Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

Let's stop right there!
Why should anyone be looking for these specific names
  • Hilarion
  • Dionysius
  • Theophylact
In St. Catherine's manuscripts?

You made a big deal in suggesting their names may be on other manuscripts, rather than being the Hilarion and Dionysios from Athos.

Now you are criticizing your own position?

Interesting.
 
Since the traditional Sinaiticus scholars have not done any looking ... once again, its up to the SART team.

The same poster:

The issues about the opposing monasteries is on p. 75 of Elliott.

Here is an important part:

View attachment 6162

It was also covered to a degree here.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/cod...os-profile-history-details.14597/post-1149604

One side of the mouth: they didn't do any looking
Other side of the mouth: while they were looking, they contacted the WRONG monastery 1400 miles away in the 19th century!!!
 
... you haven't given a single scrap of credible (let alone indisputable) graphological evidence connecting the handwriting of Mt. Athos manuscripts and the handwriting of the named writers in Codex Sinaiticus.... yet... or ...at all?

... No one...is... looking for these except you.

You don't have a two or one fold graphologically connected cord either.

You have no graphologically confirmed matches between the handwritings (and I highly suspect none of you even have the Athos handwriting in the first place, and all you're doing is prematurely celebrating a non existent victory based on a few obsolete catalogue entries).

Yes, we are the only ones looking, even after 160 years of scholarship neglect.
(This is quite different than the issues of opposing monasteries in the Elliott book.)

Another victory for the SART team.

What you "highly suspect" is cute.

No "celebrating", just helping you understand the fundamentals involved.
 
Then we can assume our hunch is right then?
No actual independent (objective and unbiased) and qualified graphological comparison has actually taken place yet?
No graphologist has actually been given both sets of handwriting to compare yet?

Good conjectures.

To soon to go into details.
 
Last edited:
Yes, we are the only ones looking, even after 160 years of scholarship neglect.

Generally speaking, rational people don't investigate settled issues.
And as Elliott noted more than four decades ago, the preposterous thing wasn't the allegation so much as it was that anyone would take anything seriously that Simonides said.

That's still correct: anyone who takes anything Simonides said seriously about writing this DESERVES every bit of mockery, ridicule, and laughter he or she receives. The issue of whether this is a 19th century manuscript is forever settled - it isn't.

Now, if someone wants to argue, "it's hard to tell the 4th from the 5th century date" and make a paleographic argument, fine.
But spare the rest of us these fanciful flights of fantasy that inspire lame movies as long as "Lord of the Rings" and about 1/100th as good.

(This is quite different than the issues of opposing monasteries in the Elliott book.)

There was no issue except the complete and total dishonesty of Simonides, which is what led to the "but dey wote de wong monastery!"

Guess what? If they'd written them all, he'd have just made up another lie.
And YOU, of course, would defend it.

Another victory for the SART team.

The SART team couldn't find their glasses if they were wearing them.

What you "highly suspect" is cute.

Says the same poster who lathers his polemics with words like "likely" and "possibly."

No "celebrating", just helping you understand the fundamentals involved.

You've had 15 years, and you've yet to help me understand anything about biblical or theological issues.

You HAVE, however, helped me better understand such concepts as NPD, boredom, and how the Pharisees could deny Jesus rose from the dead despite all the evidence (or how Pharaoh could deny the power of Moses).
 
Good conjectures.

To soon to go into details.

Yes, we know.

You've had over ten years and come up LITERALLY nothing, but sure.
You guys are Sherlock Holmes, Gil Grissom, and Encyclopedia Brown all rolled into one, so I'm sure the smoking gun (by which I mean a cap gun) is waiting to be discovered right behind Professor Plumb in the den with the candlestick.
 
This entire post has turned into the tactics of what the other Queens narcissist does - you see, he's about to show you he has evidence the election was stolen, he just can't show it right now. Rant, rave, make raging declarations of how everyone else has been duped by nameless bad guys (or girls)....but NEVER provide any actual EVIDENCE to back up the pretend ex cathedra statements.


Trump told me I could see ballots being removed on video
Avery tells me I can see easy page turning, and this is proof of.....something

Trump uses the cliche "election interference" about anything, a term he stole elsewhere
Avery uses the cliche "phenomenally good condition", a term he stole from someone else

Trump makes phone calls to officials then claims they are part of the fraud (of ballots) - and misrepresents them
Avery sends emails to officials then claims they are part of a fraud (of dates) - and misrepresents them

SUBSTANTIATION OF PREVIOUS CHARGE:


Avery Misrepresenting Ira Rabin:

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.

The most important information from Dr. Ira Rabin came in the 2021 Zoom meeting with Brent Nongbri. That is when she explained that Leipzig pulled out of the testing on the day that BAM arrived at Leipzig. There was quite a bit of emotion, and some hope that tests will take place, somewhere, perhaps at the British Library.

And I never said that Rabin has a position on Sinaiticus, other than a willingness to do world-class testing. One place we definitely agree, testing would be excellent.

What Rabin ACTUALLY Said:

Dear Steven,

Thanks a lot! Most interesting!

1. But I must assure you that the decision NOT to study was not dictated by fear of unpleasant discoveries. I was present at the main discussion. The fellow who knows nothing if this ms but happens to be simply the head of conservation was mad that the testing was decided without his knowledge but with blessing of the conservator of the ms. He made a dramatic speech that the name could be damaged by analysis and that HE doesn't need to know anything about the materials to preserve it.
2. Today some of the Leipzig leaves are completely eaten through ! But others are not . This was the main reason for the conservator of the manuscript to request the analysis .
The damage must have occurred in Leipzig but no one knows when.

I did want to test the inks - their composition is more than interesting for my inks studies


The conscience of Steven Avery is so seared that he's willing to DISTORT and MISREPRESENT people whom he quotes - repeatedly (this is just one example).


What can be said about a so-called research team headed by a person who cannot even read the document he's purportedly investigating and is so....sloppy, lazy, dishonest (pick an adjective) that it cannot even accurately and FULLY represent people whom it quotes?

What you can say is such a venture is a joke that could be overseen by a third grader who has never even studied footnotes, research methods, or formatting.

There is a 0% doubt that Avery has misrepresented what Rabin ACTUALLY said.
At some point in his attempts to mimic Wimpy from "Popeye" ("I'll pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today"), maybe he can explain to the rest of us why he has chosen to do this and not publicly acknowledge the misrepresentation.

But I wouldn't hold my breath expecting such, either.
 
The Zoom meeting gave new information, which I reported above.

No, you clipped the portion of it you liked to make a misleading thing.

Sorry, Trump, there's no "invisible evidence" that you think you have that justifies what you tried to pull.

And this isn't the first or even tenth time you've done this through the years, so try again.
 
No, you clipped the portion of it you liked to make a misleading thing.

The Zoom meeting is totally independent of the earlier correspondence.
And it came long after. It is a separate report.

Plus it was public (in that there were 40 listeners) impassioned and emotional, rather amazing.
 
Last edited:
The Zoom meeting is totally independent of the earlier correspondence.
And it came long after.

The zoom meeting has NOTHING TO DO with your YEARS of misrepresenting Rabin by HIDING things.

Please quit being obtuse.

You know what you've done.
We know what you've done - repeatedly.

So don't try to create confusion here when you know full well what you've done.

You REPEATEDLY:
a) accuse OTHERS of hiding things and THEN
b) HIDE things yourself

Plain and simple.

The fact you won't admit it when busted red-handed simply shows the level of confidence anyone can have in anything you say, which is zero.
 
The zoom meeting has NOTHING TO DO

Actually, it is the most important part of her sharing on the topic.
It is the one place where Dr. Rabin explained how they pulled out of the 2015 tests after they arrived with the equipment.

What post of mine do you consider incorrect?
 
Last edited:
Bill Brown must be the last person, not employed by the CIA, who believes and defends the “lone nut” theory.

We'll note three things for the record:
1) he didn't ask me anything about it
2) he didn't tell you WHICH ONE of the 600 or so conspiracy theories is the right one
3) he ASSUMES I'm not employed by the CIA
 
Yes, the possibility was considered.

No, you didn't.

You - AGAIN - were wrong and won't admit it.

Bill Brown must be the last person, not employed by the CIA, who believes and defends the “lone nut” theory.

Only in the magical thinking of SART-MOPS research can "not employed" by the CIA actually mean "possibility."

Seriously - you're not any good at these childish attempts to simply be straightforward, tell the truth, and admit it.

You ASSUMED I'm not employed by the CIA. Granted, we all work within a framework of assumptions but given that about 1/3 of the country knows Oswald was the lone shooter (YOU said "lone nut," not me), I'm hardly alone.

Polls don't impress me. After all, polls on that subject ASSUME everyone expressing an opinion on a subject possesses equal qualifications to comment or have an opinion on the subject, not really all that different from people who cannot read Sinaiticus spouting conspiracy theory notions without having the evidence to put it all together both because it doesn't exist AND because the people saying don't understand anything at all about manuscripts.
 
Btw - we will note that ONCE AGAIN (as is always the case), Steven Avery dismisses a point of view but NEVER lays out an ALTERNATIVE that covers all the bases he's demanding be covered.

He does this with vaccines, which he couldn't explain if he was given an open book exam.
He does this with infectious disease, dismissing what he derisively calls "germ theory" but never provides an alternative.
He does this with his 9/11 "inside job" conspiracy.
He does this with six fake moon landings - according to him.
He does this with "we should consider" whether atomic bombs ever actually existed.


This same approach - "let me ask questions, make assertions and insult people but NEVER SPELL OUT MY POSITION" - with Sinaiticus, which is largely why we laugh at him. Remember Coach Ernie Pantusso on "Cheers," the lovable old guy who had been hit in the head by so many baseballs that he would answer questions with "where is your bathroom" (referring in context to the one in the bar) with 'next to my bedroom.'

That - minus the notion of in any way being "lovable" - is the Steven Avery approach to issues as demonstrated above.


And again, it's simple:
you have a guy who fled the scene of the crime whose palm print was on his own weapon and who was seen by multiple witnesses killing police officer J. D. Tippit...which is what led to him being caught at the theatre, a former Marine who only hit the target he was aiming at once in three shots.

This one isn't any more complicated than Sinaiticus. It never seems to dawn on the conspiracy theorists that the reason you have the occasional loose end ("how does this fit in here") is because of the IMMENSE INVESTIGATION that has ALREADY been done on both.

These are settled issues. Oswald killed Kennedy, terrorists did 9/11, vaccines absolutely do reduce mortality, and Sinaiticus wasn't written in the 19th century by ANYBODY. (Again - if you want to pursue a "5th rather than 4th century" argument, be my guest. Same with "but did Oswald do this on behalf of someone else", knock yourself out).
 
off-topic CIA and JFK assasination rants moved to:

that's fine, I can bring it right back here, it only takes the five seconds to copy and paste and move boards.

I guess you find that easier than providing any evidence of anything.

Wow, obsessed over his proposed CIA connections and the lone nut theory of the JFK assassination.

1) Wasn't the point.
2) You knew that wasn't the point.
3) But you PRETEND it was because it's easier for you than defending your nonsense.

It looks like he is also one of the last defender of the Covid jabs, which caused, and are still causing, so much harm.

Another subject you cower from debate on - like every other subject in which you make grandiose claims with invisible evidence.

You're welcome.
 
Back
Top