Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?

My point is that I fully expect similar tests have been made on the Sinaiticus; it would be malfeasance to have neglected the opportunities modern science provides.

Here is where once can talk of malfeasance, since the opportunities from modern science are deliberately rejected.

e.g. Leipzig in 2015, when the BAM tests were canceled on the day they arrived.
 
Now you are saying something was hidden under the guise of Lakes words.

Kirsopp Lake was clear that future opportunities for study were reduced by the binding.

The two editors, Dr. Milne and Dr. Skeat, are among the most competent in the world, but they are human. Questions will surely arise which, as they admit, can be investigated only when the leaves are loose. Why, after enjoying this opportunity themselves, have they acquiesced in the policy of rebinding the Codex and so prevented all others from seeing it under the same advantageous conditions? To me, at least, it seems certain that a codex such as the Sinaiticus ought not to be bound but kept in a box. This was the policy of the librarian at Leningrad, and the result was that I was able to photograph it under favorable conditions.

Information that was once available, and is no longer available due to some action, is hidden information.

Again, though,misfeasance is a better word than malfeasance.

==========

Do you have a date for the production of Codex Sinaiticus?
 
Last edited:
"hide its codicological history"

☝️

Since I never said anything was hidden in the Cockerell binding operation, I have no idea what is your point.

Ah ha, ah ha. Riiight....

The results were to hide codicological and palaeographic information from future studies.

Oh! The story's now changed...

Information that was once available, and is no longer available due to some action, is hidden information.

So, you were implying directly... but not saying... but said... but didn't say... but are now saying...

Hmmm.
 
Hardly hidden from the world and scholars if he published a book that even you can find in a mere Google search, don't you think?

That was actually just a short 4-page and one picture article in the British Library Journal.

The Binding of the Codex Sinaiticus
Douglas Cockerell
The British Museum Quarterly
Vol. 10, No. 4 (Jun., 1936), pp. 180-182 (4 pages)
Published By: British Museum
https://www.jstor.org/stable/4421879?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

There is some more information from Douglas Cockerell in Chapter X of Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus by Milne and Skeat.
 
I think it is very likely that the Sinaiticus was rebound, perhaps more than once, by the monks between the fourth and nineteenth centuries. It may be a loss that the original binding is no longer available, but this is unavoidable due to the antiquity of the book and its obvious usage.
 
So, you were implying directly... but not saying... but said... but didn't say... but are now saying...
Hmmm.

Typical.
You made a reasonable point (misfeasance rather than malfeasance) and then you go around in circles.

The misfeasance binding obviously hid information from future researchers.
That was the excellent point from Kirsopp Lake.

In some cases, the information may be lost for good.

==========

Do you have a date for the production of Codex Sinaiticus?
 
I think it is very likely that the Sinaiticus was rebound, perhaps more than once, by the monks between the fourth and nineteenth centuries. It may be a loss that the original binding is no longer available, but this is unavoidable due to the antiquity of the book and its obvious usage.

I discussed this with Flavio Marzo, and there really is no hard evidence of multiple bindings.
 
Last edited:
Do you agree with that date conclusively?

I can say that it is dated c. AD 400, knowing that the date is incorrect.

It's the date given on the CodexSinaiticus.org website.




CodexSinaitiucs.org

Webpage: What is the Codex Sinaiticus?

Paragraph 1


"The Codex Sinaiticus is a manuscript of the Christian Bible written in the mid-4th century and is the first
surviving complete version of the New Testament."

https://codexsinaiticus.org/de/codex/default.aspx
 
I think it is very likely that the Sinaiticus was rebound, perhaps more than once, by the monks between the fourth and nineteenth centuries. It may be a loss that the original binding is no longer available, but this is unavoidable due to the antiquity of the book and its obvious usage.

CodexSinaitiucs.org

Webpage: Ink (English)

"Report on the different inks used in Codex Sinaiticus and assessment of their condition"
By Sara Mazzarino

Heading: 1.2 Quire numbering

Subheading: New Testament

Paragraph 15, Footnote 36


"There is no evidence that the book was actually bound soon after the writing and the corrections were complete. Amy Myshrall hypothesized that the book was never finished and was therefore left unbound for a long time. Unpublished PhD thesis “Codex Sinaiticus, its correctors and the Caesarean text of the Gospel” University of Birmingham, 2005."

https://codexsinaiticus.org/de/project/conservation_ink.aspx
 
I discussed this with Flavio Marzo, and there really is no hard evidence of multiple bindings.

CodexSinaiticus.org​


Codicology: the history of the structural features of the Codex Sinaiticus​

Flavio Marzo ?

Conclusions​

  • The restoration of the Codex carried out by Douglas Cockerell and his son saved many of the original features of the manuscript (such as book mark evidences remaining loops of threads and leather accretions on the fore edges).
  • Cockerell's accurate documentation made it possible to make hypotheses about previous sewing structures.
  • It is now possible to say that the Codex Sinaiticus was never bound in two volumes as it is now.
  • The text block edges were probably not trimmed more then once.
  • This was not done during the last sewing before the present one.
  • Codex Sinaiticus was kept unbound at least for the last part of its life before coming to England.
  • The previous binding was in a "Byzantine" style and that it was never sewn on supports as suggested by Douglas Cockerell.

Future research​

  • In order to have a better understanding about the manuscript's very complex and rich use (possible storage and its separated parts or unbound) a more accurate mapping of the stains could be extremely useful.
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_codicology.aspx

NOTE: Emphasis added by me.
 
Last edited:
I discussed this with Flavio Marzo, and there really is no hard evidence of multiple bindings.

Are you quoting his opinion, or stating yours?

What written documentation do you have from Flavio himself, that, quote, it is his own personal opinion that "there really is no hard evidence of multiple bindings" and not merely your distorted representation of his opinion?
 
From Wikipedia.

The Codex may have been seen in 1761 by the Italian traveller, Vitaliano Donati, when he visited the Saint Catherine's Monastery at Sinai in Egypt. His diary was published in 1879, in which was written:

"In questo monastero ritrovai una quantità grandissima di codici membranacei ... ve ne sono alcuni che mi sembravano anteriori al settimo secolo, ed in ispecie una Bibbia in membrane bellissime, assai grandi, sottili, e quadre, scritta in carattere rotondo e belissimo; conservano poi in chiesa un Evangelistario greco in caractere d'oro rotondo, che dovrebbe pur essere assai antico."​
"In this monastery I found a very large quantity of parchment codices ... there are some that seemed to me prior to the seventh century, and in particular a Bible in very beautiful membranes, very large, thin, and square, written in a round and very beautiful font [Or "in round and very beautiful letters"]; then in the church they keep a Greek Evangelistary in round gold font [Or: "letters"], which should also be very ancient." (Google Translate added)​
"In this monastery I found a great number of parchment codices ... there are some which seemed to be written before the seventh century, and especially a Bible (made) of beautiful vellum, very large, thin and square parchments, written in round and very beautiful letters; moreover there are also in the church a Greek Evangelistarium in gold and round letters, it should be very old."​

Lumbroso, G. (1879). Atti della R. Accademia dei Lincei, p. 501.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus#Early_history

NOTE: Simonides born (circa) 1820.
 
Back
Top