Thanks. David has a number of superb videos on the topics.John T wrote: ↑Tue Jul 31, 2018 6:08 amI don't know if this link has been used on this thread already but here is a short video by David Daniels from Chick Publications (who gives a couple of shouts out to Steven Avery) that addresses the problem of staining of some of the pages and not others.
There are many problems with this theory.
To begin with, how did the ms. resist any staining at all from the supposed 350 AD to 1844? See the Leipzig pages, all 86 of them, and you are looking at the manuscript condition in 1844 (with perhaps one small shade of off-white added to the white parchment.)
And 1844 pages in Leipzig is not a hot and dry desert, yet it did not have the proposed changes. And the hot and dry desert should have embrittled both sections, yet they are in "phenomenally good condition" with easy-peasy page turning as in the BBC video.
In addition, what would happen that would colour ALL the pages that are 1859 British Library? And give them streaks and stains. One simple answer, sponge or light bathing in the proper solutions. That would also explain the unevenness of the pages in colour, and the fact that it does not have that built-in brittle yellow that is expected in ancient mss. Still very supple.
They make allowances because they sense it is almost like-new. Nothing will rip or tear, the only real damage is what was done by their previous handling around some edges.
This is the well-known trick of the ages. You can find lots of people doing it with paper on YouTube, and I've talked to a Professor who has done it with parchment (for innocent testing or teaching purposes, I was assured.) She said it was surprisingly effective. (paraphrase)
Oh, and in 1862-4, it was specifically pointed out that this was done in Sinai in the 1850s, with lemon water and herbs being mentioned as the agents.
How did they know that this matches the manuscript "facts on the ground" ? And why did nobody check this till 2014? (the Codex Sinaiticus Project of 2009 made it easy to check.)
I'm not sure about "easily", but I do tend to agree. The folks involved in the "Library of Stains" have not really looked into the deliberate stain issue, as far as I can tell.
The defenders of authenticity find "conspiracy theory" a convenient diversion from the real issues, and their lack of knowledge of the Sinaiticus history. This is a generalization, there are a couple of scholars who at least have some savvy and expertise in one or two of the important areas.
I sent the url of your post over to David, he was appreciative.