Biblical Criticism & History Forum - earlywritings.com

I'm kind of curious. How relevant is Sinaiticus to modern versions of the NT like NIV or NRSV as opposed to material from Vaticanus and or Syriacus?

Also isn't the KJV usually considered flawed?

Please excuse my ignorance.

Lane Clapshaw

Jax wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:19 pm I'm kind of curious. How relevant is Sinaiticus to modern versions of the NT like NIV or NRSV as opposed to material from Vaticanus and or Syriacus? Also isn't the KJV usually considered flawed? Lane Clapshaw

This will get a wide variety of answers.

The issues are more historical and scholastic integrity that what will be the textual effect when the Sinaiticus problem is recognized.

historical - Sinaiticus was a pillar of the Westcott-Hort recension.

scholastic integrity - the willingness to be duped on an accessible manuscript, considered to be #2 of significance in the world, for 150 years, and resist obvious evidences tooth and nail, tells us a lot about the textual criticism milieu.

=============

Those in the textual criticism milieu consider the Reformation Bibles (Received Text) editions, like the AV, to be very flawed. Many Reformation Bible and AV proponents consider it the pure word of God.

Steven

Here is a simple example of why a dumb review is barely worthy of note.

wrote:1) MIS-CITATIONS AND MISSED SOURCES
...On page 75, Daniels selectively quotes a 1913 book on Textual Criticism by J.A. McClymont as saying, "Sinaiticus...was rescued from oblivion...by the famous critic, Tischendorf...and now lies in the Library of St. Petersburg. It is written on snow-white vellum, supposed to have been made from the skin of antelopes." ... Daniels wants to enlist McClymont for his cause as an infallible source because of the words "snow white" but doesn't want the reader to know that this didn't create any sort of problem for McClymont seeing it as a fourth century document.

"infallible source" is simply dumb.

Now, Uspensky, Dobschutz, McClymont and others are among those quoted in our studies to show that the ms. has an important history of being known as white parchment. Despite the fact that the 1859 section is coloured yellow (and streaky).

white parchment - A Tale of Two Manuscripts
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 06#post206

So when gentlemen are being quoted on the colour, only a charlatan, or someone totally confused about how to do scholarship, or buffeted by their own agenda, would claim that not quoting them on their position A, B, C is a mis-citation. This nonsense runs through all of the Bill Brown attempts.

Steven

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:53 pm Here is a simple example of why a dumb review is barely worthy of note.

If I was advocating a book with all the errors I pointed out to you - well, unlike you, I'd actually admit it. The fact none of you so-called SART team folks has a clue what you're talking about is not my fault.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:53 pm

wrote:1) MIS-CITATIONS AND MISSED SOURCES
...On page 75, Daniels selectively quotes a 1913 book on Textual Criticism by J.A. McClymont as saying, "Sinaiticus...was rescued from oblivion...by the famous critic, Tischendorf...and now lies in the Library of St. Petersburg. It is written on snow-white vellum, supposed to have been made from the skin of antelopes." ... Daniels wants to enlist McClymont for his cause as an infallible source because of the words "snow white" but doesn't want the reader to know that this didn't create any sort of problem for McClymont seeing it as a fourth century document.

We'll note that Avery DOES NOT DISPUTE THE FACT that McClymont sees this as a fourth century document.

Hence, he just admitted I'm right.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:53 pm "infallible source" is simply dumb.

So you cite a guy who makes errors then? How do you know he didn't make one here? HHHHMMMM????

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:53 pm Now, Uspensky, Dobschutz, McClymont and others are among those quoted in our studies to show that the ms. has an important history of being known as white parchment.

They also see it as a 4th or 5th century document - and yet you HIDE this from people for reasons I can only imagine.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:53 pm Despite the fact that the 1859 section is coloured yellow (and streaky).

This is still an unproven assertion no matter how many times you make it.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:53 pm So when gentlemen are being quoted on the colour, only a charlatan, or someone totally confused about how to do scholarship, or buffeted by their own agenda, would claim that not quoting them on their position A, B, C is a mis-citation.

Ah, Steven Avery (who whines about name calling) calls me a "charlatan" but indirectly.

I'll call him what he is: a dishonest windbag who didn't disclose that his sources simply don't have a problem with white parchment meaning fourth (or in Uspensky's case 5th) century.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:53 pm This nonsense runs through all of the Bill Brown attempts.

You didn't even refute what I said. Daniels misrepresented the sources he cites as do you.

Why do you do this?

Furthermore, why do you get so ticked off when i point out your lying to you ? I shouldn't be your enemy simply because I tell you the truth.

The same errors from Bill Brown continue.

If you want to really see his sickness in action, watch the BVDB board. It is not just the rant and vulgarity mode, there is also a logic gap, that makes discussion a waste of time. His point is to simply to be a diversion from the real discussions. Using his own style of reactive rant posting.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 pm The same errors from Bill Brown continue.

Steven Avery Spenser didn't list even one.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 pm If you want to really see his sickness in action, watch the BVDB board.

A conspiracy theorist regarding 9/11 and Sandy Hook (among other things) thinks I'M the sick one.....

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 pm It is not just the rant and vulgarity mode, there is also a logic gap, that makes discussion a waste of time.

Hogwash. You can't fake it with me, and THAT is what bothers you. I've been waiting for THREE years now to the question on CARM regarding how you know Paul did NOT write the Epistle to the Laodiceans and TWO YEARS for you or a competent member of the SART team (if you'll pardon the oxymoron) to answer some basic questions.

If my position was as flimsy as yours, I'd avoid discussion with "but he's so mean to me," too.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 pm His point is to simply to be a diversion from the real discussions.

Then simply ANSWER the following questions that you've avoided for two years. You call yourself a "researcher," and yet you can't even answer BASCI questions:

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?


I mean, come one. YOU KNOW that your own lack of experience of even being able to READ Greek much less date it is, in fact, relevant. And the proof is that if you DID have such experience, you'd be telling us all about how many manuscripts you had examined and HOW you made this determination. But because you lack any such experience at all, you're left with attacking others who do (as you recently did with Jacob Peterson).
There's simply some fundamental realities here:

1) I can read Sinaiticus, you cannot.
2) I have collated sections of Sinaiticus, you cannot do this.
3) Jacob Peterson and I have BOTH PHOTOGRAPHED manuscripts - you have not.

And that's why you don't answer the basic questions - because they will reveal how little you actually know about this subject.


But you've never done the legwork at all. You have looked at a couple of pictures online, combined them with an active imagination and kaboom! The Internet contains your dumpsters of misinformation in an incredible combination of the Dunning-Krueger effect meeting Sturgeon's Law.

All anyone reading this needs to know about Steven Avery Spenser's (his real name that he hides) ability to do research is this insane claim he made in 2011:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/TC- ... opics/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, this "researcher" actually said that there was a typewritten note at a time typewriters were in their embryonic stage at best. Why? Because he didn't bother to actually research the claim because he isn't interested in facts,he's interested in what affirms his presuppositions.

Steven Avery wrote: ↑Sun Jul 22, 2018 7:43 pm Using his own style of reactive rant posting.

A guy who commits ad verecundiam and circular argumentation (KJV Onlyism) every day of his life is a self-appointed expert on logic.

This is only amusing if you've never interacted with the guy.


Let's face it: he hasn't done anything but used his imagination and then adopted the facts that fit his assumptions.

Let's face it: he hasn't done anything but used his imagination and then adopted the facts that fit his assumptions.

Then he certainly belongs at this forum. It should be renamed "The Center for Imaginative Adoption of Historical Facts and Anomalies to Suit Pre-Existent Assumptions Forum"

Maestroh wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:25 am
I mean, come one. YOU KNOW that your own lack of experience of even being able to READ Greek much less date it is, in fact, relevant. And the proof is that if you DID have such experience, you'd be telling us all about how many manuscripts you had examined and HOW you made this determination. But because you lack any such experience at all, you're left with attacking others who do (as you recently did with Jacob Peterson).
There's simply some fundamental realities here:

1) I can read Sinaiticus, you cannot.
2) I have collated sections of Sinaiticus, you cannot do this.
3) Jacob Peterson and I have BOTH PHOTOGRAPHED manuscripts - you have not.

Can you explain why the researchers below have not or are not allowed to translate major sections of the Codex-sinaiticus into English?

http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manu ... omSlider=0

Do you have a link to a website that does provide a trusted English translation?

Sincerely,

John T

John T wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:46 am Can you explain why the researchers below have not or are not allowed to translate major sections of the Codex-sinaiticus into English?

I have no idea. You'd have to ask them. I'm not overly concerned with the CSP one way or the other.

http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manu ... omSlider=0

John T wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:46 am Do you have a link to a website that does provide a trusted English translation?

Sincerely,

John T

No sir, I do not.

Maestroh wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 4:17 pm

John T wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:46 am Can you explain why the researchers below have not or are not allowed to translate major sections of the Codex-sinaiticus into English?

I have no idea. You'd have to ask them. I'm not overly concerned with the CSP one way or the other.

http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manu ... omSlider=0

John T wrote: ↑Mon Jul 23, 2018 7:46 am Do you have a link to a website that does provide a trusted English translation?

Sincerely,

John T

No sir, I do not.

Thanks for responding.

v/r
John T