Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Maestroh
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Maestroh » Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:28 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:51 pm
More potty mouth.
More cowardice.

For the 2-3 of you reading this, Pure Bible Forum is Avery's own little lair. He hides there because he's the undisputed King of Nonsense and much like Trump, he's safe from actually having to answer everything.
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:51 pm
how could the young Simonides do all that intense textual work in a short period?
https://www.purebibleforum.com/index.ph ... eriod.596/

What Avery is too cowardly to say:
"Simonides changed his previous story once he got called out on it."

In other words, Simonides lied a second time. This liar is the reed upon which Steven Avery, anti-vaxxer and conspiracy theorist, hangs his belief.

Avery doesn't bother to tell you this is from the SECOND letter of Simonides.....after he'd been called out on a bunch of lies in the first one.
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:51 pm
It’s likely that the Simonides work was mostly NT and Hermas, maybe preparing the text of Barnabas.
1) That's not what he said, he said he did all of it.
2) You simply act like that never happened because that's the kind of amateur researcher you truly are.
3) You haven't even done a study of Simonides's calligraphy, so this is nothing more than blowing smoke.
Last edited by Maestroh on Mon Oct 14, 2019 5:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Maestroh
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Maestroh » Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:33 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Oct 06, 2019 4:44 pm
"Any person learned in palaeography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS. of the present age. But I may just note that my uncle Benedict corrected the MS. in many places, and as it was intended to be re-copied, he marked many letters which he purposed to have illuminated. The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle, I can, of course, point out ; as also those of Dionysius the caligraphist."
Once again, you're equivocating since Simonides very specifically here limits their involvement to CORRECTIONS, which does beg the question, "Why would a work designed to be given to a an emperor be so poorly written by anyone that it needed 23,000 corrections?"

Also - given Benedict died before most of this was complete, how did he do this?

(If you try the old "Benedict didn't die," then you're admitting Simonides AGAIN lied).
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:51 pm
And today it is very easy to see that "a MS. of the present age".
It should be noted Steven Avery has never actually seen Sinaiticus.
He has seen online pictures he has been told are Sinaiticus.

And combine that with his active imagination....and we get nonsense like this thread......
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Oct 05, 2019 1:51 pm
The same section includes referencing John Prodromos and his specific coffee house in Galata, Constantinople. An example of a very specific reference that did not get any research from his opponents. Or, if they did any checking, nothing was made public.
1) It doesn't matter that Simonides can give some name of a guy who owned a coffee house - you know this.
2) Just like the OJ Simpson defense team, you're looking at reality backwards - and for the same reason.

The better question is that if this man could could support Simonides's story, why didn't Simonides produce him?

Even you - which indicates an education from Cal back in the 1970s isn't worth the paper it's printed on - even you know that it's not my or anyone else's responsibility to go prove whether a coffee house owner (who is irrelevant) exists.

It's the job of Simonides (as you know), and the only reason he didn't do this is because he was just making everything up as he wrote.
Last edited by Maestroh on Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:00 am, edited 2 times in total.

Maestroh
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Maestroh » Sun Oct 13, 2019 12:34 pm

Does your lying offend you?
Last edited by Maestroh on Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:59 am, edited 1 time in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:17 am

Note:; I answered your previous challenge and false accusations with two quotes.

Simple and clear.

Steven Avery
Posts: 612
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:33 am

Pure Bible Forum www.purebibleforum.com moved to Xenforo from vBulletin. Thus, I hope to host free-form civil discussions. Probably in one or two weeks, still tweaking the migration.

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 12227
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Oct 14, 2019 8:04 am

“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

perseusomega9
Posts: 643
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by perseusomega9 » Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:02 am

You could have just as easily as posted this which precedes your link
https://brentnongbri.com/2019/09/22/pal ... ifference/
The metric to judge if one is a good exegete: the way he/she deals with Barabbas.

Who disagrees with me on this precise point is by definition an idiot.
-Giuseppe

Maestroh
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Maestroh » Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:19 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:17 am
Note:; I answered your previous challenge and false accusations with two quotes.

Simple and clear.
You pretend Simonides didn't flat out contradict himself.

Simple and clear.

"If I pretend he didn't write the first letter - and then quote from the second one - nobody will know."

Uh...we do.
Last edited by Maestroh on Fri Oct 18, 2019 10:26 am, edited 1 time in total.

Maestroh
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Maestroh » Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:24 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 7:17 am
Note:; I answered your previous challenge and false accusations with two quotes.

Simple and clear.
Ah, but you quoted from Simonides's REVISION of his first answer....you cherry picked.

You're basically hoping it will all go away.

=======

Incidentally, we've gone FOUR YEARS now, and you still haven't answered even one question that I originally placed to you.

Since you answer all the questions, I'm sure you won't mind actually giving us an answer (finally):

1) Where did David Daniels train in paleography? (Not answered because Daniels has never trained in it)

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? (Avery stated on November 20, 2011 - "However, personal I really do not see any mileage in the Simonides -->Sinaiticus position. The obstacles are just too huge. Sometimes issues are, in fact, clear cut."

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? (Answer he won't give - zero).

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

Note: if the answer we get is that not every paleographer has ever seen it to make such a judgment, I remind the audience that Mr Avery has never seen it to make such a judgment, either.

5) Who made the accusation that the manuscript was darkened - and is there any evidence he: a) not only existed but; b) wrote the letter?

6) Where did Steven Avery study 'forensic history?' correct answer: nowhere.

7) How much study of paleography have you (note: Steven Avery) ever done? (correct answer: none)

8) Does your source Brent Nongbri have ANY papyri that he thinks are dated wrongly by 1500 years? (having emailed Dr Nongbri - who has stated he sees NO REASON to discount the 4th century date of Aleph - I humbly await the answer to this one).

9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled? (correct answer? zero)

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

11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read? (correct answer: zero, because he cannot read Greek)

12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed? (answer: zero)

13) How is the lighting to be set? (Note: I worked with Dan Wallace at CSNTM as an intern for a year....hence, I know the right answer to this one, let's just see if the myth making apologists do).

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

15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus? (correct answer - no).

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? (neither Avery nor Michie does, and I seriously doubt Daniels does)

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? (correct answer: no, but remember that these folks are - according to this post to which I'm responding - dupes).

20) What date then do they give it? Fourth century is the right answer, this one should not be too tough even for you.

21) How does Steven Avery actually KNOW the manuscript at CSP is really Sinaiticus? (A reasonable question in light of you saying the rest of the textual world excluding yourself consists of dupes)

22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied?

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

24) In 2011, you claimed there was a typewritten note ABOUT Sinaiticus with the following words: "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."


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

Now.....simply answer the questions.
Last edited by Maestroh on Sat Oct 19, 2019 8:56 am, edited 2 times in total.

Maestroh
Posts: 147
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Coloring the Truth: Sinaiticus

Post by Maestroh » Mon Oct 14, 2019 1:25 pm

perseusomega9 wrote:
Mon Oct 14, 2019 10:02 am
You could have just as easily as posted this which precedes your link
https://brentnongbri.com/2019/09/22/pal ... ifference/
Avery has spent years citing Nongbri's studies on papyri dating and then falsely applied them to suggest that Nongbri is saying the date of Sinaiticus is up for some sort of debate and is from the 19th century.

I wrote Nongbri years ago, and he believes no such thing. Avery knows it, too.

But he subscribes to a peculiar notion that just so long as he HIDES information rather than tells you a blatant falsehood, he's not actually lying.

As Robert Louis Stevenson noted, however, "The cruelest lies are often told in silence."

Post Reply