the Gospel of Mark also include the longer ending.  As such, if there had been a manuscript at St. Catherine’s with this very unique feature, it would have surely been mentioned by someone in the thousand years that came before.


It is worth noting that in 1907, James Farrer wrote that:


 “… no visitor to the monastery at Mount Sinai before 1844 had ever seen or heard of such a work as belonging to the monks …”





The “new finds” have to do with additional parts of the manuscript that were discovered at St. Catherine’s Monastery in the year 1975, when a hidden room was uncovered in the tower on the north wall of the monastery. The website for the monastery tells us that “twelve pages and twenty-four fragments of the fourth century Codex Sinaiticus” were discovered.  But how did these pages come to be detached?  And why would they be hidden in this secret room?


Dr. Wallace says:


“The new finds of 1975 revealed that more leaves of the manuscript were still at Sinai.  How did they get there, if Simonides penned the manuscript somewhere else?”


Simonides publicly stated that he created the manuscript on Mt. Athos in 1839-1840, but how did it then arrive at St. Catherine’s Monastery by 1844?  The answer is provided by Simonides himself, in his letter to The Guardiannewspaper, on September 3, 1862.  He said that after his uncle died he ceased to work on the manuscript:


“… the supply of parchment ran short, and the severe loss which I sustained in the death of 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.” (Simonides, Letter to the Guardian, Sept. 3, 1862)


In the same letter, Simonides then proceeds to tell us how the work arrived at the monastery at Mt. Sinai.  He wrote:


“Some time after this, having removed to Constantinople, I showed 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.”


So, we learn that the Patriarch Constantius was in charge of St. Catherine’s Monastery and he is the person who would ultimately send the manuscript there some time later.  Simonides continued:


“Shortly after this … I 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.”


He goes on to say that after he left the package containing the manuscript, he later received a letter from Constantius confirming the receipt of it.  The patriarch’s letter was dated August 13, 1841.


All of this happens approximately three years before the first pages of the manuscript were discovered by Tischendorf in 1844.  As such, it is reasonable to conclude that Constantius would have delivered the manuscript to Mt. Sinai within a short time after he received it.  In his letter to The Guardian, Simonides even gave the name of the monk who brought the manuscript to the monastery:


“… 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.”


At this point, Simonides had provided the names of at least three men – Anthimus, Constantius and Germanus – who were all somehow eyewitnesses to this work. Typically, when someone is lying, they do not provide the kind of specific details that he did, and would be reluctant to name prominent people who could be sought out for fear that they would expose him.  A dishonest person who makes a story up from nothing is more likely to be vague and short on specifics, but this was not the case with Simonides.





Dr. Wallace tells us:


Archbishop Damianos had suspected for some time that there might be treasures hidden in the northern wall of the monastery.  This was where the sacristy had been previously.”


Why would Damianos suspect that there might be treasures there?  Did he imagine this from nothing?  Or was this idea given to him by a predecessor?  Think about it.  How could a room in a monastery that had been continuously inhabited be covered up without anyone knowing about it?  Surely, someone knew about it when it happened.  It stands to reason that stories about this hidden room (a room filled with many manuscripts, no less) would have been handed down from one generation to the next.


Dr. Wallace also says:


“… the latest manuscripts stored in the geniza (storage area) was from the 18th century.  This is significant because it shows that the practices of the monks, close to the time that Tischendorf came there, was to store manuscripts …”


Notice that Dr. Wallace acknowledged that the latest manuscripts found were from the 18th century, which means that this room could not have been covered up for hundreds of years.  Hence, the pages from Codex Sinaiticus must have been hidden there “close to the time that Tischendorf came there” as he said.  But how close?  Is it possible to tell?


We have already shown that the manuscript described by Simonides was transferred to St. Catherine’s Monastery about the year 1841, at the hands of a monk named Germanus, several years before Tischendorf arrived.  With this in mind, we next turn to a witness who was present when the discovery of 1975 was first revealed.





In the year 1968, a man named Moshe Altbauer began working at the library at Mount Sinai.  Dr. Altbauer was the Professor Emeritus of Slavonic Studies at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, and he published an essay on the “new finds” in 1987, his own interest being in the Slavic manuscripts discovered along with the pages of Codex Sinaiticus.  Dr. Altbauer died in 1998, but we had a brief correspondence with one of his former students (Prof. Moshe Taube), who confirmed that it was indeed the Sinai Library at St. Catherine’s that he refers to in his essay.  However, having corresponded with his son (Dr. Dan Altbauer), we are unable to confirm whether or not he was present in 1975 when the find was made.


Yet most importantly, in his essay, Dr. Altbauer tells us the following about the source of his information on the 1975 discovery:


The only information I got was from Father Sophronius, who discovered the manuscripts while digging foundations for a new building after a fire in the Monastery.”


Source: “Identification of Newly Discovered Slavic Manuscripts in St. Catherine’s Monastery in Sinai,” by Dr. Moshe Altbauer (1987)


This is why Altbauer’s testimony is so significant, because he was working at the Sinai Library while all of this was happening, and he was in direct communication with the person who actually made the discovery. In contrast, the information presented by Dr. Daniel Wallace, by his own admission, was published some 23 years after all of these things happened.  One can only wonder how the information may have changed over the course of time, which often happens in the aftermath of historic events.  As we shall see, there are important details that Dr. Wallace does not include in his presentation.





While Dr. Altbauer’s essay is short, and concerned mainly with things that have nothing to do with Codex Sinaiticus, he reveals a number of interesting details.  First, that the monks at Sinai were very secretive about this hidden room and what was in it:


The Sinaitic monks kept the discovery as a great secret, but a scholar from Athens … was less cautious. American scholars, who had good relationships with the scholar from Athens, got information on the manuscript finds made in Sinai, and even pictures of some of them.  The reaction of the Sinaitic monks to this information was rage and wrath.”


Notice that they were not merely upset, as one might expect.  He says they were filled with rage and wrath?  Why were they so angry?  In his book, Secrets of Mount Sinai: the Story of the World’s Oldest Bible – Codex Sinaiticus, author James Bentley says “their resentment at the treachery of Constantin von Tischendorf prompted their decision to keep the new discoveries secret.” (Bentley, p. 200)


Undoubtedly, the most curious part of his essay is the opening statement made by Professor Altbauer, where he describes the find itself.  He wrote:


“Since the year 1975 many rumors spread of the sensational discovery of more than 220 old manuscripts, among them some in Slavic, set aside in a chest and burrowed in the ground of an ancient Sinai Monastery (about 150 years ago).”


Set aside in a chest and burrowed in the ground?  Now, when compared to the testimony of Dr. Wallace, there seems to be some inconsistency.  Dr. Wallace describes about two tons worth of manuscripts that were eventually uncovered.  It seems highly unlikely that these could have all fit into a single chest.  Was there a chest buried, with many other manuscripts beside it, or surrounding it?  Admittedly, there are a variety of possibilities.


Also notice that Dr. Altbauer says this happened “about 150 years ago.”  Since his essay was published in 1987, a century and a half would take us back to about the same time frame that Simonides is said to have delivered the manuscript to Mount Sinai and the activity with Tischendorf took place.  It is difficult to press this issue too far without knowing exactly when the room was hidden.  Yet even knowing that date would not be conclusive, since it is possible that even after the room was covered up, it could have been accessed by someone who knew about it, if they wanted to hide something there.


In any case, the fact that pages of Sinaiticus were discovered in this secret room in 1975 neither confirms the ancient character of the codex, nor prevents the possibility that it could have been created by Constantine Simonides.


While there is no question that mystery surrounds the issue, and speculation seems unavoidable, the real question is: Why would anyone have removed certain pages from the Codex Sinaiticus, buried them in a chest and hidden it away in a secret room at St. Catherine’s? 


Dr. Wallace argues that the monks may have been in the habit of burying certain manuscripts, perhaps in the same way this practice is known among the Jews; that they bury copies of the Torah once they are too old, or if they contain too many flaws.  But if the monks wanted to bury Sinaiticus, why didn’t they bury the whole thing? Why just certain pages?


If we believe Dr. Wallace, the impression he gives is that some of the pages of the front and back of the manuscript simply fell off to the ground, and went apparently unnoticed by a careless monk.  This is certainly possible, but if anything, it only feeds the idea that the monks were absent minded in their care of sacred works, something Wallace was trying to dispel in his presentation.  Yet if we look to the writings of witnesses from the 19th century, we may find clues to help solve the mystery.





In the story he published in The Guardian newspaper on Sept. 3, 1862, Simonides shared the following:


“In various places I marked in the margin the initials of the different MSS. 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.”


Simonides repeatedly challenged Tischendorf to a public debate, so that he might point out these markings in the presence of others to settle the issue.  It seems that Tischendorf at one point agreed to it, but then backed out.  Simonides called attention to this in a letter published in The Literary Churchman, June 16, 1863:


“The public were assured that in May, Tischendorf was to be in London, armed with a portion at least of his great Codex.  I have waited in England hoping to have the opportunity of meeting him, face to face, to prove him in error; but May has come and gone, and the discoverer has not appeared.  Let the favourers of the antiquity of the MS. persuade him to come at once, and brave the ordeal, or else for ever hold his peace.”


Unfortunately, Simonides never had the opportunity to expose the markings he wrote about in a public debate with Tischendorf, but he was not the only person who acknowledged that such markings existed.





During the debates in the newspapers, a series of letters arrived from a friend of Simonides, a Greek monk named Kallinikos Hieromonachos.  Kallinikos provided interesting details about the codex, and confirmed that there were markings or “acrostics” that pertained to his friend.


After Kallinikos’ letters were published, a man named W. A. Wright, in an apparent attempt to draw attention from the fact that Tischendorf had backed out of the public debate, began declaring that Kallinikos was a fictional person created by Simonides.


It was revealed that the letters were clearly post-marked from Alexandria, Egypt, which is where Kallinikos resided at the time.  The postal markings were real and not forged.  In spite of this, Wright went so far as to suggest that Simonides had left London and traveled to Alexandria, where he mailed the letters himself so that they would have an Alexandrian postmark on them.  In order for Simonides to have done this, he would have needed to travel back and forth to Alexandria on at least four separate occasions.  This would be like suggesting that someone was in the habit of flying back and forth from the U.S. to China in order to mail letters so that they would have a Chinese postmark on them – all as part of a grand deception.  When one considers that Simonides stood to gain virtually nothing from all of this, the idea that he went to such lengths becomes ridiculous.


The absurdity of Wright’s arguments were later exposed by James Farrer, who showed that, indeed, Kallinikos was a real person whose relationship with Simonides was well documented (see Farrer, pp. 61-62).


It was Kallinikos who first declared that Tischendorf had not discovered the pages of the manuscript in 1844 in a basket as he claimed, but had rather stolen them.  In a letter written to Simonides in August 17, 1858, Kallinikos wrote:


“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 part of it, and went away during the time that the librarian lay ill …”


Notice that yet another eyewitness to the manuscript is revealed – Gabriel, the keeper of the treasures.  He is just one of many people who were openly named, and could have been sought out to confirm or refute the claims of Simonides; but the critics avoided this at all costs.  It is of no less importance that Dr. Wallace tells us no one ever went to corroborate the story of Tischendorf either.


Kallinikos also made mention of the special markings that Simonides placed inside the Codex Sinaiticus. In a letter published Nov. 2, 1863 in The Literary Churchman he said that:


“A portion of [the codex] was secretly removed from Mt. Sinai, by Professor Tischendorf, in 1844.  The rest, with inconceivable recklessness, he mutilated and tampered with, according to his liking, in the year 1859.  Some leaves he destroyed, especially such as contained the Acrostics of Simonides; but four of them escaped him, viz.,one in the Old Testament, and three in Hermas, as I long since informed Simonides …”


At one point, Simonides made the claim that some of the markings he made in the manuscript were to be found in Genesis, but this was exploited by W.A. Wright, who accused Simonides of duplicity.  In The Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, he wrote:


Simonides now points to an acrostic in Gen. xxivas proof that he wrote the Codex Sinaiticus.  He knows perfectly well that no part of Genesis has been recovered, and therefore makes his assertion with full assurance that it cannot be put to the test.”


Mr. Wright provided another important detail in The Guardian, on Feb. 4, 1863:


“As proof that the manuscript is his own writing, he now exhibits tracings of four pages, in one at least of which is an acrostic containing his name.  This one is from Genesis, which he knows perfectly well has not been recovered.  These tracings he says he took when at Mount Sinai in 1852 …”


In spite of Wright’s claim, Tischendorf did recover a fragment from Genesis in 1853, during his second visit to the monastery, and the fragment includes part of chapter twenty-four as we shall see.


The fact that Simonides claimed to see the manuscript at Mt. Sinai in the year 1852 is well documented in his first published letter on the subject.  According to Wright’s testimony, Simonides presented tracings of four pages of the codex that he made after he saw it at that point.  To our knowledge, no one has ever taken those traced pages and compared them with the rest of the manuscript.   We wonder where, if anywhere, these pages might be found.  Do they still exist?  Assuming that one of the traced pages contained the acrostic of Genesis 24, what was on the other three pages?  Could these pages contain clues that would determine once and for all if Simonides were telling the truth?


With all of this in mind, now let us go back and consider what was discovered among the “new finds” at St. Catherine’s in 1975.





According to the official website for Codex Sinaiticus we read the following about those parts of the manuscript that were discovered in 1975:


“The careful study of all the new fragments reveals that there are nineteen leaves wholly or partially extant, along with a few tiny fragments in which the text cannot be identified.  They contain portions of Genesis … a sequence of complete leaves from Numbers … a mutilated leaf which has parts of Deuteronomy … a tiny fragment with Judges … Finally in the Old Testament … fragments of a leaf containing parts of Hermas …”


So, notice that we have pages from the Old Testament, including (among other things) portions of Genesis, and then we have a part of the Shepherd of Hermas.  Is it possible that some of these pages contain clues that might support the story of Simonides?  Could they have been deliberately removed by Tischendorf, and hidden away to keep others from learning the truth?  If Tischendorf had seen the acrostics of Simonides, is it possible that he destroyed those pages (as Kallinikos testified) and then removed any others he thought might have had similar markings?


It is also worth noting that the Shepherd of Hermas was a central point of controversy between Tischendorf and Simonides in 1856, at the University of Leipzig, years before the Sinai codex was discovered.  No one had ever seen a copy of the Shepherd in Greek, and the first known copy was presented by Simonides in 1855.  It was embraced by most scholars as genuine, and was published openly, but then Tischendorf declared it to be a forgery.  Bentley records it this way:
“When [Simonides] had tried to sell the forged copy of the Shepherd of Hermas in Germany, Tischendorf had exposed him.” (Bentley, p. 101)


Despite the impression given by Bentley, Tischendorf did not believe that Simonides himself had forged the copy of the Shepherd, but rather, that it was a forgery created by someone else during the Middle Ages, having been translated into Greek from a Medieval form of Latin.  The problem with Bentley’s argument is that, in 1859, another copy of the Shepherd was discovered as part of the Codex Sinaiticus, and it matched the one presented by Simonides years earlier.  As a result, Tischendorf was forced to change his position and admit that the manuscript presented by Simonides was genuine.  Philip Schaff records this little known detail:


“The Greek text (brought from Mt. Athos by Constantine Simonides, and called Cod. Lipsiensis) … in … 1863 …Tischendorf, in consequence of the intervening discovery of the Cod. Sinaiticus retracted his former objections to the originality of the Greek Hermas from Mt. Athos, which he had pronounced a mediaeval retranslation from the Latin …”


(History of the Christian Church, Vol. II, Eighth Edition, 1901, by Philip Schaff, David Schley Schaff, pp. 678-679)


Chances are, this is why scholars like James Farrer believed that Simonides exceeded Tischendorf in both knowledge and experience of paleographical science (see Farrer, p. 50).  This issue may also have something to do with why certain pages of the Shepherd of Hermas were removed from the Codex Sinaiticus, and hidden away in the sacristy, possibly even buried in a chest.  Could Tischendorf have suspected that those pages might have vindicated Simonides?  Could he have seen markings on them, as mentioned by Kallinikos?  Admittedly, we can only speculate.


Yet since the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus proved that Simonides had been correct about the Shepherd of Hermas, where then is his motivation for revenge, as claimed by Bentley and others?  Perhaps this is why James Farrer wrote:


“That Simonides was a good enough calligrapher, even at an early age, to have written the Codex, is hardly open to doubt, and it is in his favour that the world was first indebted to him in 1856 for the opening chapters in Greek of the Shepherd of Hermas, with a portion of which Codex Sinaiticus actually terminates.  The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance.”

(Farrer, pp. 59-60)





The portions of Genesis recovered in 1975 only include chapters 21 through 23, while Simonides claimed he placed an acrostic somewhere in Genesis chapter 24.  On the Codex Sinaiticus website, the British Library includes the information on the “new finds” under a section about the reconstruction of the manuscript, where they bring all the different parts together.  It is here that they tell us about additional fragments in Russia:


“There are other fragments found in the nineteenth century and now in St. Petersburg.  The ones which concern us here consist of a part of a leaf now preserving Genesis 23.19-24.19 and 24.20-24.46 …”


In other words, part of Genesis chapter 24 was recovered.  Not the whole thing, apparently, but part of it.  In his book, Secrets of Mount Sinai, author James Bentley tells us that this fragment was found by Tischendorf in 1853, during his second visit to St. Catherine’s Monastery.  We are told it was being used as a bookmark when he found it (Bentley, pp. 90-92).  This account fits in perfectly with the story told by Simonides, that he made a tracing of Genesis 24 in 1852, the year before Tischendorf arrived.


Of course, we cannot help but wonder how W.A. Wright could have so forcefully asserted, that “no part of Genesis has been recovered” as he said in 1863.  Why is it that he failed to realize this fragment had been found a decade earlier?  If nothing else, it might have served to cool his fanaticism.


Is it possible that this portion of Genesis 24 contains the acrostic of Simonides?  All one would need to do is compare the tracing that was presented by him in 1863 to find out.  Of course, the portion of Genesis 24 in St. Petersburg would have to show the same part that Simonides captured in his tracing.  Assuming they match up, if his acrostic turns out to be missing in the St. Petersburg fragment, this would be clear proof that he was lying. Yet if it were there, it would prove he was telling the truth.





In an earlier quote, we read that Kallinikos accused Tischendorf of “mutilating” and “tampering” with the manuscript, according to his liking.


There was also this assertion made by Simonides himself in The Guardian, Jan. 28, 1863, where he 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 …”


In other letters, Kallinikos claimed that the manuscript had been “cleaned, with a solution of herbs … that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow color.” (The Literary Churchman, Dec. 16, 1862)


The Christian Remembrancer, in commenting on this, interprets it to mean that the manuscript “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.” (See “Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair” by J.K. Elliott, p. 78)


Were Kallinikos and Simonides both lying?  To reject their statements, we have to conclude that they were; but what they are describing appears to be somebody’s effort to doctor up the codex and make it appear more ancient than it was.  Given the dates involved, and considering that the discovery was spread out over a fifteen-year time frame, the implication is that the manuscript was being prepared over an extended period of time.  We must also consider that Tischendorf made at least three trips to St. Catherine’s from 1844 to 1859.  Was there more involved in these trips than he led others to believe?


The real question with this whole episode is why these things were not properly investigated at the time these statements were made.





Is it possible that during his visits to the monastery, Constantine von Tischendorf was working to tamper with this manuscript, just as Kallinikos claimed?  Is it further possible that he deliberately removed certain pages and hid them away in a chest, or somewhere else in the sacristy?  Kallinikos, who claimed to know Tischendorf said that he was of a “master and pupil of all guile, and all wickedness” and that he deliberately manipulated the manuscript for his own purposes.  Others claim that Tischendorf was a sincere Christian, who only desired to defend the truth of the Gospel by presenting a more accurate Biblical record.  Who should we believe?


At this point in history, it must be recognized that speculation is what we are unavoidably brought to.  But to assume that Simonides and his friend were lying, and that all that was said by Tischendorf was the truth, lacks objectivity and balance.  In fact, it’s not very logical when the very critics who rely upon Tischendorf’s research, also believe he dealt in a dishonestly.  James Bentley, after describing the apparent contempt Tischendorf had for the monks at St. Catherine’s Monastery, wrote:


“It was perhaps this hatred of these despised monks that enabled Tischendorf to steal from them their greatest treasure.” (Bentley, p. 85)


As to the issue of Tischendorf’s dishonesty, this has been debated from the beginning.  Even Dr. Daniel Wallace, at the end of his presentation, says that it is time to acknowledge that the story of how he supposedly discovered the first pages in a rubbish basket should be declared a “myth,” essentially admitting his belief that the great German scholar was lying.





1.  Was Constantine Simonides an ingenious forger as most scholars and historians believe? 


It is certainly possible that he was, but we believe it is important to note that this was an accusation that he always denied.  It is also worth noting that not everyone believed he was a forger.  His friends at the Mayer Museum in Liverpool, along with its curator, John Eliot Hodgkin and his biographer, Charles Stewart, did not think so.  In fact, Stewart wrote to the Athenaum in 1862, saying:


“… the high opinion I entertained of Dr. Simonides as a gentleman and a man of honour, at the time I published his biography, has in no way diminished during the two years that have elapsed.  I know him to be utterly incapable of committing the disgraceful deeds imputed to him, and firmly believe that the truth and value of his statements and discoveries will, ere long, be universally admitted and recognized.”


(Letter of Mr. Charles Stewart, to the Editor of the Athenaum, 1862, see: The Periplus of Hannon, p. 64)


Also, James Farrer believed that he was falsely accused in the controversy over the Mayer Manuscripts, in which he discovered a first century fragment of the Gospel of Matthew, which was unrolled with other scrolls by Simonides in the presence of several witnesses, including Joseph Mayer the founder of the museum.  It was said to be the oldest historic record of the New Testament.  He was accused of forging this, and the other papyri, even though they had been purchased by Joseph Mayer years before he ever met Simonides.  Our opinion is that the accusations came against him because the first century fragment of Matthew was in Greek, and contradicted the theories of the critics who believed it was originally written in either Aramaic or Hebrew.  Of this controversy, James Farrer wrote:


It is almost impossible to believe in his manufacture of these papyri.  They correspond in writing and appearance with numberless other papyri which have of recent years been discovered and published … If these are forgeries, they can hardly be forgeries by Simonides; and if he was guiltless in respect of these, he was presumably guiltless in respect of the others.”  (Farrer, p. 56)


All this to say, even if Simonides was the world’s most brilliant forger (as some think him to be) this would only increase the possibility that he could have created a great manuscript that would deceive the academic world.



2.  Are you open to the possibility that Simonides was not the true author of the Codex Sinaiticus?


Yes, absolutely.  While we are inclined to believe the evidence leans primarily in his direction, we recognize other potential scenarios.  We think it’s important to acknowledge the two possibilities argued by both Scrivener and Farrer in this regard.  The first and most obvious is that Simonides simply lied to somehow get even with Tischendorf, or rob him of the glory of his discovery.  Because of what we reported about the Shepherd of Hermas earlier, however, we believe this to be the less likely explanation.  The second explanation offered is that Simonides did, in fact, create a codex just as he described, but that the codex he created on Mt. Athos was not the Codex Sinaiticus.  This possibility was also suggested by Henry Bradshaw.


Yet with the above things in view, we still do not believe anyone ever proved he was lying.  Furthermore, his critics in the 19th century were nearly all involved, either directly or indirectly, with the Revision Committee of 1870 under Westcott and Hort.  Even W.A. Wright was the secretary for the Old Testament Company of this committee.  So they all had an interest in promoting Sinaiticus, because they wanted to use it to change the underlying Greek text of the Authorized Version.



3.  In your opinion, how could Simonides’ claims be fully disproven?


Right now, we know of two ways.


A. Compare the traced page of Genesis chapter 24 with the Genesis 24 fragment recovered by Tischendorf in 1853, which now resides in St. Petersburg, Russia.  We have no idea where the traced pages of Simonides might be.  Yet if the traced page of Genesis that Simonides created in 1852, matches the section of Genesis found in St. Petersburg, and if the acrostic of Simonides is not present – this would prove he was either mistaken or else he was lying.


B.  Find the ancient catalogues of St. Catherine’s Monastery.  We did not mention this in the article above or in our film.  However, this is very important and, in our opinion, proves that deception was employed to discredit Simonides.  In 1863, someone claiming to be a Greek monk of Mount Sinai wrote a letter that was published in The Literary Churchman, June 1, 1863, in which he declared the following:


“Mr. Simonides … lies when he positively affirms that the ancient MS. of the Holy Scripture published by Mr. Tischendorf is his work; because the MS. in question (as the librarian of our holy monastery, having been so from the year 1841 to 1858, assured me) belonged to the library of the monastery, and was marked in its ancient catalogues … how could it possibly be the work of Simonides …?”


Obviously, if there were a record of the codex in the ancient catalogues of the monastery it would completely destroy the claims of Simonides.  When we first came across this, our expectation was that this would be the proof that he was lying, which we would have then documented in our film.  Indeed, it was this letter that was the great nail in the Greek’s coffin, at least, according to J.K. Elliott.  Yet, in response to this incredible claim, Simonides replied in another letter published shortly after in The Literary Churchman, June 16, 1863.  He boldly declared:


“I emphatically deny that the Codex Sinaiticus was inscribed in the Ancient Catalogue, for the good reason thatno ancient catalogue exists: there was none there whatever, till I made a catalogue, during my first visit, for the Patriarch of Constantinople, Constantius …”


Can you imagine this happening in a courtroom?  What would the judge do at this point?  Would he not require that the alleged “ancient catalogue” be produced as evidence?  Yet, to our knowledge, no one has ever produced any such catalogue from the library of St. Catherine’s.  They certainly did not produce it in 1863, and the partisan newspapers of the time, not to mention the critics, never pursued the issue.


Thinking back toward the beginning of this article, remember how the British Library told us that the “first written record” of the codex may be from the Italian explorer in 1761?  Shouldn’t the earliest record have been the ancient catalogue?  Barring additional information not yet known, it would appear that Simonides was correct, and that no ancient catalogue exists.  However, if such a catalogue were produced, we agree that it would prove Simonides’ claims were false.


It is for the above reasons that we continue to believe that there are many unanswered questions on the subject of Simonides and the Codex Sinaiticus that require further research; and our prayer is that such research may be sought out through sober investigation.








Unless otherwise specified, the newspaper articles were obtained through the book, “Codex Sinaiticus & the Simonides Affair” by J.K. Elliott


The British Library’s official website for the Codex Sinaiticus is

By Dr. Elisha Weismann and Dr. James Ach

A recent article by the Pope adoring Fred Butler slandering Chris Pinto follows the logic of James White-among many others-contending that the Codex Sinaiticus was not actually discovered in a trash can as affirmed by “KJVOnlyists”. What is their evidence? From the donut- glaze- saturated keyboard of Butler is written:

Tischendorf’s second return in 1853 to the monastery was unfruitful, but on his third visit in 1859, he took a walk with a young Athenian steward who invited him back to his room for some refreshment. The steward told Tischendorf that he had read the OT in Greek and then revealed to him a bulky parcel wrapped in a red cloth. When he unwrapped it, it contained not only the sheets Tischendorf saw in 1844 that were being used to light fires, it contained some 346 parchments from the same volume.

Quip and Lie (Fred Butler, the author of the Hip and Thigh blog) as most others, conveniently leave out the events that lead up to this red-wrapped bundle of apostate joy. First, they lay emphasis that the Codex was “neatly wrapped” in red cloth, and then secondly, they note that a basket is not the same thing as a garbage can, and wallah, no evidence exists that any part of the Codex was found in a garbage can. Thus essentially, the argument for whether or not the Codex was found in a garbage can comes down to semantics and a little history revision (by deliberately omitting Tischendorf’s own statements regarding how the Codex was found).

Butler has a bad habit of quoting bias sources as well. In one article again slandering Chris Pinto, Butler sites Frederick Kenyon who claimed that Constantine SImonides, who laid claim to the actual authorship of Codex Sinaiticus, was only 15 years old when he claimed to have compiled manuscripts for the transcription of the Codex, and that therefore Simonides could not have possibly had the scholarship necessary at such a young age to perform such a rigorous and pedantic task (although, as a Calvinist, Butler would have no problem with the scholarship of Jonathon Edwards who went to Yale at age 13).  However, Kendrick admitted, as does history, that Simonides was born in 1820, and his first claim to the Codex occurred in 1840. That would have made Simonides 20 years old, not 15. After confronting Fred Butler with this glaring inconsistency, Butler removed the date of Simonides birth year from his article, and indicated no correction, although he still maintains that Simonides was only “a teenager”. Butler defends his usage of “teenager” by claiming Simonides could have been 19, but Butler makes this assertion in support of Kenyon who claimed that Simonides was only 15. Butler cited Kenyon as an authority on the veracity of Simonides claims, but then capitulates and obfuscates on the reliability of Kenyon’s facts.

From Tischendorf’s own testimony he writes the following:

It was in April, 1844, that I embarked at Leghorn for Egypt. The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any manuscripts, more especially Biblical, of a date  which would carry us back to the early times of Christianity, was realized beyond my expectations. 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 this, 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-five sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire

First of all, how could Tischendorf claim that these were the oldest manuscripts he’d seen without any examination of them first?*. Secondly, the story shows clearly that the manuscripts that were in the basket were there for the purpose of awaiting incineration. If that’s not a “trash can” excuse the puppies for drinking out of the kitten’s milk bowl.

Dean Burgon, who thoroughly debunked the work of Westcott & Hort (whom Butler considers “good godly evangelical scholars”-more on that later) writes,

“We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, “solely to their ascertained evil character”; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;

“while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai.

“Had B and ALEPH been copies of average purity, they must long ago since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight.” The Revision Revised , pg 319.

Even Norman Geisler, who is not only NOT KJVO, but wrote an endorsement for James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” shown on the cover of White’s book writes,

“It was found in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai by the German Count Tischendorf, who was living in Prussia by permission of the czar…”On his first visit (1844), he discovered forty-three leaves of vellum, containing portions of the LXX (I Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah and Esther), in a basket of scraps which the monks were using to light their fires. He secured it and took it to the University Library at Leipzig, Germany. It remains there, known as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus…Geisler & Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, 1968.

Popular KJVO critic, James White, although adamantly denying that the Codex was found in a waste basket, says of the finding of Tischendorf,

Constantin von Tischendorf embarked on a journey to the Middle East in 1844 searching for biblical manuscripts. While visiting the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, he noted some scraps of parchment in a basket that was due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven of the monastery. Upon looking at the scraps he discovered that they contained part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

This was exactly what he was looking for, and so he asked if he could take the scraps to his room for examination, warning the monks that they should not be burning such items. His obvious excitement worried the monks, who became less than cooperative in providing further information about manuscripts at the monastery. King James Only Controversy, pp 32-33

Thus we have clear and convincing evidence that the Codex was FIRST discovered in a basket, and that basket was used to reserve fodder for kindling. Now perhaps White and Butler call fodder for fire from materials one wishes to discard by burning as non-trash, but common sense modern vernacular would have no issues with the term “waste basket”. To offer such criticism merely because the manuscripts were not placed in Glad bags and the “basket” did not have a Flip Wilson lid on it is shear semantic nonsense.

Furthermore, White and Butler, et al, lay emphasis on Tischendorf’s receipt of the REMAINDER of the Codex wrapped in red cloth as evidence that the Codex was not found in a dumpster. However, Tischendorf’s own writings show that he obtained his initial manuscripts directly from the waste basket, and it was only LATER that he gained REMAINING manuscripts that were wrapped in cloth. BUT! where did THOSE manuscripts “wrapped in red cloth” come from?? Again, from Tischendorf’s own testimony relaying what the monk had given him he writes,

 Scarcely had he entered the room when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said, “And I too have read a Septuagint, i. e., a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy;” and so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. 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.

Notice what Tischendorf says about the manuscripts in the red wrapped cloth, “ which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket”. So whatever manuscripts Tischendorf did not obtain 15 years ago from the waste basket, he collected the remainder on this particular visit, and the manuscripts that White and Butler, et al, so vivaciously remind us were “wrapped neatly in red cloth” were themselves TAKEN FROM THE SAME BASKET WHERE TISCHENDORF OBTAINED HIS FIRST MANUSCRIPTS 15 YEARS AGO. 

Oh the lengths that Bible agnostics will go to in defending their beloved Pope and his Jesuit minions.

Butler’s Veneration of Westcott & Hort

In response to a blogger named “Sandy” who asks “So do you really believe there is no counter reformation being led by Jesuits?”, Butler replies,

No, not today, nor in the manner that Chris Pinto describes. You have to consider the fact that a number of men committed to the importance of Sinaiticus are Bible-believing, God-fearing, evangelical Christians who are squarely anti-Catholics. Pinto’s thesis implicates them as either being duped by the Jesuits, which would throw their spiritual discernment into being seriously questioned, or unbelieving Catholic sympathizers who are secretly aiding the Jesuits. Both of those scenarios are patently absurd.

First of all, what a naive imbecile to believe that the Jesuits have no CURRENT plans involving a “counter-reformation”. Let’s not forget that Rome’s current “vicar” is a Jesuit. Sure, Butler and White will tell you that Rome has a few bad doctrines, all short of naming the Pope as an antichrist and the Catholic Church as a CULT. But nevertheless, any casual perusal of the Jesuit Oath reveals that a Jesuit will “to a Jew become a Jew, to a Calvinist a Calvinist, to a Protestant a Protestant”.

The first men “committed to the importance of the Sinaiticus” were Westcott & Hort, who comprised a committee for the “revision” of the King James Version in 1881. The following are the “good godly evangelical” beliefs of Westcott & Hort of which almost all modern Bible translations owe their lineage,

“I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly.” (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

“Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

“He [Jesus Christ] never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

“(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.”…(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.”

“”…Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.”

“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with … My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period.”

I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adams fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues.

“Further I agree with them [Authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology … Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible.”

“I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father.” (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77)

The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical.” (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

There is OVERWHELMING evidence from the writings of Westcott and Hort themselves as well as their children they had great veneration for Mary and the church of Rome, had heretical views of the deity of Christ, salvation, the inspiration of Scripture, and yet these men are whom White and Butler consider “good godly evangelical” scholars? Even Butler’s favorite Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon wrote of Westcott & Hort,

“With those who treat the Bible as waste paper, and regard the death of Christ as no substitution, we have no desire for fellowship. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and , since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind’s eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task….. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite. Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth reading. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this “modern thought”.

But what about Tischendorf’s own beliefs? Tischendorf admittedly claimed to follow in the footsteps of Karl Lachmann**- who was known to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures and was a German philosophical rationalist- and that Tischendorf was a professor within the German universities of whom applied rationalism to the texts of the Bible. Between Tischendorf’s 7th and 8th editions of the Codex were over 8,000 changes to his own manuscripts. Tischendorf did not believe that any English version extant in his time (let alone the KJV) was based on earlier manuscripts, but were all 15th century productions, and thus he did not believe that any inspired or infallible copies of the Bible existed in any language in any version. Butler himself even admits this stating that,

Tischendorf believed the TR, from which the KJV had been translated, was an inadequate text because it was not based upon the “best” manuscripts of the NT.  He believed better manuscripts were waiting to be discovered and their discovery would only serve to refute the skeptics and critics who wrote those trashy novels about the life of Jesus.

So in other words, God was not capable of preserving His word throughout history, and we must all wait for “better” manuscripts which have not yet been discovered to see if we still have the word of God. This is no different from evolutionary thinking, that somehow new evidence will surface to discredit creation, and therefore Christian scientists must stay apprised of all of the archaeological finds of atheists because God forbid they find something that proves there really is no God. Most logical Christians do not need that kind of “evidence”, they believe by faith that there is an Intelligent Designer behind the creation of the universe. It’s too bad this logic doesn’t apply to most Christians when it comes to the preservation of the word of God that we are told to “preach in season and out of season”. We are expected to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” from a plethora of manuscripts that wicked scholars can’t even agree on to verify that we actually have the word of God.

And as Pinto pointed out, and as history attests, Tischendorf was granted quite a liberal audience and attention from not only the Pope of Rome, but many of the Pope’s minions. It doesn’t seem to bother Butler that the Pope would permit such welcome to a supposed Protestant “scholar” all the while burning Protestant “heretics” in the dungeons of Roman monasteries. Why were such exceptions extended to Tischendorf from the Roman Papacy that were CLEARLY not extended to any other Protestant minister?

Ironically, Butler attempts to prove Tischendorf was not “in league” with Rome by citing Rome’s oft attempts to erect a “wall” against Tischendorf’s efforts to peruse the manuscripts more thoroughly. Well then doesn’t that beg the question that if Tischendorf was never able to gain a full examination of the texts that the reliability of his own translations of the Codex should be questionable? The very fact that Codex Sinaiticus has Rome written all over it (in some MSSmss, quite LITERALLY with the Roman Imprimatur stamped on the pages) does not seem to make Butler or any other KJVO critic blink, but then neither does Butler’s own version of events claiming that Tischendorf’s manuscript translation is reliable while at the same time admitting that Tischendorf was not permitted a proper perusal of the underlying texts.

Butler proposes that a few scant quotes cited by James Bentley quoting Tischendorf prove his “orthodoxy”. Tischendorf has never published any clear indication that he was a born again Christian, and there are no clear writings extant of just exactly what his beliefs were which is quite odd for anyone claiming to be Protestant. As prolific a writer as Tischendorf was regarding the Codex, one would think he would have produced a clear treatise on his beliefs. Yet Butler relies on Bentley attempts to use a mere scintilla of quotes from Tischendorf which are no different from the professions of any modern Roman priest to prove Tischendorf was a believer. Butler in defending the “orthodoxy” of Tischendorf, offers only the following quote,

He was passionately determined to refute those who were destroying the faith of the Christian world. Many Christians desperately longed for such a refutation. In a pamphlet published in March 1864 Tischendorf wrote, ‘May my writing serve this end: to make you mistrust those novel theories upon the Gospels — or rather, againstthem — which would persuade you that the wonderful details which the Gospels give of our gracious Saviour are founded upon ignorance and deceit.’ [Bentley, 37]

What Catholic priest or even a Jehovah’s Witness would not claim that the Bible contains the “wonderful details which the Gospels give of our gracious Saviour”? Is this a full-proof evidence of fundamental Christian belief? Hardly. Note that Bentley asserts that “Many Christians desperately longed for such a refutation”. A refutation of what? If Tischendorf was a Protestant, then the only refutation “many Christians” were seeking for would be a refutation AGAINST ROME.  Butler claims that Tischendorf was an “evangelical apologist” with absolutely ZERO evidence for such an absurd claim. Tischendorf has absolutely no recorded documentation of refuting any of the heresies extant in his day and thus accordingly, none of these apologetic works are cited by Butler. The only “refutations” that were extant regarding textual evidences were Rome’s disdain over the Textus Receptus and King James Bible. Somehow, Tischendorf supposing to be a Protestant minister, questions the validity of the Protestant Bible from he would naturally have derived any of his Protestant beliefs, begins his search for the “better manuscripts” coincidentally at a CATHOLIC monestary? Also, something that Pinto nor any of his critics have observed, is that not only is it clear that Tischendorf altered the manuscripts, but that monks themselves could have done so in the 15 years between Tischendorf’s initial discoveries, and his return to the monastery on which he obtained the remaining manuscripts wrapped in red cloth. There is clear evidence that that which was wrapped in the red cloth was obtained from the pile of scraps that Tischendorf did not make off with. It begs the question as to why the monks burned any manuscripts at all, and had others wrapped in a red cloth only to remain stagnant and unutilized in a monastery. It is likely that the monks did not know what they were burning, but then once Tischendorf published his first discoveries, and knowing the reception and adulation it was given by the Pope, took the remaining copies, altered them, and then placed them in the red cloth expecting Tischendorf’s return.

Butler’s defense of Tischendorf is inadequate, defies logic and common sense, is often contradictory and often cites as evidence facts not only missing from his own articles but wholly absent from history. The real question is why skeptics such as Butler and White are so quick to vilify Chris Pinto and any other person defending the Textus Receptus or King James Bible over a video that was created that is not specifically in defense of the King James Bible (although Butler MUST paint this label on Pinto in order to classify him as a KJVO so that he can by proxy attach all of his other ridiculous anti- KJVO arguments against anyone that dares lift a hint of criticism against the venerable Tishcendorf, Westcott or Hort). Why go to such extreme lengths to defend such a shady history that follows Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort? Butler dances with sparklers that Pinto can not give absolute proof of a conspiracy, but neither can Butler nor those he cites offer any logical explanation as to why the Roman Catholic Church was so receptive to Tischendorf. Considering that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the involvement of Rome than against it, it certainly casts great doubt upon the credibility of Butler and his ilk in proffering such a vigorous defense of a “church” they claim to oppose.

I’ll offer my own “conspiracy theory”. Jesuits are known for joining the ranks of their enemies even to the tune of slandering their own religion (Catholics) if it means a greater victory in the long run. Critics like White and Butler will gladly quip “We debate Catholics so we couldn’t possibly be pro-Catholic” as evidence that they would not be likely candidates for Jesuit infiltrators. Their positions on the Catholic church while appearing to cast some of their doctrines in a negative light, are a far cry from labeling the Catholic church for what it really is: a beast from the horns of the dragon straight out of the pits of hell (Revelation 17), that has made every effort to destroy belief in the word of God as the inerrant and preserved revelation of God’s instructions to His church. Just as the Catholic church adopted the “if you can’t kill them [Christians] join them” and made Christianity the state religion of Rome, so too, has the Catholic church maintained that if they can’t destroy the Bible by burning it along with those who translated any anti-Vatican texts, they may as well “join” the legitimate copies of the Bible with amalgamations of corrupted texts, and encourage critics like Butler, White, Nestle, Aland, Norris, Kutilek, Carson, Bryce, Wallace, et al, to help promote their validity. If they are not somehow directly involved with the RCC, they are certainly guilty as co-conspirators in her treachery.

Perhaps Butler’s motivation is the promise of the latest Darth Vader action figure in a package signed by the Pope that he can add to his collection of Star Wars paraphernalia. How any supposed God-fearing Christian could have such adoration for  blatantly occultic Hollywood trash is bewildering.

Edited and Updated by Dr James A, PhD


* From The Forged Origins of the New Testament, Tony Bushby writes,

The revelations of ultraviolet light testing

In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and “few scholars had set eyes on it” (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as “the oldest Bible in the world” (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.

Before I summarize its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors.

Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex SinaiticusH. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).


Tischendorf’s first find contained 43 leaflets which he dubbed the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, in dedication to Frederick Augustus of Saxony, a Roman Catholic, married to a Roman Catholic, and buried at Katholische Hofkirche, a Roman Catholic cemetary.

Tischendorf also notes in his first chapter of “When Were Our Gospels Written” (1874) that,

At the same time, the committee of the Religious Tract Society of
Zwickau expressed a desire to circulate this pamphlet, provided it were
recast and adapted for popular use. Although I had many other
occupations, I could not but comply with their request, and without
delay applied myself to the task of revising the pamphlet. I was glad
of the opportunity of addressing in this way a class of readers whom my
former writings had not reached; for, as the real results of my
researches are destined to benefit the church at large, it is right
that the whole community should participate in those benefits.

This popular tract, in the shape in which I now publish it, lacks, I
admit, the simple and familiar style of the usual publications of the
Zwickau Society; but, in spite of this fault, which the very nature of
the subject renders inevitable, I venture to hope that it will be
generally understood. Its chief aim is to show that our inspired
gospels most certainly take their rise from apostolic times, and so to
enable the reader to take a short but clear view of one of the most
instructive and important epochs of the Christian church.

In sitting down to write a popular version of my pamphlet, the Zwickau
Society also expressed a wish that I should preface it with a short
account of my researches, and especially of the discovery of the
Sinaitic Codex, which naturally takes an important place

The “Zwickau prophets,” i.e., Nicholas Storch, Thomas Drechsel, and Mark Stübner, etc., claimed to be prophets of God and to have received revelations directly from God. They were leading an anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, spiritualistic attempt at communism and anarchy based on a view of taking the millennium by force as prophets. Thomas Münzer (1490–1525) was a radical figure in the Reformation who became a leader in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524–1525. From this man we get a clear window into all of his associates: