Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

Now we have Steven referring to the same work, by the same person, out of one corner of his mouth as "Scribal bumbling" and out of the other as "Simonades perfection" ?.

You are struggling to even read properly.

"Simonides perfectionalism" refers to the false contra theory, along with "orange man bad".
 
On this thread we have the Tischendorf attack on Maximo in Hermas, and the Jude 1:3 and Revelation 17:4 Sinaiticus conflations in which one component of the conflations consists of only late minuscules.
Meaning they existed in ancient times. Thats why they show up in later manuscripts. They always do.
 
Meaning they existed in ancient times. Thats why they show up in later manuscripts. They always do.

Nope. When variants show in papyri, Vaticanus, Bezae, Alexandrinus or Washingtonianus, then that means they were in the text-line early. If the variant is not in any of those, or any uncial (putting aside Sinaiticus, of course) then the evidence is that the variant is late.
 
Nope. When variants show in papyri, Vaticanus, Bezae, Alexandrinus or Washingtonianus, then that means they were in the text-line early. If the variant is not in any of those, or any uncial (putting aside Sinaiticus, of course) then the evidence is that the variant is late.

That is certainly YOUR preference. However, you have ZERO evidence to establish your claim. Just self serving nonsense.

You referenced a very large set of witnesses that differ from one another in meaningful places. How do you establish a late 17th century English text as being "perfect" without drawing a "straight line" from the witnesses.

This is where I expect you to say what you've always said. The KJV and TR correct the early extant witnesses..... or have you changed in that regard as well?
 
Narrator: “Orange man bad” has nothing at all to do with Sinaiticus.

Your posts get ever more embarrassing with the same infantile cliches.

I'm trying to understand his "newfound" desire to actually establish the TR in early extant witnesses. He doesn't know the evidence. He has never cared to know the evidence. His position has always been that the KJV and TR correct the early extant witnesses.

I don't understand why he even bothers to throw "mud" at Sinaiticus.
 
So he, Daniels, Pinto and others can say all the modern versions have descended from a forgery.

If they knew the evidence, which they don't, they would abandon the argument. Sinaiticus did not "begat" Alexandrinus. Nor did Sinaiticus "begat" Vaticaninus. This why I started the other thread. If Alexandrinus is corrupt than they have to abandon their Byzantine priority arguments.

Which leaves them the same all "fall back point"..... The KJV and the TR correcting all extant witnesses.
 
Agreed.

Vaticanus. (spelling)

If you believe the KJV and TR correct all early extant witnesses, then why this curade? Just say it does and live you life accordingly. Forget everything that happened before you discovered the KJV to be perfect.....

Seems very disingenuous to me. I don't believe you really care to put forth a scholarly effort to knows the early extant witnesses.

Why not admit that you hold that position. Everyone can leave you to it. That is what I ultimately did until I noticed you doing this now.

Why run from your past? Embrace it.
 
If you believe the KJV and TR correct all early extant witnesses, then why this curade? Just say it does and live you life accordingly. Forget everything that happened before you discovered the KJV to be perfect.....
Seems very disingenuous to me. I don't believe you really care to put forth a scholarly effort to knows the early extant witnesses.
Why not admit that you hold that position. Everyone can leave you to it. That is what I ultimately did until I noticed you doing this now.
Why run from your past? Embrace it.

I am not a fan of psycho-babble posts.

Plus this is the Sinaiticus thread. Too much trolling, the discussion here is on the facts of Sinaiticus, including textual evidences.
 
Nope. When variants show in papyri, Vaticanus, Bezae, Alexandrinus or Washingtonianus, then that means they were in the text-line early. If the variant is not in any of those, or any uncial (putting aside Sinaiticus, of course) then the evidence is that the variant is late.
Well, that has nothing to do with textual criticism at all. No one on this planet believes this except you. No scholars believe such foolishness. No textual critics of worth. When did all major textual variants come into existance? Second century AD. So they all go back to the 2nd century AD. You, just like Professor Hort, give way to much weight to a hand full of witnesses. Their texts may go back to 2nd century AD. But the Original Text goes back to the 1st century AD. It is a plain fact that late cursive manuscripts preserve much more of the Original Text than codexs Bezae, Sinaiticus do. Even Codex Sinaiticus preserves some Original Text, which may be the real reason you wish to "con" it.
 
Plus this is the Sinaiticus thread.

Correct. You don't care to establish a early historical narrative that supports the KJV. All you care about is bashing Sinaiticus. Everyone should know this.

I am not a fan of psycho-babble posts.

Call it what you will. Doesn't matter to me. I believe others can see that you're "hedging" in what you're saying.
 
Don't mean to but in. but Codex Vaticanus is dated 325-350 AD, While Sinaiticus is thought to be a little older 350-375 AD
Although both are regarded as contemporary with each other, Vaticanus is likely to be marginally later because the likelihood is that the format of Sinaiticus (4 columns) was found to be impractical, and for this reason it was likely abandoned in favour of the 3 column format of Vaticanus which used half as much vellum and so was far cheaper. Sinaiticus has been dated by some to 325-340AD. However nothing is exact as to dates, so no point in arguing.
 
It was hilarious to watch David Daniels lie on camera and the DBS hypocritically suddenly pretend doctrine doesn’t matter.
Actually I couldn't hear much of what was being said as the audio wasn't that good. Could have done with a transcript of the more important points.
 
Although both are regarded as contemporary with each other, Vaticanus is likely to be marginally later because the likelihood is that the format of Sinaiticus (4 columns) was found to be impractical, and for this reason it was likely abandoned in favour of the 3 column format of Vaticanus which used half as much vellum and so was far cheaper. Sinaiticus has been dated by some to 325-340AD. However nothing is exact as to dates, so no point in arguing.
Vaticanus is thought to be earlier because it does not have the Eusebian Canons, unlike Sinaiticus, which has them from the first hand.

 
"This study has confirmed the majority of previous work done on the Codex Sinaiticus. The hand can certainly be described as Biblical Majuscule, and the date confirmed as 4th century. There is evidence of first hand punctuation, but because of its limited nature the later correctors expanded it. This would have aided with reading the manuscript aloud, as well as areas of uncertainty, such as the sentence divisions in John 1.34. Some of this work was also possibly done alongside the Eusebian notation, because Tischendorf does on occasion mention punctuation in red ink. Accents and breathings are rare. Abbreviations are used throughout the codex, especially for the nomina sacra, but also with the kai compendium, final v, and occasional monogram. There is evidence of compression at the end of lines, with the rounded letters being diminished. All of this is normal for a codex of this date." (Myshrall, Codex Sinaiticus, pg. 765)


"There is also evidence of C(a) altering some of his own corrections, or reverting them, something not mentioned in previous studies on the manuscript." (Myshrall, pg. 766)
 
Last edited:
Actually I couldn't hear much of what was being said as the audio wasn't that good. Could have done with a transcript of the more important points.

I’ll see what I can do. They had a translator I had to keep stopping for, which was absurd. There were maybe 30 people in the building.
 
If you believe the KJV and TR correct all early extant witnesses, then why this curade? Just say it does and live you life accordingly. Forget everything that happened before you discovered the KJV to be perfect.....

Seems very disingenuous to me. I don't believe you really care to put forth a scholarly effort to knows the early extant witnesses.

Why not admit that you hold that position. Everyone can leave you to it. That is what I ultimately did until I noticed you doing this now.

Why run from your past? Embrace it.

Fact of life: there’s nothing a fundamentalist desires more than to be thought to be scientific. Thus all the fake studies that start with the conclusion and work backwards.

I’m inclined to wonder now that Avery Spencer has decided to go with the idea Simonides grab bagged a reading from here and a reading from there….why was any prep work necessary at all?

I also find it impossible to believe the claimed master calligrapher at Athos couldn’t have done a poor job and needed 23,000 corrections on old and expensive parchment.

But thankfully God gave me a brain to use and an intellect to know such a claim is as preposterous as the idea Simonides forgot how much of Hermas he wrote.

Reminder folks - I’m only here for the comedy.
 
I’ll see what I can do. They had a translator I had to keep stopping for, which was absurd. There were maybe 30 people in the building.
They must've known what was coming, and wanted to make the discussion as disjointed and distracting as possible.

Did you notice Waite chuckling and smiling as he gave Daniels two thumbs up at the end?.... as if to say "I'll pull you from the fire buddy."
 
Last edited:
Back
Top