Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Kunigunde Kreuzerin
Posts: 2110
Joined: Sat Nov 16, 2013 2:19 pm
Location: Leipzig, Germany
Contact:

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Kunigunde Kreuzerin »

Steven Avery wrote:Hi,

Codex Sinaiticus has a number of curious anomalies and a somewhat shaky provenance.

2) 43 leaves were taken by Tischendorf to Leipzig in 1844. This is a bit over 10% of the Sinaiticus extant leaves. Tischendorf called this the Codex Friderico-Augustanus. The Leipzig leaves are white parchment and stain-free.

3) 347 leaves were taken by Tischendorf to St. Petersburg in 1859. These later went to the British Library in 1933. These leaves are yellow and stained.

Your thoughts welcome!
a Leipzig leave (my hometown Steven!) and a British leave (the duplicates of 1 Chronicles)
ImageImage
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Ulan »

They even have exactly the same stain.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Steven Avery »

Hi Ulan,

Thanks for contributing! You are right, although for some reason your colour picture is not as pronounced as on the CSP site.
Clearly, that particular stain can not have caused the marked colour distinction, and had to be the normal book situation
with careless storage or weather exposure.

What I will do here now is put in two of the four contiguous spots. Both show the pronounced color change.

One has a pre-1844 shared stains, the one you are highlighting. The other is radically different stainwise.

First the point you reference, using the direct CSP pics, the url avoids the sliders.
https://app.box.com/s/6xjov1tyo7bz7l8fpipm26ulxv219i07
four contiguous.jpg
four contiguous.jpg (380.21 KiB) Viewed 9751 times
Next, one of the other contiguous points where the colours are similarly radically different, and the visible staining in the BL have no Leipzig counterpart, the url avoids the sliders.
https://app.box.com/s/s62mhxituwnyxeccxxfxs9n16q6nzjln
This is #3 of the four contiguous points.  The colours are radically different, and the stains in the British Library version have no counterpart in Leipzig.
This is #3 of the four contiguous points. The colours are radically different, and the stains in the British Library version have no counterpart in Leipzig.
four contiguouus 3.jpg (332.71 KiB) Viewed 9751 times
If I can learn a sizing technique to avoid the scroll bar on the forum, that would be helpful. Anyone know?

We may post these examples, or all four, on sinaiticus.net, without the scroll bar usage.

Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery on Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:19 pm, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by DCHindley »

Ulan wrote:They even have exactly the same stain.
I noticed that too.

I think the best thing to do is go through the quires and folios of Codex Sinaiticus at the web site and note where the location code changes, and look at the differences in the images just before and after the point where the code changed. I wouldn't even look at any other folios before looking at these "seams" to see if there are significant differences in color. Also note that the are images in "standard" light (whatever that was at time photograph was taken) as well as "raked" light, which might affect their "whiteness". Even standard light might differ depending on the facility lighting and time of year, which could also affect their "whiteness". We shouldn't be comparing apples to oranges.

FWIW, I have identified seams at:

Leviticus, 22:4 - 22:30 library: SC & Numbers, 5:26 - 6:18 library: NLR
Numbers, 6:22 - 7:20 library: NLR & Numbers, 16:7 - 16:31 library: SC
1 Chronicles (duplicate), 10:11 - 11:22 library: BL & 1 Chronicles (duplicate), 11:22 - 12:18 library: LUL
Tobit, 1:7 - 2:2 library: LUL & Tobit, 2:2 - 3:6 library: BL
Jeremiah, 9:20 - 10:25 library: BL & Jeremiah, 10:25 - 11:23 library: LUL
Lamentations, 2:5 - 2:20 library: LUL & Joel, 1:1 - 2:6 library: BL

At this point I gave up as it is late, but hopefully six of these sets should be a reasonable sample against which to test the claim that one or more of the copies held at one or more of four libraries are clever fakes, as evidenced by either whiteness of the skin (suggesting it is newer) or the excessive staining & discoloring (evidence of intentional ageing). I'm going to predict that no significant difference in whiteness/staining will be found.

DCH

BL = The British Library
NLR = National Library of Russia
SC = St. Catherines Monastery
LUL = Leipzig University Library
Last edited by DCHindley on Fri Jan 08, 2016 10:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery »

Hi,

Here is the full Sinaiticus.

Image

There are major colour seams only at the two CFA sections, ie. 4 points.
That is regular lighting for all pics, not raking, all straight from the CSP site.

While better coloured, the NT is in better shape than the OT, as if it was given special care, I will check if that is the exact seam you see above where it becomes a bit smoother, 10 rows from the top. One of the strange parts of the history is that, despite its supposed extensive use and massive correction, unbindings and rebindings, not one snippet of the NT was lost. To me, this is much more consistent with a short life-span and very special NT interest (e.g. the cancel sheets).

And If you do not see the pic then go to:
https://app.box.com/sinaiticus-pages

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Fri Jan 08, 2016 11:25 pm, edited 6 times in total.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Steven Avery »

DCHindley wrote:[ hopefully six of these sets should be a reasonable sample against which to test the claim that one or more of the copies held at one or more of four libraries are clever fakes, as evidenced by either whiteness of the skin (suggesting it is newer) or the excessive staining & discoloring (evidence of intentional ageing). I'm going to predict that no significant difference in whiteness/staining will be found.

Your prediction about colour consistency fails, as the simple picture above shows. This was in the video that you were reluctant to watch :) .

The issue is not that a specific section is a fake, the first issue is whether the mass of the manuscript was coloured, using well-known techniques of common items, a cottage industry at the time. The whitening of the manuscript is not a very serious possibility, since it was described as white (the full ms in 1845 by Uspensky, and he did not even have the CFA) and snow-white (the German part, Dobschutz in 1910). Any whitening would be "whiter than white".

The manuscript could be doctored, and still ancient, although the colouring of the manuscript certainly colours that possibility, leading to a: "who, where, when, why, how" set of questions. Who had the means, motive and opportunity to change the manuscripts age? Motive == why would it be done. And it definitely reopens the question of age and authenticity, while it does not ipso facto prove the manuscript is a fake. If a part of the ms. was originally produced in 350 AD, or 1840, then the whole manuscript (other than corrections and special notations) was produced at the same time.

Now there are huge additional questions and problems involving provenance and age and authenticity. Anomalies abound (e.g. note the flake ink highlighted on sinaiticus.net). And you have the history of the Greek Barnabas and Hermas and the linguistic issues and the claims of the times that also are raised. These are corroborative issues, the colour question is not a standalone issue. However, it is the first issue to consider, since it is glaring, understandable by anybody, missed and/or suppressed over the years, and does not require special historical or linguistic or textual tech skills.

One irony is that even the British Library facsimile book of 2010, Codex Sinaiticus, Facsimile Edition, was coloured to hide the difference, meaning that somebody at the time noticed the difference and felt it was better omitted, adjusted, away from the book.

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

This can help in knowing where the 2 CFA sections are.

navigating the Codex Sinaiticus Project (CSP) pictures and data
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=95

Tischendorf removed five full quires and part of a sixth, 3 leaves. Thus they are in two places, thus the four glaring contiguous colour points.

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

Steven
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by DCHindley »

Steven Avery wrote:
DCHindley wrote:[ hopefully six of these sets should be a reasonable sample against which to test the claim that one or more of the copies held at one or more of four libraries are clever fakes, as evidenced by either whiteness of the skin (suggesting it is newer) or the excessive staining & discoloring (evidence of intentional ageing). I'm going to predict that no significant difference in whiteness/staining will be found.

Your prediction about colour consistency fails, as the simple picture above shows. This was in the video that you were reluctant to watch. :)
Steven,

Are you referring to the image of all the pages in one photo? The photo or image you embedded in the post directly above your post did not seem to show (the dreaded "X"). I had stepped through the video but did not see any clear images of the manuscript pages, but I'll grant they could have been shown quickly now and then, but hidden from my eyes by the devil.

How can I be sure, based on such a picture, that the changes in color are all that striking and occur only at the points where we pass from photos made by one holding location to another? I seldom take anyone's word for anything, unless specific examples are presented for me to see with my devilishly blinded eyes.

As you should know
KJV Heb 11:1 wrote: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
IMHO, I think you are seeing evidence for what you hope for, not so much what is really there. The conspiracy talk is part and parcel of this perception problem of mine.

I think that the BL's lighting for the photographs was simply different (fluorescent vs incandescent vs a wide variety of high intensity lighting common in photography) and made their photos seem whiter than those made at the other institutions.

Shalom,

DCH
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Steven Avery »

Hi,

"And If you do not see the pic then go to:
https://app.box.com/sinaiticus-pages "

The BL made a big point that the lighting cross-site was standardized, and used a color bar and all sorts of techie stuff. The BL acknowledged the difference, that is earlier in the thread. We just discovered, though, that they coloured the CFA pages in 2010, in the pricey book, apparently to hide the difference. Also the people who saw the German ms called it white and snow-white way back when.

As for conspiracy theories, maybe you should study the history of Sinaiticus. Look up issues like the Barnabas of Simonides, all beyond the known Hermas, if you do not grok much from the darkening. Maybe the conspiracy theory is the "saved from burning" and "red cloth" discovery of the manuscript that appeared from nowhere.

Steven
User avatar
DCHindley
Posts: 3412
Joined: Mon Oct 07, 2013 9:53 am
Location: Ohio, USA

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by DCHindley »

Steven Avery wrote:Hi, ... The BL made a big point that the lighting cross-site was standardized, and used a color bar and all sorts of techie stuff. The BL acknowledged the difference, that is earlier in the thread. We just discovered, though, that they coloured the CFA pages in 2010, in the pricey book, apparently to hide the difference.

As for conspiracy theories, maybe you should study the history of Sinaiticus. Look up issues like the Barnabas of Simonides, all beyond the known Hermas, if you do not grok much from the darkening.
"Grok"?

Don't get me wrong, again, as I do think that Simonides was a tad shady, but so was Tischendorf.

But behold, a comparison of the six "seams" is attached, which does not show, to my jaded eyes, a significant difference in color or texture. The whole codex was clearly heavily damaged by water and, apparently, fire. Them monastery roofs are notoriously leaky, which is probably the real reason why monks wore those hooded robes. :whistling:

The most heavily damaged portions of the manuscript had apparently been cut into strips and used for book binding and bookmarks. This was certainly not a presentation copy at the time of the visits by Tischendorf and others, and had apparently come apart at some of the quires. These detached segments of quires may not have all been kept in the same conditions, and the general condition of them seems to bear this out. Some of the sections that had been scattered among the four libraries are clearly more heavily damaged than others.

You can make as much ado about the comments of the earliest scholars to inspect them about the quality of their materials and writing, but I don't know for sure that they are not commenting about the vellum of the manuscript appearing to be a fine white vellum, as opposed to other vellum manuscripts that were not made of so nifty materials.

The skins from which vellum are made differ widely in quality on account of a number of conditions, such as animal type and age when skinned. I doubt one animal could have sufficed, so we are dealing with numerous animal hides. There is simply going to be variations among them, and we have no guarantee that the vellum sheets were ordered by animal. However, good quality vellum is good quality vellum, and speaks of the manufacturer's skill at skinning and preparing skins to make vellum for writing. Skin side and hair sides may also differ in quality of surface available for writing. This can be seen in Jeremiah, 10:25 - 11:23 library: LUL in both Std & Raking Light, as another hand felt it necessary to retrace some of the letters on this folio because of fading.

To me, this does not speak to anything resembling fraud or an attempt to destroy the Majority/Byzantine Text basis of the KJV, God's inspired and thus most holy translation of it. :banghead:

DCH
Attachments
Codex Sinaiticus. Seams in mss between libraries holding sections of it.doc
(1.22 MiB) Downloaded 236 times
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Steven Avery »

Hi David,

You raised a number of points, and bypassed a number. Let's just deal with what you covered.
Steven Avery wrote:Hi, ... The BL made a big point that the lighting cross-site was standardized, and used a color bar and all sorts of techie stuff. The BL acknowledged the difference, that is earlier in the thread. We just discovered, though, that they coloured the CFA pages in 2010, in the pricey book, apparently to hide the difference. As for conspiracy theories, maybe you should study the history of Sinaiticus. Look up issues like the Barnabas of Simonides, all beyond the known Hermas, if you do not grok much from the darkening.
DCHindley wrote:Don't get me wrong, again, as I do think that Simonides was a tad shady, but so was Tischendorf.

And that is why some of the theories even posit an earlier collusion and cooperation between the two men, with a later falling out. At any rate, it is hard to defend either man with enthusiasm, and any scenario that relies on either ones words should be questioned. However, this should help keep our focus on the real issues.

a) was Sinaiticus darkened
b) was there a Codex Sinaiticus before 1840

At this point, cumulative evidences, from many realms, point to a) yes and b) no.
DCHindley wrote:But behold, a comparison of the six "seams" is attached, which does not show, to my jaded eyes, a significant difference in color or texture.

Then I will saw your eyes are a bit jaded. In the .doc (good job, well done) you are including 10 pairs of pics overall. The first two require special discussion because they involve New Finds and torn up bookbinding fragments, more on that below. The other eight show a very significant difference with the British Library darkened and yellow, the Leipsig CFA white. This is a very clear, very simple observation, and I invite others to join the viewing.

Beyond that, the visual is confirmed by the British Library letter.

"I flagged up the distinction between Q37f3v and Q37f4r for him as a particularly striking example, in addition to the images you sent along): Yes, there does appear to be a difference across the photographs"
followed by various attempted explanations.

And the CSP has assigned distinctly different colour codes to the leaves of the CFA vs. The BL leaves.
DCHindley wrote:The whole codex was clearly heavily damaged by water and, apparently, fire....

There is very little of such damage in the CFA. We looked at a minor corner stain (the contiguous one) that did not effect any of the writing and a bit more. Generally, the ms. as described by Uspensky and Dobschutz, is pristine.

The question of fire is an interesting one. Q11F2 might be an example, but anything from Uspensky to Russian, or found by Benesevich, or in the New Finds, is qualitatively different anyway.
DCHindley wrote:.. The most heavily damaged portions of the manuscript had apparently been cut into strips and used for book binding and bookmarks.
This relates to mangling by Uspensky and/or Tischendorf. And the related stuff found in New Finds. Tischendorf was accused of mangling the ms. in that period around 1850, and he would have a definite reason to truncate Hermas (the damaged end-piece showed up in New Finds in 1975, a major portion of the New Finds materials). There are strips that connect what was taken out by Uspensky to the New Finds. The last point especially means that damage was caused in the 1840s-50s.
DCHindley wrote:This was certainly not a presentation copy at the time of the visits by Tischendorf and others,

Here, you show you are not familiar with what was written by Uspensky about his 1845 visit (also he visited in 1850). Uspensky described the manuscript in such a way that it clearly was a presentation copy. Thus, those who are confused by the tissuedorfs (clever fabrications of convenience to make a thief look pristine) have therefore theorized that the monastery did a quick regathering and rebinding in 1844 after the Tischendorf visit .. to make a presentation copy. If you want, I can pull out the explanations. This is an example of how modern theory has become totally warped by believing the Tischendorf accounts.

When Uspensky saw the ms in 1845 the condition was fine, white parchment, no complaints, just like the CFA that been heisted in 1844 remains today.
DCHindley wrote: and had apparently come apart at some of the quires. These detached segments of quires may not have all been kept in the same conditions, and the general condition of them seems to bear this out. Some of the sections that had been scattered among the four libraries are clearly more heavily damaged than others.

One section stands out as whiter, every single page, as you can easily see in the full document pic prepared by David W. Daniels and placed in box.com. And that is what left in 1844. Uspensky saw the white parchment in 1845 in a presentation copy. The darkening and mangling thus came later.
DCHindley wrote: You can make as much ado about the comments of the earliest scholars to inspect them about the quality of their materials and writing, but I don't know for sure that they are not commenting about the vellum of the manuscript appearing to be a fine white vellum, as opposed to other vellum manuscripts that were not made of so nifty materials.

Maybe you can unpack this a bit.
DCHindley wrote:The skins from which vellum are made differ widely in quality on account of a number of conditions, such as animal type and age when skinned. I doubt one animal could have sufficed, so we are dealing with numerous animal hides. There is simply going to be variations among them, and we have no guarantee that the vellum sheets were ordered by animal. However, good quality vellum is good quality vellum, and speaks of the manufacturer's skill at skinning and preparing skins to make vellum for writing. Skin side and hair sides may also differ in quality of surface available for writing. This can be seen in Jeremiah, 10:25 - 11:23 library: LUL in both Std & Raking Light, as another hand felt it necessary to retrace some of the letters on this folio because of fading.

Without disagreeing with anything here, I don't see how it touches on the basic issues.
DCHindley wrote:To me, this does not speak to anything resembling fraud or an attempt to destroy the Majority/Byzantine Text basis of the KJV, God's inspired and thus most holy translation of it.

Motives can be murky, interpretations can be subjective, history can be seen through a glass darkly, and we try to be forensic historians.

Hard evidences (the colouring of the ms), historical evidences (the 1843 Barnabas of Simonides, the 1856 Hermas of Simonides, the accurate accusations re: Tischendorf at the time), and linguistic and textual evidences (see James Donaldson on Barnabas and Hermas) count the most. And all those places, along with the strange poof provenance, is where Sinaiticus has huge authenticity problems.

Steven Avery
Post Reply