"india ink" used to obliterate?

Steven Avery

Administrator
"india ink" used to obliterate

This question was given special emphasis by Bill Cooper. What he describes as "india ink" is used to obliterate one writing, and is maybe also used for some touch up situations on the manuscript. Cooper asserts that this has to be a modern ink, it did not exist in the 4th century, or anytime till recent days.

Actually, even if the ink might exist, the actual chemical make-up would have to match up with ancient inks.

Also, the very idea of obliteration by ink is likely modern and recent, not something that you would see in the first centuries.

The purpose here is to point to the most important page, maybe other pages, and see how this has been viewed, discussed or ignored. We will look at the Bill Cooper assertions and anything we can find.

=====================

Remember, we know that Tischendorf trimmed notes off of the edges of Sinaiticus, when he was reducing the size from the original discovery. (Update: this may have been a Caspar Rene Gregory error.)

We also know that the New Finds room was a type of dump zone.

So there would be no real surprise if, on occasion, an attempt was made by erasure or obliteration to eliminate a note (rather than destruction or replacement of the parchment.)

Granted, today, we might see underneath by multi-spectral imaging, but that was not available in the 1800s. It has been used for a couple of spots in Sinaiticus, one wonders if this spot was deliberately bypassed.

======================
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
This is from the review.

Chapter 9
...
The next pages are about specific Leipzig oddities and anomalies, including the erasure of marginalia "particularly on Q36-f.6r", the "India ink" overwriting of Q47-f-1r and the strange attempt to obliterate an inscription at Q48-f.8v with "India ink"

==================

NOTE: ANYTHING ERASED OR OVERWRITTEN SHOULD BE RECOVERABLE BY MULTI-SPECTRAL IMAGING

p. 81
There are several erasures of margninalia belonging to the Leipzig leaves that have occurred, particularly on Q36.f.5r, which have rendered the words indecipherable to the naked eye... the British Library website ... does offer transcriptions that seem innocent enough.

There are several erasures of

p. 82
we come to Q.48.f.8v .. an attempt to entirely obliterate an inscription at the bottom of the page .. we can only wonder what it was that the inscription said... this great blotting out of an in

Quire 48-8 Attempt to obliterate an inscription? Cooper gave verso, here is recto and verso.

It looks like the urls are mixing up recto and verso

Q48-8r - LUL - Jeremiah, 38:40 - 39:26 - folio: xxxv scribe: B1

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=7&lid=en&quireNo=48&side=v&zoomSlider=0

First on PBF page.jpg


Q48-8v - LUL - Jeremiah, 39:26 - 40:4 - folio: xxxv_v scribe: B1, over
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=8&lid=en&quireNo=48&side=r&zoomSlider=0

Second on PBF.jpg


==================

Q47 -f.1r -Jeremiah, 10:25 - 11:23 library: LUL folio: xx scribe: B1, overwriting by corrector d
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...ptionType=verse&translation=true&zoomSlider=0
1683177371968.png
1683177435091.png


Q36-f.6r - Esther, 1:15 - 2:14 library: LUL folio: xiv scribe: A
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...ptionType=verse&translation=true&zoomSlider=0


"erasure of marginalia"
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
The books by Cooper and Sorenson use the term "india ink".

Overwriting
In examining every page of Vaticanus, it is apparent that there are some areas where there is overwriting with India ink. That is, a modem scribe took it upon himself to write over what was originally there. This is evident in several places suggesting a later scribe modified the text. The significance of this again suggests that Vaticanus is not a reliable source of ascertaining the text of the New Testament. It is flawed on numerous levels. - Sorenson p. 141

And I brought this up in correspondence with Hugh Houghton, Dirk Jongkind and Sara Mazzarino. I will check those notes.

Hugh Houghton - April 22, 2016
Thank you for your message. I assume you mean the mark at the bottom right of Q48-8r (and bottom left of Q48-8v). It’s not obvious to me that there are letters here, certainly not on 8r. It may be that something was written on 8v, but equally it could simply be damage of some kind. I am not aware of multi-spectral images of this page.
Yours sincerely,
Hugh Houghton

Your thoughts on letters?

Bill Cooper (longer quote than above)

"The sequence of quires here takes a leap forward to Q47.f.1r on the British Library website and in the Hendrickson facsimile, and on this page we notice a fading of the letters so severe that an incompetent Victorian 'scribe' -- using a metal nib and black 'India ink' - has attempted to 'restore' the text by overwriting it. The overwriting is ugly to say the least, and we can only wonder who, believing the Leipzig pages to be genuinely ancient, would even think of defacing them in such a way....

... But then we come to Q48.f.8v on which we encounter an attempt so entirely obliterate an inscription at the bottom of the page (See fig19. below).

PICTURE

This no mere erasure. Close inspection suggests that an erasure by rubbing was attempted to begin with, but it was clearly not enough to make the inscription illegible. So 'India' ink -- the same 'India' ink that had been used in the overwriting also visible in Fig. 19 - was rubbed over the top to entirely obliterate what was written underneath, and we can only wonder what it was that the inscription said. (continues p. 81-83)

We know to be very cautious with the thinking of Cooper and Sorenson, however if they point out a special element that we have not emphasized it is very good to examine those pages and at least consider what they have written.

While the Q47 page is fascinating,
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?folioNo=1&lid=en&quireNo=47&side=r&zoomSlider=0
contiguous point #1, it is unclear on what basis Cooper calls the overwriting India ink.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
Cooper book p. 81

There are several erasures of marginalia belonging to the Leipzig leaves that have occurred, particularly on Q36-f.6r. which have rendered the words indecipherable to the naked eye, although the British Library website for this page (and the others where such erasures have occurred) does offer transcriptions which seem innocent enough. But why should they have been erased at all? In this particular instance, it was done with a wet-rub that has smudged the ink. Most odd. It certainly is not the result of any natural deterioration, though it is more than likely to be an attempt to give the page(s) a cosmetic semblance of wear and tear.

The sequence of quires here takes a leap forward to Q47-f.lr on the British Library website and in the Hendrickson facsimile, and on this page we notice a



1683156689078.png


p. 83
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
2 Esdras might be scrub-out, maybe just smudge

https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=5&lid=en&quireNo=35&side=r&zoomSlider=0


ϲυ ο θϲ ημων κατεπαυϲαϲ το
ϲκηπτρον ημων δια ταϲ αμαρτιαϲ ημων κ(αι)


https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=5&lid=en&quireNo=35&side=r&zoomSlider=0

This Ca note is a funny script, with letters hanging below the line,

See it better on reverse, albeit they used multi-spectral

Nomina sacra not showing up.

Maybe they see 3 levels.
 
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Administrator
note for Facebook groups

Start with Eureka
https://www.facebook.com/groups/digital.eureka/posts/5756104991158949/

Sept 14, 2023,
=================

Greetings Eureka

It is highly unusual for a blotching out technique to be used on ancient manuscripts. In fact, if is only a one-time event it may be an indication of recent scribal activity, covering up something that is uncomfortable to the narrative. Suspicious in origen.

Have you ever seen some blotching in ancient manuscripts? A palaeography question for our experts here.
(Putting aside the quirky Sinaiticus, which dating is disputed, and could easily have had tampering as late as 1859.)

We are checking every page of Vaticanus. So far, nothing like this is seen, not even in the newer section.

Please take a look at this page section from Sinaiticus in Jeremiah.

Q48-8v - LUL - Jeremiah, 39:26 - 40:4 - folio: xxxv_v scribe: B1, over
https://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manu...lioNo=8&lid=en&quireNo=48&side=r&zoomSlider=0

It looks like the obliteration attempts were in two steps. First erasure, then blotching over. Yet letters can be seen in the beginning, and the full text might be shown by multi-spectral imaging. (And in the second column as well there looks to be unidentified writing.)

Afawk, none of the scribal and palaeographic experts have discussed this, Tischendorf, Kirsopp Lake, Milne & Skeat, Dirk Jongkind, Brent Nongbri et al.

Your thoughts welcome!

Thanks!

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY USA
with assistance from Kirk DiVietro.


1694737054418.png






Jeremiah
 
Last edited:
Top