Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides and Arabic Notes

[Maestroh]

Nowhere. Why?

Because:
1) the Kallinikos name signed to the letters was done by Simonides and as such in that instance they are one and the same
2) Simonides didn't have jack squat to do with Sinaiticus AT ALL

It is unclear if they even knew of the notes.

Not surprising given Simonides didn't know anything at all about the manuscript other than what Tischendorf had said.

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

So are you going to be consistent and go with, "Since nobody said anything about it, it therefore must not have existed" - and presumably tell the rest of us that Tischendorf "likely" put them there? I mean, you're so unfair with him otherwise with your allegations, what's one more?

Or will you for once use your brain and say, "just because something isn't mentioned doesn't mean it didn't exist"?

You can continue to avoid posts where you've been exposed as hiding information yourself, but we have no obligation to simply let your sleazy tactics pass by the wayside.

What are you hoping? That in a few days this will all go away?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

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

In the context, it could appear to be more logical, that the Arabic text that Tregelles speaks of as "very recent" could point to Simonides, seeing, he, and you, claim his writing is the most recent text to be written in the Sinaiticus (i.e. in 1840)...is it not?

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Not surprising given Simonides didn't know anything at all about the manuscript other than what Tischendorf had said.

Exactly.

 

[Maestroh]

Exactly.

His entire claim - that Simonides had "impossible knowledge" - is a hyperbolic exaggeration (to be charitable) or a bald-faced lie (speaking bluntly).

Simonides - as Snapp pointed out in their debate (never refuted by Avery) - did not know ONE SINGLE THING about Sinaiticus that wasn't already known by the time he told his tale in 1862.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Richard Gosche (1824-1889)
https://www-catalogus--professorum-...tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc
https://de-m-wikipedia-org.translat...tr_sl=de&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=sc

"Here and there a later hand has written Arabic notes in the margin, and these Tischendorf imagines are from the same hand that has made some corrections (apparently) in the eighth century: if so this would be an uncommonly ancient piece of Arabic writing: I showed the lithographed facsimile of the page to Dr. Goesche of the Royal Library, Berlin; and he tells me, (what I strongly suspected before) that the Arabic is very recent, also that it is by the hand of some Syrian, being (as I before knew) a liturgical note."

Some Unpublished Letters of S. P. Tregelles Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus,
Evangelical Quarterly, 1976 Timothy C. F. Stunt, p. 20

There's simply not enough context here (as usual) to get the full overview of what's being said.

There's no preview available at the Google link.

https://www.google.co.nz/books/edition/The_Evangelical_Quarterly/0rQWAAAAMAAJ?hl=en

Your referencing is very vague (perhaps deliberately so?).

It's also technically inaccurate.

You don't tell anyone that the full article reference is Volume 48, January-March, 1976, Pages 15-26, for a start.

You just have: Some Unpublished Letters of S. P. Tregelles Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus, Evangelical Quarterly, 1976 Timothy C. F. Stunt, p. 20

Anyway, we'll track it (the full context that is) down eventually, and then we'll revisit my question to you about contextomy.

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

Note: "I showed the lithographed facsimile of the page to Dr. Goesche of the Royal Library, Berlin; and he tells me...very recent"

That means Goesche was basing his judgement upon a facsimile, not the original manuscript itself.

 

[Maestroh]

Note: "I showed the lithographed facsimile of the page to Dr. Goesche of the Royal Library, Berlin; and he tells me...very recent"

That means Goesche was basing his judgement upon a facsimile, not the original manuscript itself.

Hilarious.

“But it’s different when I do it!”

 

[Maestroh]

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.

Pretty hard to mention something off in a monastery until 1859 - but you knew that when you registered this objection even you knew was frivolous when you issued it.

 

[Steven Avery]

Pretty hard to mention something off in a monastery until 1859 - but you knew that when you registered this objection even you knew was frivolous when you issued it.

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

 

[TwoNoteableCorruptions]

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

But he didn't say straight out that it was a totally complete manuscript and everything was bound together with no quires, pages, folios, or leaves missing at all, did he.

Steven: oh not exactly...but kind of...if you look at it from this direction...he likely... probably... Ummm nearly did...

You put your spin on his words.

 

[Steven Avery]

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

The point here was simple.

Bill Brown was wrong in saying the Arabic notes could not have been mentioned before 1859.

 

[Maestroh]

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

He sure did.

What year did he assign to it?

 

[Maestroh]

The point here was simple.

Bill Brown was wrong in saying the Arabic notes could not have been mentioned before 1859.

I never said this at all.

Show me where I ever said, "the Arabic notes could not have been mentioned before 1859" or retract your false statement.

Yet another thing you would never have the balls to say with me in the room.