And therefore worthless at this time. If the expert witness cannot be cross examined, then there is no expert witness (yet).Steven Avery wrote: ↑Thu Mar 05, 2020 9:51 amPrivate at this time.Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 8:02 amCitation needed. Who was it and what did they say?Neither of us are Byzantine choral experts. When I discuss this with a top scholar in those realms, he sees the eight Holies connection with the Octoechos. Your attempted analogy is far too overdone, to put it mildly.
Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
ΤΙ ΕΣΤΙΝ ΑΛΗΘΕΙΑ
These arguments for forgery seem very similar to those used to 'prove' the Letter to Theodore was a forgery. Unconvincing.
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote
So you only accept their expertise up the point where it is inconvenient to you?
Which is fine, but it reveals a bias inherent in your methodology.
Okay... ???A really interesting example is trying to date the three crosses note as hundreds of years after ms. creation.
The note explains the Chronicles scribal duplication.
Reminds me when Daniel B. Wallace came out with this mystery first century ms. of Mark but wouldn't give further details, and only for it to be found that it was a second century ms. and he knew it all along.
It's funny to me that you ask this question of this pompous fraud.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:59 amMaybe (though you would have to explain how or why it is overdone, rather than just claiming it to be so), but I am still seeing exactly zero connection between the number of musical modes a liturgy uses and the number of individual praise words a single song uses. I am not an expert on Byzantine music, to be sure, but I do know music theory quite well, so I will be able to follow along if your expert has something to say on the topic. Who is your top expert, then?Steven Avery wrote: ↑Wed Mar 04, 2020 7:30 amSteven Avery wrote:If the Octoechos is the source for the eight holies, it is highly unlikely to be an early source.The eight-mode system only has its beginnings around the time of John of Damascus (see the reference for Pseudo-John of Damascus on the page). The dots on the extra Holies would also reflect this type of source, Simonides said that they were meant for illumination in the planned later draft.
Another possibility was simply the scribe having a good time adding Holies. (Highly unlikely.) Since there are late mss. with other numbers. Once again, though, this is a phenomenon that begins around 1000 AD.Ben C. Smith wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 6:25 amOkay, but what I am asking is a bit different. What relationship is there in the first place between church songs being sung in 8 different musical modes, on the one hand, and a single word from a single song being repeated 8 times, on the other? Why would one suggest the other in any way? An example of the Octoechos system may be perused on Google Books. The songs each fall under one of the numbered eight tones; I can find no correspondence between this arrangement and the eightfold repetition of any one of the words from any of the songs. Indeed, the Trisagion ("holy, holy, holy," only thrice) is referred to a handful of times, the phrase "thrice holy" being employed on pages 16 and 129 and the title "Trisagion" on pages 161 and 167. To suggest that the word "holy" ought to be uttered 8 times because a separate book of songs contains 8 tonal sections seems a bit like suggesting that Walt Whitman ought to have repeated the word "death" 12 times (instead of 10 or 11) in "Out of the Cradle Endlessly Rocking" because Leaves of Grass was originally published with 12 poems in it.
Neither of us are Byzantine choral experts. When I discuss this with a top scholar in those realms, he sees the eight Holies connection with the Octoechos. Your attempted analogy is far too overdone, to put it mildly.
For years he's run around the Internet and he always some unknown scholar to appeal to because he's the Donald Trump of theology subjects. He's ALWAYS right and he's ALWAYS seen something that nobody ever noticed before.
He's a phony (if you haven't figured that out) who can't read the original NT but recently said - and I'm not making this up - "I would assert that I understand the issues around this a lot better than the American pseudo-scholar, pseudo-seminarians." He said THIS about Greek grammar in 1 John 5:7, the arrogant little snit.
Quite frankly, he's an idiot who should have his hour of posting time taken away by the old geezer's home but apparently they don't wish to deal with the sleaze ball.
Joseph,Joseph D. L. wrote: ↑Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:37 pmSo we can know a priori what the manuscripts that have this and the surrounding passages outright missing originally read?The fallacy is in your court, since this is an overall manuscript reference, so one being lacuna in Revelation does not affect the other mss. like Alexandrinus. The statement also includes all languages.
Even still, so what? Discrepancies between manuscripts, even Sinaiticus, are common.
That's not how a circular argument works, and you certainly haven't explained how this is indicative of an early date, while you maintain above dubious arguments for a later dating for Sinaiticus. That is circular thinking.Plus you are circular in taking the wild early Sinaiticus date, which is precisely what the 8 Holies is another evidence against.
This idiot is a King James Onlyist and gaslighting imbecile who can't even READ Sinaiticus.
But hey, he went to Cal (I think we see here why he didn't finish).
This little deceitful snit is STILL citing Nongbri but NEVER MENTIONING Nongbri holds to a fourth century date.Steven Avery wrote: ↑Tue Mar 03, 2020 3:44 amDo you have any examples of texts being adjusted based on this "not .. unexpected" significance?
And if you do, are they from a much later Byzantine era than the supposed writing of Sinaiticus?
As to poisoning the well, simple facts can show that the well has problems. eg. When you try to discuss the "phenomenally good condition" of Sinaiticus, normal manuscript science is suspended, since the presumption of a 4th century Sinaiticus most be true, to the supporters of the Sinaiticus 300s myth.
btw, we know have the 1933 Newsreel of the Sinaiticus condition. Amazing condition, as in the BBC video. This is on a Brent Nongbri blog page.
Plus , we see that the 1933 Sinaiticus had intact squires, corroborating the history that Tischendorf in 1844 simply stole five intact quires, plus part of a sixth.
He pulls this sleazy tactic all the time - but remember....he's the born again Christian and empowered Jesus freak something something. Amazing the level such people will lie their tails off.
I know a whole lot more than you think.
(You continue to forget that the academic NT community is very small even worldwide. Your citation of "based on personal paleographical study" is amusing since you don't even believe in any such thing. But having corresponded with Nongbri, I'm well aware of his position. I also know you wouldn't dare have corresponded with him without asking it. And I also know that you lie by omission ALL THE TIME while attacking others for doing it).
Now - come back with your typical "oh, you have no answer" nonsense.
Because you know FULL WELL what his position is on the date - and you just pretend you don't because it wouldn't look good for you to cite him on paleography and then have to admit he sees your 19th century nonsense as precisely what it is.