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

Steven Avery finally admits Simonides lied over Sinaiticus.

Nothing new that Simonides could say what is convenient.

David as well believes Simonides lied in explaining his trips to Sinai, as he explains in the second book.

In terms of Sinaiticus, nothing comes close to the lies, thefts and deceptions in the Tischendorf con.

So if you disqualify the Simonides account, you have to disqualify the Tischendorf account to a far greater degree.

Then you look at the manuscript, and realize it is in phenomenally good condition, a couple of hundred years old.
 
You yourself are lying by saying the manuscript is a couple of hundred years old. Simonides had a completely different account: that the vellum on which he wrote was ancient.

It is not a manuscript when it is blank parchment.

There is no ink eating into the parchment when there is no ink.
“ink upon vellum” is described as the age-destruction major element.

The parchment itself could be dated, if there was no ongoing con.
Maybe 500 years old.

Once again, you tie yourself up in knots.
 
Last edited:
It is not a manuscript when it is blank vellum.

There is no ink eating into the parchment when there is no ink.

The parchment itself could be dated, if there was no ongoing con.

Once again, you tie yourself up in knots.
When Helen Shenton said "phenomenally good condition" she included the vellum. So you're just talking rubbush,
 
So you're just a story teller, an inventer of fables, fabricating the facts to suit yourself whenever you want, in your insane vendetta against Tischendorf, which betrays that you have mental issues.

You are pretty funny when you give up on Sinaiticus and go full bore wacky.
 
When Helen Shenton said "phenomenally good condition" she included the vellum.

Correct.
Beautiful 500-600 year vellum with ink on it for 280 years can be in “phenomenally good condition”.

1770 year old parchment and ink will not be on that Sinaiticus condition.

Thanks!
Good job.
 
1770 year old parchment and ink will not be on that Sinaiticus condition.

You mean like the "extremely ancient" "before the seventh century" "most beautiful" (not just "beautiful", but superlative "thee most beautiful" in Italian) "thin" "very large" "square shaped" "parchments" seen by Vitaliano Donati in 1761?

Or do you mean the straightened cockling, professionally cleaned Leipzig leaves?

Or the straightened cockling, new spine and stitching for easy peasy page turning, BL leaves?
 
You are pretty funny when you give up on Sinaiticus and go full bore wacky.
You gave up on Sinaiticus a long time ago to "go full bore wacky."

The strange thing is that you are unable to appreciate how everyone else perceives you. You need to look at yourself in the mirror and ask what kind of person devotes himself to promulgating hatred of Tischendorf as the antichrist, and concomitantly panders to a professional liar, persecutor of protestants and habitual criminal called Simonides.
 
Last edited:
Correct.
Beautiful 500-600 year vellum with ink on it for 280 years can be in “phenomenally good condition”.

1770 year old parchment and ink will not be on that Sinaiticus condition.

Thanks!
Good job.
.....whilst you ignore that the climatic conditions at Mr. Sinai were ideally suited to the preservation of the parchment and its ink.
 
.....whilst you ignore that the climatic conditions at Mr. Sinai were ideally suited to the preservation of the parchment and its ink.

Nope. Too dry and hot, so it will be even easier to become brittle.
I showed you that earlier, using material from the British Library.

However, let's look at other manuscripts from St. Catherines.

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

Codex Tischendorfianus I came out of Sinai as part of the same batch that Tischendorf heisted in 1844, the 43 CFA leaves that went to Leipzig.
Tischendorfianus I was described by Scrivener (and later Breen) as so brittle that it basically should not be touched.

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (1861)
https://books.google.com/books?id=6pOl5kos2O0C&pg=PA124
"It consists of but four leaves (all imperfect) 4to, of very thin vellum, almost too brittle to be touched, so that each leaf is kept separately in glass."

Codex Tischendorfianus I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Tischendorfianus_I
Size 30 centimetres (12 in) x 22 centimetres (8.7 in)

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

What happened to that wonderful climate? Why did it fail?
One answer: Tischendorfianus is really an ancient manuscript.
 
Nope. Too dry and hot, so it will be even easier to become brittle.
I showed you that earlier, using material from the British Library.

However, let's look at other manuscripts from St. Catherines.

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

Codex Tischendorfianus I came out of Sinai as part of the same batch that Tischendorf heisted in 1844, the 43 CFA leaves that went to Leipzig.
Tischendorfianus I was described by Scrivener (and later Breen) as so brittle that it basically should not be touched.

A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament (1861)
https://books.google.com/books?id=6pOl5kos2O0C&pg=PA124
"It consists of but four leaves (all imperfect) 4to, of very thin vellum, almost too brittle to be touched, so that each leaf is kept separately in glass."

Codex Tischendorfianus I
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Tischendorfianus_I
Size 30 centimetres (12 in) x 22 centimetres (8.7 in)

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

What happened to that wonderful climate? Why did it fail?
One answer: Tischendorfianus is really an ancient manuscript.

But what you don't know, or are withholding from the readers, is that Tischendorf discovered this manuscript among WASTE binding materials for an Arabic manuscript. Hmmmmmm.
 
Nope. Too dry and hot, so it will be even easier to become brittle.

Not every manuscript was 1. treated the same, and 2. kept in exactly the same conditions even within the monastery complex itself.

Manuscripts were kept in various locations and in varying conditions, as is testified to by the various visitors at different times.

You know this, yet go to extremes in denying the simpler more rational non-Simonides explanations because of your theological motivations behind all this.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top