Steven Avery wrote: ↑Fri Apr 13, 2018 2:41 am
Hi Bill Brown,
Here is what you wrote about the Claromontanus-Sinaiticus relationship in the context of the homoeoteleutons.
Facebook - NT TextualCriticism - March, 2017
Is the Codex Sinaiticus Reliable?
https://www.facebook.com/groups/NTTextu ... cation=ufi
Bill Brown
"Even if one has the same reading why ASSUME that Aleph came from D rather than vice versa? In fact, couldn't we just as easily argue that this proves that D06s date must be subsequent to Aleph and this proves the opposite of what these wishful thinkers allege? ...."
Feel free to explain how the homoeoeteleutons could also be used in reverse, to have Sinaiticus as the target ms.
In the next post, David Inglis did correct you, and you did not respond.
And note that this is 100% on the topic of this thread.
Thanks
Steven
Wait.....why are you ignoring t
he very next post where Snapp pointed out the reality?
After all these years, do you actually THINK you can get away with this with me?
Inglis: "This does
NOT prove that D06 was the source of the missing text in Sinaiticus..."
EXACTLY.
He's not taking YOUR position. And he didn't argue what you allege here.
Incidentally, what was your collating base? How many singular readings did you note in the chapters?
(You see..you have to answer THOSE questions before engaging in this polemic).
And if you're going to play the old "you didn't respond" argument....you've had two years now....so cough 'em up buddy boy.
1) Where did David Daniels, whose work you cite as authoritative, train in paleography?
2) How does the manuscript coming online in 2009 change Avery's 2011 strongly worded opinion about how if one is just familiar with the details, it's OBVIOUS that it is NOT a 19th century document?
3) How many of these scholars have ever come down on the side of saying Simonides told the truth and Sinaiticus dates to the 19th century?
4) Does ANY paleographer in the world date Sinaiticus to the 19th century?
5) Who made the accusation that the manuscript was darkened?
6) Where did Steven Avery study 'forensic history'?
7) How much study of paleography have you (note: Steven Avery) ever done?
8) Does your source Brent Nongbri have ANY papyri that he thinks are dated wrongly by 1500 years?
9) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery actually handled? Zero. I doubt he's ever seen any.
10) How are they to be handled? (post 62) as in 'what precautions are necessary?'
11) How many Greek MSS has Steven Avery read?
12) How many Greek manuscripts has Steven Avery photographed?
13) How is the lighting to be set? Let's see what this guy says since I've actually done this with CSNTM.
14) How long did it take you to take the photographs? He never has so the answer is..."I never took any."
15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus?
16) Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE with photographing manuscripts? No, he doesn't.
17) Do any of the OTHER two members of the SART team have any REAL experience in linguistics?
Apparently not since this question has been avoided like the plague.
18) What are the published works of those in question 17?
19) Do the people at the CSP who host the manuscript online SAY it is an 1800s production?
20) What date then do they give it?
21) How does Steven Avery actually KNOW the manuscript at CSP is really Sinaiticus?
22) How much parchment has Steven Avery actually studied?
23) How many experiments have you ever done on parchment? None
24) In 2011, you claimed there was a typewritten note regarding Sinaiticus even though the typewriter had not yet been distributed wide scale. Why was your research so shallow as to say something so ridiculous?