I think the forthcoming paper that Gordon, Rabin, Andrist et al will publish in the next year or so might raise more questions than answer them. They WILL answer some things but the answers are going to lead to a bunch of follow-ups. The method they used had a nice fit with the "purified" vitriolic inks, and it will chemically identify the other inks with a high degree of accuracy/certainty. But the age-ranges within which those inks were used are much much wider than the early purified vitriolic ink. I think that they may end up confirming some of the work of P. Versace and dis-confirming some of it. Versace is the most current thorough study of the different "hands" of Vaticanus. Versace depends on things like handwriting styles, the relative location of writing, and the colour of inks. While they confirmed his thoughts about the distigmai their method might call into question some of his "colour-based" reasoning. And the fact that chemically the original writing of the text and the going over the text that second time (the re-inking) is virtually indistinguishable raises a host of questions.
@@hefinjones9051 Hi Hefin Thanks for such a detailed reply! Much appreciated. I am very happy to learn that there are capable scholars who are taking a much closer look at Codex Vaticanus in an effort to learn more about its possible age and provenance.
@@Dwayne_Green you are a really good guy and scholar. Although I watched the video, I dont understand what is meant by distigmai other than some dots or markings on the manuscript.
No, not at all. We're talking about one set of markings in the margins of the manuscript. There are horizontally aligned double dots that are known as "distigmai" - sometimes incorrectly called umlauts - in the margins of many of the NT pages of Vaticanus. We're mainly talking about the date of when those double dots were added. Was it very early or was it later? The answer is that these marginal double-dots are later - from the 1500's.
Quite fascinating.... I am very curious to see what the final conclusions are in dating Codex Vaticanus.
I think the forthcoming paper that Gordon, Rabin, Andrist et al will publish in the next year or so might raise more questions than answer them. They WILL answer some things but the answers are going to lead to a bunch of follow-ups. The method they used had a nice fit with the "purified" vitriolic inks, and it will chemically identify the other inks with a high degree of accuracy/certainty. But the age-ranges within which those inks were used are much much wider than the early purified vitriolic ink. I think that they may end up confirming some of the work of P. Versace and dis-confirming some of it. Versace is the most current thorough study of the different "hands" of Vaticanus. Versace depends on things like handwriting styles, the relative location of writing, and the colour of inks. While they confirmed his thoughts about the distigmai their method might call into question some of his "colour-based" reasoning. And the fact that chemically the original writing of the text and the going over the text that second time (the re-inking) is virtually indistinguishable raises a host of questions.
@@hefinjones9051 Hi Hefin Thanks for such a detailed reply! Much appreciated. I am very happy to learn that there are capable scholars who are taking a much closer look at Codex Vaticanus in an effort to learn more about its possible age and provenance.
Thanks! Buy yourself a New Year's cup of coffee!😊☕🙏📖
wow, thanks Ross! You've been so generous to the channel.
Can someone please explain why is this significant, I'm not really versed in manuscripts?
Interesting stuff.
Can't wait for an episode on the Sinai Bible... yes, that's a Carson joke.
Have they tested the ink of the actual text?
yes, it was quiet thorough. When I have time I'll have to add the link to Nehemiah Gordon's paper.
I definitely would have quit if the coffee ran out! Lol!!
I am so looking forward to the testing of the sinaticus, to get all that theoretical conspiracy pillow talk cleared up
So the purpose of this video is to infer Codex Vaticanus isnt really a 4th Century manuscript?
no, its to infer that the distigmai were added much later to vaticanus.
@@Dwayne_Green you are a really good guy and scholar. Although I watched the video, I dont understand what is meant by distigmai other than some dots or markings on the manuscript.
No, not at all.
We're talking about one set of markings in the margins of the manuscript.
There are horizontally aligned double dots that are known as "distigmai" - sometimes incorrectly called umlauts - in the margins of many of the NT pages of Vaticanus.
We're mainly talking about the date of when those double dots were added. Was it very early or was it later?
The answer is that these marginal double-dots are later - from the 1500's.
@hefinjones9051 thanks brother!!