Steven Avery
Well-known member
Because, the reality is, the Codex Sinaiticus was "prepared apparently many centuries ago" and, for a fact, is "much injured by time".
Nope. It is in "phenomenally good condition", as Helen Shenton said.
Because, the reality is, the Codex Sinaiticus was "prepared apparently many centuries ago" and, for a fact, is "much injured by time".
Have a think about what idea Simonides was trying to convey/effect in people's mind's by writing the words "prepared apparently many centuries ago" and "much injured by time" (more than once)
Have the SART team made there own story?
Simonides (as far as I can find) didn't say he used newly grown, slaughtered, tanned parchment from hundreds of cattle and sheep from the 19th century.
As far as I can find, he/they said he/they used many centuries old, much injured by time pre-existing parchment.
Someone appears to have changed the story somewhere.
Who?, and when?
1. How do we get from a carefully-selected ancient materials story, to a newly grown and tanned (19th century) parchment story?
Questions about young Simonides attempt at murder.
Simonides' lemon juice story (and many other aspects), is simply an elaborate fabrication.
Nope. It is in "phenomenally good condition", as Helen Shenton said.
I only see those words in the section I quoted above.
Where did we say anything different?
The only problem above is your losing the context of "injured by time", which I made clear by giving you the full context.
Again, who claimed "newly grown..."?
So you don't claim it's a 19th century parchment?
Where do you say that?
You mean the "apparently" of Haris Kalligas that only appeared about 180 years after any incident, and about which you are hoping to get more info.
Greater context = in effect meaning "phenomenally good condition" for a manuscript of that age... for a fourth/fifth century parchment...
You are playing your silly reverse negative spin claim, an elementary fallacy.
You made the claim about what I said, you show my words, rather than ask me to find the negation.
Note, I showed you the section from Simonides above.
Nope. It is in "phenomenally good condition", as Helen Shenton said.
AND SHE DATES IT TO THE 4TH CENTURY!!!!Nope. It is in "phenomenally good condition", as Helen Shenton said.
AND SHE DATES IT TO THE 4TH CENTURY!!!!
YOU ARE MISREPRESENTING HER POSITION, AND YOU KNOW IT!!!!
HOW ABOUT SOME INTELLECTUAL HONESTY?!?!
Nope. It is in "phenomenally good condition", as Helen Shenton said.
You are playing your silly reverse negative spin claim, an elementary fallacy.
You made the claim about what I said, you show my words, rather than ask me to find the negation.
Note, I showed you the section from Simonides above.
I never said the parchment was 19th century. Never.What, your saying it's not a 19th century parchment
The official position of the British Library is that they own a precious 4th century ms. Helen Shelton is an official of the British Library.And in the greater/wider context of what she says overall, in what century does Helen Shenton say the Sinaiticus was produced? The 19th century?
Nope. It is in "phenomenally good condition", as Helen Shenton said.