the false contra analysis - a “faded”, “worn” page shows the age of Sinaiticus

Steven Avery

Administrator
https://forums.carm.org/threads/codex-sinaiticus-the-facts.12990/page-54#post-1204724

And neither you nor Simonides can explain how the Siniaticus manuscript aged so suddenly.
This is your main continuing errant analysis, which I explain to you again and again.

Here is a page from Leipzig after a supposed 1,650 years, 1,500 years when supposedly "discovered" in a basket, hundreds of years that were before St. Catherine's.

(According to the Tischendorf fabrication they were planning to burn this worn-out parchment, because it was "mouldered by time")

2 Esdras, 11:3 - 12:10 library: LUL folio: vi scribe: A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...ptionType=verse&translation=true&zoomSlider=0

1686983493321.png


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

pristine, flexible parchment, that can turn easy-peasy

beautiful dark ink

no ink-acid reactions

no grime on the edges

no foxing


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

"Phenomenally good condition", as astutely acknowledged by Helen Shenton of the British Library.

Elisabeth Fritsch-Hartung, photographer at the Leipzig University Library, who photographed the pages in Leipzig.
"The pages were in a very good state according to conservation standards."

Your contradiction is simple.

If the pages were all subject to the supposed 1,650 years of wear, why were so many pages and sections totally immune?

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


This true comment was written in the controversies.

"The action of ink upon vellum is peculiar, slow, and gradual, and leads to results which can be measured by time. The action of light and air, and warmth, and moisture, are also remarkably uniform." - p. 490

Why did time stand still for so much of Sinaiticus?

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