Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
After closer scrutiny on my part, it appears (which I qualify with TMPK) that Tischendorf's literal German is in fact more consistent with the overall story of Tischendorf's discovery in that particular phrase you pick fault with "mouldered by time" compared to whoever and what the English translator put...
Click to expand...

So are you abandoning the idea of an alternate translation of the phrase?

It’s fine if that idea was wrong, it’s also fine if the phrase is not found in any source. Although the 4th German edition should be checked, if possible, since it would be quirky for the English translators to simply put the words in without any source.

It just would be helpful if you were not such a trickster.
 
Steven Avery said:
I don't think there was an event that you would call a "CSP cleaning".

Gavin was talking about a cleaning in Leipzig when the ms. was disbound.
This was a little vague, but by full context it seems like an early time.
And he thought it would only be a brush, mechanical cleaning.

Also, as Gavin Moorhead points out, conservation documentation is relatively a modern idea, later 20th century.

Leipzig does not like to respond substantively.
Click to expand...

Be transparent and honest.

Publish, please, the full and unedited contents of the email exchange you had with Gavin Morehead and/or anyone else you inquired of about the Leipzig leaves "cleaning"!
 
Stanley Porter's English reprint is using a later edition, that does not really help if he is just copying the English text, but he might know about the German editions.

Constantine Tischendorf : the life and work of a 19th century Bible hunter, including Constantine Tischendorf's When were our Gospels Written
https://books.google.com/books?id=PA6dBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA90

On the other hand, on a more popular front, he undertook the examination of some of the theories of origins of early Christianity, and responded directly to their arguments. His booklet, When Were Our Gospels Written?, addresses both of these issues, especially the latter.196 However, this booklet in its English edition (not until the third German edition) also includes the well-known yet still thrilling story of his discovery of the Sinai Codex of the Old and New testaments. In fact, Tischendorf begins his short pamphlet with his account of the manuscript.

196 - 1 cite the pages of When Were Our Gospels Written? in the original edition and the edition reprinted in this volume within parentheses in the text.
Click to expand...

https://books.google.com/books?id=PA6dBQAAQBAJ&pg=PA123

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, 1844,1 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 these, mouldered by time, had been already committed
to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers
Click to expand...
 
cjab said:
It is to Daniels discredit that he goes way beyond Simonides' account to imagine that the entire book and every quire was completely disbound by Simonides. It shows the extent to which the votaries of Simonides apologize for him.
Click to expand...

The key issue is that the covers were definitely off, you thought they were writing into the bound book, covers on!
The discredit is all yours.

We missed this:

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ybYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA249

"...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."

Who Faked the "World’s Oldest Bible"? (2021)
By David W. Daniels
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ap83EAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA17

1704341655888.png

Bye, bye Bradshaw.
 
Last edited:
Steven Avery said:
The key issue is that the covers were definitely off, you thought they were writing into the bound book, covers on!
The discredit is all yours.
Click to expand...
I never thought that for a moment. I was always fully aware that the covers were off. Taking the covers off a book is not the same as disbinding it.

Steven Avery said:
We missed this:

Journal of Sacred Literature (1863)
https://books.google.com/books?id=ybYRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PA249

"...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."

Who Faked the "World’s Oldest Bible"? (2021)
By David W. Daniels
https://books.google.com/books?id=Ap83EAAAQBAJ&pg=RA1-PA17

View attachment 5393

Bye, bye Bradshaw.
Click to expand...
You haven't touched on Bradshaw's argument. There is no evidence Simonides had the book rebound. Rather he had it recovered, and that is why Bradshaw's argument remains intact.
 
cjab said:
There is no evidence Simonides had the book rebound.
Click to expand...

The "binding" is nothing more than stitched sewing, as David showed in Who Faked the "World's Oldest Bible"?

It is easy to snip strings and work quire by quire. There's no glue like modern bindings. You might be confused by familiarity with modern glued book bindings.
 
Steven Avery said:
The "binding" is nothing more than stitched sewing, as David showed in Who Faked the "World's Oldest Bible"?

It is easy to snip strings and work quire by quire. There's no glue like modern bindings. You might be confused by familiarity with modern glued book bindings.
Click to expand...
Why would you want to do that? It never entered into Simonides head to do that. As long as you can lay the paper flat, no need to disbind.
 
cjab said:
Why would you want to do that? It never entered into Simonides head to do that. As long as you can lay the paper flat, no need to disbind.
Click to expand...

I'm glad to see you thinking about how Simonides was involved in the project!

Writing in the middle of a huge book of dozens of quires is absurd.
The pages will be smudged and damaged as you work your way around.

Here is how David expressed the need to disbound the quires.

It is BIG - if it were a book, an average person would be climbing over the bottom edge to write on the top, unless it were written on a tilted easel-like holder. But again, the gutter and other problems make it absurd. And monks generally have all the time in the world. So they would take the time to unbind a bound book and do the job the right way. They are not urban, pressured, time-sensitive people like us.
 
Steven Avery said:
I'm glad to see you thinking about how Simonides was involved in the project!

Writing in the middle of a huge book of dozens of quires is absurd.
The pages will be smudged and damaged as you work your way around.

Here is how David expressed the need to disbound the quires.

It is BIG - if it were a book, an average person would be climbing over the bottom edge to write on the top, unless it were written on a tilted easel-like holder. But again, the gutter and other problems make it absurd. And monks generally have all the time in the world. So they would take the time to unbind a bound book and do the job the right way. They are not urban, pressured, time-sensitive people like us.
Click to expand...
Presumably the individual quires would separate when the book is disbound. So the proposition is that one quire at a time would be worked on, without the quire being unbound. That was what Simonides was imagining when he conjectured his fable. There is nothing about unbinding the quires in it. That is Daniel's invention.
 
cjab said:
Presumably the individual quires would separate when the book is disbound. So the proposition is that one quire at a time would be worked on, without the quire being unbound. That was what Simonides was imagining when he conjectured his fable. There is nothing about unbinding the quires in it. That is Daniel's invention.
Click to expand...

According to Simonides description in his story (as contrasted to yours) it consisted of:

  • Brand new wooden coverings
  • Brand new leather coverings over the wooden covers
  • Brand new gold binding
  • Brand new string/cord stitchings (presumably)
  • Brand new stitching holes (presumably)
  • Brand new glue (presumably)
  • A dedication to Tzar 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

See link below for details

https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...ption-of-the-original-codex-simonideos.15686/
 
According to Simonides description, in his story (as contrasted to and differentiated from your story Mr Avery), it consisted of at least the following elements:

  • Brand new wooden coverings
  • Brand new leather coverings over the wooden covers
  • Brand new gold binding
  • Brand new string/cord stitchings (presumably)
  • Brand new stitching holes (presumably)
  • Brand new glue (presumably)
  • A dedication to Tzar 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

See link below for details

https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...ption-of-the-original-codex-simonideos.15686/

How easy, and how long would it take for Tischendorf to carefully undo the glue? What method would he likely use to undo the glue, dry it in time, restitch the strings, then put it back together?

According to Simonides story...not yours... according to the Simonides and phantom Kallinikos story how long exactly was Tischendorf framed as taking (according to their time-line) for the vandalism?

Not even mentioning of course, the time issues involved with the alleged "lemon juice" "tobacco juice" wetting and drying etc.

NOTE READERS: we are not asking Steven for a list of possibilities, but what was actually written by Simonides and the phantom Kallinikos about the time-frame allotted for the Tischendorf's (not anyone else's) alleged vandalism and staining.
 
Steven Avery said:
It is easy to snip strings and work quire by quire.
Click to expand...

You haven't snipped a single parchment stitching (ancient or modern) in your entire life.

It's impossible for a bluffing pretender like you to truly know if it was easy "to snip the strings and work quire by quire" or not...

Steven Avery said:
There's no glue like modern bindings.
Click to expand...

How do you know?

The state of the manuscript delivered to the British Museum, for instance, in 1933, was described in this way:

"a bundle of loose leaves and quires, held together mainly by glue liberally applied to the back by some particularly inexpert binder of the Middle Ages." (The Collected Biblical Writings of T. C. Skeat, Subheading "The Binders Triumph", Page 110)
 
A comparison of the 1840's-1850's-1860's first photographs taken of the manuscript with Kirsopp Lake's photos etc...

Would be very interesting for all parties involved! ?
 
A comparison of the 1840's-1850's-1860's first photographs taken of the manuscript for Tischendorf's first facsimiles, with Kirsopp Lake's photos etc etc etc...

Would be very interesting for all parties involved! ?

I'm curious about Avery's near silence on his and the S.A.R.T. teams historical efforts to obtain access to these images in some shape or form...

I would have thought this would have been one of the first ports of call, especially in a controversy over the CSP's photography!

Hmmm
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
You haven't snipped a single parchment stitching (ancient or modern) in your entire life.
It's impossible for a bluffing pretender like you to truly know if it was easy "to snip the strings and work quire by quire" or not...
Click to expand...

David Daniels of the SART team has done lots of publishing, and I have some more material from him that can be placed on this thread.
 
TwoNoteableCorruptions said:
"a bundle of loose leaves and quires, held together mainly by glue liberally applied to the back by some particularly inexpert binder of the Middle Ages." (The Collected Biblical Writings of T. C. Skeat, Subheading "The Binders Triumph", Page 110)
Click to expand...

Do you have any reports of glue on the 1844 leaves that went to Leipzig?

The evidence is strong that intact quires were removed from the codex.

There were lots of possibilities to mess around with the manuscript from 1844 to 1933.
Tischendorf worked quire by quire in Cairo with his two German friends.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top