Facebook post
Textus Receptus Assembly
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1485460165633174/
SINAITICUS COLOURING AND STAINING OF THE 1859 PAGES
One of the key elements of the colouring of Sinaiticus is the uneven color and staining of the 1859 St. Petersburg pages, now at the British Library. This is in addition to the pages being in incredibly youthful condition, but with a "yellowing" that is not on the 1844 in Leipzig. This yellowing is clearly not "age".
We saw that uneven element in the 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project, online. David Daniels did a very thorough check.
We just found out that Tischendorf actually noted the wide variety of page colouring on the 1859 pages! Placing it in his 1860 book Notitia and then later editions.
Afaik, there is really only one explanation for this phenomenon, the artificial colouring and staining that occurred in Sinai in the 1850s and was very specifically pointed out by Simonides and Kallinikos.
Tischendorf writing of the 1859 pages:
"Membrana codicis non tam alba quam sufflava est, magnaque ubique laevitate et subtilitate,
quamvis singula folia satis inter se differant."
"The parchment of the Codex is not so much white
[Or: "gray" "pearl" "pale"] as it is a yellowish
[Or: "blond"] color, present everywhere is a lightness and fineness of texture,
although the individual leaves are quite different from one another."
This translation is from the contra TNC on CARM, tweaking google translate.
First source:
Notitia editionis codicis bibliorum sinaitici: Auspiciis imp. Alexandri II. susceptae. Accedit catalogus cod. nuper ex oriente Petropolin perlatorum item Origenes Scholia in Proverbia Salomonis (1860)
by Konstantin von Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=DpI4EOWye7MC&pg=RA2-PA5
=======================================
Grantley McDonald discussion
What an interesting post! It would be useful if you could provide a list of the possible reasons for any alleged differences in colouration, and an assessment of the likelihood of each. It would also be useful if you could assess the extent to which any such alleged differences in colour could have been caused by differences in photographic conditions in the various libraries in which the photos were made. (Even differences in the colour of the walls will affect the frequency of the light reflected onto the leaves.) It would also be useful if you could tell us how differences in atmospheric conditions between Leipzig, St Petersburg and London, or the presence of various contaminants in the respective libraries, such as mould or mildew, might have affected the leaves over the course of a century and a half. Perhaps you could also provide an assessment of the expertise of those who have stated that the leaves have been discoloured deliberately, the dates on which they inspected the leaves personally, and the results of their investigations. Perhaps you could give us a list of other examples of manuscripts in which there are differences of colour between one leaf and another. Do you have any statistics about differences of parchment colour within individual manuscripts? In your opinion, are any such differences common or unusual?
Perhaps more importantly, in your quotation from Tischendorf, are you sure he is saying that the differences between the leaves relate to their colour, or to their relative fineness? His phrasing could mean either, but you haven’t discussed the likelihood of one interpretation over another. Is there in fact any difference of thickness or density from one leaf to another? Has someone gone through all the leaves and measured them with a micrometer? (This would measure thickness, not density, but such a measure, completely non-intrusive, would be a good place to start.)
Perhaps you could also tell us the criteria on which you characterise the appearance of the leaves in London as ‘incredibly youthful’. (Parchment remains flexible for centuries, as anyone who works with manuscripts knows.) Without such basic information, and without a proper weighing of all these variables, it is difficult for me or your other readers to come to any worthwhile conclusions about what you claim. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, merely that you have not given us enough information to decide whether your claims are sustainable.
====================
Hi Grantley, why did you remove your two posts showing colour differences in a manuscript in two different photographs in largely identical conditions.
I wanted to ask you to what you attributed the differences.
One major lack in your pictures was that there was no colour charts involved. Presumably the massive difference in colour and shading would have been clearly seen in massive differences in the colour charts, whatever the causes.
Dear Mr Spencer, Sorry, here are the photos again. I was just trying to get them on the same post, but never mind.
Here is one.
And the other
Both photos were taken a couple of years apart, with the same camera, in the same room, at the same table, with the same ambient electric light, both without flash. I took these photos simply for the text, not because I was trying to make two identical photos, so I didn't use a colour strip or adjust the settings. I imagine that on one day more light was coming in laterally from a window in the corridor next to the reading room, and that the camera adjusted for this automatically. My point was simply that even under ostensibly "identical" conditions, a camera can produce very different results.
You will also notice that these manuscripts, though over five hundred years old, look very fresh, even though the marks on the lower corner show that they have been consulted often. Old books can be surprisingly hardy.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
"the marks on the lower corner show that they have been consulted often."
The lack of handling grime in Sinaiticus was one part of why Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) rejected the manuscript as being ancient. (His analysis likely contributed to the Russians dumping the manuscript off on the British marks.)
Sinaiticus theory has the manuscript being used heavily over the centuries, but that is bewrayed by the condition.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
Grantley Robert McDonald - "My point was simply that even under ostensibly "identical" conditions, a camera can produce very different results."
Basically that shows the importance of standardization oversight, and colour charts, and human confirmation. All of which we have in Sinaiticus.
=========================================
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
Grantley Robert McDonald - a nice barrage of questions.
Let us start with an important and helpful confirmation of what is easily seen on the Codex Sinaiticus Project pictures. :
"Gavin Moorhead of the British Library Conservation Department, one of the team who examined each page of the manuscript in intense detail. "
- David Parker, Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible , p. 63
Gavin Moorhead directly acknowledged:
"Yes, the Leipzig folios are notable for their whiteness".
This, with the colour charts and the standardization efforts, should end speculation that there was simply some photographic aberration.
====================
The Leipzig pages, unlike the British pages, are extremely consistent (they were never subject to colouring) and they are not bound in a book. So one sheet could be brought over to Britain for a combined photography session with the two folia next to each other in one picture.
=====================
Of course, many excuses are offered for the Leipzig and British colour difference. So far none have been given for the unevenness of colour pointed out by Tischendorf and the staining on the British pages that looks to be connected to the uneven colour
Grantley Robert McDonald
Top contributor
What do we know about the conditions in which the leaves were held in St Petersburg? They could have been quite different from those in Leipzig. Please also consider my suggestion that Tischendorf's comments relate to differences in the fineness of each folio, not to differences in their colour. Until you can answer this question decisively (for example with measurements of each leaf with a micrometer), it would be unwise to keep stating that Tischendorf noted differences in colour - that is only one possible reading of his comments, but not the only one.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
"Please also consider my suggestion that Tischendorf's comments relate to differences in the fineness of each folio, not to differences in their colour."
First of all, the differences among pages from the 1859 haul are absolutely confirmed, as of the 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project.
Although the Hendrickson publishers may have hid the differences in the facsimile edition, as they did smooth and hide the Leipzig whiteness.
Second, I believe to a general audience, colour (and perhaps staining) is the natural interpretation. If he was actually talking micrometer analysis, you would expect a bit more focus on that element when speaking of the differences.
Tischendorf went to a LOT of effort to make sure that the manuscript was NOT physically examined. Thus the thickness would be a minor issue, but ANYONE could see in five minutes the colour differences.
So your point is well taken, but I think it is fair to place colour as the prime interpretation.
Of course Tischendorf could be including both factors,, but it really reads primarily like an apologia for the massive parchment colour anomalies, which would be noted by anybody who was able to handle the ms.
The CSP does have thickness measurements. We have not seen any anomalies that would apply, nor has any scholar who handled the ms. (very few up to 2009) mentioned significant thickness inconsistencies.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
Grantley Robert McDonald
"Perhaps you could give us a list of other examples of manuscripts in which there are differences of colour between one leaf and another. "
Putting aside significant water stains, artificial colouring as is alleged in some Simonides manuscripts, wacky conditions like the New Finds which can even be on the floor, and distinctions on the end pages, the differences in Sinaiticus 1859 appear to be unique.
And I requested the Library of Stains Project to look into the stains, and they said naaahhh, not what we are doing now.
When we travel through various manuscripts, we do not find anything comparable to the 1859 Sinaiticus uneven colouring and staining.
So I cannot give you similar examples which we have never seen and apparently do not exist.
Grantley
“Do you have any statistics about differences of parchment colour within individual manuscripts? In your opinion, are any such differences common or unusual?”
The incredible differences between Sinaiticus 1844 and 1859 are unusual, even unique. Nothing remotely comparable has been noted.
The same is true for the wide variety within 1859, even if you ignore the consistent white parchment of 1844.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
Grantley Robert McDonald -
“What do we know about the conditions in which the leaves were held in St Petersburg? “
The leaves were in St. Petersburg for c. 70 years, in the library, some years in a vault. No fires or floods affected the ms. No known mould or mildew effects. You can see how it was in a box when it went to London in 1933, which could pick up some dust. The Brits played with the quires like yesterday’s newspaper. Similar to the 2011 BBC video. Quires were intact, per the 1933 video,
We have:
1) uneven yellow throughout
2) stains
3) wonderful condition flexible parchment
4) lots of ink is original super-ink
The conditions in Russia were possibly rougher than Leipzig, the communists likely would have less heat, but not in a manner that would cause 1-2. 3 and 4 are simply because the ms. Is young.
Most of the “scholars” really do not care, they are servants of the textcrit establishment, who loves Tischendorf and Westcott-Hort. They set the “consensus” and the manuscript and textual aberrations are hand-waved, by many, to date.
However, there is more a-rumbling from the clear-minded.
======================================================
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
Grantley Robert McDonald
"Perhaps you could also tell us the criteria on which you characterise the appearance of the leaves in London as ‘incredibly youthful’. (Parchment remains flexible for centuries, as anyone who works with manuscripts knows.)"
Let's start:
The CSP expected problems with the ancient manuscript, and was surprised by the condition of the manuscript, with Helen Shenton gushing:
YouTube - Helen Shenton
https://youtu.be/wm4QhzhsYEo?si=rK0NDGtFjwHqb8vr&t=215
"One of the things we found is that the parchment, which is 1600 years old, is in phenomenally good condition. It's very very, very fine parchment. The animal husbandry that there must have been in order to produce such parchment is incredible, absolutely incredible"
You can see this incredible condition in a BBC Video, which I plan on including below.
Similar observations from Sara Mazzarino
"What I can certainly say is that the conservation conditions of CS are absolutely perfect in is current state"
" No significant degradation process seems to affect the writing media."
BBC - Beauty of Books
https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p00dy1gc
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
Newsreel Footage of Codex Sinaiticus from 1933
The major portions of Codex Sinaiticus that now reside in the British Library were bound into a volume by Douglas Cockerell after the leaves were closely studied by H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat in t…
brentnongbri.com
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
"Perhaps you could also provide an assessment of the expertise of those who have stated that the leaves have been discoloured deliberately, the dates on which they inspected the leaves personally, and the results of their investigations. "
We start with the quotes that were made in 1862 and 1863 from Simonides and Kallinikos, having seen what happened in Sinai in the 1850s.
the early 1860s references to the colouring of the manuscript - Kallinikos & Simonides
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/the-early-1860s-references-to-the-colouring-of-the-manuscript-kallinikos-simonides.490/
With various quotes, like this one:
“I know too, still further, that the same Codex was cleaned, with a solution of herbs, on the theory that the skins might be cleaned, but, in fact, that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow colour."
Kallinikos exposes Tischendorf shenanigans - the historical imperative and impossible knowledge
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php?threads/kallinikos-exposes-tischendorf-shenanigans-the-historical-imperative-and-impossible-knowledge.107/
This was based on first-hand knowledge, and would have been a truly absurd accusation if ... it were not true.
If the manuscript was actually normal, the charges would have been refuted within the hour of showing pages from the two sections.
So Tischendorf made sure that would be exceedingly difficult - by the placement of the manuscript sections and ducking the 1863 London trip.
====================
The "scholars" accepted the Tischendorf con about the manuscript .... without even checking the manuscript!
However, when the 2009 CSP came out, it confirmed the colouring accusations of 1862-1864.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
When this was noted in modern times, starting around 2014 and the two books and the videos by David W. Daniels, a whole textual criticism cottage industry developed in order to try to handwave and deny the coordinated historical imperative and visual evidence of the colouring and staining.
The whole goal was not to explain the manuscript history, but to throw sand on the simple evidence and truths. Thus, all sorts of contradictory partial “explanations” were offered.
And I have a lot of this documented on the PBF forum.
Ironically, even though some (Russia, Germany, USA) had seen the Tischendorf history as a fabrication (e.g. Morozov) based largely on the manuscript condition, also the holes in the Tischendorf story, we may have been the first ones to make the connection with the colouring history spelt out in 1862-1863. That could only be confirmed after the wonderful Codex Sinaiticus Project of 2009.
======================================
DM Smith
As a photographer I learned that paper yellows from sulfur compounds. Old wedding dresses require special cleaning to keep them from yellowing. I wonder if the same or similar is true with parchment. Maybe it is a sign of age but not a reliable measure especially for comparing parchments of different provenances.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
DM Smith - interesting.
Are you familiar with the distinction between :
Sinaiticus
1844 - 43 folia in
Leipzig, Germany
1859 - c. 350 folia in London ?
DM Smith
Steven Avery no
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
DM Smith - both have the same provenance up to 1844
43 folia that left Sinai in 1844 for Leipzig are light, whitish, unstained, even color on the pages
350 folia that left Sinai in 1859 for St. Petersburg are uneven yellow-ish, stained, wide variation page to page
In 1863 it was directly and specifically accused that the later group had been subject to coloring, as is done with lemon juice and herbs.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
Much of the compelling support evidence is in the realm of the historical imperative,
Seemingly out of left-field Constantine Simonides discussed how the ms. was made at Mt. Athos c. 1840. Plus he knew all about the Tischendorf con, including the 1844 theft of 43 leaves, the bogus “loan” of 1859, and the impossible accusation about the colouring. In 1895-1900 the placement of Simonides and Kallinikos at Athos together was confirmed in the Athos library book by Spyridon Lambrou. The superb scholarship of his uncle Benedict is now confirmed historically.
Plus, the Simonides connections with Anthimos, Constantius and the Sinai monastery all fit perfectly (he even said that Constantius gave good $ to Simonides, before sending the ms. to Sinai!)
And Simonides had published his sister Hermas, Codex Athous, in 1856. Tischendorf attacked it as a medieval retroversion from the Latin! Amazingly, Tischendorf gave a bumbling, confused retraction when he wanted to bring Sinaiticus out, since it is a sister Hermas!
These types of historical imperatives are everywhere.
However, you need a bit of clear-minded logic to put it all together.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
Grantley
“Without such basic information, and without a proper weighing of all these variables, it is difficult for me or your other readers to come to any worthwhile conclusions about what you claim. I’m not saying that you’re wrong, merely that you have not given us enough information to decide whether your claims are sustainable.”
======
Fair enough, and much better than the hand-waving textcrit hacks, who mostly work with censorship and mockery attempts.
They try to play to their base by emphasizing the KJB element, which is really irrelevant. I was quite happy to defend Sinaiticus authenticity, when the evidence was murky. One “scholar” was concerned about the moon landings, not realizing that skepticism there is now the norm!
I’ve tried to answer many of your questions in this thread.
There is more than enough evidence to warrant full study on many levels.
Leipzig pulled out of the planned 2015 scientific tests. Stonewall is the motif.
We are having fun researching many unusual textual components like connections of specific msss. With Sinaiticus corrections.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
Grantley Robert McDonald
"the presence of various contaminants in the respective libraries, such as mould or mildew, might have affected the leaves over the course of a century and a half. "
There are zero reports of mould or mildew or contaminants related to the 1844 or 1859 pages.
In fact, part of the Tischendorf con relating to the 1844 theft was pretending that the pages he stole were part of a stash "like these""mouldered by time".
When Were Our Gospels
Written (1867)
Constantine
Tischendorf
https://books.google.com/books?id=uJ0HAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA23
"In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments, and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like these, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames."
This was all fabrication. Tischendorf removed five intact, full quires from the codex plus 6 strategic contiguous pages, chosen because of the colophons (if the colophons were already there.)
Their condition was truly superb, even pristine, with lots of super-ink. Consistent with c. 1840 production.
Steven Avery
Author
All-star contributor
Hi Grantley,
We are hoping to hear your position on the dating and authenicity of Codex Sinaiticus!
Even set up a new thread.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/467217787457422/posts/1486791478833376/
