Steven Avery
Administrator
The evidence that Sinaiticus is a recent production and that the Codex Sinaiticus Pretropolitanus sheets were coloured to give them an appearance of age is powerful, quite simple and overwhelming, simply by what we know of the manuscripts. There is more added when the history is shown to strikingly corroborate the physical manuscripts.
When the colouring distinction of Leipzig to the British Library is pointed out, the textual and manuscript experts take two distinct paths to try to "explain" the evidence.
One is covered on another thread.
the colour photography games of the Sinaticius darkening deniers
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/b.267
In that first path, it is rather absurdly claimed that really it is just a photography difference, and terms like "colour balancing", shutter speed and lighting are bandied about. The idea is that the Leipzig CFA 43 leaves are really not different than the British Library CSP 347 leaves, and thus they are not really white parchment and the CSP photography is simply way off base.
Once we notice that none of the people claim that Leipzig is actually yellow, and that they have any evidence at all that the pictures are amateurish bungling, and the colour bars did not really work, this whole argument is defunct. The argument only has any interest at all if someone claims that the Leipzig parchment is really yellowed, the pictures are wrong. And supplies some sort of evidence for the claim, like the testimony of a conservator, or pictures taken at both spots.
This has not happened. And likely will never happen. End of pathway one.
============
A second path is to emphasize that the two sets of leaves have been subject to differing storage and conservation.
(Some individuals try to combine both, but the sum of 0 + 0 = 0.)
The first problem with this second pathway is that the bulk of the history of the Codex Sinaiticus had it as one unit. And this is supposedly from c. 350 AD all the way to 1844 AD, almost 1500 years. This would be the period of great wear and tear, of yellowing, of grime of losing flexibility. The period after 1844 should have been comparatively benign.
If one part of the manuscript is uniform white parchment today, then the whole manuscript (excepting special situations like water stains) would be the same condition in 1844. That would mean that the whole manuscript was an amazingly pristine white parchment after 1500 years that included a millennium of active correction, notes, changes and use. Where are the similarly manuscripts? Nobody has demonstrated one.
So the problem of explaining the pristine condition is the first hurdle, which nobody has jumped over.
The second hurdle would be explaining how the British pages went from uniform white parchment to widely varying yellow colours. Without artificial intervention.
Nobody has given an explanation.
(To be continued.)
When the colouring distinction of Leipzig to the British Library is pointed out, the textual and manuscript experts take two distinct paths to try to "explain" the evidence.
One is covered on another thread.
the colour photography games of the Sinaticius darkening deniers
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/b.267
In that first path, it is rather absurdly claimed that really it is just a photography difference, and terms like "colour balancing", shutter speed and lighting are bandied about. The idea is that the Leipzig CFA 43 leaves are really not different than the British Library CSP 347 leaves, and thus they are not really white parchment and the CSP photography is simply way off base.
Once we notice that none of the people claim that Leipzig is actually yellow, and that they have any evidence at all that the pictures are amateurish bungling, and the colour bars did not really work, this whole argument is defunct. The argument only has any interest at all if someone claims that the Leipzig parchment is really yellowed, the pictures are wrong. And supplies some sort of evidence for the claim, like the testimony of a conservator, or pictures taken at both spots.
This has not happened. And likely will never happen. End of pathway one.
============
A second path is to emphasize that the two sets of leaves have been subject to differing storage and conservation.
(Some individuals try to combine both, but the sum of 0 + 0 = 0.)
The first problem with this second pathway is that the bulk of the history of the Codex Sinaiticus had it as one unit. And this is supposedly from c. 350 AD all the way to 1844 AD, almost 1500 years. This would be the period of great wear and tear, of yellowing, of grime of losing flexibility. The period after 1844 should have been comparatively benign.
If one part of the manuscript is uniform white parchment today, then the whole manuscript (excepting special situations like water stains) would be the same condition in 1844. That would mean that the whole manuscript was an amazingly pristine white parchment after 1500 years that included a millennium of active correction, notes, changes and use. Where are the similarly manuscripts? Nobody has demonstrated one.
So the problem of explaining the pristine condition is the first hurdle, which nobody has jumped over.
The second hurdle would be explaining how the British pages went from uniform white parchment to widely varying yellow colours. Without artificial intervention.
Nobody has given an explanation.
(To be continued.)