Steven Avery
Administrator
Here is a summary of the basic effort to say "there must be another explanation" for the 1844 colour and stain anomaly.
Annual Meeting Hotel Lobby: An Unofficial SBL/AAR Member Group
Facebook
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SocietyBiblicalLiterature/permalink/2057765447840354/?comment_id=2060990297517869&reply_comment_id=2062034210746811&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D
Continuing from:
PBF
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.525/post-1044
Then one more from Elijah.
Annual Meeting Hotel Lobby: An Unofficial SBL/AAR Member Group
https://www.facebook.com/groups/SocietyBiblicalLiterature/permalink/2057765447840354/?comment_id=2060990297517869&reply_comment_id=2062034210746811&comment_tracking=%7B%22tn%22%3A%22R9%22%7D
Continuing from:
PBF
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.php/threads/a.525/post-1044
Elijah Hixson
Thanks for the reply, but it is not 'quite obvious' that the differences of the colour standards would have no effect on the perceived colours of the parchments.
David Daniels places a big deal of emphasis on trusting "the scientists with the color bars", but if those colour bars are demonstrably different, then "trusting the scientists with the color bars" is a house built on sand. You can say that it's not, that it's different, however you want to put it, but at the end of the day, you're relying on two sets of images that demonstrably look different in one area where they shouldn't (the colour standards) if they were taken/processed identically, and you're saying "see, they were taken/processed identically but they're different!" Well, no. They were not taken/processed identically, even if the website says they were. If they were, then the colour standards would match. When anybody points that out, you just say "well that doesn't matter because it doesn't apply" and shift to "but people said they were white."
As to the purple dye, you say "well that doesn't matter because it's not a lot of pages." Or "it's not different enough". Well, I wasn't comparing a block of text to a block of text. I was showing how storage conditions can change the way a manuscript looks. You don't need several pages to do that, you just need one page that was stored in a different way/place/etc. than the others (more on that here: http://libraryblogs.is.ed.ac.uk/new.../03/09/window-to-a-sixth-century-scriptorium/
Window to a Sixth-Century Scriptorium
LIBRARYBLOGS.IS.ED.AC.UK
Then one more from Elijah.
Elijah Hixson
In summary, my argument is twofold:
1. Pages of the same manuscript can be the same but look different if the photos were taken and/or processed differently.
2. Pages of the same manuscript can legitimately be different in cases where part of the manuscript has a different storage/preservation history than another part.
We can demonstrate that #1 has happened in the case of Sinaiticus.
Therefore:
•It *could* be the case that the Leipzig leaves actually are a different colour then the BL leaves in real life. That is absolutely possible due to the fact that they have been kept in different institutions for a century and a half.
•It could also be the case that the leaves in Leipzig are identical in colour to the leaves at the BL. That is absolutely possible due to the differences in the colour standards in the photos.
•It could also be the case that both things are at work—that the BL leaves are very slightly darker than the Leipzig leaves, and the perceived difference is colour is exacerbated by the differences in the way the photos were taken/processed.
Last edited: