Well, I understand your clarification, and appreciate your patience in helping me understand. So basically you are saying that the testimony of eyewitnesses who had direct personal exposure to the physical text, and who were dedicated and recognized experts in the field of manuscript analysis, and had been so for multiple decades, that such testimony is to be trumped by your uncredentialed opinion after seeing what I surmise to be a digital or analog photograph, which of course would be unlikely to capture such subtleties as the indentation of the material where the proposed Theta should have it’s middle bar and so forth. Have I got that right?
If this were court (and I know it isn’t, but bear with me), to whom do you think the jury would give greater credence?
Anyway, I am still working on ego eimi, which as you know has some depth to it, and I do not wish to present anything too hasty to be taken seriously. I also desire to be precise. So we do have something in common. :)
Peace,
SR
Uh, No. Basically what I am saying is that the testimony of eyewitnesses who had direct personal exposure to the physical text, and who were dedicated and recognized experts in the field of manuscript analysis, and had been so for multiple decades, differ with the respected Master Clarke and that such differing testimony is now my uncredentialed opinion after seeing what you may correctly surmise to be a digital or analog photograph, which of course would be unlikely to capture such subtleties as the indentation of the material where the proposed Theta should have it’s middle bar and so forth but nevertheless does and confirms the opinions of other experts besides the highly respected Clarke.
As is so often the case experts differ in their conclusions when looking at the same evidence and we lesser mortals, that would you and I, are left to form our own uncredentialed opinions based upon whose testimony seems most likely to be so.
As to a jury...forget it! I would rather deal with bias and ignorance of one judge than the bias and ignorance of twelve jurors.