Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides : parchment color differences

[Steven Avery]

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 are stuck in the same error, from a different angle.

Now you realize that the scribes would not write inside a bound book.
Very good. You made some headway.

Now you say they would not modify any 8-leaf qurires, many already modified by discards, because of relying on the monastery book binders, their friends right by them who they saw every day, for the actual sewing and quire adjustments.

Your claim make no sense at all. If they needed a smaller quire to finish Barnabas, knowing Hermas was a separate production, they simply worked together to do it as a 2-leaf quire. They did not have to send it to London or Odessa to make the adjustment.

You are down-classed by trying to rescue the Bradshaw error.

When David W. Daniels knows a topic well, from personal experience and extra study, I am very happy to utilize his expertise.

Additional examples:

Notice how David Daniels published the Benedict/Bissarion history before the recent excellent Greek historian.

Notice how David Daniels described the five intact quires of the 1843 heist before … any Sinaiticus writer in the world!

Find one Sinaiticus writer, before David W. Daniels, that even informs their readers that 40 of the 43 leaves stolen in 1844 were from five full, intact quires.

Tischendorf? Scrivener? Gregory? Lake? Milne-Skeat? British Museum? Leipzig University Library? Jongkind? Parker?
Anybody?

Fundamental data.

Or Bradshaw. Or Tregelles. Or Swete. Or Kenyon. Or Amy Myshrall. Or Dan Batovici. or Ken Penner. Or Kevin McGrane (who at least was very suspicious of the Tisch cover story fabrication.) Or many others.

You prefer ignorance on many topics where David has the superb craftsmanship.

 

[Steven Avery]

Or Metzger. Or Ehrman. Or the CSP. Or the Hendrickson book. Or IDAP. Or the Library of Stains Project. Or Scot McKendrick. Or Alexander Schlick. Or Stanley Porter. Or Hugh Houghton. Or Daniel Wallace. Or Tommy Wasserman. Or Ulrich Schmid. Or Christfried Bottrich. Or Peter Head. Or Peter Myers. Or Peter Malik. Or Timothy N. Mitchell. Or Juan Hernandez. Or Patrick Andrist. Or Rene Larsen. Or Brent Nongbri. Or James White. Or Elijah Hixson. Or James Snapp.

Or many others.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

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

Didn't answer the question.

Didn't, and still haven't provided a shred SHRED of evidence (i.e. peer reviewed scientific studies = real science not old wives tales from liars like Simonides) that lemon juice actually makes parchment turn a yellow colour or a yellow-ish colour?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

artificially yellowed by age?

You still haven't disambiguated your meaning of this phrase.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

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.

Post David Daniel's photos.??

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

relying on the monastery book binders,

How, and when, did Tischendorf bind Sinaiticus fragments inside a book in Cairo, which Uspenky found?

 

[cjab]

You are stuck in the same error, from a different angle.

Now you realize that the scribes would not write inside a bound book.
Very good. You made some headway.

I made no such admission. Simonides said he wrote in a book from which he had removed the covers.

Now you say they would not modify any 8-leaf qurires, many already modified by discards, because of relying on the monastery book binders, their friends right by them who they saw every day, for the actual sewing and quire adjustments.

Simonides would not have modified any of the 8-leaf quires for the sake of it. There is no evidence that "many were modified by discards" - Simonides only mentions a few leaves that were discarded because they were moulded by time; but if you look at the reduced quires in Sinaiticus, none of those quires are "moulded by time."

In fact none of the quires had been moulded when it was first written - the state of the moulded quires are perfectly inexplicable if a date of 1840 is postulated.

Your claim make no sense at all. If they needed a smaller quire to finish Barnabas, knowing Hermas was a separate production, they simply worked together to do it as a 2-leaf quire. They did not have to send it to London or Odessa to make the adjustment.

The NT and OT were one production.

You are down-classed by trying to rescue the Bradshaw error.

When David W. Daniels knows a topic well, from personal experience and extra study, I am very happy to utilize his expertise.

Additional examples:

Notice how David Daniels published the Benedict/Bissarion history before the recent excellent Greek historian.

Notice how David Daniels described the five intact quires of the 1843 heist before … any Sinaiticus writer in the world!


Or Bradshaw. Or Tregelles. Or Swete. Or Kenyon. Or Amy Myshrall. Or Dan Batovici. or Ken Penner. Or Kevin McGrane (who at least was very suspicious of the Tisch cover story fabrication.) Or many others.

You prefer ignorance on many topics where David has the superb craftsmanship.

So you idolize David Daniels? Don't you know he's in it for the money, not for the truth?

Nothing he says has the least impact on anything said by Bradshaw. Both you and Daniels were always faced with insurmountable problems in explaining how the quire structure of Sinaiticus came to be in its present form if, as Simonides says, the quires had been previously bound into a book.

It is just one of many areas when Simonides' ingenuity failed him. Sinaiticus was far too complex to fake. Simonides was way out of his depth - and he hadn't even seen the document when he alleged he wrote it, so his story never had a hope of being credible from inception.

Another error was his use of the fake Kallinikos that was never known in Egypt (apart from one who disowned Simonides). When even his friends began to smell a rat, and began to suspect that the publication of his "autograph" in 1853 in Odessa/Moscow had been faked, he just decamped from England and moved to Egypt.

 

[Steven Avery]

In fact none of the quires had been moulded when it was first written - the state of the moulded quires are perfectly inexplicable if a date of 1840 is postulated.

Putting aside New Finds fragments, which had 120+ yeats in terrible conditions before 1975, or special pages like the washed-out Judith page, which quires are moulded by time?

Specific quire numbers.

 

[Steven Avery]

The NT and OT were one production.

Above I was talking about Barnabas and Hermas. Neither is New Testament. The evidence is that Barnabas was ended without trying to go directly into Hermas, as they were done separately. The fact that it was “one production” does not explain the 2-quire Barnabas ending quire.

 

[Steven Avery]

So you idolize David Daniels? Don't you know he's in it for the money, not for the truth?

Here you are simply lying on all three points, and showing your irrationality.

Remember, David Daniels shows many truths about Sinaiticus missed or ignored by dozens of earlier writers, who left you in the dark. You never read his two books, you are ignorant, so your response is to lash out wildly and falsely, as an accuser of the brethren. His Sinaiticus studies have an intense labour of love for truth, of incredible integrity.

2 Corinthians 13:5 (AV)
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith;
prove your own selves.
Know ye not your own selves,
how that Jesus Christ is in you,
except ye be reprobates?

 

[Steven Avery]

I made no such admission. Simonides said he wrote in a book from which he had removed the covers.

Make up your mind. if you really believe absurdly that Simonides was claiming to write into a non-level bound book (that had already been carefully pre-lined horizontally and vertically) then your statement that it was because he was “relying on the monastery book-binders” makes no sense. Those monastery sewers and binders were immediately available for any day-by-day quire tweaks, such as the two-quire Barnabas ending.

 

[Steven Avery]

Both you and Daniels were always faced with insurmountable problems in explaining how the quire structure of Sinaiticus came to be in its present form if, as Simonides says, the quires had been previously bound into a book.

No problem at all. The quires were removed from the book for writing. The calligraphist way to have a level surface. David Daniels even gave you an “artist’s conception” picture that you had missed.

 

[Steven Avery]

… the fake Kallinikos that was never known in Egypt (apart from one who disowned Simonides).

So the Patriach Kallinikos of Alexandria was unknown in Egypt?
Hmmmmmm

 

[Steven Avery]

Sinaiticus was far too complex to fake. Simonides was way out of his depth

There are elements of truth here.

!) the condition of the parchment and ink betrays any claim by anybody that it was 1500 years old when “discovered”

2) the 1000s of errors, bumbling itacisms and orthography, double section, lines missed, peg it as modern scribes unfamiliar with the Biblical Greek, in over their head, out of their depth

3) there was no way to fake provenance. Adding colophons is too well-known a trick.

 

[Steven Avery]

he just decamped from England and moved to Egypt.

And ended up in the Land of Tischendorf and Sinaiticus, St. Petersburg, working on Russian historical documents.

Sounds like a quid pro quo.

Anyway, we should know a lot more about the 1864 period when we see the letter being held in Australia from Simonides to Hodgkin.

 

[cjab]

And ended up in the Land of Tischendorf and Sinaiticus, St. Petersburg, working on Russian historical documents.

Simonides was a proven liar. Why would the Russian state have employed him?

Sounds like a quid pro quo.

Anyway, we should know a lot more about the 1864 period when we see the letter being held in Australia from Simonides to Hodgkin.

Who cares.

 

[cjab]

So the Patriach Kallinikos of Alexandria was unknown in Egypt?
Hmmmmmm

I said "apart from one who disowned Simonides."

 

[cjab]

Make up your mind. if you really believe absurdly that Simonides was claiming to write into a non-level bound book (that had already been carefully pre-lined horizontally and vertically) then your statement that it was because he was “relying on the monastery book-binders” makes no sense. Those monastery sewers and binders were immediately available for any day-by-day quire tweaks, such as the two-quire Barnabas ending.

You're wasting everyone's time here. You've got nothing to say except to fabricate Daniels-style. No scholar credits Daniels. Never seen him referenced in any work. Why do you credit him?

 

[Steven Avery]

Who cares.

People like David Daniels, and myself, who care about the truth of the Sinaiticus history.

Even TNC understood the significance.

 

[cjab]

Here you are simply lying on all three points, and showing your irrationality.

Remember, David Daniels shows many truths about Sinaiticus missed or ignored by dozens of earlier writers, who left you in the dark. You never read his two books, you are ignorant, so your response is to lash out wildly and falsely, as an accuser of the brethren. His Sinaiticus studies have an intense labour of love for truth, of incredible integrity.

2 Corinthians 13:5 (AV)
Examine yourselves, whether ye be in the faith;
prove your own selves.
Know ye not your own selves,
how that Jesus Christ is in you,
except ye be reprobates?

I've no doubt that most conspiracy theorists are unsaved. You and Daniels aren't exceptions.