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

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
You don't appear to know what Bradshaw was talking about.

Why not take some time out to say what Bradshaw meant on a technical level, before you accuse him of being wrong?

Let me re-iterate, Bradshaw is only referring to the method of binding quires into fasciculi.
 
And I appreciate your efforts on this question.
And you gave no time to it?

Now, where do we find the fasciculi analysis of Alexandrinus?
Well, that is going to be problematic, as it hasn't been digitized and I'm not particularly interested. However if you can find a prolegomena, it might tell you,

But as you can see, there being many quires of varying sizes in Alexandrinus shows that Bradshaw's analysis is most likely correct: it is very likely that the fasciculi of Alexandrinus ended in quires of varying numbers of folios.

Why not adduce evidence to contradict him, if you believe him to be wrong?
 
But as you can see, there being many quires of varying sizes in Alexandrinus shows that Bradshaw's analysis is most likely correct: it is very likely that the fasciculi of Alexandrinus ended in quires of varying numbers of folios.

Possibly.

And nobody has actually shown fasciculi in Sinaiticus.
If they were there, were they dismembered by Tischendorf? Why?

Most important, this was his one palaeographic argument for Sinaiticus not being done in Athos, and it is a total dud.
 
On Uranios, what proof would you like short of delivering the Hermas palimpsest page from Vienna, Austria to your home or office?

You still haven't shown from the ONB website itself which Hermas you claim the palimpsest is, or whether this is a writing by a Hermas (which one???) at all.

Plus, you haven't shown from the writing's or works of Simonides himself which specific palimpsest and writer/writing you are claiming this manuscript is.
 
Last edited:
Possibly.

And nobody has actually shown fasciculi in Sinaiticus.
If they were there, were they dismembered by Tischendorf? Why?

Most important, this was his one palaeographic argument for Sinaiticus not being done in Athos, and it is a total dud.
There wouldn't be any other reason for ending a biblical book with a shortened quire other than to form a fasciculi. But far from the argument being a total dud, it is your objection that is dud, because whether Sinaiticus was comprised of fasciculi or not, the Bradshaw argument re quires still holds.
 
You still haven't shown from the ONB website itself which Hermas you claim the palimpsest is, or whether this is a writing by a Hermas (which one???) at all.
Plus, you haven't shown from the writing's or works of Simonides himself which specific palimpsest and writer/writing you are claiming this manuscript is.

Why not just admit your error?
Your dancing around is a joke and proves that nothing you post can be trusted.

Uranios and Hermas
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...he-codex-siniaticus.14468/page-8#post-1241971
 
There wouldn't be any other reason for ending a biblical book with a shortened quire other than to form a fasciculi.

Nonsense. Here I will give you an example.

One scribe is working on Barnabas. Another scribe is working on Hermas.
The Barnabas scribe will end his text in two leaves. There is no reason for him to have six leaves blank. So the quire is made into a two leaf quire.

This would be done whether or not a fasciculi was involved.

Now that I have given you "any other reason", why not admit you are wrong.
 
But far from the argument being a total dud, it is your objection that is dud, because whether Sinaiticus was comprised of fasciculi or not, the Bradshaw argument re quires still holds.

It is a dud because to have any pizazz as an accusation you have to assume the absurd, that Simonides was claiming to write inside a slanted, uneven bound book.

To make that absurd claim you had to switch around "out of" and "into", which was clever, but false.
 
Nonsense. Here I will give you an example.

One scribe is working on Barnabas. Another scribe is working on Hermas.
The Barnabas scribe will end his text in two leaves. There is no reason for him to have six leaves blank. So the quire is made into a two leaf quire.

This would be done whether or not a fasciculi was involved.

Now that I have given you "any other reason", why not admit you are wrong
That isn't an argument against the use of fasciculi, but an argument as to why Sinaiticus is divided into fasciculi at all.

And it wouldn't apply to a Simonides authorship, so irrelevant from your POV.
 
It is a dud because to have any pizazz as an accusation you have to assume the absurd, that Simonides was claiming to write inside a slanted, uneven bound book.

To make that absurd claim you had to switch around "out of" and "into", which was clever, but false.
Senseless remark: the quire structure of Sinaiticus is utterly incompatible with a Simonides authorship, as Bradshaw said. You lose BIG TIME.
 
That isn't an argument against the use of fasciculi, but an argument as to why Sinaiticus is divided into fasciculi at all.
And it wouldn't apply to a Simonides authorship, so irrelevant from your POV.

I simply disproved your claim that a quire that is not eight-leaves means that it was part of a fasciculi.

Rather than accept the correction, you go all over the map.
 
Senseless remark: the quire structure of Sinaiticus is utterly incompatible with a Simonides authorship, as Bradshaw said. You lose BIG TIME.

This would be potentially true ONLY if the Athos scribes were writing into a cumbersome, non-level, bound book.

Which is absurd.

Not only would the writing be uneven, basically impossible, you could only have one scribe writing at a time.

So the loss is all yours.
 
One objection can legitimately be made against the Simonides description of the Athos volume. In one quote, Simonides overstated his contribution to the original writing. (Simonides did mention various correctors.) While Simonides probably wrote about 1/2 of Sinaiticus, including the full New Testament, he wrote at one spot as if he was the only scribe.

That criticism can be made, and noted.

Overstating his contribution, 20+ years later, duly noted.

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

The ridiculous claim from cjab that Simonides wrote into a bound volume is based on various errors. Nobody would write into a bound volume when the quires can be easily removed (see the David W. Daniels picture.) For this error cjab actually confused "into" and "out of", to try to make his point. And once removed, multiple scribes can work together, teamwork, which is what occurred with Sinaiticus. Except sometimes they blundered, as in the duplicate section involving 1 Chronicles.

Since they were not an experienced professional scriptorium, and did not know the ancient Biblical dialects well, they made thousands of errors in orthography and itacisms and solecisms and omissions, and were at times the gang that could not shoot straight (Keystone Kopiers).

==============
 
Last edited:
One objection can legitimately be made against the Simonides description of the Athos volume. In one quote, Simonides overstated his contribution to the original writing. (Simonides did mention various correctors.) While Simonides probably wrote about 1/2 of Sinaiticus, including the full New Testament, he wrote at one spot as if he was the only scribe.

That criticism can be made, and noted.

Overstating his contribution, 20+ years later, duly noted.

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

The ridiculous claim from cjab that Simonides wrote into a bound volume is based on various errors. Nobody would write into a bound volume when the quires can be easily removed (see the David W. Daniels picture.) For this error cjab actually confused "into" and "out of", to try to make his point. And once removed, multiple scribes can work together, teamwork, which is what occurred with Sinaiticus. Except sometimes they blundered, as in the duplicate section involving 1 Chronicles.

Since they were not an experienced professional scriptorium, and did not know the ancient Biblical dialects well, they made thousands of errors in orthography and itacisms and solecisms and omissions, and were at times the gang that could not shoot straight (Keystone Kopiers).

==============
An attempt to rewrite history, and justify the fiction of Daniels at the same time - ridiculous.
 
I simply disproved your claim that a quire that is not eight-leaves means that it was part of a fasciculi.

Rather than accept the correction, you go all over the map.
Where the quire is not 8 leaves and occurs at the end of a biblical book, it always suggests a fascicle.
 
Where the quire is not 8 leaves and occurs at the end of a biblical book, it always suggests a fascicle.

So now you have switched to a claim that a shorter quire “suggests” a fascicle.

You do not deny that teamwork is an alternative explanation. One quire is shorter because of how two scribes work on consecutive books.

Afawk, there has been no hard evidence for fascicles in Sinaiticus.
Tischendorf, Lake, Skeat and Jongkind — none claim fasciculi existed.

Look at the 1933 British newsreel, video, yes quires, no indications of a fascicle.

As for the Leipzig leaves, likely any quires, much less fascicle evidence, were taken apart by Tischendorf, since intact quires would not fit the con of his saved-from-fire basket narrative.

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

Do you have any real evidence?
Beyond false extrapolations based on the absurd idea of writing into a non-level bound book.
 
Last edited:
One objection can legitimately be made against the Simonides description of the Athos volume. In one quote, Simonides overstated his contribution to the original writing. (Simonides did mention various correctors.) While Simonides probably wrote about 1/2 of Sinaiticus, including the full New Testament, he wrote at one spot as if he was the only scribe.

That criticism can be made, and noted.

Overstating his contribution, 20+ years later, duly noted.

Translated...

Steven Avery finally admits to Bill Brown's (Maestro's) point.
 
One objection can legitimately be made against the Simonides description of the Athos volume. In one quote, Simonides overstated his contribution to the original writing. (Simonides did mention various correctors.) While Simonides probably wrote about 1/2 of Sinaiticus, including the full New Testament, he wrote at one spot as if he was the only scribe.

That criticism can be made, and noted.

Overstating his contribution, 20+ years later, duly noted.

In how many letters, and from which date did he✌️over-state✌️ how much he copied out?
 
Back
Top