In the three Bible colleges, and in the several programs I've been through on the controversies surrounding the Biblical versions, this is a newer argument that has been popping up lately? On one forum I'm on another site, there are several who state that the CS is fake? Their reasoning? The color of the pages aren't consistent, have been colored with tea leaves, etc? They also continue to say that Tischendorf had something to do with all of this, and that the only reason the texts were available is because of his stealing them from the RCC, along with a printing press, etc. I've read a lot on this, and though I am KJV preferred, I don't buy some of these newer arguments against the CS. I'd like some input on the subject from others. Thanks in advance.
Is the Codex Sinaiticus FAKE?
Discussion in 'Bible Versions & Translations' started by AVL1984, May 9, 2022.
Page 1 of 3
-
-
-
-
They are liars and false witnesses. The Manuscript is genuine. It doesnt have the best text, and it's scribes made many mistakes, but it is a genuine Complete Bible from the 4th century AD. Rarely does anything survive that old.
The Text of the Gospels: What Darkened Sinaiticus?
The Text of the Gospels: Ten Reasons Why Sinaiticus Was Not Made By Simonides
The Text of the Gospels: Ten More Reasons Sinaiticus Was Not Made by Simonides
The Text of the Gospels: Tares Among the Wheat - A Review -
-
-
Just ironic though how much Kjvo despise MV for being "Vatican" corrupted, yet Kjv used Erasmus, Rheims, and Vulgate, how much more catholic could they had gotten? -
Reformed1689 Well-Known Member
-
-
-
-
The premise of KJVonly sect is to denounce any/all manuscripts that run counter to the Byzantine copies of copies of copies of copies . . . as if "weight" makes right. I appreciate real scholarship searching for codices and other ancient texts to find that which is closest to the original. Sowing seeds of doubt simply because of disagreeing with a given Greek reading should be below all real scholarship.
-
-
-
RipponRedeaux Well-Known Member
There is a possibility that smaller codices (usually portions of the NT) might be found. The smaller ones that have been collected are rather valuable. About a year ago I took notes on five of them. Very interesting stuff.
However, it has been said by a number of biblical scholars that the work of Westcott and Hort with their Greek N.T. is as reliable as ever. Even though at that time more than 140 years ago many more manuscripts have been found. -
5 point Gillinist Active Member
-
Wilbur N. Pickering in Appendix E in his book, "The Identity of the New Testament Text IV," says of part of the Codex,
"As for Codex א, the folded sheet containing the end of Mark and beginning of
Luke is, quite frankly, a forgery. Tischendorf, who discovered the codex,
warned that those four pages appeared to be written by a different hand and
with different ink than the rest of the manuscript. However that may be, a
careful scrutiny reveals the following: the end of Mark and beginning of Luke
occur on page 3 (of the four); pages 1 and 4 contain an average of 17 lines of
printed Greek text per column (there are four columns per page), just like the
rest of the codex; page 2 contains an average of 15.5 lines of printed text per
column (four columns); the first column of page 3 contains only twelve lines of
printed text and in this way verse 8 occupies the top of the second column, the
rest of which is blank (except for some designs); Luke begins at the top of
column 3, which contains 16 lines of printed text while column 4 is back up to
17 lines. On page 2 the forger began to spread the letters, displacing six lines
of printed text; in the first column of page 3 he got desperate and displaced
five lines of printed text, just in one column! In this way he managed to get two
lines of verse 8 over onto the second column, avoiding the telltale vacant
column (as in B). That second column would accommodate 15 more lines of
printed text, which with the other 11 make 26. Verses 9-20 occupy 23.5 such
lines, so there is plenty of room for them. It really does seem that there has
been foul play, and there would have been no need for it unless the first hand
did in fact display the disputed verses. In any event, א as
it stands is a forgery
and therefore may not legitimately be alleged as evidence against them. . . ." -
Those leafs are known as cancel sheets, and not "forgeries".
What the more extreme KJVO people are claiming is that the *entire* Codex Sinaiticus manuscript was a 19th-century forgery by Simonides—a position otherwise accepted by nobody. -
-
In the early church (AD 35-335) there were entire books, Gospels, letters, that were in debate as to whether they were the Word of God or not. Over those years a consensus was reached by believers and our 66-book Bible was accepted. Some still fought to include other books - that did not change what was the inspired Word of God.
In the Gospel examples above that 37818 gave there was also debate over passages as to whether they were Word of God or man-made additions/commentaries not inspired. Consensus has been reached and most of the new translations either note that these were NOT original or that they should be treated carefully as "suspect". Their textual sources fail important standards.
As a pastor for over 50 years (and preaching many years before full time ministry as well), I opted to err on the conservative side and NEVER preach from such texts. My goal was to preach GOD's Word, not mine (or some scribe's edits). Less than 30 verses that I did not preach . . . but I sided with scholarship that these "verses" were never God-breathed, and I did not want to lead any astray. I never preached AGAINST them either, just as I never preached from Tobit or Wisdom or Maccabees or Thomas.
Think this is a decision every preacher must make convinced to be faithful to the Word of God, not a translation or work of man. Just my thoughts.
Page 1 of 3