Debate on Codex Sinaiticus

[Deacon]

If you've seen a single page of Sinaiticus, you've seen a masterpiece.

Every manuscript has unique characteristics.
Each page of the white vellum was carefully crafted at great time and cost
Each hand-written page was lined by hand and margins were marked off before writing began.

Each transcriber had a different handwriting styles.
Letters were formed differently in different times.
Punctuation varied.
Inks differed.

Because of the great cost of producing a bible, they were not for individual use.
Only churches or institutions had them.
They were handled with great care - a reader wore gloves to touch them.

If you've every been to a synagogue and seen how the congregation values its scriptures, you would begin to see how these hand-written scriptures were protected and valued so as to preserve them.


I'm surprised that James White agreed to the debate,
He tore him apart in my opinion.
His opponent didn't know the basics of how to debate.

Rob

 

[franklinmonroe]

How much corruption does it take to make a manuscript "horribly" corrupt?

This was a question for Jordan.

 

[Rippon]

Pinto speculates that Constantine Simonides (1820-1890) a palaeographer and well-known forger put together Codex Sinaiticus. Simonides himself made the claim. Pinto doesn't deal with any expertise on the subject within the last 100 years. He uses James Farrer's book published in 1907 to support his cause. But James Farrer concludes his book "Literary Forgories" by stating that Simonides was not to be trusted --that he was an untruthful man. That certainly shouldn't help Pinto's cause!

A British scholar,Henry Bradshaw (1831-1886). On 1/26/1863 according to Wikepedia "exposed the absurdity of these claims [of Simonides] in a letter to the Guardian."

The British Library has 347 leaves of Codex Sinaiticus,the University of Leipzig has 47, and Saint Catherine's Monastery has the rest.

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

This was a question for Jordan.

"The Codex Sinaiticus has been corrected by so many hands that it affords a most interesting and intricate problem to the palaeographer who wishes to disentangle the various stages by which it has reached its present condition...." (Codex Sinaiticus - New Testament volume; page xvii of the introduction).

What is the writer talking about? Did you note the phrase "to disentangle the various stages?" This indicates that there is a scribal problem with this codex and it is a BIG problem. Tischendorf identified four different scribes who were involved writing the original text. However, as many as ten scribes tampered with the codex throughout the centuries. Tischendorf said he "counted 14,800 alterations and corrections in Sinaiticus." Alterations, more alterations, and more alterations were made, and in fact, most of them are believed to be made in the 6th and 7th centuries. "On nearly every page of the manuscript there are corrections and revisions, done by 10 different people." Tischendorf goes on to say,

"...the New Testament...is extremely unreliable...on many occasions 10, 20, 30, 40, words are dropped...letters, words even whole sentences are frequently written twice over, or begun and immediately canceled. That gross blunder, whereby a clause is omitted because it happens to end in the same word as the clause preceding, occurs no less than 115 times in the New Testament."

Do I really need to say much more?

 

[SolaSaint]

If you've seen a single page of Sinaiticus, you've seen a masterpiece.

Every manuscript has unique characteristics.
Each page of the white vellum was carefully crafted at great time and cost
Each hand-written page was lined by hand and margins were marked off before writing began.

Each transcriber had a different handwriting styles.
Letters were formed differently in different times.
Punctuation varied.
Inks differed.

Because of the great cost of producing a bible, they were not for individual use.
Only churches or institutions had them.
They were handled with great care - a reader wore gloves to touch them.

If you've every been to a synagogue and seen how the congregation values its scriptures, you would begin to see how these hand-written scriptures were protected and valued so as to preserve them.


I'm surprised that James White agreed to the debate,
He tore him apart in my opinion.
His opponent didn't know the basics of how to debate.

Rob

If that is so then why did Tishendorf find the leaves in a basket ready to be burned? WHen did St. Catherine's stop respecting these documents?

 

[Winman]

I'm surprised that James White agreed to the debate,
He tore him apart in my opinion.
His opponent didn't know the basics of how to debate.

Pinto said it was his very FIRST debate. White has been in hundreds of debates, so he has a slight advantage there.

Actually, I thought James White was a little abusive at times, which wasn't necessary. That is very normal for White, I have listened to many of his debates, he tends to be very sarcastic. Pinto was not being disagreeable, so this wasn't necessary at all.

 

[Rippon]

Double post. My first one in ages.

 

[Rippon]

Pinto said it was his very FIRST debate. White has been in hundreds of debates, so he has a slight advantage there.

White has had scores of debates --not hundreds. And I daresay that he was better prepared at the get-go starting with his first debate than Pinto was in his encounter with James White.

What in the world does "a little abusive" mean? Versus very abusive? I don't think there is a sliding scale with respect to the word abusive.

 

[Winman]

White has had scores of debates --not hundreds. And I daresay that he was better prepared at the get-go starting with his first debate than Pinto was in his encounter with James White.

What in the world does "a little abusive" mean? Versus very abusive? I don't think there is a sliding scale with respect to the word abusive.

OK, just for you I looked it up, and as best I can find White has been in 112 public debates. So that is 112 debates to 1 for Pinto. Slight advantage.

What is a little abusive? Alec Baldwin yelling at his daughter.

What is very abusive? O. J. Simpson nearly decapitating his ex-wife.

 

[Rippon]

OK, just for you I looked it up, and as best I can find White has been in 112 public debates. So that is 112 debates to 1 for Pinto. Slight advantage.

Actually more than 120. Certainly not hundreds as you had claimed.

What is a little abusive? Alec Baldwin yelling at his daughter.

What is very abusive? O. J. Simpson nearly decapitating his ex-wife.

Murder is in another category from mere abuse.

 

[franklinmonroe]

... Do I really need to say much more?

Apparently, you will say what ever you want say, because you did NOT answer the question I asked. Perhaps you should try harder to read with comprehension rather just answering with a point you want to make. Don't assume, read.

I never disagreed that Sinaiticus has many alterations. You said it was "horribly corrupt". So, the question I asked was: how much corruption makes a manuscript "horribly corrupt".
Can you answer that?

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Apparently, you will say what ever you want say, because you did NOT answer the question I asked. Perhaps you should try harder to read with comprehension rather just answering with a point you want to make. Don't assume, read.

I never disagreed that Sinaiticus has many alterations. You said it was "horribly corrupt". So, the question I asked was: how much corruption makes a manuscript "horribly corrupt".
Can you answer that?

it depends upon who you ask. I don't know where the line is drawn, but I know Sinaiticus is very corrupt.

 

[franklinmonroe]

it depends upon who you ask. I don't know where the line is drawn, but I know Sinaiticus is very corrupt.

I ask you since you stated it was "horribly corrupt"; you should have known where the line was in order to make such a claim. It seems every manuscript of moderate length has errors, some more than others. A corruption makes corrupt. A manuscript should not be completely disqualified because it has errors, or else they'd all be disqualified. But the errors can be sorted out.

 

[Yeshua1]

I ask you since you stated it was "horribly corrupt"; you should have known where the line was in order to make such a claim. It seems every manuscript of moderate length has errors, some more than others. A corruption makes corrupt. A manuscript should not be completely disqualified because it has errors, or else they'd all be disqualified. But the errors can be sorted out.

Are ANY of us here posting on the Board trained/educated enough in the original languages/textual criticism/software etc to be able to make qualified statements as to which manuscript best reflects what the originals were saying?


And since ALL Hebrew/Greek texts in use today, even the ole TR, have had some known corruptions and variations from the originals, how can we be so intent as some here to call other texts "horrible and corrupted?"


Why not be thankful for ahving the various TR/CT/MT and hebrews texts available for us touse now a days, for we are in MUCH better position to translate the word of God then they were back in 1611!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

Are ANY of us here posting on the Board trained/educated enough in the original languages/textual criticism/software etc to be able to make qualified statements as to which manuscript best reflects what the originals were saying?


And since ALL Hebrew/Greek texts in use today, even the ole TR, have had some known corruptions and variations from the originals, how can we be so intent as some here to call other texts "horrible and corrupted?"


Why not be thankful for ahving the various TR/CT/MT and hebrews texts available for us touse now a days, for we are in MUCH better position to translate the word of God then they were back in 1611!

ALL manuscripts have corruptions and errors in them?
I didn't realize that modern scholars had access to the original manuscripts AND that they have checked EVERY manuscript against the originals make such statements that ignore the God's promise to preserve his words through out all generations.

This reminds me of Atheist who say there is NO evidence of God's existence... Just like an Atheist cannot know God doesn't exist unless he knows EVERYTHING, neither can statements like all manuscripts have corruptions in them be made unless you have seen the original autographs..

You can believe that all bibles/manuscripts/original language texts have corruptions and errors in them, or you can believe that God has preserved certain manuscripts/bibles/texts.. Either way you look at it both are accepted by faith.. You cannot prove either one.

I for one believe in the King James bible because of manuscript support and based on the character of God and his promise to preserve his words which are PURE (free from corruption or error.)

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

I ask you since you stated it was "horribly corrupt"; you should have known where the line was in order to make such a claim. It seems every manuscript of moderate length has errors, some more than others. A corruption makes corrupt. A manuscript should not be completely disqualified because it has errors, or else they'd all be disqualified. But the errors can be sorted out.

refer to my above post.

 

[Yeshua1]

ALL manuscripts have corruptions and errors in them?
I didn't realize that modern scholars had access to the original manuscripts AND that they have checked EVERY manuscript against the originals make such statements that ignore the God's promise to preserve his words through out all generations.

This reminds me of Atheist who say there is NO evidence of God's existence... Just like an Atheist cannot know God doesn't exist unless he knows EVERYTHING, neither can statements like all manuscripts have corruptions in them be made unless you have seen the original autographs..

You can believe that all bibles/manuscripts/original language texts have corruptions and errors in them, or you can believe that God has preserved certain manuscripts/bibles/texts.. Either way you look at it both are accepted by faith.. You cannot prove either one.

I for one believe in the King James bible because of manuscript support and based on the character of God and his promise to preserve his words which are PURE (free from corruption or error.)

there HAD to be originals, orelse there would be no copies of them!

And when we put together all available manuscripts/varients/documents etc, we would have preserved to all intentsand purposes those originals for ustoday!

 

[Jordan Kurecki]

there HAD to be originals, orelse there would be no copies of them!

And when we put together all available manuscripts/varients/documents etc, we would have preserved to all intentsand purposes those originals for ustoday!

How in the world did you get from my response that I think there were no originals?

Obviously there were originals...

 

[jonathan.borland]

ALL manuscripts have corruptions and errors in them?
I didn't realize that modern scholars had access to the original manuscripts AND that they have checked EVERY manuscript against the originals make such statements that ignore the God's promise to preserve his words through out all generations.

This reminds me of Atheist who say there is NO evidence of God's existence... Just like an Atheist cannot know God doesn't exist unless he knows EVERYTHING, neither can statements like all manuscripts have corruptions in them be made unless you have seen the original autographs..

You can believe that all bibles/manuscripts/original language texts have corruptions and errors in them, or you can believe that God has preserved certain manuscripts/bibles/texts.. Either way you look at it both are accepted by faith.. You cannot prove either one.

I for one believe in the King James bible because of manuscript support and based on the character of God and his promise to preserve his words which are PURE (free from corruption or error.)

Jordan, why do you continue in this silliness? Since no two Greek manuscripts are exactly alike, logic alone says that either all of them have a/some corruption(s) or only one of them is free from all corruptions. If the former, then you agree with Yeshua, and if the latter, then according to your interpretation of the preservation passages God's word only applies to that single Greek manuscript...so kindly tell us which one that is? Oh, that's right, you think Beza's 1598 edition was perfect, or was it Erasmus' 1516? Never mind, whichever edition you pick, it doesn't mirror any Greek manuscript exactly, so you're back at Yeshua's original presumption which you just condemned him, but more importantly your own self, for! Stop using your silly little word games and false rules of exegesis.

 

[Yeshua1]

Jordan, why do you continue in this silliness? Since no two Greek manuscripts are exactly alike, logic alone says that either all of them have a/some corruption(s) or only one of them is free from all corruptions. If the former, then you agree with Yeshua, and if the latter, then according to your interpretation of the preservation passages God's word only applies to that single Greek manuscript...so kindly tell us which one that is? Oh, that's right, you think Beza's 1598 edition was perfect, or was it Erasmus' 1516? Never mind, whichever edition you pick, it doesn't mirror any Greek manuscript exactly, so you're back at Yeshua's original presumption which you just condemned him, but more importantly your own self, for! Stop using your silly little word games and false rules of exegesis.

The problem is the ONLY manuscripts that meey fully his requirements would be the originals!