Notes translated on pg. 17.What a coincidence. As "Providence" would have it, I was reading Kirsopp Lake's work on Sinaiticus last night, and he mentioned that there are some notes written at the end of the books of Esther and Ezra in the Codex Fred. Aug. (Sinaiticus) which were written to explain that the manuscript was corrected according to Codex Pamphili and resided at the Caesarean library between the 5th to 7th centuries.
The notes Lake provided are in Greek, which I can't read, but the work that Shoonra was obviously "inspired" to provide last night by the British Museum had those very notes translated in English!
And I thought my dream the other day that had a voice telling me:
"there are notes in the manuscript......what if they mean something?.....the corrector wants you to know something......Sinaiticus is not a forgery........Simonides is lying.....there are notes.....get them translated.....
was just my overactive imagination.
(For those of you who don't know what I'm referring to with my tongue in cheek, read the opening pages of Daniels's book "Is the world's oldest Bible a fake.")
There is a bit in that book about a forgery concern.According to the newsreel, the British Museum paid £ 100,000 to Russia for its share of the Sinaiticus. I find it hard to believe that the Brits would part with that much money - especially when dealing with the Communists - without first having made the most thorough examination to make sure they were buying a genuine article.
And why do you think Benedict did not use the 1821 Zosimas Moscow Bible as an OT source?
You seem to prefer the straight-out lying and theft of Tischendorf over uncertainties in Athos or Sinai.
Are you preferring the false claims and lies of a forger Simonides?
Which is why we know Simonides is lying about the Moscow Bible being one of his sources.Here is the Reuss catalogue entry on the 1821 Zozimus Moscow NT (pages 113-114). It appears to me that Reuss is saying it adopts the Elzivir TR text, which does not explain the variants in Sinaiticus.
Here is the Reuss catalogue entry on the 1821 Zozimus Moscow NT (pages 113-114). It appears to me that Reuss is saying it adopts the Elzivir TR text, which does not explain the variants in Sinaiticus.
“First, that my undo Benedict, being by profession a theologian, and versed in twelve languages, intending to publish both the Old and New Testaments, and the writings of the Apostolic Fathers with exegetic scholia of the ancient commentators, and specially to reply to what had been written against the Septuagint, began this work while Professor in the College of Cydon in the year 1784."
How do you know that to be a verifiable fact instead of your blindly believing Simonides' brazen, unproven, conflicting, self-serving claims?