Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

[Steven Avery]

It doesn't surprise me in the slightest that you change your whole story on a turn of a dime. No, that wasn't an exact quote, but it's an example for your showmanship in this thread. Most of this thread consists of you telling everyone how horribly yellow the London leaves are, compared to the Leipzig ones, and that this proves some tea magic. Well, turns out the London leaves aren't yellow, at least not more yellow than the Leipzig ones, of which you presented a photograph in a live setting yourself. Remember?

That's one of the "white as snow" Leipzig leaves. I wouldn't want to eat that snow...

But yeah, now you want to tell us about the phenomenal condition the London leaves are in, which proves that they not as old as they are. You always wanted to have it both ways, having the manuscript defaced by tea magic and in phenomenally good condition, just to cover all bases. And no, desert heat isn't bad for parchment. Turns out that humidity isn't bad for parchment, either (leaking roofs and flooded basements excepted). What parchment doesn't like is change of humidity. But all of this, including the internal color standards, has already been discussed - and linked - in this thread. As I said, this is just a reminder for newcomers to this thread, that much of what is spouted here has been debunked.

First, drop the fake “quote” about “horribly yellow.”

“desert heat isn't bad for parchment.“
Parchment science says you are wrong.

You seem to be very confused on the basics.

“Phenomenally good condition” has always referred to Leipzig and London. Flexible, easy--peasy page turning and many quotes about their exceptional condition. And no problem with the acid from ink eating into the parchment.

(Coloring by herbs or lemon juice do not affect the actual parchment condition, modern forgers will try to create “age” by baking the parchment, a major application of dry heat.)

Dryness and heat are especially difficult for parchment, and that is Sinai, supposedly for 1000+ years.

Here is the CSNTM today:

Manuscripts Deteriorate Over Time
https://www.facebook.com/CSNTM/photos/a ... 7453370702

My comment:

==========

The exception to this truth appears to be Codex Sinaiticus, which withstood 1000+ years in the hot desert climate of Sinai and yet parchment and ink remain in "phenomenally good condition" (Helen Shenton of the British Library.)

And parchment and ink science even changes to accommodate the supposed age of Sinaiticus.

Either the materials were truly amazingly exceptional, or ....
alternatively ...

Sinaiticus was actually prepared at Mt. Athos c. 1840 and brought to Sinai. Note that it has no provenance before 1840 and the story of creation at Mt. Athos has many elements of historical imperatives, such as Constantine Simonides and friends working on mss. in Athos at precisely the right time, as confirmed in 1895 in the Spyridon Lamprou catalog of manuscripts at Mount Athos.

Note also the whack-a-doodle story created by Tischendorf in 1859 that he saved 43 leaves from fire in 1844, when actually he simply extracted five consecutive intact quires and three consecutive leaves from the manuscript, which Uspensky reported seeing intact the next year in 1845.

==========

[Ulan]

First, drop the fake “quote” about “horribly yellow.”

Come on, that's your whole stick this thread is based on: the color. Don't pretend otherwise.
An issue that doesn't exist, as has been shown in this thread.

“desert heat isn't bad for parchment.“
Parchment science says you are wrong.

No, it says I'm right. I linked the paper regarding this issue in this thread. Parchment doesn't like any change of humidity. You just have to keep the conditions steady, as long as it doesn't get too wet and mold starts growing.

The rest of your post just reiterates your fantasies that lack any evidence. As such, they don't need any further comment that hasn't been made numerous times already in this thread.

[Steven Avery]

First, drop the fake “quote” about “horribly yellow.”

Come on, that's your whole stick this thread is based on: the color. Don't pretend otherwise.
An issue that doesn't exist, as has been shown in this thread.
re wrong.

Please, stop the big lie.

Even the title of the thread tells you that the CFA is white parchment (which is precisely the opposite of yellow, such as Tischendorf and Scrivener making up the fiction of yellow with age). And this is supported by numerous quotes, both historical and the recent British Library. Then we discuss the pictures.

Our contention is that the British Library pages are, by comparison to Leipzig, artificially yellowed and stained, uneven in colour. Yet still in superb, amazing, phenomenal condition.

For you to mangle the truth to "horribly yellow" shows that you do not really relate honestly to the discussion. You look for a talking point, even when it is totally false.

[Steven Avery]

No, it says I'm right. I linked the paper regarding this issue in this thread. Parchment doesn't like any change of humidity. You just have to keep the conditions steady, as long as it doesn't get too wet and mold starts growing.

You are fishing around.
Your paper has nothing to do with the topic of how parchment degrades over a millennium, and the effects of hot desert climate.You did not quote a single sentence.

The effects of hydration on the collagen and gelatine phases within parchment artefacts (2013)
Lee Grant Gonzalez & Timothy James Wess
https://heritagesciencejournal.springer ... -7445-1-14

Ironically, you wrote in the post with the url.

Ulan
"I moved to a desert at one point and could watch my books and furniture fall apart in the dry air."
'viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017&p=64722&hilit=humidity#p64722

[Steven Avery]

The British Library put out a nice guide, and I made a picture with the relevant section from their chart:

Preservation Advisory Centre - Damaged Books
https://www.bl.uk/britishlibrary/~/medi ... -guide.pdf



Pure Bible Forum
https://purebibleforum.com/index.php?th ... #post-5849

The dry climate of Sinai would not lead to mold if stored in a dry spot as much as it would to "reduced flexibility ... parchment" and "embritlement." in fact Sinaiticus is wonderfully supple, with easy-peasy page turning. (Also there should be weakening of the ink as it causes acid deterioration on the parchment.)

Why?
One simple answer.
Sinaiticus is not an ancient manuscript, and was only in Sinai for less than 20 years.

Sinai - high temperature, low humidity

[StephenGoranson]

very minor point, in case one word puzzles anyone, in
"Come on, that's your whole stick this thread is based on...."
"stick" here may mean shtick, schtick.

[Steven Avery]

Yes, Ulan was trying to play a Yiddish card.

[StephenGoranson]

To try to be clear,
I did offer other spellings of shtick:
I did not say it was, as a word choice here, inappropriate.

[Steven Avery]

Then there's the issue where most of the remaining leaves from the monastery come from: a basement room that was not accessible for ages and only got opened during some kind of reconstruction work.

Ages ... can easily be, since the 1850s.
You are using a vague word "ages" because, again, you do not have the facts, so you say what is convenient, as in your "pages" above.

Revisiting the Corruption of the New Testament: Manuscript, Patristic, and Apocryphal Evidence (2011)
Daniel B. Wallace
https://books.google.com/books?id=838A8BDUI5kC&pg=PA35

What the New Finds illustrate is that the practice of burying MSS at Mt. Sinai was taking place after the eighteenth century and sufficiently prior to modern times to have been forgotten by the monks. After Tischendorf s last visit in 1859, the monastery became increasingly flooded with visitors. This suggests that the gcniza was filled prior to this time. And the fact that leaves from Sinaiticus were buried there—both from the Pentateuch and from the Apostolic Fathers (i.e., the outer leaves of the codex, which would be most prone to be loosed from the book)—may imply that Tischendorf was mistaken when he said that the monks were burning leaves of this codex. For our purposes, it is enough to note that the normative practice of ancient Christians, even perhaps to modern times, was to bury or hide sacred texts rather than destroy them.

Not only does Hermas give the sense of being a Tischendorf dump, as I explained above, but there is a similar situation with the Pentateuch fragment. Genesis 24 was a spot of special contention relating to Simonides markings, where he claimed there was an acrostic and ... surprise ... we have a fragment of it in the New Finds.

There is another reason we know the New Finds room was available in the 1840-1850s period.

There was material taken from Uspensky and Tischendorf that overlaps New Finds material.

This included Genesis material, which was a prime area of contention about Simonides markings.

It also includes Shepherd of Hermas material, Quire 93, which is New Finds, and embarrassing to Tischendorf.

And a section of a Psalter that Uspensky had stolen.

Quire 93 - Folio 7 - where Hermas was mangled and folio was taken by both Uspensky and Tischendorf
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... ndorf.153/

New Finds - Uspensky and Tischendorf at work and play
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... -play.213/

fragments from the National Library of Russia website
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... bsite.637/

[Steven Avery]

To try to be clear,
I did offer other spellings of shtick:
I did not say it was, as a word choice here, inappropriate.

Understood. The word usage was cute, and fine.

It was not a duffer or patzer move, nor was it a finger-fehler. (well, leaving off the h may have been so, a typo.)