Steven Avery
Well-known member
You gave vague quotes, and a picture that was obviously NOT ink-acid reaction unto any parchment destruction.
See the post right above.
Sara Mazzarino - "What I can certainly say is that the conservation conditions of CS are absolutely perfect in is current state"
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
You gave vague quotes, and a picture that was obviously NOT ink-acid reaction unto any parchment destruction.
See the post right above.
Who said parchment had to be destroyed? Just a fake argument, as is your norm.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Ink-acid reaction over 1500+ years will eat through parchment =- destruction.
(Like the song .. we are on the ink of destruction!)
I’ve bn asking you to find one such spot.
I found a page In Deut where many holes appeared in the inked areas, but the uninked areas were relative free from holes. You ignored me. The people who have the manuscript, using microscopy, have identified many pages with ink degradation. You ignore them also.
You aren't an honest broker. You just ignore evidence that you don't like, and I don't see any point in continuing a debate that is being artifically prolonged by you, just because you can't accept defeat.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You gave an actual picture in this thread which is obviously NOT ink-acid reaction, destroying parchment.
Agreed.
Now, do you really, really see this as an ink-acid-reaction parchment destruction hole??
Is it really "Major Ink Corrosion" or are they just funning you, essentially proving that they do not have major ink corrosion to show you from anywhere. "C'mon, bro, we need something we can call major ink corrosion!".
So you dropped that one.
Your Deuteronomy fragment picture seems to be hidden in a url, on a thread about Benedict, so we can bring that over next and place it on this thread.
However, it is a New Finds page, so it is clearly irrelevant, 130 years in a dank dump room, manuscripts on the floor .... still lets take a look.
Last edited:
Look, it's sufficent that you accuse the BL staff of lying that serves as evidence of your dishonesty. I'm not discussing this further. IMO you are simply dishonest. Prove them wrong, or shut up.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Your words, not mine.
As I allow that they made errors under the intense pressure to get stuff out there.
And it is obvious that their discussion of major ink corrosion is very unreliable.
They gave a claim of "major ink corrosion" at
(Quire 86 f.7r, BL f.307r d11).
https://codexsinaiticus.org/de/project/conservation_ink.aspx
Which is an error they have not fixed, the picture is actually at:
(Quire 87 f.7r, BL f.307r d11)
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?folioNo=7&lid=en&quireNo=87&side=r&zoomSlider=0
However, the supposed major ink corrosion was acknowledged to involve an erasure!
Which is similarly as bad as your attempt to use a New Finds fragment!
Why don't you actually try to look carefully at the manuscript?
There is nothing there that shows long-age ink-acid corrosion eating through parchment.
Nothing.
You have essentially helped prove the point, by trying to pretend with a New Finds page full of large holes.
Last edited:
Evidently you can't see what is in front of you. The ink doesn't have to have eaten entirely through the parchment. What you can see is that the parchment has clearly been eaten away.
And the degree of corrosion will depend on the dampness of the storage conditions. That was noticed with the CFA, when stored under non-optimal conditions in Germany.
Another thing that inhibits corrosion is ink detachment. There is considerable evidence of ink loss, where the ink flakes off. This suggests that the original ink didn't bind to the parchment as strongly as other ink (mixtures) in other parchments showing massive corrosion.
Your assumption that all inks degrade parchment at the same rate is infantile.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Absolutely 100% on the button.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
You can tell all this from looking through the filters of your monitor and an internet browser?
Yet, the staff at the BL actually handle the manuscript in order to make their observations.
Readers...this is the real test of metal here ... Do you think Steven Avery can really give a better diagnosis of the ink acid reaction on the surface of the actual parchment of the Codex Sinaiticus than the experts (with it in their hands) from the comforts of his living room chair???
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Hopefully you saw I actually carefully demonstrated an error where they put in the wrong quire number and then called an erasure "major ink corrosion".
By simple study and communication with the CSP.
However, since you still have not come clean on your Uranios palimpsest claim, I doubt that your followed the above.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Oops, you forgot to actually look at the page, which is here.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/are...sed-by-1650-years-of-ink-acid-reaction.15968/
cjab blundered, and you got duped.
There were many holes on the top and bottom and sides and columns, and even in the inked areas, large holes had nothing to do with ink.
You are looking as silly as cjab, trying to use a NEW FINDS page to claim ink-acid reaction corrosion.'
Last edited:
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Get this folks
Raised this point with Avery.
Avery replies with
I replied
We await his answer!
Get the CSP color charts out Avery!
Raised this point with Avery.
Avery replies with
I replied
We await his answer!
Get the CSP color charts out Avery!
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This post got falsified the Elijah Hixson claim on the colour.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...catalogue-s-plural.14121/page-17#post-1229679
You can add the yellow parts and the colouring will remain obvious.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
CodexSinaiticus.org
Deuteronomy, 28:68 - 29:22 library: SC folio: 7r scribe: A
https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/...lioNo=8&lid=en&quireNo=13&side=v&zoomSlider=0
Steven Avery
Well-known member
So where are spots where ink supposedly ate away the vellum?
(A couple of pictures were posted, unidentified, if they ever get idenified, we can look closely at them.)
(A couple of pictures were posted, unidentified, if they ever get idenified, we can look closely at them.)
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Are you claiming Milne's and Skeat were lying?
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Why the color differences?
Conspiracy theory? Or simply photographic differences?
Why the color differences?
Conspiracy theory? Or simply photographic differences?
NOTE: In the top image the National Library of Russia image is lighter in color that the British Library (CodexSinaiticus.org) picture!
NOTE: But note also that in the bottom image the National Library of Russia image is darker in color that the British Library (CodexSinaiticus.org) picture!
Conspiracy theory? Or simply photographic differences?
Why the color differences?
Conspiracy theory? Or simply photographic differences?
NOTE: In the top image the National Library of Russia image is lighter in color that the British Library (CodexSinaiticus.org) picture!
NOTE: But note also that in the bottom image the National Library of Russia image is darker in color that the British Library (CodexSinaiticus.org) picture!
Steven Avery
Well-known member
More spamming by duplication on multiple threads.
Worse, extra pictures, straining CARM resources, trying to distract.
A worthless diversion effort.
Worse, extra pictures, straining CARM resources, trying to distract.
A worthless diversion effort.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Without any spots ever shown, even in the CSP of 2011, such claims are under a cloud.
Sara Mazzarino - "What I can certainly say is that the conservation conditions of CS are absolutely perfect in is current state"