Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Post by Steven Avery »

Hi Bill Brown,

Here is what you wrote about the Claromontanus-Sinaiticus relationship in the context of the homoeoteleutons.

Facebook - NT TextualCriticism - March, 2017
Is the Codex Sinaiticus Reliable?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextu ... cation=ufi

Bill Brown
"Even if one has the same reading why ASSUME that Aleph came from D rather than vice versa? In fact, couldn't we just as easily argue that this proves that D06s date must be subsequent to Aleph and this proves the opposite of what these wishful thinkers allege? ...."


Feel free to explain how the homoeoeteleutons could also be used in reverse, to have Sinaiticus as the target ms.

In the next post, David Inglis did correct you, and you did not respond.
And note that this is 100% on the topic of this thread.

Thanks

Steven
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:41 am Hi Bill Brown,

Here is what you wrote about the Claromontanus-Sinaiticus relationship in the context of the homoeoteleutons.

Facebook - NT TextualCriticism - March, 2017
Is the Codex Sinaiticus Reliable?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextu ... cation=ufi

Bill Brown
"Even if one has the same reading why ASSUME that Aleph came from D rather than vice versa? In fact, couldn't we just as easily argue that this proves that D06s date must be subsequent to Aleph and this proves the opposite of what these wishful thinkers allege? ...."


Feel free to explain how the homoeoeteleutons could also be used in reverse, to have Sinaiticus as the target ms.

In the next post, David Inglis did correct you, and you did not respond.
And note that this is 100% on the topic of this thread.

Thanks

Steven
Wait.....why are you ignoring the very next post where Snapp pointed out the reality?

After all these years, do you actually THINK you can get away with this with me?

Inglis: "This does NOT prove that D06 was the source of the missing text in Sinaiticus..."

EXACTLY.

He's not taking YOUR position. And he didn't argue what you allege here.

Incidentally, what was your collating base? How many singular readings did you note in the chapters?

(You see..you have to answer THOSE questions before engaging in this polemic).

And if you're going to play the old "you didn't respond" argument....you've had two years now....so cough 'em up buddy boy.

1) Where did David Daniels, whose work you cite as authoritative, train in paleography?



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?



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?


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



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


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



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



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



9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled? Zero. I doubt he's ever seen any.

10) How are they to be handled? (post 62) as in 'what precautions are necessary?'


11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read?



12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed?



13) How is the lighting to be set? Let's see what this guy says since I've actually done this with CSNTM.

14) How long did it take you to take the photographs? He never has so the answer is..."I never took any."

15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus?

16) Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE with photographing manuscripts? No, he doesn't.

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

Apparently not since this question has been avoided like the plague.

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?

20) What date then do they give it?



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


22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied?


23) How many experiments have you ever done on parchment? None

24) In 2011, you claimed there was a typewritten note regarding Sinaiticus even though the typewriter had not yet been distributed wide scale. Why was your research so shallow as to say something so ridiculous?
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Post by Steven Avery »

Maestroh wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:16 am Wait.....why are you ignoring the very next post where Snapp pointed out the reality?
After all these years, do you actually THINK you can get away with this with me?
Inglis: "This does NOT prove that D06 was the source of the missing text in Sinaiticus..."
EXACTLY. He's not taking YOUR position. And he didn't argue what you allege here.
None of which is even remotely relevant to your conceptual error.
Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:41 am Bill Brown
"Even if one has the same reading why ASSUME that Aleph came from D rather than vice versa? In fact, couldn't we just as easily argue that this proves that D06s date must be subsequent to Aleph and this proves the opposite of what these wishful thinkers allege? ...."
Which was quite surprising, even to me, since you supposedly have years of schooling at DTS under Daniel Wallace.

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

Please stop spamming the forum with repetitive lists of questions. Take one thread, and throw them there. Clearly you use the laundry lists to avoid real discussion. As you did here.

Steven
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:34 am None of which is even remotely relevant to your conceptual error.

No error was committed. Nice try, though.
Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:41 am Which was quite surprising, even to me, since you supposedly have years of schooling at DTS under Daniel Wallace.
I can't force you to understand anything....

Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am Please stop spamming the forum with repetitive lists of questions.
Are you a moderator here? This isn't your own little Facebook page or forum, bud.

You went with "you didn't respond."

But you yourself didn't respond and haven't for two years.

Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:30 am Take one thread, and throw them there. Clearly you use the laundry lists to avoid real discussion. As you did here.
I have a guy who has avoided answering these same questions for TWO YEARS now complain that I'M the one who uses lists to avoid discussion.

Ha. Ha. Ha.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Post by Steven Avery »

Bill Brown
"Even if one has the same reading why ASSUME that Aleph came from D rather than vice versa? In fact, couldn't we just as easily argue that this proves that D06s date must be subsequent to Aleph and this proves the opposite of what these wishful thinkers allege? ...."


This is obviously a major error, specifically on the nature of homoeoteleutons.
Note that this thread is:

Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)


So I can not take postings from Bill Brown on this homoeoteleuton thread as relevant. It also tells us a lot about the quality of the teaching and learning experience in a seminary like DTS. The most salient element is the response here, when a simple correction was requested.

Steven
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:04 am Bill Brown
"Even if one has the same reading why ASSUME that Aleph came from D rather than vice versa? In fact, couldn't we just as easily argue that this proves that D06s date must be subsequent to Aleph and this proves the opposite of what these wishful thinkers allege? ...."


This is obviously a major error, specifically on the nature of homoeoteleutons.
Note that this thread is:

Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)


So I can not take postings from Bill Brown on this homoeoteleuton thread as relevant. It also tells us a lot about the quality of the teaching and learning experience in a seminary like DTS. The most salient element is the response here, when a simple correction was requested.

Steven

I have a guy who allegedly attended the University of California at Berkeley arguing in favor of fundamentalist KJVOism.

(See.....you need to remember that I can play the same games as you...)


A reminder that Steven Avery didn't answer the questions:

1) What was your collating base?
2) how many singular readings?

There simply is no error. This is a typical Steven Avery stunt. I simply asked a question on Facebook - a question that oh by the way he didn't feel he had the acumen to answer THEN but has chosen to hide behind someone else (who he conveniently doesn't mention corrected Avery himself).

Sorry. This apparently is how desperate things are now for the fundy KJVOs.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Post by Steven Avery »

Maestroh wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:10 am
There simply is no error.... I simply asked a question on Facebook - a question that oh by the way he didn't feel he had the acumen to answer THEN but has chosen to hide behind someone else (who he conveniently doesn't mention corrected Avery himself).
The question showed you did not understand the nature of homoeoteleutons.
Or at best you simply wrote something quite dumb without thinking.

Bill Brown
"Even if one has the same reading why ASSUME that Aleph came from D rather than vice versa? In fact, couldn't we just as easily argue that this proves that D06s date must be subsequent to Aleph and this proves the opposite of what these wishful thinkers allege? ...."


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

Since I am blocked by James Snapp and on that forum, and it is not even visible to my personal Facebook account, there is no issue about what I did or did not respond. And this came to my attention much later,

Steven
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Fri Apr 13, 2018 3:34 am
Please stop spamming the forum with repetitive lists of questions. Take one thread, and throw them there. Clearly you use the laundry lists to avoid real discussion. As you did here.

Steven

Everyone reading this - I want you to know that these words are intentionally chosen.

Notice he is PRETENDING that "hey, if you'll just put those questions in one thread, I'll answer them." But, of course, he never said that because it isn't true. Indeed, it's an insult. "Take one thread and throw them there."

Yeah - if I couldn't:
a) read Greek
b) collate manuscripts
c) photograph them


I wouldn't answer the relevant questions, either.

Of course, I'm also not stupid enough to continue doubling down when I'm a million dollars in debt, either.

Or stupid enough to post on a subject I know nothing about as this computer guy Steven Avery Spenser does.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton from source ms Claromontanus (D06)

Post by Maestroh »

To close - it isn’t my fault that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Now, last time:

What was your collating base & what are the singular readings in the chapters you cite for both MSS?

If you can’t answer those basic TC questions, I’m done with this discussion.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

all done for Bill Brown on the homoeoteleutons

Post by Steven Avery »

You were done with the homoeoteleuton question when you wrote:
wrote: Bill Brown
"Even if one has the same reading why ASSUME that Aleph came from D rather than vice versa? In fact, couldn't we just as easily argue that this proves that D06s date must be subsequent to Aleph and this proves the opposite of what these wishful thinkers allege? ...."
And refused to simply correct the error.

That is why you try diversion to all sorts of other questions. This thread is about the homoeoteleutons. It could segue into the question of the OT sources for Sinaiticus, and whether they show sense-line homoeoteleutons.

Steven
Post Reply