Steven Avery
Administrator
You can even hear an amused or astonished chuckle.
A BBC Article on the Codex Sinaiticus
Today, the British Library and CSP reps tend to be a bit more guarded
.========================
Last edited:
"the parchment ... is in phenomenally good condition" - Helen Shenton
- Thread starter Steven Avery
- Start date
You can even hear an amused or astonished chuckle.
A BBC Article on the Codex Sinaiticus
Today, the British Library and CSP reps tend to be a bit more guarded
.========================
Steven Avery
Administrator
"the parchment ... is in phenomenally good condition" - Helen Shenton - "only three people alive"
The quote was questioned for context on CARM.
And this response was placed here:
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...nt-frederico-augustanus?p=5071301#post5071301
As to the Helen Shenton comment, which was questioned as "clipped without context", that is also available online:
A BBC article on the the Codex Sinaiticus.(2009)
Helen Shenton is introduced at 3:35, the quote is soon after:and goes to 3:55.
Our savvy readers will know.
======================================
Steven Avery
The quote was questioned for context on CARM.
And this response was placed here:
https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/t...nt-frederico-augustanus?p=5071301#post5071301
Steven Avery said:
As to the Helen Shenton comment, which was questioned as "clipped without context", that is also available online:
A BBC article on the the Codex Sinaiticus.(2009)
Helen Shenton is introduced at 3:35, the quote is soon after:and goes to 3:55.
The reason for the phenomenally good condition?
Our savvy readers will know.
======================================
Steven Avery
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
Access became available with the Codex Sinaiticus Project, which exposed features that show that it is a modern manuscript, tampered, between 1844 and 1859.
This is Helen Shenton as well, I recommend from 2:50 to 3:30.
Collaboratories and bubbles of shush how libraries are transforming
Helen Shenton - TEDxDublin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHdlWQ28gE8
We are often given harumphs about how the independent scholars must have seen the main two sections of Sinaiticus. There is no indication that any independent (or even non-independent) textual or palaeographic scholars has had access to the two main sections, and compared even the simplest of features, the colour. Nor have they commented on the suppleness, the "phenomenally good condition", the lack of oxidation and foxing, and other elements that would raise the issue of the actual age of the manuscript.
As far as we can tell, the scholars have worked off the tampered facsimile of Tischendorf, and the 2010 Hendricksen Sinaiticus facsimile book also had the colour "smoothed" to hide the distinction of the CFA from the larger section.
No printed book can ever show you the suppleness of the manuscript. That is why we also recommend viewing the video of the pages being turned, lightly and simply, put out by the British Library.
======================================
Steven Avery
This is Helen Shenton as well, I recommend from 2:50 to 3:30.
Helen Shenton is Librarian and College Archivist at Trinity College Dublin.
Collaboratories and bubbles of shush how libraries are transforming
Helen Shenton - TEDxDublin
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pHdlWQ28gE8
We are often given harumphs about how the independent scholars must have seen the main two sections of Sinaiticus. There is no indication that any independent (or even non-independent) textual or palaeographic scholars has had access to the two main sections, and compared even the simplest of features, the colour. Nor have they commented on the suppleness, the "phenomenally good condition", the lack of oxidation and foxing, and other elements that would raise the issue of the actual age of the manuscript.
As far as we can tell, the scholars have worked off the tampered facsimile of Tischendorf, and the 2010 Hendricksen Sinaiticus facsimile book also had the colour "smoothed" to hide the distinction of the CFA from the larger section.
No printed book can ever show you the suppleness of the manuscript. That is why we also recommend viewing the video of the pages being turned, lightly and simply, put out by the British Library.
======================================
Steven Avery
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Administrator
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/is-the-worlds-oldest-bible-a-fake.11375/page-16#post-927495
Yes, read the lines, and between the lines.
The main page is:
Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus
Gavin Moorhead
May 2009
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx
Gavin Moorhead acknowledges the colour difference of the British Library and Leipzig sections.
We can run through the ink section later, it was fun going back over this amazing page.
"next to nothing is known about the parchment used for the Codex."
"Overall, the condition of the parchment is exceptional for its age."
"Low in levels of significant degradation."
"The parchment is .. Supple and flexible in quality."
What can be said with certainty is that any 4th Century parchment with this amount of flexibility, thinness, maker’s holes, repairs and striation is exceptional. It remains indeterminate how these features came to be or how the making process and rigors of history have impacted on the longevity of the parchment.
What can be said with certainty is that any 4th Century parchment with this amount of flexibility, thinness, maker’s holes, repairs and striation is exceptional.
New parchment can be near white but as it ages or is exposed to detrimental factors it will start to yellow and go brown-black if left to degrade completely.... Only a few folios in the codex could be considered to be heavily discoloured and these tended to be the folios that were once adjacent to missing parts and therefore, more exposed.
Opacity values for the codex did not vary significantly and tended to reflect thickness variances rather than increased degradation.
Apart from a small percentage of folios with heavy ink corrosion, most of the folios appeared to have survived the rigours of 16 centuries with an unexpected lack of damage, suffering in the main only from small tears and losses along the head, tail, fore-edge and spine folds. Much of this damage is more likely attributable to mechanical damage than physical deterioration.... the minimal damage and good condition
"the parchment is extremely fine with relatively few extant imperfections and markings"
"low incidence of follicle, axilla and scarring evidence"
the relatively small amount of ink corrosion and brittleness
Most of the scarring is small in size and tends to occur in the margins near the edges ... the lack of significant scarring
The number of folios in the Codex Sinaiticus with maker’s holes is small and when evident, the holes tend to be located in the margins, well away from the text. The majority of the holes themselves are small (<5mm in diameter) ... no obvious evidence of a makers repair apart from a part-obscured hole... Evidence of striation on the folios of the codex is not abundant
And very unspecific notations:
=================
"The method of pricking and ruling[21] set the model for later Greek and Latin manuscripts that followed in the next 1000 years."
This looks like an acknowledgment that this is actually a later development than fourth century.
Similarly:
"the margin areas are generous at a time when parchment was expensive to produce"
=================
"the twentieth-century binding tending to hide its codicological history"
An allusion to the disaster of the Douglas Cockerell binding mania, which was pointed out by Kirsopp Lake.
=================
Actually helpful microscopic analysis:
René Larsen[27] has determined two types of animal origin; calf and wool sheep (see figs.3 and 4). He examined 28 folios with significant follicle evidence and was able to positively identify 15 as calf; 4 as most likely calf; 2 as wool sheep and the remaining 7 as unidentifiable.
=================
https://forums.carm.org/threads/is-the-worlds-oldest-bible-a-fake.11375/page-16#post-927495
Yes, read the lines, and between the lines.
The main page is:
Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus
Gavin Moorhead
May 2009
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx
Gavin Moorhead acknowledges the colour difference of the British Library and Leipzig sections.
We can run through the ink section later, it was fun going back over this amazing page.
"next to nothing is known about the parchment used for the Codex."
"Overall, the condition of the parchment is exceptional for its age."
"Low in levels of significant degradation."
"The parchment is .. Supple and flexible in quality."
What can be said with certainty is that any 4th Century parchment with this amount of flexibility, thinness, maker’s holes, repairs and striation is exceptional. It remains indeterminate how these features came to be or how the making process and rigors of history have impacted on the longevity of the parchment.
What can be said with certainty is that any 4th Century parchment with this amount of flexibility, thinness, maker’s holes, repairs and striation is exceptional.
New parchment can be near white but as it ages or is exposed to detrimental factors it will start to yellow and go brown-black if left to degrade completely.... Only a few folios in the codex could be considered to be heavily discoloured and these tended to be the folios that were once adjacent to missing parts and therefore, more exposed.
Opacity values for the codex did not vary significantly and tended to reflect thickness variances rather than increased degradation.
Apart from a small percentage of folios with heavy ink corrosion, most of the folios appeared to have survived the rigours of 16 centuries with an unexpected lack of damage, suffering in the main only from small tears and losses along the head, tail, fore-edge and spine folds. Much of this damage is more likely attributable to mechanical damage than physical deterioration.... the minimal damage and good condition
"the parchment is extremely fine with relatively few extant imperfections and markings"
"low incidence of follicle, axilla and scarring evidence"
the relatively small amount of ink corrosion and brittleness
Most of the scarring is small in size and tends to occur in the margins near the edges ... the lack of significant scarring
The number of folios in the Codex Sinaiticus with maker’s holes is small and when evident, the holes tend to be located in the margins, well away from the text. The majority of the holes themselves are small (<5mm in diameter) ... no obvious evidence of a makers repair apart from a part-obscured hole... Evidence of striation on the folios of the codex is not abundant
And very unspecific notations:
- Affected by long-term ink corrosion.
- Affected by gelatinisation
=================
"The method of pricking and ruling[21] set the model for later Greek and Latin manuscripts that followed in the next 1000 years."
This looks like an acknowledgment that this is actually a later development than fourth century.
Similarly:
"the margin areas are generous at a time when parchment was expensive to produce"
=================
"the twentieth-century binding tending to hide its codicological history"
An allusion to the disaster of the Douglas Cockerell binding mania, which was pointed out by Kirsopp Lake.
=================
Actually helpful microscopic analysis:
René Larsen[27] has determined two types of animal origin; calf and wool sheep (see figs.3 and 4). He examined 28 folios with significant follicle evidence and was able to positively identify 15 as calf; 4 as most likely calf; 2 as wool sheep and the remaining 7 as unidentifiable.
=================
Last edited: