1. Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

The Codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, etc

Discussion in '2005 Archive' started by icthus, Mar 18, 2005.

Top Posters
Page 3 of 5
  1. Ransom

    Ransom Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2000
    Messages:
    4,132
    Likes Received:
    1
    There is little doubt that these two manuscripts were the product of some heretics. What does surprise me, is that modern textual "critics" seem to have some sort of obsession with the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, so much so, that they are blinded to the actual facts that they are alltogether corrupt!

    Unprovable claims ("heretics") and ridiculous hyperbole ("alltogether [sic] corrupt!") do not help your argument.
     
    #41 Ransom, Mar 21, 2005
  2. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I.E., not worthy for textual matters!
     
    #42 icthus, Mar 21, 2005
  3. Slambo

    Slambo New Member

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2003
    Messages:
    197
    Likes Received:
    0
    And you think the Egyptian mss aren't copies of copies??!!

    Or are those the long lost originals??
     
    #43 Slambo, Mar 21, 2005
  4. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
     
    #44 icthus, Mar 21, 2005
  5. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    icthus, disagreement is not necessarily ignorance.
     
    #45 natters, Mar 21, 2005
  6. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    I know. But, to suggest that the textual basis for the KJV and NKJV are inferior to those for the modern versions, is something that I would expect from someone who is quite ingorant of the facts!
     
    #46 icthus, Mar 21, 2005
  7. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Or, in disagreement with your opinion and understanding of the facts.

    BTW, some who suggest the textual basis for the KJV and NKJV are superior to those for the modern versions, are quite ingorant of the facts!

    In other words: there are both ignorant and very knowledgeable people on both sides of the issue. To suggest otherwise is, well, ignorant.
     
    #47 natters, Mar 21, 2005
  8. Dr. Bob

    Dr. Bob Administrator
    Administrator

    Joined:
    Jun 30, 2000
    Messages:
    30,285
    Likes Received:
    507
    Faith:
    Baptist
    I'm not above flaunting my education and 35+ years in ministry and as a college prof. I do not say lightly that the Byzantine text type is poorer and further from the original than those of 600 years earlier preserved in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.

    97% of the Mss of the Byz text are from the 9th century or later. So when I speak of copies of copies of copies, you should really have a high exponent added lest I underestimate. I find much more accuracy and credibility in the older texts.

    Hence translations from older Greek (like the NASB) are more faithful to the originals than those translated from modern documents (like the NKJV)
     
    #48 Dr. Bob, Mar 21, 2005
  9. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Hi Natters, I take it that you make these observations as one who does know something about textual criticism? Because, quite frankly you are clearly mistaken about the text for the KJV!
     
    #49 icthus, Mar 22, 2005
  10. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Dr Bob, you answers do cause me concern, espacially as you are a college professor!

    Your assumption is quite flawed. You imagine, that because the manuscripts used by the KJV are of the 9th century, and are "copies of copies of copies", they are less credable than the older ones? What do you base your conclusions on? If you are suggesting that "older means more reliable", then you must have your head buried in the sand! Who says that you cannot have, "copies of copies of copies", and yet these remain faithful to the original? I am sure that you are aware of the facts, that the majority of the manuscripts that date from the 4th 5th centuries, would have been copies made by men under the supervision of Acacius and Euzoius, whom Jerome said were responsible of copying from papyrus to codex, at the libary of Pamphilus at Caesarea? If you check your Church history (see, Dictionary of Christian Biography, by Wace and Smith), you will see that both these men were staunch Arians! Like the Jehovah's Witnesses of today, who made their own readings (eg. John 1:1), they too would have tampered with the text they were copying!

    Your assertion, "I find much more accuracy and credibility in the older texts", is something that I would expect from someone without any knowledge of textual matters, as it is just an opinion, which clearly is not factual!
     
    #50 icthus, Mar 22, 2005
  11. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    icthus
    "There is little doubt that these two manuscripts were the product of some heretics."
    "
    Back in my university days I took a long course in heresiology. 'Strangely' enough professor Gilles Quispel (something of an expert when it came to heresies during the first 5 centuries of Christianity) never covered your supposed heretical origins of Sinaîticus and Vaticanus. So where did you pick up this notion?
    Talking about ignorance, I hope you're not going to have to admit that you've never heard of Quispel.
     
    #51 mioque, Mar 22, 2005
  12. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Never heard of this guy, where is he from?

    I have already posted about the efforts of Acacius and Euzoins in the copying of manuscripts in the fourth century, the date of these two manuscripts!

    Are you saying that this professor Gilles Quispel is a greater authority on textual criticism than Burgon and Scrivener, both whom destroy any creadibility for these two manuscripts? I very much doubt that!
     
    #52 icthus, Mar 22, 2005
  13. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    It appears from a search in Google, that professor Gilles Quispel was invloved in the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other heretical writings, and was of the liberal position! His work would not have interested me, as I have no time for the DSS, which are clearly heretical!
     
    #53 icthus, Mar 22, 2005
  14. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    icthus
    "Never heard of this guy,"
    "
    Sigh... and you want to seriously debate heretical editing of the Bible during the early Christian period.

    "where is he from?"
    "
    Born in Rotterdam, grew up in Kinderdijk, studied in Dordrecht, Leiden, Groningen and Utrecht. Was professor at Utrecht, Leuven and Harvard.

    "Are you saying that this professor Gilles Quispel is a greater authority on textual criticism than Burgon and Scrivener"
    "
    No I'm saying that he is an important expert when it comes to texts produced by heretics during the early Christian period. You talk about 4th century heretics messing up the Bible, he's the guy to spot it, not Burgon or Scrivener.

    Quispel was the man who discovered the gospel of Thomas.
    He's also the guy who proved it was written during the second century and heavily contaminated by non-christian influences, while the American experts were claiming that it predated the letters of Paul and was the most authentic source of statements made by Jezus.

    "that professor Gilles Quispel was invloved in the texts of the Dead Sea Scrolls, and other heretical writings"
    "
    Ofcourse he was,we are [​IMG] about a heresiologist (an expert in heresies)

    "<Quispel> was of the liberal position!"
    "
    The man is an orthodox Dutch Reformed Calvinist. Theologically closer to the conservatives on this board than Scrivener and Burgon, both Anglicans.
     
    #54 mioque, Mar 22, 2005
  15. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Please. How can I be mistaken about it, when I haven't even expressed my view on the subject? Are you really that argumentative???
     
    #55 natters, Mar 22, 2005
  16. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    No, its not because I am argumentatine, but many of the posts made on this thread, are made on the basis of obejection to the textual basis of the KJV, which are quite unfounded! Further, to suppose that because Burgon and Scrivener were Anglicans, and not "reformed", that this in any way demeans their judgement as scholars, is complete nonsense! To also suppose that just because someone is reformed, that their judgement is better than others, is based on a warped judgement of the truth and facts.

    As I have said more than once, I doubt that there is anyone in the whole of Church history, who could be compared to the scholarship of both Burgon and Scrivener. This is a fact, and not just an opinion! Chech for yourself, and then let me know of anyone who you could "class" with them!
     
    #56 icthus, Mar 22, 2005
  17. natters

    natters New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 23, 2004
    Messages:
    2,496
    Likes Received:
    0
    Not unfounded, but rather simply disagreement about some issues.

    That was not what mioque was saying.

    No, it is opinion: opinion with which we are free to disagree. Westcott and Hort come to mind - and I don't know which ultimately will be proven correct, but they were certainly comparable in scholarship level (even though they disagreed) with Burgon and Scrivener. And again, don't equate disagreement with ignorance.
     
    #57 natters, Mar 22, 2005
  18. mioque

    mioque New Member

    Joined:
    May 23, 2003
    Messages:
    3,899
    Likes Received:
    0
    ichtus
    "Further, to suppose that because Burgon and Scrivener were Anglicans, and not "reformed", that this in any way demeans their judgement as scholars"
    "
    I didn't claim that. I only pointed out that Quispel (whom you accused of being a liberal) is theologically closer to most conservative Christians on this board than Burgon and Scrivener are.

    If I can name one Bible scholar who is more brilliant than Burgon will you than stop proclaiming their unequalled genius?
     
    #58 mioque, Mar 22, 2005
  19. icthus

    icthus New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2005
    Messages:
    1,114
    Likes Received:
    0
    Did someone say Westcott and Hort??? I don't even consider their "scholarship" worthy of notice! They are responsible for the rejection of the TR and the production of the RV (1881-1885), against which even the brilliant scholar, Dr O T Allis, wrote against!

    It not that I am proclaiming the "genius" of Burgon and Scrivener, but merely pointing out the fact that when it come to first-class schlarship on textual criticism, especially when the Bible is under attack by liberals, these two, by the grace of the Holy Spirit, and unequalled in their field!
    I disagree that you think that this is a mere opinion, and not based on the facts of the issue at hand!
     
    #59 icthus, Mar 22, 2005
  20. El_Guero

    El_Guero New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    Messages:
    7,714
    Likes Received:
    0
    Icthus,

    While I do not agree to disparage the work of men like Bruce M. Metzger, as you have in writing posts on this board, I concur with you:

    that proximity DOES NOT GUARANTEE likeness in documents nor in people ... whether that proximity is in time, location, or in language(s).

    To disparage one group of text(s) based soley upon proximity by time or location is not "good" TC.

    Regards,

    Wayne
     
    #60 El_Guero, Mar 22, 2005
(You must log in or sign up to post here.)
Page 3 of 5
Loading...