Steven Avery
Administrator
One of the most off-base brazen fabrications from Sinaiticus defenders came from Jacob M. Peterson.
The emphasis is in the original.
Amazing.
First we know what he can see on the Codex Sinaiticus Project site, for which you can see good examples on:
Parchment Colour
http://www.sinaiticus.net/four contiguous points.html
And they are in fact drastically and radically (Jacob uses various words, the point is clear) different.
Just the fact that the Leipzig pages are "notable for their whiteness", as Gavin Moorhead of the British Library pointed out, makes them drastically different. And this is before we get into the other areas of difference.
Jacob should retract this totally false claim, with a careful correction, before it is pointed out publicly to the CSNTM. As a logically untrue statement about manuscripts from a CSNTM professional. A "stain", if you will, on the CSNTM professionalism.
=============================
Remember, Jacob never saw either section, and never even contacted the Libraries or the CSP professionals, before making the claim.
And the British Library conservator Gavin Moorhead, involved in the CSP, wrote that the Leipzig pages are “notable for their whiteness”. Which by itself alone disproves what the CSNTM professional says is demonstrably true.
Looking at the CSP photograghs, every British Library leaf is yellowed.
Although, curiously, their actual condition is “phenomenally good” per Helen Shenton of the British Library. And a very helpful BBC Four "Beauty of Books" video showing the pages turning smoothly and easily. As if it were like-new parchment.
================================
Two Reasons were given for this claim
1) storage conditions
2) photography variation.
As to what can be demonstrated, the answer from one, storage conditions is .... nothing. There is not one smidgen of evidence that either part of the manuscript changed colours significantly from 1844 to 2018. And surely, most all of the colour of aging would have occurred in the hot dry desert in the supposed 1500 years from 350 AD.
So storage conditions can NOT be used for what is supposed to be "demonstrably true".
What about photography variation? Jacob made a decent case that the off-white Leipzig pages might be a slightly different, slightly darker shade of off-white (based on the colour bars, something has long been noted). Jacob did not offer any correction attempts, and the differences, assuming they exist, may be barely noticeable visually. He demonstrated nothing about the degree of difference and what the final result would be.
Obviously that does not justify the bogus claim:
Jacob appears to be very weak in logic, again. Does this false assertion (for whatever reason, personal pride, Sinaiticus simpatico) reflect poorly on the CSNTM?
================================
The emphasis is in the original.
Amazing.
First we know what he can see on the Codex Sinaiticus Project site, for which you can see good examples on:
Parchment Colour
http://www.sinaiticus.net/four contiguous points.html
And they are in fact drastically and radically (Jacob uses various words, the point is clear) different.
Just the fact that the Leipzig pages are "notable for their whiteness", as Gavin Moorhead of the British Library pointed out, makes them drastically different. And this is before we get into the other areas of difference.
Jacob should retract this totally false claim, with a careful correction, before it is pointed out publicly to the CSNTM. As a logically untrue statement about manuscripts from a CSNTM professional. A "stain", if you will, on the CSNTM professionalism.
=============================
Remember, Jacob never saw either section, and never even contacted the Libraries or the CSP professionals, before making the claim.
And the British Library conservator Gavin Moorhead, involved in the CSP, wrote that the Leipzig pages are “notable for their whiteness”. Which by itself alone disproves what the CSNTM professional says is demonstrably true.
Looking at the CSP photograghs, every British Library leaf is yellowed.
Although, curiously, their actual condition is “phenomenally good” per Helen Shenton of the British Library. And a very helpful BBC Four "Beauty of Books" video showing the pages turning smoothly and easily. As if it were like-new parchment.
================================
Two Reasons were given for this claim
1) storage conditions
2) photography variation.
As to what can be demonstrated, the answer from one, storage conditions is .... nothing. There is not one smidgen of evidence that either part of the manuscript changed colours significantly from 1844 to 2018. And surely, most all of the colour of aging would have occurred in the hot dry desert in the supposed 1500 years from 350 AD.
So storage conditions can NOT be used for what is supposed to be "demonstrably true".
What about photography variation? Jacob made a decent case that the off-white Leipzig pages might be a slightly different, slightly darker shade of off-white (based on the colour bars, something has long been noted). Jacob did not offer any correction attempts, and the differences, assuming they exist, may be barely noticeable visually. He demonstrated nothing about the degree of difference and what the final result would be.
Obviously that does not justify the bogus claim:
Jacob appears to be very weak in logic, again. Does this false assertion (for whatever reason, personal pride, Sinaiticus simpatico) reflect poorly on the CSNTM?
================================
Last edited:
