TwoNoteableCorruptions
Well-known member
For most people, the simplest and most obvious answer is an Arab (or Arab's) wrote the Arabic notes seeing they (the Arab's) occupied the Mt Sinai area since the 7th centruy A.D. onwards...and protected the Monastery from the worst of Islamic persecution etc etc...
Therefore, isn't it simply more logical that, Arabs, wrote the Arabic notes...don't you think?
And it simply doesn't follow that the Arabic notes weren't there (as you theorize) in the Sinaiticus manuscript before 1850 because Uspensky isn't noticing them (i.e. noting them down).
Here's one that will split your noodle...
Have you compared the Arabic notes with all other Arabic manuscripts (there's over 500 hundred of them) from/at the St Catherine's manuscript collection?
Answer = no...
Comparing the Arabic handwriting in the Sinaiticus notes with the Arabic hands of other Arabic mss? To check to see if the same Arab Scribe (the same hand) wrote other Arabic mss in the library?
I mean, for most people, that would be the first port of call...not so Steven Avery...
Is your brain popping yet? Because your now going to have to become an expert in Arabic paleography...to prove the notes are not ancient...
The onus is on you Muhammad Al Avery...
Therefore, isn't it simply more logical that, Arabs, wrote the Arabic notes...don't you think?
As I pointed out earlier, if Uspensky is not even noticing the Arabic notes
And it simply doesn't follow that the Arabic notes weren't there (as you theorize) in the Sinaiticus manuscript before 1850 because Uspensky isn't noticing them (i.e. noting them down).
Dmitrievsky A.A. Scientific description of the Greek manuscripts of the Sinai Monastery: Review of Beneshevich's work // SIPPO. 1912. T. 23. Issue. 2. S. 205-213.
"The text of the descriptions, according to Prof. Beneshevich, he checked “first of all directly from the manuscripts, and then from the drafts of Bishop himself. Porfiry. Since it turned out that Porfiry did not always make extracts accurately and did not always read manuscripts successfully, his spelling had to be greatly corrected even when there was no authentic ancient text at hand for this ”(p. XXIII)."
Here's one that will split your noodle...
Have you compared the Arabic notes with all other Arabic manuscripts (there's over 500 hundred of them) from/at the St Catherine's manuscript collection?
Answer = no...
Comparing the Arabic handwriting in the Sinaiticus notes with the Arabic hands of other Arabic mss? To check to see if the same Arab Scribe (the same hand) wrote other Arabic mss in the library?
I mean, for most people, that would be the first port of call...not so Steven Avery...
Is your brain popping yet? Because your now going to have to become an expert in Arabic paleography...to prove the notes are not ancient...
The onus is on you Muhammad Al Avery...
Last edited: