That Sinaiticus Show

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Secret Alias » Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:24 pm

The question again is if it is just the proximity of Simonides the same argument applies to any MS from Sinai.
“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

theeternaliam
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2019 6:33 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by theeternaliam » Mon Sep 02, 2019 11:52 pm

This is the first I've heard of sinaiticus as I'm not really one for getting hung up about specific translations, but I'm getting the vibe it's a forgery, not so much from his argument as the story is too fishy and $ involved, being paid to Stalin by the brits. That said, I have become partial to the KJV of late, but also really dig mystical translations like from the book Prayers of the Cosmos, which translates Aramaic directly to english

Steven Avery
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Sep 03, 2019 3:07 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Mon Sep 02, 2019 6:24 pm
The question again is if it is just the proximity of Simonides the same argument applies to any MS from Sinai.
First, the "any MS from Sinai" has to have no real provenance before being found in the mid-1800s.
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.

Then it has to have a package of deceptions and lies (made up by Tischendorf) about how it was found.

Then it has to have an incredible condition, parchment and ink, unlike any known ms. of antiquity.

Then it has to have a group of unusual anomalies about the palaeography.

Then stories that are explained by SImonides have to fit the ms., even while he supposedly flying blind.

Then he and Kallinikos have to be at the right place and time to actually help create the ms. in a small windown.

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.

Then any ms. could be connected to the Zosimas Moscow Bible, used as a source.

I can go on and on and on.

This is why I said that SecretAlias should read the material.

Steven
Last edited by Steven Avery on Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:41 am, edited 1 time in total.

Steven Avery
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Sep 03, 2019 7:39 am

Thus your point is good, in that you are looking to see:

"what is special about Sinaiticus and Simonides?"

"Could Simonides have made the same claim about various other mss? (from Sinai, or from anywhere) "

Legitimate questions.

And the answer is a resounding NO!

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:04 am

But here is where your religious mentality I think skews the probability based on salacious gossip/innuendo. Surely the evidence you bring forward doesn't alter the probability to the odds you put forward. I don't mean this as an attack against religious individuals. Rather I use 'religious mentality' as something which typifies I think religious thinking in the country I live and have citizenship - i.e. the United States. There is a conspiracy mindset among evangelicals and radical Christians where by 'information' - in truth little more than internet whispers, blog posts, scurilous news services - is used to promote an existing agenda. Whatever the case may be, from my point of view and any sane person, you've basically done which Richard Carrier did with the probability of the non-existence of Jesus - namely taken evidence or information 'you like' or 'you are obsessed with' and skewed the probability in favor of that information 'you like' or are interested in at the expense of all information you ignore, which happens to be more convincing to neutral observers. I don't need to go through the list but an obvious example - the paper discoloration. This isn't a convincing bit of information once you consider the facts. But when this 'evidence' is put through your KJV-echo chamber it becomes a stupid person's smoking gun. The facts are that the odds can't possibly be 99% - 1% based on what you've brought forward. Perhaps there is some doubt raised by Simonides's activity and his relationship with key players in the Sinaiticus story. But your odds are utterly out of step with the evidence you've brought forward. The same kind of argument can be made with regards to the correlation between the various conspiracy theories that you - Steve Avery - subscribe to - and your belief in this conspiracy theory you promote. I think that's a lot more convincing - namely that people can discount your ridiculous odds you give as a consequence of your ability to fall victim to conspiracy theories. You happen to use 'conspiracy' to explain a lot of things you don't like. This is more likely than not to be another.
“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

Steven Avery
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:22 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:04 am
- the paper discoloration. This isn't a convincing bit of information once you consider the facts.
It clearly is.
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.

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.
There is no other explanation for why the staining was highlighted by Simonides and Kallinikos, other than the fact .. it happenned.
It would be absurd to make such a claim blind.

And it is amazing that were given a truly astounding before-and-after - hidden till 2009 CSP made it available, studied c. 2013.

As for the stumbling, attempted physical explanations (storage, etc.) they are EXTREMELY weak, and do not offer any type of consistent explanation.

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.
Secret Alias wrote:
Tue Sep 03, 2019 8:04 am
-The facts are that the odds can't possibly be 99% - 1% based on what you've brought forward. .
We can disagree on that.

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!"

User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10879
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Secret Alias » Tue Sep 03, 2019 9:10 am

No it's not even 50-50. There is no hard evidence. The evidence put forward by you is at best worthy of fueling 'a suspicion' of wrongdoing. A 'feeling' that somethings not quite right. Ok fine. But that's marginal odds not worthy of serious consideration until hard evidence is brought forward. Work harder until you come up with something worth having the rest of us take a second look.
“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

Steven Avery
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the Zosimas project

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Sep 03, 2019 10:37 am

You are wrong. It happens. That is why you offer nothing on the actual specifics.

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.

The Zosimas project is looking for the right Greek-reading-savvy individual, or two, who would love a fascinating Greek-textual project. A good logical mind in looking at textual relationships. Working various angles, and BCHF folks are welcome to chat about it with yours truly. On the forum, and privately, I am especially easy to chat on Facebook Messenger to start. Skype can be superb. About the reading-savvy, there are two different fonts involved, and a special section to utilize, so the ability to think about the words, and especially things like duplicate oddball errors, and homoeteleutons, is very helpful.

There is no 'Sinaiticus position' requirement, just certain skills. If the person can be fair in analysis, even a position that starts as totally pro-authenticity can be fine. While it is often nice to work with people who can think 'outside the box', the project itself is rather straight-forward.

2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

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.

Steven

User avatar
Jax
Posts: 749
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: the Zosimas project

Post by Jax » Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:00 am

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.

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.

The Zosimas project is looking for the right Greek-reading-savvy individual, or two, who would love a fascinating Greek-textual project. A good logical mind in looking at textual relationships. Working various angles, and BCHF folks are welcome to chat about it with yours truly. On the forum, and privately, I am especially easy to chat on Facebook Messenger to start. Skype can be superb. About the reading-savvy, there are two different fonts involved, and a special section to utilize, so the ability to think about the words, and especially things like duplicate oddball errors, and homoeteleutons, is very helpful.

There is no 'Sinaiticus position' requirement, just certain skills. If the person can be fair in analysis, even a position that starts as totally pro-authenticity can be fine. While it is often nice to work with people who can think 'outside the box', the project itself is rather straight-forward.

2 Timothy 1:7
For God hath not given us the spirit of fear;
but of power, and of love, and of a sound mind.

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.

Steven
I find it wryly amusing that you chose to quote a forger. ;)

Steven Avery
Posts: 536
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: That Sinaiticus Show

Post by Steven Avery » Tue Sep 03, 2019 11:55 am

Sort of a silly waste-of-time comment - especially since I accept the authorship attribution of the Pastorals.

Post Reply