That Sinaiticus Show

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:13 am Looking at the evidences, I simply do not see any viable scenario where the ms. was ancient or where Simonides was not involved in its creation, including the movement from Athos to Sinai.
Of course not....because you began with that conclusion......

Steven Avery wrote: Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:13 am Not a religious certainty.
When I believed the evidences supported antiquity, I had no Christian difficulty in expressing that view.
(The posts from that time are available, I even gave my personal list of reasons.)

Follow the evidences.

A reminder he's been asked dozens of questions about this - and he and his buddy Daniels run in fear of having to explain what Simonides actually said.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am First, the "any MS from Sinai" has to have no real provenance before being found in the mid-1800s.
Which is true of every single MSS.......but you don't see him talking about....
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am It can not be found in a library catalog, it can not have any notes at the Monastery, it can not have any internal proofs of antiquity.
Note that this guy has never studied paleography and cannot read Sinaiticus but makes this bold statement.

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am Then it has to have a package of deceptions and lies (made up by Tischendorf) about how it was found.
You'll notice he doesn't point this out about Simonides, though, whose lies make those of Tischendorf look small by comparison.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am Then it has to have an incredible condition, parchment and ink, unlike any known ms. of antiquity.
Note that this guy is doing nothing at this point but regurgitating cliches.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am Then it has to have a group of unusual anomalies about the palaeography.
He's now pretending he actually cares about paleography......he actually gives it no credence whatsoever, but he's PRETENDING because like every fundamentalist in existence, he desires to be taken seriously as a scholar.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am Then stories that are explained by SImonides have to fit the ms., even while he supposedly flying blind.
Simonides claimed he wrote it himself - Avery admits that's not true.

Simonides claims he saw it on Sinai in 1852, which means it was "altered" before Tischendorf even made his 1853 visit, much less his 1859 visit.

Simonides also cites what he says is a letter dated August 13, 1841 from Constantius....he cites this in 1862, but he never produces this letter....which would have sealed the deal and proved the point. Why didn't he produce it?

BECAUSE HE WAS LYING!!!!
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am Then he and Kallinikos have to be at the right place and time to actually help create the ms. in a small windown.
Except nobody ever saw Kallinikos, they saw letters written by Simonides to which he signed the name Kallinikos...
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am Then any ms. has to be taken out in two sections, the earlier one white and unstained, the later one colored, fitting the actual physical position.
Note that he's arguing in circles here.....you just have to know the actual story to catch it.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am Then any ms. could be connected to the Zosimas Moscow Bible, used as a source.
1) He got this lie from Simonides
2) The same guy who lied about writing it himself and
3) seeing it stained in 1852

(The part Avery is very careful to never say is, "I believe the story of Constantine Simonides, period").
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am I can go on and on and on.
But so far all you've done is go on and on and talked in circles and hoped nobody noticed.

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am This is why I said that SecretAlias should read the material.
A guy who has never read the material (or Sinaiticus) is telling the rest of us to "read the material."

We have. Simonides is a fraud and so is your research.
Last edited by Maestroh on Sat Oct 19, 2019 9:13 am, edited 1 time in total.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am The difference was clearly acknowledged by the British Library, after we found it on the CSP site, after we were led to research this based on the "white parchment" comment of Uspensky.
Notice the parts he just left out:
1) Uspenski dated it to the FIFTH century when he actually handled it
2) The British Library, whom he suddenly thinks is infallible on the color difference, also dates it to the fourth century.

And also notice that Avery is MISLEADING you with the words "acknowledged by the British Library" because this color difference is actually very easily explained if you read their books.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am The 1844 Leipzig first batch of 86 pages is white/cream and unstanined.
The 1859 British Library later batch is yellow-coloured and stained.
This colouring was specifically pointed out publicly as having occurred -we have the quotes from as early as 1862.
Once again, Steven Avery Spenser is leaving out IMPORTANT DETAILS and making arbitrary connections of dots.

1) 1862 is when Simonides wrote his letter to the Guardian (9/3 to be precise)
2) Simonides very specifically states he saw this stained in 1852; of course in the same letter, he ALSO says he saw his entire work there and never once mentions the missing pages of CFA....because this lie never actually happened

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am There is no other explanation for why the staining was highlighted by Simonides and Kallinikos, other than the fact .. it happenned.
There's a reason he is NOT quoting what these guys actually said, so I'm going to do this and expose this fraud for what he is. Here are some of the ridiculous claims of the LETTER of Kallinikos (that was written by Simonides):

1) "this (Sinaiticus) is a genuine work of the indefatigable Simonides. For I saw him myself wth my own eyes in February 1840 writing it in Athos"
2) "Tischendorf...in May 1844...having examined the MS carefully...tore off a small part of it privately and went his way..."
3) "..coming again to the same monastery, he also took the remaining portion of the MS..."
4) "All these things, then, I know, being on the spot...."
5) "I know too, still further, that the same Codex was cleaned, with a solution of herbs, on the theory that the skins might be cleaned, but in fact, that the writing might be changed, as it was, to a sort of yellow colour."

Now you have to admit this Kallinikos guy is absolutely the most incredible person who ever lived. He manages somehow to be on Athos in 1840 to see Simonides writing this thing and then to somehow just be in the perfect spot on Sinai in both 1844 and 1859 to see Tischendorf take it. Better yet, he knows them because (point 4) he is an ACTUAL EYEWITNESS and saw these things!!!!

He further "knows" that this codex was altered....and he knows with what substance.

The fact this makes Kallinikos a co-conspirator and now we have a conspiracy theory.......doesn't help the case.

What sinks it, however, is the fact that Simonides never produced Kallinikos; he just produced a series of letters that are CLAIMED TO BE from Kallinikos. Those are not the same thing - Avery is pretending they are.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am It would be absurd to make such a claim blind.
OJ Simpson claims to this day he didn't kill his ex-wife and Ron Goldman, too; science says otherwise.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am And it is amazing that were given a truly astounding before-and-after - hidden till 2009 CSP made it available, studied c. 2013.
The fool is praising when he became aware of it - he still hasn't read it because he cannot.

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am As for the stumbling, attempted physical explanations (storage, etc.) they are EXTREMELY weak, and do not offer any type of consistent explanation.
This anti-vaxxer (Avery IS both an anti-vaxxer, a 9/11 truther, and recently wrote that we should consider the theory that atomic bombs may not exist......so this is the mentality of the dude.....

He thinks a guy writing a letter and signing another guy's name to it constitutes ironclad proof.

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am And there are various major additional physical condition elements that are corroborative to the late dating. These apply to 1844 and 1859, such as the easay-peasy page turning of a supposed 1650+ year ms. And amazing ink preservation, without acid eating into parchment.
Just note that several people INCLUDING MYSELF have informed Spenser for Hire here that he has never handled a manuscript and has not a freaking clue what he's talking about.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am You asked me, I answered.
To me, it is not a matter of faith, it is a study of evidences.

I fully understand that it is difficult to see the full body of evidences in view, and thus it would be easy for someone to say, eg.
"50-50, we need testing!"

Just reminder that he recently wrote:

Steven Avery
about 3 months ago
"trickery is the way of war"

The claims that there is a Nuke Hoax, that really there are not nuclear weapons that destroy cities, should be given real consideration. A big element of these studies involve looking closely at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the test sites like in NM and Bimini.

You'll need a Facebook account but:


https://www.facebook.com/steven.avery.7 ... 6263992557


Conspiracy theorist - nothing more.
Last edited by Maestroh on Sun Oct 20, 2019 5:43 am, edited 1 time in total.
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: the Zosimas project

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:37 am You are wrong. It happens. That is why you offer nothing on the actual specifics.
I've been waiting for years now on answers to my specific questions, Homer.

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:37 am There are other areas where we are working harder :) , as with Zosimas, especially since folks have difficulties with evidences. So I take that exhortation in good faith.
Let me translate for those of you who are not privy to this clown's schtick:

"I can't read Russian, but I hope to God one of them gives me some quotes I can use to go sound like a smart guy online."
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:37 am The Zosimas project is looking for the right Greek-reading-savvy individual, or two, who would love a fascinating Greek-textual project.
Avery doesn't seem to be aware of the fact he's admitting here to all of you that he cannot read Greek.....which means he formed his opinions on Sinaiticus without ever reading it.


Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:37 am Yet even unbelievers can have a sound mind in certain areas.

Similarly in some writing elements, I can do better in the months ahead. To an extent, I took a little bypass from Sinaiticus studies the last months, and I am very pleased to be getting back involved.
Mostly because you've been smashed to pieces by the reviews of your fantasy (I won't insult work by calling it that).
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: the Zosimas project

Post by Maestroh »

Jax wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:00 am
I find it wryly amusing that you chose to quote a forger. ;)
Why not?

He believes the forger Simonides.......
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: the Zosimas project

Post by Steven Avery »

Maestroh wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:58 am
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:37 am There are other areas where we are working harder :) , as with Zosimas, especially since folks have difficulties with evidences. So I take that exhortation in good faith.
... "I can't read Russian, but I hope to God one of them gives me some quotes I can use to go sound like a smart guy online."
The Zosimas Moscow Bible is a Greek Bible, I have not seen any Russian in it at all.

We did utilize both a layman and professional Russian translator when needed, e.g. with Uspensky.
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: the Zosimas project

Post by Steven Avery »

Maestroh wrote: Sat Sep 28, 2019 4:58 am Mostly because you've been smashed to pieces by the reviews of your fantasy (I won't insult work by calling it that).
You are most welcome to place here whatever reviews you felt were strong.

In point of fact, the gentlemen involved with discussion on this forum have generally been much better in discussion than any external "reviews".

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

Re: the Zosimas project

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:37 am The Zosimas Moscow Bible is a Greek Bible, I have not seen any Russian in it at all.
This would be the Greek you don't read?

Or a different kind?
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:37 am We did utilize both a layman and professional Russian translator when needed, e.g. with Uspensky.
You mean the one who on the TC Yahoo board literally got something 100% wrong?
Maestroh
Posts: 169
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: the Zosimas project

Post by Maestroh »

Steven Avery wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:07 am You are most welcome to place here whatever reviews you felt were strong.
Why?
You've already gone off half cocked about all of them you're aware of.

But just like Daniels, you make sure never to get caught actually answering the question asked.
Steven Avery wrote: Tue Oct 22, 2019 6:07 am In point of fact, the gentlemen involved with discussion on this forum have generally been much better in discussion than any external "reviews".
Such an assertion assumes you're even aware of what good discussion actually is.

I wouldn't put any stock in your views on any of those things.

Good discussion requires more than pivoting and actually saying the words, "Simonides lied."
Steven Avery
Posts: 988
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: the Zosimas project

Post by Steven Avery »

Maestroh wrote: Wed Oct 23, 2019 10:42 am You mean the one who on the TC Yahoo board literally got something 100% wrong?
You might try to at least indicate what you felt was wrong with either translation of Uspenky.
Post Reply