Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides and Arabic Notes

TwoNoteableCorruptions

Well-known member
Sinaiticus and Simonides
By James Snapp Jr.
Part Two
Ten Reasons Why Sinaiticus Was Not Made By Simonides
Page 7, Reason 4


"Codex Sinaiticus Has Arabic Notes. As David Parker observes in his book on Codex Sinaiticus, Arabic notes appear in Codex Sinaiticus at Isaiah 1:10, and at Zechariah 14:8, and in parts of Revelation. The scenario described by Simonides provides no motive for the creation of this feature (nor is there evidence that Simonides knew Arabic when he was 19 or 20 years old.) One of the Arabic notes, as David Parker has pointed out, probably refers to the approach of seven thousand years of earth's existence, as calculated via the Byzantine Anno Mundi calendar, which reckoned that the universe was created in 5,509 B.C. The completion of 7,000 years was thus expected to come in the late 1400's, and the fall of Constantinople in 1453 probably caused the Arabic-writing annotator to interpret part of Revelation chapter 8 (by which the note appears in the margin) as a prophecy about Islamic conquests, the star in 8:10 being called, in the note, a star of the Arabs, after which he expected persecution to begin. If Codex Sinaiticus was extant in the second half of the 1400's, as the existence of this note implies,
then it cannot be the work of Simonides in the 1800's.

https://www.academia.edu/32044905/Sinaiticus_and_Simonides
 
"Codex Sinaiticus Has Arabic Notes. … One of the Arabic notes … probably refers to the approach of seven … probably caused the Arabic-writing annotator to interpret part of Revelation … If Codex Sinaiticus was extant in the second half of the 1400's, as the existence of this note implies,

All of a sudden we have notes 700 years later than standard Sinaiticus “science”?

Lots of conditional conjectures. :)

What is the terminus ante quem of the note?

Did Uspensky mention any Arabic notes?
If not, the terminus ante quem moves forward to 1859.

“very recent” - Tregelles and Gosche.
 
Last edited:
All of a sudden we have notes 700 years later than standard Sinaiticus “science”?

Lots of conditional conjectures. :)

What is the terminus ante quem of the note?

Did Uspensky mention any Arabic notes?
If not, the terminus ante quem moves forward to 1859.

“very recent” - Tregelles and Gosche.

Have you read everything...I mean EVERYTHING Uspensky wrote?

No. You haven't.

So your point is nothing more than a conditional conjecture...
 
Your aversion to the sensible approach of simply comparing the hundreds and hundreds of Arabic manuscripts at St Catherine's with the Arabic notes, from a manuscript from (guess where) St Catherine's, is extremely revealing...

The probability of the same Arabic writer writing something else at St Catherine's is infinitely higher than your mere dismissal of a common sense comparison, and a million times higher than your implausible and improbable conspiracy theory...
 
All of a sudden we have notes 700 years later than standard Sinaiticus “science”?

Lots of conditional conjectures. :)

What is the terminus ante quem of the note?

Did Uspensky mention any Arabic notes?
If not, the terminus ante quem moves forward to 1859.

“very recent” - Tregelles and Gosche.


Where did Simonides and/or Kallinikos specifically say/write he wrote Arabic notes in his Bible gift for the Tsar?

Or...where does Simonides and/or Kallinikos specifically say/write that someone else wrote the specific Arabic notes in question in his Bible gift for the Tsar?
 
You do not understand that a script can be used centuries later?

Anyway, if you have your claim of one of the Arabic notes matching a manuscript, why not be specific as to which corrector and what manuscript.

Na.

Laughable.

A simple comparison of the Arabic handwriting of the notes in Codex Sinaiticus from St Catherine's, Mt Sinai, with other Arabic manuscripts (well over 500 of them, several dated) from St Catherine's, Mt Sinai, to simply see if any of the handwriting of the copyist's handwriting from these Arabic manuscripts matches the Sinaiticus notes, should be the first port of call.

Have you done it Mr Avery? To eliminate that possibility?

It's simple, straightforward, and logical.
 
A simple comparison of the Arabic handwriting of the notes in Codex Sinaiticus from St Catherine's, Mt Sinai, with other Arabic manuscripts (well over 500 of them, several dated) from St Catherine's, Mt Sinai, to simply see if any of the handwriting of the copyist's handwriting from these Arabic manuscripts matches the Sinaiticus notes, should be the first port of call.
Have you done it Mr Avery? To eliminate that possibility?
It's simple, straightforward, and logical.

My checking has not seen any matches of note.

It would be interesting to check corrections.

If you feel you have something interesting, you should simply share the ms.
 
Where did Simonides and/or Kallinikos specifically say/write he wrote Arabic notes in his Bible gift for the Tsar?
Or...where does Simonides and/or Kallinikos specifically say/write that someone else wrote the specific Arabic notes in question in his Bible gift for the Tsar?

Nowhere. Why?
It is unclear if they even knew of the notes.

Afaik, they are not even mentioned by anybody until around 1860, so that is the operative terminus ante quem.
 
Back
Top