Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: "conspiracy theory" - a super-canard

Post by Maestroh » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:18 am

Steven Avery wrote:
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.
You forgot the words "fantasy" and "nonexistent."

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:11 am
If they understand my wild imagination, It is hard for anybody to sensibly hold on to the Tischendorf 4th-century story-line.
FIFY
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:11 am
Thus “conspiracy theory” throwaway line is the refuge, a worthless canard.
For a guy who claims truth is the issue, you sure don't seem to have the backbone to come right out and say you believe a conspiracy theory......even though you do.

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:11 am
Whether from a textual critic, a Marcionite, a mythicist, or simply a dumbed-down individual, which can include seminary grads.
Your hatred of me continues to show, but I would have to value your opinion to give it much credence. Quite frankly, I find Flat Earthers, anti-vaxxers, and people who consume sock residue from their toes to be more intellectually honest than ye.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 8:11 am
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.
One is a fact, the other is an explanation without facts.

Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

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

Post by Maestroh » Sat Sep 15, 2018 10:23 am

Steven Avery wrote:
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).

For those who don't get Avery BS-speak, let me translate the above nonsense for you:

"In those 1860s arguments, Tischendorf put out a couple of books in German, a language I cannot read, but I can tell you - even though I never read the books - that they were wrong and he was wrong and his dating was wrong.....just ignore the fact I never read the books because I can't."

The PhDs in religion you mock don't have ANY trouble reading German, French, or Greek.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:54 am
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
You said they were never translated......now you say they were....
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:54 am
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.
I'm quite sure of the level of con you're trying to run.....it's just that nobody believes you.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Aug 06, 2018 10:54 am
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.)
This guy is still stuck in 1881......and just so you know, David Trobisch told me privately it's a second century document.

No, I can't prove he did, but neither can you.

Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:49 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Aug 02, 2018 2:41 pm
Truth is the issue.

And folks - despite his false piety and claims that he's only interested in the truth, we are now 30 months into his refusal to answer even BASIC questions about the SART team. Thus, I will give you the true answers since, you know, he's so concerned with truth (or so he says).


1) Where did David Daniels train in paleography?

Nowhere. He's not a paleographer, he's a conspiracy theorist.


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?

It just proves Avery was lying when he PRETENDED he had studied this issue in 2011.

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?

Zero is the correct answer.

4) Does ANY paleographer in the world date Sinaiticus to the 19th century?

No.

5) Who made the accusation that the manuscript was darkened?

Simonides claimed it had been aged when he saw it in 1852.
Kallinikos, which is just Simonides writing under a different name, claims he witnessed Tischendorf actually doing this - which means it had to have been altered in 1844 BEFORE it was ever separated and thus pointless
Steven Avery suggests Tischendorf did it and had help, maybe even from Simonides, so he espouses a conspiracy theory without evidence

6) Where did Steven Avery study 'forensic history'?

He didn't, it's one of many terms this former University of California student just made up out of thin air. Forensic history is the study of the history of forensics, which has nothing to do with this situatio.

7) How much study of paleography have you (note: Steven Avery) ever done?

Truthful answer is "none."

8) Does your source Brent Nongbri have ANY papyri that he thinks are dated wrongly by 1500 years?

No, he does not. (Note: I have multiple emails from Nongbri, who is well aware of Avery's DISTORTION of reality).

9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled?

Zero.

10) How are they to be handled, as in 'what precautions are necessary?'

He doesn't know, because he hasn't done it, so why give him data he'll just pretend on other websites that he's actually done?

11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read?

None, because he can't read Greek. This does not, however, stop him from posting his opinions about Greek grammar.

12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed?

Truthful answer is zero.

13) How is the lighting to be set?

Can't answer because he's never done this.

14) How long did it take you to take the photographs?

The truthful answer he claims to be interested in is, "I've never done this."

15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus?

It's in Greek, and he can't read Greek so......the truthful answer is no.

16) Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE with photographing manuscripts?

The truthful answer is no.

17) Do any of the OTHER two members of the SART team have any REAL experience in linguistics?

Neither David Daniels nor Mark Michie is a linguist.

18) What are the published works of those in question 17?

There are none because they are not linguists.

19) Do the people at the CSP who host the manuscript online SAY it is an 1800s production?

No, they do not.

20) What date then do they give it?

Fourth century

21) How does Steven Avery actually KNOW the manuscript at CSP is really Sinaiticus?

He has to trust that the very people he thinks are duped about so much about it have told the truth and know.

22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied?

None.

23) How many experiments have you ever done on parchment?

None

24) What date does Brent Nongbri give Sinaiticus?

He has no reason to doubt the fourth century date, meaning ANY appeals to Nongbri about a wrong date with Aleph are intentional dishonesty.

Steven Avery
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:26 am

One simple point should be clear.

The type of wide-ranging materials testing that would be done by Dr. Ira Rabin and the BAM group in Berlin would be absolutelty superb. This planned testing was cancelled by the Leipzig University Library in 2015. My conjecture is that they were concerned that the results would support non-authenticity. So they decided to play it “safe”.

Simply doing C-14 testing would likely lead to various controversies, as often occurs with C-14 testing. Plus the request gives the owners the very simple - “no, we don’t want a snip taken out of the manuscript”.

Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:06 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:26 am
One simple point should be clear.
You forgot the next sentence:

"I, Steven Avery Spenser who post online as Steven Avery in an effort to fool people into thinking I'm transparent, don't have a clue what I'm talking about."
Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:26 am
The type of wide-ranging materials testing that would be done by Dr. Ira Rabin and the BAM group in Berlin would be absolutelty superb. This planned testing was cancelled by the Leipzig University Library in 2015. My conjecture is that they were concerned that the results would support non-authenticity. So they decided to play it “safe”.
Of course it is. This is typical of you. You are a knight in shining armor here to elucidate the truth to all the deceived masses, even though you couldn't read a passage from Sinaiticus if your life depended on it. Everyone else is involved in a MASSIVE conspiracy to delude the masses but YOU ALONE have donned the cloak of righteousness, if only people will see your obvious genius.
Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:26 am
Simply doing C-14 testing would likely lead to various controversies, as often occurs with C-14 testing. Plus the request gives the owners the very simple - “no, we don’t want a snip taken out of the manuscript”.
You wouldn't accept a fourth century date if the did. You are, after all, one who literally denies all of the science behind it.

Maestroh
Posts: 127
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Maestroh » Sun Sep 16, 2018 1:07 pm

Incidentally, since Avery responded and offered no correction to the answers, we will now proceed with those as truthful ones.

And then wonder why anyone can't see his obvious genius.....

Steven Avery
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the selling of Sinaiticus by St. Catherine's ?

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Sep 17, 2018 1:22 am

andrewcriddle wrote:
Sat Aug 04, 2018 12:18 am

IIUC there was an understanding that in return for having his election confirmed the new abbot would agree to sell Sinaiticus to the Tsar.
Andrew Criddle
And I think a more accurate way to put that is that Callistratus (the Archbishop of Mt Sinai in 1867, after Cyril) had agreed to accept the transfer to Russia as a donation and consider it a type of "case closed" after they received some financial assistance in the late 1860s. As to how they would look at any document from that period that refers to finalizing the donation of the Tsar, they could easily say that it was, if authentic, under duress (think of possession being 99%). Also they could also point to the Russian heavy-handed interference in putting in a type of puppet leadership, an earlier example of Russian collusion and election interference :) .

This idea of a donation acknowledged seems to be the emphasis of Ihor Sevcenko, Michael Peterson and the Russians as well, although the Russians do use the word "acquisition" in translation as well as donation. Afaik, even the Russians never refer to a sale.

And I mention this since I believe St. Catherine's in Sinai would vehemently object to any idea that they sold Sinaiticus to the Tsar.

Granted, I do not consider the 1860s negotiations as particularly significant to the Sinaiticus authenticity issues, so I do not look at them as closely as other questions.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:03 am, edited 3 times in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Assaults and Weapons of Darkness - 1863 Tischendorf Sinaiticus 4th-century apologetics books

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am

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

The two Tischendorf 1863 rant books. These are very interesting, to see how he pushed for the 4th century date and the counter-argumentation of Hilgenfeld and others. Note, though, that access to the actual manuscript was extremely limited, and the discussions were based on the smoothed facsimiles of Tischendorf. These discussions could not be about the real aspect of the materials, parchment and ink. And Tischendorf supplied no real palaeography of the various scripts, as pointed out later by Skeat & Milne. So the discussion was largely held in a Tischendorf-created vacuum.

These Tischendorf books afaik have never been translated into English, however, we have a lot of the information here:

Die Anfechtungen der Sinai-Bibel - (Assaults on the Sinai Bible)
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 20#post320

The glitch-marks "k�mmt" came in on an upgrade or move or document change. One post in particular I have not cleaned up yet.

All feedback about the books welcome. Those who read German may find them especially interesting.

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

As for the dates of the colouring of the pages that went to St. Petersburg, the range would be 1850-1859. The terminus post quem is based on Uspensky seeing the manuscript in both 1845 and 1850. The terminus ante quem would be the deposit of the manuscript in Leipzig in 1860. Although I think it is safe to say that the last real tampering would have been the 3 months with private Tischendorf access to the manuscript in Cairo in 1859. However, the knowledge of Kallinikos about the colouring would have referred to actions (completed or not) at St. Catherine's in Sinai before the 1859 extraction/theft.

Tischendorf supposedly created a copy of Sinaiticus in those 3 months with the two unnamed friends. Afaik, there was no future report from the German accomplices and no indication anywhere of what happened to the copy they made. Note that this belies all the claims about how difficult it would be for Simonides to do the ms. in a limited time (or 1/2 the ms., which is a more accurate estimate.)

The very fact of the "called shot", published in 1862-1864, of writing of the colouring, which we could only affirm after the 2009 CSP, give us powerful collaborative evidences that you would rarely see in any manuscript forgery analysis. Understanding and evaluating these types of evidences are in the field of "historical forensics."

My remembrance is that there is no reference to the colouring in the Simonides remarks about his 1852 visit. If that 1852 visit was an accurate account from Simonides. Simonides referred to the manuscript being altered, such as the cover removed, but not its being coloured.

As for the accuracy of the 1852 claims (a complicated issue that requires looking at his full history of those years), the non-authenticity of Sinaiticus is not at all based on the full verity of every Simonides remark. This is especially true if the original production was not as pristine clean in motive as Simonides represented.

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

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:10 am, edited 3 times in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 546
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

fallacies that divert the discussion

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Sep 17, 2018 5:00 am

Another interesting question is pin-pointing the actual fallacies involved in claims that go like this:

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

"Simonides said something wrong, ("liar") therefore his claims are all wrong, therefore Sinaiticus is authentic"

"Tischendorf lied about saving the ms. from fire in 1844, therefore his claims are all wrong, therefore Sinaiticus is a fake"

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

A quick check of an analogous discussion gives us:

dismissing the whole lot on the basis of a single example is a false generalization due to "cherry picking" and/or 'guilt by association" to begin with (depending on how it is pursued)
https://philosophy.stackexchange.com/qu ... thrown-out

Clearly there would also be the possibility of an ad hominem fallacy (modern definition.)

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

This is not to say that false statements are unimportant. They have to be studied and understood and evaluated in full context.

Ulan
Posts: 1308
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Mon Sep 17, 2018 7:25 am

Are we looking at fallacies?

Let's face it, this whole thread looks a bit like an attempt of a group of people, with none of them ever having got close to the manuscripts in question, to throw as much shit as possible at it in the hope that at least some of it may stick. It doesn't matter that, taken all claims together, the whole story becomes rather farcical.

Act 1: The manuscript gets forged at one old monastery and subsequently deposited at another old monastery by a Greek master forger.
Act 2: The (forged) manuscript gets torn apart by a German scholar, and a chunk of it gets stolen from the monastery that just got that forged manuscript shortly before.
Act 3: The scholar tries to make money from the manuscript.
Act 4: The rest of the manuscript gets stolen with the help of some insiders.
Act 5: This second part of the manuscript gets forged - again -, this time to make it look older and add non-canonical texts that come from a different (of course also forged by the same scholar) manuscript.
Act 6: The monks get forced to sign a 'donation' paper.
Act 7: Communists sell the Bible, the monks get betrayed again.
Act 8: Evil scientists from several renowned institutions conspire to prevent their knowledge of this forgery from becoming public knowledge in order to continue their centuries old scheme of corrupting the true word of God.
Act 9: A heroic team of KJV Onlyists handpick publicly available internet images and single statements from different people to uncover "The TruthTM".

I left out a few chapters for brevity, but hope I got it mostly right. Yeah.

Post Reply