Search results

  1. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    Outside of those who accepted the Mt. Athos production, the most significant late dater was the Russian polymath scientist Nikolai Alexandrovich Morozov (1854-1946). Morozov actually saw at least the Russian portion, rare before 2009. And I conjecture that his evaluation affected the sloppy...
  2. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    Uspensky, Hilgenfeld, Madden (if the CFA is later, then Sinaiticus is later) and Donaldson were among those who rejected the 4th century date in the 1860s. Benjamin Harris Cowper showed some of the problems with the early date. Tischendorf similarly had a few defenders of his early date...
  3. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides and Arabic Notes

    Uspensky gave all sorts of information about the manuscript before 1859.
  4. Steven Avery

    The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

    There is a good stash in Australia. https://www.worldcat.org/title/letters/oclc/224729292 Australia, Melbourne, State Library of Victoria (includes the Stewart Biographical Memoir) Henry Deane, John Eliot Hodgkin, Charles Stewart State Library Victoria https://www.slv.vic.gov.au/ Letters...
  5. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    In 1860 The Literary Churchman had a continuation of the discussion, with an interesting note: The Literary Churchman: A Critical Record of Religious Publications, Volume 6 (1860) Professor Tischendorf and the New MS. https://books.google.com/books?id=0s4FAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA14 Many scholars...
  6. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    In his first writing after officially seeing Sinaiticus, even in early 1859. Tischendorf was already running away from his linguistic arguments. See the 1860 Notitia footnote here (Cahira I can not explain) which points back to an earlier German writing. Notitia editionis codicis Bibliorum...
  7. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    This is a discussion of one variant, where Tischendorf asserts ambiguity. The authenticity discussions are elsewhere in the edition. Here is the Maximus discussion from Tischendorf in that 1863 edition. Patrum apostolicorum opera: textum ad fidem codicum et graecorum et latinorum, ineditorum...
  8. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    However , Spyridon Lampros is saying the three original leaves (which sound like 1-2-3 of 10) were used in Anger-Dindorf, as distinct from the apographon. You are trying to make the case that the original Greek leaves brought to Germany were not 1-2-3. Fair enough. Can you show that in the...
  9. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    And yet, here is what the Hermas-Athos expert, Spyridon Lampros, wrote: A Collation of the Athos Codex of the Shepherd of Hermas (1888) Spyridōn Paulou Lampros https://books.google.com/books?id=b2daAAAAcAAJ&pg=PR7 So you have to be careful! :)
  10. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    You do realize, I hope, that this Greek edition has "great tribulation", and not "say to Maximus". Is this your position as to the correct text? Pastor graece: Quae textum graecum continet. Par prior, Volume 1 (1856) https://books.google.com/books?id=y4f9ENLqmX0C&pg=PA9
  11. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    In Memnon, there are various texts that are either Hermas, or auxiliary texts related to Hermas, some in Greek and some in Latin. How have you made your determination of what is fake? Thanks!
  12. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    The corrupt text is what Tischendorf emphasizes (and this applies to Sinaiticus as well.) So your explanation is not at all logical. Whether this is Jallabert, or you, or both.
  13. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    So since the Sinaiticus section is essentially that of the Codex Athous, it had to be Latin into Greek. 1938 - Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus, Milne and Skeat "The text of the Codex Athous as printed by Lake has been used in this conjectural restoration, a text from which the...
  14. Steven Avery

    The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

    Nonsense. Waste of time.
  15. Steven Avery

    The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

    Burgon and many others showed the abject corruption of Vaticanus and the absurdity of Hort’s textual nonsense. So, other than “obsessed”, I will receive your compliment.
  16. Steven Avery

    The False Claims of Constantine Simonides Regarding Sinaiticus

    Why would a wily Greek who helped make one of the worst manuscripts ever be a “leader”? Contra nonsense absurdity.
  17. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    As for Jallabert, you spin around, still with confusion on the fundamental issues. To help you, Jallabert does mention the Maximus basic fact, one you pretend to not understand: “the word maxima which would have been later taken for rnaximo and inserted into the text in Greek characters.” The...
  18. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    The context was precisely linguistic arguments that show Athous and Sinaiticus as much later than 4th century.
  19. Steven Avery

    Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides timeline

    Agreeing with Hort that it “proves too much”.
Top