Kirsopp Lake - "and in a few cases the ink has eaten through the vellum so as to leave holes"

[Steven Avery]

CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...edict-identity-fraud-theft.15475/post-1223054

1911 p. xvi

Many of the leaves are so thin that the writing from the other side is sometimes so plainly visible as to become confusing, and in a few cases the ink has eaten through the vellum so as to leave holes. As a rule, however, the vellum struck me as not quite so thin as that of the Codex Alexandrinus, and to have consequently suffered somewhat less from erosion.

The edges of the leaves have been slightly trimmed since the time of the C correctors; this can be seen, for instance, on f. 49 recto. So far as it is now possible to discover, there is no writing on the edges of the closed MS.

ink eating vellum is a myth, the one spot from the CSP was an erasure, it cannot happen in 250 years

 

[Steven Avery]

Grenz material - Sinaiticus
he actually looked at one page
I am grateful to have been invited to view a single sheet of B(03) (pp. 1490, 1499; Gal 3:9–4:6, Phil 1:1–28) in the Sistine Hall, BAV (2 July 2019).

Kirspp Lake above 1911-1921 - false quote on holes

Kirk - Cursives of equal authority AD 500

Did Skeat see CFA?

Conservation Note p.33 -

James Sightler on Vaticanus. A Testimony founded Forever

Dating of Vaticanus - Grenz - 600 900 Titan

Chart of Alexandria, Caesarea, Italy

 

[Steven Avery]

https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...dentity-fraud-theft.15475/page-9#post-1223800

The action of ink upon vellum is peculiar, slow, and gradual, and leads to results which can be measured by time. The action of light and air, and warmth, and moisture, are also remarkably uniform. - p. 490

You are making stuff up, saying whatever is convenient, facts be gone.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/is-the-worlds-oldest-bible-a-fake.11375/page-18#post-929338

The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Alexandrinus (1938)
Milne and Skeat
https://archive.org/details/codexsinaiticusc0000brit/page/32/mode/2up
6. Appearance of the Manuscript
The vellum of the Codex varies in quality but is for the most part fine, so fine that the ink has frequently bitten right through and fretted many of the pages. Owing to its treatment at the hand of binders the vellum has lost its natural resilience, and now presents a limp, dead appearance in marked contrast to the vellum of the Codex Sinaiticus.

You will not see any easy-peasy page turning vids of the truly ancient uncials.

The proper comparator is Vaticanus. The state of Vaticanus is similar to Sinaiticus as to corrosion/oxidation. In Vaticanus there is gnawing in a few places, due to oxidation, same as in Sinaiticus.

From the Jesse R. Grenz paper:

Paul Canart
“the overly acidic ink has more than once gnawed, even punctured the parchment" - p. 21

Canart, Paul. “Le Vaticanus graecus 1209: notice paléographique et codicologique.” Pages 19–45 in Le manuscrit B de la Bible (Vaticanus graecus 1209). Edited by Patrick Andrist. Histoire du texte biblique 7. Lausanne: Éditions du Zèbre, 2009.

Please show me the similar gnawing and puncturing of the parchment by ink-acid corrosion in Sinaiticus.
Thanks!

Re Sinaiticus "No significant degradation process seems to affect the writing media."
Kirsopp Lake Codex Sinaiticus PETROPOLITANVS, Introduction, pxvi:
"and in a few cases the ink has eaten through the vellum so as to leave holes."

Where?
Even one spot would help.
(It is easy to confuse erasures with age deterioration.)

I'm not doing your research for you. It is enough that I have shown that the remarks made of the two manuscripts re ink corrosion are seen to be very comparable.

Your concession speech.
Even one spot.
Remember, we can see the excellent manuscript pics.

cjab gave up on trying to support this quote from Kirspp Lake:
“and in a few cases the ink has eaten through the vellum so as to leave holes."
Let’s see if Bill Brown can find one acid-ink reaction spot eating through the parchment.
If there are none, that is extremely strong evidence that Sinaiticus is a recent production.

And if there are?

That would be a good evidence for the manuscript being old.

Even if there is, you'll still deny it... because you're a denialist.

You might be counting your eggs before they're

Take the question of ink-acid reaction supposedly making holes in the parchment over the centuries.
If there were such holes, even a small number, I would say that it is a challenge to the 1800s theory.
I hope the Sinaiticus antiquity defenders would similarly acknowledge that the lack of ink-acid holes is a challenge to the 4th-5th century theory,

So the whole contra team, Team Sinaiticus Antiquity, is looking.

Anything?

 

[Steven Avery]

Jongkind

 

[Steven Avery]

Skeat and Milne

3 The destruction of the vellum is not due to the ink itself, but to sulphuric acid liberated by chemical changes in it.

Where there were holes or dangerously weak places, or tears within the text area, these were strengthened with thin silk gauze which is nearly invisible when laid down. No attempt was made to strengthen the weak places in the text due to ink corrosion, except where these appeared to be in danger of breaking down.

 

[Steven Avery]

Jesse Grenz
Skeat claims that it is the production of sulfuric acid which causes this deterioration. However, Gerhard. Banik notes that this deterioration is far more likely caused by oxidation than acids.

Gerhard Banik was misrepresented
https://irongallink.org/ink-corrosion-chemistry.html

 

[Steven Avery]

William Andrew Smith
Because the black ink has both faded to a brownish color and eaten through many of the pages of the manuscript, it is likely a mordant metallic ink, prepared using an iron or copper metallic salt.24

Metzger likewise placed metallic inks at the fourth century and later, commenting that “the chemical changes [such an ink] undergoes may, in fact, liberate minute quantities of sulphuric acid that can eat through the writing material” (Metzger, Manuscripts, 17)

 

[Steven Avery]

Manuscript Repair in European Archives: I Great Britain (1938)
L. Herman Smith
The American Archivist, Vol. 1, No. 1 (Jan., 1938), pp. 1-22 (22 pages)
https://www.jstor.org/stable/40288098