Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Discussion about the New Testament, apocrypha, gnostics, church fathers, Christian origins, historical Jesus or otherwise, etc.
User avatar
Jax
Posts: 518
Joined: Sun Aug 06, 2017 6:10 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Jax » Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:19 pm

I'm kind of curious. How relevant is Sinaiticus to modern versions of the NT like NIV or NRSV as opposed to material from Vaticanus and or Syriacus?

Also isn't the KJV usually considered flawed?

Please excuse my ignorance.

Lane Clapshaw

Steven Avery
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Apr 13, 2018 4:15 pm

Jax wrote:
Fri Apr 13, 2018 12:19 pm
I'm kind of curious. How relevant is Sinaiticus to modern versions of the NT like NIV or NRSV as opposed to material from Vaticanus and or Syriacus? Also isn't the KJV usually considered flawed? Lane Clapshaw
This will get a wide variety of answers.

The issues are more historical and scholastic integrity that what will be the textual effect when the Sinaiticus problem is recognized.

historical - Sinaiticus was a pillar of the Westcott-Hort recension.

scholastic integrity - the willingness to be duped on an accessible manuscript, considered to be #2 of significance in the world, for 150 years, and resist obvious evidences tooth and nail, tells us a lot about the textual criticism milieu.

=============

Those in the textual criticism milieu consider the Reformation Bibles (Received Text) editions, like the AV, to be very flawed. Many Reformation Bible and AV proponents consider it the pure word of God.

Steven

Steven Avery
Posts: 374
Joined: Sun Oct 19, 2014 9:27 am

Re: Codex Sinaiticus - the white parchment Friderico-Augustanus

Post by Steven Avery » Fri Apr 20, 2018 8:53 pm

Here is a simple example of why a dumb review is barely worthy of note.
wrote:1) MIS-CITATIONS AND MISSED SOURCES
...On page 75, Daniels selectively quotes a 1913 book on Textual Criticism by J.A. McClymont as saying, "Sinaiticus...was rescued from oblivion...by the famous critic, Tischendorf...and now lies in the Library of St. Petersburg. It is written on snow-white vellum, supposed to have been made from the skin of antelopes." ... Daniels wants to enlist McClymont for his cause as an infallible source because of the words "snow white" but doesn't want the reader to know that this didn't create any sort of problem for McClymont seeing it as a fourth century document.
"infallible source" is simply dumb.

Now, Uspensky, Dobschutz, McClymont and others are among those quoted in our studies to show that the ms. has an important history of being known as white parchment. Despite the fact that the 1859 section is coloured yellow (and streaky).

white parchment - A Tale of Two Manuscripts
http://www.purebibleforum.com/showthrea ... 06#post206


So when gentlemen are being quoted on the colour, only a charlatan, or someone totally confused about how to do scholarship, or buffeted by their own agenda, would claim that not quoting them on their position A, B, C is a mis-citation. This nonsense runs through all of the Bill Brown attempts.

Steven

Post Reply