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

[Shoonra]

I don't know what BAM tests are and I don't know any of the details of the British Library tests. But the testing of Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' showed a cardon-14 date of the vellum as 14th century - but visual examination showed that the original writing had all been scraped away and other tests showed that the 'Archaic Mark' writing had been done with 19th century inks. So a carbon-14 test of the Sinaiticus would (by destroying some piece of a page) show the vellum was made in the 4th century but wouldn't, by itself, verify the date of the writing.

The British Library clearly spends a lot of time studying the Sinaiticus and has experts - and access to more experts - in topics that verify the antiquity of the Codex. Librarian to librarian, I trust them for their evaluation of the date of Sinaiticus and I am resistant to suggestions that the British Library has neglected the proper tests. I accept the broad consensus of the 4th century date of the Codex.

 

[Unbound68]

I don't know what BAM tests are and I don't know any of the details of the British Library tests. But the testing of Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' showed a cardon-14 date of the vellum as 14th century - but visual examination showed that the original writing had all been scraped away and other tests showed that the 'Archaic Mark' writing had been done with 19th century inks. So a carbon-14 test of the Sinaiticus would (by destroying some piece of a page) show the vellum was made in the 4th century but wouldn't, by itself, verify the date of the writing.

The British Library clearly spends a lot of time studying the Sinaiticus and has experts - and access to more experts - in topics that verify the antiquity of the Codex. Librarian to librarian, I trust them for their evaluation of the date of Sinaiticus and I am resistant to suggesting that the British Library has neglected the proper tests. I accept the broad consensus of the 4th century date of the Codex.

Notice that out of everyone whom Avery has cited as being in his favor in the 2 Simonides/Sinaiticus threads,

Farrer
Wallace
British Museum
Hodgkin
Uspensky
Milne and Skeat

NONE of them date Sinaiticus to the 19th century. NONE.

So why do you constantly cite witnesses who don't agree with your conclusions Avery?

 

[Maestroh]

Btw - in the "nothing new under the sun" department:

"Again it is significant that Simonides tries - as in his letter to "The Literary Churchman" 16h June 1863 - to shift the focus to Tischendorf's allegedly suspicious behavior." (Elliott, 1982: 113).

Which summarizes every single attempted defense the head of the SART team makes about Simonides.

 

[Unbound68]

Btw - in the "nothing new under the sun" department:

"Again it is significant that Simonides tries - as in his letter to "The Literary Churchman" 16h June 1863 - to shift the focus to Tischendorf's allegedly suspicious behavior." (Elliott, 1982: 113).

Which summarizes every single attempted defense the head of the SART team makes about Simonides.

How appropriate that one who would fall for the con of Ruckman, Riplinger, Waite, and Wilkinson would also fall for the con of Simonides.

 

[Unbound68]

Yes, read the lines, and between the lines.

The main page is:

Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus
Gavin Moorhead
May 2009

More misappropriation. Why didn't you quote this from Moorhead, found in the article you provided above:

"Parchment is generally considered to be the consequence of a rivalry between Egypt and Pergamum[7] which occurred five centuries before the Codex Sinaiticus was created. It was an innovation born from the need to create a support material for writing in the absence of papyrus during its embargo beyond Alexandria in the 2nd Century BCE. By mid-4th Century ACE when the Codex Sinaiticus is thought to have been written, the manufacture of parchment had already developed for hundreds of years."

I'd be willing to bet that every single source you provide in your Googled "defense" of a 19th century forged Sinaiticus is ENTIRELY AGAINST YOU on the date they actually ascribe to the manuscript!

Your ridiculous theory has every last biblical manuscript scholar and paleontologist colluding with one another to keep everyone in the world from finding out a truth that only you and 5 or 6 others claim to have discovered. (Daniels's moronic dream was actually not worth the paper he printed it on, since everything he thought he was led to in his dream had already been hashed out concerning Sinaiticus and Simonides in the 19th century.)

 

[Steven Avery]

So a carbon-14 test of the Sinaiticus would (by destroying some piece of a page) show the vellum was made in the 4th century but wouldn't, by itself, verify the date of the writing.

Far more likely that it would show a relatively recent date, but nobody knows till its actually done.

Remember, the libraries have resisted ANY C-14 dating, even if done on a very small totally, blank piece of parchment.

 

[Steven Avery]

The British Library clearly spends a lot of time studying the Sinaiticus and has experts - and access to more experts - in topics that verify the antiquity of the Codex. Librarian to librarian, I trust them for their evaluation of the date of Sinaiticus and I am resistant to suggestions that the British Library has neglected the proper tests. I accept the broad consensus of the 4th century date of the Codex.

I showed you from their own writing that they do NOT verify the aniquity.
They only verify that this manuscript is EXCEPTIONAL for its supposed age.

Simply review this post.

"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."

And much more can be added.

 

[Shoonra]

I am not sure that (a) a carbon-14 text can be done with a "very small" piece of a page, or (b) if there is any blank space in the Sinaiticus that is unwritten and can be spared. There is also the issue of the lawful ownership of the Codex, which is being contested by the Monastery, and the agreement that no part of the Codex would be destroyed. The vellum is consistent with calves and lambs, and shows no signs of previous writing which has been erased. The ink is consistent with the 4th century. I am satisfied with the opinions of experts who have actually seen, handled, and tested the Sinaiticus.

PS: This from the Wikipedia article on Carbon-14 Dating: (my emphasis)

Particularly for older samples, it may be useful to enrich the amount of 14C in the sample before testing. This can be done with a thermal diffusion column. The process takes about a month and requires a sample about ten times as large as would be needed otherwise, but it allows more precise measurement of the 14C/12C ratio in old material and extends the maximum age that can be reliably reported

 

[Steven Avery]

The ink is consistent with the 4th century.

And you know this how?

Report on the different inks used in Codex Sinaiticus and assessment of their condition
Sara Mazzarino
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx

The Codex Sinaiticus inks have never been chemically characterized, and the type and proportions of ingredients mixed together have never been determined. Therefore, the composition of the writing media can only be roughly guessed by observing their visible characteristics and their degradation patterns.

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

Sara Mazzarino - Email 2013 (conservation expert, formerly with the British Library)

"What I can certainly say is that the conservation conditions of CS are absolutely perfect in its current state"

 

[Unbound68]

Report on the different inks used in Codex Sinaiticus and assessment of their condition
Sara Mazzarino
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx

More double-minded, inconsistent misappropriation nonsense from one who has swallowed the Simonides kool-aid. All of this ink talk is a diversion and Avery knows it. Everything he has been feeding us is rendered MOOT and IRRELEVANT when his very own witnesses, time and time again, are found to witness against him and his conclusions on the DATING OF SINAITICUS!

From the main page of that website, to which Avery has directed us:

​

Codex Sinaiticus​

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago,

 

[Unbound68]

And you know this how?

ROFLOL! Now that's rich, coming from a guy whose KJVO foundation is entirely dependent upon his endless speculations, false accusations, and a goofy belief in phantoms from the imagination of a proven liar in an attempt to remove Sinaiticus from ancient history.

 

[Steven Avery]

They only verify that this manuscript is EXCEPTIONAL for its supposed age.

Until 2009, the big lie of Tischendorf about saving the manuscript from fire was repeated again again, and the big lie about the condition of the manuscript could easily hold sway, since the two distinct and wildly differing sections of the manuscript were largely inaccessible.

Scrivener
https://books.google.com/books?id=CNmOa7HaS6EC&pg=PP14

(Tischendorf) was so fortunate as topick out of a basket of papers, destined to light the stove in the convent of S. Catherine on Mount Sinai, forty-three vellum leaves containing portions of the Septuagint version, chiefly from 1 Chronicles and Jeremiah, with Nehemiah and Esther complete, bearing every mark of extreme antiquity,

They would use phrases like "mouldered by time" and "yellow with age" for the 43 beautiful white parchment leaves!

However, in truth, nobody would burn this beautiful parchment.

This was all a big lie, which anyone can see today by looking at the Codex Sinaiticus Project pages and reading about the "phenomenally good condition".

Sinaiticus as ancient was always basically absurd, as the Russian scientist Morozov pointed out, handling the manuscript, but by 2009 the false scholarship was deeply entrenched in textual studies. My conjecture is that the Russians know very well what Morozov, a polymath who was an honorary member of the Academy of Sciences, had written, they knew they had a white elephant on their hands, and were overjoyed to unload it on the British marks.

 

[Unbound68]

This was all a big lie, which anyone can see today by looking at the Codex Sinaiticus Project pages and reading about the "phenomenally good condition":

"M. Tissendorf [sic] also lately discovered in a certain monastery in Egypt the Old Testament and part of the New, as well as the 1st Book of Hermas, all of which were written in the 2nd Century, or 1750 years ago. This MS. is represented to be in excellent condition."

That's from Simonides's Biographical Memoirs, pg. 61.


See the Simonides thread for the above citation and my questions that you are avoiding intentionally.

 

[Shoonra]

And you know this how?

I know this because the nondestructive tests on the 'Archaic Mark' proved those inks had ingredients from the 19th century. I presume that similar tests of the ink were performed on Sinaiticus at any of the four libraries possessing portions of it. And I presume that if the ink on the Sinaiticus was shown to be more recent than 4th century, one of the thousand or so professionals handling and examining the Sinaiticus would have said something.

And comments about the Sinaiticus's surprisingly good condition, its exceptionally good condition, its phenomenally good condition, are all expressions of appreciation that something survived from the 4th century, because relatively few books did; all those adverbs do not translate to "suspiciously".

You simply don't recognize how thoroughly your position has been pounded into the ground. Would someone PLEASE start a new thread that's not about the Comma or Simonides!

 

[Steven Avery]

I know this because the nondestructive tests on the 'Archaic Mark' proved those inks had ingredients from the 19th century. I presume that similar tests of the ink were performed on Sinaiticus at any of the four libraries possessing portions of it. And I presume that if the ink on the Sinaiticus was shown to be more recent than 4th century, one of the thousand or so professionals handling and examining the Sinaiticus would have said something.

You are not really paying attention.
Right above:

“The Codex Sinaiticus inks have never been chemically characterized, and the type and proportions of ingredients mixed together have never been determined. Therefore, the composition of the writing media can only be roughly guessed by observing their visible characteristics and their degradation patterns.”

You simply don't recognize how thoroughly your position has been pounded into the ground.

Since you ignore the basic information, your evaluation will be taken with a grain of kelp.

At least you ask a couple of good questions.

Btw, there are very few professionals handling and examining the manuscript.

 

[Unbound68]

Until 2009, the big lie of Tischendorf about saving the manuscript from fire was repeated again again, and the big lie about the condition of the manuscript could easily hold sway, since the two distinct and wildly differing sections of the manuscript were largely inaccessible.

Scrivener

Scrivener....WHAT DATE DID HE ASSIGN TO SINAITICUS???

Is he still an "honest contra?"

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

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.

It is said on the Sinaiticus web site that the "exceptionally good condition" (which you quote again and again) has to do with the exceptional choice of high quality especially bred animals (even down to the diet they were likely feed on) of which it is estimated 200+ full cattle skins/hides we're used to produce so many folios of such a consistently high quality, the extraordinary craftsmanship in the tanning process (consistency in the hand scraping down to a 2-3mm thickness in most cases), which would have required professional skill and extremely expensive materials (beyond the reach of ordinary Christians), thus leading them to believe it was possibly one of the 50 Bibles commissioned by Constantine.

This high quality of the breeding of the materials, the high quality of the selection of the materials, the high quality of the processing of the materials, was a (leading) key factor in THE HIGH QUALITY OF THE PRESERVATION of the said materials.

That's a key factor in this whole narrative that you are withholding from the readers.

If you read those web pages on the Sinaiticus web site, you will see that is the key context (wider broader context) to all these "exceptional" "extraordinary condition" sentences you keep cherry picking, and twisting and misappropriating

 

[Steven Avery]

This high quality of the breeding of the materials, the high quality of the selection of the materials, the high quality of the processing of the materials, was a (leading) key factor in THE HIGH QUALITY OF THE PRESERVATION of the said materials.

They were not there to see any breeding, or the processing. They could not compare it to Bezae, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus or any other old manuscripts. And it does not explain the lack of parchment and ink degradation and deterioration and ink-acid effects. (Or the staining and colouring difference between 1844 and 1859.)

There is a much simpler explanation. The manuscript is only 280 years old, the parchment somewhat older, the earlier element with no ink. If you saw Alexandrinus around AD 700 it likely was a fine manuscript, but today it is limp, dead. The British Library says Sinaiticus could not be compared to Alexandrinus, but Skeat and Milne had already gave use the comparison.

Anyway, it is quite proper for you to point out the quasi-explanation of sorts given by the British Library for the "phenomenally good condition" after a supposed 1100 years or so in a hot, dry desert climate and some hundreds of years earlier somewhere else. Theorized, conjectured, supposed.

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

Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus
Gavin Moorhead
May 2009
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx

This is difficult to put into context as the only other similar surviving 4th/5th Century parchment codices, Codex Alexandrinus[19] and Codex Vaticanus[20] are at this stage unable to be physically compared with Codex Sinaiticus. Certainly the Codex Alexandrinus is also affected by ink corrosion but all have had different histories and conditions affecting their parchment folios and ultimately the data collected by this condition assessment will enable comparisons to be made in future.

Skeat and Milne in their book, "The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus" wrote that the Codex Alexandrinus vellum has a :
"limp, dead appearance in marked contrast to the vellum of the Codex Sinaiticus".

Why is this fundamental information hidden?
Why do they falsely claim there is no comparison?

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

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

They were not there to see any breeding, or the processing. They could not compare it to Bezae, Alexandrinus, Vaticanus or any other old manuscripts. And it does not explain the lack of parchment and ink degradation and deterioration and ink-acid effects. (Or the staining and colouring difference between 1844 and 1859.)

There is a much simpler explanation. The manuscript is only 280 years old, the parchment somewhat older, the earlier element with no ink. If you saw Alexandrinus around AD 700 it likely was a fine manuscript, but today it is limp, dead. The British Library says Sinaiticus could not be compared to Alexandrinus, but Skeat and Milne had already gave use the comparison.

Anyway, it is quite proper for you to point out the quasi-explanation of sorts given by the British Library for the "phenomenally good condition" after a supposed 1100 years or so in a hot, dry desert climate and some hundreds of years earlier somewhere else. Theorized, conjectured, supposed.

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

Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus
Gavin Moorhead
May 2009
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx



Skeat and Milne in their book, "The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus" wrote that the Codex Alexandrinus vellum has a :
"limp, dead appearance in marked contrast to the vellum of the Codex Sinaiticus".

Why is this fundamental information hidden?
Why do they falsely claim there is no comparison?

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

This treatment below would affect the suppleness of the skins.

Note the probability comment preceding the red sentence highlighted below is about the origin of the paper, not the certainty of Mr Cockerell's humidity treatment to "relax" (soften and make more supple) "the parchment".

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

[Part 2] Condition of inks of Codex Sinaiticus

[Section] 2.5 Accretions on inks

"Fibres, probably from paper or fabric, have been occasionally found stuck to some letters of the main text. It is possible, although not certain, that during the conservation treatment in the 1930s, the humidity applied by Douglas Cockerell to relax the parchment reactivated the binder present in the ink in some areas. After that, paper or felt may have come into contact with these areas while not perfectly dry, resulting in the accretion of fibres described. These fibres do not affect the readability of the text, neither are they causing damage or speeding any degradation process. Therefore, their removal is not required."

https://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx​

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Skeat and Milne in their book, "The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus" wrote that the Codex Alexandrinus vellum has a :
"limp, dead appearance in marked contrast to the vellum of the Codex Sinaiticus".

I suspect that this quote might be taken out of context. What page is this on?

I notice, the page, chapter, paragraph etc, is not referenced when this quote is used (or perhaps misused).