Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

For most people, the simplest and most obvious answer is an Arab (or Arab's) wrote the Arabic notes seeing they (the Arab's) occupied the Mt Sinai area since the 7th centruy A.D. onwards...and protected the Monastery from the worst of Islamic persecution etc etc...

Therefore, isn't it simply more logical that, Arabs, wrote the Arabic notes...don't you think?

As I pointed out earlier, if Uspensky is not even noticing the Arabic notes

And it simply doesn't follow that the Arabic notes weren't there (as you theorize) in the Sinaiticus manuscript before 1850 because Uspensky isn't noticing them (i.e. noting them down).

Dmitrievsky A.A. Scientific description of the Greek manuscripts of the Sinai Monastery: Review of Beneshevich's work // SIPPO. 1912. T. 23. Issue. 2. S. 205-213.

"The text of the descriptions, according to Prof. Beneshevich, he checked “first of all directly from the manuscripts, and then from the drafts of Bishop himself. Porfiry. Since it turned out that Porfiry did not always make extracts accurately and did not always read manuscripts successfully, his spelling had to be greatly corrected even when there was no authentic ancient text at hand for this ”(p. XXIII)."

Here's one that will split your noodle...

Have you compared the Arabic notes with all other Arabic manuscripts (there's over 500 hundred of them) from/at the St Catherine's manuscript collection?

Answer = no...

Comparing the Arabic handwriting in the Sinaiticus notes with the Arabic hands of other Arabic mss? To check to see if the same Arab Scribe (the same hand) wrote other Arabic mss in the library?

I mean, for most people, that would be the first port of call...not so Steven Avery...

Is your brain popping yet? Because your now going to have to become an expert in Arabic paleography...to prove the notes are not ancient...

The onus is on you Muhammad Al Avery...
 
Last edited:
Nothing about 15th century at the latest. Did you just make that up?
As you suggest, two Arabic hands have been identified. One Parker says "cannot be dated," relating to inscriptions in Isaiah, although others such as Scrivener have dated this one quite early, even to the hand of Da, a corrector of Hermas and The Old Testament. The other hand pertains to inscriptions in Relevation and is dated to the 15th century.

The reason why Parker alludes to the 12th and 18th centuries is because of the independent dating in the 12th, by the superscriptions of "a monk named Dionysius, a signature by one Hilarion, and three by one Theophylact" (Scrivener FULL COLLATION OF THE CODEX SINAITICUS WITH THE RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - 1864); and in the 18th from the independent dating by the Italian traveller Vitaliano Donati, 1761.

Scrivener is probably wrong: the arabization of Christians in the Levant did not happen for several hundred years after the arab conquests, when the New Testament became first translated into Arabic. Not sure if there were any Arab speaking monks with the ability to read SInaiticus in the 19th century; such seems unlikely from Tischendorf's remarks as to their ignorance and from the matter that the Codex was being dismantled for the purposes of covering books in the 18th century. So I should think it is highly unlikely that any arabic comments were added to the Codex after the middle of the 18th century.
 
No scholar Avery has communicated with and/or cited on his forum, or here, dates Sinaiticus to the 19th century.

Not Uspensky.
Not Shenton.
Not Nongbri.
Not Jongkind.
Not Parker.
Not Elliott.
Not Myshrall.
Not McGrane.
Not Snapp.
Not Milne.
Not Skeat.

"But look what some of them say about the color!"

But what date do they give for Sinaiticus?


"But look what some of them say about Tischendorf! He lied!"

But what date do they give for Sinaiticus?

"But, but, but."

But what date does EVERY NON-KJVO SCHOLAR GIVE FOR SINAITICUS?

No amount of sleight of hand diversion is going to change the fact that no one is buying what your selling. And the scholars are definitely qualified to know if what you're selling is worth their money!
 
As you suggest, two Arabic hands have been identified. One Parker says "cannot be dated," relating to inscriptions in Isaiah, although others such as Scrivener have dated this one quite early, even to the hand of Da, a corrector of Hermas and The Old Testament. The other hand pertains to inscriptions in Relevation and is dated to the 15th century.

The reason why Parker alludes to the 12th and 18th centuries is because of the independent dating in the 12th, by the superscriptions of "a monk named Dionysius, a signature by one Hilarion, and three by one Theophylact" (Scrivener FULL COLLATION OF THE CODEX SINAITICUS WITH THE RECEIVED TEXT OF THE NEW TESTAMENT - 1864); and in the 18th from the independent dating by the Italian traveller Vitaliano Donati, 1761.

Scrivener is probably wrong: the arabization of Christians in the Levant did not happen for several hundred years after the arab conquests, when the New Testament became first translated into Arabic. Not sure if there were any Arab speaking monks with the ability to read SInaiticus in the 19th century; such seems unlikely from Tischendorf's remarks as to their ignorance and from the matter that the Codex was being dismantled for the purposes of covering books in the 18th century. So I should think it is highly unlikely that any arabic comments were added to the Codex after the middle of the 18th century.

Get ready for him to come back with “Simonides gave those as names of the people who helped him!”

That of course is a lie on multiple levels; Simonides mentioned names HE KNEW FROM WHAT HAD ALREADY BEEN SAID, which Insane Dolt, the world record holder in dashing from bad argument to bad argument, calls “impossible knowledge.”

There wasn’t a single thing Simonides “knew” that wasn’t already known. He just made it up as he went along.

Kinda like his modern disciples do.
 
If it wasn't Simonides, then who put the Arabic notes in the Sinaiticus "after 1850"?
It's your theory...own it...

The St. Catherine's Monastery has many Arabic speakers.

The notes were put on in either Athos, Constantinople or Sinai, Sinai the most likely. The lack of a Uspensky mention could still allow it to be 1840s, but 1850s seems more likely.
 
The St. Catherine's Monastery has many Arabic speakers.

The notes were put on in either Athos, Constantinople or Sinai, Sinai the most likely. The lack of a Uspensky mention could still allow it to be 1840s, but 1850s seems more likely.

🚨🚨🚨🚨 Alarm bells ringing...

One giant leap...going on here...

The normal procedure folks, is to provide evidence that proves conclusively that the note is definitely not ancient Arabic handwriting, and then, to eliminate all other possibilities before settling on a definite opinion...

Not so Mr Avery...

Steven Avery has not provided a comprehensive comparison of the Arabic notes in the Codex Sinaiticus with the hand writing in the literally hundreds of other ancient Arabic manuscripts that are (right now) in St Catherine's manuscript Library on Mt Sinai...

Which is the most obvious starting place...

Red flag 🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩 up, for all readers...
 
You provide no verifiable documented evidence for your unproven claim. Your "more likely" speculation remains a wild speculation.

Arabic as a major language at the monastery is common knowledge.
And there are a great many Arabic manuscripts.

Here is one article about how the Arabic speaking Bedouin are a major part of the monastery.

St. Catherine’s Monastery: Friendship between Christians and Muslims
posted on: Aug 23, 2021
https://www.arabamerica.com/st-catherines-monastery-friendship-between-christians-and-muslims/

EDIT IMAGE VIOLATION

Most notable about the monastery, however, is the relationship between it and the local bedouin tribes. The first accounts of bedouins inhabiting the area come from Eutyches, the ninth century Patriarch of Alexandria, who describes families brought from Alexandria and Anatolia to defend the mosque. While they have over time converted to Islam and began speaking Arabic, these tribes have continued to have reciprocal relations with the monastery.

The bedouin are responsible for taking care of the monastery in various ways. For example, in 1971, when a fire broke out in the monastery, the bedouins helped the monks put out the flames. The bedouin are also employed by the monastery to perform basic duties, such as cleaning. In return, the monastery provides the bedouins with medicine, food, and serves as a mediator when conflicts arise. One notable tradition between the two groups is the weekly breaking of bread with both the monks and the bedouins, with the bedouins receiving a larger share of bread than the monks. While both the monks and bedouins generally lived without much for many centuries, greater interest in the region by the Egyptian government has increased the living standards for bedouins in the area.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
The St. Catherine's Monastery has many Arabic speakers.

The notes were put on in either Athos, Constantinople or Sinai, Sinai the most likely. The lack of a Uspensky mention could still allow it to be 1840s, but 1850s seems more likely.

I mean, if my memory serves me rightly, there dated Arabic manuscripts in St Catherine's you can compare the handwriting with...

I mean, the first one I clicked on randomly looked almost identical to the Arabic notes in the Sinaiticus in Revelation...

I'd be tempted to almost guarantee that you have not attempted to compare any of the over 500 Arabic hand written manuscripts (specifically) at Mt Sinai prior to this post...

Yeah LOL... you're scrambling now...go go Google fighters..."FAB Tracy..."

I mean you get hit square between the eyes because of your gaping error in your research (and believe me, I haven't even started on this one)...and your posting generic garbage like above...

Red flag readers,🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚩🚨🚨🚨...this guy doesn't have a clue...

أتمنى لك يوماً عظيماً
 
Last edited:
Arabic as a major language at the monastery is common knowledge.
And there are a great many Arabic manuscripts.

Here is one article about how the Arabic speaking Bedouin are a major part of the monastery.

St. Catherine’s Monastery: Friendship between Christians and Muslims
posted on: Aug 23, 2021
https://www.arabamerica.com/st-catherines-monastery-friendship-between-christians-and-muslims/

St. Catherine’s Monastery: Friendship between Christians and Muslims



Most notable about the monastery, however, is the relationship between it and the local bedouin tribes. The first accounts of bedouins inhabiting the area come from Eutyches, the ninth century Patriarch of Alexandria, who describes families brought from Alexandria and Anatolia to defend the mosque. While they have over time converted to Islam and began speaking Arabic, these tribes have continued to have reciprocal relations with the monastery.

The bedouin are responsible for taking care of the monastery in various ways. For example, in 1971, when a fire broke out in the monastery, the bedouins helped the monks put out the flames. The bedouin are also employed by the monastery to perform basic duties, such as cleaning. In return, the monastery provides the bedouins with medicine, food, and serves as a mediator when conflicts arise. One notable tradition between the two groups is the weekly breaking of bread with both the monks and the bedouins, with the bedouins receiving a larger share of bread than the monks. While both the monks and bedouins generally lived without much for many centuries, greater interest in the region by the Egyptian government has increased the living standards for bedouins in the area.

So you think an Arab fire fighters wrote the Arabic notes in the Sinaiticus in 1971👉?👈

Or a Bedouin cleaner? A Bedouin bread maker?

I mean how irrelevant and inspecific can you get...

Your just stalling for time to get up to speed...
 
While we are discussing Arabic at St. Catherine's, here is a report of a Tischendorf removal of an Arabic manuscript.

Islamica - Journal of Islamic Studies (1943)
https://archive.org/details/volume-4/Volume 10/page/118/mode/2up

Kurt Weitzmann (1904-1993)

1672341174670.png


AN EARLY COPTO-ARABIC MINIATURE IN LENINGRAD
Kurt Weizzman

I
From his second voyage to the Orient in 1853, Constantin Tischendorf brought back seventy-five leaves of an early Arabic manuscript containing the epistles of Paul.1 He showed this fragment to the orientalist Fleischer in Leipzig, who, on palaeographical evidence, dated it in the eighth or ninth century.2 Then Delitzsch examined the fragment3 and, on the basis of several passages concerning the nature of Christ, proved the Nestorian character of the Pauline epistles. Tischendorf, shrouding his find in the same secrecy with which he had tried to hide the provenance of the famous codex Sinaiticus, did not tell where he acquired the seventy-five Arabic leaves. Delitzsch stated explicitly, however, that Tischendorf had brought them from a monastery in Egypt and, since it is known not only that the two theologians were in close personal contact with each other but that Delitzsch had seen the leaves in Tischendorf’s house, it may rightly be assumed that the latter had, at least to some extent, given away the secret, though he did not reveal the name of the Egyptian monastery.

On his third voyage in 1859, Tischendorf acquired the remainder of the same manuscript, that is, 151 more leaves.4 Both parts, then, were given to the Russian czar, who deposited them in the Public Library in Leningrad, where the combined 226 folios became united again in one
volume5 under the signature Arab. N. F. No. 327.

1 C. Tischendorf, Anecdota Sacra ct Profana (2d ed.; Leipzig, 1861), pp. 13-14, No. XVI.

2 H. L. Fleischer, “Beschreibung dcr von Prof. Tischendorf im Jahre 1853 aus dem Morgenlande zuriuckgebrachlen christlich-arabischen Handschriften,” Zeitschr.d. Dentsch. Morgenl. Gesellsch., VIII (1854), 584-85. On an additional plate he reproduced four text lines in facsimile.

3 F Delitzsch. Commentar zum Briefe an die Hebraer (Leipzig, 1857), pp. 764-69.

4 C. Tischendorf, Notitia editionis codicis bibliorum Sinaitici auspiciis Imperatoris Alexandri II susceptae (Leipzig, i860), p. 67.

5 The measurements are 27, 8 by 19, 8 cm.
 
Last edited:
I mean, if my memory serves me rightly, there dated Arabic manuscripts in St Catherine's you can compare the handwriting with...
I mean, the first one I clicked on randomly looked almost identical to the Arabic notes in the Sinaiticus in Revelation...

The key question would be the proposed terminus ante quem for any specific writing.
 
Steven Avery has not provided a comprehensive comparison of the Arabic notes in the Codex Sinaiticus with the hand writing in the literally hundreds of other ancient Arabic manuscripts that are (right now) in St Catherine's manuscript Library on Mt Sinai...

That is correct.

Nor have I looked at the Arabic writing styles of the 1800s. This would be critical for any claim that the Arabic notes are early. (Although there was one discussion about whether you the lack of dots would make it an ancient writing and the answer was no.)

And I have not seen a single scholarship article that attempts to give a solid epigraphic and palaeographic look at the Sinaiticus Arabic writing.

And we should also check the Arabic notes for the super-ink, black and solid and strong, and with no acid-ink deterioration. That should be included in any palaeographic study.
 
Last edited:
And I have not seen a single scholarship article that attempts to give a solid epigraphic and palaeographic look at the Sinaiticus Arabic writing.

That's simply because... drum roll 🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁🥁 you just invented your (Steven Avery specific) "after 1850" conspiracy theory...

So your considered both a competent and world-renound Arabic epigraphical and paleographical expert, so as to be able to date Codex Sinaiticus Arabic handwritten notes accurately?

Without having compared them yourself with a single Arabic manuscript from St Catherine's library?
 
Last edited:
The issue at Sinai wasn't the lack of Arabic speakers: it was the lack of anyone besides visiting scholars who could read the Sinaiticus Codex. And there would have been no motive for any scholars of any category (including Simonides) to add obscure arabic glosses to Isaiah.

Saying something "could have" been put in here or there is not an argument: such is a conspiracy theory, and obviously so.
 
The issue at Sinai wasn't the lack of Arabic speakers: it was the lack of anyone besides visiting scholars who could read the Sinaiticus Codex. And there would have been no motive for any scholars of any category (including Simonides) to add obscure arabic glosses to Isaiah.

Saying something "could have" been put in here or there is not an argument: such is a conspiracy theory, and obviously so.

And again - it’s an argument from silence fallacy. He’s so desperate for “evidence”, he imagines it.
 
Arabic as a major language at the monastery is common knowledge.
And there are a great many Arabic manuscripts.

Here is one article about how the Arabic speaking Bedouin are a major part of the monastery.

St. Catherine’s Monastery: Friendship between Christians and Muslims
posted on: Aug 23, 2021
https://www.arabamerica.com/st-catherines-monastery-friendship-between-christians-and-muslims/

St. Catherine’s Monastery: Friendship between Christians and Muslims



Most notable about the monastery, however, is the relationship between it and the local bedouin tribes. The first accounts of bedouins inhabiting the area come from Eutyches, the ninth century Patriarch of Alexandria, who describes families brought from Alexandria and Anatolia to defend the mosque. While they have over time converted to Islam and began speaking Arabic, these tribes have continued to have reciprocal relations with the monastery.

The bedouin are responsible for taking care of the monastery in various ways. For example, in 1971, when a fire broke out in the monastery, the bedouins helped the monks put out the flames. The bedouin are also employed by the monastery to perform basic duties, such as cleaning. In return, the monastery provides the bedouins with medicine, food, and serves as a mediator when conflicts arise. One notable tradition between the two groups is the weekly breaking of bread with both the monks and the bedouins, with the bedouins receiving a larger share of bread than the monks. While both the monks and bedouins generally lived without much for many centuries, greater interest in the region by the Egyptian government has increased the living standards for bedouins in the area.


Do not let this distract any of you from the fact that in 1972, a crack commando unit was sent to prison by a military court for a crime they didn't commit. These men promptly escaped from a maximum security stockade to the Los Angeles underground. Today, still wanted by the government, they survive as soldiers of fortune. If you have a problem, if no one else can help, and if you can find them, maybe you can hire the A-Team.
 
Back
Top