Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

[Steven Avery]

Can you explain why the researchers below have not or are not allowed to translate major sections of the Codex-sinaiticus into English?
http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manu ... omSlider=0
Do you have a link to a website that does provide a trusted English translation?
Sincerely,
John T

There is no true English translation of even one book of Sinaiticus. We (mostly James Snapp and myself) had to pressure the CSP to put a disclaimer on the non-translation they were using, because they wrongly claimed it was a translation on the site. This was about 2009-2011.

The main reason is that it is simply too corrupt. Many obvious blunders would have to be corrected, more so if you took the original hand. And when you were done you would still have an ultra-corrupt English edition.

Steven

[Ulan]

I mean, come one. YOU KNOW that your own lack of experience of even being able to READ Greek much less date it is, in fact, relevant. And the proof is that if you DID have such experience, you'd be telling us all about how many manuscripts you had examined and HOW you made this determination. But because you lack any such experience at all, you're left with attacking others who do (as you recently did with Jacob Peterson).
There's simply some fundamental realities here:

1) I can read Sinaiticus, you cannot.
2) I have collated sections of Sinaiticus, you cannot do this.
3) Jacob Peterson and I have BOTH PHOTOGRAPHED manuscripts - you have not.

Can you explain why the researchers below have not or are not allowed to translate major sections of the Codex-sinaiticus into English?

http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manu ... omSlider=0

Do you have a link to a website that does provide a trusted English translation?

Sincerely,

John T

Why would this even matter? The original is online for everyone to peruse, and serious researchers read the Greek text in the original anyway. Using translations just brings new issues into the understanding, because you never know whether differences from other versions of the text are due to the underlying text or due to the translation. That's why translations are not used in serious comparisons.

Think of the problems using translations like the KJV causes. The English language has changed since that translation was done, which means modern people, even if they are native English speakers, tend to misunderstand the KJV text even though it is in English, because word meanings have shifted since. That's a problem that is completely independent from the additional issues of the underlying Greek and Latin texts and one of the reasons why the Bible is translated again and again.

[Steven Avery]

For years the CSP gave a faux translation, and fooled many readers into thinking it was a true translation. They had a translation that in many places simply did not follow Sinaiticus, it was following a TR-AV text.

They thought it mattered so much that they were willing to deceive the millions of visitors to the site.

[Ben C. Smith]

Why would this even matter? The original is online for everyone to peruse, and serious researchers read the Greek text in the original anyway. Using translations just brings new issues into the understanding, because you never know whether differences from other versions of the text are due to the underlying text or due to the translation. That's why translations are not used in serious comparisons.

Another issue which would accompany an English translation is what to do about the corrections in the manuscript itself. Sinaiticus famously contains several layers of corrections throughout the text. I once read what purported to be a faithful English translation of at least part of Sinaiticus, a part which included Acts 8.5, but it gave only the corrected form of that verse, with "Samaria" (in agreement with most/all other manuscripts), instead of the truly interesting original form of that verse in Sinaiticus, with "Caesarea." (I forget where I found this translation.) The only way to properly clue someone without knowledge of Greek into what is going on in the manuscript would seem to be, therefore, to include all the corrections in footnotes or some such. Such an endeavor would amount to producing in a scholarly manner a tome which no scholar would use, since of course the Greek is what ought to be consulted.

Think of the problems using translations like the KJV causes. The English language has changed since that translation was done, which means modern people, even if they are native English speakers, tend to misunderstand the KJV text even though it is in English, because word meanings have shifted since. That's a problem that is completely independent from the additional issues of the underlying Greek and Latin texts and one of the reasons why the Bible is translated again and again.

I once encountered a tract by some KJV-Only person who thought that the "scrip" of Luke 22.36 meant "script," which the author interpreted as "scripture," thus advising missionaries always to carry a Bible with them. Tautological but true: if you are going to read the King James translation of the Bible, you ought to know King James English.

[John T]

For years the CSP gave a faux translation, and fooled many readers into thinking it was a true translation. They had a translation that in many places simply did not follow Sinaiticus, it was following a TR-AV text.

They thought it mattered so much that they were willing to deceive the millions of visitors to the site.

Yes, I noticed that as well. Years ago I started checking the translation against the pictures and found too many errors for me to consider it reliable.
Hence why I wanted to know if someone else has taken up the task of doing an English translation, better yet a reverse interlinear translation.

Can you recommend any other sites that are addressing this problem?

Thanks in advance.

John T

[Steven Avery]

Here is an example of the issue in 2010:

[textualcriticism] CSNTM's - request assistance on Codex Sinaiticus Project misinformation
Steven Avery
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/tex ... opics/5716

Eventually, the CSP site put up an easy-to-miss disclaimer. I had had a number of emails back and forth with the CSP. This was before we realized that Sinaiticus was actually produced in the 1800s.

Afaik, you will not find an English translation of Sinaiticus.
The combination of corrections and corruptions would make it a joke.

Steven

[John T]

Here is an example of the issue in 2010:

[textualcriticism] CSNTM's - request assistance on Codex Sinaiticus Project misinformation
Steven Avery
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/tex ... opics/5716

Eventually, the CSP site put up an easy-to-miss disclaimer. I had had a number of emails back and forth with the CSP. This was before we realized that Sinaiticus was actually produced in the 1800s.

Afaik, you will not find an English translation of Sinaiticus.
The combination of corrections and corruptions would make it a joke.

Steven

Thanks for the link.
I like the CSP cite because you can zoom in on the photos and closely look at the scribal errors/corrections.
Too bad no one with the money will fund a project to give it an English translation, flaws and all.

Now as far as the Codex Sinaiticus being made in the 1800's, well, that is something I would very much like to explore. I'm sure DNA and radiocarbon dating would quickly determine the proper age.
If it hasn't already been done I would be quite surprised.
Do you have any sources/web-sites for that?

Thanks in advance.

Sincerely,

John T

[Steven Avery]

There were far more extensive material tests planned for the Leipzig parchment in 2015. Dr. Ira Rabin and the Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung und -prüfung, Berlin - BAM - who did superb DSS testing, were the crew. And I talked to the lady at Hofstra University in 2014, and she was quite excited about the planned tests.

Then they were cancelled.

=======

Next post I will put a couple of spots in for the Sinaiticus 1800s question.

Steven

[Steven Avery]

A good starting point is the

Sinaiticus Authenticity Research Team
www.sinaiticus.net

And I have a lot of information at:

Sinaiticus - authentic antiquity or modern?
http://www.purebibleforum.com/forumdisp ... -or-modern

Two groups on Facebook - PureBible and Sinaiticus - have a lot of material and discussion.

This forum has a number of excellent threads. Remeber, the issues are multi-faceted, modern scholars tend to be atomistic and thus reliant on "consensus" - not keeping up on new material that makes earlier conclusions obsolete.

Steven

[Maestroh]

Can you explain why the researchers below have not or are not allowed to translate major sections of the Codex-sinaiticus into English?
http://www.codex-sinaiticus.net/en/manu ... omSlider=0
Do you have a link to a website that does provide a trusted English translation?
Sincerely,
John T

There is no true English translation of even one book of Sinaiticus. We (mostly James Snapp and myself) had to pressure the CSP to put a disclaimer on the non-translation they were using, because they wrongly claimed it was a translation on the site. This was about 2009-2011.

The main reason is that it is simply too corrupt. Many obvious blunders would have to be corrected, more so if you took the original hand. And when you were done you would still have an ultra-corrupt English edition.

Steven

Just a note here: Avery doesn't seem to want to volunteer that he himself CANNOT read Sinaiticus.

Someone reading this post would get the idea he's some sort of whiz bang researcher who discovered something, but he didn't.

And the notion that "we had to pressure," I mean, could you really be any more narcissistic here?

You didn't "have" to do anything because you can't even read it. My goodness, you were thinking four years ago you made this great discovery of a lower case beta. Peter Head put you in your place, and yet you're still here trying to convince folks you've done great research.

You haven't, and you can't.