Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides : parchment color differences

Steven Avery said:
You flunked terribly on Simonides with your phony claim that Sinaiticus was written into a bound book, per Simonides. You even hilariously switched out of to into, hoping I would not notice. Oops!

If you had read David’s book you could have avoided the blunder.
Click to expand...
I read Simonides own testament, and I made no blunder. The blunder is all yours.
 
Steven Avery said:
And this was Bradshaw's ONLY palaeographical argument.
Click to expand...

It was his only argument, whether you call it palaeographical, or codicological or whatever.

It wasn’t even an argument for Sinaiticus being old. It did not touch on the phenomenally good condition, and did not compare the CFA to the Russian colouring and staining.

It was only a failed attempt to poke a hole in one part of the Simonides Sinaiticus history.

The Bradshaw testimony ends up below worthless.

Again, they did not like the Mayer papyri, so they never properly examined Sinaiticus.
 
Steven Avery said:
, thinking that Simonides talked of writing into a bound book.
Click to expand...
No, it's what Simonides clearly said - and he was so clear about it, he even referred to the book covers and their having been replaced at the book binders. He would have known the Codex Alexandrinus was bound. He says NOTHING about rebinding the quires.

Bradshaw wins. You lose. What penalty will divine justice impose on you, for you being wrong?

".....very bulky volume, antiquely bound, and almost entirely blank parchment"

"I therefore took possession of this book, and prepared it by taking out
the leaf containing the discourse, and by removing several others injured by
time and moths, after which I began my task. First, I copied out the Old
and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of the
pastoral writings of Hermas in capital letters (or uncial characters) in the
style known in calligraphy as άμφιδέξιος (amphidexios). The trancription of
the remaining Apostolic writings, however, I declined, because the supply
of parchment ran short, and the severe loss which I sustained in the death
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."
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
It was his only argument, whether you call it palaeographical, or codicological or whatever.

It wasn’t even an argument for Sinaiticus being old. It did not touch on the phenomenally good condition, and did not compare the CFA to the Russian colouring and staining.

It was only a failed attempt to poke a hole in one part of the Simonides Sinaiticus history.

The Bradshaw testimony ends up below worthless.

Again, they did not like the Mayer papyri, so they never properly examined Sinaiticus.
Click to expand...
Just fabrication and propaganda - which is all you're good at.
 
This thread is about parchment colour differences.

Notice the colour difference between the CodexSinaiticus.org photos' compared with the National Library of Russia's photos of the exact same text.

CodexSinaiticus.org
Tab: See The Manuscript
Genesis, 23:19 - 24:20 library: NLR folio: Greek 259 and 2 = CSRU F1 and F5 scribe: D

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...&book=1&chapter=24&lid=en&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Cap 4 (1).png

Cap 4c (1).png


National Library of Russia
The Codex Sinaiticus and the Manuscripts of Mt Sinai in the collections of the National Library of Russia

https://expositions.nlr.ru/eng/ex_manus/CodexSinaiticus/cs1.php

Cap 1a (1).png


Cap 1.PNG



​
Now note the colour, lighting, shading differences between the photos taken by the two institutions at different times, under different lighting conditions.



CodexSinaiticus.org on the left below, National Library of Russia on the right below

Cap 4b (1).png

CodexSinaiticus.org on the left below, National Library of Russia on the right below

Cap 3b (1).png



Same parchment, same text etc.

The colour differences have nothing to do with Tischendorf. He's long dead.

Is this not the exact same colour difference phenomena seen in David Daniels conspiracy book?

​
 
cjab said:
No, it's what Simonides clearly said - and he was so clear about it, he even referred to the book covers and their having been replaced at the book binders. He would have known the Codex Alexandrinus was bound. He says NOTHING about rebinding the quires.

Bradshaw wins. You lose. What penalty will divine justice impose on you, for you being wrong?

".....very bulky volume, antiquely bound, and almost entirely blank parchment"

"I therefore took possession of this book, and prepared it by taking out
the leaf containing the discourse, and by removing several others injured by
time and moths, after which I began my task. First, I copied out the Old
and New Testaments, then the Epistle of Barnabas, the first part of the
pastoral writings of Hermas in capital letters (or uncial characters) in the
style known in calligraphy as άμφιδέξιος (amphidexios). The trancription of
the remaining Apostolic writings, however, I declined, because the supply
of parchment ran short, and the severe loss which I sustained in the death
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."
Click to expand...

See further details that confirm and expand on Cjab's point below at this link.

Simonides (according to his own accounts) parchment codex consisted of at least:

  • Brand new wooden coverings
  • Brand new leather coverings over the wooden covers
  • Brand new gold binding
  • Brand new string/cord stitching's (presumably)
  • Brand new stitching holes (presumably)
  • Brand new glue (presumably)
  • A dedication to Tsar Nicholas the 1st of Russia prefixed to the manuscript
  • Dedication written in gold characters
  • Written according to the ancient form, in capital letters (in Simonides usual and customary forgers Uncial Greek handwriting)
  • Letters (presumably large?) intended to be illuminated, marked in many places
  • Written on parchment
  • A COPY OF the Old & New Testaments

The above list is not comprehensive either.
 
cjab said:
No, it's what Simonides clearly said - and he was so clear about it, he even referred to the book covers and their having been replaced at the book binders. He would have known the Codex Alexandrinus was bound. He says NOTHING about rebinding the quires.
Click to expand...

Everyone knows you do not write a lined text into an uneven bulky bound volume.
Except you, and possibly Bradshaw.

Calligraphy and Codicology 101 .

And the book covers being replaced was simply a part of the process.

=========

Any sewing and rebinding of quires would not be the job of Simonides.

=========

And I have no idea the relevance of your Codex Alexandrinus mind-reading analysis struggle. The Alexandrinus OT and Apoc were available in editions from Grabe, Breitlinger and Zosima, each with its own quirks. The NT was available in the Wood edition.

There was no need to use the manuscript, or ever to have seen Alexandrinus.

You seem to have interpretative difficulties on all sides.

=========
 
Last edited:
And how can your picture albums be taken seriously, when you never corrected the Uranios-Hermas misidentification, which graduated to the level of blunder?
 
You still haven't given any peer reviewed scientific studies that show conclusively lemon juice makes parchment turn a yellow or yellow-ish colour?

Not a shred.

Remember, we're not talking about post-1800 paper, or ancient or modern papyri here. We're talking about parchment.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
You still haven't given any peer reviewed scientific studies that show conclusively lemon juice makes parchment turn a yellow or yellow-ish colour?
Not a shred. Remember, we're not talking about post-1800 paper, or ancient or modern papyri here. We're talking about parchment.
Click to expand...

1) maybe diluted lemon-juice, herbs, tobacco-water, tea or coffee

2) most folks working on artificially distressing their works for forgery purposes are not anxious to explain their techniques to the world in scientific papers
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
What's different about my screen shots and David Daniel's?
Give the details.
Click to expand...

You claimed they were the "exact same color difference".

So which picture is equivalent to the Leipzig pages and which one is equivalent to the Brit pages.

Nothing is clear, you throw a bunch of pictures up and hope that there will be enough confusion to let you scamper away as if you had shown something. Then you play games. All similar to your Uranios blunder, where you never acknowledged your error.

And do they both have color charts? I showed the claim of Elijah Hixson to be absurd using the chart, with the pictures he omitted.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
You exposed your blunder by the pronoun swap/flip.
Busted!
Click to expand...
Unlike you, who parrots Daniels, I don't parrot anyone.

Simonides made it clear that book binding wasn't his occupation. In relying only on the monastery book binders, it is obvious that Simonides was using the quire structure of the existing book.

Your're well and truly outclassed by Bradshaw.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top