"it did NOT look to be 1600 years old"

[Steven Avery]

Concerned that my posts or the thread could be deleted, I will mirror my posts here:

Steven Avery
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/2041383142615342/?comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R1%22%7D

Hi , Jacob ! greetings ..

.. my posting rights were just restored, which was the only reason for the "echo chamber".

And I actually enjoyed that last review post of yours and think we are making much more headway than in the past.

Here was the second post, a response to Elijah Hixson:

Steven Avery .
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTe...2%3A%22R%22%7D

Elijah, the SART team (AND the British Library acknoweledges the difference) believe the CSP photography is far more accurate to reality than the side-by-side pics from Jacob that goes through the following sieve:

1) code given on pages based on visuals,
2) codes only having a small number of discrete points
3) one number for a page, a single page can vary widely
4) then go through a computer generated colour patch.

However, I am most welcome to Jacob trying to prove his point that the CSP pictures are totally unreliable. Remember, the difference is on EVERY page, and also includes stains and streakiness being in England and not Leipzig.

The ball is in his court, let Jacob try to show the total failure of the CSP photography project.

Steven Avery

Poor James Snapp .. he went quickly to the "DELETE" button to prevent my posts, however, I was able to successfully mirror them here.

[Steven Avery]

It looks like James Snapp will not allow direct dialog.

Here are my suggestions:

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

FACEBOOK

Eureka! Medieval Manuscripts on the Web
https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=351823101587192

New Testament Scholarship Worldwide
https://www.facebook.com/groups/151949818157846/

Palaeography
https://www.facebook.com/groups/1557478997849423/

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

Or my forums:

Facebook - Sinaticus
https://www.facebook.com/groups/sinaiticus/

Facebook - Pure Bible
https://www.facebook.com/groups/purebible

PureBibleForum - Sinaiticus
http://www.purebibleforum.com/forumdisplay.php?65-Sinaiticus-authentic-antiquity-or-modern

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

Or any other reasonable suggestion.

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

Off Facebook, this is one of a few that have some good posters:

Bible Criticism and History Forum
Christian Texts and History
http://earlywritings.com/forum/viewf...336e961306bcd5

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

[Steven Avery]

[textualcriticism] Sinaiticus studies - emphasis on the physical condition
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/.../messages/8583

Hi textualcriticism,

> Jacob Peterson
> "Physical condition" is poorly defined (if at all) here; from the quotes about Sinaiticus, I assume it means quality/condition of leaves and color?

Greetings, Jacob. Yes. And also anomalies involving those leaves, ink and binding. Not the actual text or pictures.

The fundamental truth .. if elements of a ms. are exceptionally “exceptional”, we should check for the root cause of the exception. And so if a text is “too good to be true” (a lesson from Secret Mark).. we should very carefully look at all the historical elements.

Jacob

> If that is what is meant, physical condition should play little part in dating a manuscript. Having handled scores of manuscripts now,

And we look forward to your sharing with us your experiences. E.g. Have you handled very old mss that were pristine “snow-white”? Which were the whitest? How flexible? We will listen closely to what you share. We have discovered that very few individuals have handled the major uncials, or even simply Sinaiticus Leipzig and England. Generally not even the top scholars. So we will be careful listeners.

Jacob

> I can attest to mss having great physical condition with terrible texts and mss in poor condition with excellent texts.

Let’s put aside evaluating the texts. Largely a subjective consideration.

The point here is simply issues of dating and authenticity. And when authenticity becomes a major question, careful scientific analysis, along with historical forensics, will come in and really seek to understand the physical condition of the ms.

We have seen that in Archaic Mark, and in non-Biblical documents like the Artemidorus Papyrus (possibly made by Simonides) the Vinland Map and more. It is definitely true that in a normative situation physical condition can mean less that palaeographic study. However, in unusual situations, we have to look closely at the physical. E.g. Archaic Mark was studied to see if the ms. had been artificially coloured. It is simply too easy for the skilled to produce ancient replicas, artifacts and forgeries.

Jacob

> Physical condition is a better marker of production quality and use than age or "authenticity.”

One of the Sinaiticus major anomalies does involves use. The ms. was supposedly heavily used for 1,000+ years (that is a lot of handling) with corrections and changes galore. Yet it shows virtually no handling grime and is flexible and supple almost like new. And the Leipzig part is even a “snow-white” parchment, even though vellum is supposed to yellow with age and use. The Russian scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946), without even seeing the Leipzig section, said that the ms does not match the theorized use. Then the Russians unloaded it in their fire sale of the 1930s, that combined authentic with fake items.

Jacob

> Furthermore, it seems your analysis fails on the same grounds as the people you're accusing. Have you handled any of the great uncials (or other mss) or are you relying on the same images everyone uses?

Mostly yes, with the extra note that the Codex Sinaiticus Project in 2009 took image production to a much higher level, with features like the colour bar, zooming, numerical assignments, standardization and more. We could now go page by page, or look at groups of pages, and make a composite picture! Plus we have been able to contact individuals who have handled the ms. And study carefully observations made over the 170 years, courtesy of international contacts and internet communications.

You raise the problem of access. Tischendorf kept the ms. virtually inaccessible. Today, Leipzig and the British Library keep the manuscripts virtually inaccessible. The CSP fortunately changed that to a degree. We can only work with what we have, and today we have what was not available in 1870 and 1970.

We now have enough information to demonstrate that the St. Petersburg 1859 part of the ms. was artificially coloured.

You can see this for yourself.

Codex Sinaiticus Mathmaticus – 1844 Before and 1859 After
http://www.sinaiticus.net/beforeafter.html

Composite picture: find the two “snow-white” CFA sections, untampered
http://www.sinaiticus.net/four%20contiguous%20points.html

And here is a new summary:

why do we know that the 1859 CSP leaves were artificially coloured?
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?t=230

The first thing we request of our friends is too simply carefully review the new evidences now available. See if you also ask: Who Colored Sinaiticus?

And share with us your feedback, iron sharpeneth.

Steven Avery
Dutchess County, NY

[Steven Avery]

Jacob Peterson did dance around a bit in response to Mark Michie exposing the methodological issues and problems. This is especially important because Jacob told us that he was actually going to try to write a more formal presentation -- possibly for the CSNTM -- which would seemingly be based on the same approach! (Hopefully he will read this and weed out some of the problems, and improve his presentation.)
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextualCriticism/permalink/2041383142615342/?comment_id=2043102809110042&reply_comment_id=2043 111855775804&comment_tracking=%7B"tn"%3A"R9"%7D

Jacob W. Peterson
Indeed, "color expert." I also love how these conversation exist in echo chambers away from where the points are actually being made.

James Snapp would not allow my posting on the NT Textual Criticism forum, as he clearly admitted a bit later. This is the reason why the responses and corrections of Jacob Peterson were placed on this "echo chamber" forum.

-Regarding his point that different generators can make slight variations. I suppose that's true. But if so, they're going to make them in the same direction for each code. So no matter the generator, you'll see the same result (i.e. they would both have the same γ correction).

It is good that Jacob acknowledged the point, but this simply makes no sense. Jacob does not know the differences between various generators. Changes in the same direction are not the same correction!

And Jacob avoids other issues like the limited number of discrete points and the problem of variation within a page (which is a major feature of the stained and streaky British Library pages.)

But I'd also advise some studying up on what NSC color codes are and the tolerances involved. --Yes, they're likely right that the color codes were done manually rather than with a spectrometer,.

Mark Michie checked this point with the British Library and CSP.

But I'd also advise some studying up on what NSC color codes are and the tolerances involved. --Yes, they're likely right that but it's not like they would have picked drastically wrong codes.

Note that there were at least THREE major and distinct methodology problems with using the codes, such as very few discrete points. This means that there can be no real precision in the results, especially when you try to put the codes back through the variable computer generation sieves.

If the NCS code says one thing and the image says another, I know which I'd trust as being more likely to be correct. Eyes don't have balance issues, every camera ever produced does and has to be calibrated for every manuscript..

This preference on sight codes followed by regenerating the colour based on the codes, rather than the photographs, may be true in some cases, and this is a point where Mark Michie agrees, based on his own engineering experience.

However, it definitely is NOT true for Codex Sinaiticus, for the reasons mentioned above. Including the high professional standards with oversight for the photography, and the colour bars that are with the photographs.

-He's right we've discussed it before. But if I remember correctly, it was SART who was claiming the codes were objective while I was claiming the colors weren't verified, because at the time (as I admitted) I was reading the data incorrectly and not seeing the NCS codes.

Jacob has an uneven history on these points. We never claimed the codes were "objective" truth and better than photographs, simply that they are helpful. The pictures are always the central focus, and thus David W. Daniels even made a composite picture that includes every Sinaiticus page (or folia, I would have to check.)

-If he's arguing that color balance doesn't matter that much, then he's showing he really doesn't know what he's talking about.

The statement of Mark was clear and accurate. Clearly it is most preferable if the colour bars are identical, but if the difference is small compared to the manuscript variance (as it is here) it is acceptable to have some variation, if that is what you are given.

-Further, if they're suggesting that the BL should have edited their photos, then they're revealing their total ignorance of digital heritage. No one, literally no one, edits the images that are to be displayed.

Jacob shows some ignorance of the Sinaiticus history. Even the 2011-2012 book of the British Library and Hendrickson had editing -- and that precisely to "smooth" the Leipzig pages to be the same colour as the British Library pages.

There are all sorts of nuances where a person could maintain the original image -- e.g. to reduce shadows. The idea of normalizing two sets of images to have identical colour bars is surely a potentially valid enterprise.

Jacob would do better to find out why the British Library and Hendrickson Publishers changed their images in the $500+ book, than to make incorrect claims that images are never edited. (In the book mentioned, they obliquely referenced "sensitive adjustments" in the Preface, to give a type of faux cover for the gross tampering.)

That's because no one on the user end can then see what has been fiddled with.

Nonsense. e.g. David W. Daniels in one of his vlogs, changes the image twice involving Photoshop type of changes to reduce shadows. However, he shows first the original image, and then clearly labels the changed images. Everything is done visibly and with integrity, nothing is hidden.

This next part does not seem to be relevant at all, just a diversion.

As long as a color chart is in the image, then *theoretically* it can be returned to something like what is real in post.
-This is an extreme example, but here is but one factor in white balance (Kelvin) that can be adjusted:

Then Jacob gives an example that basically proves our point.

And as Elijah said, I'll take my half-million images of manuscripts, years of practice, and training with MultiSpectral imaging to their presupposition driven computer "science."

Yet Jacob never gives us analogous examples, and he does not even know the Sinaiticus fundamentals, like the tampered book above. Jacob may have some excellent expertise, that could actually be helpful in Sinaiticus authenticity studies, but he is struggling mightily with the Sinaiticus history and evidences.

And to reinforce something: I'm not saying the page will suddenly turn brown. I'm saying it will lose it's grey hue and look like actual parchment. It will be more yellow, but yes it will still be lighter than the other leaves. It just shouldn't look like a dead body.

This is an important admission. The large distinction will STILL be there from the British Library to Leipzig.

This is the first time that Jacob has acknowledged that all of this hubris is only to slightly lessen the distinction!

And just for fun, here's the difference in color *due to the light reflecting off the paint on the wall in two different rooms*

Nicely demonstrating our point.

A very minor difference compared to the Leipzig and British Library differences.

[Steven Avery]

It will be good to show the red ink referenced by Joseph, and maybe put it in the Palaeographic Puzzles section.

For now:

Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/pure...2%3A%22R%22%7D

Here is a quick example of the (why is there so little fading) red ink referenced by Josephindinger. (And nobody really responded to his observations.)

There are some very nice close-ups in Google too
https://www.google.com/search?q=%22red+ink%22+%22faded%22+%22sinaiticus%2 2&tbm=isch&source=iu&ictx=1&fir=IpELlxQw6_3XyM%253 A%252CuZVC3ryZVmsQuM%252C_&usg=__6qhPJXQycjHjC-DLU6npoiPUaQM%3D&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwif_aLazpbcAhWvr1k KHRjqCbMQ9QEIMTAB#imgdii=cH0ML7oFaCuvfM:&imgrc=IpE LlxQw6_3XyM:

Although we would have to confirm e.g. that close-up as Sinaiticus.

Pic - Sinaiticus - Song of Songs
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx?dir=prev&folioNo=6&lid=en&quireNo= 66&side=v&zoomSlider=0.

[Steven Avery]

Another title for this thread:

"Flabbergasted at the British Library!"