Codex Vaticanus of bible digitized

[toejam]

Thanks for the link

[Leucius Charinus]

I agree that there's a lot of "trained eye" stuff in palaeography. It's not a hard science. That's why I said "of its own sort."

I don't think many professionals are going to think there's a strong case to be made that the uncial leaves in the Vaticanus are a massive, late forgery.

Hard scientific results on the age of the leaves should be a mandatory part of the process of dating any manuscript.

Libraries are very reluctant to cut off pieces of parchment

Are the blank pages of "Holy Books" holy or something?

.... and then undergo the considerable expense of C-14 dating without very strong reason.

The cost of the tests is relatively small when you consider the resources of the library.

One cannot underestimate the value of scientific chronological estimation by C14.

I look at it simply as a matter of professionalism in the 21st century.





viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017&hilit=avery
Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus
Steven Avery







LC

[ficino]

Hard scientific results on the age of the leaves should be a mandatory part of the process of dating any manuscript.

[snip]

The cost of the tests is relatively small when you consider the resources of the library.

One cannot underestimate the value of scientific chronological estimation by C14.


LC

This would be great in theory, though I don't think C-14 would give precise enough results to settle disputes when the time range under dispute is, say, a century or so. It would help detect blatant forgeries, and perhaps deliberately archaising manuscripts. I once published a short article on a manuscript that a palaeographer had dated 11th century, but I (thought) I showed that it was later than the 1370s, because it was copied from something else from around that date.

It's going to take a lot to convince libraries that C-14 dating is mandatory for any manuscript!

[ficino]

Hi ficino, could you please say a few words about what is written as an additional text on the pages of the book of Daniel?

It's from Hippolytus' Commentary on Daniel, where Hipp. comments on the opening verses of Daniel. The copyist here writes in a later Byzantine, crabbed scholarly hand. I see signs of his insertion of Hipppolytus' commentary in the margins only on pp. 1206 and 1207 of the Vaticanus. The Byzantine guy gave up pretty quickly! Unless there are parts of the commentary on pages later on in the codex.

[Kunigunde Kreuzerin]

Thank you for the information. That's very kind of you.