Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

Hi Peter,

The crux of the presentation is (B) with the addition that there are large additional corroborating forensic historian and anomaly confirmations. This part of the study, by itself, allows the remote possibility of tampering an antiquity manuscript to "help it along" in the scholarship and public perception. We state that the evidence is compelling to overwhelming that the tampering did in fact occur and should be acknowledged.

For details see the other thread.
Coloring the Truth
viewtopic.php?p=45894#p45894

(A) is secondary and corroborative. When I spoke to a world-class materials expert who worked on the DSS the only example given of an antiquity white parchment document was the following:
"The Temple scroll had perfectly white sections upon unrolling but now its colour is mostly yellow."

These parchment fragments were partially white after being rolled up for 2,000+ years, and they quickly turned yellow. The Sinaiticus ms. was, by modern theory, subject to heavy usage century by century. So, from everything I have seen so far, the CFA it should not be white parchment if it was a 4th or 5th-6th century ms. The emphasis that Sinaiticus was "yellow with age" was a major talking point in the arguments about the age of the ms. in the 1860s.

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

We are currently preparing a page with pictures of the ancient parchment documents, for comparison. Any assistance is appreciated.

Peter, can I enlist you as a Syllogism Consultant?

Steven

Most photography does not make precise comparison of colors easy. How is that being controlled?

Peter Kirby wrote:Most photography does not make precise comparison of colors easy. How is that being controlled?

I suspect it has not. Stephen is seeing what he wants to see.

Now I have to assume that some sort of photographic lighting was used in all these cases. The kinds of lights and their hue can vary considerably (some are bluer or oranger, and just look at street lights and even auto headlights for obvious differences). I also have to assume that ambient lighting (a combination of window & building light) at each location also affects how these photographic lights illuminate their subjects. The best they can do for contrast is make alternate shots in "raking" light, and then only by two of the four photo sources. Can we assume that they all used exactly the same lighting, cameras, and even film/digital recording media?

DCH

The British Library gave the "striking example" of the CFA-BL difference, and possible reasons for the marked difference:

British Library on the white parchment - March, 2014
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=1017&p=21508&hilit=cillian#p21508

(which I answered to a similar question with 9 points on the other thread)

Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus
pages age at different rates?
viewtopic.php?p=45894#p45894

... with lighting conditions not even mentioned as a reason in their letter.

The BL is very confident that the CSP successfully standardized lighting and colour, including the colour bars on the pages. As this is their sweet spot, and the results match the actual historical descriptions, I tend to consider them as fully capable of properly rendering color, most especially in London and Leipzig, where the technology and skilled personnel is top-notch. (And the Russians are not chopped caviar either.)

There is a short reference here:

Overview of the conservation of Codex Sinaiticus at the British Library
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/c ... eport.aspx

Produce protocols for imaging
Environmental conditions.
Investigation of cradle system.
Investigation of light levels and heat emission; establishment of appropriate UV wavelengths for analytical images etc.

And more here:

Virtual reunification, virtual preservation and enhanced conservation (2009)
Helen Shenton
http://conference.ifla.org/past-wlic/20 ... ton-en.pdf

... This led to a very inter-disciplinary approach involving recording over 300 fields of information, documenting everything from the characteristics of the parchment such as the follicle patterns (as an aid to identification of animal type) and colour (using international colour standards)

3. Digitisation
It was agreed to digitise the manuscript in situ in the four locations. As this meant four different venues using different equipment, technical standards and imaging practices were formulated by the technical working group with expert advice from other major digitisation projects to ensure consistency. It was important that the writing was legible and the appearance of the parchment and ink faithfullly reproduced. Each leaf was digitised using standard lighting and raking lighting, the latter to reveal physical characteristics of the manuscript.

Definition of raking light.

standard light
raking light (images lit at an angle to highlight the physical features of the parchment)
http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/proje ... ?newsid=15

Overall, I really do not see that the Leipzig leaves are really yellow, but show up as white, are significantly lighter on the color bar, and are described as white and snow-white by viewers, as much of a possibility. And the other possibility, that the British Library (and other) leaves are secretly white is totally non-functional.

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

The situation in Sinai, where there is very little material is a bit special. I remember that there was a paper discussing the conditions there for photography. And an article in the 2015 book may have a little on the Sinai situation, I should have that shortly. By sending out some emails I might dig up some additional info from the point of view of the photographers, this is jogging in the back of my memory, however that may take some digging to find. Returning to Sinai, I don't think there is any question that the Sinai material is yellow.

There is a special case that is studied where the ink has corroded the paper, one spot given in the Sara Mazzarino paper. Then the underneath backing influences the picture in a way that is not immediately obvious. More on that planned.

Steven Avery

> expert advice from other major digitisation projects to ensure consistency. It was important that the writing was legible and the appearance of the parchment and ink faithfullly reproduced. Each leaf was digitised using standard lighting and raking lighting, the latter to reveal physical characteristics of the manuscript.

This is not rocket science. All the evidence clearly supports the distinction. The British Library acknowledges the distinction.

Round-trip air from London to Leipzig starts at $50 on Ryanair. I'll take seriously conceptual harumphs about the failure of the CSP project to take photographs with consistency when one scholar or interested individual looks at the two manuscripts and says that the CSP failed.

Steven Avery

Codex Sinaiticus: The Story of the World's Oldest Bible, D. C. Parker p. 175-77, 2010

IMAGING
The technical standards were the highest possible. There was also a greater challenge, namely that of imposing the same standards in four different locations so as to achieve a uniform result. For the technically minded, the selected equipment used at the British Library consisted of:

• PowerPhase and Power Phase FXdigital scanning backs
  TGi Filter/ARi Filter
  DeVere 480 rostrum camera
  Rodenstock Apo-Sironar foo / 135mm lens

The PowerPhase FX digital camera back employs a 10,500 x 12,600 pixel CCD chip that enables image captures of 380 MB (24 bit RGB uninterpolated). Sironar digital lenses were chosen for their greater depth of field, giving better focus for bound materials, as well as conservation benefits because no mounting with glass plates or clips is required. Standard fluorescent cold lighting was used, again with the welfare of the manuscript in mind. A machine creating a slight vacuum was used to keep the pages flat while they were being scanned. p. 175[/color]

The first stage was to make various trials and to assess the results. We met a number of times in the spring of 2006. The first images were taken using very strong light, with the result that the writing from the other side of the page being imaged (or even from the level beyond that) was almost as visible as the page being photographed. Lowering the light level and using backing paper solved that problem. But the type of backing paper affected the colour of the parchment. It was either too creamy, or too grey, or too white. After a number of attempts, we selected a colour which kept something of the warmth of the manuscript's own colour, while providing a contrast with the ink.

THE OTHER LOCATIONS
Conservation and imaging in Leipzig and St Petersburg followed the same procedures and documentation in conservation of the manuscript. In fact, all conservation was carried out in the presence of staff who had been involved in the British Library assessment, to ensure consistency of practice. Imaging in St Petersburg was carried out in 2008 by the same photographer (Laurence Pordes). The Leipzig images, taken by a different team using different equipment, of leaves which had existed under different conditions since 1844, produced rather different-looking results (compare Q34-F8V and Q35-F1r). Imaging was carried out at St Catherine's in the summer of 2008 by Michael Phelps, using the monastery's new Stokes Imaging digital camera and cradle.

Every page was imaged in two ways: 'normally', using light shining onto the surface from a broad angle; and with 'raking light', the light sources being at such an oblique angle that many features in the surface of the parchment are shown very clearly by their shadow. The technique is similar to aerial photographs, which often reveal most about a landscape's development when they are taken early in the morning or close to sunset.

In addition, some difficult pages were selected for imaging using ultraviolet light. Experiments using multi-spectral imaging (searching an area with light from varying points in the spectrum, by which it is possible to detect ink visible at one point in the spectrum but not another) were disappointing. Ultraviolet, which was used to good effect by Milne and Skeat, is sometimes able to reveal text subsequently washed out or erased.

And fascinating notes on the side:

What is the manuscript's own colour? We looked at the British library leaves only by artificial light, while the differing storage conditions and environment in Leipzig, St Petersburg and Sinai give it a different appearance in each place.

They noticed the "different-looking results" and called a similar contrast a "striking example" --- however they are not really allowed to consider the rather obvious cause.

Steven Avery

Steven Avery wrote:I'll take seriously conceptual harumphs about the failure of the CSP project to take photographs with consistency when one scholar or interested individual looks at the two manuscripts and says that the CSP failed.

Just trying to get a sense of the facts, bud. For what should be a relatively straightforward scientific presentation, you certainly wax prolix.

You really need a brass tacks presentation for those ready to be sympathetic to your case as soon as the science is done right.

(1) What is the variability in hue/color within each of the sets of leaves?

(2) How is that measured?

(3) Has anyone suggested "natural causes" or some kind of accidental cause that could build up over time to produce differences?

(4) Has anyone been enlisted to try to -- a physicist or two playing devil's advocate, perhaps?

(5) How "white" exactly are the "white" pages? Is it within the range of other ancient texts?

(6) Importantly, then, what is the range for other ancient texts?

(7) Who is the "we"? Who is working on this? Do they have physical access to the manuscripts? Have they published anything yet? Do they intend to?

> (1) What is the variability in hue/color within each of the sets of leaves?

In the CFA (1844 Codex Frederico-Augustanus, LUL, Leipzig, about 10% total), very little. Which is why every CFA leaf, by visual, is significantly lighter than every non-Leipzig. In the other 90% there is some variation, by visual every leaf is significantly darker than every CFA leaf. The NT is definitely in better shape (remember not one verse is missing after a supposed heavy usage over 1650 years including unbindings) than the extant OT, that is a related discussion. However, any NT-OT colour distinction would be rather small, it would be a good check to see if there is any.

> (2) How is that measured?

The CSP Project has a color number under Physical Description -> Parchment -> Colour. A very effective and simple method is to simply look a the full manuscript page that David W. Daniels put together and you can immediately see the two Leipzig sections.

> (3) Has anyone suggested "natural causes" or some kind of accidental cause that could build up over time to produce differences?

See the conjectures of the British Library in this thread.

British Library on the white parchment - March, 2014
viewtopic.php?p=21508#p21508

See my nine-point response to those types of suggestions in the other thread.

pages age at different rates?
viewtopic.php?f=3&t=2071#p45894

One major problem is that the distinction clearly existed by 1860.

Interestingly, Tischendorf kept the CFA out of his major 1862 Sinaiticus book and had not made it clear that it was the same manuscript. However, ultimately he had to include it because of contiguous text, which would be checked because of physical similarities (e.g. four columns, size of parchment.) We are checking now for the first clear and unequivocal acceptance of the two as one ms.

> (4) Has anyone been enlisted to try to -- a physicist or two playing devil's advocate, perhaps?

Up to a point.. e.g. I had a discussion with Dr. Ira Rabin of a German materials research group, BAM, about whether there are ancient white parchment manuscripts (that is the one that discussed the Temple Scroll.) Remember though, that (A) and (B) are connected in this study, we have an unusual white manuscript, and we have the distinction of "A Tale of Two Manuscripts" as early as 1860. This essentially negates theories of Uncle Joe spilling coffee or an unknown scrubbing clean in Leipzig.

> (5) How "white" exactly are the "white" pages? Is it within the range of other ancient texts?

So far, my answer is no. As far as I can tell Alexandrinus is the whitest of the other ancient parchment texts (presuming its authenticity.) It seems to fall smack in between the "wonderfully fine snow-white parchment" (Dobschutz, 1910) of the CFA and the yellow with age 90% of (the artificially-darkened) Sinaiticus.

> (6) Importantly, then, what is the range for other ancient texts?

On a somewhat anecdotal level, we are preparing a page of pictures that are available. I can give you two or three urls that have links to pages, but you have to be careful, e.g. an 1845 transcription of Ephraemi Rescriptus by Tischendorf might be mistaken for the ms.

> (7) Who is the "we"? Who is working on this? Do they have physical access to the manuscripts? Have they published anything yet? Do they intend to?

The current project is three laypeople, one of whom has seminary Greek and linguistics background. David W. Daniels, a gentleman named Mark working the web-site and brainstorming, and myself. (We plan an introduction page on http://www.sinaiticus.net .) On specific issues, we have other contacts, e.g. there was a Simonides conference in 2014 with a book forthcoming and we are in touch with the principle organizer. In addition, Chris Pinto helped spur this on and earlier tracked down the Barnabas 1843 related information, contacting Greece, however he is not involved in the current studies. We had done some research on Sinaiticus in a public Facebook forum in 2014, and then David began the series with the recent video logs and we have increased our reading and involvement and study. It is multi-faceted, and I consider the general approach to be that of the forensic historian.

We do not have physical access to the manuscripts, when a David Trobisch or David Parker or Daniel Wallace wants to go to the two libraries, they will likely, with some difficulty, be given access. And can give a report. The number of people who have physically seen both manuscripts with eyes, rather than the CSP, from 1860 to today, seems to be a counting type number, using fingers. And maybe only one hand.

We are currently in the process of publishing. Sinaiticus.net opened up about a week ago and is being worked on daily, and I am adding material to the PureBibleForum Sinaiticus section daily. Although without any fanfare, and in a pre-development state. As for publishing in a peer-reviewed Journal, I could encourage a PhD candidate or an adventurous scholar working that angle. And if they seem sensible, even if skeptical, I would be happy to assist their endeavor.

It would likely be a "Revisiting... " type of paper involving Simonides and the controversies of the 1860s-1870. It would probe into questions of Simonides knowing of the manuscript before it was announced by Tischendorf and lots of historicity elements. It might question how the Tischendorf fabrications remain at the base of Sinaiticus historical reconstruction, and look closely at provenance issues. Or it could be a linguistic paper involving the James Donaldson study of Barnabas and Hermas. My sense is that the American Bible scholars really do not have the linguistic skills for such a paper, they are generally not fluent in the classical languages. Although the colour disparity pointing directly to the darkening of Sinaiticus from 1845 to 1862 could be its own paper as well. My sense is that the Europeans (not so much the English, Dutch or German) who know the Greek history of the time, and the Byzantine culture, are more likely to be in the vanguard. That is where there has been a real upsurge in interest in the c. 1835-1870 events, with the material at the Gennadius Library at Athens being a major help.

Steven Avery