Rejection of sinaiticus and Vaticanus? TR and the original autographs

[jbh28]

Well see, now you are arguing against yourself. The texts the KJB translators used were copies, they were not the original autographs. If you believe in preservation, that doesn't mean the original autographs need to survive, no, they wear out with time and use. Preservation is accomplished through accurate copies. Do you believe when Jesus stood up and read Isaiah in Capernaum that he was actually reading the very texts penned by Isaiah? Of course not. If the originals existed at all, they would have been in Jerusalem, not Capernaum.

How am I " arguing against myself"? Never did I say that the KJV translators had the original autographs. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Older can mean closer to the originals and more accurate. But it isn't absolute proof.

I agree, it puts the probability high. No evidence here is really "absolute proof" of the original reading.

The V & S only survived because they weren't being used.

And why was that? It wasn't because they were rejected. S wasn't discovered till the 1800's. V was kept by the Catholics and wans't allowed to be used. (disagreed with the Vulgate which was the standard)

The TR on the other hand was being passed around to hundred of churches, copies were being made. They wore out from constant use and new copies had to be made. So yes, the texts the KJB translators used weren't nearly as old as the V & S, but that does not prove they were not accurate copies of the original autographs.

again, you are confusing the TR with manuscripts used by Erasmus.

You have to be kidding. I could show you 20 sites right now that show that the V & S disagreed with each other in thousands of words and verses. The Sinaiticus was full of obvious errors and there is evidence that many different authors penned it. And these errors are freely admitted by men who support the V & S.

You have to be kidding. How is this even relevant to what I said? Did I say that the V & S didn't disagree?

So, this statement of yours is incredibly false.

What about my statement was false?


I said

First, 0 evidence that they thought they were corrupt. (in the context of rejecting them)Also, the Sinaiticus wasn't discovered till the 1800's. the Vaticanus was held by the Catholic church so it wans't accessitible. Erasmus didn't reject the Viticanus. He contacted his friend Bombasius to get some readings from the Vaticanus, but wasn't able to get a copy of the Vaticanus. He didn't reject it.

What about that was false?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

Seems you have it covered well. The problem with the TR people is that they often confuse the TR with the Byzantine text which wasn't a complete copy. Also it had been "smoothed" for liturgical use during the Byzantine Empire. So since its language was modified to smooth its harshness or difficult reading we find that the text to begin with is corrupted.

 

[jbh28]

Seems you have it covered well. The problem with the TR people is that they often confuse the TR with the Byzantine text which wasn't a complete copy. Also it had been "smoothed" for liturgical use during the Byzantine Empire. So since its language was modified to smooth its harshness or difficult reading we find that the text to begin with is corrupted.

Right, the TR is like the CT in the sense that it is a compilation of manuscripts. some people get it confused as you said the the Byzantine manuscripts. Also, some people get the TR and the MT confused, which of course are not the same. There are places in the TR that are not the majority reading.

 

[Winman]

Originally Posted by jbh
First, 0 evidence that they thought they were corrupt. (in the context of rejecting them)Also, the Sinaiticus wasn't discovered till the 1800's. the Vaticanus was held by the Catholic church so it wans't accessitible. Erasmus didn't reject the Viticanus. He contacted his friend Bombasius to get some readings from the Vaticanus, but wasn't able to get a copy of the Vaticanus. He didn't reject it.

What about that was false?

Who are "they"? Perhaps in your circles the Sinaiticus was not rejected, but it was and has been rejected by many prominent scholars. Here is a portion of a site that tells of some of the problems with the Sinaiticus.

The Sinaiticus was written by three different scribes and was corrected later by several others. (This was the conclusion of an extensive investigation by H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat of the British Museum, which was published in Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus, London, 1938.) Tischendorf counted 14,800 corrections in this manuscript (David Brown, The Great Uncials, 2000). Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, who published A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1864 testified: "The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character—brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century." Thus, it is evident that scribes in bygone centuries did not consider the Sinaiticus to represent a pure text. Why it should be so revered by modern textual critics is a mystery.

A great amount of carelessness is exhibited in the copying and correction. "Codex Sinaiticus 'abounds with errors of the eye and pen to an extent not indeed unparalleled, but happily rather unusual in documents of first-rate importance.' On many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through very carelessness. Letters and words, even whole sentences, are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately cancelled; while that gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same words as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament." (John Burgon, The Revision Revised)It is clear that the scribes who copied the Codex Sinaiticus were not faithful men of God who treated the Scriptures with utmost reverence. The total number of words omitted in the Sinaiticus in the Gospels alone is 3,455 compared with the Greek Received Text (Burgon, p. 75).

Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it was originally there and has been erased.
Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books (Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus) plus two heretical writings, the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas. The apocryphal Epistle of Barnabas is filled with heresies and fanciful allegorizing, claiming, for example, that Abraham knew Greek and baptism is necessary for salvation. The Shepherd of Hermas is a gnostic writing that presents the heresy that the "Christ Spirit" came upon Jesus at his baptism.

Perhaps in your circles these are not problems.

 

[Dr. Bob]

Expected "support" - look at the author (Burgon) who was NOT an "only" but believed in the primacy of the AV's Greek text (not any longer extant)

And we ALL know that if a document contains "Esdras, Tobit, Judith, I and IV Maccabees, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus" like the Sinaiaticus it must be all bad.

Slightly mocking your words.

 

[Winman]

Wow, Dr. Bob supports the Sinaiticus. What a surprise, I am truly shocked.

 

[jbh28]

Who are "they"? Perhaps in your circles the Sinaiticus was not rejected, but it was and has been rejected by many prominent scholars. Here is a portion of a site that tells of some of the problems with the Sinaiticus.

Erasmus was whom I was referring to.

Mark 16:9-20 is omitted in the Codex Sinaiticus, but it was originally there and has been erased.

They didn't use pencils back then. Maybe it would be better to say that a place was left for it. Maybe the Scribe new of it's existence, but didn't have access to it.

The Sinaiticus was written by three different scribes and was corrected later by several others. (This was the conclusion of an extensive investigation by H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat of the British Museum, which was published in Scribes and Correctors of Codex Sinaiticus, London, 1938.) Tischendorf counted 14,800 corrections in this manuscript (David Brown, The Great Uncials, 2000). Dr. F.H.A. Scrivener, who published A Full Collation of the Codex Sinaiticus in 1864 testified: "The Codex is covered with alterations of an obviously correctional character—brought in by at least ten different revisers, some of them systematically spread over every page, others occasional, or limited to separate portions of the manuscript, many of these being contemporaneous with the first writer, but for the greater part belonging to the sixth or seventh century." Thus, it is evident that scribes in bygone centuries did not consider the Sinaiticus to represent a pure text. Why it should be so revered by modern textual critics is a mystery.

And how many revisions has the TR gone through?

Codex Sinaiticus includes the apocryphal books

So does the KJV(well the 1611 KJV did, not the 1769 that you have with you today)

Perhaps in your circles these are not problems.

Well, seeing as two of them are true even the the kjv, I guess they are not a problem in your circles either. BTW, modern versions don't copy the Codex Sinaiticus, nor use it for their translation. It was just one ancient manuscript that is used in determining the original writing. You do notice that ALL major translations have Mark 16 in them. Yes, it is noted that a textual variant exists there, but at least they are honest and let you know that such a variant exists. (btw, even the av1611 did this very thing in places.)

 

[TCassidy]

The problem with the TR people is that they often confuse the TR with the Byzantine text which wasn't a complete copy.

And your source for this information is . . . ?

Also it had been "smoothed" for liturgical use during the Byzantine Empire.

That is pure speculation. There is not one shred of historic evidence to support a Lucian Recension.

So since its language was modified to smooth its harshness or difficult reading we find that the text to begin with is corrupted.

Again, unsupported speculation. In fact the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.

 

[jbh28]

And your source for this information is . . . ?

Read winman's posts...

 

[TCassidy]

Read winman's posts...

The Byzantine textform is the most attested to textform extant.

 

[jbh28]

The Byzantine textform is the most attested to textform extant.

Not sure what you are talking about in regards to the discussion.

 

[Dr. Bob]

The Byzantine textform is the most attested to textform extant.

Not sure what you are talking about in regards to the discussion.

All I think Dr C was mentioning as that if you weigh all the 5500+ texts, there are more in the "family" of the Eastern Orthodox form than all the others. True dat.

Of course, to have any other is absurd. For 1500 years (and some 2000) copies of copies of copies of copies - no two alike; all with differences - were used in the Greek-speaking churches of the Eastern Orthodox!! If they didn't have more copies surviving, it would be unbelievable.

The Western European Church shifted from Greek to Latin and then to national languages. Apart from a few Greek copies in libraries (Vaticanus) or desert monasteries (sinaiaticus) there would be few in the Wetern family of documents. But lots of Latin!!

Thank God, we don't judge by weight or copies of copies of copies of copies, each with errors. More "weight" (pun intended) is given to the manuscripts closest to the original, not ones written a thousand years later.

 

[jonathan.borland]

More "weight" (pun intended) is given to the manuscripts closest to the original, not ones written a thousand years later.

So the early papyri, which are generally considered the most wild and corrupt (although the earliest), should be given the most weight? In NT textual criticism weight still goes to the manuscripts that have the most correct readings corroborated by internal evidence, diversity, provenance, authorial style, versions, fathers, and yes, age, etc. Novices in the field generally demonstrate a tunnel vision that gives sole weight to paper manuscripts created far from the locations of the strongest and earliest churches. Considering distance from the original in space, character, and other features is just as important (if not more so) than simply considering distance from the original in time alone.

Jonathan C. Borland

 

[Thinkingstuff]

And your source for this information is . . . ?That is pure speculation. There is not one shred of historic evidence to support a Lucian Recension.Again, unsupported speculation. In fact the evidence suggests exactly the opposite.

Try Bruce Metzger. Also Norman Geisler. I could go on but these are my primary sources. Also Moise Silva.

 

[Winman]

Here is a very interesting article that shows that believing a text is more accurate because it is older is a flawed assumption. The author of this article is not KJVO.


From Maurice Robinson's

New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority

67. An exclusive following of the oldest MSS or witnesses is transmissionally flawed.The oldest manuscript of all would be the autograph, but such is not extant. Given the exigencies affecting early transmissional history and the limited data preserved from early times, it is a methodological error to assume that "oldest is best." Since the age of a MS does not necessarily reflect the age of its text, and since later MSS may preserve a text more ancient than that found in older witnesses, the "oldest is best" concept is based on a fallacy. While older MSS, versions, and fathers demonstrate a terminus a quo for a given reading, their respective dates do not confer authenticity; they only establish the existence of a given reading at a given date. All readings within a variant unit should be considered under all aspects of transmission: minority readings which leave no continual trace throughout transmissional history are suspect; they are not made more authentic merely by an appearance in one or a few ancient witnesses.

Rest of article here:

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html

 

[TCassidy]

Try Bruce Metzger. Also Norman Geisler. I could go on but these are my primary sources. Also Moise Silva.

You seem to have missed the point. Metzger, et alii, admit they have no substantive evidence to support the theory of a Lucian Recension and that they are simply quoting Westcott and Hort who, when confronted for evidence to support their assertion admitted it was pure speculation engaged in to explain the rapid decline of the Alexandrian textform and rapid ascendancy of the Byzantine textform in the 4th century AD.

Later manuscript discoveries found over 150 distinctive Byzantine readings which predated the so-called Lucian Recension that proved the theory to be untenable. Facts tend to be uncomfortable things, don't they?

 

[TCassidy]

So the early papyri, which are generally considered the most wild and corrupt (although the earliest), should be given the most weight? In NT textual criticism weight still goes to the manuscripts that have the most correct readings corroborated by internal evidence, diversity, provenance, authorial style, versions, fathers, and yes, age, etc. Novices in the field generally demonstrate a tunnel vision that gives sole weight to paper manuscripts created far from the locations of the strongest and earliest churches. Considering distance from the original in space, character, and other features is just as important (if not more so) than simply considering distance from the original in time alone.

Jonathan C. Borland

Jonathan, Dr. Bob has a very simplistic (and often naive) view of textual transmission.

Westcott & Hort's theory that the Byzantine Textform is late and derivative does not agree with the best recently available evidence.

No Byzantine reading should be dismissed simply because it is Byzantine. The latest evidence suggests there is a possibility that the Byzantine reading is early, and that it preserves the original text.

To honestly evaluate readings without pre-judging the Byzantine textform to be the result of a late recension, and without a knee-jerk tendency to favor the agreement of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as virtually infallible, a better understanding of the history of textual transmission can be had. In many cases, this approach yields results which oppose the readings adopted in the modern Critical Text and support the originality of readings in the Majority/Byzantine Text.

 

[jbh28]

Here is a very interesting article that shows that believing a text is more accurate because it is older is a flawed assumption. The author of this article is not KJVO.


From Maurice Robinson's

New Testament Textual Criticism: The Case for Byzantine Priority



Rest of article here:

http://rosetta.reltech.org/TC/vol06/Robinson2001.html

Personally, I have no problem with someone that disagrees with me of the issue at this point. There are good arguments(and good people) for both sides of the issue. There are good arguments for the majority reading and there are good arguments for the older reading.

 

[Winman]

Personally, I have no problem with someone that disagrees with me of the issue at this point. There are good arguments(and good people) for both sides of the issue. There are good arguments for the majority reading and there are good arguments for the older reading.

Exactly. So as I have been saying for months, eventually you will be forced to decide by faith in God's promise. He promised to preserve his pure and perfect word, so one of the versions has to be it.

Now you just need to make a choice.

 

[Trotter]

so one of the versions has to be it.

There's where you diverge from what God has said. Nowhere does it say "in one specific form" or any such thing. You are adding a man-made requirement.

I have no problem with my faith in God's promise to preserve His word, and that faith does not have a problem with various translations. My faith lies in God Himself and not in what men have put to paper. His word endures in the original languages, translations in a myriad of other languages, and in quite a few English translations. He is not limited to one repository for His word in any language.

Maybe if you stopped trying to put God in a box you would see that.