Codex Sinaiticus - the facts

christ_undivided said:
Avery is focusing on Codex Sinaiticus because he believes that is one area he can find "mud" to throw at others. I have never tried to support Codex Sinaiticus. It is not the best example of an early Christian Bible to be found.

Codex Alexandrinus is. It is a priceless example of an early Byzantine text. It is the single greatest extant witness to the OT. The Scriptures of Jesus and the Apostles.
Click to expand...
Codex Alexandrinus is a representative of the Byzantine text-type in the Gospels (the text-type's oldest example),[7] and the rest of the New Testament books are of the Alexandrian text-type, with some Western readings (only partially Category 1) (Wiki)
christ_undivided said:
So my question is.... who really cares about Codex Sinaiticus? Avery actually loves it because he uses it to preach his false doctrine of KJV exceptionalism.
Click to expand...
Codex Sinaiticus is a century older, and so more valuable (Category 1).
 
cjab said:
Codex Alexandrinus is a representative of the Byzantine text-type in the Gospels (the text-type's oldest example),[7] and the rest of the New Testament books are of the Alexandrian text-type, with some Western readings (only partially Category 1) (Wiki)

Codex Sinaiticus is a century older, and so more valuable (Category 1).
Click to expand...
I believe Myshrall discusses the fact that there are both Alexandrian and Western readings found within Sinaiticus in the Gospels.

Brogan does as well.

KJVOs pushing a 19th century date for Sinaiticus are at a loss to explain this.
 
Last edited:
The following re: Brogan was written by a poster named Brandplukt:


I wish that Sinaiticus deniers would take time to read one chapter in The Bible as Book, edited by Scot McKendrick & Orlaith O'Sullivan. The chapter of interest was authored by John J. Brogan. Brogan wrote his Ph.D. dissertation on the text of Athanasius in the gospels. This was submitted to Duke University. Bart Ehrman was one of his readers.​
​
His contribution to the book regards one of the original scribes. His text has affinities to the Primary Alexandrian witnesses, i.e. an earlier Alexandrian text. The first corrector, the diothotes, used a text with closer affinities to Secondary Alexandrian witnesses. A profile of Athanasius' writings show close affinities with the Secondary Alexandrian text.​
​
Here is the meat of Brogan's study. One of the original scribes copied a text that can be categorized as Primary Alexandrian. This was corrected in the scriptorium by a diothotes using a Secondary Alexandrian text. Brogan states that there is an agreement in 23 out of 25 passages (or 92%) in the gospels with the corrections the diothotes made and with the text of Athanasius.​
​
KJVOs are at a loss to explain why Simonides would use an earlier Alexandrian text only to be corrected by his "uncle" Benedict using a text from the time of Athanasius. This is what I call proof that these fellas are full of hot air.​
 
cjab said:
Codex Alexandrinus is a representative of the Byzantine text-type in the Gospels (the text-type's oldest example),[7] and the rest of the New Testament books are of the Alexandrian text-type, with some Western readings (only partially Category 1) (Wiki)

Codex Sinaiticus is a century older, and so more valuable (Category 1).
Click to expand...

I reject the conclusion that Sinaiticus is a century older. That is nothing more than an circumstantial estimate from various Scholars.

Alexandrinus is as older or older than Sinaiticus. It also represents readings in the OT that are much older than in the NT. Alexandrinus has been traced to a much broader distribution than Sinaiticus. It is the best example of its era. Especially in the OT.

BTW. The wikipedia article is a rather poor description. Alexandrinus suffers today because "scholars" are always desiring to "find something new".
 
Unbound68 said:
If you read David Daniels's 2 books on Sinaiticus, you'll see why all the fuss.

Daniels, with Avery's help and "research," has posited the ridiculous theory that the existence of Sinaiticus is nothing but a grand scheme to dethrone the TR, overthrow the KJV, and get the world to use a one world Bible for the New world order under the antichrist. The lavish scheme comes complete with Jesuits, the Vatican, complicit scholars, a forger named Simonides, etc.

That's why they've been trying with all their might to prove it was written in the 19th century......to justify their conspiracy theories.
Click to expand...

Agreed. This has nothing to do with Alexandrinus.

I've engaged Avery on Alexandrinus before. He knows nothing about it.
 
Unbound68 said:
I believe Myshrall discusses the fact that there are both Alexandrian and Western readings found within Sinaiticus in the Gospels.

Brogan does as well.

KJVOs pushing a 19th century date for Sinaiticus are at a loss to explain this.
Click to expand...
There is no text in existence that could have been it's exemplar. Impossible to make that Text up. Impossible!
 
Steven Avery said:
Did Simonides get into the Sinaiticus manuscript and make up the many variants that show that Sinaiticus is a late manuscript?
Click to expand...

Did Tischendorf discolor and artificially age the the New Finds with "lemon juice" or "herbs" - stored in the northern wall of St Catherine's on Sinai? ?How could he, there's not a shred of factual evidence to prove that he knew they were there??

Don't bother answering, because you have to CREATE/INVENT a FABRICATED story to cover for Simonides bald face lying...

This you over and over again...

Making up cover stories for a known liar (which even you admit below?).


Steven Avery
Likely a forgery from Simonides...
Click to expand...
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-42#post-992956

Steven Avery
Simple, Simonides badly hurt their reputation by connecting the monastery with forgeries...
Click to expand...
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-42#post-993166

Steven Avery
He was never a textual hero, and there never has been support for his NT papyri, which look to have been forgeries.
Click to expand...
https://forums.carm.org/threads/the...egarding-sinaiticus.11880/page-42#post-993501
 
cjab said:
You infer that it "suddenly" aged, otherwise, how come it looks aged?

Sinaiticus has the appearance of a 4th century manuscript. Some have said it looks even older. This you decline to account for. If as Simonides said, there was no "attempt at deception" - how come it is so "deceiving"?

By anyone's estimation, there must have been a preconcerted attempt at deception if the Codex is not genuine.
Click to expand...

Exactly.
 
Steven Avery said:
One obvious point, there are major differences in the Leipzig 1844 and British Library 1859 appearance. However, not in their actual age.
Click to expand...

One obvious question!

Did Tischendorf discolor and artificially age the the 1975 New Finds with "lemon juice" or "herbs" - stored in the northern wall of St Catherine's on Sinai?

Did Tischendorf also discolor and artificially age the the 2008/9 New Finds with "lemon juice" or "herbs" - found in the cover of Sinai [Volume] Greek 2289?

?How could he, there's not a shred of factual evidence to prove that Tischendorf knew (for a fact) either of these finds WERE there??

We await your fabricated stories to cover these difficulties, which Simonides never ever knew about....because they were discovered after both Tishcendorf and Simonides were dead...
 
Last edited:
Conan said:
There is no text in existence that could have been it's exemplar. Impossible to make that Text up. Impossible!
Click to expand...

The oddball, mixed nature of Sinaiticus, OT and NT, with the scribal bumbling, is an argument against the 4th century theory.

(Hilgenfeld astutely used the scribal element in his argumentation.)

In the 1800s the textual scholar Benedict could much more easily use a mixed bag of sources.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top