Steven Avery
Administrator
CARM
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...dentity-fraud-theft.15475/page-5#post-1220257
And I explained this to you earlier.
Now I will make it clearer.
Ink on some pages can be faded for two totally distinct, essentially opposite, reasons.
1) 1500 years of aging, ink-parchment acid reaction deterioration, accompanied by yellowing by age and brittleness of parchment, foxing, etc.
2) The ink was placed on in a faded fashion, by skilled calligraphers working with ink they understand, deliberately or, as the Rolling Stones sang, not fade away (noted below by Bill Brown that the original was by Buddy Holly). 2) is an old trick to try to give an appearance of age.
Since there are page after page of super-ink, in a wide variety of books in the manuscript, it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that the reason some pages are faded is 2. 1 is shown to be impossible by the many super-ink pages as well as the lack of the basic aging expectations like ink-acid deterioration, even on faded pages.
C'est très simple.
And why the mixture? Sinaiticus was a stumble-bumble operation. You have to be an Athos-Simonides dupe to think it is an ancient manuscript. They probably did not expect any overwriting, but the manuscript was no longer controlled by the original producers and was touched by a variety of hands from Athos to Constantinople to Antigonus to Sinai to Cairo (for the 1859 part) and to the final destinations.
The reason they would not want overwriting is that often it is often suspiciously brand-new, not any theorized 500-1,000 years or so. Plus if the ink was designed to be an ancient formulation (a point that Simonides explains) the overwriting might be chemically right out of the 1800s normal inkwells.
However if you have Sinaiticus dupes, they will never test ink chemically anyway, but that could not be expected on the front end.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...dentity-fraud-theft.15475/page-5#post-1220257
You haven't made any case for how the Sinaiticus letters faded, together with the corrections, and became aged over such a short period of time (literally 4 or 5 years in the case of Codex Frederico Augustanus).
And I explained this to you earlier.
Now I will make it clearer.
Ink on some pages can be faded for two totally distinct, essentially opposite, reasons.
1) 1500 years of aging, ink-parchment acid reaction deterioration, accompanied by yellowing by age and brittleness of parchment, foxing, etc.
2) The ink was placed on in a faded fashion, by skilled calligraphers working with ink they understand, deliberately or, as the Rolling Stones sang, not fade away (noted below by Bill Brown that the original was by Buddy Holly). 2) is an old trick to try to give an appearance of age.
Since there are page after page of super-ink, in a wide variety of books in the manuscript, it is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer that the reason some pages are faded is 2. 1 is shown to be impossible by the many super-ink pages as well as the lack of the basic aging expectations like ink-acid deterioration, even on faded pages.
C'est très simple.
And why the mixture? Sinaiticus was a stumble-bumble operation. You have to be an Athos-Simonides dupe to think it is an ancient manuscript. They probably did not expect any overwriting, but the manuscript was no longer controlled by the original producers and was touched by a variety of hands from Athos to Constantinople to Antigonus to Sinai to Cairo (for the 1859 part) and to the final destinations.
The reason they would not want overwriting is that often it is often suspiciously brand-new, not any theorized 500-1,000 years or so. Plus if the ink was designed to be an ancient formulation (a point that Simonides explains) the overwriting might be chemically right out of the 1800s normal inkwells.
However if you have Sinaiticus dupes, they will never test ink chemically anyway, but that could not be expected on the front end.