In both cases we only have reconstructions of copies of reconstructions. And if you cannot believe in a reconstruction, you may not have anything left to believe in.

Ok, Aik, the point of this thread was to make available the pictures you hold in such high esteem. I thought I was doing you a favor...

Finally, there is a big difference between having a multitude of generally agreeing MSS available for detailed physical examination (I would think this would be top priority for a skeptic?) and having ~30 year old pictures of a MS that might not even be real. No one can know because the original MS is still missing unlike the DSS and numerous other discovered MSS. I think we have come to quite different conclusions on this issue, Aikido, so rather than get in a pointless argument, I'll end with this.

Ish

I would not presume to esteem the photographs one way or another. I provided links to the article a month ago when I read postings on this board making assumptions that Huston Smith concocted and falsified the discovery of the letter and his comments on it.

The differences are noted, and they can be explored rather than quick assumptions made and defended from a superficial encounter.

You provided a link to an article, but the Westar Institute only very recently made the actual color pictures available. I figured that the actual color photographs might be of interest since the pictures that I provided a link to were black and white with the margins cropped. Unfortunately, you probably have to buy the journal to get a larger sized picture to work from.

Anyway, who is Huston Smith? Do you mean Morton Smith or did I miss some other thread?

Ish

I meant Morton, not Huston. That's what I get for trying to spice things up with Huston's salt instead of Morton's.

Thanks!