CARM - are the holes in this New Finds Deuteronomy parchment fragment caused by 1650+ years of ink-acid reaction?

Steven Avery


The Sinaiticus defenders have been trying desperately to find some spot where the ink-acid reaction destroyed parchment over 1500+ years.

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

Journal of Sacred Literature - April, 1863
from the Clerical Journal of Oct 2, 1862
The Codex Sinaiticus and Dr. Simonides
Also in James Keith Elliott, 1982, p. 62-63

To follow the evidence wherever it leads.
It’s not my fault that the evidence is massive for Sinaiticus being 1800s rather than 300s.
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,

It is likely that many of the degraded pages were burnt (which accounts for nearly half the text). What you're seeing in Sinaiticus today is the best part of the surviving portion. Have a look at this page surviving from Deuteronomy in poor shape. What is noticeable is that the majority of the holes, and many are small letter-sized holes, appear in the text. The margins between the columns, and the outer margins are relatively free from these small holes, and quite pristine as constrasted wuith the text. Some of the margin holes appear to coincede with margin text. Your synopsis that the Sinaiticus vellum is not degraded is seen to be pure hogwash.

What are your thoughts on Deuteronomy in Sinaiticus? Did I miss them? What part of Deuteronomy is in good condition?

I found a page In Deut where many holes appeared in the inked areas, but the unink

Here is the page, did you ever even post a picture?

Here is the info on the page, picture to follow.

Codex Sinaiticus Project
Deuteronomy, 28:68 - 29:22 library: SC folio: scribe: A

Obviously, any honesty problem is with cjab, since this is a New Finds page.

Which is similarly as bad as your attempt to use a New Finds fragment!
Why don't you actually try to look carefully at the manuscript?

Your Deuteronomy fragment picture seems to be hidden in a url, on a thread about Benedict, so we can bring that over next and place it on this thread. However, it is a New Finds page, so it is clearly irrelevant, 130 years in a dank dump room, manuscripts on the floor .... still lets take a look.

Holes everywhere.
Top, side, bottom (more not visible on this pic, see online), main section, big ones.
Near ink, far from ink.

And cjab wants to fake the forum out, pretending that this New Finds dump room sheet shows ink-acid destruction!

Another evidence that there is simply NO 1500+ year ink-acid destruction of any parchment in Sinaiticus.

This one does count as an ultra-desperation attempt by the Sinaiticus Antiquity Defenders (SAD),