https://forums.carm.org/threads/is-the-worlds-oldest-bible-a-fake.11375/page-14#post-924520
Shoonra
I don't know the testing history of Sinaiticus but
Novum Testamentum, vol. 52, 2010, pages 101-133, had an article:
Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' (ms 2427) II, Microscopic, Chemical and Codicological Analysis Confirm Modern Production, by Margaret M. Mitchell, Joseph G. Barabe, and Abigail B. Quandt. The University of Chicago had acquired a miniature codex of the Gospel of Mark, alleged to be from the 14th century. Except it appeared that the text followed an 1860 edition of the Greek NT. Numerous experts and labs were consulted. Spectrographic analysis established that the ink used in an illustration was Prussian Blue which was first formulated in 1704. Carbon dating of the parchment established that the animals used had lived between 1461-1640. Polarized light microscopy and a scanning electron microscope discovered trace amounts of Ultramarine Blue, a pigment commercially available since the late 1820s. Ultraviolet examination showed the presence of zinc white, a fluorescent white pigment not commonly available until 1825. Analysis of the ink indicated it was an iron gall ink, such as existed since the 6th century, but particles of Vandyke Brown, which was first used in the 17th century, were found. Every page was found to have been heavily scraped, so as to remove some previous writing, and the edges of the pages showed a comparatively recent cutting. .... To sum up, the 'Archaic Mark' was not a 14th century work, but a production made between 1874 and the first decades of the 20th century.
It's an interesting article. My point is that
I fully expect similar tests have been made on the Sinaiticus; it would be malfeasance to have neglected the opportunities modern science provides
Actually, the claims of Simonides are generally consistent, and are born out by the "facts on the ground". You have not even come close to proving that to be the case. You are jumping to a conclusion that you have not proven to be true. You have offered mostly speculations and conjectures...
forums.carm.org
I posted a summary of an article from
Novum Testamentum, v. 52, 2010, pp. 101-133, on the high tech examinations of the Univeristy of Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' codex, which proved that it was a fake, not from the 14th century but from the latter half of the 19th century. The article didn't mention Sinaiticus but it was obvious to me that the multitude of tests, including microscopic and spectrographic and fluorescent, were considerably more than a carbon-14 test of the vellum (it appeared that a 14th century vellum document had been completely erased for a 19th century forgery). I cannot say for certain but I would bet that in the 90 years that the British Museum has had the Sinaiticus, most or all of those tests have been done on it.
I don't know what BAM tests are and I don't know any of the details of the British Library tests. But the testing of Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' showed a cardon-14 date of the vellum as 14th century - but visual examination showed that the original writing had all been scraped away and other tests...
forums.carm.org
I don't know what BAM tests are and I don't know any of the details of the British Library tests. But the testing of Chicago's 'Archaic Mark' showed a cardon-14 date of the vellum as 14th century - but visual examination showed that the original writing had all been scraped away and other tests showed that the 'Archaic Mark' writing had been done with 19th century inks. So a carbon-14 test of the Sinaiticus would (by destroying some piece of a page) show the vellum was made in the 4th century but wouldn't, by itself, verify the date of the writing.
The British Library clearly spends a lot of time studying the Sinaiticus and has experts - and access to more experts - in topics that verify the antiquity of the Codex. Librarian to librarian, I trust them for their evaluation of the date of Sinaiticus and I am resistant to suggestions that the British Library has neglected the proper tests. I accept the broad consensus of the 4th century date of the Codex.
