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.