The KJVO myth...

[ViaCrucis]

Wow, thank you! This will be an interesting study. I would study it, but I am already convinced having read the book, so some external eyes on this will be helpful. Unfortunately
I am short on time this morning, I could have a few hours ago. But my time is up on the computer till tomorrow I will book mark this and get some more info for you. I can get pictures. but you have to remember, this is going against the consensus. The majority of scholars will not be open minded toward a fraud because they are under the impression the sinaiticus is all they have. Why shoot themselves in the foot. I will look but no guarantees on them. But again I can take a look.

here however is a quote from the book "the sinaiticus forgery" by bill cooper.

"The fact that the Leipzig leaves and the writing upon them were in such pristine condition at the time of their ‘discovery’ should never be underappreciated. The parchment was described by one contemporary observer as “white” (“... the thinnest white parchment”);1 and by another even as, “The wonderfully fine snow-white parchment of the Sinaitic MS...”2 Yet a third witness testifies in 1913 that it – the Codex – “is written on snow-white vellum.”3"

here are his foot notes for the quotes:
1. “....писана на тончайшем белом пергамене.” – Uspensky, Porphyry. The First Trip to the Sinai Monastery in 1845. 1856. Petersburg. p. 226. This title is translated from the Russian (Первое путешествие в Синайский монастырь B 1845). Uspensky’s book was never translated into English.

2. Hastings Encyclopaedia of Religion and Ethics. 1910. New York. Vol. 2. p. 583. An early observer of the Leipzig leaves who described them as “snow-white” was one Ernst von Dobschutz, the author of the above article. He got the idea that they were of antelope skin from Tischendorf himself who was otherwise unable to account for their whiteness.

3. M’Clymont, J A. New Testament Criticism: Its History and Results. 1913. Hodder & Stoughton. London. p. 44.

4. “When seeking those animals whose skins might be most suitable for making parchment, it can hardly be doubted that before all others, the species of antelope which is even now most common in the deserts of Libya, Egypt and Arabia supplied the parchment from which the Frederick-Augustus Codex was made.” See C. Tischendorf, Codex Friderico-Augustanus sive fragmenta Veteris Testamenti e codice Graeco omnium qui in Europa supersunt facile antiquissimo in Oriente detexit in patriam attulit ad modum codicis edidit Constantinus Tischendorf...., Leipzig, 1846. cit: Codex Sinaiticus - Parchment

Now granted this was in there first discovery, that snow whiteness only lasts a few years then they start oxidizing if not in a vacuum. So the allegation was that when they were discovered, they were newly forged.

This is a quote from another thread on CF:

"n 1850, Fr. Porphyrius Uspensky stated that the Codex Sinaiticus was written on the finest WHITE PARCHMENT. This is also the case TODAY for the 43 sheets that Constantin Tischendorf took in 1844 and then later gave it to Fr. Porphyrius Uspensky in their dispute. Those 43 sheets are called the Codex Friderico Augustanus and are now located in Saxony.

Today, the Codex Sinaiticus are yellowed and darkened in color. For some reason after 1850 these pages became yellow and they look much older than they truly are. But miraculously the other 43 sheets that were sent to Fr. Porphyrius Uspensky remain white.

There is growing forensic evidence that the Codex Sinaiticus is a 19th century forgery, sponsored by the Catholic Church, in order to undermine the Protestant Bible. For more information you can read Dr Bill Cooper PhD, ThD, books"

The evidence given by Dr Cooper on this subject and the surprised response from the British Library staff at the youthful condition of the manuscripts is very compelling. For example the Magna Carta (1200 AD) is so frail and desiccated that it is enclosed in a sealed environment, to prevent total disintegration.

The Codex Sinaiticus is allegedly 800 year older than that, and yet it has had no special preservative treatment or conditions all this time, the parchment condition is fresh, supple and un-oxidized. This is the cause of the surprise, of the British Library staff, who are acknowledged as world class experts in handling such manuscripts. Additionally, there is evidence of textual tampering, attempts at artificially aging the manuscript, and alleged bookworm tracks that start in the middle of the page.

When you read from Tobit 1:7 – 2:2 to Tobit 2:2 – 3:6, one page is white, while the other is yellow
View attachment 269650

Minuscule 2427
The scholars thought that the Minuscule 2427 was from the 1300 but in 2009, when Abigail Quandt did an ink analysis it was determined that the ink was created after 1874. They found that the ink that the Minuscule 2427 was written with had synthetic ultramarine blue, which was only available as a pigment since the 1820’s. They also found that the white was a zinc white which was available 1825 and they found another pigment that was fluorescent, called zinc sulfide. This was part of litliopone. It was made by a special process, but not until 1874.

If your bible has a marking of “Codex 2427” in the Gospel of Mark section, then that text has been derived from the forgery of Minuscule 2427.

The Gospel of Mark in the Codex Vaticanus and the Minuscule 2427 are identical which proves that the Vatican had knowledge of the creation of the forgery and maybe was the reason for its creation. Since the Codex Vaticanus is housed in the Vatican Library, it had to be copied in the Vatican Library. Back then, there were no scanners and the pocket cameras came out in 1914. The Minuscule 2427 was discovered in 1917 when a Greek Byzantine collector died in Athens Greece.

If the Vatican was responsible for the forged Minuscule 2427 when why would it be unlikely that they were also behind the Codex Sinaiticus in an attempt to discredit the Protestant movement and to give validity to the Codex Vaticanus.

The Star of East, it is real as is the book, just like the old New York Times newspapers that are on microfilm in the Library are real. These two items prove that the missing Letters or Barnabas are the creation of the forger and author Simonides. There have been numerous people in history that support Simonides claim, and that Tischendorf aged the Codex Sinaiticus, they are Kallinikos Hieromachos, William Turner (1815), Richard Pococke (1700) and Fr. Porphyrius Uspensky of Russia.

The burden of proof that the Codex Sinaiticus is authentic, belongs to the people that support it. I believe that the Codex Sinaiticus is just another type of Piltdown Man Syndrome, that people believe something is real without testing its authenticity, because it supports their religious beliefs. For 50 years it was believed that the Piltdown Man was real, but it turned out to be a fake instead of it being the missing link between man and ape.

If they believe that the bible is an original, then why don't they run a special analysis on the black ink. This way we will now of the ink was from the 4th Century or the 1800's. The Gospel of Mark (Minuscule 2427) that was thought to be from the 1300's turned out to be after 1874 when they did an analysis of the ink.

But then, the British Library would lose millions worth of assets over night, and the Codex Vaticanus will not be valid any more. There is a big business in the Bible printing, estimated at $500 million a year just in the USA.

So just a couple of counter-points:

1) The codex was preserved in the dry environment of Egypt, not the British Isles where it is temperate and wet. So that's going to play a pretty huge role in why the Magna Carta might not be as well preserved as a codex from centuries prior.

2) Oxidization happens when a surface is exposed to the air, the more exposed something is, the more oxidized it will be; less exposed results in less oxidization. It would therefore be expected that certain portions of a codex will have different rates of oxidization and degradation. That some of the vellum is very well preserved and not very oxidized, and that some of the vellum has degraded and oxidized more is something to be expected.

As such the white vellum argument comes across as a non-starter of an argument; and is fundamentally nothing more than an argument from incredulity, or possibly even an argument from ignorance.

I am speaking, of course, as a layman. But without good reasons and arguments to the contrary, to argue that there are sheets of well preserved vellum as an argument against antiquity seems to be based upon a general ignorance of the fact that things are well preserved in dry environments such as, perhaps, a monastery in the Sinai Desert in Egypt, as opposed to the wet, temperate climate of Britain.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Thanks for the response. Yes the 200 verses are there in the greek manuscripts. It's a byzantinian family of manuscript and it is based on the majority of manuscripts available, it's called the textus receptus. It actually has over 200 verses that the manuscript, AND the NIV are missing. And I mention that the verses in the bible that talk about fasting to remove a demon from a person, I think there are three of them. They are all missing. That means that technically you could go to a foreign country and see a possessed person, with a high ranking demon, like a general or something. And simply calling pastors out to pray of her would not be enough, you would have to fast and pray the Bible says. The disciples fasted and prayed it says in mathew 17:21, I looked it up in the NIV and I got a blank page, signifying it's not there....

Bible Gateway passage: Matthew 17:21 - New International Version

We also have simply speaking the name of Jesus to cast out demons, such as in Acts 16:18. Are you really wanting to make the argument that because some variant readings in the text don't include the word fasting that somehow the power of God is nullified against the work of lame devils? The theological ramifications of such is truly dangerous, for we preach Christ crucified and risen from the dead, the One who has conquered hell, death, and the devil.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[createdtoworship]

So just a couple of counter-points:

1) The codex was preserved in the dry environment of Egypt, not the British Isles where it is temperate and wet. So that's going to play a pretty huge role in why the Magna Carta might not be as well preserved as a codex from centuries prior.

2) Oxidization happens when a surface is exposed to the air, the more exposed something is, the more oxidized it will be; less exposed results in less oxidization. It would therefore be expected that certain portions of a codex will have different rates of oxidization and degradation. That some of the vellum is very well preserved and not very oxidized, and that some of the vellum has degraded and oxidized more is something to be expected.

As such the white vellum argument comes across as a non-starter of an argument; and is fundamentally nothing more than an argument from incredulity, or possibly even an argument from ignorance.

I am speaking, of course, as a layman. But without good reasons and arguments to the contrary, to argue that there are sheets of well preserved vellum as an argument against antiquity seems to be based upon a general ignorance of the fact that things are well preserved in dry environments such as, perhaps, a monastery in the Sinai Desert in Egypt, as opposed to the wet, temperate climate of Britain.

-CryptoLutheran

the museum was just astonished that an ancient manuscript was not as oxidized as it should have been, oxidation happens like you said any time a manuscript is exposed to air. It does not matter if it is wet or not, anytime it's exposed to air it's oxidizing. Now we keep them in vacuum sealed containers. But they didn't have that back then, so I fail to see how they could have in fact sealed it before the technology was developed. As far as different color pages, I hypothesize that when they were looking for older pages to use to forge, they could not find uniform colors. But no, if it is stored in a same location, all pages should roughly look the same.

 

[ViaCrucis]

the museum was just astonished that an ancient manuscript was not as oxidized as it should have been, oxidation happens like you said any time a manuscript is exposed to air. It does not matter if it is wet or not, anytime it's exposed to air it's oxidizing. Now we keep them in vacuum sealed containers. But they didn't have that back then, so I fail to see how they could have in fact sealed it before the technology was developed.

Moisture plays a role, so yes it does matter if it is wet or not. Leave a piece of iron metal in a wet forest, and then leave a piece of iron metal in a desert, the iron in the forest is going to rust--oxidize--much faster. This is exactly why we have found papyrus fragments (and entire leaves) that are thousands of years old in places like Egypt, but not, say, Scotland.

The surprise that something so old was so well preserved says only that it was impressive how well preserved something was. It says nothing about the actual antiquity of something.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[createdtoworship]

Moisture plays a role, so yes it does matter if it is wet or not. Leave a piece of iron metal in a wet forest, and then leave a piece of iron metal in a desert, the iron in the forest is going to rust--oxidize--much faster. This is exactly why we have found papyrus fragments (and entire leaves) that are thousands of years old in places like Egypt, but not, say, Scotland.

The surprise that something so old was so well preserved says only that it was impressive how well preserved something was. It says nothing about the actual antiquity of something.

-CryptoLutheran

iron and cloth differ in how they relate to moisture. But regardless, the museum mentioned oxidization and that does not happen by water, but by oxygen

 

[ViaCrucis]

iron and cloth differ in how they relate to moisture. But regardless, the museum mentioned oxidization and that does not happen by water, but by oxygen

You're simply dismissing the relevance the humidity in the air plays here, even though that's an absolutely critical fact that can't be simply disregarded. So no, not "regardless". Regarding the humidity of the air is the whole point.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[createdtoworship]

You're simply dismissing the relevance the humidity in the air plays here, even though that's an absolutely critical fact that can't be simply disregarded. So no, not "regardless". Regarding the humidity of the air is the whole point.

-CryptoLutheran

It's not all about humidity, heat is more important regarding how it breaks down. This article suggests low levels of low humidity actually helpful in preserving libraries and archives.... and how no moisture hurts it.

https://www.nedcc.org/free-resource...air-quality-basic-guidelines-for-preservation

but again they were not worried about the break down of the manuscript they were worried about the darkening due to oxidization, this happens with oxygen not water.

 

[ViaCrucis]

It's not all about humidity, heat is more important regarding how it breaks down. This article suggests low levels of low humidity actually helpful in preserving libraries and archives.... and how no moisture hurts it.

https://www.nedcc.org/free-resource...air-quality-basic-guidelines-for-preservation

but again they were not worried about the break down of the manuscript they were worried about the darkening due to oxidization, this happens with oxygen not water.

According to the article it's a combination of climatic factors, note:

"High relative humidity provides the moisture necessary to promote harmful chemical reactions in materials and, in combination with high temperature, encourages mold growth and insect activity."

That's in the first paragraph.

And also, from the second paragraph,

"Fluctuations in temperature and relative humidity are also damaging. Library and archival materials are hygroscopic, readily absorbing and releasing moisture. They respond to diurnal and seasonal changes in temperature and relative humidity by expanding and contracting. Dimensional changes accelerate deterioration and lead to such visible damage as cockling paper, flaking ink, warped covers on books, and cracked emulsion on photographs."

This is a more specific statement about the preservation of vellum and those things which can hamper preservation,

"Problems Caused by Water or Excessive Moisture: expansion of the object beyond its original dimensions; increased darkening and discoloration of skin already damaged by mold; softening and / or solubilizing of media resulting in offset onto adjacent materials (felts, blotters, etc.); alteration of surface preparations and coatings; removal of the lime and / or chalk resulting in a translucent appearance similar to rawhide; in severe cases of water exposure, realignment of the fiber bundles to a random pattern (rather than parallel to the surface) resulting in a stiff, horny, translucent skin; translucency resulting from overly damp skin being dried under no tension at all; gelatinization of an already degraded skin." - Foundation of the American Institute for Conservation (http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/pcc/18_parchment.pdf)

As such, vellum's hygroscopy does influence discoloration.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[createdtoworship]

According to the article it's a combination of climatic factors, note:

"High relative humidity provides the moisture necessary to promote harmful chemical reactions in materials and, in combination with high temperature, encourages mold growth and insect activity."

That's in the first paragraph.

And also, from the second paragraph,

"Fluctuations in temperature and relative humidity are also damaging. Library and archival materials are hygroscopic, readily absorbing and releasing moisture. They respond to diurnal and seasonal changes in temperature and relative humidity by expanding and contracting. Dimensional changes accelerate deterioration and lead to such visible damage as cockling paper, flaking ink, warped covers on books, and cracked emulsion on photographs."

This is a more specific statement about the preservation of vellum and those things which can hamper preservation,

"Problems Caused by Water or Excessive Moisture: expansion of the object beyond its original dimensions; increased darkening and discoloration of skin already damaged by mold; softening and / or solubilizing of media resulting in offset onto adjacent materials (felts, blotters, etc.); alteration of surface preparations and coatings; removal of the lime and / or chalk resulting in a translucent appearance similar to rawhide; in severe cases of water exposure, realignment of the fiber bundles to a random pattern (rather than parallel to the surface) resulting in a stiff, horny, translucent skin; translucency resulting from overly damp skin being dried under no tension at all; gelatinization of an already degraded skin." - Foundation of the American Institute for Conservation (http://cool.conservation-us.org/coolaic/sg/bpg/pcc/18_parchment.pdf)

As such, vellum's hygroscopy does influence discoloration.

-CryptoLutheran

yes I know, I posted the article.

so moisture affects it but temperature is the critical aspect. And the museum was replying to neither of those, but oxidization. Which the article does not mention.

So unless you wish to debate the missing 200 verses, I am not going to spend more time on this particular subject. Again, why is the manuscript whiter when discovered? Even if moisture played a part, there is no indication there was a perfect atmosphere for manuscripts back then, chances are unlikely. Most likely it has a similiar surrounding as all the other manuscripts, sealed with wax or whatever, in a porous pot or something. Statistically without further evidence that is what we must assume. So that refutes any moisture allegations. Thanks for the debate. I am sorry to cut it short, but this is getting frustrating seeing someone use a small issue to dismiss the greater aspect of a forgery. We must go by statistics, not our opinions. How were most manuscripts stored, what is to say this one was different? With no proof, we cannot say it had a better environment and no doubt this is why the museum was shocked again at the newnewness of a 1300 year old document. Imagine how when you recycle newspapers in your garage, even though it is dry and relatively clean, they get brittle, and stiff after a few years. Imagine 1300 years! There is no way it should have been that white after 13 generations of time.

 

[createdtoworship]

Modern translations have over 200 verses missing as seen in this small picture, no big deal right? But why would that happen? Perhaps a forgery. The manuscript leaves when examined by the british museum were astonishingly white, as I have quoted numerous quotes of eye witnesses. Saying it was snow white. now when you see it, it's not snow white? what happened in 100 years? Oxidization. Which means the 1300 years prior, it should have oxidized a lot more than it has, unless it was a 19th century work. Which one person confessed to forging, and an eye witness collaborated. Money can be traced to vatican.

Not all manuscripts have a sketchy past, in fact the majority text has a spotty clean history. It was never controlled by the vatican for hundreds of years, like vaticanus. (half of westcott and hort text). The NKJV comes from majority text, as well as many majority text translation projects as posted.

 

[robycop3]

The main killer of the KJVO myth is the fact that it has NO SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT. While one may not be completely sola scriptura, Christians don't believe doctrines not found in Scripture at all. sw

 

[ViaCrucis]

So unless you wish to debate the missing 200 verses,

The very way the subject is broached is misleading and loaded.

There are readings used in the TR which are absent from our oldest manuscripts; and as such there have been those who when translating the Bible have chosen older readings which are not found in the TR.

To argue that this is a problem requires first establishing that the TR ought to be our baseline. And since the TR is nothing more than representative of a particular set of readings from the 16th and 17th centuries taken from the critical editions of the period--and not, as is sometimes claimed some unaltered manuscript tradition going back into antiquity. The TR did not exist until the 16th century.

So why is the TR our baseline? On what basis?

If you want to shift gears, then let's do so.

To even begin talking about "missing verses" one needs to establish that this is, in fact, actually the case. But it isn't.

Differences in textual variation is a fact of having thousands of hand-copied manuscripts spanning the course of the last two thousand years. There's no such thing as a "pure" manuscript. So to make an argument about which variant readings should be accepted requires that we do more than simply everything to the TR as though the TR were somehow our gold standard--it's not.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[createdtoworship]

The very way the subject is broached is misleading and loaded.

There are readings used in the TR which are absent from our oldest manuscripts; and as such there have been those who when translating the Bible have chosen older readings which are not found in the TR.

To argue that this is a problem requires first establishing that the TR ought to be our baseline. And since the TR is nothing more than representative of a particular set of readings from the 16th and 17th centuries taken from the critical editions of the period--and not, as is sometimes claimed some unaltered manuscript tradition going back into antiquity. The TR did not exist until the 16th century.

So why is the TR our baseline? On what basis?

If you want to shift gears, then let's do so.

To even begin talking about "missing verses" one needs to establish that this is, in fact, actually the case. But it isn't.

Differences in textual variation is a fact of having thousands of hand-copied manuscripts spanning the course of the last two thousand years. There's no such thing as a "pure" manuscript. So to make an argument about which variant readings should be accepted requires that we do more than simply everything to the TR as though the TR were somehow our gold standard--it's not.

-CryptoLutheran

So a simplistic argument of " the verses were added later." Falls apart when you read Harry Sturz patristic quotations of the byzantine manuscript. In laymans terms, you have church fathers quoting the missing verses that are in the NKJV but not in the NIV. And to conclude our topic on the forgery. Say a miracle happneed and the sinaiticus was preserved better than any of the other 5000 greek manuscripts we currently have. Say an angel protected it. Well the angel would know that no one would believe it. At least the honest searchers, which shows that an angel would nit do it. Secondly let's apply this mindset to a modern forgery. Say a manuscript was found in a jar that says Jesus got drunk with his disciples and slept around with marry magdalene. It was an extremely white manuscript, as if it was written in the last few years, yet the scholars say it dates back to the time of Christ. Now....fast forward to this discussion.....you said that darkening depends on environment and that iT is possible at least that the sinaiticus was preserved. So then I can also say the same about the forgery about Jesus too. And you would have to recant of your statements and arguments to.disprove it. So again it does not work scientifically. And again it's not about what is possible but about what is probable. Ok? So that concludes that discussion with you unless you come up with some evidence the sinaiticus was preserved using technology that did not exist at the time, which I doubt you can.

 

[ViaCrucis]

So a simplistic argument of " the verses were added later." Falls apart when you read Harry Sturz patristic quotations of the byzantine manuscript. In laymans terms, you have church fathers quoting the missing verses that are in the NKJV but not in the NIV. And to conclude our topic on the forgery. Say a miracle happneed and the sinaiticus was preserved better than any of the other 5000 greek manuscripts we currently have. Say an angel protected it. Well the angel would know that no one would believe it. At least the honest searchers, which shows that an angel would nit do it. Secondly let's apply this mindset to a modern forgery. Say a manuscript was found in a jar that says Jesus got drunk with his disciples and slept around with marry magdalene. It was an extremely white manuscript, as if it was written in the last few years, yet the scholars say it dates back to the time of Christ. Now....fast forward to this discussion.....you said that darkening depends on environment and that iT is possible at least that the sinaiticus was preserved. So then I can also say the same about the forgery about Jesus too. And you would have to recant of your statements and arguments to.disprove it. So again it does not work scientifically. And again it's not about what is possible but about what is probable. Ok? So that concludes that discussion with you unless you come up with some evidence the sinaiticus was preserved using technology that did not exist at the time, which I doubt you can.

We actually have an example of modern forgeries--and they were discovered to be forgeries pretty quickly. Why? Because the relevant fields in which literally thousands of scientists and scholars have devoted their lives to have been equipped with the knowledge and tools to discover fraudulent work. That's how we know the so-called "Gospel of Secret Mark" was a forgery, that's how we know the more recent "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" was a forgery. And it's also how we know that Sinaiticus is not a forgery, but the real deal.

As far as patristic sources go, here's the thing, we find that they aren't even remotely in perfect agreement in their source material.

For example, here we see St. Clement of Alexandria citing the minority variant reading of John 1:18:

"And John the apostle says: 'No man has seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him,' — calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God. Hence some have called it the Depth, as containing and embosoming all things, inaccessible and boundless." - St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book V, ch. 12

And then we can take, for example, the Comma Johanneum which has no patristic support whatsoever beyond perhaps St. Cyprian of Carthage, however he merely says "and these three are one" a phrase found in 1 John 5:8 even without the Comma. Therefore any attempt to use Cyprian as a defense of the Comma is exceptionally unrealistic given the sheer weight of silence. That, however, 1 John 5:8 becomes our prototype for what would become the Comma by way of interpretation, eventually leading to the creation of the Comma and thus presence in the Vulgate by the time of Erasmus is understandable.

By all means, feel free to browse these things yourself, you can freely browse citations and allusions to the New Testament from the fathers of the first three centuries right here.

EDITED: I had previously referenced 1 John 5:6, when I should have cited 1 John 5:8. This has been corrected.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[ViaCrucis]

Just to add: Looking at St. Cyprian's original Latin text of De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate, Cyprian's citation is "et hi tres unum sunt", which matches the Vulgate's 1 John 5:8, "et hi tres unum sunt.". Granted Cyprian, living in the 3rd century, was familiar with the Old Latin texts, as St. Jerome would not produce the Vulgate for another century after Cyprian.

The Latin text of De Catholicae can be found as a doc file here (found in chapter 6): Cyprianus Carthaginensis - De Catholicae Ecclesiae Unitate [0200-0258] Full Text at Documenta Catholica Omnia

I am comparing Cyprian's quote to the Clementine Vulgate found here: Vulgata Clementina

This is all simply to add that, again, Cyprian was likely citing 1 John 5:8, not the Comma as the Comma did not yet exist. I would conjecture instead that the Comma came about largely due to statements like this by Cyprian and the other fathers. As what began as a scribal note, which is what the mainstream hypothesis presently is.

-CryptoLutheran

 

[createdtoworship]

We actually have an example of modern forgeries--and they were discovered to be forgeries pretty quickly. Why? Because the relevant fields in which literally thousands of scientists and scholars have devoted their lives to have been equipped with the knowledge and tools to discover fraudulent work. That's how we know the so-called "Gospel of Secret Mark" was a forgery, that's how we know the more recent "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" was a forgery. And it's also how we know that Sinaiticus is not a forgery, but the real deal.

As far as patristic sources go, here's the thing, we find that they aren't even remotely in perfect agreement in their source material.

For example, here we see St. Clement of Alexandria citing the minority variant reading of John 1:18:

"And John the apostle says: 'No man has seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him,' — calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God. Hence some have called it the Depth, as containing and embosoming all things, inaccessible and boundless." - St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book V, ch. 12

And then we can take, for example, the Comma Johanneum which has no patristic support whatsoever beyond perhaps St. Cyprian of Carthage, however he merely says "and these three are one" a phrase found in 1 John 5:8 even without the Comma. Therefore any attempt to use Cyprian as a defense of the Comma is exceptionally unrealistic given the sheer weight of silence. That, however, 1 John 5:8 becomes our prototype for what would become the Comma by way of interpretation, eventually leading to the creation of the Comma and thus presence in the Vulgate by the time of Erasmus is understandable.

By all means, feel free to browse these things yourself, you can freely browse citations and allusions to the New Testament from the fathers of the first three centuries right here.

EDITED: I had previously referenced 1 John 5:6, when I should have cited 1 John 5:8. This has been corrected.

-CryptoLutheran

well I don't have the link right now for sturz works on patristic quotes, but I do have early papyrus that they have found matching only the byzantine manuscripts, words in greek for example that are not there in westcott hort greek text...

Mark

5:42 εξεστησαν P45 AWΘΠΣ unc9 λ φ 565 700 pl it vg sy sa geo K ς
6:2 εν τη συναγωγη διδασκειν AΝWΠΣΦ unc9 pl λ φ 28 565 700 1071 g1 g2 i q vg go K ς
6:45 απολυση P45 A E2 FHMSUVWΠ 33 pm K ς
6:48 ειδεν P45 EFGHSUΓΠ2 λ φ 565 700 pm sy arm eth K ς
6:50 ειδον (or ιδον itac.) (P45) AKLMVXΓΔΠ pl K ς
7:12 και ουκετι αφιετε P45 AWXΓΠ unc9 579 pl f g2 vg go sy arm K ς
7:30 το δαιμ. εξελ. και την θυγ. βεβλ. AΝWXΠ unc9 φ pl a n sy-p go arm K ς
7:30 επι της κλινης P45 W λ φ 33 565 pl K ς
7:31 και σιδωνος ηλθε P45 AΝWXΓΠ unc9 λ φ pl q sy-s sy-p go arm (sa) K ς
7:32 μογιλαλον P45 ALΝXΓΠ unc9 λ φ pl co sy-s sy-p go (arm) K ς
7:35 ευθεως P45 AEFGHKMNSUVWXΘΠ 0132 λ φ 565 700 pl c f 1 vg sy-s sy-p (sa) go eth arm K ς
7:35 διηνοιχθησαν P45 ANXΓΠ 0132 unc9 φ 579 pm K ς
7:36 αυτος αυτοις P45 EFGHKMNSUV ΓΠ φ pl sy go eth arm K ς
9:6 ησαν γαρ εκφοβοι P45 AKNUWXΓΠΦ unc9 λ φ 700 pl f l g1 vg sy-p co go K ς
9:20 ευθεως το πνευμα P45 AINWXΓΘΠΦ unc9 λ φ 700 pl ς
9:20 εσπαραξεν P45 AINWXΓΘΠ unc9 λ φ 565 700 pl K ς
12:6 αγαπητον αυτου P45 ANWXΓΠΦ unc9 λ φ 28 pl K ς
12:16 ειπον P45 NXΓΘΠ unc9 λ φ pl K ς

here is a full document I put together on early papyrus support (words in greek that are not there in westcott and hort).

-Unlicensed-quotations of byzantine that match Bible text behind KJV- sturz.docx

 

[solid_core]

well I don't have the link right now for sturz works on patristic quotes, but I do have early papyrus that they have found matching only the byzantine manuscripts, words in greek for example that are not there in westcott hort greek text...

Mark 5:42 εξεστησαν P45 AWΘΠΣ unc9 λ φ 565 700 pl it vg sy sa geo K ς

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:42 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort 1881
καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέστη τὸ κοράσιον καὶ περιεπάτει, ἦν γὰρ ἐτῶν δώδεκα. καὶ ἐξέστησαν εὐθὺς ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ.

What do you mean? Its there.

-----

Note: It does not make much sense to compare something to 19th century critical text that is not used today. Nestlé-Aland is used in 2020, not Westcott-Hort.

 

[createdtoworship]

We actually have an example of modern forgeries--and they were discovered to be forgeries pretty quickly. Why? Because the relevant fields in which literally thousands of scientists and scholars have devoted their lives to have been equipped with the knowledge and tools to discover fraudulent work. That's how we know the so-called "Gospel of Secret Mark" was a forgery, that's how we know the more recent "Gospel of Jesus' Wife" was a forgery. And it's also how we know that Sinaiticus is not a forgery, but the real deal.

As far as patristic sources go, here's the thing, we find that they aren't even remotely in perfect agreement in their source material.

For example, here we see St. Clement of Alexandria citing the minority variant reading of John 1:18:

"And John the apostle says: 'No man has seen God at any time. The only-begotten God, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him,' — calling invisibility and ineffableness the bosom of God. Hence some have called it the Depth, as containing and embosoming all things, inaccessible and boundless." - St. Clement of Alexandria, Stromata, Book V, ch. 12

And then we can take, for example, the Comma Johanneum which has no patristic support whatsoever beyond perhaps St. Cyprian of Carthage, however he merely says "and these three are one" a phrase found in 1 John 5:8 even without the Comma. Therefore any attempt to use Cyprian as a defense of the Comma is exceptionally unrealistic given the sheer weight of silence. That, however, 1 John 5:8 becomes our prototype for what would become the Comma by way of interpretation, eventually leading to the creation of the Comma and thus presence in the Vulgate by the time of Erasmus is understandable.

By all means, feel free to browse these things yourself, you can freely browse citations and allusions to the New Testament from the fathers of the first three centuries right here.

EDITED: I had previously referenced 1 John 5:6, when I should have cited 1 John 5:8. This has been corrected.

-CryptoLutheran

so it is common to use used papaprus for fogeries because it carbon dates older. And that would appear to be the case in the sinaiticus, worm holes through one page, and not through another, stains on one page and not on the other, very darker pages from one to the other. Normally stains, wormholes and color pigment of leaves are uniform.

 

[createdtoworship]

Mark 5:42 εξεστησαν P45 AWΘΠΣ unc9 λ φ 565 700 pl it vg sy sa geo K ς

ΚΑΤΑ ΜΑΡΚΟΝ 5:42 Greek NT: Westcott and Hort 1881
καὶ εὐθὺς ἀνέστη τὸ κοράσιον καὶ περιεπάτει, ἦν γὰρ ἐτῶν δώδεκα. καὶ ἐξέστησαν εὐθὺς ἐκστάσει μεγάλῃ.

What do you mean? Its there.

-----

Note: It does not make much sense to compare something to 19th century critical text that is not used today. Nestlé-Aland is used in 2020, not Westcott-Hort.

I will look at this later, thanks try some more of them, there is literally hundreds. Also cross reference with an online copy of codex vaticanus and sinaiticus. It is possible the translators added the word, after all the article specifically mentions the manuscripts not the greek translation.

 

[solid_core]

I will look at this later, thanks try some more of them, there is literally hundreds

Why do you think such work is meaningful? Westcott-Hort is not used today, its a work of the 19th century.

You should study Nestlé-Aland.