Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Ulan wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2023 6:01 am Your position makes only sense if we assume that you put a bit too much importance into your own hypotheses. Of course, everyone loves their own hypotheses, but that's not the point.
No its not the point. Hypotheses are a dime a dozen. What sorts out everyone's hypotheses (including yours and mine) is evidence which, according to the historical method is largely of two distinct kinds - primary and secondary. The point is that I have been asking for evidence about the century during which the codex was created. I have advocated for C14 dating of miniscule amounts of BLANK SPACE of the vellum pages. Scientific dating trumps church dogma every day of the week.
It's the implicit assumption that anyone else would care about your hypotheses.
As far as I am concerned everyone involved must have care and regard for the evidence. After trawling through all the evidence my claim is simply that there is no physical primary evidence for the existence of the NT or Christianity prior to the 3rd century. If you think there is such primary evidence then feel free to cite it and be done with it.
In reality, most people, whether it's within the churches or in the general populace, think it's crazy and doesn't deserve any consideration or answer.
I have little regard for people who cannot cite evidence either for or against one or another hypothesis. In line with this I have spent years combing through all sorts of different evidence - primary and secondary - in order to refute my own hypothesis. Surely this is the responsible approach? You will find some of it listed under USEFUL LINKS in this forum:
viewtopic.php?p=3416#p3416

So don't bother lecturing me about the craziness of my hypothesis. Instead simply identify and then cite the primary evidence which, according to the normal logic of Popperian falsifiability, refutes such an hypothesis.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Ulan »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2023 4:16 pm So don't bother lecturing me about the craziness of my hypothesis. Instead simply identify and then cite the primary evidence which, according to the normal logic of Popperian falsifiability, refutes such an hypothesis.
You completely missed the point of my post. I wasn't "lecturing you about the craziness of your hypothesis". I pointed out that your thesis regarding Codex Sinaiticus being some kind of fraud released by "the Church" is a hypothesis without merit, because it lacks any reasonable motive outside of catering to your pet hypothesis, which in turn isn't a viable motive because the number of people holding your position regarding Christian origins is tiny and was even tinier in former times (I assume you have at least that much self-awareness). You propose an expensive and elaborate fraud that serves zero purpose.

Again, this has nothing to do with whether your hypothesis of Christian origins is viable or not, nor is it concerned with whether I think your hypothesis regarding Christian origins is viable or not. It has to do with you proposing a motive for an actor ("the Church") that addressed a nonexistent audience and provided zero gain to that actor.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Ulan wrote: Sun Feb 19, 2023 10:11 pmI pointed out that your thesis regarding Codex Sinaiticus being some kind of fraud released by "the Church" is a hypothesis without merit, because it lacks any reasonable motive outside of catering to your pet hypothesis, which in turn isn't a viable motive because the number of people holding your position regarding Christian origins is tiny and was even tinier in former times (I assume you have at least that much self-awareness). You propose an expensive and elaborate fraud that serves zero purpose.
My primary comments about this codex express discontent over the BL's policy not to approve sending an absolutely miniscule sample to the C14 lab. I don't have any thesis over the historical integrity of Codex Sinaiticus. Give me a C14 date and I'll give you a thesis.

It has to do with you proposing a motive for an actor ("the Church") that addressed a nonexistent audience and provided zero gain to that actor.
How can anyone propose a motive for an actor when the century of the actor is unknown? I suspect the codex is not 100% legit and squeaky clean. It's a suspicion that's all. But first things first. When will the BL act?
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Ulan »

Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 6:16 pm How can anyone propose a motive for an actor when the century of the actor is unknown?
You did, explicitly so. I gave an answer regarding the actor and the motive you proposed. This answer wouldn't change, regardless of what any putative change in the age of the manuscript would be. You would need a 20th century date for the manuscript for that to change, and that's obviously impossible. That's all.
User avatar
mlinssen
Posts: 3431
Joined: Tue Aug 06, 2019 11:01 am
Location: The Netherlands
Contact:

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by mlinssen »

Ulan wrote: Tue Feb 21, 2023 1:33 am
Leucius Charinus wrote: Mon Feb 20, 2023 6:16 pm How can anyone propose a motive for an actor when the century of the actor is unknown?
You did, explicitly so. I gave an answer regarding the actor and the motive you proposed. This answer wouldn't change, regardless of what any putative change in the age of the manuscript would be. You would need a 20th century date for the manuscript for that to change, and that's obviously impossible. That's all.
Pete is a troll, with a stoooopid theory without motive, and also without evidence. Speaking of which... I have conclusive evidence that Sinaiticus is NOT a forgery, unless of a level that equates that of Pete's pet theory:

Please observe The falsified LXX was meant to support the NT. Nomina sacra for Christ / xristos in the "OT"

TL;DR:

Brenton LXX: And the priest that is chief among his brethren, the oil having been poured upon the head of the anointed one, and he having been consecrated to put on the garments, shall not take the mitre off his head, and shall not rend his garments
Sinaiticus: ο ϊερευϲ ο μεγαϲ απο̣ των αδελφω αυτου του επικε χυμε̣[ν]ου επι τη̣ν κεφ[α]λ̣ην του ελαι ου τ̣ο̣υ χυ και τετε λιωμενου ┬ ενδυ ϲαϲθαι τα ϊματια την κεφαλην ου κ απομιτρωϲει και τα ϊματια ┬ ου δι αρρηξει

"The anointed one" gets written with the nomen sacrum for XS, in this case Χ̄ῡ
Steven Avery wrote: Wed Nov 30, 2022 10:21 am [Tagging Steven Avery ...]
So, it seems highly dubious that Sinaiticus is any forgery of any kind, as only a really very arrogant religiot (please do notice how I turn that rule into an exception) would think that he can get away with blatantly obvious anachronisms like this
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Ulan »

I have no issue with a 4th century Christian manuscript having a Christianized OT, given Origen's Hexapla led to revisions in which even Latin church fathers had expressed some interest. As Codex Sinaiticus is dated to times of a Christian Roman Empire, Pete shouldn't have any principal issue with this, either, and Steven won't care as long as the text matches the Bible version that fell from heaven, the KJV.
User avatar
Leucius Charinus
Posts: 2817
Joined: Fri Oct 04, 2013 4:23 pm
Location: memoriae damnatio

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Leucius Charinus »

Ulan wrote: Wed Mar 15, 2023 4:26 am I have no issue with a 4th century Christian manuscript having a Christianized OT, given Origen's Hexapla led to revisions in which even Latin church fathers had expressed some interest. As Codex Sinaiticus is dated to times of a Christian Roman Empire, Pete shouldn't have any principal issue with this, either...
Any researcher has to be aware of how any or all of the physical manuscript evidence is dated by the mainstream paradigm. And it is true that Codex Sinaiticus is dated to the 4th century by the mainstream paradigm. My point all along is that this dating can either be confirmed or refuted by C14, and that such a C14 test should be in principle conducted in order to raise the level of (scientific) confidence over the chronology of the codex.
Ulan
Posts: 1505
Joined: Sat Mar 29, 2014 3:58 am

Re: Sinaiticus authenticity discussion Wed 11/30/2022 - James Snapp Jr. and Steven Avery

Post by Ulan »

Or, in other words, you agree with my assessment.
User avatar
John T
Posts: 1567
Joined: Thu May 15, 2014 8:57 am

Re: Sinaiticus - features that point to a late production

Post by John T »

Maestroh wrote: Sat Feb 18, 2023 7:45 pm
Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm Hi Leucius, I took a little break from posting, more involved in textual studies, especially where the Sinaiticus text or corrections have connections to specific manuscripts.
This guy who cannot even read Greek wants you to think he was doing some "textual studies." What this unaccomplished wannabe was doing is finding quotes he can cherry pick.
Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm And we have the silly season childish insult stuff like Bill Brown above,
Steven Avery Spencer, who hides his REAL name in embarrassment and is a lily-livered coward, is the most pretentious poster online, which is saying a lot.

I've not said anything untrue about him - at all.

He's a through and through phony.


Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm and the nonsense of "terrible yellow" from Ulan. However, I do hope to give some more attention in the weeks ahead, using the body of substantial posting on this forum.
He's lying.

He's had plenty of time to post on other boards.

Every single time he opens his mouth a lie escapes. And when he's telling you something, he's HIDING THINGS FROM YOU, too.
Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm Thanks for noticing the Song of Songs study. Nobody can really explain the advanced, sophisticated formatting and rubrications of the dialog of the Song of Songs, which only matches the style of later Latin manuscripts. They can only offer extremely low probability (impossible) conjectures of how that occurs in Sinaiticus if it is 4th century. An honest approach would say that the advanced formatting points to Sinaiticus being c. AD 1000 or later.
He's lying about this, too.


Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm A similar example of a feature that is impossible to explain under current theories is the three crosses note. Clearly, this is a scriptorium note, made to spur either correction or egg-on-face acknowledgement. Tischendorf understood it that way. The idea that it was composed centuries after production is essentially absurd. However, the Sinaiticus palaeography insists on this absurdity. Everything falls apart if the note is placed as part of the 4th century production. No difficulty at all in the 1800s production theory.
He is making zero sense - yet again.

ALL OF THIS has been explained to him - and he got his ass kicked in that debate with Snapp, apparently suffering serious brain damage that makes him forget things like, you know, being refuted.
Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm A third example of impossibility nonsense in current theories is the attempt to connect Sinaiticus text and/or corrections with the Andreas and Oecumenius Revelation commentaries. As a type of precursor. This makes zero sense, and really makes for a terminus post quem of c. AD 650.
Bear in mind this bozo apparently thinks Simonides had every manuscript in the world on Mt Athos with him.
And those he didn't - he pretends there are others.

Seriously - this guy makes Sidney Powell look coherent.

Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm A fourth example of a highlight that should raise enormous suspicions is the simple fact of every verse, letter and word being neat and readable in the New Testament. While the Old Testament is said to be in tatters and wear from 1500 years of supposed hot, dry climate use before the Tischendorf extractions. This is a "too good to be true" aspect, as if it was planned for special New Testament use. This combines with the amazing youthful flexibility of the parchment to bewray any claims of 4th century production.

Once it is admitted that the 4th century push makes no sense, it is very difficult to start arguing for c. AD 700 or 1000. You are discarding all of Sinaiticus palaeographic "science" and the 1840s production starts becoming the most sensible.

Steven
It's funny to watch a fundamentalist arguing in circles point fingers and not remember three are pointing back.
Time for a morality/ethics check. Just what would happen if the vial name calling from Maestroh was returned with a tit for tat?
Yeah, thought so!
It would be flagged and moved to Nowhere in Particular.
This sick double standard is quickly experienced by those who wonder onto this forum thinking it is a site for an honest discussion on Biblical Criticism and History.

Your silence is your tactic approval.

And the mythicists/atheists can't figure out why high esteemed scholars avoid Biblical Criticism & History Forum.

Sad, so sad.:facepalm:
lclapshaw
Posts: 777
Joined: Sun May 16, 2021 10:01 am

Re: Sinaiticus - features that point to a late production

Post by lclapshaw »

John T wrote: Fri Mar 17, 2023 4:40 pm
Maestroh wrote: Sat Feb 18, 2023 7:45 pm
Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm Hi Leucius, I took a little break from posting, more involved in textual studies, especially where the Sinaiticus text or corrections have connections to specific manuscripts.
This guy who cannot even read Greek wants you to think he was doing some "textual studies." What this unaccomplished wannabe was doing is finding quotes he can cherry pick.
Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm And we have the silly season childish insult stuff like Bill Brown above,
Steven Avery Spencer, who hides his REAL name in embarrassment and is a lily-livered coward, is the most pretentious poster online, which is saying a lot.

I've not said anything untrue about him - at all.

He's a through and through phony.


Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm and the nonsense of "terrible yellow" from Ulan. However, I do hope to give some more attention in the weeks ahead, using the body of substantial posting on this forum.
He's lying.

He's had plenty of time to post on other boards.

Every single time he opens his mouth a lie escapes. And when he's telling you something, he's HIDING THINGS FROM YOU, too.
Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm Thanks for noticing the Song of Songs study. Nobody can really explain the advanced, sophisticated formatting and rubrications of the dialog of the Song of Songs, which only matches the style of later Latin manuscripts. They can only offer extremely low probability (impossible) conjectures of how that occurs in Sinaiticus if it is 4th century. An honest approach would say that the advanced formatting points to Sinaiticus being c. AD 1000 or later.
He's lying about this, too.


Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm A similar example of a feature that is impossible to explain under current theories is the three crosses note. Clearly, this is a scriptorium note, made to spur either correction or egg-on-face acknowledgement. Tischendorf understood it that way. The idea that it was composed centuries after production is essentially absurd. However, the Sinaiticus palaeography insists on this absurdity. Everything falls apart if the note is placed as part of the 4th century production. No difficulty at all in the 1800s production theory.
He is making zero sense - yet again.

ALL OF THIS has been explained to him - and he got his ass kicked in that debate with Snapp, apparently suffering serious brain damage that makes him forget things like, you know, being refuted.
Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm A third example of impossibility nonsense in current theories is the attempt to connect Sinaiticus text and/or corrections with the Andreas and Oecumenius Revelation commentaries. As a type of precursor. This makes zero sense, and really makes for a terminus post quem of c. AD 650.
Bear in mind this bozo apparently thinks Simonides had every manuscript in the world on Mt Athos with him.
And those he didn't - he pretends there are others.

Seriously - this guy makes Sidney Powell look coherent.

Steven Avery wrote: Thu Feb 16, 2023 12:01 pm A fourth example of a highlight that should raise enormous suspicions is the simple fact of every verse, letter and word being neat and readable in the New Testament. While the Old Testament is said to be in tatters and wear from 1500 years of supposed hot, dry climate use before the Tischendorf extractions. This is a "too good to be true" aspect, as if it was planned for special New Testament use. This combines with the amazing youthful flexibility of the parchment to bewray any claims of 4th century production.

Once it is admitted that the 4th century push makes no sense, it is very difficult to start arguing for c. AD 700 or 1000. You are discarding all of Sinaiticus palaeographic "science" and the 1840s production starts becoming the most sensible.

Steven
It's funny to watch a fundamentalist arguing in circles point fingers and not remember three are pointing back.
Time for a morality/ethics check. Just what would happen if the vial name calling from Maestroh was returned with a tit for tat?
Yeah, thought so!
It would be flagged and moved to Nowhere in Particular.
This sick double standard is quickly experienced by those who wonder onto this forum thinking it is a site for an honest discussion on Biblical Criticism and History.

Your silence is your tactic approval.

And the mythicists/atheists can't figure out why high esteemed scholars avoid Biblical Criticism & History Forum.

Sad, so sad.:facepalm:
I realize that John T is simply the abbreviated form of your title of John The Idiot but it still cracks me up how you have outed yourself above.

What a maroon! :lol:
Post Reply