Sinaiticus - authentic antiquity or 1800s production?

Steven Avery said:
Your feedback welcome.
Click to expand...

Sure.

The Sinaiticus-Simonides conspiracy theory is the highest form of crackpottery, and the FART team (assuming it actually consists of more than Avery) are crackpots.
 
Thanks for your thoughts.

Now, any solid thinkers here who have seen  the video and want to share their response.

Thanks!

Steven
 
Steven Avery said:
Thanks for your thoughts.

Now, any solid thinkers here who have seen  the video and want to share their response.

Thanks!

Steven
Click to expand...

Are you saying that Ransom is a liquid thinker?  That actually sounds advanced.
 
Steven Avery said:
Now, any solid thinkers here who have seen  the video and want to share their response.
Click to expand...

Solid thinkers? Are you recusing yourself from this discussion?
 
Steven Avery said:
The new evidences available, especially the 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project, supports a reappraisal of the Sinaiticus history.  What we see have is a recent manuscript, in two main sections, in "phenomenally good condition" (Helen Shenton.
Click to expand...

Since Avery has spent years whining about what he calls "the censored forum" AND since he continues to proclaim his alleged openness to "iron sharpeneth iron," here we go. It's not going to take long for him to want to take the discussion elsewhere or reference a long post elsewhere. I'm not going on snipe hunts.  Answer the queries straightforward. For the record, I will be correcting the record.

This out of context quotation of Helen Shenton SUGGESTS (but never comes out and actually says) that she somehow has problems with the fourth century date. In fact, not only does she not have problems with the date but months before Avery posted this missive here, he was corrected at TC Yahoo about his ignorance regarding how to tell how old a manuscript is.
Steven Avery said:
And the one section that left Sinai in 1844 is white parchment, while the section that left Sinai in 1859 is coloured yellowish, unevenly, with large variance.  This matches the historical scenario of its production c. 1840 and the colouring was referenced as having occurred in the 1850s, using lemon-juice as an agent.
Click to expand...

1) This "find" was not determined by actually being in both places, it was determined from a guy who can't even read the document telling us what he sees on a computer screen.

2) Your statement above is INTENTIONALLY misleading to the reader. Simonides actually claimed he saw this aged manuscript on Sinai in 1852, only two years after Uspenski says he saw a white one. But because this doesn't give time for repeated staining with lemon juice to age it (e.g. it won't fit his timeline), Avery simply alters what Simonides said into something that will fit into his imaginative theory. Keep in mind that there's ZERO EVIDENCE Simonides was at Sinai, but let's assume (for the sake of this wild-eyed nonsense) that he was.....he certainly isn't going to get the date wrong.

But since this doesn't fit what the FART team wants to believe - that Tischendorf stained it - they give us this phony date.  Tischendorf was at Sinai three times: 1844, 1853, and 1859. If Simonides actually saw this in 1852 then even assuming it was stained then Tischendorf couldn't have done it (since it was white in 1850).

It does not take Sherlock Holmes to realize this; Larry Holmes would realize this.

Of course, there is zippo evidence that any of this happened.
Steven Avery said:
The basics of this analysis are quite simple to see and understand, although it takes a little time to become familiar with the historical elements.

Steven Avery
Click to expand...

You think that because people reject YOUR SPIN on what happened that they don't know about it. You really need to improve this if you are, in fact, looking for a discussion. I surmise you're looking for validation for psychological insecurity.

 
These are the questions Mr "Iron Sharpeneth" has avoided for 26 months now. Maybe with a different audience we'll get something substantive. I'm still not sure why he bolted over here rather than answering these questions at CARM.


1) Where did David Daniels train in paleography? (post 2)

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? (post 27)

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? (post 27)

4) Does ANY paleographer in the world date Sinaiticus to the 19th century? (post 31)

Note: if the weasel 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? (post 31)

6) Where did Steven Avery study 'forensic history' (post 39)

7) How much study of paleography have you (note: Steven Avery) ever done? (post 58)

8) Does your source Brent Nongbri have ANY papyri that he thinks are dated wrongly by 1500 years? (post 58)

9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled? (post 62)

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

11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read? (post 62)

12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed? (post 62)

13) How is the lighting to be set? (Post 62)

14) How long did it take you to take the photographs? (post 62)

15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus? (post 65)

16) Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE with photographing manuscripts? (post 65)

17) Do any of the OTHER two members of the SART team have any REAL experience in linguistics? (post 65)

18) What are the published works of those in question 17? (post 65)

19) Do the people at the CSP who host the manuscript online SAY it is an 1800s production? (post 87)

20) What date then do they give it?

21) How does Steven Avery actually KNOW the manuscript at CSP is really Sinaiticus? (post 113)

22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied? (post 113)

23) How many experiments have you ever done on parchment? (Post 113)

24) How did Simonides manage to collate the ENTIRE BIBLE PLUS HERMAS AND BARNABAS by himself from THREE sources in less than TWO MONTHS and then be writing this document in record time as witnessed by the phantom Kallinikos

25) How did Simonides manage to write this ALL BY HIMSELF (his testimony - and since you throw that out because of his lying, you have to throw out the rest to be consistent with your own shibboleth) in record time when the great calligrapher who was on Mt Athos couldn't do it?

26) How did Simonides have no earthly idea when Uncle Benedict died?

27) How did Simonides not know his own birthday and we have four different dates for it?

28) If a guy like Simonides lies about so many things EASILY verifiable, why should he be believed regarding claims that can never be verified?

30) If Kallinikos REALLY told Simonides about this in 1860, why didn't Simonides mention it in his 1862 letter?

31) Why did Simonides claim to have witnesses that he wrote this but was unable to produce them?

32) Why would Simonides - who was supposedly writing this (his words) as 'gift' to Emporer Nicholas - go back through and create 23,000 textual variants in all different hands, going so far as to make them look like they were centuries old?

33) Why would Simonides claim 'any person learned in paleography ought to be able to tell at once that it is a MS of the present age' unless that were true?

34) If that is true, why has NO PALEOGRAPHER EVER dated it to the 'present age?'

35) Why would Kallinikos witness Tischendorf stealing a portion of the MSS in 1844 and then let him alone with the rest of it in 1859 to steal as well?
 
Here, incidentally, is the previous referenced rebuttal.

Avery's post:

https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/textualcriticism/conversations/messages/8572

Note that he posted this on March 19. I'm not sure why - AFTER being corrected by, you know, someone who actually DOES this work......he opted to come here on May 3 to post this same misinformation.

This is more revealing about the character of a person who would attempt such a snow job than it is anything else.

Here's the rebuttal by someone who has ACTUALLY worked with this stuff (as have I) to Avery's pet shibboleth of "an old manuscript shouldn't be in this good of condition":

"Physical condition" is poorly defined (if at all) here; from the quotes [from Avery] about Sinaiticus, I assume it means quality/condition of leaves and color? If that is what is meant, physical condition should play little part in dating a manuscript. Having handled scores of manuscripts now, I can attest to mss having great physical condition with terrible texts and mss in poor condition with excellent texts.

Physical condition is a better marker of production quality and use than age or "authenticity."

Furthermore, it seems your analysis fails on the same grounds as the people you're accusing. Have you handled any of the great uncials (or other mss) or are you relying on the same images everyone uses?

 
Steven Avery said:

At CARM, I can not post the links without a possible infraction.
Plus, there are other advantages here (or limitations there.)

Also, I have posted these links on numerous forums, they are simply helpful for anybody who wants to study the Sinaiticus authenticity question.

Steven Avery
Click to expand...

At CARM, he cannot get away with his little game "look over here because I'm too incompetent to formulate a succinct argument summary."

 
Steven Avery said:

One major consideration is that there a large body of new evidence that has come forth after the debate (which had its own strengths and weaknesses.)
Click to expand...

There's NOTHING that has "come forth after the debate" between White and Pinto.

There's nothing that wasn't already known by scholars.

I find your entire enterprise utterly pathetic because it isn't designed to actually interact with the facts as they are - it's an attempt to capitalize on the ignorance of the average church member and convert them to KJV Onlyism (this explains why you keep this nonsensical theory among the laymen and don't bother to submit this palpable nonsense to a venue like SBL).

 
Steven Avery said:

You are clearly not familiar with the Sinaiticus studies.  And I just posted it here to see if anyone wants to study and learn, and contribute constructively, iron sharpeneth.

If not, at least the main two urls are available for readers and visitors.

Steven Avery
Click to expand...

By which you mean not familiar with YOUR version of "Sinaiticus studies."

All most people need to know can be found in the two Parker books. Elliott substantially covers Simonides.

Read those three and you'll know pretty much anything of relevance.

 
Steven Avery said:

Thanks for the suggestion.  However, it is not really relevant to the Sinaiticus studies, in terms of understanding that it is a recent manuscript.

We have a couple of Greek reading folks who do studies on those issues. 

Steven Avery
Click to expand...

Being able to read a manuscript.....being able to know the strokes that change things.......being able to tell how many folks worked on it......

is not relevant to dating a manuscript.....

S.............M.................H..................

(Since Avery has decided Simonides couldn't possibly have done this alone, one must wonder how he came to this conclusion.....since it certainly wasn't by reading it.


Besides....it was Avery himself who said:

https://forums.carm.org/vb5/forum/theology/general-christian-topics/king-james-only/77142-are-people-who-speak-pidgin-greek-or-no-greek-fluent-in-the-language



Are people who speak pidgin Greek or no Greek fluent in the language?
I say no.

Apparently this simple truth touches a raw nerve among the seminarian crew today. It is not talked about much because the problem can extend even to the teachers.

So if I say that "scholar A" or "seminarian B" is not fluent, coming out of modern seminaries that don't have conversational skills, I am speaking a simple truth. Even if some complain.

======

So.......since David Daniels studied Greek at Fuller......according to Avery himself........he's not fluent in Greek anyway......


So to quote a former failed Prez candidate, "What difference does it make" for him to appeal to "we have folks who read Greek" when by his own words it doesn't matter?

 
Oh, look, here's Avery again, to tell us how he knows Codex Sinaiticus is a fake manuscript, even though he's never actually done any research in the field and has only seen images of it on the Internet.

Meanwhile, on Facebook, Avery "excluded" Scott McClure [sic] from his so-called "Pure Bible" forum.

Since we have never interacted in person, he's only ever seen my name in print. And yet, he still can't spell it right, even when someone writes it out for him first! Ha!

This is the genius who fancies himself a paleographer. Really he's a semi-literate armchair Google tourist.

You gotta laugh.

I should start calling him "Uvery." "U" for "useless," of course.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top