Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

[Ulan]

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.

Yup, it's much too early to draw any conclusions. It's estimated that about 360 animals were needed to produce the Codex. The skins are at least from two different species, so we have bovine and ovine skins. There may be more, but not all quires can be assessed because of how far gelatinisation of much of the codex has proceeded (which is different from degradation by ink). Parchment color also differs from animal to animal according to age, color of the coat, etc. It's mentioned that the most degraded pages are near the outer edges of the pieces the codex was found in.

There's also the problem that aging of parchment can be very quick if the conditions under which the parchment is kept change. Which means that just transporting different portions of the text to different locations can make a difference. Moves from a dry desert to humid European areas are always very difficult in this regard. I would assume that London is one of the worst places to store objects like this, at least without a controlled environment.

So I guess we will have to wait for how this develops further.

[Steven Avery]

Hi Ulan,

You miss the point that every page that went to Leipzig in 1844 is the nice white pages. While Tischendorf later (c. 1860) said they were ready to burn, the condition of the leaves in Germany was noted as not consistent with that claim, they were simply far too pristine. Yet, every page that stayed behind (British Library, and the fragments in Russian and New Finds) is yellow with age. (Though they still would be unlikely to be burned, since animal skin is poor burn material.) Some are heavily damaged and massively stained, but that is associated largely with the New Finds, a sort of dump-spot, and some little pickups by Uspensky or Tischendorf or Beneshevich (thus, now in Russia). And there is connection between the New Finds and the fragments to Russia, a strong indication that the New Finds was a c. 1845 stash, or at least that the room was accessible at that time.

Although the New Testament was handled far more carefully than the mass of the OT, it still received its colour compliment. The British Library book of 2010 changed the colour to hide the 10% CFA distinction, but the CSP site is rigorous and honest about the distinction.

When Uspensky commented on the white parchment manuscript, (he commented on the books in the volume) it was everything except what is now white parchment, since that had already left. Thus, the whole manuscript had been in that nice condition, in 1844-1845. Remember, you can easily see exactly what pages went to Leipzig when looking at the full manuscript placed in one picture. Without even one page of difficulty.

There really is not any mystery here .. the 90% were darkened after the 10% left. Other alternatives are essentially unworkable. (That does not prove non-authenticity, but it surely rings alarm bells.)

The whole discussion about animal types is not really relevant to the basics.

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

Despite the lack of any real materials testing (e.g. not even one chemical test of the inks, nothing of the parchment, the planned 2015 Leipzig tests were canceled.) and the known controversies (granted, there is much more new information the last few years) the scholars up to now generally do not want to touch anything related to Sinaiticus authenticity. The apple carts are running down the highway and they really do not want to be upset.

They would all look rather foolish after writing dozens of papers that presumed 4th century authenticity, if they now turned around and said .. let's consider the alternative. That would include addressing the darkening and staining, and addressing the 1843 Barnabas from Simonides, and addressing the never-addressed James Donaldson linguistic arguments that there was too much late Latin for Barnabas and Hermas to be 4th century, and addressing a whole slew of anomalies and questions in the standard scenario and in the manuscript involving rebindings, retracings, late Arabic writing, super-ink, mini-ink, the quire conundrum, etc. You have the suspicious poof provenance, so you should consider possible scenarios involving Simonides (since he claimed to be involved in writing the ms. and did publish Greek Hermas and Barnabas).. allowing that he would also tinge the history. Also to be considered would be the Kallinikos insight into the Sinai history and the Tischendorf machinations, etc. In fact, Tischendorf was privately writing about the Simonides claims even before the red cloth fabric fabrication. How could Simonides claim to write a ms. that he supposedly did not know existed?

Even simply the question .. where else do you see a manuscript with anything like the condition of the CFA said to be 1500+ years old? Adding the fact that they theorize ultra heavy use through the centuries, with corrections and bindings and retracings variously assigned to many different ages. (Note though, that not one line of the NT was lost!)

However, as soon as one or two stalwart scholars are willing to at least consider the issues, (even if skeptically) the whole dynamic will change. It may not be a textual scholar, perhaps a codicology approach, or a linguist. Most textual scholars today have a huge emotional and professional investment in the Vaticanus-Sinaiticus paradigm that began c. 1870. And for all, peer pressure is strong. (We know that David Trobisch was willing to question the 4th century date, but it is unclear exactly the basis and whether he put anything on the record.) The scholars often are supported by the British Library or UBS or NA in various endeavors, and those institutions are not seeking any questioning of Sinaiticus authenticity. So the presentations will be as you currently see, more of a common sense, forensic historian approach. However, the evidence itself is now ultra-compelling and only an ostrich mentality can dismiss it now that the extra salient "facts on the ground" have come forth.

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

Here is a curious point, highlighted on Sinaiticus.net
http://www.sinaiticus.net/special%20points.html

Notice how the flaked ink in the Sara Mazzarino page looks to either have flaked off the colouring (other scenarios? white-out applied?).
Yet the CSP pictures now online show none of the white. And in fact look like there has been an over-writing.

Your thoughts welcome.

On this, I have first been trying to contact Sara Mazzarino, no responses yet. It was only discovered in the last week or so. The tampering of the 2010 Sinaiticus book I only discovered when it was included in the David W. Daniels book a few days ago, and is also a recent discovery.

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

Steven Avery

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

.
1) Chronology

- Pentecost 1844 - Tischendorf discovered 129 leaves in Saint Catherine's Monastery
- he got 43 leaves (the Leipzig-leaves)
- June 1844 - Tischendorf is in Kairo
- July 1844 - Tischendorf is in Jerusalem
- Christmas 1844 - Tischendorf is back in Germany (Plauen)
- January 1845 - Tischendorf is back in Leipzig with the Leipzig leaves
- 1845 - Archimandrite Porphyrius Uspensky saw the codex in Saint Catherine's Monastery together with leaves which Tischendorf had not seen
- 1846 - Captain C. K. MacDonald visited Saint Catherine's Monastery and saw the codex

- 1846 - Tischendorf published a facsimile of the 43 Leipzig leaves, the so called 'Codex Friderico-Augustanus'

- February 1859 Tischendorf discovered 347 leaves in Saint Catherine's Monastery (most of them now the British leaves)


2) What is to do?

Do you wish to discredit the Sinaiticus?
-> Go with the old suspicions!

Do you really interested in?
-> The facsimile of the 43 Leipzig leaves, the so called 'Codex Friderico-Augustanus', was published 1846 in Leipzig by Köhler. The technique of copying was a kind of photo-lithographie developed by J.J. Uckermann (from Erfurt, Germany, so far I know).

Go to a library and take a look in the facsimile!

[Steven Avery]

The 1846 book is not easily available, it is in libraries in Germany. However, it can not compare the 10% CFA with the later 90%, it is only CFA. So we have no plumbline on the colour.

David has the $500 library British Library 2010 facsimile book, and it was clearly unreliable and tampered. Correct is the CSP site online, from which came the picture above that shows all the Leipzig leaves as white, 43 leaves, 86 pics (recto, verso) and all the non-Leipzig leaves as yellow.

Your chronology looks good, except that it takes the 1844 and Feb 1859 stories of Tischendorf as fact.

Steven

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

The 1846 book is not easily available, it is in libraries in Germany. However, it can not compare the 10% CFA with the later 90%, it is only CFA. So we have no plumbline on the colour.

But I assume you will see the stain.

worldcat also available in

New York Public Library System
NYPL
New York, NY 10018 United States

btw here are some notes about the technique of copying by Uckermann or Ückermann (German)

[Steven Avery]

Thanks for the correction on the location of the 1846 CFA publication, I had noted the other format/edition that Worldcat placed in the US, but then wrote too hastily. Clearly, it would be nice to see this work, although its comparison value is limited since the same technique was not being done on the 90% of the ms, so colour cannot be compared under standardized lighting. The other major later works, before 2009 CSP and the 2010 book, that I understand included the whole manuscript were:

Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (1862)
Tischendorf
http://www.worldcat.org/title/bibliorum ... referer=di

Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus et Frederico-Augustanus Lipsiensis (1922)
Kirsopp Lake
http://www.worldcat.org/title/codex-sin ... ef_results

It would be interesting to see how they handled the parchment colour distinction. Including any text notes.

We know the 2010 simply smoothed out the difference, perhaps by photoshop techniques, in what was called, ironically, a "sensitive adjustment".

Steven Avery

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Thanks for the correction on the location of the 1846 CFA publication, I had noted the other format/edition that Worldcat placed in the US, but then wrote too hastily. Clearly, it would be nice to see this work, although its comparison value is limited since the same technique was not being done on the 90% of the ms, so colour cannot be compared under standardized lighting. The other major later works, before 2009 CSP and the 2010 book, that I understand included the whole manuscript were:

Bibliorum Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus (1862)
Tischendorf
http://www.worldcat.org/title/bibliorum ... referer=di

Codex Sinaiticus Petropolitanus et Frederico-Augustanus Lipsiensis (1922)
Kirsopp Lake
http://www.worldcat.org/title/codex-sin ... ef_results

It would be interesting to see how they handled the parchment colour distinction. Including any text notes.

We know the 2010 simply smoothed out the difference, perhaps by photoshop techniques, in what was called, ironically, a "sensitive adjustment".

Steven Avery

The problem is that the publication of the Sinaiticus in 1862 was not a copying, but a transcription.

The first published version of Codex Sinaiticus dated 1862, was a full size facsimile in specially cut type ordered by Tischendorf. After this edition there is the publication of two photographic facsimiles the first one dated 1911 (New Testament) and the other dated 1922 (Old Testament) by Kirsopp Lake, an English biblical scholar (1872-1946).

I think you underestimate "your chance" with the facsimile dated 1846. In 1846 the British leaves were in Saint Catherine's Monastery. So far I know all leaves were never brought together, but the British leaves were in Leipzig from the end of 1859 to 1862 (If I remember it correct.)

If there really is something "unusual", then it may only be visible in the facsimile of 1846. And this would be imho a convincing argument.

[Steven Avery]

Where I disagree is that there is plenty "unusual" in 2009, starting with the white parchment CFA compared to the yellow with age 90% of the ms in three other locations. This, along with the historical commentary, along with the various corroborative points, shows that 90% of the ms. was in fact darkened, by 1862, when it was "yellow with age".

You are right that the 1862 does not count for comparison, although any Tischendorf comments, or their lack, would be helpful. The 1846, if it shows anything, will almost surely show the same basic situation as in 2009, the white parchment CFA. Any comments about parchment colour and condition would be helpful, but unlikely, Tischendorf at that time was playing close to the vest, saying very little about the ms. Later he was forced to connect it to Sinaiticus because the texts are contiguous.

In the 1846 there may, however, be markings and such that are changed or added (beyond the Leipzig University Library marking) since 1846, so that aspect would be a good check (I remember some discussion along this line, so this would be an excellent check). That would not be any changes or tampering at the monastery, but it might show that a specific marking or notation or overwriting was after 1846. (Not so likely, though, since it would be likely to be found out.) In terms of colour, I don't see how the 1846 is likely to matter, it was white then, it is white now.

And I definitely can see that it would be helpful to see if Kirsopp Lake in 1922 shows the colour distinction, and if he makes any comments about the parchment. And I am in the process of double-checking Skeat and Milne (1938, often using Lake) on this point.

Steven Avery

[Steven Avery]

And I definitely can see that it would be helpful to see if Kirsopp Lake in 1922 shows the colour distinction, and if he makes any comments about the parchment.

This is called a "photographic facsimile ... not in colour ... sometimes rather gray in tone" Codex Sinaiticus, The Story of the World's Oldest Book, David Parker, p. 4

Thus it is unlikely to be very helpful with the actual photographs.

Steven Avery

[Peter Kirby]

If the white parchment unstained leaves are not authentically ancient, then it is pretty definite that the stained yellow leaves, the full manuscript, is also not authentically ancient.

Please let us know what the structure of the argument is.

A)

1. "White parchment" leaves are implausible in and of themselves.
2. Therefore, the Sinaiticus manuscript leaves that are white are not plausibly ancient.
3. Therefore, at least some leaves of the Sinaiticus manuscript are not plausibly ancient.

B)

1. Some of the leaves stored in one place are "white," and some of the leaves stored in another place are "yellow."
2. The discrepancy is not plausible unless we assume artificial causes (tampering).
3. Therefore, there has been tampering with the Sinaiticus leaves (to make them appear yellow).
4. If there is tampering, then this suggests that the Sinaiticus manuscript is not plausibly ancient.
5. Therefore, the Sinaiticus manuscript is not plausibly ancient.

C)

???

Please don't fuss too much over the wording involved. I'm just interested in understanding what is supposed to be significant about this, to understand what the the discussion is about.