Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Sep 17, 2018 9:33 am

HI Ulan,

You talk about "handpick" with the images, but you do realize I hope that we have a composite available that includes every page. Or are you jumping to conclusions without even looking at the pages?

And we included each of the four contiguous points (where Leipzig 1844 and British Library 1859 connect) in the individual section on www.sinaiticus.net .

Contiguous points are clearly the most helpful since they should be very similar in all aspects from the starting point (whether 350 or 600 or 1840) until 1844.

Every Leipzig page is very similar in colour, while the British Library pages vary widely, are streaky and stained, and every page is yellowed compared to the consisted off-white Leipzig pages.

Overall, I have to conclude that you are more interested in being a critic than in being informed.

Steven

Ulan
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:32 am

Steven,

as the two of us have been discussing in detail about these images, you should know better than making statements like this.

Also, you tried to get away with handpicked image comparisons like this. You retracted that specific one when you were called out on it.

Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:05 am

There was no "retraction" of the Ute Feller image. It is excellent, it shows the colour, and to some extent the wonderful condition, of the Leipzig pages. And it goes well with the videos of the manuscript turning easily with supple parchment.

The prime presentation of Leipzig and British Library comparisons are on the www.sinaiticus.net website.

It would be nice to have more such images available, with lots of visible colour contrast. If you can find them, I will be happy to discuss them, and likely place them on the PureBibleForum. I've looked around.

The Codex Sinaiticus Project, and the www.sinaiticus.net website, are the primary spots. NOT the 2011 Codex Sinaiticus book, put out by the British Library with Hendrickson Publishers, where they "smoothed" the Leipzig pages to match those of the British Library.

Steven

Ulan
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Ulan » Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:10 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:05 am
There was no "retraction" of the Ute Feller image.
Cool. So your only criticism of my post regarding "handpicked" image comparisons is, in your own words, actually false, while my statement was correct. Good to have that point cleared up.

Maestroh
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

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

Post by Maestroh » Tue Sep 18, 2018 3:52 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
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.
None of which matters now since the manuscript was never under his control after he died......
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
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.
None of this is a problem for, you know, ACTUAL scholars - it's a pretty basic requirement in religious studies to be able to read Greek, Hebrew, German, and French.

It IS a problem for Internet hacks who want to be taken seriously but are too lazy to meet the minimal prerequisites for learning.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
As for the dates of the colouring of the pages that went to St. Petersburg, the range would be 1850-1859.
1) You're still ASSUMING this happened. You have yet to offer ANY proof of this other than "Hey, lookie here on mah computer screen, Curly!"

2) You're simply lying about the dates and cherry picking your sources.

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
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.
Not true.

The LATEST date is when Simonides saw it on Sinai in 1852 having already been altered to make it look older.

Using your own nonsensical theory, this manuscript IF it was colored was done between 1850 and 1852, which rules out Tischendorf doing it since he was never on Sinai between those dates.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
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.
It was already aged in 1852 (per Simonides), so we now have TWO alleged color dudes.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
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.
Uh yeah, he actually SAW it, which means we now have a THIRD conspirator.......well, we would if Kallinikos was something besides a name Simonides signed to his phony concocted letters.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
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.)
Actually, you're piling the dung higher with each tightening of the noose, which is to be expected from those being hanged.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
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."
You're a mouth breathing idiot.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
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.
Okay folks - any of you here who still entertain the idea that this putz actually knows what he's talking about, here we go.

1) He knows this is not true because I informed him on April 10, 2018 about the whole thing. You'll notice that after I pretty well stomp a mudhole in him, he vanishes from the thread in the same manner the warden described the disappearance of Andy Dufresne.

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theol ... ost5199881

2) He either is LYING about Simonides or he doesn't know what Simonides said.

Here is exactly what he said:

"In 1852, I saw it there myself...I examined the manuscript and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have..."


Now, he's going to pile it higher and deeper and come up with some sort of, "But he never said it was colored," which means he's actually abandoning his claim that this made to look older by this nonexistent but alleged coloring. Greg Brady's "exact words" theory will be his flimsy defense.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
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.

Let me summarize Steven Avery Spenser's thought process

See, folks, it doesn't really matter if Simonides was telling the truth about:
a) being on Sinai in 1852
b) seeing this altered manuscript in 1852
c) writing Sinaiticus by himself
d) the date of Sinaiticus


See, folks, I, Steven Avery, am trying to bullshit you into thinking that I have something MORE than the simple "Simonides said," even though I have NOTHING other than that - except perhaps an active imagination and maybe flashbacks from prior drug use.
Last edited by Maestroh on Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:01 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Maestroh
Posts: 97
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: fallacies that divert the discussion

Post by Maestroh » Tue Sep 18, 2018 4:00 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
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"
This is known as knocking down a straw man since you're the only idiot who argues this way.

Your objectivity is nonexistent because you repeatedly call Tischendorf names, but you never apply the same standard to Simonides.

You claim Tischendorf lied but Simonides "fudged."

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
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)
The part you keep PRETENDING to not get is the fact that you have yet to give A SINGLE OBJECTIVELY VERIFIABLE FACT in your favor.

You claim Tischendorf colored the manuscript and base this on what you see on a computer (which can easily be altered as you admit when you go bonkers over the CSP altering the colors to match - which pretty well settles the issue) and multiple claims by Simonides both under his own name and that of Kallinikos.

What you have not yet proven is that the manuscript was ever colored in the first place. What you do - instead of proving this case, numb nuts - is you resort to conspiracy theories of "CSP was supposed to chemically test it, but they cancelled because they're afraid of what they'll find").

This isn't evidence of anything other than your incredibly active imagination.
Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 2:18 am
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.
The fact Simonides was lying about seeing it colored in 1852 on Sinai leaves you with a choice:
a) he was telling the truth and Tischendorf couldn't have done this
b) he was lying about everything...being on Sinai in 1852 and seeing the manuscript there as well because....
c) if he saw it there, how in the world could he not know WHEN he was there?


And at this point, you have nothing at all.


The funny thing is that either way, Tischendorf is exonerated.......but you're not exactly honest enough to admit that, so you change the story and intentionally widen the dates....because you have your theories but they don't match the facts.

Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

absurdity? - Tischendorf showed up in Sinai on the one day after 1500 years when the ms. was being burned

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:10 pm

Ulan wrote:
Mon Sep 17, 2018 11:10 am
Cool. So your only criticism of my post regarding "handpicked" image comparisons is, in your own words, actually false, while my statement was correct. Good to have that point cleared up.
This makes no sense. Handpicked implies a type of selectivity that was not involved. We showed every page in the composite image, every contiguous page, and the Ute Feller page is, so far, the only really vibrant, excellent contrast, colour single pic of the manuscript being handled we found anywhere.

Anyway, I responded to that one point because you had a false scholarship integrity accusation implied. This seems to be your methodology, I would prefer if you really worked with substance, as, if I remember, occurred occasionally in earlier counterpoint.

And I considered the post as a whole sort of humorous silliness. Stretching yourself to try to make a non-point. e.g. We can easily laugh at the theory that Tischendorf showed up in the one day in 1500 years when the ms. was being burned. And you carefully ignore all the amazing supposed coincidences, like how did Simonides and Kallinikos know about the 1843 theft and the colouring that we can easily see today.

Or the amazing coincidence that Simonides had published Greek Barnabas and Hermas editions -- before Tischendorf got all choked up about their being in the Sinaiticus ms. hmmm .. along with the convoluted Tischendorf linguistic retraction about the Hermas date.

Or the fortuitious confirmation of the Athos crew working together in the right place and time, confirmed in 1895-1900 in the Spyridon Lamprou catalog.

As I said, there was a spot of humour in your post, but it had no actual substance. So I answered the integrity point.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:30 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

restricted access - scholarship with the tampered Tischendorf facsimile

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:20 pm

Of course the Sinaiticus ms. was not under Tischendorf's control after he passed. However, the Libraries restricted access, and I have some of the information on that here:

"The oldest Bible in the world is kept in Leipzig like a treasure. It is so valuable that nobody can see the parchment"
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 2#post1492

the British Library allowed only four scholars to inspect the Codex Sinaiticus leaves in 25 years!
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... n-25-years

In Russia, the polymath scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946) did get physical access in the early 1900s, and reported that it really could not be very old, max about 600 years, based on the superb condition. Which you can see today in the BBC video and the CSP pics.

It really has been quite a shell game. There never was any real palaeography, the faux date was set by textual politics.

And few scholars have handled the manuscript. And the key issue of comparing Leipzig and the British Library was virtually impossible .. until the wonderful 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project!

Even the 2011-2012 $$$ Hendrickson and British Library printed edition was tampered - to hide the colour distinction.

Steven

Ulan
Posts: 1304
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: absurdity? - Tischendorf showed up in Sinai on the one day after 1500 years when the ms. was being burned

Post by Ulan » Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:46 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Tue Sep 18, 2018 10:10 pm
Anyway, I responded to that one point because you had a false scholarship integrity accusation implied. This seems to be your methodology, I would prefer if you really worked with substance, as, if I remember, occurred occasionally in earlier counterpoint.
Don't be silly. I already criticized the image comparison I linked directly after you posted it, so nothing has changed. While the pages may be contiguous, they obviously have not been contiguous for a very long time, which means they had been "outer pages" of manuscript parts. And one of those parts seemed to have fallen in a puddle or been otherwise subjected to water damage. Images like that don't prove anything regarding your whole hypothesis. Using outer pages for comparisons like the one you want to make is insincere. That impresses only people who don't stop to think about what they are looking at.

Steven Avery
Posts: 502
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Wed Sep 19, 2018 12:26 am

This is just one of about 5 distinct hand-wave attempts that do not address the evidence, by attempting to nibble at an edge. It is humorous the variety of attempts.

E.g. A reference to a stain on one of the 4 contiguous Brit pages clearly negates nothing. The fact of uneven !859 stained and streaky pages is one of the anomalies.

Similarly, your “criticizing” something is supposed to demonstrste something?

Plus, they were not outer pages. The Brits rebound them as a unit, making them all inside. The Russians kept them laid flat. I’m prety sure the Germans have been similar. They ignore the pages that are at the other library. Try to think it through. Thanks. This is rather simple, so I would appreciate an acknowledgment that you had erred on that one.

Sometimes, I think you just go fishing to say .. something ... anything .. as an irrelevant diversion.

The phenomenally good condition, the off-white 1844 Leipzig, the streaky yellow 1859, matching the colouring accusations of 1862-64, the historical coincidences like Simonides doing editions of Barnabas and Hermas, are all among the elephants in the room for which you try to find a diversion.

This is simply not a 1650 year old manuscript, handled for centuries in the hot and dry desert.

Post Reply