Why would anyone need to test it when YOU already claim to know it was chemically altered?
Codex Sinaiticus - the facts
- Thread starter cjab
- Start date
Why would anyone need to test it when YOU already claim to know it was chemically altered?
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Any time there is an analysis that directly connects specific Sinaiticus corrections to a manuscript, (or a family of manuscripts), there is a considerable probability that the manuscript, or a sister manuscript, was in fact used in making the Sinaiticus corrections.
And while this phenomenon has been noted in various spots in Sinaiticus, I have never heard of it occurring in any other of the ‘Great Uncials’ even in one spot.
Afaik, this Sinaiticus correction pattern, connecting to a specific source manuscript, was only noted recently, coming out of our studies. Each case previously had only been noted individually.
If there was only one case, you could, with difficulty, have a theory that Sinaiticus and the source manuscript intersected during centuries of travels. Similar is cjab in post #103. An example of the difficulties would involve dating the corrections, since now the terminus post quem of the corrections must be after the production date of the source manuscript. And this can clash with previous correction date theory.
With multiple manuscript connections, in a variety of OT and NT and Apocrypha books, the intersection theory falls to pieces.
Last edited:
He's basically now taking up in favor of Hort's genealogical method.
Did any of the people who you claim (without listing any of them) "noted this" ever say, "And this proves this is a 19th century document"?
It proves nothing in terms of your nonsensical "Simonides and a group of people he couldn't even produce wrote this."
Also - I wouldn't call what the non-scholars on Facebook are doing "analysis" at all.
It's "hunting for data to support our circular argument."
So once again, you went an grabbed something someone else said and used it in a way never intended.
All of this word salad operates under the preposterous assumption that Simonides had access to all this stuff as if CSNTM had manuscripts online in 1844.
And let's just cut through all the "look over here" attempts by the SART team.
There is one reason - and only one - that the SART team is desperately combing through manuscripts trying to find what they think are indisputable similarities: it's because there is ZERO EVIDENCE Simonides ever even saw Sinaiticus until after he saw the facsimile and had a chance to get even with Tischendorf.
He claimed - and reproduced in his FIRST letter claiming authorship - to have a letter from Constantius dated August 13, 1841.
All he had to do to prove his version of events was produce this letter.
He never did. He never even tried to forge that one.
We all know that he did not produce verbatim a letter from 21 years earlier.
Why didn't he produce this letter?
Because he was lying from start to finish.
Why did he never produce an eyewitness?
Because he was lying.
This snipe hunt of the SART team would embarrass actual scholars. Rather than taking what is obvious, they are literally chasing this as a conspiracy theory that lacks any meaningful evidence.
I liken this pursuit to the utter nonsense that OJ Simonides's lawyers pulled back during his criminal (key word) trial in 1995. They postulated one of the most ridiculous ideas imaginable, but a jury of nitwits bought it. Maybe this is why Avery thinks he can persuade some gullible souls.
In the OJ case, we had an open and shut case. We had a man with plenty of motive, who had no alibi whatsoever, couldn't explain the deep cut on his hand he'd gotten just the night before, and who not only had the victims' blood in his house and car, but his blood was at the murder scene. Anyone with an active brain cell AT THIS POINT knows full well Simpson committed the murders - and we haven't even gotten to the DNA yet.
But OJ's lawyers pulled the same kind of magic act the SART team is trying to pull here - "let's distract you with this all but completely irrelevant thing over here and if they can't explain it, our client is telling the truth!" In the OJ case, they went with "what proves the cops framed him is that there is EDTA in the samples taken from the back gate and the sock." They were right on ONE point: EDTA is, in fact, a blood preservative used to prevent blood from clotting (it's in that purple tube when they draw your CBC). So yes, they had one "fact" correct. It was their conclusion that was laughable to all but the gullible.
Want to know where else EDTA is found?
- paint thinner
- detergent
- many other places
And where did they find this blood "contaminated with EDTA"?
- on the freshly painted back gate
- on the sock, which would have (wait for it) been washed with detergent
We could get into parts per million, etc, but OJ's lawyers pounded daily "EDTA is found in blood tubes." And like the head honcho of the SART team, they just repeated it over and over.
I'm still not sure how this puts the victims' blood in his Bronco, but then again I have a brain and use it, too.
In the OJ case, we had an open and shut case. We had a man with plenty of motive, who had no alibi whatsoever, couldn't explain the deep cut on his hand he'd gotten just the night before, and who not only had the victims' blood in his house and car, but his blood was at the murder scene. Anyone with an active brain cell AT THIS POINT knows full well Simpson committed the murders - and we haven't even gotten to the DNA yet.
But OJ's lawyers pulled the same kind of magic act the SART team is trying to pull here - "let's distract you with this all but completely irrelevant thing over here and if they can't explain it, our client is telling the truth!" In the OJ case, they went with "what proves the cops framed him is that there is EDTA in the samples taken from the back gate and the sock." They were right on ONE point: EDTA is, in fact, a blood preservative used to prevent blood from clotting (it's in that purple tube when they draw your CBC). So yes, they had one "fact" correct. It was their conclusion that was laughable to all but the gullible.
Want to know where else EDTA is found?
- paint thinner
- detergent
- many other places
And where did they find this blood "contaminated with EDTA"?
- on the freshly painted back gate
- on the sock, which would have (wait for it) been washed with detergent
We could get into parts per million, etc, but OJ's lawyers pounded daily "EDTA is found in blood tubes." And like the head honcho of the SART team, they just repeated it over and over.
I'm still not sure how this puts the victims' blood in his Bronco, but then again I have a brain and use it, too.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
The simple truth that one manuscript can copy into another's text or corrections is not "Hort's genealogical method". In fact, in this context Hort does not even discuss a manuscript being used for corrections in another manuscript.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Nope. Each case is different, e.g. some are of manuscripts in Mt. Athos, some involve printed editions. So they would be available to Benedict in his decade plus of preparation.
Some sources are more available to Tischendorf, e.g. he would be totally aware of the exemplar in Coislinianus that was very possibly used for the Sinaiticus colophon. Ironically, Coislinianus is New Testament colophon, while Sinaiticus took the same idea into the Old Testament and Apocrypha. This distinction of different parts of the Bible alone is quite suspicious. And, to their credit, a number of scholars have had a healthy skepticism about the Sinaiticus colophons.
Colophon exemplars may have been available to Benedict as well.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Provenance is always a legitimate concern, both for Sinaiticus and for Simonides. That was why the 1849 Symais printing of the letter of recommendation from Anthimos is such a helpful corroboration of the 1859 Memoir. It was written when it would have been trivially easy to refute, and no objection came forth.
I would like to see the letters from the Australian studies of the Forging Antiquity Project, especially Simonides and Hodgkin. To see if this issue of the Constantius letter came up. That would be of great assistance. Meanwhile, I generally do not use this as an evidence, due to the provenance concern. However, the scholars who have access to that type of literature could be of much greater assistance. (I wrote again to one yesterday.)
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You are not aware of the history.
Why didn't William Aldis Wright and the Investigative Clowns follow up on his clearly stated words from Simonides about men alive that were involved with the manuscript in the early 1840s.
This includes Anthimos IV, and John Prodromus, and others.
We know that Anthimos and Simonides had a falling out, so what was needed was an independent inquiry.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
To help convince the scholars that Sinaiticus is recent and how it was altered.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
duplicate post
Yes but it proves nothing, as written in 1841, and is just a generic reference or letter of good will. What it proves is that no-one from the Orthodox church was prepared to give Simonides another reference. It was his only one: he was out of favor with Orthodoxy, and he tried to pretend otherwise by peddling this reference everywhere.
In the world of some non-scholars, SPECULATION is the equivalent to EVIDENCE.
See my post above out OJ - it is born out here.
You have yet to:
1) PROVE this actually even happened
2) EXPLAIN why Simonides changed his story
We are over 1,000 posts into my presentation of the actual CLAIMS of Simonides - and nearly 9 months along - and all you seem to be able to offer is the same old ASSERTIONS.
This will not go away by just ignoring it. There is a reason you refuse to explain why anyone should believe Simonides's revised story and only the parts of the first story you wish to be true.
We have NO EVIDENCE Benedict did ANY prep work other than your entire enterprise - "SIMON(ides) SEZ!"
Garbage jargon meaning, "I don't know, but my speculation equals evidence."
Another confused non-scholar who doesn't even know the proper usage of "irony."
More mindless wishful thinking and speculation.
Are these the same scholars that this doesn't miraculously move the fourth century date?
So in this ranting post of non-evidence, you presented the following:
1) no evidence Benedict did diddly squat
2) assumptions Simonides told the truth
3) speculations
4) you built your case on that speculation
5) you cited unnamed scholars whom you credited on colophons but in all probability didn't disclose because it doesn't work the way you are trying to use it here.
At this point, you have now wasted more than a decade on a subject that has not convinced a single relevant scholar of your position.
As you're 73 years old, you've already wasted 13% of your time on this planet on this speculative nonsense.
How much more time do you plan to waste?
See my post above out OJ - it is born out here.
You have yet to:
1) PROVE this actually even happened
2) EXPLAIN why Simonides changed his story
We are over 1,000 posts into my presentation of the actual CLAIMS of Simonides - and nearly 9 months along - and all you seem to be able to offer is the same old ASSERTIONS.
This will not go away by just ignoring it. There is a reason you refuse to explain why anyone should believe Simonides's revised story and only the parts of the first story you wish to be true.
We have NO EVIDENCE Benedict did ANY prep work other than your entire enterprise - "SIMON(ides) SEZ!"
Garbage jargon meaning, "I don't know, but my speculation equals evidence."
Another confused non-scholar who doesn't even know the proper usage of "irony."
More mindless wishful thinking and speculation.
Are these the same scholars that this doesn't miraculously move the fourth century date?
So in this ranting post of non-evidence, you presented the following:
1) no evidence Benedict did diddly squat
2) assumptions Simonides told the truth
3) speculations
4) you built your case on that speculation
5) you cited unnamed scholars whom you credited on colophons but in all probability didn't disclose because it doesn't work the way you are trying to use it here.
At this point, you have now wasted more than a decade on a subject that has not convinced a single relevant scholar of your position.
As you're 73 years old, you've already wasted 13% of your time on this planet on this speculative nonsense.
How much more time do you plan to waste?
We will note for the record that - for quite obvious reasons - you didn't address the letter Simonides claimed to have but never produced.
He didn't even bother to forge one.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Why would three diverse letters of recommendation prove anything about other writers? Are you now concerned that Simonides had ONLY three in the publication.
"Peddling this reference everywhere..." .. one spot in 1849 and then repeated in 1859 is far from everywhere.
You are straining.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
I pointed out that we may well have more information in unpublished letters, including one being held back by the Aussie project. And that the letter has a provenance issue and therefore I do use it as an argument. So clearly I did address the letter.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
Actually, this has been one of a number of projects and interests.
However, it is going extremely well, thank you.
Currently, the last couple of days, we are studying the accents in Sinaiticus and looking at some wacky writing. The "scholarship" on the accents is quite humorous.
You are the one who is "humorous". You don't understand the scholarship. Your in the dark. You don't even know that it is an ancient manuscript.
You don’t see what a moronic statement that is, do you?
Anyone choosing to take such a dim-witted approach to “research” is doomed, as are his duped followers.
Last edited:
Steven Avery
Well-known member
One of the fun, humorous statements came from:
Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus
Milne and Skeat, p. 37
and is scholarship unexplainable.
Do multiple hands of diffrrent eras “gradually merge” into one hand?
How does that work?
And when were the accents placed? Prima Manu?
Since 2009, with the CSP, it is an easy question to answer.
Try to find the answer in Sinaiticus scholarship.
We might also have a catalog that hasn't been found too - but you're 100% sure one doesn't exist.
Once we get into MIGHT, we can go anywhere with it.
You can give me all the excuses you want.
Simonides claimed in his 1862 letter that he had a letter and quoted it in 1862 - yet he never presented it.
Why?
You know the simplest answer to that as so I: he was lying.
You have yet to bother with that.
I can understand why Simonides is such an embarrassment of a source for you.
The part I can't understand is how many more times you're going to embarrass yourself quoting him.