KJV Tampering as a precursor to Sinaiaticus Fraud

[Steven Avery]

And the fragment that one of those two monks used in the binding was already a fragment when it was reused;
in other words, in the 1700s, that fragment was already worn and already quite
OLD.

We often have a Sinaiticus anomaly.

Hundreds of leaves are like new, beautiful pristine parchment, often with super-ink, and do not have the acid-ink corrosion that is normal for iron gall ink om parchment.
(And 86 pages are pale white parchment, they forgot to get “yellow with age”)

“Phenomenally good condition” - Helen Shelton

“the conservation conditions of CS are absolutely perfect” - Sara Mazzarino

And then another page is said to be old!

How can this be in the same manuscript, young and old leaves together?

[StephenGoranson]

The above post tries, unsuccessfully, to avoid the fact that the dating of a repurposed portion of the manuscript, compared to his preferred conspiracy theory imagined dating,
is ineluctably earlier.
Also obvious: portions of the codex were separated and experienced differing storage environments, with differing preservation outcomes.
Portions of Joshua did not fare well.
As is also similarly seen with other ancient manuscripts.

[Steven Avery]

Also obvious: portions of the codex were separated and experienced differing storage environments, with differing preservation outcomes.
Portions of Joshua did not fare well.
As is also similarly seen with other ancient manuscripts.

There are not "portions" of Joshua.

One torn-up fragment that was placed in the New Finds dump room.
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscri ... omSlider=0

Joshua torn-up fragment.jpg (34.32 KiB) Viewed 2946 times

Anything that was in the dump room for 125 years or so can be very problematic, moisture, animals, etc.

The earlier handling would be essentially the same as 1 Chronicles where you can see fine parchment both from the white Leipzig and the coloured and stained St. Petersburg page.

Nice 180-year-old parchment and ink, the London pages coloured to appear “yellow with age”

Contiguous.jpg (145.44 KiB) Viewed 2955 times

[StephenGoranson]

The similar damage to the two portions of Joshua indicate that the degradation was largely BEFORE the 1800s.

And, as already been suggested, other missing portions of Joshua may be in yet other eighteenth-century bindings.

[Steven Avery]

So what type of old age would leave 450 pages in beautiful,

Phenomenally good condition
Perfect conservation

And rip one page too shreds?

The manuscript is the age of its “newest” pages.

[Steven Avery]

If a couple of pages were

Used for a palimpsest (possible plan on Judith page)

Taken out with the laundry

Attacked by moisture and rodents

Torn to shreds

That does not somehow age 450 other pages.

You could find such pages in a 10-year-old manuscript.
You can never find new pages in a 1650+ year-old ms.

[StephenGoranson]

It is not just "one page" of Joshua that is quite damaged.
"The manuscript is the age of its "newest" pages" is not a rule, but ad hoc special pleading.
An example, not specifically relevant in this case, except about the so-called "rule"--11QTemple Scroll had replacement sheets at its beginning, so the bulk of sheets in that case was older, and the whole not truly dated by newer replacements.

Again, if you did not consider:
"The above post tries, unsuccessfully, to avoid the fact that the dating of a repurposed portion of the manuscript, compared to his preferred conspiracy theory imagined dating,
is ineluctably earlier.
Also obvious: portions of the codex were separated and experienced differing storage environments, with differing preservation outcomes.
Portions of Joshua did not fare well.
As is also similarly seen with other ancient manuscripts."

[Steven Avery]

--11QTemple Scroll had replacement sheets at its beginning, so the bulk of sheets in that case was older, and the whole not truly dated by newer replacements.

The cancel sheets in Sinaiticus are basically the same as the main sheets, so this is not relevant.

[Steven Avery]

Also obvious: portions of the codex were separated and experienced differing storage environments, with differing preservation outcomes.

Why is this obvious?

Uspensky saw one manuscript/codes in 1845.

So first, let’s discuss the supposed 1500 years of heavy use.

======

The uneven color of pages that went to Russia?

(While the pages that went to Leipzig were much lighter and uniform.)

[Steven Avery]

If you are only talking about conditions after 1844 then say so clearly.

======

Explain how you think the 1859 St. Petersburg pages became uneven in colour, and generally much yellower and picked up stains. Coffee? Vodka?

Explain why the Leipzig pages never yellowed in 1650 years.

Explain why neither section has ink-acid reaction, destroying parchment.

Explain why not even one word (barely one letter) of the New Testament was lost or destroyed.

Thanks!