I said nothing inaccurate so thank you.Steven Avery wrote: This shows you the level of Bill Brown's posting.
Part Avery doesn't bother to mention - Uspensky, whom he cites here, dates the manuscript to the fifth century and Jongkind to the fourth. And he also doesn't mention he got called out for getting part of it WRONG on the TC Yahoo group.Steven Avery wrote: This is a reference to the fact that our group supplied the first known English translation, by employing a professional translator of the Old Slavonian text, of the Porfiry Uspensky words about the manuscript now called Codex Sinaiticus (or Simeonides). Dirk Jongkind thanked us for this translation, and would have liked to have that information when he wrote his book on Codex Sinaiticus. (If I remember, he wrote to me that he had actually made some efforts to find and read the text.)
There's a reason you're posting all this on boards with non-experts and get banned from those who have actually studied this stuff. Hint: it isn't because you've made some great discovery.Steven Avery wrote: Why was this critical information missing from English-language Sinaiticus scholarship until we did the translation? Good question. We seem to be in the forefront of important Sinaiticus studies these days, and it is becoming rather obvious that Sinaiticus is not a 4th century document. In fact, it is becoming rather obvious that it came forth only in the 1800s.
None of which proves anything about the date of the MSS.....Steven Avery wrote: These words from Uspensky, about his visits to St. Catherines, make a major contribution to destroying the Tischendorf conspiracy theory. Tischendorf obviously stole the leaves (see what he wrote his wife) and he craftily invented the "saved from fire" nonsense in 1859. Claiming that he saved the 43 leaves, and more, from fire in 1844. Bridge for sale. Yet the textual books often still quote this as the textual history. The Uspensky account helps dismantle the Tischendorf fabrications. (Uspensky saw the whole manuscript in 1845 and again in 1850.)
All these words and still no disclosure of Uspensky seeing it as an ancient MSS. And for those who don't know the story: Avery is intentionally misleading you folks here on his alleged truth quest. At least he NOW admits by saying "Kallinikos through Simonides" that Kallinikos was, in fact, a phantom pen name Simonides used of someone at the monastery. Indeed, Kallinikos was like Zelig - speaking of conspiracy theories - and if we take his nonsense seriously (as Steven Avery Spencer does) then Kallinikos was there and actually SAW Tischendorf steal part of it in 1844, SAW him treat it with lemon juice to make it older, and SAW him steal the rest of it in 1859. Indeed, one wonders why Kallinikos didn't STOP him if his tale is true....Steven Avery wrote: And Uspensky also wrote of seeing a "white parchment" manuscript. Reading this led, step by step, to our discovering that the actual colour and condition of the manuscript sections fully supports the colouring allegations of Kallinikos through Simonides. (One of the many coincidental "called shots".) We even have the BEFORE and AFTER visible today, since 2009. The excerpt of Uspensky in the Russian was originally placed on Wikipedia by an informed Ukrainian scholar. Ironically, without that little Russian section, we may have never searched out and discovered the colour anomalies and tampering.
I'm not the one arguing a nonsensical conspiracy theory but REFUSING to come right out and say what I mean. I guess my bluntness is a problem for people who refuse to be honest about what they're saying. Here's what Avery is saying, folks: "I believe that Sinaiticus is a 19th century document foisted on the world by Constantine Simonides, that he used Codex Claromontanus as one of his exemplars, that Tischendorf stole it and was a really bad dude, and that Kallinikos saw every bit of it but didn't inform Simonides for 16 years or more. I also believe - despite Simonides, despite Farrer admitting he was a liar and forger, told the truth about this."Steven Avery wrote: Bill Brown's writings are consistently on this level, harumph gazoo.
THIS is what he is saying but won't come out and say for the simple reason that the moment someone puts that nonsense together - they'll laugh at him. And he knows this. Hence, all the gyrations and moving here and there to plug up the holes with misleading verbiage.
Translation: I cannot answer what Maestroh has been pointing out to me for years so I will pretend (just like he's pretending to do Sinaiticus research, even though he cannot speak Greek, collate manuscripts - but he can tell us how easy it is, read Russian, and has never been in the same room with this manuscript) that nothing is wrong with my argument and blame the other guy.Steven Avery wrote: So unless he makes a clear, salient argument, or an interesting relevant point, they will be bypassed.
Welcome to Trump's America, folks.
If I had made the irresponsible arguments you have to make this claim, I'd not want to answer for them, either.Steven Avery wrote: Time and energy are precious, and to be used in helpful and edifying research, iron sharpeneth. Think of Shakespeare "Told by ... full of sound and fury,. Signifying nothing."
This forum is generally very helpful, overall it has been the best open discussion spot on the net, so rabbit trails shall be gone.
For those who do not know: the man is a KJV Onlyist with the motivational fallacy of WANTING this to be fake because he somehow thinks it will vindicate his "precious" KJV. And circular reasoning is the basis for KJV Onlyism anyway so it's not difficult to apply that same fallacy - as is done here - to researching other subjects. As he claims to be part of a research team, why has he continually refused to answer the following questions for two years now. Ask them yourself and you'll realize that there's NOTHING to this SART team but a bunch of guys who don't know what they're talking about.
1) Where did David Daniels train in paleography? (Not answered because Daniels has never trained in it)
2) How does the manuscript coming online in 2009 change Avery's 2011 strongly worded opinion about how if one is just familiar with the details, it's OBVIOUS that it is NOT a 19th century document? (Avery stated on November 20, 2011 - "However, personal I really do not see any mileage in the Simonides -->Sinaiticus position. The obstacles are just too huge. Sometimes issues are, in fact, clear cut."
3) How many of these scholars have ever come down on the side of saying Simonides told the truth and Sinaiticus dates to the 19th century? (Answer he won't give - zero).
4) Does ANY paleographer in the world date Sinaiticus to the 19th century?
Note: if the answer we get is that not every paleographer has ever seen it to make such a judgment, I remind the audience that Mr Avery has never seen it to make such a judgment, either.
5) Who made the accusation that the manuscript was darkened - and is there any evidence he: a) not only existed but; b) wrote the letter?
6) Where did Steven Avery study 'forensic history?' correct answer: nowhere.
7) How much study of paleography have you (note: Steven Avery) ever done? (correct answer: none)
8) Does your source Brent Nongbri have ANY papyri that he thinks are dated wrongly by 1500 years? (having emailed Dr Nongbri - who has stated he sees NO REASON to discount the 4th century date of Aleph - I humbly await the answer to this one).
9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled? (correct answer? zero)
10) How are they to be handled? as in 'what precautions are necessary?'
11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read? (correct answer: zero, because he cannot read Greek)
12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed? (answer: zero)
13) How is the lighting to be set? (Note: I worked with Dan Wallace at CSNTM as an intern for a year....hence, I know the right answer to this one, let's just see if the myth making apologists do).
14) How long did it take you to take the photographs?
15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus? (correct answer - no).
16) Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE with photographing manuscripts?
17) Do any of the OTHER two members of the SART team have any REAL experience in linguistics? (neither Avery nor Michie does, and I seriously doubt Daniels does)
18) What are the published works of those in question 17?
19) Do the people at the CSP who host the manuscript online SAY it is an 1800s production? (correct answer: no, but remember that these folks are - according to this post to which I'm responding - dupes).
20) What date then do they give it? Fourth century is the right answer, this one should not be too tough even for you.
21) How does Steven Avery actually KNOW the manuscript at CSP is really Sinaiticus? (A reasonable question in light of you saying the rest of the textual world excluding yourself consists of dupes)
22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied?
23) How many experiments have you ever done on parchment?
24) In 2011, you claimed there was a typewritten note ABOUT Sinaiticus with the following words: "St. Catherine's monastery still maintains the importance of a letter, typewritten in 1844 with an original signature of Tischendorf confirming that he borrowed those leaves."
In your no doubt epic research into this subject, were you unaware of the fact that the typewriter was not even commercially available? If you did know this, why did you make such an absurd claim? And if you didn't know this (as apparently you must not have), is it not FAIR to question any conclusion you might make about anything associated with history or the Bible text?
The rest of the questions ASSUME that the reader is familiar with the entire Simonides affair, particularly as Elliott related in depth in 1982. And yes - Simonides somehow wound up with four different birth dates.....
25) How did Simonides manage to collate the ENTIRE BIBLE PLUS HERMAS AND BARNABAS by himself from THREE sources in less than TWO MONTHS and then be writing this document in record time as witnessed by the phantom Kallinikos?
27) How did Simonides manage to write this ALL BY HIMSELF in record time when the great calligrapher who was on Mt Athos couldn't do it?
28) How did Simonides have no earthly idea when Uncle Benedict died?
29a) How did Simonides not know his own birthday and we have four different dates for it?
29b) If a guy like Simonides lies about so many things EASILY verifiable, why should he be believed regarding claims that can never be verified?
30) If Kallinikos REALLY told Simonides about this in 1860, why didn't Simonides mention it in his 1862 letter?
31) Why did Simonides claim to have witnesses that he wrote this but was unable to produce them?
32) Why would Simonides - who was supposedly writing this (his words) as 'gift' to Emporer Nicholas - go back through and create 23,000 textual variants in all different hands, blundering markings all over the place?
33) Why would Simonides claim 'any person learned in paleography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS of the present age' unless that were true?
34) If that is true, why has NO PALEOGRAPHER EVER dated it to the 'present age?'
35) Why would Kallinikos witness Tischendorf stealing a portion of the MSS in 1844 and then let him alone with the rest of it in 1859 to steal as well?
Incidentally, let me add another question after his recent bungling on this issue.
Mr Spencer informs us all:
http://bibleforums.org/showthread.php/2 ... ost3088227
By his own account, Simonides did not collate manuscripts. Any degree of preparation at that stage was Benedict.
The problem for Avery?
Simonides admitted he DID collate them. In a letter allegedly from 1860 we learn:
"Dionysus...declined...when he objected...we straightway inspected the oldest manuscripts preserved in Mt Athos...And the learned Benedict taking in his hands a copy of the Moscow edition of the OT and NT (published at the expense of the illustrious brothers Zosimas, and by them presented to the Greeks), collated it, with my assistance, with three only of the ancient copies, which he had long before annotated and corrected for another purpose and cleared their text by this collation from remarkable clerical errors, and again collated them with the edition of the Codex Alexandrinus, printed with uncial letters, and still further with another very old Syriac Codex and gave me...Genesis to copy."
When Avery states that Simonides did not collate manuscripts "by his own account," note that he only gave ONE of the accounts. There are more because Simonides was lying. Avery can explain to the rest of us why he either chose not to share this or didn't research it fully.
So....which is it? These types of sloppy research mark all of Steven Avery Spencer's inquiries. They are designed to propagandize and not to inform.
His research reached it's nadir in 2011, when we got perhaps the most insane comment he ever made:
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC- ... sages/4748
St. Catherine's monastery still maintains the importance of a letter, typewritten in 1844 with an original signature of Tischendorf confirming that he borrowed those leaves
Yes, folks, in Steven Avery Spencer's world, typewriters not available until 1868 can be used to type letters in 1844.
This may be the most egregious research error, but it isn't the only one. For example, he's claimed Codex Colbertinus is an Old Latin witness to the Comma Johanneum which is fantastic...except it isn't.
http://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theolo ... -witnesses
Had he done even minimally competent research then he'd have known that Colbertinus is a VULGATE witness in the Catholic Epistles. And demonstrating the same ignorance of foreign languages that keep getting him in trouble....but only because he insists on working outside his skill set - he fully botched a French quote by not noticing....are you ready for this...that a page in his quotation was missing.
http://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theolo ... tles/page2
Quelques beaux esprits ont dit en plaisantant que Jésus-Christ et les apôtres avaient fait des miracles pour prouver que trois ne font qu'un. Ils ont seulement enseigné que les trois personnes divines en doute que ce prologue fut de saint Jérôme; niais nous n'ignorons pas non plus que leurs raisons sont si frivoles, qu'elles ne méritent pas d'être réfutées. - Genoud, Sainte Bible en latin et en français Vol 5, p. 682
THE ACTUAL QUOTATION
Quelques beaux esprits ont dit en plaisantant que Jésus-Christ et les apôtres avaient fait des miracles pour prouver que trois ne font qu'un. Ils ont seulement enseigné que les trois personnes divines avaient la meme nature et n'etaient qu'un seul Dieu, et ils l'ont enseigne non comme on prouve une verite mathematique mais comme un mystere impenetrable.
These types of major faux pas mark his research. He has repeatedly demonstrated the argumentum ad verecundiam, and these aren't the only examples. Hence, remember this when you're considering the notion that he suddenly thinks he has discovered something everyone else has missed about a fourth-century manuscript. (His homoioteleuton 'evidence' is flawed, too, but he refuses to listen so there's not much I can do to prevent him from embarrassing himself).