Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: the wonderfully non-faded never-tested red ink

  1. Default the wonderfully non-faded never-tested red ink

    Joseph Dindinger (not aware of ANY Sinaiticus controversy) pointed out that the red ink surely did not look ancient (and the ms. as a whole as well.)

    "it did NOT look to be 1600 years old"
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...0-years-old-qu
    ot

    It also has annotations in red ink, which is my understanding fades a lot sooner than black ink. So it just looked to me like it was a lot newer than the middle of the 4th century.
    So on this thread we will place lots of information about the rubrication of Sinaiticus, where Song of Songs and Psalms are leaders of the pack.

    The project (Facebook and PureBibleForum) began yesterday here:

    "it did NOT look to be 1600 years old"
    rubrication anticipation
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...=1447#post1447

    And related.


    Song of Songs - speakers identified in the text
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...ed-in-the-text

    healthy skepticism of 1860s scholars about Song of Solomon - and the complete NT - "not a word is wanting"
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...s-wanting-quot

    .


  2. Default

    We will plan on many pics here:

    English: Rubrication of the Codex Sinaiticus . 29 May 2009, 11:08:01. en:Codex Sinaiticus#Provenance Codex Ink
    https://www.alamy.com/english-rubric...184809132.html

    Here is one from Psalm 4:5, which is also used in the Mark Randall James paper:



    THE RUBRICATION OF THE PSALMS IN CODEX SINAITICUS
    Mark Randall James
    https://www.academia.edu/20044552/The_Rubrication_of_the_Psalms_in_Codex_Sinaiticus

    Which you can see directly on the CSP as well.
    http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manusc...r&zoomSlider=4

    This pic seems to give a nice close-up of the wonderful ink condition:
    https://www.alamy.com/english-rubrication-of-the-codex-sinaiticus-29-may-2009-110801-encodex-sinaiticusprovenance-codex-ink-image184809132.html





  3. Default Codex Alexandrinus

    A Study of the Gospels in Codex Alexandrinus: Codicology, Palaeography, and Scribal Hands (2014)
    William Andrew Smith
    https://books.google.com/books?id=pWHPBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA123

    As mentioned in Chapter 2, the vermillion ink is likely to be red lead, which (with exposure) can corrode and darken to black—precisely what has occurred in Alexandrinus. p. 123
    Compared to the fourth-century Codex Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus is currently in much more fragile condition; the OT books of Alexandrinus have deteriorated more than those of the NT. A conservation effort was made by the British Library in late 2012 to address the state of the codex prior to preparing digital images of the manuscript.

    The primary ink used in the manuscript is black or brown (atramentum; (Grk) that has faded to a yellowish brown color and in some places to a reddish hue. For rubrication a vermillion ink (minium, rubrica, (Grk) ), which has weathered the ages far better than the black/brown ink, was used. The vermillion ink has, in some areas, corroded and darkened to black, which suggests that the ink is red lead.22 In the section of thicker vellum described above, the black/brown ink is thin and yellow in hue and has adhered firmly to the leaves.23 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 mordantmetallic ink, prepared using an iron or copper metallic salt.24 This suggests all the more that the vellum was poorly prepared, since the mordant nature of such inks provides them with greater adherence to the writing surface. The yellow ink is perhaps of a different (noncorrosive) composition, though the thicker or better-prepared vellum may have mitigated any such corrosive effect. p. 39-40
    Here is the main place to see Alexandrinus pictures.
    http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/FullDis...al_MS_1_d_viii
    http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer...._d_viii_fs001r

    This is the fifth page of the NT
    http://www.bl.uk/manuscripts/Viewer.aspx?ref=royal_ms_1_d_viii_fs001r


    A couple of pages later, some red ink.



    A bit more.
    British Library - zoomable
    http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/sacre...xalexzoom.html

  4. Default COJS Pics


    Byzantine Period, 312-632 CE
    http://cojs.org/byzantine_period-_312-632_ce/

    Notice the big difference in the black ink of Sinaiticus to Alexandrinus
    http://cojs.org/codex_alexandrinus-_5th_century_ce/

    (Vaticanus was overwritten, reinforced, maybe as late as the 15th century)
    http://cojs.org/codex_vaticanus-_350_ce/

    Sinaiticus
    http://cojs.org/codex_sinaiticus-_350_ce/
    .

  5. Default Bezae Pics

    Codex Bezae
    University of Cambridge Digital Library
    https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/13

    Reddish ink like Alexandrinus

    The 16th page is black ink.
    https://cudl.lib.cam.ac.uk/view/MS-NN-00002-00041/16

  6. Default bible-researcher

    Codex Bezae Cantabrigiensis
    (D - Gospels and Acts)
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex-d1.html

    Michael Marlowe similarly pulls out pics, like this one of Bezae
    http://www.bible-researcher.com/codex.bezae.jpg

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •