An Introduction to David Trobisch

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
Maestroh
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: the textual community was played

Post by Maestroh » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:04 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
You do not seem to understand one very basic point.
Begins with the condescension so let's see where this goes......


Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
If Simonides fudged or lied about some details, and said what was convenient, that does not change the basic fact that he was part of the creation of the manuscript.

The problem with dolts like yourself is this:

IF SIMONIDES CLAIMED HE WAS ON SINAI IN 1852 AND SAW A COMPLETE MANUSCRIPT THAT HAD THE COLOR ALTERED....but

a) wasn't on Sinai in 1852
b) didn't see a complete manuscript (he only mentions the dedication being pulled before you go back to your old tricks)

...

then he didn't see the so-called color change, either.....

(KA....BOOM)


And you're intelligent enough to know this, which is why you go on the attack against Tischendorf...


Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
Tischendorf rather brazenly lied about his 1844 theft, as an example, including the 1859 creative fabrication that he had saved the leaves from fire, he had permission to take them, etc. That alone similarly does not prove that the manuscript is modern.
Well duh.

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
This is Logic 101.

Tisch also hid the amazing condition of the ms.
This is a circular argument, speaking of logic. It ASSUMES your nonsensical paradigm about someone coloring the manuscript is true.
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
Again, that deception, although important, does not definitively prove that the manuscript is not ancient. Although it would be helpful to try to find some comparable condition truly ancient ms.
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
On this thread you never demonstrated any problem, and I answered this before. Not one quote.
Yes, the game Steven Avery has been playing since 2007. But don't worry...

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
Ask a real question, I will answer.
As you've just promised to answer, I will ask you the same series of questions yet again you have refused to answer. Either answer them or admit you lied, I don't care which.


Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
The Simonides timeline, in the statements from 1862-4, is definitely open to examination. Including how many visits he made to Sinai and when, but it does not change the basics.
OK, so there's no evidence at Sinai....which means there's NO EVIDENCE he ever saw the manuscript there.....speaking of Logic 101...

Which makes his entire claim libelous.....
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
The Spyridon Lampros catalog showing Simonides working on a specific ms in Athos with Kallinikos in 1841 is a key and amazing evidence,
Such a catalog....from 1895 mind you.....does not prove he was THERE ON THAT DAY, and only a complete idiot would say it does.
After all, you yourself cite Farrer.....and Farrer tells us:

"..one has only to refer to Lampros' Catalogue of the Mount Athos MSS to find Benedict's name appended to several MSS, and to one as late as 1844 (though Simonides gave 1840 as the year of his death", Farrer, 1907: 61).

So according to YOUR LOGIC....Benedict was "on Mount Athos" WORKING on a specific MS in 1844......

yet.......the one thing everyone agrees whether pro or con-Simonides....is Benedict died in 1840.


Now....in the conspiracy theory riddled nonsense you spout, maybe you'll tell us Benedict rose from the dead or come up with some other creative way to get out of this noose that makes sense only to the guilty.


But the simple truth of the matter is that a catalog compiled in 1895 provides NO EVIDENCE AT ALL of whom was there WHEN.

And even you know this, which is why your chosen route of argument is to shout louder and hope nobody notices.


Dude - there is a reason Simonides NEVER PRODUCED A SINGLE EYEWITNESS to this but instead forged lettered he claimed were those of eyewitnesses.....and you know what that reason is.

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
properly noted by Farrer, and worth very careful examination.
I just gave Farrer careful examination, and this simply doesn't support your nonsense either.



Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
Kallinikos was the one who knew the most details, the 1844 theft, the bumbling Greek of Tischendorf (like Wallace later), the phony "loan" of 1850, the coloring etc.
Well so you say.

But we never once heard from any Kallinikos, ever.

We got some letters from a forger that CLAIMED TO BE letters from Kallinikos, but we never had a human being come forward and actually make this charge, and the reason is quite obvious. The notion that Kallinikos was "on the spot" and "saw" Tischendorf take out parts in 1844 (but never mentioned it), "saw" him coloring it (in 1844 presumably.....before it was white in 1850 somehow).......and "saw" him steal the rest of it in 1859 but never spoke up until the last moment is laugahble.

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
If the ms. were truly ancient, like Alexandrinus or Bezae, the claims of Simonides would have been immediately busted.
Which they were....you keep ignoring that part.....you keep pretending that didn't happen....

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
(Similarly, if they actually produced the supposed ancient catalog.)
Nah, he would have just claimed they forged it.


Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
However, the ms was like new, as if it had been written just 20-25 years ago. You can see ink from c. 1860 that looks the same as the original and correction ink, supposedly a millennium and more old. The condition is amazing, as in the BBC video.
I'm listening to a blowhard with ZERO experience with manuscripts tell me something he saw on TV.

Pro wrestling is real, right?

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
So I believe the reasons the materials testing planned for 2015 were cancelled is rather obvious.
Of course you do - you're a conspiracy theorist so this isn't surprising.

You think the moon landing was fake, don't you?
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
More people were learning about the amazing condition of the ms. after 2009. "Phenomenally good condition" said Helen Shenton. It was becoming clear that tests would likely give embarrassing results. (These tests, like chemical spectrum analysis, and many more, are far more effective than C-14.)
It's amazing how a hack like yourself is such a know-it-all about it while those actually working with the manuscript are all a bunch of idiots in your view.

But it also is Oliver Stone level thinking. "A bunch of these folks and none of them will let the cat out of the bag."

We had a President who supposedly was heading up a murder squad of his previous critics yet couldn't prevent the world from finding out what his chubby intern was doing with a cigar........and you actually BELIEVE this nonsense you're spouting?
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
Nobody even checked the colouring,
So let's use some logic here....


According to YOU, man who has never been in the same room with Sinaiticus.......

even though you had plenty of scholars for years who:
a) had seen both parts of the manuscript (it's not as difficult as you wish to pretend)
b) knew the tales of Simonides

.....it never dawned on a single person, "Wow, these look like two different manuscripts!!"

Are you REALLY this dumb?
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
even though it was clearly stated by Kallinikos and Simonides.
But so far even in this thread all we've seen is:
a) Simonides lied about going seeing it in 1852 on Sinai (so.....when did he see it?)
b) Kallinikos was little more than a name Simonides affixed to some letters


I mean here's the problem:
if Simonides didn't see it in 1852...WHEN DID HE SEE IT?????

If he lied about seeing it in 1852 (he did) on Sinai (he did).....then he was also lying about seeing it colored then (you can't see something colored if you don't actually see it).....which means he never saw it.......

(If you have any EVIDENCE he did and when, please produce something other than "this book compiled in 1895 proves a guy was on this spot in 1841".....)



Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
We just found out about that after 2009.
No, YOU just found out about it.
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
Nobody even checked the Zosimas Moscow Bible, and how it fit as one major source for Sinaiticus.
Did YOU do this? Can you prove this? Keep in mind we were given a bunch of vague generalities, and YOU claim things for Simonides even he was never stupid enough to claim.

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
The textual community was played.
No, the only ones being played are movie maker Chris Pinto and his truckling sycophants.

======================
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
As for the timeline:
You failed to provide one.


1844 - Tischendorf takes CFA on first Sinai trip

1850 - Uspenski supposedly sees it white

1852 - "In 1852, I saw it there again myself...I examined the manuscript, and found it much altered, having an older appearance than it ought to have..." (Simonides fails to note that a chunk of it is missing - because he wasn't actually there and didn't actually see it)

1853 - Tischendorf makes second trip to Sinai (meaning that even if it was colored, he couldn't have done it)

1859 - Tischendorf makes third trip to Sinai and leaves with Aleph

2018 - David Daniels writes a book (endorsed by yourself no less) and tells us: "when he (Tischendorf) got the Sinaiticus to Cairo in 1859, he figured out it was a fake...So he came upon a plan. He (Tischendorf) darkened Sinaiticus with, maybe lemon juice..." (295)

(Uh, why would he need to darken something in 1859 that was already darkened in 1852??????)

2018 (Feb 20) -

Steven Avery tells us:
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 2#post1032

The exact time span would be 1850 to 1859, and it was done by Tischendorf and/or people working with him, maybe at one time, maybe in spurts.

But Simonides says it was done by 1852........given that Tischendorf DID NOT FIND OUT (per Daniels) until 1859 it was a fake....

a) why would it be colored in 1852?
b) why would anyone be helping him? (the Avery Reaches Oliver Stone Level of Conspiracy Theory)



Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
Try to understand the basic logic issues.

I do.


Which is how I know this whole thing is a nonsensical conspiracy theory.

Maestroh
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: the textual community was played

Post by Maestroh » Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:08 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
Ask a real question, I will answer.
I'll ask you TWENTY of the thirty-six you've avoided for nearly three years now:


1) Where did David Daniels 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? (Avery stated on November 20, 2011 - "However, personal 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."

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 - and is there any evidence he: a) not only existed but; b) wrote the letter?

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?

10) How are they to be handled? 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?

14) How long did it take you to take the photographs?

15) Can you, Steven Avery, READ Sinaiticus?

16) Do you have ANY EXPERIENCE with photographing manuscripts?

17) Do any of the OTHER two members of the SART team have any REAL experience in linguistics?

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?

Steven Avery
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:49 pm

The real question was specifically about the date chronology, the colouring and what was spoken by Simonides.

It was not about your silly games of 20 questions.

Maestroh
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by Maestroh » Sun Jan 27, 2019 7:12 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 5:49 pm
The real question was specifically about the date chronology, the colouring and what was spoken by Simonides.

It was not about your silly games of 20 questions.
Silly games only because the answers demonstrate what skubala you're espousing here.



Incidentally - you STILL didn't answer the question after promising to, which is not surprising but also demonstrates what a liar you actually are.

Steven Avery
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by Steven Avery » Sun Jan 27, 2019 6:56 pm

If you are talking about the chronology, you actually quoted the response , or the post with the response.

The fact that you don't like the answer is quite irrelevant. There are far more consequential elements in what was shared by Simonides and Kallinikos than whether one particular statement was chronologically imprecise.

Simonides and Kallinikos accurately pegged the 1844 theft by Tischendorf.
They accurately pegged that the loan was a phony maneuver.
They accurately pegged that the ms. was coloured after the 1844 extraction.
They accurately pegged that the condition would have to be superb (since it was produced only 25 years earlier, not 1500 years.)
They accurately pegged that there was no catalog at Sinai.
They accurately pegged that there was no provenance that could be shown before 1844.
They accurately pegged the bumbling Greek of Tischendoref.
Simonides produced a Shepherd of Hermas that was acknowledged as published before Sinaiticus.
Sinaiticus and Kallinikos were working together in Athos at precisely the right time, as was corroborated in the 1895-2000 Athous catalog.
They even pegged one printed edition that was used in the production, the Zosimas Russian Bible.

The historical and manuscript imperative and conclusion is crystal clear.

They knew all this because they were involved in the production of the ms. in Athos c. 1840.

And since 2009, any of us can see the accuracy of the colouring accusation, and can even see the staining and streaking on the 1859 section, none of which was checked at the time.

And anyone can look at the BBC video and see that the ms. is in "phenomenally good condition" as described by Helen Shenton. If it were truly an ancient ms. like Alexandrinus or Bezae, the whole claim would have been laughable, but the SInaiticus ms. was like new. (Tischendorf claims rightfully discarded.)

Maestroh
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by Maestroh » Sat Feb 16, 2019 11:10 am

interesting concepts

Maestroh
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by Maestroh » Sun Feb 17, 2019 7:56 am

Look folks, I'm done with this thread. This utter liar continues to basically just make things up as he goes.

Let's review:

I began with this point on January 17th:

Yes and remind us all how Tischendorf could have colored this manuscript (as Simonides the Lying Forger alleged) between 1850 and 1852?

What kind of response did this lab specimen provide?

The colouring of the Sinaiticus manuscript was accomplished in the 1850s, after the 1844 heist had brought 86 pages to Leipzig.

You will note that despite his promise to answer my question, this liar has yet to answer this:

"How could Tischendorf have done this when Simonides VERY EXPLICITLY says he was it colored on Mt. Sinai in 1852?

This is a VERY SIMPLE question for anyone who is honest: Tischendorf COULDN'T have colored it. These are the words Steven Avery is too dishonest and cowardly to come right out and say because if he does admit it, his entire theory vanishes like a fart in the wind (and just as smelly).

Rather than admit this, we got this level of disingenuous nonsense:
Steven Avery wrote:
Fri Jan 18, 2019 11:23 am
You do not seem to understand one very basic point.

If Simonides fudged or lied about some details, and said what was convenient, that does not change the basic fact that he was part of the creation of the manuscript.
See folks - according to this self-proclaimed "researcher," Simonides might well have had NO IDEA when he was on Sinai but we should still believe his claim - that he saw the entire manuscript (apparently those missing pages in Leipzig had reattached themselves on Sinai) and someone had artificially colored it to make it look older.

Does this even sound logical to a third grader? "I don't know WHEN I was on Sinai, but I know I saw this...."

Since this doesn't fit Avery's LYING ACCUSATION against Tischendorf, he simply decides Simonides is telling the truth about everything here except the date.


A reminder there is no wiggle room even for this hack:
The exact time span would be 1850 to 1859, and it was done by Tischendorf and/or people working with him, maybe at one time, maybe in spurts.

So he has made this lying accusation against a professing believer WITHOUT EVIDENCE and CONTRARY TO HIS OWN EVIDENCE.

Keep in this in mind when evaluating anything else he says. He will tell lies to support his lies.


Simonides said he saw the entire manuscript colored on Mt Sinai in 1852.

He couldn't have seen the entire manuscript (because the CFA was gone).
He couldn't have seen it on Sinai because no evidence exists he was there.
He couldn't have seen it in 1852 because his 1859 biography not only doesn't mention this (a glaring omission if true), it is too detailed to leave time for a trip to Sinai.

And finally, he couldn't have seen it because it was never colored. But the fact he lied about everything else associated with this would give intelligent persons pause. We are not dealing with an honest or intelligent person in the form of Steven Avery, we are dealing with a hateful and lying conspiracy theorist who is comfortable telling lies.

Maestroh
Posts: 138
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by Maestroh » Sat Apr 13, 2019 7:13 am

bump

Steven Avery
Posts: 578
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

"plenty of scholars ... had seen both parts of the manuscript"

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Aug 29, 2019 2:20 pm

Bill Brown wrote:
Sun Jan 20, 2019 7:04 am

even though you had plenty of scholars for years who:
a) had seen both parts of the manuscript (it's not as difficult as you wish to pretend)
b) knew the tales of Simonides

.....it never dawned on a single person, "Wow, these look like two different manuscripts!!"
Good question.

However, please indicate who these "plenty of scholars" are, before the 2009 Codex Sinaiticus Project.

Clearly, those are commissioned or employed by the libraries have a certain vested interest not to rock the boat.
Job security can be a bit touchy if you talk about a "priceless" manuscript being an 1800s con.

So, before 2009, who are the "plenty of scholars"?

Or, would you like to simply retract that as a false claim made without careful thinking.

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

You are welcome to give the list after 2009 as well.

As to whether they "knew the tales of Simonides", we can go into that separately.
Sort of a circular fallacy method of summarizing all the historical and manuscript elements.

Thanks!

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

Post Reply