Avery doesn’t even know what thread he’s in anymore….lol.
Codex Sinaiticus - the facts
- Thread starter cjab
- Start date
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
There's been a previous post on these threads somewhere (by Sharoona? possibly?) that another German institution was involved, that wasn't fully committed to the test (started with M something or rather?) that is also part of the FACTS.
Yes, and you intentionally hid this information - well, you thought you did, but you were so confused your settings were wrong:
Dr. Rabin:
I believed that this manuscript is beyond any suspicions because
a) the monks confirm that it was taken by Tischendorf
b) there are some folios found in Sinai that belong to this manuscript
c) the colour and condition of parchment strongly depend on the environment and the initial processing
The Temple scroll had perfectly white sections upon unrolling but now its colour is mostly yellow.
You never mentioned this part, you HID it.
But you went over the top - like every narcissist eventually does (even if yours didn't result in a storming of the Capitol).
See - she's a DOCTOR (he's suddenly fond of respectful titles NOW)...we should all bow in worship....
I'm guessing you're confused since in one post you say 2020 and one you say 2021 about the same thing.
Maybe get your facts straight before posting.
She also said to you very clearly that "the manuscript is beyond any suspicions".
You didn't bother to share that part.
Exactly - you hid the fact you know she holds to the 4th century date.
And the place you disagree is quite relevant to the discussion at hand, too.
But for reasons known only to you, you hid that.
Last edited:
Funny you should mention that. I’ll be putting something up later tonight if I have time.
LOL! That’s hilarious! Maybe the meeting never really happened? 😉
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
I can't wait.
He'll pretend it doesn't bother him and then he'll rage post about it without giving you the courtesy of a personal reply.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Sorry.
Not that one either. More recent. Within the last two to three weeks, I think.
It was from BAM itself, I think.
You know, I wonder when Avery actually came up with that bit of perceived “brilliance?” I had never read that line from him here or at any other forum - ever - up until a couple days before his last “debate” with Mr. Snapp.
He used it here once (in response to one of your posts, I believe) and then had to make sure to use it during the debate.
I’m sure Mr. Snapp thought…….well, I won’t pretend to know what was going through his head when Avery did that mic drop.
Proverbs 20:23
Divers weights are an abomination unto the Lord; and a false balance is not good.
Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Lest any of you think I'm being hard, here are the incriminating hypocritcal words of "Nutless and Gutless":
Note Steven - if you have a problem with what I say, why don't you just try to do something about it beyond crying to someone like a little sissy?
You could simply reword this, "If you are a Simonides dupe, you will pretend to be objective and then you will hide anything contrary to what you want to believe."
THAT'S. WHAT. YOU. DID!!!
As a reminder, this is the part Steven Avery has never quoted on this board despite knowing it to be true (e.g. he HID it):
Dr. Rabin:
I believed that this manuscript is beyond any suspicions because
a) the monks confirm that it was taken by Tischendorf
b) there are some folios found in Sinai that belong to this manuscript
c) the colour and condition of parchment strongly depend on the environment and the initial processing
The Temple scroll had perfectly white sections upon unrolling but now its colour is mostly yellow.
He also hid Rabin TELLING HIM THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS WILD-EYED "THEY BE SKEERED" NONSENSE:
I believe the decision not to make analytical study resulted from inner-political disputes of the Library. Initially, our study was welcomed. However, one person (who is neither an expert in parchment nor could personally profit from the study) managed to stop it.
Now....you have any more nonsense to spout, boy?
Divers weights are an abomination unto the Lord; and a false balance is not good.
Matthew 7:2
For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
Lest any of you think I'm being hard, here are the incriminating hypocritcal words of "Nutless and Gutless":
Note Steven - if you have a problem with what I say, why don't you just try to do something about it beyond crying to someone like a little sissy?
You could simply reword this, "If you are a Simonides dupe, you will pretend to be objective and then you will hide anything contrary to what you want to believe."
THAT'S. WHAT. YOU. DID!!!
As a reminder, this is the part Steven Avery has never quoted on this board despite knowing it to be true (e.g. he HID it):
Dr. Rabin:
I believed that this manuscript is beyond any suspicions because
a) the monks confirm that it was taken by Tischendorf
b) there are some folios found in Sinai that belong to this manuscript
c) the colour and condition of parchment strongly depend on the environment and the initial processing
The Temple scroll had perfectly white sections upon unrolling but now its colour is mostly yellow.
He also hid Rabin TELLING HIM THE TRUTH ABOUT HIS WILD-EYED "THEY BE SKEERED" NONSENSE:
I believe the decision not to make analytical study resulted from inner-political disputes of the Library. Initially, our study was welcomed. However, one person (who is neither an expert in parchment nor could personally profit from the study) managed to stop it.
Now....you have any more nonsense to spout, boy?
The next expert to have been unfortunate enough to have to endure the nonsensical ramblings of our resident pseudo-scholar is Professor Joseph Verheyden of Belgium. He has written several works, including an article contained within the book Lire demain - Reading Tomorrow, entitled Read; Write and Correct: the Scribe and the Perfect Text. In that article, and speaking of the Codex Sinaiticus now being online for all to view, he writes:
Enter Steven Avery Spencer, who asks the professor:
Avery:
a) Are you familiar with the material from the Scotish scholar James Donaldson? Where he asserts that the Tischendorf dating of Codex Sinaiticus is way off, based on the linguistics of Hermas and Barnabas (he uses the original Tischendorf argument against the Hermas of Simonides). He also expresses a healthy skepticism about the whole account.
b) You reference the Simonides paper of James Keith Elliott as a "brilliant monograph". However, he omitted some of the most salient data, and today we know a lot more. We can even see, looking at the Codex Sinaiticus Project, where the bulk of the manuscript from 1859 is artificially coloured yellow, while the 1844 section in Leipzig is white parchment, as was described by Uspensky for the whole ms. This is quite an amazing confirmation of an essential part of the Simonides-Kallinikos history.
Professor Verheyden replies:
Avery:
Thanks for your fine response in February on James Donaldson, the James Keith Elliott book and the question of the apparent colouring of the 1859 section of Codex Sinaiticus.
Remember that thank you from Avery. In a minute you’ll see that what I said in another post about Avery deferring to no one but himself was right on the money.
Avery goes on and on with a typical reply to Verheyden’s point “c” above, because - of course - the coloring issue is the hill he wants to die on. At one point he mentions Helen Shenton’s comment, but doesn’t inform Verheyden that she dates Sinaiticus to the 4th century.
He says all the usual stuff we’ve seen him post here a hundred times, and even provides Verheyden with a link to a now defunct Russian blog regarding a letter from Tischendorf to Uspensky….leading the professor to believe he can actually read it!
He then says:
Avery:
The ms. is 1840s. And it is a fairly new parchment, clumsily coloured to make it look yellow.
And:
However, the bottom line is simple .. the Sinaiticus ms was made c. 1840.
Thanks for listening!
As if he didn't read ANYTHING the professor had written! Expert? What expert? Avery defers to no one!
In the end, seemingly having the good sense to wash his hands of the conspiracy nut’s nonsense, the professor replies for the last time:
Professor Verheyden:
In general: coincidence is a strange phenomenon, too strange indeed to build much on it, certainly not enough to counter a majority opinion, for the simple reason that even if what is said is true it has the ring of "coincidence" around it. That said, I am afraid you are jumping to conclusions with regard to the relation between Athos ms and Sin. The similarity between both has nothing remarkable and is what one would expect of mss transmitting the same text. It does not prove and one cannot argue on this basis that there must be a direct literary connection between the two. All one needs to assume is that Athos was copied from a model that was close to Sin. In order for you to argue for the other direction, you should show passages (mistakes) in Sin that can only be explained, or made very plausible, if Sin depends on Athos; but is there anything like that?
Finally, re the analogy with Barnabas (and earlier edition by Simonides): I have never heard of Simonides' 1843 Barnabas edition. Can you provide the bibliographical details?
I also had a look at the texts you posted on Tischendorf-Plug-in-the -Date. Personally I am not such a big fan of blogs etc because it tends to fragmentize the evidence too much, which I am afraid is also what is happening here. There are bits and pieces of arguments and "evidence", but it is left to the user to bring these together in an orderly manner. In my opinion, the best way to state an argument is to write a formal essay, well structured and focusing on one or more problems, thereby clearly stating the problem and then offering a plausible (alternative) solution. Maybe with the knowledge you have gathered it is about time to do just that and submit it to an academic journal for broader circulation among the guild.
“However, there is also a certain danger that this easy access might take away a bit of the myth that has surrounded this particular Codex. Or should one rather say that it is just the opposite, and that this new opportunity adds to the myth?”
Enter Steven Avery Spencer, who asks the professor:
Avery:
a) Are you familiar with the material from the Scotish scholar James Donaldson? Where he asserts that the Tischendorf dating of Codex Sinaiticus is way off, based on the linguistics of Hermas and Barnabas (he uses the original Tischendorf argument against the Hermas of Simonides). He also expresses a healthy skepticism about the whole account.
b) You reference the Simonides paper of James Keith Elliott as a "brilliant monograph". However, he omitted some of the most salient data, and today we know a lot more. We can even see, looking at the Codex Sinaiticus Project, where the bulk of the manuscript from 1859 is artificially coloured yellow, while the 1844 section in Leipzig is white parchment, as was described by Uspensky for the whole ms. This is quite an amazing confirmation of an essential part of the Simonides-Kallinikos history.
Professor Verheyden replies:
a. I am indeed familiar with the comments of Donaldson. As far as I know he twice spoke out on Barnabas Sin. In 1864 he concludes the text is not genuine (p 254). Ten years later he is less outspoken and concludes that the Sin Barnabas is "either a very corrupt MS. of Barnabas, or a translation based on the Latin" (316-7). I do not see much evidence for the latter option, but the first one is of course always a possibility, which says something on the quality of the text (tradition), but nothing on its genuineness.
b. Elliott's book remains in my opinion a good presentation. What evidence are you referring to when saying that he left out (on purpose?) salient data? He can of course not be blamed for what he could not yet know. By the way, such is also the case for Donaldson: three of the four words he says in 1874 (p316) are not found elsewhere or only in Suida and a later author, are now attested in pre-Christian and early Christian literature (see Montanari's dictionary). The fourth (anthropopoiètos) is a verbal form, the verb is attested as well.
{Avery still persists with the nonsense about Elliott and Donaldson to this day, when he’s been told exactly what Verheyden told him above for many years!}
c. I am not a chemist but "decoloration" can happen. Are you sure this is really "artificially coloured"? If so, how does it disprove the genuineness of the ms and the text it contains? Maybe one tried to make the ms look older, but it does not prove the text it contains is a fake.
Avery:
Thanks for your fine response in February on James Donaldson, the James Keith Elliott book and the question of the apparent colouring of the 1859 section of Codex Sinaiticus.
Remember that thank you from Avery. In a minute you’ll see that what I said in another post about Avery deferring to no one but himself was right on the money.
Avery goes on and on with a typical reply to Verheyden’s point “c” above, because - of course - the coloring issue is the hill he wants to die on. At one point he mentions Helen Shenton’s comment, but doesn’t inform Verheyden that she dates Sinaiticus to the 4th century.
He says all the usual stuff we’ve seen him post here a hundred times, and even provides Verheyden with a link to a now defunct Russian blog regarding a letter from Tischendorf to Uspensky….leading the professor to believe he can actually read it!
He then says:
Avery:
The ms. is 1840s. And it is a fairly new parchment, clumsily coloured to make it look yellow.
And:
However, the bottom line is simple .. the Sinaiticus ms was made c. 1840.
Thanks for listening!
As if he didn't read ANYTHING the professor had written! Expert? What expert? Avery defers to no one!
In the end, seemingly having the good sense to wash his hands of the conspiracy nut’s nonsense, the professor replies for the last time:
Professor Verheyden:
In general: coincidence is a strange phenomenon, too strange indeed to build much on it, certainly not enough to counter a majority opinion, for the simple reason that even if what is said is true it has the ring of "coincidence" around it. That said, I am afraid you are jumping to conclusions with regard to the relation between Athos ms and Sin. The similarity between both has nothing remarkable and is what one would expect of mss transmitting the same text. It does not prove and one cannot argue on this basis that there must be a direct literary connection between the two. All one needs to assume is that Athos was copied from a model that was close to Sin. In order for you to argue for the other direction, you should show passages (mistakes) in Sin that can only be explained, or made very plausible, if Sin depends on Athos; but is there anything like that?
Finally, re the analogy with Barnabas (and earlier edition by Simonides): I have never heard of Simonides' 1843 Barnabas edition. Can you provide the bibliographical details?
I also had a look at the texts you posted on Tischendorf-Plug-in-the -Date. Personally I am not such a big fan of blogs etc because it tends to fragmentize the evidence too much, which I am afraid is also what is happening here. There are bits and pieces of arguments and "evidence", but it is left to the user to bring these together in an orderly manner. In my opinion, the best way to state an argument is to write a formal essay, well structured and focusing on one or more problems, thereby clearly stating the problem and then offering a plausible (alternative) solution. Maybe with the knowledge you have gathered it is about time to do just that and submit it to an academic journal for broader circulation among the guild.
Last edited:
Well, if he won't listen to the academics, and he not listening to Cecconi either who also put him in his place, he's not going to listen to us. Is Avery the world's biggest BS merchant?
His claims get debunked or shot down by an expert, and he moves onto the next one.
When his claims get debunked or shot down by expert #2, he moves onto the next one.
He keeps up this merry-go-round in the hopes of finding one that agrees with him.
Honest researchers don’t keep on repeating claims that everyone they correspond with shoots down, debunks and disproves. (See the Timothy Arthur Brown quote a couple pages back, where he slams Avery for pushing his conclusions and doing the research afterword).
Last edited:
Trucker, who used to post here years ago, aptly named him “the word merchant,” due to his tactic of taking a word with two meanings, imposing one he knew full well was wrong, saying your writing was confusing (you know -like now) and then saying you weren’t clear on whatever you were saying.
As I said - there’s a reason he’s HERE spouting this nonsense and not before an academic forum.
He does this with forum chats, too.
It's ego stroking.
When you're an utterly miserable person, you get your dopamine rush by informing accomplished people how much smarter you are than they are. Of course you do it under careful circumstances so there's no chance of a video of you being laughed at (like Dan Quayle, friend of Jack Kennedy).
The Internet has helped fuel these monsters.
You mean the one who tore you a new orifice? That one?
Professor Joseph Verheyden of Belgium.:
I am indeed familiar with the comments of Donaldson. As far as I know he twice spoke out on Barnabas Sin. In 1864 he concludes the text is not genuine (p 254). Ten years later he is less outspoken and concludes that the Sin Barnabas is "either a very corrupt MS. of Barnabas, or a translation based on the Latin" (316-7). I do not see much evidence for the latter option, but the first one is of course always a possibility, which says something on the quality of the text (tradition), but nothing on its genuineness.
...That said, I am afraid you are jumping to conclusions
Or was it Timothy Brown?
"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."
YOU are the one who went and cried like a baby. Teacher took the rattle away.
Maybe next time be an actual man about it.
Every scholar he wrote basically told him he's a clueless moron on this subject.
His response? They're all just not paying no attention to the evidence!!!
Last edited: