"the action of ink upon vellum" - an example of science changing for Sinaiticus

Steven Avery

Well-known member
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

Journal of Sacred Literature - April, 1863
from the Clerical Journal of Oct 2, 1862
The Codex Sinaiticus and Dr. Simonides
https://books.google.com/books?id=IvkDAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA490
Also in James Keith Elliott, 1982, p. 62-63

An example of parchment and ink science changing for Sinaiticus!

As the Sinaiticus parchment is super-flexible, youthful, lively and has suffered essentially zero ink-acid deterioration in its supposed 1,650 years, remaining in "phenomenally good condition".


And I believe this article a good read, as long as you read the lines and also between the lines. The author is likely Scrivener, who later, in A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus, p. lxviii, made the same argument about Simonides possibly having written a different manuscript in Athos in 1839-40.

Scrivener was so totally duped by the Tischendorf con that he even wrote of the Codex Friderico-Augustanus beautiful parchment leaves as:
"bearing every mark of extreme antiquity" - ibid p. vi
And even repeated the big lie from Callinicos of Sinai about the "old catalogues". - ibid p. vii
An amazing propaganda campaign from the Tischendorf con, as Scrivener had never seen the manuscript and was relying on the facsimile and descriptions from Tischendorf.
 
When David Parker talked of ancient manuscripts, he also sees the deterioration by the ink-acid reaction as normal:

Codex Bezae (1992)
David Charles Parker
https://books.google.com/books?id=qmy92ZolKikC&pg=PA23

"The ink is aptly described by Lowe as olive brown (CLA). The release of acid from the compound has, as in other ancient manuscripts, eaten through the parchment, leaving a stencil of many letters."

CLA is Codices Lugdunenses Antiquissimi, Lyons, 1924

However, Sinaiticus is not in the group of "other ancient manuscripts".
 
Ancient Inks used in Codex Sinaiticus

"Carbon[17] and metal tannin[18] are the two most common and widely used types of inks.​
"Within each of these two groups there are innumerable different combinations of ingredients to be mixed in various proportions.
.
.
.
"The portion of the Codex kept at the British Library shows very little major ink corrosion. The ink originally used by the scribes appears to be in very good condition, and it is not causing corrosion of the support in any part of the text.​
"An in-depth examination revealed that the only medium burning completely through the parchment support is the brown-black ink used for the second retracing of the main text.​
"Other inks, including those used for the corrections, have sometimes caused only minor etching of the parchment surface and have then flaked off.​
"The thinness of the parchment folia has sometimes facilitated the corrosion of the writing support. However, on its own, this characteristic does not determine the corrosion of the writing support. Indeed, some very thin leaves have not suffered from this damage while some other slightly thicker folia display losses caused by the ink degradation process.​
"The conservation conditions, the amount of handling, as well as a higher concentration or quantity of ink deposited on the parchment, may all be possible causes of damage. Furthermore, the way the writing support has been prepared can also determine the severity and the extent of such degradation.​
"As already mentioned, the quality of ink used for the retracing of the original text played a major role in the corrosion. This may be the result of its ingredients probably being not well balanced, thus allowing the development and catalysis of the degradation processes.​
"Major ink corrosion has sometimes caused weak areas: the most critical ones have been repaired by Cockerell.[41]"​
 
Last edited:
"Low humidity will cause parchment to dessicate and embrittle, which is particularly a concern if such objects are handled with any frequency.
BUT THEY WEREN’T, ACCORDING TO KJVO DOGMA, WHICH MEANS YOUR OWN WITNESS MILITATES AGAINST YOU!!!

LACK OF USE!
 
What about Deuteronomy and the 300 odd pages that were consumed in the fire?

You are jumping to confusions.

We do not know what arrived from the aborted project in Sinai after the travels from Athos to Constantinople to Antigonus to Sinai.

We do not know what was discarded by pumice cleaning from the failed project.

We do know that the burning parchment theories has huge difficulties.

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

A theorized 1,650 years and not one word lost to damage anywhere in the New Testament!
Bridge for sale.
 
Ancient Inks used in Codex Sinaiticus
"Major ink corrosion has sometimes caused weak areas: the most critical ones have been repaired by Cockerell.[41]"

[41] D.C. COCKERELL, Condition, repair and binding of the manuscript, in H.J.M. MILNE, T.C. SKEAT, Scribes and correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, London: British Museum 1938, pp.70-86.

You find nothing specific about spots where ink corrosion caused weak areas that were repaired.

p. 84 - Skeat and Milne
No attempt was made to strengthen the weak places in the text due to ink corrosion, except where these appeared to be in danger of breaking down.

Too bad nothing can actually be pointed out.
Where is that incredible ink corrosion?
What was in danger of "breaking down"?

p. vi
Mr. Douglas Cockerell kindly contributed some valuable notes on the repair and binding of the Codex. These have been incorporated, along with other material by the two authors, in Chapter X.

So we have unspecified notes from Douglas Cockerell being utilized in the Skeat and Milne text (it is not a Douglas Cockerell section as incorrectly stated on the CSP) being taken as the facts on the ground by Sara Mazzarino, without even one spot specified.
 
Last edited:
Ancient Inks used in Codex Sinaiticus
"An in-depth examination revealed that the only medium burning completely through the parchment support is the brown-black ink used for the second retracing of the main text.​

Isn’t it curious that none of the “burn completely through” spots are ever identified?

We have to look around wherever there is:
“brown-black ink used for the second retracing”.

So far, I have zero reports.
 
Isn’t it curious that none of the “burn completely through” spots are ever identified?

We have to look around wherever there is:
“brown-black ink used for the second retracing”.

So far, I have zero reports.

Even if you did, you would still resort to some form of denial.

You have to...
 
Back
Top