Sinaticus problematicus

[votivesoul]

For example, the article at this link explains how iron gall ink and its carrier materials can have a devastating effect on paper and parchment, particularly as it relates to environmental and storage conditions, especially temperature and humidity:

https://irongallink.org/igi_index22a4.html

This link show Codex Sinaiticus is made from parchment:

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/pr...parchment.aspx

And this link shows that it may be that iron gall ink was used, at least for the brown-black text (according to Douglas Cockerell, who was responsible for repairs done to the portion delivered to the British Library):

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/pr...ation_ink.aspx

while also noting the following:

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.

That is true scholarship. Recognizing that because the ink, in this instance, has never yet been tested chemically, IT IS PREMATURE to make any case whatsoever, on what the ink was made from.

And since this is the case, outrightly claiming the codex is a forgery before this type of testing is completed, which would give the world direct and not circumstantial evidence, IT IS PREMATURE to make a case either for or against its authenticity.

The above link also states:

Very brief accounts of the condition of the inks have been given by Tischendorf and Kirsopp Lake in the introduction to their facsimiles. According to Kirsopp Lake, the ink corrosion was more pronounced on thinner leaves. The early accounts also mention the considerable ink loss and observe that this is more evident on the flesh side of the parchment. Milne and Skeat, who wrote about the “deplorable” state some of the most interesting and frequently consulted folia were,[40] were certainly referring mainly to the ink loss.

Both Tichendorf and Kirsopp Lake’s comments, however, refer to the whole Codex known at that time. As a result of the recent history of the Codex, the same observations may no longer be valid. The Codex is divided between four locations and the differences in the environmental history, or conservation condition, may have influenced the degradation of its leaves. The comparison of the condition assessment data between the four sites could potentially point out factors influencing the degradation of the parchment, as well as that of the inks.

So, let's not act like actual Codex Sinaiticus scholarship isn't engaged in the same discussion regarding the current condition of the parchments.

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sinaiticus apparently had its detractors from the get go as well. Including a well known antiquities dealer who claimed responsibility for it.

This is true, too. But why have his claims been dismissed by almost everyone familiar with them and him?

Even a friend of Steven's, James Snapp, Jr., elucidates 20 different reasons why Simonides didn't forge Sinaiticus:

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...-not-made.html

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...s-was-not.html

[votivesoul]

Originally Posted by Esaias

Sinaiticus apparently had its detractors from the get go as well. Including a well known antiquities dealer who claimed responsibility for it.

And when Sinaiticus undergoes the correct testing, the results will be final and maybe Simonides will have been correct, after all. If we want truth, push for the testing, not for an agenda for or against.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

And when Sinaiticus undergoes the correct testing, the results will be final and maybe Simonides will have been correct, after all. If we want truth, push for the testing, not for an agenda for or against.

This is a head-in-the-sand approach. Remember, Leipzig specifically canceled the 2015 excellent testing that was planned to be done by Dr. Ira Rabin and the BAM group in Berlin.

At this point, you can expect that there will be no extensive testing. Or any testing at all. The libraries, and their supporting coterie of scholars, have a lot at stake.

So does that make the coloured and stained manuscript authentic?

A little common sense comes in handy.

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

Originally Posted by votivesoul

This is true, too. But why have his claims been dismissed by almost everyone familiar with them and him?

Even a friend of Steven's, James Snapp, Jr., elucidates 20 different reasons why Simonides didn't forge Sinaiticus:

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...-not-made.html

http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...s-was-not.html

James is hardly a friend. He instituted a Facebook block to avoid interaction, and has been rather insulting. James was especially upset that I would share the truth about his pseudo-authentic Mark ending position.

the sinking pericope theories of James Snapp that are contra Markan ending authenticity
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...g-authenticity

You might notice that it was trivially easy to respond to his "multiplication of nothings", his attempt to craft arguments on Sinaiticus, relying mostly on Scrivener, who had never seen the ms and went with the tampered Tischendorf facsimile.

Follow the link in the comments section, which takes you to the PBF.

PureBibleForum - Steven Avery
James Snapp attempts to defend authenticity of Sinaiticus
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...-of-Sinaiticus

Posts 4-5-6 respond point-to-point to his 3-part blog.

James has still not corrected his little blunder of 172 pages in Leipzig, rather than the correct 86.

"(If one calculates that each sheet was intact, and folded in the middle, with writing on both sides, this totals 172 pages.)" - James Snapp
http://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2...ing-stage.html

The blunder itself is not that important, it is easy to correct, and many have made similar errors over the years. However, it shows his lack of integrity in not interacting with the simple scholarship correction, even on his own blog page comments, my response to his points, and a 3rd-party effort on Facebook to point out the error.

The writing of James on this topic is a fine example of how the textual criticism religion makes it very difficult to look sensibly at all the issues as a harmonious unit. What one scholar called the problem of the "deeply entrenched scholarship."

(When James imposed the Facebook block his official reason was religion, I was a member of a group ... inactive, had never posted .. called Exposing Textual Criticism. Textual Criticism has become a religion for many .. "I will be like God, I will determine the scripture.")

If you see anything in his writing that you consider significant, I would be happy to go over it in more depth, here or on Facebook or in his comments section (if he allows) or on the purebibleforum.

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

Here, you can see me giving a few reasons why I believed that Sinaiticus was authentic, when I was young and uninformed . And much of the new evidence was not yet available.

[TC-Alternate-list] Simonides as Siniaitcus scribe - an idea whose time has gone
Steven Avery - November 11, 2011
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/...ns/topics/4738

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

Steven

[votivesoul]

Time proves all things. In the interest of all involved, I hope testing is done and accurate results are made public, either for or against. Until then, all it looks like to me is tabloid-type conspiracy and wishful thinking.

[1ofthechosen]

Originally Posted by Steven Avery

James was especially upset that I would share the truth about his pseudo-authentic Mark ending posion.
Steven

I have a question for you it may not be on this exact ms. But I've heard there is supposed to have been 3 different endings for Mark, and the one we have in our Bible was chosen. Is there anyway you know the other 2, and would share it with me? The one we have contextually, with everything we already know from other books seems right. I was just wondering, thanks for your help!

[Steven Avery]

One of the key points about the Sinaiticus ms. is that:

"the parchment ... is in phenomenally good condition"

Helen Shenton, British Library
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...-Shenton&p=573

And I would say that this is a reference to how supple and young seems the parchment, the absence of oxidation, gelatinization, foxing, and the various elements of aging that are seen in true antiquity manuscripts.

You can see the amazing condition courtesy of a short two minute BBC video.
Note the easy-peasy page turning.

BBC Four - Beauty of Books

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by votivesoul

That is true scholarship.

Really true scholarship would have put forth a loud cry long ago to apply solid materials testing to both major parts of the Sinaiticus manuscript, Leipzig and the British Library. And this testing would include a focus on the fact that the Leipzig pages are "notable for their whiteness", as stated by Gavin Moorhead of the British Library. It would also inquire as to why the British Library pages are stained and streaky, and the white Leipzig pages are unstained. It would also try to explain the "phenomenally good condition" in the context of trying to date the parchment accurately.

Tests were planned in Leipzig in 2015, to be done by the superb BAM group in Berlin, Dr. Ira Rabin ... and they were cancelled. Dr. Rabin wrote to me that she was disappointed that they would not be testing the manuscript.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

Recognizing that because the ink, in this instance, has never yet been tested chemically, IT IS PREMATURE to make any case whatsoever, on what the ink was made from.

Actually, the tentative case is made that it is iron gall ink. e.g. Michael Phelps (Executive Director, Early Manuscripts Electronic Library) wrote to me, when I was tracking down a reference made by Professor Gregory Heyworth:

The British Library applied multi-spectral imaging with the MuSIS camera to selected folios of its majority part of the Codex. It reports that the spectral curves of the black ink are consistent with those of iron gall ink, but it admits that the identification of the ink as simply iron gall ink is inconclusive: http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/pr...ation_msi.aspx

Visually, the ink of Codex Sinaiticus does look like iron gall to me. The spectral imaging undertaken by the British Library is the only source of quantified data about Codex Sinaiticus of which I am aware.

There was nothing premature in what was shared by Michael Phelps. As for the SART team, we notice anomalies and curiosities with the ink, including some that looks exceedingly dark and robust like super-ink (and some puzzling claims that have been made about overwriting) .. but it is a relatively minor part of our studies.

Originally Posted by votivesoul

And since this is the case, outrightly claiming the codex is a forgery before this type of testing is completed, which would give the world direct and not circumstantial evidence, IT IS PREMATURE to make a case either for or against its authenticity.

So, you would agree with us that all the scholarship that has been built on Codex Sinaiticus authenticity is premature and should be junked?

And that would include the Westcott-Hort recension.

Steven

[Scott Pitta]

The different endings for the gospel of Mark deserve a post independent than this one.

No, I am not interested in starting one.

[Steven Avery]

Originally Posted by Scott Pitta

The different endings for the gospel of Mark deserve a post independent than this one. No, I am not interested in starting one.

Agreed. 1ofthechosen is welcome to start one. This thread has stayed nicely on point to the OP.