+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 2 of 2

Thread: another amazing "coincidence" - the phenomenally good condition

  1. Default another amazing "coincidence" - the phenomenally good condition

    Facebook post:
    https://www.facebook.com/groups/pure...5748220850391/

    One of the greatest “coincidences” of the creation at Mt. Athos of Sinaiticus is usually missed.

    Simonides explains how they made Sinaiticus. Much of what he said was accurate, even to the specific editions used. Sinaiticus is the ONLY “ancient” uncial that is fresh, supple, wonderful condition, “phenomenally good condition.”

    If Sinaiticus was like any of the real ancient manuscripts, brittle, worn, the simple appearance of the ms. would have made his assertions a joke.

    ================

    Let's say someone was discussing the brittle, worn Alexandrinus, truly an ancient manuscript, “limp, dead” per Skeat, and told you it really was written less than 25 years ago. It really does not want to be handled, which will cause great damage.

    This age of 25 years would be like a Sinaiticus / Simonideios written in 1840 and being discussed 1860-65.

    You would guffaw. How did it get so old? Even the most hi-tech forger’s baking machine could never do anything like this!

    By “coincidence” Simonides was claiming to be involved in writing a manuscript that looks and feels supple and youthful, with the ink to parchment very recent.

    Once again, how did he know?

    The answer is simple. He was one of the Athos craftsmen, in his younger days.

    Coincidences, the jewels.

    ===========================================

    On a censored forum, Bill Brown took issue with a couple of these points, we will put aside the silly insults, accept two minor tweaks to spelling and syntax, ignore a lot of reactive nonsense, and see what is left. That will leave us with some substantive back-and-forth.

    Brown in brown.

    ==================================

    Simonides explains how they made Sinaiticus.

    Simonides NEVER explained how "they made Sinaiticus" because his story was that HE made Sinaiticus. He wrote it all by himself is the claim.


    In some comments he made it clear that others worked with him on the ms.

    "The corrections in the handwriting of my uncle, I can, of course, point out; as also those of Dionysius the caligraphist."

    Since Simonides likely did the full New Testament, and more, he simply put himself a bit more in the center than the actual history.

    ==================================

    Much of what he said was accurate,

    "Almost nothing of what Simonides said was accurate."


    Much was clearly accurate, starting with the Tischendorf 1843 theft.
    These are covered on other posts.

    In addition, many historical elements could not be arranged post-facto, such as the "serendipitous" fact that he published the Hermas Greek edition before Sinaiticus was discovered.
    "The coincidence seems almost more singular than can be accounted for by chance" - James Anson Farrer

    Or how the Spyridon Lampros catalog placed Benedict, Simonides and Kallinikos in Athos, at precisely the right time for the project he described, Simonides and Kallinikos in collaboration on a project.

    Or how the two sections of the manuscript match the colouring accusation from Kallinikos.

    ==================================


    even to the specific editions used.

    Really? You mean Simonides told us he used Claromontanus?


    Simonides said he used the Zosimas Moscow Bible as one preliminary OT source. This is a direct connection.
    (And perhaps a separate Alexandrinus edition, like Baber.)
    Claromontanus clearly has a connection, by the homoeoteleutons, but whether it is direct or not is hard to determine. The sense-line aspect of Sinaiticus has been totally missed by the historic Sinaiticus scholarship.

    Nothing he allegedly used has ever even turned up.

    That of course is simply wrong.

    Zosimas has always been available.
    With Alexandrinus, he did not specify the edition, but Baber would be available.


    ==================================

    Again - there's a reason you spout this tripe on Facebook and NOT in a setting of public exchanges with knowledgeable people.

    This is funny from someone who encourages the censorship that is rampant on the public forums.

    The SART team is always open to a public scholarship dialog (e.g. ETS in the USA or a Brit or European venue) but it is still a bit early. Textual research is continuing, and there is still lots of learning going on. And I plan a small publication.

    ==================================

    Sinaiticus is the ONLY “ancient” uncial that is fresh, supple, wonderful condition, “phenomenally good condition.”

    "how does he know this?"


    I am continually reading and studying and making inquiries to professionals. None has ever come up with an analogous condition manuscript. Tregelles offered the Vienna Dioscorides but that manuscript needed a major effort 55 years back for brittleness and holes, so it clearly is not comparable. Brittle is the opposite of fresh and supple.

    ==================================

    If Sinaiticus was like any of the real ancient manuscripts, brittle, worn, the simple appearance of the ms. would have made his assertions a joke.

    "No, he would have falsely accused Tischendorf of making it look older.. Amazing idea, I can't imagine why that thought never occurred to Simonides. Oh, wait a second......"


    Superficial "looking older" can be achieved with lemon juice and herbs.
    Actually being aged and brittle with acid ink deterioration is far more difficult.

    ==================================

    Lets say someone was discussing the brittle, worn Alexandrinus, truly an ancient manuscript,

    2) how do you know Alexandrinus is an ancient manuscript? The pages aren't the same as I demonstrated long ago. Maybe Alexandrinus is a fraud, too.

    Whatever you mean by "the pages aren't the same" is far too vague. I'm always interested in manuscript comparisons, especially with a major ms. like Alexandrinus.

    Alexandrinus starts with a reasonable provenance, apparently in Alexandria from the 1300s to 1600s. It is "limp, dead" as an ancient manuscript. The idea that it is 400s has no definitive proof, most of these ancient uncials could be centuries later (Michaelis is one who discusses this question.) However, there is no reason to doubt that it is an ancient ms.

    ==================================


    “limp, dead” per Skeat,
    You're appealing to a source that dates Sinaiticus to the fourth century to try and say Sinaiticus is NOT from the fourth century.


    Bill Brown uses this fallacy every day.
    Quoting a source on one salient point does not mean he is right on every point.

    Here Skeat was astute in describing the difference between Alexandrinus and Sinaiticus. Clearly, he should have gone a step further and questioned the date of Sinaiticus, but as part of the British Library contingent that had just spent a ton of money on the supposedly ancient manuscript, it would not be appreciated if he raised such issues.

    ==================================

    and told you it really was written less than 25 years ago.
    "I'd say he was as dumb a moron as anyone claiming Sinaiticus was written in 1840".


    In 1862 Simonides was claiming the ms. had been written about 20 years earlier. If it was an obviously old manuscript (frayed edges, brittle, acid ink deterioration, foxing) his claim would have been immediately discounted.

    However, the ms. actually did look and feel like 20-25 years old.

    "This age of 25 years would be like a Sinaiticus / Simoneides written in 1840 and being discussed 1860-65."


    Exactly that was the point.

    ==================================

    "You spelled Simonides incorrectly"


    Simonides called the ms. Simonideios which others would change to Simoneidos- I'll correct it above.

    ==================================

    You would guffaw.
    How did it get so old?

    "The problem is that you are importing your assumptions to make your argument. Jacob Peterson corrected you on this,"


    Not at all, Jacob tried to make one point to explain the colour disparity, and ended up twisted into an absurd claim. This is all covered on this forum, and when possible, where Jacob posts.

    ==================================

    Even the most hi-tech forger’s baking machine could never do anything like this!

    "So not only was Sinaiticus treated with lemon juice (despite there being ZERO evidence of this), it was also put in something normal people call an oven."

    There was no attempt to be truly aged. The BBC video makes that abundantly clear, it is fresh, supple, youthful.

    Trying to bake in brittleness is very problematic for the Sinaiticus situation. And still would not give other elements like acid ink deterioration.

    The quirky, uneven colour, stained and streaky leaves, in the 1859 British Library section connects with the historical accounts to give evidence of the staining. Especially when compared to the 1844 Leipzig leaves. Before and after.

    ==================================


    By “coincidence” Simonides was claiming to be involved in writing a manuscript that looks and feels supple and youthful, with the ink to parchment very recent.

    Bill Brown re-write
    "Simonides claimed he wrote the manuscript in 1840, and its appearance and feel make such a claim plausible."

    Once again, how did he know?

    Simonides really didn't know much about Sinainticus at all. In fact, all he knew was what he kept reading in the paper and hearing from friends. Every time he heard a new detail, he changed his story ....


    the 1843 theft by Tischendorf
    the 1859 phony loan
    the artificial colouring - seen in the ms. today
    the bumbling Greek of Tischendorf
    the lack of provenance
    the lack of an ancient catalog (which had been claimed)
    the youthful condition "phenomenally good"

    We have some pages that go into all these.

    ==================================

    He was one of the Athos craftsmen, in his younger days.

    See folks - if you actually READ HIS WORDS, what he's saying is, "It's a conspiracy!!!" He won't come out and say that, of course, because you'd laugh at him.

    I'm not sure your point here. I leave it open as to whether the original enterprise was a replica or forgery. A craftsman can be involved either way.

    There are elements that support conspiracy (e.g. Simonides working in the Russian historical archives in 1867, Tischendorf being lauded at the Vatican), generally they are not fundamental to the two main issues.

    historical forensics
    manuscript forensics

    ==================================

    Coincidences, the jewels.

  2. Default

    In general, my BVDB material is put on one thread

    BVDB attempts to defend Sinaiticus authenticity while censoring responses and ducking substantive dialog

    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthread.php?531-BVDB-attempts-to-defend-Sinaiticus-authenticity-while-censoring-responses-and-ducking-substantive-dialog

    Often, I simply feel that factual corrections should have a home.

    This thread was different, because much of it stayed on point to the coincidences issue. So it was a spur to bring the post from Facebook over to PBF.

    =======================

    Generally I have to go through a lot of sludge to find any questions from Bill Brown that are worth response.

    This was briefly described in the next url, without quoting his sicker vulgarities.

    the sickness of Bill Brown
    http://www.purebibleforum.com/showth...=1506#post1506

    In this case of the coincidences post Bill actually offered a couple of thoughts that I would expect in an honest discussion, with a responsible poster. So I pulled those out, eliminating almost all the sludge. Brown reminds me of some of the sicker atheists, skeptics and evolutionists whom I used to try to dialog with, but I put that aside years back.

    ===========================

    As for the censored “Anti-Avery” forum, that is where we see the full sickness of Bill Brown. Other forums have varying degrees of moderation.

+ Reply to Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •