Can you provide an example of the bleach-white vellum; and if possible other examples of vellum from the same period as Sinaiticus (or its "alleged" time if you prefer) and how it should be impossible for any of the vellum to be as lightly colored as it is?
That is, what sort of comparative analysis is being done to make the claim, and can it be supported by more than mere assertion?
Who in the fields of paleography supports the hypothesis, and what is their methodology?
-CryptoLutheran
Wow, thank you! This will be an interesting study. I would study it, but I am already convinced having read the book, so some external eyes on this will be helpful. Unfortunately
I am short on time this morning, I could have a few hours ago. But my time is up on the computer till tomorrow I will book mark this and get some more info for you. I can get pictures. but you have to remember, this is going against the consensus. The majority of scholars will not be open minded toward a fraud because they are under the impression the sinaiticus is all they have. Why shoot themselves in the foot. I will look but no guarantees on them. But again I can take a look.
here however is a quote from the book "the sinaiticus forgery" by bill cooper.
"The fact that the Leipzig leaves and the writing upon them were in such pristine condition at the time of their ‘discovery’ should never be underappreciated. The parchment was described by one contemporary observer as “white” (“... the thinnest white parchment”);1 and by another even as, “The wonderfully fine snow-white parchment of the Sinaitic MS...”2 Yet a third witness testifies in 1913 that it – the Codex – “is written on snow-white vellum.”3"
here are his foot notes for the quotes:
1. “....писана на тончайшем белом пергамене.” – Uspensky, Porphyry. The First Trip to the Sinai Monastery in 1845. 1856. Petersburg. p. 226. This title is translated from the Russian (Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь B 1845). Uspensky’s book was never translated into English.
2. Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 1910. New York. Vol. 2. p. 583. An early observer of the Leipzig leaves who described them as “snow-white” was one Ernst von Dobschutz, the author of the above article. He got the idea that they were of antelope skin from Tischendorf himself who was otherwise unable to account for their whiteness.
3. M’Clymont, J A. New Testament Criticism: Its History and Results. 1913. Hodder & Stoughton. London. p. 44.
4. “When seeking those animals whose skins might be most suitable for making parchment, it can hardly be doubted that before all others, the species of antelope which is even now most common in the deserts of Libya, Egypt and Arabia supplied the parchment from which the Frederick-Augustus Codex was made.” See C. Tischendorf, Codex Friderico-Augustanus sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti e codice Graeco omnium qui in Europa supersunt facile antiquissimo in Oriente detexit in patriam attulit ad modum codicis edidit Constantinus Tischendorf...., Leipzig, 1846. cit: Codex Sinaiticus - Parchment
Now granted this was in there first discovery, that snow whiteness only lasts a few years then they start oxidizing if not in a vacuum. So the allegation was that when they were discovered, they were newly forged.
This is a quote from another thread on CF:
"n 1850,
Fr. Porphyrius Uspensky stated that the
Codex Sinaiticus was written on the finest
WHITE PARCHMENT. This is also the case
TODAY for the
43 sheets that
Constantin Tischendorf took in
1844 and then later gave it to
Fr. Porphyrius Uspensky in their dispute. Those
43 sheets are called the
Codex Friderico Augustanus and are now located in
Saxony.
Today, the
Codex Sinaiticus are
yellowed and
darkened in color. For some reason
after 1850 these pages became
yellow and they look much older than they truly are. But
miraculously the other
43 sheets that were sent to
Fr. Porphyrius Uspensky remain
white.
There is growing
forensic evidence that the
Codex Sinaiticus is a
19th century forgery, sponsored by the
Catholic Church, in order to undermine the
Protestant Bible. For more information you can read
Dr Bill Cooper PhD, ThD, books"
The evidence given by
Dr Cooper on this subject and the surprised response from the
British Library staff at the
youthful condition of the manuscripts is very compelling.
For example the
Magna Carta (1200 AD) is so
frail and
desiccated that it is enclosed in a
sealed environment, to prevent total disintegration.
The
Codex Sinaiticus is allegedly
800 year older than that, and yet it has had no special preservative treatment or conditions all this time,
the parchment condition is fresh,
supple and
un-oxidized. This is the cause of
the surprise, of the British Library staff,
who are acknowledged as world class experts in handling such manuscripts. Additionally, there is
evidence of textual tampering, attempts at
artificially aging the manuscript, and alleged
bookworm tracks that start in the middle of the page.
When you read from
Tobit 1:7 – 2:2 to
Tobit 2:2 – 3:6, one page is white, while the other is yellow
Minuscule 2427
The scholars thought that the
Minuscule 2427 was from the 1300 but in 2009, when
Abigail Quandt did an ink analysis it was determined that the ink was created after 1874. They found that the ink that the
Minuscule 2427 was written with had synthetic ultramarine blue, which was only available as a pigment since the 1820’s. They also found that the white was a zinc white which was available 1825 and they found another pigment that was fluorescent, called zinc sulfide. This was part of litliopone. It was made by a special process, but not until 1874.
If your bible has a marking of “
Codex 2427” in the Gospel of Mark section, then that text has been derived from the forgery of
Minuscule 2427.
The Gospel of Mark in the
Codex Vaticanus and the
Minuscule 2427 are identical which proves that the Vatican had knowledge of the creation of the forgery and maybe was the reason for its creation. Since the
Codex Vaticanus is housed in the Vatican Library, it had to be copied in the Vatican Library. Back then, there were no scanners and the pocket cameras came out in 1914. The
Minuscule 2427 was discovered in 1917 when a Greek Byzantine collector died in Athens Greece.
If the Vatican was responsible for the forged
Minuscule 2427 when why would it be unlikely that they were also behind the
Codex Sinaiticus in an attempt to discredit the Protestant movement and to give validity to the
Codex Vaticanus.
The
Star of East, it is real as is the book, just like the old New York Times newspapers that are on microfilm in the Library are real. These two items prove that the missing Letters or Barnabas are the creation of the forger and author
Simonides. There have been numerous people in history that support Simonides claim, and that Tischendorf aged the
Codex Sinaiticus, they are
Kallinikos Hieromachos, William Turner (1815), Richard Pococke (1700) and Fr. Porphyrius Uspensky of Russia.
The burden of proof that the
Codex Sinaiticus is authentic, belongs to the people that support it. I believe that the
Codex Sinaiticus is just another type of
Piltdown Man Syndrome, that people believe something is real without testing its authenticity, because it supports their religious beliefs. For 50 years it was believed that the Piltdown Man was real, but it turned out to be a fake instead of it being the missing link between man and ape.
If they believe that the bible is an original, then why don't they run a special analysis on the black ink. This way we will now of the ink was from the 4th Century or the 1800's. The Gospel of Mark (
Minuscule 2427) that was thought to be from the 1300's turned out to be after 1874 when they did an analysis of the ink.
But then, the British Library would lose millions worth of assets over night, and the Codex Vaticanus will not be valid any more. There is a big business in the Bible printing, estimated at $500 million a year just in the USA.
