Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
yalla
Posts: 38
Joined: Sun Oct 06, 2013 3:52 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by yalla » Wed Oct 29, 2014 10:58 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constantine_Simonides

FWIW

. According to opinion of paleographers, he was the most versatile forger of the nineteenth century.[1]

On 13 September 1862, in an article of The Guardian, he claimed that he is the real author of the Codex Sinaiticus and that he wrote it in 1839. According to him it was "the one poor work of his youth". According to Simonides, he visited Sinai in 1852 and saw the codex. Henry Bradshaw, a scholar, exposed the absurdity of his claims.[6]

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

cleaned with lemon-juice

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Oct 30, 2014 12:39 am

Hi,

There are lots of possibilities of how Simonides may, or may not, have been involved with the Sinaiticus ms. He is an important figure, but, as with Tischendorf, we have to be very cautious with his claims. We especially see the 1840-1845 period through a glass darkly.

Simonides published his Hermas ms. in 1856, about which James Anson Farrer (1849-1925) said:
"The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"
Literary forgeries (1907) - James Anson Farrer
http://books.google.com/books?id=4lgLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA60

The situations with Hermas and with Barnabas are incredibly difficult for Sinaiticus antiquity. If anybody with a little background in these writings and the classical languages wants to examine this in more detail, please contact me for more information.

As for our main topic on this thread, consider this:
"And I know yet further, that the codex also was cleaned with lemon-juice, professedly for the purpose of cleaning its parchments, but in reality in order to weaken the freshness of the letters, as was actually the case."
Kallinikos Hieromonachos, Oct 15, 1862, referencing Tischendorf

"I know too. still further, that the same Codex was cleaned with a solution of herbs, on the theory that the skins might be cleaned, but, in fact, that the writing might he changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow colour."
James Keith Elliott book, p. 77 (I'll plan on getting more info in the AM)

"Some he thought had been dipped in tobacco-water to give them the semblance of age.",
Farrer, p. 40, referring to another situation with mss from Simonides
The simple fact that these first two assertions dovetail so well with the physical condition of Sinaiticus is an element that any objective researcher would have to earnestly consider.

Essentially, Tischendorf, and possibly friends (Tischendorf had special baksheesh contacts at St. Catherine's) was being accused of tampering with the manuscript in Sinai in the period after the 43 leaves had been taken to Leipzig. The results of such yellowing of the manuscript would be precisely the colour and condition disparity that we see today. Thus, this surely must be considered as one of the explanations searched for in the OP.

Here is a simple question. If the mass of the ms. examined in the 1860s in Russia looked like the Codex Friderico-Augustanus, would the pristine white parchment condition, and the fine ink, have been discordant with claims of great antiquity?

Steven Avery

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Oct 30, 2014 8:05 am

Finally, got the pic posting method.
I added it back in on the previous page, this post:
viewtopic.php?p=21469#p21469

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

British Library on the white parchment - March, 2014

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:01 pm

For a little assistance, here is the full British Library letter, March 13, 2014.
Dear Steven,

I've now spoken with Gavin Moorhead, who was one of the conservators who worked on the project. He mentioned that initially there were plans to do a detailed study of the colour variance between parchment leaves, but for reasons of time and finances this was not followed through on, and instead the information was put up on the Sinaiticus website in the hope that researchers might be able to make some use of it.
Here is his response (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.
But there was colour variance throughout.
This probably reflected the degree of parchment degradation of the individual leaves.
The folios that have been subjected to greater fluctuations in relative humidity, heat and light tend to show a higher level of degradation and gelatinisation. These folios tended to be more yellowish.
However, the sections were split between Q37 f3v and Q37 f4r and this makes them vulnerable to mechanical damage and dirt as well.
The Leipzig folios were bound and stored under different conditions than those that ended up at the BL, so Q37 f4r may have been more exposed for a longer period of time.
In relation to a difference between the BL and Leipzig folios, my fist impression was that the Leipzig folios were lighter.
However, they had been unbound, cleaned and flattened, so they appeared different anyway.
If you look at the web pages for each folio and click on 'Physical Description/Parchment/Colour' , the colour measurement of BL folio Q37 f4r is S1010-Y10R as opposed to S1005-Y20R for the Leipzig folio Q37 f3v. These colour values were measured under the same conditions at both sites as was the camera set up. The grading system is explained in the ' | 'info link adjacent to the word 'colour' on the web pages.

I hope this helps to answer your question. Just a quick additional note:
(...a techie bit here about the captions on the pics, which leaf is which.)

With all best wishes,
Cillian O'Hogan
This can clearly lead to a lot of follow-up, questions and considerations. For now, though, our dear readers can take a look and do their big thinks :) .

Steven Avery
Last edited by Steven Avery on Wed Nov 12, 2014 8:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
MrMacSon
Posts: 5680
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2013 3:45 pm

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by MrMacSon » Thu Oct 30, 2014 2:39 pm

Steven Avery wrote:My reading of C-14 studies is that, almost invariably, they lead to more controversies. I don't think I have ever heard of a C-14 test ever truly resolving a question.
I think radioisotope studies such as C-14 are useful for dating or aging things over millennia (or tens or hundreds of thousand of millennia) but, as far as early Christianity, goes they are not accurate to the degree often required ie. 1-3/4 hundred yrs.

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:31 pm

bcedaifu wrote:question: Are the pages in Leipzig still white, 150 years later?

Yes, as you can see on the website. In fact, in their theory, 1650 years later, nice and white. Degradation unto yellowing is nil.
bcedaifu wrote:question: does anyone else observe an image at http://codexsinaiticus.com/en/manuscript.aspx?book=34 which, on higher magnification, suggests recopying?

Retracing is an area where it is very hard to get straight and clear answers on Sinaiticus. Where done? When? By whom? There are pages that look like a type of super-ink. Maybe they are retracing. If so, when? 1855? And if so, you should be able to see the original underneath, at least with ultra-violet as done with John 21:24-25.

Lots of puzzles.

Steven Avery

ficino
Posts: 745
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:15 pm

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by ficino » Thu Oct 30, 2014 5:48 pm

As I remember from working on it in Venice, the famous "Venetus T" of Plato, copied by Efrem the monk in around 950, still boasts nicely light-colored parchment. Parchment comes in all degrees of quality.

User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augusta

Post by Leucius Charinus » Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:02 pm

Steven Avery wrote:My reading of C-14 studies is that, almost invariably, they lead to more controversies. I don't think I have ever heard of a C-14 test ever truly resolving a question.
Are we not discussing tools which will aid and contribute to the questions being asked? No one tool or result from an application of the tool is controversy free. Dating methodologies are getting very diverse and specialised as you have noted expansively (thanks for that) in your posts.
While I appreciate your desire to place real science to the manuscript, I believe much more would be accomplished first through chemical tests of the ink and parchment and stains. And spectrographic testing that does not even touch the material.
The more the tests the better. Exclude none. It is data. It is data which we would otherwise not have had at our disposal.

If history is an animal then its skeletal system is chronology.
  • "Everything which has come down to us
    from heathendom is wrapped in a thick fog;
    it belongs to a space of time we cannot measure.
    We know that it is older than Christendom, but
    whether by a couple of years
    or a couple of centuries,
    or even by more than a millenium,
    we can do no more than guess."


    [Rasmus Nyerup, (Danish antiquarian), 1802 CE
    (in Trigger, 1989:71) - from http://www.C14dating.com]

Keep in mind that certain aspects of palaeography are a one-direction discipline. A writer in 1500 AD can not emulate a future hand-writing in 2000 AD, however a 2000 AD writer can easily write in a style from 500 years earlier.
This is an important lesson to be understood. Thanks Steven.

For studies today, there are very sophisticated non-invasive tools available. I suggest you read about the Viking Map (there is a good video on the topic), the Voynich ms and similar modern controversies, including the continuing controversy on the Artemidorus papyrus. Without double-checking, I doubt that you will find that C-14 actually resolved any such issue. Although it might help in a contributory, corroborative fashion to a position.
Thanks for these references I will have a look at them. Dating methodologies are fascinating.

Now, I realize that you have put a lot into the public call for C-14 testing, honestly, I think your puppy is barking up the wrong tree. :)

Time will tell :)

MrMacSon wrote:I think radioisotope studies such as C-14 are useful for dating or aging things over millennia (or tens or hundreds of thousand of millennia) but, as far as early Christianity, goes they are not accurate to the degree often required ie. 1-3/4 hundred yrs.
The error bounds on recent C14 tests for the papyri and bindings for the Gospel of Judas are given as 280 CE plus or minus 60 years. That's not too bad for a bit of additional information obtained from blank spaces.

You linked to the whole blog...

It's an informative source for my studies on Pachomius. Who would have thought that Coptic studies would be such a huge field before the mid 20th century? But back to the Greek mother ....

However, the emphasis now is on the simple, easy to see and understand "two manuscripts" problem, which was, afawk, only discovered in 2014. This is probably the first time there has been an open-ended non-partisan discussion, iron sharpeneth.
Thanks for the info! It's a bit like surfing a breaking wave.

Be well,


LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]

User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 1262
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: cleaned with lemon-juice

Post by Leucius Charinus » Thu Oct 30, 2014 6:28 pm

Steven Avery wrote:Hi,

There are lots of possibilities of how Simonides may, or may not, have been involved with the Sinaiticus ms. He is an important figure, but, as with Tischendorf, we have to be very cautious with his claims. We especially see the 1840-1845 period through a glass darkly.

Simonides published his Hermas ms. in 1856, about which James Anson Farrer (1849-1925) said:
"The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance"
Literary forgeries (1907) - James Anson Farrer
http://books.google.com/books?id=4lgLAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA60

The situations with Hermas and with Barnabas are incredibly difficult for Sinaiticus antiquity. If anybody with a little background in these writings and the classical languages wants to examine this in more detail, please contact me for more information.

Thanks Steven (and Yalla)

How about starting another thread? I am interested in these situations with Hermas and with Barnabas and Sinaiticus antiquity. I don't have much background in the classical languages but I can follow the threads of arguments for and against items of contention. I am also very interested in the historical process of the closure of the canonical books of the NT Bible in which Hermas and Barnabas feature by their omission.


Be well,



LC
A "cobbler of fables" [Augustine]; "Leucius is the disciple of the devil" [Decretum Gelasianum]; and his books "should be utterly swept away and burned" [Pope Leo I]; they are the "source and mother of all heresy" [Photius]

Steven Avery
Posts: 489
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Hermas and Barnabas

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Oct 30, 2014 11:33 pm

Leucius Charinus wrote:Thanks Steven (and Yalla) How about starting another thread? I am interested in these situations with Hermas and with Barnabas and Sinaiticus antiquity.
Sinaiticus - Hermas, Barnabas linguistic, history anomalies
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1025

There you go.

Steven

Post Reply