He replicates that foolishness at every level of his Sinaiticus "studies." The following is some of what transcription EXPERT Timothy Arthur Brown, from the CSP, had to say to Mr. Conspiracy, in response to some of his oft-repeated and ignorant questions to Amy Myshrall regarding "coloring," "suppleness," etc.:Maestroh said:
So your excuses can all be reduced to historical agnosticism, which is the refuge of the awful argument.
- we don't know what all might be on Mt Athos
- we need someone with familiarity with Arabic scripts
The latter one is hilarious - you're demanding an EXPERT on a subject and YOU REJECT EXPERTS when they tell you Sinaiticus isn't some 19th century teenager's dream. You reject experts on the moon landing, building 7, atomic bombs, and infectious disease.
But NOW....YOU want an EXPERT!!!
Click to expand...
"I did not notice any difference in color between the Leipzig University and British Library leaves."
"This is more of a conservation question, and we were tasked with the transcription. Our time with the manuscript was given almost entirely to textual issues. But based upon the couple of years I spent poring over the digital images, I never noticed any difference in color variations that might distinguish the Leipzig from the London leaves, nor do I see any telltale differences now as I reexamine the images. (I have copies of the full set of the high-resolution digital images we used for transcription, not just the printed images of the 2010 facsimile or the lower-resolution images available online.)"
"I saw nothing that would suggest that any of the leaves I examined were not as old as their assigned age, i.e. the mid-fourth century."
And this is my favorite part, which came from Brown after he got hit with more ignorance from Avery - via his "researcher on color issues" Mark Mitchie - regarding the color key in the Sinaiticus images, as well as who took the pics:
"You can be assured that I have no intention of ever engaging in a debate with you in a public forum, online or otherwise, but I would offer some advice in private. Ordinarily, people do their research first and afterwards publish their conclusions. It appears that you have chosen to publish your conclusions first, and are doing your research afterwards."
And since Avery has now basically admitted that he is not averse to deferring to an expert on the Arabic note issue in Sinaiticus, would he likewise defer to - and follow - the findings or opinions of an expert in another field surrounding manuscript studies....like, say, the 2015 testing that was to be performed by BAM?
Here is what Avery has said about the issue recently at this forum:
From the Is the World’s Oldest Bible a Fake? thread:
Thread 'Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?'
Leipzig cancelled the tests planned in 2015, the day BAM, the testing group, arrive.
Do you think perhaps those "who are in possession" are a bit reluctant to have a real examination?
BAM from Berlin, under a lady named Dr. Ira Rabin, worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Most of their testing is totally non-destructive.
In 2015, they were invited to test Leipzig Sinaiticus.
The Leipzig library changed their mind the day they arrived.
If Sinaiticus was to finally have objective parchment & ink analysis, it would make sense to have it done by a world-class testing outfit that had worked on the Dead Sea Scrolls.
Leipzig got cold feet.
Actually, the type of parchment and ink testing done by BAM can be very helpful.
Think of Prussian blue and Archaic Mark.
The chances of Leipzig or the British Library allowing tests is close to zero, they would likely end up with a lot of egg on face. If somehow the tests were allowed, and actually showed ancient parchment and ink, I would give the tests acknowledgment and careful consideration.
However, it is not likely to happen, both major libraries, I believe, sense the real problem.
No such tests on Sinaiticus.
They were planned in Leipzig in 2015 but the Leipzig University Library backed out the day of the tests.
Malfeasance, it is.
That is true. Extensive testing by BAM should differentiate natural parchment yellowing from staining by lemon juice, coffee, tea and/or herbs.
So we should watch for those tests ….
Oh, wait, Leipzig pulled out. Hmmmmm
However, the British Library has not done any significant tests, not even on the ink. They did have a bit of ultra-violet to see the under-letters, e.g. there was a question at the last verse of John.
If they had done any tests, they had plenty of time to inform scholars and the public. I think they just took the "discretion is the better part of valor:" approach. Let's not open up a can of worms.
Plus the comparison with really old mss. like Alexandrinus was staring them in the face every day. In fact, until 2009, very few people outside library staff had any access to the ms.
Remember, the few hour return window ended in 1933. Any scientific problems would be egg on the face.
... so they (now the British Library and the CSP) assume the ancient age, lest they look a little foolish.
It is more a confirmation that the British Library knows there is a problem, with the exceptional, phenomenally good condition, manuscript, but they do not want any testing done. (That is why they do a little bait-and-switch over to C-14 testing, which they can paint as destructive.)
BAM, under Dr. Ira Rabin, would be happy to do substantial non-destructive testing on the manuscript, she even mentioned that hope on the Brent Nongbri Zoom call in 2021, after she discussed how Leipzig pulled out of the 2015 tests, on the day they arrived to do the testing.
Here is where once can talk of malfeasance, since the opportunities from modern science are deliberately rejected.
e.g. Leipzig in 2015, when the BAM tests were canceled on the day they arrived.
The curators are obviously not an objective party.
They know that any efforts to determine its actual age could be very embarrassing.
The Brits put a lot of prestige and $ on the purchase, and the Museum and Library like to play it up.
Dr. Ira Rabin specifically said they were turned down and away that day at the Leipzig library. She spoke about it at the Zoom conference on Sinaiticus hosted by Brent Nongbri. She did not talk about whether they showed up with heavy equipment, and I would not presume that BAM brought heavy equipment that day. It is also possible that some testing would have been brought back to the BAM labs. Again, not discussed.
From The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus thread:
Thread 'The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus'
And nobody ever tested the parchment or ink. Not even today. Leipzig ducked out the day of the tests!
However, for the textcrits there was a problem, the 4th century date was too deeply entrenched to allow an honest reevaluation. So they watch parchment and ink science change to match Sinaiticus, and put their hands over their eyes.
So you go with the experts, despite the fact that solid tests have been blocked and they generally ignore and are ignorant of salient information.
It really has nothing to do with the British Library, who clearly will favor the conclusion that gives them a priceless manuscript over that which makes them look a tad foolish for being the Russian marks in 1933 and are still avoiding tests in 2022.
I've complimented the British Library on their openness. The Leipzig Library is another story, even more so when they cancelled the 2015 BAM tests.
…the Leipzig Library has run away from the real tests
Leipzig cancelled superb tests planned by the independent group BAM from Berlin in 2015.
Simple enough, they have a vested interest in avoiding any analysis that might devalue their manuscript.
Do you really thing an administrator at the British Library can question Sinaiticus authenticity in a public talk?
My major point is that C-14 tests are not really the important tests, for many reasons. And since they destroy a tiny piece of parchment, they are used as an out by the British Library as to why they have not done any testing