An Introduction to David Trobisch

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Secret Alias
Posts: 10724
Joined: Sun Apr 19, 2015 8:47 am

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by Secret Alias » Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:00 am

Also David Trobisch had not really considered any possibility of Sinaiticus being a modern production, and had basically passed on that question, when asked by Stephan.
This is a complete misrepresentation. We were talking about the MS and he simply noted that the date given by most scholars is the earliest date possible. It could even theoretically be from the seventh century. But to say that he passed on the question of it being a modern composition isn't accurate. We didn't talk about getting married and living together either so that doesn't mean he "passed" on that question because it didn't come up. Ridiculous
“Finally, from so little sleeping and so much reading, his brain dried up and he went completely out of his mind.”
― Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra, Don Quixote

Maestroh
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: David Trobisch and Codex Sinaiticus

Post by Maestroh » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:16 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:08 am
Stephan Huller brought up Sinaiticus questions to David Trobisch earlier. Apparently David is skeptical about the usually accepted fourth century date, thinking it was a century or two later.
This is known as the "people say" or hearsay argument, and it wouldn't have been brought up by any intelligent human.

I could just as easily say, "David Trobisch has assured me privately that he holds Sinaiticus is a THIRD century production" and it would have the exact same evidential level you're providing here.
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:08 am
(In the 1800s this was a common position.)
Yes before people actually EXAMINED it.

Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:08 am
Yet afaik had never put that into any public writings. Maybe he could go on the record? And give any reasons, conjectures or thoughts. That would be really neat.
Since you would dismiss him otherwise, what does it matter? Basically, you're demonstrating your insecurities here. "Hey, it would be real neat if a scholar out there would support me!"
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:08 am
Or is any questioning too problematic for scholars involved in the literature that is largely connected to the British Library and their access? Hmm.... ;)
You're a conspiracy theorist, period.
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:08 am
The article itself (not online) from David is good, while a bit milquetoast, it has small parts on nomina sacra, book order and such.
This is Trump-level analysis right here, I tell ya.
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:08 am
Also David Trobisch had not really considered any possibility of Sinaiticus being a modern production, and had basically passed on that question, when asked by Stephan.
Again, you have no proof this ever happened except the word of someone who for all we know might have been lying or on drugs. And even if he's telling the truth, so what? All this would mean is Trobisch is as dumb as some KJV Onlyists who post their ignorance online.
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:08 am
Now, with the physical condition of the manuscript being available ( http://www.sinaiticus.net ) in new ways like composite pictures, and it being easy to see that the St. Petersburg pages were coloured by 1859-1862 (while the earlier heist, the 1844 Leipzig pages, remained "snow-white" parchment, both are "exceptional" in condition) .. maybe he would revisit this question?
It should be noted all this shows is that Steven Avery has a VERY active imagination. I mean, isn't it amazing that nobody who has ever actually SEEN the MS (Avery hasn't, he's only seen what someone told him is the MS online since he can't even read it for himself) holds this position?

Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:08 am
"White sheep or calves and goats will tend to produce white parchment, whereas animals with darker coats will produce parchment showing shadowy brown patterns. ... The colour of parchment varies with animal type, making process and condition or state of decline. New parchment can be near white but as it ages or is exposed to detrimental factors it will start to yellow and go brown-black if left to degrade completely. The colour change can also be influenced by the type of degradation and degree of gelatinization. (see fig. 14)"

Parchment Assessment of the Codex Sinaiticus Gavin Moorhead - May 2009
http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/project/c ... hment.aspx
It should be noted that our conspiracy theorist doesn't bother to mention that Moorhead has no problem whatsoever seeing this as a fourth century document. And given how many times in the last two decades online Avery has pretended people were saying things they weren't, take it with a grain of salt or better yet a heavy dose of magnesium sulfate.
Steven Avery wrote:
Sat Apr 02, 2016 5:08 am
After 1650 supposed years, with 1,000 years of conjectured heavy use in multiple locations, the 1844 Leipzig Germany "CFA" Codex Friderico-Augustanus pages are still nice and white.

When will they ever turn?
When will they ever learn?
You really are just plain dumb about this.

Were Daddy's standards too high for you to attain?

Maestroh
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by Maestroh » Sat Jan 12, 2019 3:17 am

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:00 am
Also David Trobisch had not really considered any possibility of Sinaiticus being a modern production, and had basically passed on that question, when asked by Stephan.
This is a complete misrepresentation. We were talking about the MS and he simply noted that the date given by most scholars is the earliest date possible. It could even theoretically be from the seventh century. But to say that he passed on the question of it being a modern composition isn't accurate. We didn't talk about getting married and living together either so that doesn't mean he "passed" on that question because it didn't come up. Ridiculous
This guy would lie about his own name.

Come to think of it, he does.

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

David Trobisch and the consideration of Sinaticus as 1800s

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:30 pm

Secret Alias wrote:
Thu Oct 25, 2018 8:00 am
Also David Trobisch had not really considered any possibility of Sinaiticus being a modern production, and had basically passed on that question, when asked by Stephan.
This is a complete misrepresentation. We were talking about the MS and he simply noted that the date given by most scholars is the earliest date possible. It could even theoretically be from the seventh century. But to say that he passed on the question of it being a modern composition isn't accurate. We didn't talk about getting married and living together either so that doesn't mean he "passed" on that question because it didn't come up. Ridiculous
Here is some of the earleir discussion.
(This was actually when I was mostly curious, not knowing the massive evidence that Sianiticus is 1800s.)

Notice that you actually started this thread:
Page 5 seemed to indicate that you would include the forgery question to David.

Your points and questions were very astute.
All quotes from Stephen Huller.
Is Codex Sinaiticus a Forgery After All?
http://bcharchive.org/2/thearchives/sho ... l?t=308716

p. 1
The fragments might prove that the document is genuine. Why not put the standards that everyone else seems to use for questionable documents? Why don't test the ink and determine conclusive proof for the dating? I don't know that Sinaiticus is a forgery and I was not aware of this information. It is useful. Thank you

p. 2
My only observation is that if there was ever a need for some sort of forensic testing of a document - this is it. Yes, Simonides confessed to the 'forgery' (if it was one) but only after being exposed as forger. The association between Tisch and Simonides is particularly compelling. Much more compelling than other forgery arguments

p. 3
What about Tischendorf as the forger or at least the ringleader?

It just seems to me to be utterly incredible that Tischendorf is allowed to see Vaticanus for the first time since it was reacquired by the Vatican and then a few months later stumbles upon the papers at Sinai which ultimately lead him to another one of a kind codex with many shared features with Vaticanus

p. 4
The interesting thing then is that this is becomes one of the most incredible examples of synchronicity I have ever witnessed Sinaiticus is certainly a poor copy of Vaticanus on many respects. A man, Tischendorf, is allowed to see Vaticanus previously hidden from the view of outsiders and then a year later uncovers an ancient copy previously unseen in the Monastery of St Catherines in Sinai. This alone is a much more incredible coincidence than Morton Smith having published a review of a study of the Gospel of Mark and then discovering a letter which makes reference to a previously unknown Alexandrian version of Mark. Perhaps stranger things have happened in the history of the world, but you'd think this alone would convince someone to at least test the ink. The voices which claim to Theodore is a fake demand this with a far less amazing set of coincidences

p.5
I managed to get David Trobisch on the phone at his SBL session. He told me he would answer any questions about Sinaiticus in one hour (he was a keynote speaker at the recent Sinaiticus Conference in London). Any questions from the group?

I am sure he is not agreeable to the forgery hypothesis but he might be able to shed light on some points raised by Andrew and others. There is an interesting story here. I am seeing David for a week in April when I am going to be in Branson.

perseusomega9
Posts: 504
Joined: Tue Feb 04, 2014 7:19 am
Contact:

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by perseusomega9 » Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:38 pm

Gotta admit, the most I've gleaned from Avery's KJVonlyism, is that we shouldn't buy Tischendorf's story about paper kindling. Other than that the story sounds like a guy who bought a vintage 1977 Star Wars action figure at a garage sale and came back to buy the rest only to find his earlier enthusiasm tipped off the owner to the value of the rest of the collection.

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by Steven Avery » Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:43 pm

The enthusiasm idea is actually floated by the Sinaiticus defenders as the reason the monks at Sinai reconstituted the whole ms. after the 86 pages were taken by Tischendorf in 1844. Even propossing a rebinding.

They rather absurd idea was fabricated to reconcile the 1844 theft of supposedly loose sheets with the Uspensky examinatino in 1845.

However, it is far more sensible that Tischendorf simply took five quires and part of a sixth in 1844, from the same intact manuscript, likely a codex, seen by Uspensky the next year.

Over the years, none of the Sinaiticus scholars informed their readers that what Tischendorf took in 1844 would actually include the materials from five intact quires.

Maestroh
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: An Introduction to David Trobisch

Post by Maestroh » Thu Jan 17, 2019 6:22 pm

Steven Avery wrote:
Mon Jan 14, 2019 7:43 pm
The enthusiasm idea is actually floated by the Sinaiticus defenders as the reason the monks at Sinai reconstituted the whole ms. after the 86 pages were taken by Tischendorf in 1844. Even propossing a rebinding.

They rather absurd idea was fabricated to reconcile the 1844 theft of supposedly loose sheets with the Uspensky examinatino in 1845.

However, it is far more sensible that Tischendorf simply took five quires and part of a sixth in 1844, from the same intact manuscript, likely a codex, seen by Uspensky the next year.

Over the years, none of the Sinaiticus scholars informed their readers that what Tischendorf took in 1844 would actually include the materials from five intact quires.
Yes and remind us all how Tischendorf could have colored this manuscript (as Simonides the Lying Forger allged) between 1850 and 1852?


Oh that's right, he couldn't have......which blows your nonsense to smithereens.

The only difference between you and Trump is that he is President.

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the timing of the colouring of Sinaiticus to give the appearance of age

Post by Steven Avery » Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:52 pm

Let's see if I can find the post where I answered this question before.

However, you can help with the exact quotes that you feel create a contradiction, and then I will respond.
You could even put it on its own thread (or use one of the previous Sinaiticus threads.)

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

This can be seen clearly by looking at the pages on the Codex Sinaiticus Project, and matches what was specifically accused at the time by Simonides and Kallinikos.

Maestroh
Posts: 94
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:03 am

Re: the timing of the colouring of Sinaiticus to give the appearance of age

Post by Maestroh » Fri Jan 18, 2019 2:52 am

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:52 pm
Let's see if I can find the post where I answered this question before.
You mean where you just speculated that Simonides must be "fudging" (which is another word for....lying)???

The fact is you've had years to explain this timeline discrepancy, but you cannot do so because the facts don't fit your conspiracy theory.

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:52 pm
However, you can help with the exact quotes that you feel create a contradiction, and then I will respond.
You mean like you haven't responded for years now???

I'm not doing your work, particularly when you KNOW what's being said here and you're pulling your usual stuff.

This is your little "old man with one foot in the grave" game, and I'm not playing.


Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:52 pm
You could even put it on its own thread (or use one of the previous Sinaiticus threads.)
You mean like I did calling out your lie about Bruce Metzger on Fickermann and you never responded? I'll pass on this juvenile tactic of yours.
Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:52 pm
The colouring of the Sinaiticus manuscript was accomplished in the 1850s, after the 1844 heist had brought 86 pages to Leipzig.
This is an intentionally worded fraud on the part of a conspiracy theorist.

For starters, nobody who has ever seen the MS (and YOU have not let me remind the readers) agrees with your non-expert assessment.

And Simonides very explicitly claimed he saw it in 1852, which narrows the date to between 1850 and 1852.

(If he didn't see it in 1852 - and he didn't - the entire story falls apart).

Tischendorf saw part in 1844 and 1859 (and he was there in 1853)......so........now we have a widespread conspiracy that only the gullible believe.....

Steven Avery wrote:
Thu Jan 17, 2019 11:52 pm
This can be seen clearly by looking at the pages on the Codex Sinaiticus Project, and matches what was specifically accused at the time by Simonides and Kallinikos.
"When I'm afraid to answer your question for fear it will make me look like the fool I am, let me go back to the security blanket of redundancy and try to paint a fraudulent picture."


Your timeline doesn't work.


YOU KNOW your timeline doesn't work, but like Mike Warnke or OJ Simpson (both disgusting frauds), you PRETEND everything fits together just fine.

You can either grow up and simply answer questions straightforward, or you can continue to demonstrate how squirrely and unrealistic your position is. I'll leave that choice up to you, but you've already made the latter for years now, and I expect no different.

Steven Avery
Posts: 500
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

the textual community was played

Post by Steven Avery » 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.

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.

This is Logic 101.

Tisch also hid the amazing condition of the ms. 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.

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

On this thread you never demonstrated any problem, and I answered this before. Not one quote.
Ask a real question, I will answer. Support it with the specific quotes.

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.

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

The Spyridon Lampros catalog showing Simonides working on a specific ms in Athos with Kallinikos in 1841 is a key and amazing evidence, properly noted by Farrer, and worth very careful examination. 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.

If the ms. were truly ancient, like Alexandrinus or Bezae, the claims of Simonides would have been immediately busted. (Similarly, if they actually produced the supposed ancient catalog.) 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.

So I believe the reasons the materials testing planned for 2015 were cancelled is rather obvious. 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.)

Nobody even checked the colouring, even though it was clearly stated by Kallinikos and Simonides.
We just found out about that after 2009.

Nobody even checked the Zosimas Moscow Bible, and how it fit as one major source for Sinaiticus.

The textual community was played.

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

As for the timeline:

Try to understand the basic logic issues.
Thanks!

Steven

Post Reply