Steven Avery
Administrator
CARM - Shoonra
https://forums.carm.org/threads/is-the-worlds-oldest-bible-a-fake.11375/post-927488
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-20#post-927000
I GOT AN ANSWER FROM THE BRITISH LIBRARY!
Here it is:
The BL Curator of Biblical Manuscripts has written the information below about dating the Codex Siniaticus and why intrusive methods are not used.
Best wishes,
Zoe Stansell
Manuscripts Reference Service
We are all aware of the ongoing doubts and concerns about the dating of this extraordinary manuscript. However, the British Library does currently have no plans to undertake C14 dating of the Codex Sinaiticus, nor has it to my knowledge or as recorded undertaken this in the past. The main reason behind this decision is that C14 is a destructive form of technical analysis: it requires a sample to be physically separated and destroyed from an artefact which is why it is not undertaken on BL collection items. (The BL – as you probably know – has no detached/unwritten fragments of the MS similar to the ones currently kept at the Monastery of St Catherine on Sinai – so it would indeed require an actual intervention and damage to be made on the brilliantly preserved parchment folios of this MS). Moreover, these methods sometimes lead to inconclusive and unhelpful results in dating manuscripts, so in our present view (and, also in the view of several of our predecessors) the scholarly benefits of undertaking this do not outweigh or justify the losses that would occur to this critically significant artefact if C14 was undertaken. Contextual and imaging analysis can, in our opinion, prove as reliable and much less harmful way to interpret artefacts like this and were widely and successfully applied in various other manuscripts. There is broad scholarly consensus on the dating of this manuscript based on these well-established criteria for judging the date of a manuscript. More productive than C14 was the non-destructive analysis and identification of the type of skins and the animal type origins of the pages of Codex Sinaiticus, undertaken within and disseminated through the Codex Project. See, for example, http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx
as well as the thorough examination of the various inks used throughout the manuscript http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx.
I hope this helps to clarify the background of the BL’s policies and decisions as to the date of this remarkable manuscript.
Original Question
Oct 24 2022, 08:47pm via System
I am very interested in knowing what tests -chemical, microscopic, radiographic, etc - have ever been conducted on the Codex Sinaiticus to confirm its antiquity and to disprove the claims of Simonides.
Thank you for using LibAnswers!
This email is sent from LibAnswers in relationship to ticket #5224988.
********
This is all the British Library sent, but remember that they were confined to an email.
I hope (but do not expect) this will put an end to the debate.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/is-the-worlds-oldest-bible-a-fake.11375/post-927488
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-20#post-927000
I GOT AN ANSWER FROM THE BRITISH LIBRARY!
Here it is:
The BL Curator of Biblical Manuscripts has written the information below about dating the Codex Siniaticus and why intrusive methods are not used.
Best wishes,
Zoe Stansell
Manuscripts Reference Service
We are all aware of the ongoing doubts and concerns about the dating of this extraordinary manuscript. However, the British Library does currently have no plans to undertake C14 dating of the Codex Sinaiticus, nor has it to my knowledge or as recorded undertaken this in the past. The main reason behind this decision is that C14 is a destructive form of technical analysis: it requires a sample to be physically separated and destroyed from an artefact which is why it is not undertaken on BL collection items. (The BL – as you probably know – has no detached/unwritten fragments of the MS similar to the ones currently kept at the Monastery of St Catherine on Sinai – so it would indeed require an actual intervention and damage to be made on the brilliantly preserved parchment folios of this MS). Moreover, these methods sometimes lead to inconclusive and unhelpful results in dating manuscripts, so in our present view (and, also in the view of several of our predecessors) the scholarly benefits of undertaking this do not outweigh or justify the losses that would occur to this critically significant artefact if C14 was undertaken. Contextual and imaging analysis can, in our opinion, prove as reliable and much less harmful way to interpret artefacts like this and were widely and successfully applied in various other manuscripts. There is broad scholarly consensus on the dating of this manuscript based on these well-established criteria for judging the date of a manuscript. More productive than C14 was the non-destructive analysis and identification of the type of skins and the animal type origins of the pages of Codex Sinaiticus, undertaken within and disseminated through the Codex Project. See, for example, http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_parchment.aspx
as well as the thorough examination of the various inks used throughout the manuscript http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/conservation_ink.aspx.
I hope this helps to clarify the background of the BL’s policies and decisions as to the date of this remarkable manuscript.
Original Question
Oct 24 2022, 08:47pm via System
I am very interested in knowing what tests -chemical, microscopic, radiographic, etc - have ever been conducted on the Codex Sinaiticus to confirm its antiquity and to disprove the claims of Simonides.
Thank you for using LibAnswers!
This email is sent from LibAnswers in relationship to ticket #5224988.
********
This is all the British Library sent, but remember that they were confined to an email.
I hope (but do not expect) this will put an end to the debate.
Last edited: