Is the "World's Oldest Bible" a Fake?

No, I did not know the full history at the time, and said nothing about the challenge $, you can see my thinking in the post where I defended Sinaiticus authenticity.

Once again, you are just making things up.


On November 17, 2011 on the TC Alternate board on Yahoo (as documented on BVDB on 2/11/14), you said the following:


And since what is at issue is one thing, the Sinaiticus case, I think it is pretty clear that the claim of Constantine Simonides to actually have written Sinaiticus is not seriously entertained by anybody today ... after they read the details and give due deliberation. Maybe the James Keith Elliott book has a succinct summary, anyway I see multiple humongous problems, courtesy of simple Internet studies. (Remember, it is often easier to study the 1800s than the 1900s on the net.)

Note in the previous post (url below) that Simonides said nothing for the 16 year period when Codex Frederico-Augustanus was floating about, and Simonides was a Codex F-A participant-watcher. Overall, the timing of the whole claim is rather incredible, this is a large manuscript supposedly done quickly by a young lad (15 or 19). There is no known exemplar for the Simonides labour, and, with this problem and others, you end up with the tacked-on story of the manuscript being the work of an uncle, his life work of textual scholarship ! Interesting is the verification by the Greek Orthodox monk who was hard to find, yet was verified .. by Simonides
smile.gif
. Just the basic conceptual problem of doing such a forgery with multiple hands and correctors. If a person was flying through a manuscript for a quick calligraphy work, or for an uncle who wanted his ideas transcribed (from what ?), why all the dual-triple and more handwritings ? And when challenged by William Aldis Wright, you have much in way of obfuscation and evasive responses, the cutest being the "deposit money" response.



Conclusion: you most certainly bring it up, and I’m again vindicated.


It isn’t my fault you can’t remember what you said.


(Get ready for the dancing, folks, the denial, etc).
 
And when challenged by William Aldis Wright, you have much in way of obfuscation and evasive responses, the cutest being the "deposit money" response.

Yes, though I did refer to the challenge $ obliquely, calling it "cute", thanks.

Since it was to be put in escrow (and released when the work was done) the claim of the posters here that he would take the money and run was impossible.
 
Yes, though I did refer to the challenge $ obliquely, calling it "cute", thanks.

Since it was to be put in escrow (and released when the work was done) the claim of the posters here was impossible.

So when you said:
No, I did not know the full history at the time, and said nothing about the challenge $,

just yesterday, you were wrong.


Correct?

Since you're now admitting you DID, in fact, reference it.
 
So when you said:
No, I did not know the full history at the time, and said nothing about the challenge $,

just yesterday, you were wrong.


Correct?

Since you're now admitting you DID, in fact, reference it.
I love this part later in that post:

“However, personal [sic] I really do not see any mileage in the Simonides -->Sinaiticus position. The obstacles are just too huge. Sometimes issues are, in fact, clear cut.”
—Steven Avery
 
Yes, though I did refer to the challenge $ obliquely, calling it "cute", thanks.

Which means your charge against me that you have yet to withdraw is FALSE - by your own admission.

YOU said you said nothing about the challenge money and accused me of lying (and don't try to get around it - "you are just making things up" means you accused me of LYING, plain and simple.

And in the end, you are still wrong.


Since it was to be put in escrow (and released when the work was done) the claim of the posters here that he would take the money and run was impossible.

That's also not what he said, but one sure conclusion we can now make: since you're willing to make any kind of false charge you wish and not acknowledge the charge is false, we can conclude you will say literally anything about anyone living or dead.

You got this wrong as well as cjab pointed out.
 
Is was reliable for scribe play testing, like when the accent marks were placed in the Shepherd of Hermas.

And the first seven pages of Matthew.

They can’t decide how to date scribe Ba.

And do they have two separate “scribes” trying to learn Greek with. Accent marks?
 
They can’t decide how to date scribe Ba.

They've known how to date Greek script since the early 18th century (i.e. 1700's) Mr Avery.


Greek PaleographyFrom Antiquity to the Renaissance [by T. Janz]

Introduction


Etymologically, the discipline of Greek paleography (a word coined in the 18th century by Berard de Montfaucon, from the Greek elements παλαιο- "old, ancient" + γραφ- "writing, script"+ -ια, a suffix forming abstract nouns) should in principle encompass the study of all writing in Greek from the past. In fact, the study of scripts used on papyrus, on coins and medals, in inscriptions and in documents is generally left to the separate disciplines of papyrology, numismatics, epigraphy and diplomatics, while the discipline of paleography is defined as the study of bookhands employed on paper or parchment. In practice, this means that scripts from the period before the appearance of parchment books in the 4th century A.D. [i.e. 300's] fall outside of the purview of our discipline, which also generally limits itself to the period before 1600 A.D., a date which is arbitrarily precise but which coincides roughly with the point when hand-written books were definitively eclipsed by printed ones.

[...]

The purpose of the discipline of paleography, as conceived by Bernard de Montfaucon (1655-1741) in his foundational work Palaeographia graeca (1708), was to give editors an objective criterion for their decisions by studying the chronological development of Greek script, thus allowing scholars to assign an approximate date (and, ideally, geographical location) to each manuscript based on the style of its script.

https://spotlight.vatlib.it/greek-paleography
 
‘So how could they set any rigid terminus ante quem, ant still account for:

copies
replicas
forgeries
calligraphy students and practioners

inquiring minds ….

In fact, you linked to a page from the Timothy Janz, who is a curator at the Vatican library, that only discusses one part of palaegraphy, which includes everything related to :

"the study of ancient writing systems and the deciphering and dating of historical manuscripts"
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&q=definition+of+palaeography
 
You complain of determining a date for the Sinaiticus without physical access to the manuscript itself, yet you yourself have determined a date without physical access to the manuscript.

You conclude their date is therefore "worthless", which is self condemnation, concluding your own date (determined without ever seeing the manuscript in real life) is worthless...
 
You complain of determining a date for the Sinaiticus without physical access to the manuscript itself, yet you yourself have determined a date without physical access to the manuscript.
You conclude their date is therefore "worthless", which is self condemnation, concluding your own date (determined without ever seeing the manuscript in real life) is worthless...

We have a 1000x more access to the manuscript and the history than the men who worked off of the Tischendorf facsimile and the lies of his account.
 
We have a 1000x more access to the manuscript and the history than the men who worked off of the Tischendorf facsimile and the lies of his account.

Your core contention is they determined an older date without examining in detail the manuscript in person (as opposed to merely viewing facsimiles or photographs).

Yet you yourself have determined a modern date but you have not seen the manuscript in real life or made a detailed examination of the manuscript in person (you've only seen facsimiles and photographs).

Explain just how that works Mr Avery?

Explain both your double standard and hypocritical argument Mr Avery?
 
Explain how Simonides was categorically wrong in saying the manuscript parchments ran out at the first part of the Shepherd of Hermas?

Explain how Kallinikos was also fundamentally wrong, who was even more explicit than Simonides in saying the manuscript was left "unfinished" at the first part of the Shepherd of Hermas?

It appears a million times more likely that both Simonides and the phantom Kallinikos (like you) did NOT EVER have access to the ENTIRE manuscript in real life... (which you complain about these other scholars) there's no way they'd say such things...

Unless...

They were...

Simply lying...

And therefore they (Simonides and the phantom Kallinikos) were far FAR more likely to have been dependant on published works and letters in newspapers from Tischendorf himself.

Simonides, nor Kallinikos, from the beginning to the end of the controversy never once said the Shepherd of Hermas was completed, as it truly was and as we know for certain today.

They both (Simonides and the phantom Kallinikos) kept up THIS VERY LIE (and you know it's a lie) about the Shepherd of Hermas the entire time right until his multiple deaths and gradual disappearance from history...
 
Back
Top