Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides - was Simonides calligraphy skills good enough to forge the Codex Siniaticus?

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
If he saw Codex Sinaiticus -
Why did he make the codicology blunder?



One possibility, he was shown another manuscript, or a copy.

If you're prepared to give such criticism, you must be prepared to take it!

Shall we begin to enumerate your Greek paleographical blunders Mr Avery?

No. 1 You can't read Greek.

End of story.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
P.S. You can add the cheaper, shorter, single volume facsimile version released in 1862 to that list as well.
So, Simonides had four facsimile resources of the Codex Sinaiticus that he could have used to make his Uncial letters to Mr Bradshaw etc etc.

So you have dropped your argument that his uncial writing was a failure.
Smart move.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
If you're prepared to give such criticism, you must be prepared to take it!
Shall we begin to enumerate your Greek paleographical blunders Mr Avery?
No. 1 You can't read Greek.
This is your greatest qualification Mr Avery 👈😂🤣😆 and you have the gall to critique Mr Bradshaw???

Apparently, you want to dance around the Bradshaw Blunder.

Did you even read his false claim?
It was on the level of your Uranios misidentification, but worse since it may mean he never saw the actual manuscript.

Nobody could physically check it during the controversies, since no one in the 1863-64 controversies had access to the manuscript.

Yet they relied on his false supposed palaeographical wisdom!

=================================

Note:
1) Reading Greek has nothing to do with the Bradshaw Blunder.

2) When it is helpful, I confer with those skilled in Greek.

3) When I do make an error, I am appreciative for the correction.

=================================
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Apparently, you want to dance around the Bradshaw Blunder

He was unconvinced, just like us.

Did you even read his false claim?
It was on the level of your Uranios misidentification, but worse since it may mean he never saw the actual manuscript.

You haven't proved anything yet.

Note:
1) Reading Greek has nothing to do with the Bradshaw Blunder.

When it comes to reading letters written in Greek...the ability to read Greek is indispensible.

2) When it is helpful, I confer with those skilled in Greek.

No. You quote mine for confirmation bias contextomy snippets, and then miss-apply them.

3) When I do make an error, I am appreciative for the correction.

=================================

No. I love giving you the runaround. 😂
 

cjab

Well-known member
If he saw Codex Sinaiticus, then
why did Bradshaw make the codicology blunder?

(And create a false, bogus argument against the Athos Sinaiticus.)



One possibility, he was shown another manuscript, or a copy, by Tischendorf.

Beyond this blunder, his description is exceedingly sparse.
You haven't disproved Bradshaw. We need more evidence from you.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
You haven't disproved Bradshaw. We need more evidence from you.

Just read the description of Sinaiticus. It is all quaternions, each quire is 4 sheets = 16 pages. Thus when Tischendorf stole 43 leaves in 1844 is was 86 pages, five intact quires + 6 more pages.

There are two quires involving Revelation and Barnabas that are smaller quires, fewer leaves in each quire.
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Just read the description of Sinaiticus. It is all quaternions, each quire is 4 sheets = 16 pages. Thus when Tischendorf stole 43 leaves in 1844 is was 86 pages, five intact quires + 6 more pages.

There are two quires involving Revelation and Barnabas that are smaller quires, fewer leaves in each quire.
John's gospel ends at Quire 81, Folio 6v, and then Romans starts at Quire 82, Folio 1r.

So what you say is untrue. Looking at OT books, there seem to be continuous quaternions, at least between end of Isaiah and start of Jeremiah (is all I've looked at).
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
There are two quires involving Revelation and Barnabas that are smaller quires, fewer leaves in each quire.

Zachary J. Cole describes the Revelation-Barnabas anomaly, while affirming the Sinaiticus norm of quires of 4 sheets, 8 leaves, 16 pages.

Numerals in Early Greek New Testament Manuscripts: Text-Critical, Scribal, and Theological Studies (2017)
https://books.google.com/books?id=B8zQDgAAQBAJ&pg=PA89

Interestingly, this portion of Revelation in א contains an anomaly in quire formation, a feature that may be related to the sudden use of abbreviated ordinals. Whereas the typical quire in א comprises four sheets folded in half (thus comprising eight leaves), quire 90, which contains the end of Revelation and beginning of Barnabas (Rev 20:10-22:21 and Barn. 1:1-14:4), comprises only three sheets (thus comprising six leaves). Quire 91 immediately follows, which is merely a single sheet quire (comprising two leaves) that contains the ending of Barnabas. The reason for the irregularity in makeup of quires 90 and 91 is not obvious, and multiple explanations are possible.
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
John's gospel ends at Quire 81, Folio 6v, and then Romans starts at Quire 82, Folio 1r.
So what you say is untrue. Looking at OT books, there seem to be continuous quaternions, at least between end of Isaiah and start of Jeremiah (is all I've looked at).

Yes, a second anomaly, good catch.

Nazaroo (1957-2018) discusses that here.

Sinaiticus & Mark's Ending (Pt 11): Quire Structure - Synoptics
http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/2011/02/

An examination of the Quires by others has revealed the basic quire structure, and groupings of the folios. This is important, for it gives us important clues as to how the task of writing and compiling the NT was carried off.

The text was written quire by quire (in folded 8 folio sections). However, the planning was carried out on a larger scale, to calculate and provide just enough vellum (a very expensive material) for the task.

John was done separately, on two quires, beginning at the top of a new quire, and the second quire consisted of only three sheets (quire 81 has only 6 folios). The Collection of Paul's letters was begun also on a new quire (82-1), so we know that quire 81 probably never had 8 folios. (Paul follows John in Aleph. 1st Cor. begins immediately after Romans on folio 82-7 verso, column 3, showing that the letters were treated as a group and copied continuously in quires of 8).

However, Dirk Jongkind believes that the second John quire began as an 8-leaf quire.
And he nicely explains the basic structure, and the anomalies.

New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World (2006)
edited by Thomas J Kraus, Tobias Nicklas
One Codex, Three Scribes, and Many Books: Struggles with Space in Codex Sinaiticus
Dirk Jongkind
https://books.google.com/books?id=oxJYEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA122

The basic physical unit of the codex is the quaternion, a gathering or quire of four sheets folded together. Thus, each quire consists of four sheets and eight folios, what makes 16 pages.4 Assuming that Hernias was the last book included in the original codex, it must have contained around 95 quires, of which 50 survive almost completely. Not all the extant quires are regular. Three quires, which started their life as standard eight-folio quires, have their last one or two folios cut out, apparently because these were left blank.5 Three other quires have less folios, because they were formed by using only one, two or three sheets.6 Despite the occasional glitch, the original design of the codex has been consistently followed throughout.

1691360390384.png
 
Last edited:

cjab

Well-known member
Yes, a second anomaly, good catch.

Nazaroo (1957-2018) discusses that here.

Sinaiticus & Mark's Ending (Pt 11): Quire Structure - Synoptics
http://nazaroo.blogspot.com/2011/02/



However, Dirk Jongkind believes that the second John quire began as an 8-leaf quire.
And he nicely explains the basic structure, and the anomalies.

New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World (2006)
edited by Thomas J Kraus, Tobias Nicklas
One Codex, Three Scribes, and Many Books: Struggles with Space in Codex Sinaiticus
Dirk Jongkind
https://books.google.com/books?id=oxJYEAAAQBAJ&pg=PA122
So you deliberately disparaged Bradshaw, knowing perfectly well that what he said was true.

Shows your real character.

Jongkind identifies 6 incomplete quires. I have seen the same:


At the end of 1 Maccacbees
At the end of Malachai
At the end of John
At the end of Revelation
At the end of Barnabas
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
So you deliberately disparaged Bradshaw, knowing perfectly well that what he said was true.

Bradshaw was wrong, since dozens of quires are identical 8-leaf quires.
Consistent, against his false claim.

And this is not an argument against Athos production, and that idea was disparaged by Scrivener-Miller.

Dirk Jongkind
“The basic physical unit of the codex is the quaternion, a gathering or quire of four sheets folded together. Thus, each quire consists of four sheets and eight folios, what makes 16 pages.”

However, I did not have the full count till the quotes posted yesterday.
So your fake mind-reading is discarded as typical contra posturing.

Here you can see how Alexandrinus was seen as having variable quires in 22 spots.

A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands (2014)
William Andrew Smith
https://books.google.com/books?id=pWHPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA89

1691390154687.png
So obviously the Sinaiticus arrangement is far more akin to Bezae than Alexandrinus. Alexandrinus is a complex mess. :)
The Bradshaw quote remains wrong on both elements.

Note that nobody has tried to justify the Bradshaw palaeographical argument against the Athos production of Sinaiticus at any time in the next 160 years.

And note that Bradshaw gave no actual real, solid arguments.
What we have is all "intuition" and a fake, deceptive, fraudulent codicology claim.

I had been anxious to know whether it was written in even continuous quaternions throughout, like the Codex Beza:, or in a series of fasciculi each ending with a quire of varying size, as the Codex Alexandrinus, and I found the latter to be the case. This, by-the-by, is of itself sufficient to prove that it cannot be the volume which Dr Simonides speaks of having written at Mount Athos. "

We can also conclude that it was unlikely that he saw any 1844 CFA leaves in the vicinity of the darker, stained 1859 pages.
Worthless.

Bradshaw
https://books.google.com/books?id=j-u5AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA95
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 a kind of instinct than anything else.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Well-known member
And this note from the other thread helps unravel the 1860s weak argumentation:
(Small changes below.)

Part of the problem in the English controversies was that the Mayer papyri issues got mixed up with the Sinaiticus authenticity and antiquity issues.

Psychologically, it was very hard to take the true position:

1) the Mayer papyri looks inauthentic, Simonides fits as "orange man bad"

2) Sinaiticus is a new manuscript, done on Mt. Athos, as Simonides said. Expose the Tischendorf con. Maybe even Simonides tried to show it as old in Constantinople and Antigonus.

The truth might create angst, and be perceived as cognitive dissonance, in today’s lingo,

The “rush to judgment”, without an objective palaeographic analysis, let Tischendorf duck the 1863 English trip.

So they should have simply waited.

Have Tischendorf come over with the manuscript.
Or at least five leafs from Leipzig (include the colophons and the three crosses note),and five from St. Petersburg.
Put Tischendorf up in a nice hotel for a week, courtesy of the Royal Society. See if he likes Cornish pastry and fish ‘n chips.

Maybe Uspensky would have blown the whistle a bit earlier, that it is definitely not an old manuscript, no gray hair, no wrinkles. Burgon and Scrivener would surely see that truth. Tregelles could see he was Tischen-duped. Simonides would be vindicated, but only on this one point.

The controversy would have been over in a day.
Bye, bye Sinaiticus.
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Bradshaw was wrong, since dozens of quires are identical 8-leaf quires.
Consistent, against his false claim.

And this is not an argument against Athos production, and that idea was disparaged by Scrivener-Miller.

Dirk Jongkind


However, I did not have the full count till the quotes posted yesterday.
So your fake mind-reading is discarded as typical contra posturing.

Here you can see how Alexandrinus was seen as having variable quires in 22 spots.

A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands (2014)
William Andrew Smith
https://books.google.com/books?id=pWHPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA89

View attachment 4616
So obviously the Sinaiticus arrangement is far more akin to Bezae than Alexandrinus. Alexandrinus is a complex mess. :)
The Bradshaw quote remains wrong on both elements.

Note that nobody has tried to justify the Bradshaw palaeographical argument against the Athos production of Sinaiticus at any time in the next 160 years.

And note that Bradshaw gave no actual real, solid arguments.
What we have is all "intuition" and a fake, deceptive, fraudulent codicology claim.



We can also conclude that it was unlikely that he saw any 1844 CFA leaves in the vicinity of the darker, stained 1859 pages.
Worthless.

Bradshaw
https://books.google.com/books?id=j-u5AAAAIAAJ&pg=PA95

Do both Smith and Jonkind's modern study's include the 1975 New Finds parchments?

Do they include Uspenky's (and the Society of Lovers of Ancient in St. Petersburg) parchment fragments?

In other words, parts of the manuscript Bradshaw didn't, and couldn't have had access to?
 

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Perhaps if we were to dig up some statements and erroneous assertions from you circa 2011, in other words in the early stages of your research, do think that would be fair to harp on it and inflate them sky high? And say: AH HA! ...
What do you think Mr Avery? Is that fair by your standards Mr Avery?

Has it occurred to you, that's exactly what you're doing with Bradshaw's early assertions (right or wrong) in the early stage of the English newspaper controversies?

What if he (now dead and incapable of doing anything) had spent over a decade researching the Codex Sinaiticus and Simonides claims day and night like you ... do you think he might have said some things differently to what he did in 1862, in the more mature stages of his research?

Shall we drag up your early blunderamas? And judge you by the same standards?
 
Last edited:

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Nonetheless...

Whatever scribble Simonides scrawled out...

The overall end result was = Bradshaw was un-convinced!

Simonides Uncial script (whether good or bad) FAILED to convince!

Simonides reminds me of some lyrics from a song!

"Have you heard about the lonesome looser .. he's a looser, but he still keeps on trying..." (Little River Band)
 

Steven Avery

Well-known member
Do both Smith and Jonkind's modern study's include the 1975 New Finds parchments?

In other words, parts of the manuscript Bradshaw didn't, and couldn't have had access to?

The Hermas fragments from the New Finds have a question number by their quire # 90+? And say the expected number is 95. So no real help.

Afaik, the other fragments you mention have no quire numbers, being inside parts of the page.
 
Top