It's not like you have anything else to do, so why not answer? Or does Maestroh have you pegged?
The discussion is with YOU, not Daniels.
And if the question was so minor, you would've immediately jumped all over it.
Last edited:
Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?
- Thread starter Unbound68
- Start date
The discussion is with YOU, not Daniels.
And if the question was so minor, you would've immediately jumped all over it.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
There has been a microscopic examination of the parchment. Posted on the Sinaiticus website.
At work, posting from my phone.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
You need to read what they say on there website.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
If Tischendorf allegedly rubbed the Sinaiticus with, what, lemon juice, coffee etc. The sensitivity and solubility of ink would cause (allegedly Slime-onides) writing to disintegrate and be faded, blurred like a watercolor painting, and practically disappear and/or run all over the page in a watery mess.
There's examples of photos of blurred disappearing text from a small amount of WATER damage to the Sinaiticus, AND YET we're supposed to believe that (how many?) dozens upon dozens of entire folios worth of text/writing were scrubbed vigorously with highly acidic lemon juice etc etc by the alleged evil kleptomaniac (prison tattoos all over his face with numchuckers and flick knife concealed in his jacket) Tischendorf, and it didn't affect any of Slime-onides antique looking calligraphy (carbon mix ink) on hundreds and hundreds of pages of text?
This is implausible.
There's examples of photos of blurred disappearing text from a small amount of WATER damage to the Sinaiticus, AND YET we're supposed to believe that (how many?) dozens upon dozens of entire folios worth of text/writing were scrubbed vigorously with highly acidic lemon juice etc etc by the alleged evil kleptomaniac (prison tattoos all over his face with numchuckers and flick knife concealed in his jacket) Tischendorf, and it didn't affect any of Slime-onides antique looking calligraphy (carbon mix ink) on hundreds and hundreds of pages of text?
This is implausible.
I know that cross-posting is a no-no, but I posted this earlier today on the "False Claims of Simonides" thread, and it seems to have been ignored by some people posting on the same topic on this thread. So I am re-posting here. Sorry to break decorum.
**********
I GOT AN ANSWER FROM THE BRITISH LIBRARY!
Here it is:
The BL Curator of Biblical Manuscripts has written the information below about dating the Codex Siniaticus and why intrusive methods are not used.
Best wishes,
Zoe Stansell
Manuscripts Reference Service
We are all aware of the ongoing doubts and concerns about the dating of this extraordinary manuscript. However, the British Library does currently have no plans to undertake C14 dating of the Codex Sinaiticus, nor has it to my knowledge or as recorded undertaken this in the past. The main reason behind this decision is that C14 is a destructive form of technical analysis: it requires a sample to be physically separated and destroyed from an artefact which is why it is not undertaken on BL collection items. (The BL – as you probably know – has no detached/unwritten fragments of the MS similar to the ones currently kept at the Monastery of St Catherine on Sinai – so it would indeed require an actual intervention and damage to be made on the brilliantly preserved parchment folios of this MS). Moreover, these methods sometimes lead to inconclusive and unhelpful results in dating manuscripts, so in our present view (and, also in the view of several of our predecessors) the scholarly benefits of undertaking this do not outweigh or justify the losses that would occur to this critically significant artefact if C14 was undertaken. Contextual and imaging analysis can, in our opinion, prove as reliable and much less harmful way to interpret artefacts like this and were widely and successfully applied in various other manuscripts. There is broad scholarly consensus on the dating of this manuscript based on these well-established criteria for judging the date of a manuscript. More productive than C14 was the non-destructive analysis and identification of the type of skins and the animal type origins of the pages of Codex Sinaiticus, undertaken within and disseminated through the Codex Project. See, for example, http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx
as well as the thorough examination of the various inks used throughout the manuscript http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx.
I hope this helps to clarify the background of the BL’s policies and decisions as to the date of this remarkable manuscript.
Original Question
Oct 24 2022, 08:47pm via System
I am very interested in knowing what tests -chemical, microscopic, radiographic, etc - have ever been conducted on the Codex Sinaiticus to confirm its antiquity and to disprove the claims of Simonides.
Thank you for using LibAnswers!
This email is sent from LibAnswers in relationship to ticket #5224988.
********
This is all the British Library sent, but remember that they were confined to an email.
I hope (but do not expect) this will put an end to the debate.
**********
I GOT AN ANSWER FROM THE BRITISH LIBRARY!
Here it is:
The BL Curator of Biblical Manuscripts has written the information below about dating the Codex Siniaticus and why intrusive methods are not used.
Best wishes,
Zoe Stansell
Manuscripts Reference Service
We are all aware of the ongoing doubts and concerns about the dating of this extraordinary manuscript. However, the British Library does currently have no plans to undertake C14 dating of the Codex Sinaiticus, nor has it to my knowledge or as recorded undertaken this in the past. The main reason behind this decision is that C14 is a destructive form of technical analysis: it requires a sample to be physically separated and destroyed from an artefact which is why it is not undertaken on BL collection items. (The BL – as you probably know – has no detached/unwritten fragments of the MS similar to the ones currently kept at the Monastery of St Catherine on Sinai – so it would indeed require an actual intervention and damage to be made on the brilliantly preserved parchment folios of this MS). Moreover, these methods sometimes lead to inconclusive and unhelpful results in dating manuscripts, so in our present view (and, also in the view of several of our predecessors) the scholarly benefits of undertaking this do not outweigh or justify the losses that would occur to this critically significant artefact if C14 was undertaken. Contextual and imaging analysis can, in our opinion, prove as reliable and much less harmful way to interpret artefacts like this and were widely and successfully applied in various other manuscripts. There is broad scholarly consensus on the dating of this manuscript based on these well-established criteria for judging the date of a manuscript. More productive than C14 was the non-destructive analysis and identification of the type of skins and the animal type origins of the pages of Codex Sinaiticus, undertaken within and disseminated through the Codex Project. See, for example, http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx
as well as the thorough examination of the various inks used throughout the manuscript http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx.
I hope this helps to clarify the background of the BL’s policies and decisions as to the date of this remarkable manuscript.
Original Question
Oct 24 2022, 08:47pm via System
I am very interested in knowing what tests -chemical, microscopic, radiographic, etc - have ever been conducted on the Codex Sinaiticus to confirm its antiquity and to disprove the claims of Simonides.
Thank you for using LibAnswers!
This email is sent from LibAnswers in relationship to ticket #5224988.
********
This is all the British Library sent, but remember that they were confined to an email.
I hope (but do not expect) this will put an end to the debate.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Yes, read the lines, and between the lines.
The main page is:
Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus
Gavin Moorhead
May 2009
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx
Gavin Moorhead acknowledges the colour difference of the British Library and Leipzig sections.
We can run through the ink section later, it was fun going back over this amazing page.
"next to nothing is known about the parchment used for the Codex."
"Overall, the condition of the parchment is exceptional for its age."
"Low in levels of significant degradation."
"The parchment is .. Supple and flexible in quality."
What can be said with certainty is that any 4th Century parchment with this amount of flexibility, thinness, maker’s holes, repairs and striation is exceptional. It remains indeterminate how these features came to be or how the making process and rigors of history have impacted on the longevity of the parchment.
What can be said with certainty is that any 4th Century parchment with this amount of flexibility, thinness, maker’s holes, repairs and striation is exceptional.
New parchment can be near white but as it ages or is exposed to detrimental factors it will start to yellow and go brown-black if left to degrade completely.... Only a few folios in the codex could be considered to be heavily discoloured and these tended to be the folios that were once adjacent to missing parts and therefore, more exposed.
Opacity values for the codex did not vary significantly and tended to reflect thickness variances rather than increased degradation.
Apart from a small percentage of folios with heavy ink corrosion, most of the folios appeared to have survived the rigours of 16 centuries with an unexpected lack of damage, suffering in the main only from small tears and losses along the head, tail, fore-edge and spine folds. Much of this damage is more likely attributable to mechanical damage than physical deterioration.... the minimal damage and good condition
"the parchment is extremely fine with relatively few extant imperfections and markings"
"low incidence of follicle, axilla and scarring evidence"
the relatively small amount of ink corrosion and brittleness
Most of the scarring is small in size and tends to occur in the margins near the edges ... the lack of significant scarring
The number of folios in the Codex Sinaiticus with maker’s holes is small and when evident, the holes tend to be located in the margins, well away from the text. The majority of the holes themselves are small (<5mm in diameter) ... no obvious evidence of a makers repair apart from a part-obscured hole... Evidence of striation on the folios of the codex is not abundant
And very unspecific notations:
- Affected by long-term ink corrosion.
- Affected by gelatinisation
=================
"The method of pricking and ruling[21] set the model for later Greek and Latin manuscripts that followed in the next 1000 years."
This looks like an acknowledgment that this is actually a later development than fourth century.
Similarly:
"the margin areas are generous at a time when parchment was expensive to produce"
=================
"the twentieth-century binding tending to hide its codicological history"
An allusion to the disaster of the Douglas Cockerell binding mania, which was pointed out by Kirsopp Lake.
=================
Actually helpful microscopic analysis:
René Larsen[27] has determined two types of animal origin; calf and wool sheep (see figs.3 and 4). He examined 28 folios with significant follicle evidence and was able to positively identify 15 as calf; 4 as most likely calf; 2 as wool sheep and the remaining 7 as unidentifiable.
=================
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
... so they (now the British Library and the CSP) assume the ancient age, lest they look a little foolish.
====================
"One of the things we found is that the parchment, which is 1600 years old, is in phenomenally good condition."
Helen Shenton, British Library
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Aging documents and maps with various liquids is a well-known technique, and entirely plausible.
Forensic Chemistry (1921)
Alfred Lucas
https://archive.org/stream/forensicchemistr00lucarich#page/78/mode/2up
Literary Forgeries (1907)
James Anson Farrer
https://archive.org/details/literaryforgerie00farruoft/page/40/mode/2up
"Aging documents is plausible" is not the same thing as proving Siniaticus was aged.
Do you not know this?
Or do you actually know this but find accusation or innuendo easier than proving the point?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
I was answering the post from TNC, who said it was not plausible.
Try to follow the discussions.
So many of your posts are simply this type of nonsense waste of time.
"Assume the worst about somebody".
that's what you just said.
And yet it doesn't in any way affect the date assigned, which renders your assumptions from over 3,000 miles away moot.
Conspiracy theorists always see things that don't exist.
Sometimes they even take chemicals that really DO exist - and it kills them - like in Jonestown or with Marshall Applewhite.
Hmm, so they said what Simonides said about it....
So you mean when they date it to the fourth century, they don't mean it but when you read stuff between the lines that doesn't exist, that means they're admitting something covertly?
He was also referring to this specific document.
I did. Quit projecting your failure to prove your point on me.
I'm guessing you've had enough years now to prove it but you haven't.
But you respond to this and yet carefully avoid any response at all to the false stories of Simonides thread.
Again - quit projecting YOUR shortcomings in analysis and evidence and learning Greek and TC and anything at all about the subject - on me.
I've done the hard work.
I've learned the languages.
I've photographed manuscripts.
I know how they're handled and what's necessary - questions you've been avoiding since 2015.
You. Have. Done. None. Of. These. Things.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
This was the 2021 answer from:
Peter Toth
Curator of Ancient and Medieval Manuscripts
Classical and Biblical Manuscripts in Greek and Latin
https://www.bl.uk/people/experts/dr-peter-toth
to
Leucius Charinus, Pete Brown (aka Mountainman) in 2021 here:
And I am a bit surprised that Zoe Stansell did not put Peter Toth's name on the letter.
Note that it was in reply to a question that was only about C-14, that is why they talk of "destructive" tests. Many tests are totally non-destructive, and C-14 has really become minimal. However, other tests are far more important.
Last edited:
Believe it or not, folks, if you keep a fourth century manuscript INDOORS for centuries as opposed to out in tents, huts, etc, it's not going to look like a papyrus pulled out of the sand.
To even pretend to not understand this renders the objections to that meaningless.
To even pretend to not understand this renders the objections to that meaningless.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
It is more a confirmation that the British Library knows there is a problem, with the exceptional, phenomenally good condition, manuscript, but they do not want any testing done. (That is why they do a little bait-and-switch over to C-14 testing, which they can paint as destructive.)
BAM, under Dr. Ira Rabin, would be happy to do substantial non-destructive testing on the manuscript, she even mentioned that hope on the Brent Nongbri Zoom call in 2021, after she discussed how Leipzig pulled out of the 2015 tests, on the day they arrived to do the testing.
Who is doing the mind reading now, hmmm?
More mind reading.
Truly amazing how you say things like:
I mean, this reaches a level of obssession and repetitive cliche in your posting - but then you do the very thing you claim you don't like.
Is the sorta like where the people who are the most viciously hateful toward gay people always turn out to be gay?
It's called projection.
Poster who has never carbon dated anything in his life declares himself to have expertise in carbon dating.
Yeah, but you've already got your religious belief in that 19th century date - and ain't no carbon dating moving that.
(Aside from which carbon dating AS WAS POINTED OUT BY THE BRITISH LIBRARY opens up a wide array of dates. One need only look at the Gospel of Jesus' Wife to see the obvious shortcomings).
And I reiterate: they could test it tomorrow and you'd revert to Simonides's claims that the parchment was old and he understood inks.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Which is one reason why the wide array of BAM tests on parchment and ink are far more effective than simply C-14, which tends to lead to controversy. Looks like you agree with my position.
Where is your caveat of, "I'm not a forensic scientist, etc" you like to accuse other people of hiding when they aren't forthcoming?
Hmmm?
Looks like you still haven't learned you're not a Jedi to me.