John T wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 3:33 pm
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Jul 24, 2018 2:58 pm
Here is an example of the issue in 2010:
[textualcriticism] CSNTM's - request assistance on Codex Sinaiticus Project misinformation
Steven Avery
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/tex ... opics/5716
Eventually, the CSP site put up an easy-to-miss disclaimer. I had had a number of emails back and forth with the CSP. This was before we realized that Sinaiticus was actually produced in the 1800s.
Afaik, you will not find an English translation of Sinaiticus.
The combination of corrections and corruptions would make it a joke.
Steven
Thanks for the link.
I like the CSP cite because you can zoom in on the photos and closely look at the scribal errors/corrections.
Too bad no one with the money will fund a project to give it an English translation, flaws and all.
Now as far as the Codex Sinaiticus being made in the 1800's, well, that is something I would very much like to explore. I'm sure DNA and radiocarbon dating would quickly determine the proper age.
If it hasn't already been done I would be quite surprised.
Do you have any sources/web-sites for that?
Thanks in advance.
Sincerely,
John T
John T,
They don't tend to carbon date manuscripts because it destroys the material. Besides, Avery (once again) is hiding the fact from you that he doesn't actually accept carbon dating or anything scientific that contradicts his Young Earth Creationist worldview. Hence, you're going to find that almost every single thing you deal with with him is like dealing with a lawyer - he tries to make you think he's saying one thing, but he's saying something else, which is why one poster on CARM correctly labeled him "the word merchant."
Now as far as this conspiracy nonsense goes and the 1840s date....long story short.
In 1862, a lying forger named Constantine Simonides wrote to a couple of English journals and claimed he BY HIMSELF had written Sinaiticus on Mount Athos between November 1839 and November 1840. Those are the dates we can deduce FROM HIS OWN WORDS. The SART team, of course, isn't very fond of this timeline since nobody in his right mind - including Avery - actually believes that Simonides did this by himself. Simonides was a boastful little bozo, claimed he had all these eyewitnesses (NONE of whom he ever produced btw) who was ticked at Tischendorf for exposing him as a forger in 1856. (Whether that is his actual motive or not, I neither know nor care).
Of course, Simonides presented all kinds of problems.....for himself. Every time someone pointed out he couldn't possibly have done something because of fact X, he or his benefactor Hodgkin would come up with a new wrinkle. Basically, he lied about pretty much everything, so much so that James Farrer, who wrote one of the more sympathetic views of Simonides even admitted the guy was basically a lying forger (the SART team and Chris Pinto don't seem to want to quote THAT portion of Farrer).
Avery's basic story, for all of the hands in motion that you get from these folks - is really simple:
"Hey, if you look at the Leipzig leaves they're white and the London ones are dark, so, this means somebody tried to darken Sinaiticus and make it look older. Oh, and Simonides and Kallinikos actually said this, too!!! Prove me wrong!!"
That is his position regardless of how often he's been pointed in the right direction.
He and David Daniels have made slandering Tischendorf their life's ministry. (Well, and Daniels goes so far as to say this is part of the - ready? - "New World Order," so you know, we're not dealing with intellectual coherence here). So in the Avery Daniels tale, Tischendorf stains Sinaiticus with lemon juice to make it look older, and they INTENTIONALLY DECEIVE YOU about the date. Let me explain why.
In the Avery Daniels tale, Sinaiticus was once totally white, you know, like virgin clean white. That was in 1844. But then the 1859 portion is dark. So somewhere in there, Tischendorf stained it. (More on this in a moment). Except there's a HUGE problem. They love to cite Uspenski seeing it "white" in 1850, so they narrow the dates and will tell us it was done "in the 1850s." THIS DECEPTION IS INTENTIONAL!!!!
Uspenski tells us he saw it white in 1850.
Simonides tells us he saw it darkened in 1852.
Tischendorf saw the first portion in 1844 and the rest in 1859. (He made one other trip where he says he didn't see it - in 1853).
Now, one doesn't have to be Sherlock Holmes to look at those dates and realize there is NO WAY Tischendorf stained this manuscript (even if that actually happened). One could merely be Larry Holmes and realize this.....after all, if Tischendorf was nowhere near the manuscript between 1844 and 1853 (at a minimum), he could not possibly have stained it PRIOR to 1852.
Rather than just admit Simonides lied - which is what happened - the SART team CREATES a narrative. "Simonides fudged" (meaning he lied).
Fair enough. So then what date did Simonides actually go to Sinai and see this? Hmm????
So the other thing that happened was letters were published that allegedly came from a guy named Kallinikos. Now let me tell ya: Kallinikos is the Forrest Gump of textual criticism. He bloviates about how he was "on the spot" and SAW Simonides writing this ALL BY HIMSELF in 1840 on Mt Athos. And then he was "on the spot" and SAW Tischendorf cut out 43 leaves and steal the first portion of the MS in 1844. And then he was "on the spot" and SAW Tischendorf staining it with lemon juice!!! And then he was "on the spot" on Sinai and SAW Tischendorf steal the rest of it in 1859.
Now...John T......do you REALLY believe such a person even existed to see all those things? I mean, a guy is somehow on Athos just to see Simonides writing it ALL BY HIMSELF (Eric Carmen music starts....). And then he's on Sinai at all the crucial dates......Wanna know the reality? Simonides simply wrote the Kallinikos letters and signed the other guy's name to them. Yes, there was a Kallinikos....in fact, if the SART team is consistent, they'll have to say there were two of them (you know, like the two Oswalds in Dallas?) because the REAL Kallinikos actually wrote the journals and DENIED everything the other letters claimed.
Now.....Avery's inept response to me is going to be to introduce "but he didn't mention X," because that's what he does, it's his modus operandi. The above isn't intended to be an exhaustive response to every stupid idea proposed by the SART team. We simply stick with irreducible minimum - the rest "but what about" is just window dressing. The reality is that OJ Simpson killed his ex-wife and Ron Goldman; the fact that there were occasional ruffles that couldn't fully be explained by anyone doesn't alter the material reality.
So let's look at what the SART team (and Steven Avery) has REFUSED to answer now for two years. In April 2016, I posted this list of questions on CARM. TO THIS DAY NOT ONE WORD of response has come from this so-called researcher. And these are relevant questions. The fact none of these people has any expertise in any related area ties directly to the "this is why nobody takes you folks seriously." Note the bold below.
1) Where did David Daniels train in paleography?
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?
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?
4) Does ANY paleographer in the world date Sinaiticus to the 19th century?
5) Who made the accusation that the manuscript was darkened?
6) Where did Steven Avery study 'forensic history'?
7) How much study of paleography have you (note: Steven Avery) ever done?
8) Does your source Brent Nongbri have ANY papyri that he thinks are dated wrongly by 1500 years?
9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled?
10) How are they to be handled, as in 'what precautions are necessary?'
11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read?
12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed?
13) How is the lighting to be set?
14) How long did it take you to take the photographs?
15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus?
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?
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?
20) What date then do they give it?
21) How does Steven Avery actually KNOW the manuscript at CSP is really Sinaiticus?
22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied?
23) How many experiments have you ever done on parchment?
24) What date does Brent Nongbri give Sinaiticus?
Now, I happen to know that Nongbri endorses the fourth century date. I have NO DOUBT that Steven Avery knows this, too.
Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Apr 17, 2018 8:44 pm
I like Brent Nonbri's papers because they are sensible and logical. Far more so than those who try to put an ultra-tight restriction of 50 to 100 years on the papyri. Bremt understamds that such tight dates are really only possible when there are compelling external evidences outside the script. Which is rare with the papyri.
He LOVES to quote Nongbri as a scholarly source with the papyri to suggest paleography is all wrong.......but he doesn't bother to disclose what Nongbri's ACTUAL VIEWS are on the date of Sinaiticus......because it doesn't fit what Avery WANTS to believe.
Here's the fundamental reality: there's simply no color variance worth getting all worked up about. He's asserting Tischendorf tried to color it. Have him prove it. Looking online at computer images doesn't impress me or anyone else familiar with the field. He likes to quote what he claims Gavin Moorhead told him about the color variation but given his long history of misrepresenting sources (as with Nongbri above), I'm going to have to see an ENTIRE letter or email to give it any credence. Besides, Moorhead still holds to the fourth century date so this is hardly a problem.
The fact is that the SART team isn't a research team, it's an apologetics team majoring in conspiracy theories. (After all, if Tischendorf didn't stain it then they just move the goalposts and say someone else did it - by definition that's a conspiracy).
You would do well to read Parker's two books on the subject to get a well-rounded view. As for the SART team, none has accomplished anything in the field, and I wouldn't take their recommendation of which ice cream to buy from Sonic.
