• 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!

Is the Codex Sinaiticus FAKE?

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
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.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
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.
Only found in KJVO sites and groups!
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
Only found in KJVO sites and groups!
Yes...that's exactly where this group of people are located. Their favorite phrase so far is "until just recently"....UGH! Their quote, "They believed the line of the Codex Sinaiticus was correct except that there have only been scholars and monks who have been able to inspect the CS, and its been broken up into pieces...so nobody will ever truly know." Another is, "the pages weren't white like they were when they were first inspected, as they'd been aged by tea."
 

Conan

Well-Known Member

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
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 wonder if it was not a "vatican:" Bible greek text, would Kjvo have so much issues and concerns?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
It's not "Vatican", nor does it stay in Rome. You are thinking of Codex Vaticanus, the other 4th Century Greek Bible.
You are correct!
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?
 
Last edited:

Reformed1689

Well-Known Member
You are correct!
Just ironic though how much Kjvo despise MV for being "Vatican" corrupted, yet Kjv used Erasmus, Rheims, and Vulgate, how much more catholic can they had gotten?
That's because KJVO (not to be confused with KJV Preferred) are a bunch of brainwashed dunderheads who wouldn't know truth if it smacked them in the face.
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
That's because KJVO (not to be confused with KJV Preferred) are a bunch of brainwashed dunderheads who wouldn't know truth if it smacked them in the face.
Wonder which edition of the Kjv is seen as being the best one to the Kjvo, maybe the Cambridge 1873 edition?
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
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.
 

AVL1984

<img src=../ubb/avl1984.jpg>
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.

I agree...and I'm finding that many of the "IFB" sites I'm still associated with are getting even worse in their defense of unprovable stances and their continued accusations against anything "UN-KJVO" Their terminology, not mine! I'm thankful to be out of that mindset!
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
I agree...and I'm finding that many of the "IFB" sites I'm still associated with are getting even worse in their defense of unprovable stances and their continued accusations against anything "UN-KJVO" Their terminology, not mine! I'm thankful to be out of that mindset!
All that you need to accept is that the Nkjvo camp seems to have little in regards to real textual criticism scholars, and the best one that they support, dean Burgeon, did not support kjvo!
 

RipponRedeaux

Well-Known Member
I appreciate real scholarship searching for codices and other ancient texts to find that which is closest to the original.
It would be mega-optimistic to think another codex of the magnitude of the four great ones would be discovered. But I'd be ultra happy if that would take place. Finding various types of manuscripts is more likely. I think an average of about five per year are uncovered.

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.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
Only found in KJVO sites and groups!
It is found on KJVO. sites. But not solely.

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. . . ."
 

Ziggy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
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.
 

37818

Well-Known Member
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.

At issue for examples, John 7:53 - John 8:11 and Mark 16:9-20 either being the word of God or not the word of God.
 

Dr. Bob

Administrator
Administrator
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.
 
Top