because the MS. in question (as the librarian of our holy monastery, having been so from the year 1841 to 1858, assured me) belonged to the library of the monastery, and was marked in its ancient catalogue(s).
So why didn’t they produce this supposed catalog(s),
Would have been an easy way to end the controversy.
Simonides would have been really dumb to make a claim of MT. Athos production, if they had not made the manuscript and its antiquity could be demonstrated so quickly and easily.
Simonides would have been really dumb to make a claim of MT. Athos production, if they had not made the manuscript and its antiquity could be demonstrated so quickly and easily.
No catalog ever existed...
Right?
retrospectively gather all kinds of information from all kinds of sources (oral and/or written) about St Catherine's manuscripts etc ...
See my earlier post.
There should have been a catalog from 1734, by Nicephorus Marthalis Glykos.
If he mentioned a ms. matching Sinaiticus, it would have been a spectacular verification of antiquity, or at least from way before the Russico Ramblers.
So is that how Simonides learned about the Tischendorf abstraction theft in 1844, from inside sources at St. Catherine's?
That catalogue was published in 1895 and 1900 by Spyridon Lambros and showed Simonides, Kallinikos and Benedict working on manuscripts. (Including two entries that have Simonides and Kallinikos working consecutively copying the same ms.)
I'm sure he has no clue how to even use that catalog.What are the Athos manuscript numbers in the Lampros catalog?
Then we can check Kallinikos' Athos handwriting with the handwriting in his letters to Simonide's then...
Right...
Would be interesting to compare young Simonide's Unicial handwriting from Athos with the Sinaiticus then...
Sound good... Avery?
While we're at it, we can also check Benedict's Athos Unicial (or cursive) script with the Sinaiticus...
Whataya think...
I'd love to do it ?
But of course you've already done that Steven? You've personally gone back to the manuscripts and original handwriting at the Athos manuscripts website?
You've made every effort to email Mt Athos for permission to view online images of Benedict's, Simonide's, and Kallinikos'be manuscript handwriting from the numbers in the Lampros catalog for comparison to the Codex Sinaiticus, haven't you? Correct?
And we're waiting for you to publish your findings (any day now) for the entire world to see...
Steven?... Steven?
1852...
So what's specifically wrong, Mr Avery, with Vitaliano's use of Italian "rotondo" in 1761 to describe the Greek majuscule in the Codex Sinaiticus and the Golden Evangelistary, or MS, Sin. Gr. 204 (Lectionary 300, Greg. numbering)?
How specifically is Vitaliano's use of the Italian (a foreign language to you Mr Avery who only speaks English) word "rotondo" paleographically incorrect for his time?
Where have you shown rotondo used for script that about a dozen writers call square?
You don't fool anyone by avoiding the specifics of the question.
Where have you shown rotondo used for script that about a dozen writers call square?
If rotondo is not commonly used for the boxy square script, you have what is “specifically wrong”.