"it did NOT look to be 1600 years old" - Joseph Dindinger - also bright red rubrications

Steven Avery

Joseph Dindinger

Facebook - NT Textual Criticism

I had the immense pleasure of seeing Codex Sinaiticus on a recent trip to the British Library. I was struck, however, by how it did NOT look to be 1600 years old. Rather, it looked similar to the manuscripts which are roughly half that age.I deal with books in the 100 to 150 year range all the time, and the ink is worn a bit more than what I'm used to, but not hugely so. It also has annotations in red ink, which is my understanding fades a lot sooner than black ink. So it just looked to me like it was a lot newer than the middle of the 4th century.

So I decided to research the method of dating, and all I can find from the official site, and other resources on the internet is that the dating is based on the type of writing itself, rather than any records of the Bible in antiquity (it was discovered in a monastery which wasn't even built until at least 100 years later), or other dating methods.

My question is: how do we know that this manuscript was not copied from an older one in, say 1200 AD? Can anyone point me to more in-depth material on the dating of Codex Sinaiticus?

Steven Avery
Facebook - Pure Bible

It is nice when someone simply speaks the clear and obvious truth. Sinaiticus is not a 4th century ms., not even close.

Basically the Textual Criticism crew tried some diversions, and three posters were superb.

In my experience, those in the art world have the easiest time seeing that Sinaiticus is not what is claimed. One made me smile the other day -- "obvious fake" (and she is not a Christian, or an AV reader.)
At least one point is brand new from Joseph above.

We know a lot about the ink, and have a special Palaeographic Puzzle page on the PureBibleForum, much of the material was originally on a Palaeography Forum.

*** Joseph adds an excellent point about the minimal fading of the red ink. ***

As we know, most of the palaeography around Sinaiticus is a Tischendorf charade based on conceptual errors and circular analysis, and ignoring major evidences that it is late.

Joseph gets an Integrity Plus kudo -- he was not even aware that Sinatiicus authenticity and dating has been questioned

This post:

"it did NOT look to be 1600 years old"

And a little note to the NT Textual Criticism crew, James Snapp will not take my post there. That is his right, and is one reason the more excellent posts are mirrored here and shared on Facebook PureBible and Sinaiticus groups.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

just throwing out: 'maybe it's this, maybe it's that, or perhaps this other thing'

Another superb post on the thread.

David Inglis

James, you commented: If the difference is not merely a matter of different camera-setting ... then it's likely a matter of the effects of different storage-conditions. Plus ... monks ...prepared a new binding ... perhaps they cleaned up the pages too. But whatever the explanation, ...

So what IS the explanation? Just throwing out: 'maybe it's this, maybe it's that, or perhaps this other thing' without actually providing evidence for or against any of these possibilities not just unhelpful, it's no better than what you accuse others of, i.e. interpreting evidence one way without having first falsified all other possibilities.

Although David goes a bit too far, if he thinks you can ever falsify all other possibilities :). Often we have dueling probabilities, and supposed "coincidences", a point I make often on this forum.

However, his major point is superb. Where is the evidence that any of these situations occurred? Or that they really could account for the anomaly? Just throwing out a bunch of maybes, sans any evidence, is quite unconvincing.

One irony in the writing of James .. if the monks cleaned up the pages, it would be the British Library 1859 that would be white parchment (using some unknown super-solution) not the 1844 Leipzig pages.


However, we can not expect too much accuracy and clear thinking from James, for over a year he has maintained the following blunders on his site, despite many attempts to offer the simple corrections:

172 pages
43 sheets

The correct number is 86 pages, and if you were going to talk sheets you would say 21.5, but that is awkward because not all the sheets are intact.

Even on his blog page, the url above, I offer the correction back in Feb, 2018. Yet the Snapp error stands.

And I also give the url here, to the PureBibleForum, where I responded to his posts.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

James Snapp absurd fantasises about the New Finds

The errors of Snapp on Sinaiticus are a lot worse than his inability to put the right number of pages.

Here is a bit of James Snapp total nonsene from the recent thread:

Consider just one piece of evidence that I mentioned earlier in this thread: the new finds, discovered in 1975. To account for these pages while maintaining the notion that Simonides made Sinaiticus, one would have to posit a scenario in which the monks at St. Catherine's, in the 1800s, received as a gift a very large, newly made pristine codex containing the Greek Old Testament and New Testament (plus Barnabas and Hermas), and decided to dismember it, destroy some pages (including all of Exodus and most of Leviticus), put some pages in a side-room (where they stayed until 1975), turn one page into a bookmark, and keep others intact, till the time of Tischendorf's first visit -- and then, after his first visit, rebind the surviving pages which previously they had /unbound/. .

This is all fantasy from James Snapp, totally ridiculous.

The New Finds included discard pages from Sinaiticus in the 1840s to 1850s. And the Hermas section was particularly problematic because of how Tischendorf had accused the very similar Sinaiticus of 1855 from Simonides of being a Latin retranslation.

Also Uspensky in writing of his 1845 visit specifically mentioned that Hermas was included in the manuscript. He did not say "a small part of Sinaticus".

The Genesis 23-24 page was included specifically in the controversies as to whether Simonides had made markings on the manuscript.

I discussed this in response to #20 on his list, the multiplication of nothings (also #13)

James Snapp #3 - Ten More Reasons Sinaiticus Was Not Made by Simonides

Steven Avery

Simonides and Kallinikos did say that the manuscript had been mangled and taken apart by Tischendorf.

As for Hermas, the simplest explanation is that Simonides, like many, had a tendency to say what was convenient. Not trying to be too contrary to the English opposition, he fudged elements of the story.Especially as the Brits listening to his story at times accused him of having made a forgery, not a replica, and that was not his purpose.

The Hermas New Finds discovery is especially interesting as that was the most embarrassing section of the 1844 Simoneidos document. Tischendorf wanted the Hermas and Barnabas discovery (they had already been reported by Uspensky), but the linguistic issues that came out around 1856 might torpedo the whole enterprise. Tischendorf accused the Hermas of Simonides of having later Latin elements. Then he found it the better discretion to quietly retract the accusation, in Latin, in a confusing section. James Donaldson said that this accusation also applies to the Sinaiticus Hermas. And, my conjecture is that it applies to the later parts of Sinaiticus (which Donaldson did not see.) Thus, Tischendorf limited the Sinaiticus Hermas damage by dumping much of the document in the dump room.

James never responded.


Simonides actually produced "Sinaitic" Hermas and Barnabas editions BEFORE the Sinaiticus discovery. Now that is an amazing and important fact, that James Snapp does not discuss.

AND James Donaldson did a careful linguistic analysis and said the Sinaiticus Hermas and Barnabas had to be much later than 4th century.

James comes up with the most absurd "multiplication of nothings" and does not study the Sinaiticus history and evidences.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

look at a beautiful condition Leipzig page

Part of the response to Joseph Dindinger was that he was seeing the "best" displayed. This was disingenuous, since even the "best" leaves should avoid issues like red ink fading, general ink acidic deterioration action, and the parchment should become brittle.

Joseph should try to see the white parchment Leipzig pages for comparison (also the BBC video.) They do not have the yellow, streaky colour. We can see their amazing condition online,e.g.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

James Snapp struggles to understand why only the 1859 pages were coloured

Here is another doozy from James Snapp, which he tries every couple of months:


it seems downright wacky to do what Avery and Daniels do with this feature, which is, interpret it as evidence that Tiscnendorf, after already presenting the pages at Leipzig (Codex Frederico-Aug., acquired in his first visit --- the one about which he made his famous claim that the pages were about to be burned by the monks), treated the remainder of the pages so as to give them (but not the pages at Leipzig) the appearance of greater age.

And this is fully answered here:

Tischendorf would have preferred to have one consistent colour manuscript

All of this is rather trivial. Tischendorf knew that a white parchment manuscript would be likely to sink his ship. Even if he got away with it so far at Leipzig. (Limited access has always been Tischendorf's deception friend, until 2009.)

He could not do much with Leipzig, except make sure there was very little access. And thus he put incredible efforts into pointing people to his facsimile, which deceptively hid the colour and stain and streak difference and hid the fact that Leipzig was white parchment.

When he deposited the white parchment in Leipzig in 1844, he did not have all the details worked out. And he could go back to the library and colour the pages. The Librarians would blow the whistle on that mangling.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

"the people making this argument have never actually seen it"

Here is a popular contra argument:

Bill Brown
Keep in mind the people making this argument have never actually seen it. They’ve seen computer images and combined them with a rather active imagination.


I find this to be a real :) argument.

First, the libraries have historically given very little access to the manuscript, even to scholars. The British Library gave access to five scholars in 25 years, as pointed out in one of the threads. Tischendorf did what he could to keep the ms. out of sight and emphasize his tampered facsimile, that hid the colour and condition issues.

More importantly, if we said

"we saw the manuscript sections, and the colour is quite different in Leipzig and England"

The argument would be exactly the opposite.

"who cares what you think you saw. Prove it with good photographs"

And there would at least be a point, in that case.

Amazing the weak arguments that are put forth for Sinaiticus authenticity.

As for the "active imagination", that is quite absurd. Even the British Library acknowledges the colour disparity. (Although they have not discussed the stain and streak disparity.) The question remains .. how did it get there?

Steven Avery

an astute comment on the textual criticism reactions to the colouring

From our discussion, used with permission:

Peter Bilmer:
At the NT Textual Criticism group lots of people seem to be very critical towards the Simonides affair.
But at least it has been publicly admitted that there is currently no explanation who colored Sinaiticus and why.

Peter Bilmer:

Not everything what Simonides said was true.
But it's the same with Tischendorf too.
He probably didn't find the sheets in a basket and saved them from getting burned.

But why then are there burn marks on some folia?

It seems there are today even more unsolved mysteries than when the Codex was first published.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Scrivener wrote in palaeographic support without ever seeing the manuscript!

One other comment on that discussion.

James Snapp makes a big point about the Scrivener writings, which have been answered point by point.

Keep in mind though that Scrivener could not make a judgement on many of the major palaeographic and manuscript condition elements.

Scrivener never saw the manuscript, or even pictures of the manuscript, when he wrote giving his support.

Scrivener saw only the deceptive Tischendorf facsimile. Even when Tischendorf brought the CFA to England in 1865, there is no indication that Scrivener was there for any of the talks.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Jacob W. Peterson tries to claim the colour differences are small

Jacob W. Peterson is now trying to claim that the difference between Leipzig and the British Library is wrong in the CSP pictures (which we use at http://www.sinaiticus.net/four contiguous points.html ) This theory of Jacob is based on the coded numbers. Thus, he says, the white-yellow difference (which the British Library acknowledges) really is very small, with his emphasis being on Leipzig actually being more yellow.

The Jacob W. Peterson posts start here:

And his pictures are placed on bottom below here.

See our colour engineer expert Mark Michie below, as Mark focuses on why the methodology of Jacob is flawed, and his conclusions not justified.

Jacob uses a computer generated color patch based on the color number. I tried that too.

#1 I found that different color patch generators on the internet give visually different results.

#2 Jacob has ignored the fact that the colour numbers are assigned to each page based on which colour card in hand is "closest" in colour to the spot on the page that is being viewed - closest out of a select few options. It's not an infinitely variable scale.
Excellent, Mark, right to the heart of the matter. Thanks!

And (my note, from our discussions )

#3 - the English pages are streaky and stained, colours varying within a page, with only one number assigned. Leading to an obvious degree of sight assignment unreliability. (Ironically, I believe Jacob pointed this number limitation out in a conversation some months ago!) A photograph allows us to process the full page, however assigning a single number is of very limited efficacy when the pages are uneven, as in the British Library.

Last time I looked at one of these, Elijah Hixson and I were going over the numbers!

Elijah, who is generally far more sensible and concerned with integrity, than the rant contras, had made this error:

According to http://sinaiticus.net/four contiguous points.html, these four pages all have the same color code according to the "scientific calibration" you mention.

And I made up a chart of the contiguous numbers, to correct a couple of inaccurate comment from Elijah :


Now, Jacob claims that S1005-Y20R and S1010-Y10R are actually very close. However, his methods have a built-in variableness, as explained by Mark. That is why the photographs tell the tale (confirmed by the British Library). There is a mild amount of variation (you can see that in the colour bars) but it just barely dents the visible difference. See below for more on colour bar variableness.

We have gone over many of these issues with Jacob Peterson before.

A lot of information is on:

can photography anomalies account for the 1844 CFA white vs the 1859 yellow ?


(That page has a lot of good material.) And we have more additional discussions available from the past, but I believe this post helps make clear the claims of Jacob, that the Leipzig CSP pages are way off from the truf.


Here is the current argument of Jacob Peterson from the thread, claiming that the Leipzig pages are really nothing like the images at CSP:

... anyone familiar with digital imaging can instantly note the color target in comparison images reveals the Leipzig images were not balanced correctly, leading to a cooling of the images tone. erhaps you could start a new thread emphasizing this aspect of the controversy, to address this particular aspect (technical details of color-variation in digital photography) of the evidence? ... I've been considering blogging about it ... I've also been tempted to try applying a post-processing white balance to one of the leipzig leaves. If I can get an image with the full name of the target and model, this might not be terribly difficult because then I can get its specific white value.
This seems to be the idea of fully equalizing the colour bars from Leipzig to the British Library.

Mark and I discussed this a bit.

Mark Michie
I'm sure that if one could edit all the images so that all the colour bars look perfectly identical, the visual comparison of leaves and sections of the mss would be more precise. Until then, we have what we have.

CSP decided not to do that before publishing the photos. Why?
Steven Avery

It would seem to be an unnecessary degree of precision. From my visual examination, it is my view that the colour bar variations are less than 10% of the ms page variation in the white, cream and yellow colour spectrums.

It is possible that Jacob has some other idea in mind. We look forward to his attempt to show the Leipzig pages to be actually far more yellow than they are in the CSP pictures.
And we really look forward to Jacob trying to make his position into a CSNTM blog post!

Then we can really go back and forth, iron sharpeneth.

The ball is really in Jacob's court. The huge colour distinction is obvious on the CSP site. It is the opinion of Jacob that the CSP site is giving a very wrong picture, that the Leipzig off-whites are really yellow. Go for it!

Maybe he can also touch on other points, like the point raised by Joseph above, how the red inks do not have 1700 years of fading. The "phenomenally good condition", with easy-peasy page turning. The staining and streakyness only in the British Library pages, not Leipzig. And much more. Finally give his example of similar wonderfully preserved ancient mss that were used over the centuries.


Here is a bit more about how this was approached by Jacob, trying to use the visually assigned numbers and a computer-generated color patch to negate the photographic evidence of the 1844 Leipzig and 1859 British Library colour variation.



Here are some general difficulties and issues that I would add about the colour numbers.

1) The English numbers are all over the map - wildly divergent from page to page - so taking one or two is not a study. And the most logical reason why they are all over the map - the staining.

2) By contrast, the Leipzig numbers are 100% consistent. No stains and streaks, one white parchment colour. There is one good explanation for the difference, the British Library pages were subject to staining between 1844 and c. 1860.

3) The numbers are SIGHT numbers. They are helpful, but secondary in this instance to the PROFESSIONAL PHOTOGRAPHY, which is done with careful committee oversight. And professional standards and colour calibration bars.

4) Thus, any analysis of one or two coded numbers is of minimal help. You need dozens, or better, the whole ms. Mark Michie has made that information available with EVERY page included. And it corroborates the colour difference, the English numbers are far more yellow than the Leipzig.

Also from my discussions with Mark:

Mark Michie
Yes, I agree that two individual pages can not be used to prove anything. Sample size is very important.
We are also discussing the two methods of assigning colours, as there are some cases where visual numbers actually can be excellent.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

conspiracy theory!

FYI: NOT a response to the thread.

The Jacob W. Peterson classic quote from a few months back is about his pro-vaccination position :) .

NT Textual Criticism

Jacob W. Peterson
That late daters should be banned alongside anti-vaxxers, flat earth people, and moon landing deniers.Seriously, this isn’t a discussion to be had. No one who has ever actually studied manuscripts, their production, their handwriting, their digitisation, or worked in a monastery thinks it’s true. The only people who late date it do so from a prior theological conviction that the KJV is a “pure bible” and they therefore need to disprove
Then if you read the thread, Jaoob tried a totally bogus claim that Sinaiticus as a late manuscript is non-falsifiable.

For the OP and James, this is why such discussions should be banned: It’s a non-falsifiable conclusion held by people making wildly unverifiable claims that do nothing but tempt the gullible.
Which was pre-answered:

That one made me wonder a bit about Jacob's logic skills.


Yes, I do recommend the Vaxxed film and the Youtube weekly program of Del Bigtree.

And, to stir the pot even more, I also recommend that you look closely at the lunar lander, and various anomalies, in deciding about the moon landing.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

two posts deleted by James Snapp - Jacob's flawed methodology

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

Steven Avery

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 .

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

real discussion

It looks like James Snapp will not allow direct dialog.

Here are my suggestions:



Eureka! Medieval Manuscripts on the Web

New Testament Scholarship Worldwide



Or my forums:

Facebook - Sinaticus

Facebook - Pure Bible

PureBibleForum - Sinaiticus


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



Steven Avery

from the 2016 discussion with Jacob Peterson on the Yahoogroups textualcriticism forum

[textualcriticism] Sinaiticus studies - emphasis on the physical condition

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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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.

> 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

Composite picture: find the two “snow-white” CFA sections, untampered

And here is a new summary:

why do we know that the 1859 CSP leaves were artificially coloured?

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 W. Peterson struggles with the Sinaiticus colour disparity - 1844 Leipzig and 1859 British Library

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.)

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

rubrication anticipation

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

For now:


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

There are some very nice close-ups in Google too

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

Pic - Sinaiticus - Song of Songs
Last edited: