Codex Sinaiticus and Constantine Simonides and Arabic Notes

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?
 
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?
 
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Some Unpublished Letters of S. P. Tregelles Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus,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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

Are you concerned that most of the debate about the date and authenticity of Sinaiticus (e.g. Scrivener's book) was based on the same limited source?
 
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.

This is your false claim.

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You just have: Some Unpublished Letters of S. P. Tregelles Relating to the Codex Sinaiticus, Evangelical Quarterly, 1976 Timothy C. F. Stunt, p. 20

Here is a section from the publication, I got it years back, I may be able to access it from a Dropbox, but meanwhile I did copy lots of text for my fair use.

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

Tregelles

I do not think that Tischendorf is always right in his judgement about the different hands that have made the correction: he is guided I think too exclusively by the color [sic] of the ink.!3 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.

I suspect that Tischendorf has been made (whether he knows it or not) a political agent of Russia in the matter of the MS: and that this new born zeal of Russia for the interests of Biblical criticism is only a scheme for commencing a naval establishment in the Red Sea. For the price which the Russian Government is to give the Monks of Mt Sinai is a Steam Packet. (What an odd idea in connection with Mount Sinai); and this steamer is to convey the provisions of the monastery (and also apparently the pilgrims) from Suez or other places to the nearest port to Mt Sinai: all this is to be a Russian establishment; and thus Russia is to take possession of part of the Arabian coast thro' the purchase of a MS of the N. Test. This is a curious complication: to me it is sufficiently singular that this (in some respects) unequalled copy of the N. Test. has been preserved for us and should come to us from the place where God once gave the Law. The second of these two letters is of particular interest as it sheds some light on the vexed issue of the price paid for the Sinai Codex. Tischendorf has been accused of stealing the MS from Sinai, of acquiring it from the monks on false pretences, and of generally deceiving those concerned.

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

Just to be clear that the accusation of an 1859 deception loan-theft was not just from Kallinikos in the 1860s.
 
Here is a section from the publication, I got it years back, I may be able to access it from a Dropbox, but meanwhile I did copy lots of text for my fair use.

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

Tregelles

I do not think that Tischendorf is always right in his judgement about the different hands that have made the correction: he is guided I think too exclusively by the color [sic] of the ink.!3 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.

I suspect that Tischendorf has been made (whether he knows it or not) a political agent of Russia in the matter of the MS: and that this new born zeal of Russia for the interests of Biblical criticism is only a scheme for commencing a naval establishment in the Red Sea. For the price which the Russian Government is to give the Monks of Mt Sinai is a Steam Packet. (What an odd idea in connection with Mount Sinai); and this steamer is to convey the provisions of the monastery (and also apparently the pilgrims) from Suez or other places to the nearest port to Mt Sinai: all this is to be a Russian establishment; and thus Russia is to take possession of part of the Arabian coast thro' the purchase of a MS of the N. Test. This is a curious complication: to me it is sufficiently singular that this (in some respects) unequalled copy of the N. Test. has been preserved for us and should come to us from the place where God once gave the Law. The second of these two letters is of particular interest as it sheds some light on the vexed issue of the price paid for the Sinai Codex. Tischendorf has been accused of stealing the MS from Sinai, of acquiring it from the monks on false pretences, and of generally deceiving those concerned.

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

Just to be clear that the accusation of an 1859 deception loan-theft was not just from Kallinikos in the 1860s.


Tregelles knowledge of Arabic manuscripts was limited back in the 1840's-1860's compared to what is available now.

And Hunt's article was in 1976, before the New Finds (or "New Collection") Arabic manuscripts (80 newly discovered manuscripts in the "New Collection") ) etc had been announced to the world, not including the 600 manuscripts in that are now known to be in the "Old Collextion".

Your out of your depth on the Arabic. You don't have a clue. Your just stabbing and yelling in the dark.


Cap 1.PNG
 
Your out of your depth on the Arabic. You don't have a clue. Your just stabbing and yelling in the dark.

What a stupid thing to say. You always try to be insulting, in ignorance.

As I simply point out that there is no real modern scholarship on the Arabic notes.
And I point out the historical comments, like "very recent".

And my page is the only resource that makes all the Arabic texts available to study in one spot.
And I point out the page to Arabic scholars, asking for their feedback.

Do you have anything constructive to offer on the Arabic notes?

And Hunt's article was in 1976, before the New Finds (or "New Collection") Arabic manuscripts (80 newly discovered manuscripts in the "New Collection") ) etc had been announced to the world, not including the 600 manuscripts in that are now known to be in the "Old Collextion".

One wonders if there are notes on those manuscripts that can be compared to those on Sinaiticus.
 
As I simply point out that there is no real modern scholarship on the Arabic notes.

From someone who can't read Arabic to start with, and doesn't study Arabic (either the language or the grammar or paleography), and doesn't even get off his backside to compare the other Arabic manuscripts at and/or from St Catherine's to check for the same handwriting (I.e. if the same scribe wrote something else at St Catherine's)...

Well...

That's all that needs to be said for someone reading this thread. 😉
 
This is your false claim.

Ah, you're back to false allegations.

You're playing the old "I'm gonna pretend here" nonsense.

What's funny is this: if I made all the false claims YOU CLAIM I make....you wouldn't be scared to stand toe-to-toe in a debate with me as you most undeniably are.

So I will put this in File 13 with the rest of your posts.


But I'll remind you of this: you keep wanting to say Simonides wouldn't have done something because it would be so easy for someone to just produce the catalogue. Yet you're the EXACT SAME PERSON who asserts things about the Greek langauge, gets caught, and then pretends it never happened.

So why wouldn't you think he would do the exact same thing you do constantly?
 
Back
Top