Chris Pinto got his ever loving tail kicked in that debate, even Snapp (whom you were citing in the posts above) said so.
The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus
- Thread starter Maestroh
- Start date
Chris Pinto got his ever loving tail kicked in that debate, even Snapp (whom you were citing in the posts above) said so.
No, he didn't, he said HE WROTE IT ALL BY HIMSELF!!!
Even YOU concede "Simonides lied" about that.
You were not in his mind.
You don't know this.
You're just making up an interpretation 160 years after the fact.
Translation: you don't know.
TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
Simonides (or an accomplice) could have slipped in unnoticed and put a back-dated manuscript in the monastery.
Totally possible.
Yes, and he PRETENDS that this is a far-fetched speculation.
A human being who thinks no less than six landings on the moon were all faked thinks it 100% impossible that a deceitful forger who ACCORDING TO AVERY HIMSELF faked his own death in 1867 didn't go back to Athos sometime after 1862 to create "evidence" by backdating a manuscript and, oh yeah, mixed up the date of Easter in 1842 with 1841 and it wound up in a catalog in 1890. "And let me make it look like my created phantom whose letters I forged was also here!" Bear in mind this is a guy who keeps getting dates wrong repeatedly, from his own birth date to when he was on Athos in 1841 (he says he wasn't, then he says he was for a REALLY short period of time, Avery/Daniels insist he had to be because this one manuscript date proves it) to botching the date of Easter.
Again - this is not a hill I'm willing to die on, and it doesn't affect my position one way or the other.
It's just so amusing to watch a conspiracy theorist of virtually everything else IMMEDIATELY DISMISS an explanation that is far less problematic than all of the ones he insists happened and then wish to be taken seriously as a researcher.
Steven Avery
Well-known member
You really embarrass yourself talking about the Spyridon Lambrou 1900 Athos Library catalogue when you make this same blunder again, and again and again.
Simonides did not place the date of Easter and the March 27 date in the Catalogue was before the date of Easter in both 1841 and 1842.
https://forums.carm.org/threads/ans...ally-off-the-thread-topic.19205/#post-1492322
And I even put in a special post showing you the Easter dates.
There are none so blind …
Here, to help out the incoherent Bill Brown:
http://5ko.free.fr/en/easter.php?y=19
So the March 27 date would be the date of manuscript production, or entry to the catalogue, not the date of Easter.
Not for 1841, not for 1842,
Remember Shoonra taught you about the two calendars!
A good warning for those who try to be the Bill Brown fan club, bypassing his tendency towards vulgarity.
When he blunders, there is no correction, Blunderama becomes the theme.
Abd I did not move this post to Bill’s sprcial reactive dribble-drivel page because the discussion eas on the catalogue.
Last edited:
Look in the mirror. You describe you yourself. You do not correct all your blunders. You do not practice what you preach.
You do not correct your erroneous, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning that depends upon use of fallacies.
A guy who thinks six moon landings were all faked says this about someone else.
Hey folks, here's another lesson in, "I don't know anything about how monasteries worked, but I know I don't like this poster, so I'll just make up some stuff and say it. HERE!"
The guy whom I informed of the date of Easter all the way back in 2018 has just claimed he showed ME the dates of Easter that I showed him six years ago.
Seriously, where does one go to pretend he informed me of something I informed him of????
Says the guy who just got everything posted above 100% wrong...
Guy who insults others has fragile ego, doesn't like it when it's turned on him.
Says the guy who still hasn't admitted he flat out lied about what Rabin said......
Again, he KEEPS TALKING ABOUT ALL the so-called errors I make, but he's afraid to debate mano a mano and I'm not, so what does that tell you? The same guy says Tischendorf's only reason for not showing up was fear - same with Avery. (Note to Mr. Avery should you ever finally decide to stop hiding behind a computer screen - I know A WHOLE LOT MORE about this subject than I've ever posted, including answers to all your vacancies in the Snapp debate that you lost badly, it's just I don't post them online because you will THEN use it as if you actually learned something you thought nobody else knew.
I do not share information with people who have the pattern of shameless dishonesty that you've demonstrated all throughout the years and even in this post -where you condescendingly talk about Easter dates that YOU LEARNED FROM ME SIX YEARS AGO!!!
It means even he knows he's just making stuff up he'd get called out on in front of an audience and rest assured, there's nothing a narcissist hates more than humiliation.
Abd I did not move this post to Bill’s sprcial reactive dribble-drivel page because the discussion eas on the catalogue.
Literally nobody cares about your pet hate for me and basically trying to hide your responses elsewhere so nobody will read them.
I don't even care what you say on another thread that you're too afraid to say on this one, so why should anyone else?
Incidentally, here's a better idea:
since you already know the date of Easter in 1841 and 1842, why don't we both just agree what those dates were - and now you provide some actual EVIDENCE that Simonides wrote Sinaiticus?
You've had a decade, and you've come up with nothing in all that time.
NOTHING!!!!
You have literally told us NOTHING we did not know back in 1907, so.......I guess not.
You. Wasted. Your. Life.
since you already know the date of Easter in 1841 and 1842, why don't we both just agree what those dates were - and now you provide some actual EVIDENCE that Simonides wrote Sinaiticus?
You've had a decade, and you've come up with nothing in all that time.
NOTHING!!!!
You have literally told us NOTHING we did not know back in 1907, so.......I guess not.
You. Wasted. Your. Life.
Steven Avery would be far better off if he spent even a scintilla of time actually making sure he's RIGHT about something than worrying about things he thinks others have wrong.
But when you have zero evidence for your mind-numbing speculations, we get septuagenarian rage posting.
I include a link to the chapter on Simonides from J.A. Farrer's Literary Forgeries (1907):
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031021200&seq=71
https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015031021200&seq=71
Not only that, but he then PRETENDS his nonsense was never debunked.
Several times, I've found the same information at another board where he was debunked here months if not YEARS later.
And he pulls the same juvenile tactic on CARM as demonstrated below:
He AGAIN brought up James Donaldson as recently as April 9 without much contest and the post below is from December 8, 2023:
The problem is that I notified Steven Avery all the way back on July 30, 2018 that Donaldson is WRONG about what he claims. Donaldson claims there are Greek words that did not exist in the fourth century that are on the manuscript (although it should be noted Donaldson IS NOT arguing that Sinaiticus is a 19th century forgery, but this important point is never mentioned by Avery when he cites sources. I will let the reader make up his or her own mind whether this methodological inconsistency of hiding things when you attack others and accuse others of hiding things is proper or not).
We should not be TOO hard on Donaldson; advances in the study of the Greek languages were advancing at a rapid pace in the West, and he did not have the advantage we have of quick searches via BDAG or computers. Donaldson himself had never located any of those words prior to the century in question, so he made what he truly believed was an honest assessment. He was WRONG, of course, as we now know, but all of us today will be found wrong about many things 150 years from now. The difference between Donaldson and the modern SART-MOPS is that Donaldson would have ADMITTED he was wrong, but the SART-MOPS cannot do this because their entire lives are invested in this.
Steven Avery has KNOWN for nearly six years now that Donaldson was wrong.
Does he ever admit it?
Does he ever put out a public retraction?
Does he ever even admit Donaldson would have laughed in his face over the idea of Sinaiticus as a 19th century replica/forgery/whatever?
No, he does not.
Why?
You'd have to ask him why the inconsistency on his own part.
Just don't expect anything resembling a straightforward answer.
A small digression: I have found an apparently well-informed comment on the use of radiocarbon dating to determine the antiquity of NT mss.
From a recent (2021) Penguin book, The Apocryphal Gospels, translated by Simon Gathercole. His lengthy introduction includes this (pages xxxi-xxxii):
From a recent (2021) Penguin book, The Apocryphal Gospels, translated by Simon Gathercole. His lengthy introduction includes this (pages xxxi-xxxii):
Of course.
'
But even if carbon dating showed the older date, the SART-MOPS already have a built-in argument:
"Simonides himself said the PARCHMENT was old!"
They will continue this goalpost moving until every last one of them is worm dirt.
Simon Gathercole, whom I quoted, is Professor of New Testament and Early Christianity, and Director of Studies at Fitzwilliam College, Cambridge.
Since 2007, Gathercole has served as editor of the Journal for the Study of the New Testament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_J._Gathercole
So I suppose his comments on radiocarbon dating and handwriting are from a well-informed source.
Since 2007, Gathercole has served as editor of the Journal for the Study of the New Testament.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simon_J._Gathercole
So I suppose his comments on radiocarbon dating and handwriting are from a well-informed source.
Without the lying forger Simonides, there's nothing there.
They know this, which is why they attempt to rehabilitate him by:
a) his translator got that wrong (an excuse from 1862)
b) he was telling the truth but exaggerating
c) This Other Person (Bradshaw/Wright/Tischendorf) was lying, therefore, they are one and the same
Anyone who thinks every single page of any manuscript ages exactly the same can be dismissed as a fraud who has never seen a manuscript.
And no, the fact the pages turn easily isn't even relevant.
No, because the entire enterprise of the SART-MOPS is to be as not forthcoming and straightforwardly honest as possible and attempt to make as many accusations and allegations without evidence in the hope some stick - combined with "let me confuse you with this plethora of threads so I can avoid answering anything specific and then just say I answered it."
These conspiracy theorists are the very people who murdered the Lord they claim to serve, held their hands up since they were merely witnesses making allegations and didn't give the order to execute, act all surprised, and then spread about a conspiracy theory that his disciples stole the body.