Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 9642
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Secret Alias » Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:57 pm

Well that's an important revelation. A conspiracy theorist buys into a conspiracy theory. Sound the bell.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

User avatar
John T
Posts: 1109
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by John T » Mon Aug 06, 2018 3:47 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:57 pm
Well that's an important revelation. A conspiracy theorist buys into a conspiracy theory. Sound the bell.
Coming from a Marcionite, that was too rich for me! :notworthy:
The only thing that could top that irony is for a mythicist to agree with you. :lol:
"It is useless to attempt to reason a man out of a thing he was never reasoned into."...Jonathan Swift

Steven Avery
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

"conspiracy theory" - a super-canard

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:11 am

The many corroborative evidences that Sinaiticus is a c. 1840 Mt. Athos creation are amazing, very unique, and compelling. If they understand the evidences, It is hard for anybody to sensibly hold on to the Tischendorf 4th-century story-line.

Thus “conspiracy theory” throwaway line is the refuge, a worthless canard. Whether from a textual critic, a Marcionite, a mythicist, or simply a dumbed-down individual, which can include seminary grads.

Both theories, 4th century (or a century or 3 later), or 19th century have their body of evidences. Neither one is really a conspiracy theory. One is true, one is false.

Follow the evidences.
Last edited by Steven Avery on Mon Aug 06, 2018 11:00 am, edited 3 times in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

why does David Trobisch see a later date for Sinaiticus than the "consensus" ?

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:23 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Sun Aug 05, 2018 3:57 pm
Well that's an important revelation. A conspiracy theorist buys into a conspiracy theory. Sound the bell.
Curious. Were you ever able to find out the reasons David Trobisch preferred a date 2 or 3 centuries later than the scholarship consensus?

An interesting point is that in the 1860s, even using the deceptive Tischendorf facsimiles, it was common for the scholars to argue a couple of centuries later than the Tischendorf claims.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Tischendorf tries to berate any scholar who sees Sinaiticus as later than 4th century

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:54 am

In those 1860s discussions, Tischendorf put out a couple of books in German, never translated, that were comically irrational, trying hard to pummel away for his fourth century date, even though it has real problems (e.g. the colophons, Euthalian features). Even if those skeptical of the Tischendorf date had not seen the actual parchment and ink, and accepted the basic false representations of Tischendorf and thus think it is an ancient ms, they were not dancing for the 4th century Tischendorf date.

Here are the two books, with one of the English translations for each:

Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel - The Assaults upon the Sinai Bible
Waffen der Finsterniss wider die Sinaibibel - Weapons of Darkness against the Sinai Bible

Overall, I am unsure as to what degree Tischendorf realized he was running a con, however those two books would be evidence that he was in fact quite aware.

And I bring this up also in the context of David Trobisch, who in recent years was quite willing, privately, according to our poster friend here, to say that he did not really accept the 4th century date. That date only became the "scholarship consensus" because of the lemming rush into Westcott and Hort theories, which needed the early Sinaiticus, even if they gave no real evidence (in fact they offered some contra-evidence with Latinized names, leading to their theory of Rome production.)

Steven

moses
Posts: 32
Joined: Mon Oct 02, 2017 1:34 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by moses » Mon Aug 13, 2018 3:01 am

hi steve, muslim apologists are saying a big thank you to you guys



https://www.facebook.com/ijazahmadaqsa/ ... 149051590/

Steven Avery
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Aug 13, 2018 5:31 pm

Nothing showed up for me, probably privacy settings.

This particular thread is really simply concerned with the truth of the matter, not how various groups might relate to the new information about Sinaiticus, which would be a long and winding road discussion.

Steven

Steven Avery
Posts: 424
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Codex Sinaiticus, textual criticism and the islamists

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:03 am

Just a bit more on the above. Ijaz Ahmed goes back and forth with the "textual criticism" Christians like James White, and uses the New Testament Textual Criticism forum on Facebook to pull together ammunition.

Thus Ijaz likes to appeal to Codex Sinaiticus as having variants, as part of the argument that the New Testament is corrupt (which is surely true for Sinaticus.) And his job is pretty easy since James White does not have any specific Bible he defends, and attacks the major sections like the Mark ending and the Periocope Adultera, and much more.

Here is his blog, with the search for entries with Sinaiticus, he even has a picture of one page of Sinaiticus.:)
https://callingchristians.com/?s=sinaiticus

Again, this is a bit off-topic here, on this thread, but overall it is interesting to see the responses and counterpoint. I sent Ijaz a request to try to find the video that does not show up for me above.

Oh, White likes to appeal to P52, P66, etc. It was funny in one video listing to Ahmed, quite properly, referring to the scholarship of Brent Nongbri, that really disassembles the early dates claimed by James White.

Steven

Maestroh
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:07 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:41 pm
There is a lot of learning and inquiry that can be done short of testing.
So you're now admitting this testing you keep whining about isn't even necessary....ok.....

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:41 pm
Which is largely a red herring, because the Libraries will likely say no. They have a "priceless" relic, and do not want to be shown to have been fools. An understandable instinct.
And destroying even a fold of the manuscript is unacceptable, but I wouldn't expect someone with zero experience in the subject to know this.

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:41 pm
e.g. On the whole colour issue, one sheet of Leipzig could be taken to the British Library, and an overlay photograph taken. Simple enough, little cost. All the Leizpig 43 leaves, 86 pages, are the same colour, all you need is one leaf, flesh and skin. (The British pages vary a lot, because of the staining, so you take a few overlays.)
You're full of a lot of advice from someone who has no experience whatsoever with ancient manuscripts - and cannot read them anyway.
Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:41 pm
However, the results can be expected to confirm the CSP photographs, and would put attention on what happened between 1844 and 1859. So do not expect Library cooperation.
What you literally are saying here is this: "I REFUSE to accept any results that do not confirm my presuppositions - and just to make sure nobody notices this, I'm going to level that charge at the 'other' people."

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:41 pm
An individual scholar could do his own similar study, but again, the results quite surely will simply confirm the CSP.

From my end, a key issue is presentation. A simpler write-up, using the material on the PureBIbleForum and Sinaiticus.net and material from David's vids.. And communication with various scholars and experts. All that continues quite nicely.

The traditional usage was "to the man" .. allow his arguments to be true. In the internet age the alternate usage "against the man" became very common. And that is often misused. And it often is not a fallacy anyway.
Me pointing out you couldn't read Sinaiticus if your life depended on it is not ad hominem, it's proof nobody should be taking your statements seriously.

Maestroh
Posts: 66
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:14 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:41 pm
Again, the issue here is not money. Truth is the issue.
Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:41 pm
However, the results can be expected to confirm the CSP photographs, and would put attention on what happened between 1844 and 1859.
To everyone reading this, we again have the pretentious hypocrite, Steven Avery Spenser (who hides both his real name and lack of knowledge of Greek while ranting about it) PRETENDING that he's interested in something called "truth."

Well then......why does he continue to use a sliding dates of 1844 and 1859 when the accusation of coloring by Simonides is dated 1852?

Answer - because it overturns his predetermined conclusion that Tischendorf did this. After all, Tischendorf had to do this since:
a) he alone had an imagined motive in Avery's mind
b) Kallinikos SAW him do it

Of course, Tischendorf wasn't on Sinai any time between 1844 and 1853.......so he could not possibly have colored the manuscript in 1852, which makes Kallinikos a liar. (I'm assuming that Simonides didn't simply write the letters and sign K's name to it, which he in fact did).


I've been waiting for an actual answer that THE KNOWN DATA shows on this, and all I get from Steven Avery is online vomiting of his previously debunked nonsense.

"Simonides might have fudged the date." Yeah, that makes perfect sense now, doesn't it?


But Avery instead pretends there's some sort of issue based on his ASSUMPTION that Tischendorf stained this and Kallinikos saw it.


The truth of the matter is that Steven Avery doesn't care about "the truth" at all, he just cares about vindicating his foul English 1611 politically motivated Bible. If lying or pretending to not understand vindicates it, he's willing to do so. I expect this kind of tactic from the uregenerate but not from the professing believer.

Post Reply