An Impossible Challenge for KJVOs

[thankfulttt]

So a man claims to have written the sinaiticus. You do know that the Sinaiticus isn't the only text included in the Majority Text?

It is really not fair to jump all over the place without thoroughly examining each individual item. There is more evidence on the Codex Sinaiticus. If you are willing to concede it was a forgery we can move on to the next item, otherwise we should continue examining the manuscript.

Best regards, Terry

 

[sculleywr]

It is really not fair to jump all over the place without thoroughly examining each individual item. There is more evidence on the Codex Sinaiticus. If you are willing to concede it was a forgery we can move on to the next item, otherwise we should continue examining the manuscript.

Best regards, Terry

There are multiple manuscripts to which translators turn, about 5.8 thousand in total. You're telling me that it is impossible for any of those outside of the TR to be prior to the 19th century?

You are, quite plainly, misled if you think I'll take you seriously when your opening argument is that a random dude claimed to have written the Sinaiticus, a text only used as reference material, as it is incomplete.

 

[James Is Back]

KJVO's will defend the TR to the tee so don't be surprised by it.

 

[thankfulttt]

There are multiple manuscripts to which translators turn, about 5.8 thousand in total. You're telling me that it is impossible for any of those outside of the TR to be prior to the 19th century?

No I am not telling you that, but which of these 5.8 thousand manuscripts do you want to hang your hat on. Why not look at each and every one of them, and see if any of them hold water.

You are, quite plainly, misled if you think I'll take you seriously when your opening argument is that a random dude claimed to have written the Sinaiticus, a text only used as reference material, as it is incomplete.

1. The Sinaiticus is (01) aleph. It holds first place on the list of Alexandrian manuscripts.

2. It is the only one that contains the complete New Testament that is dated to the third or fourth century.

3. In all likely-hood there would not have been The Revised Version had it not been for this manuscript. It gave credence to the Codex Vaticanus that lay hidden in the Vatican.

Why not examine the evidence for the random dude's claim. It has all been recorded in "The Guardian Newspaper".

We can disagree and still be civil, can we not?

Best regards, Terry

 

[sculleywr]

No I am not telling you that, but which of these 5.8 thousand manuscripts do you want to hang your hat on. Why not look at each and every one of them, and see if any of them hold water.

1. Because not only is that a task requiring such an immense amount of time that few doctorate's level scholars have examined all 5.8 thousand, but most of them are partials.

1. The Sinaiticus is (01) aleph. It holds first place on the list of Alexandrian manuscripts.

2. It is the only one that contains the complete New Testament that is dated to the third or fourth century.

3. In all likely-hood there would not have been The Revised Version had it not been for this manuscript. It gave credence to the Codex Vaticanus that lay hidden in the Vatican.

Why not examine the evidence for the random dude's claim. It has all been recorded in "The Guardian Newspaper".

We can disagree and still be civil, can we not?

Best regards, Terry

Because Simonides is one man, and regardless of that, the removal of the Sinaiticus would not have that much effect on textual criticism.

This discussion distracts from the fact that even compared to the TR, the KJV falls short. And funnily enough, the KJV falls short of itself, because the New Testament of the KJV misquotes the Old Testament.

 

[thankfulttt]

1. Because not only is that a task requiring such an immense amount of time that few doctorate's level scholars have examined all 5.8 thousand, but most of them are partials.

How about we just go down the line of manuscripts until we find one acceptable. Isn't that fair?

Because Simonides is one man, and regardless of that, the removal of the Sinaiticus would not have that much effect on textual criticism

There is much more on Simonides, but set Simonides aside for a minute, and lets look at the actual manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus.

This discussion distracts from the fact that even compared to the TR, the KJV falls short. And funnily enough, the KJV falls short of itself, because the New Testament of the KJV misquotes the Old Testament.

The new translations say they are better because they come from older manuscripts. Why shouldn't we look at these older manuscripts to determine whether they are older.

There is no chain of evidence for the material that was used to rewrite the Bible.

 

[sculleywr]

How about we just go down the line of manuscripts until we find one acceptable. Isn't that fair?

How about we start with your credentials?

There is much more on Simonides, but set Simonides aside for a minute, and lets look at the actual manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus.

The new translations say they are better because they come from older manuscripts. Why shouldn't we look at these older manuscripts to determine whether they are older.

There is no chain of evidence for the material that was used to rewrite the Bible.

There isn't plausible evidence for your theory. I'd rather go for this:

Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

Dating is done according to handwriting, not discrepancies.

 

[thankfulttt]

How about we start with your credentials?

Well I didn't go to Harvard, or Princeton. Lets just say I am a dummy and let it go at that.

Diverting the microscope from the manuscripts to me is not going to increase our knowledge of the manuscripts. If these manuscripts are good enough to allow us to alter the Bible, why is everyone afraid to look at them?

There isn't plausible evidence for your theory. I'd rather go for this:

Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts

OK. What is the oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament?

Dating is done according to handwriting, not discrepancies.

Not true. A number of manuscripts were only considered forgeries after the examination of their contents. Some paleographers were good enough to fool anyone.

 

[sculleywr]

Well I didn't go to Harvard, or Princeton. Lets just say I am a dummy and let it go at that.

Diverting the microscope from the manuscripts to me is not going to increase our knowledge of the manuscripts. If these manuscripts are good enough to allow us to alter the Bible, why is everyone afraid to look at them?

Not afraid to look at them. I'm just wondering whether or not you're some guy who trusts the propaganda of the KJVO crowd saying they are corrupt. Even removing the Sinaiticus from the picture, you can still get the full text using the partials. I doubt that there were enough grifters out there to make that many forgeries of texts that weren't even commonly used.

OK. What is the oldest complete manuscript of the New Testament?

You could just, I don't know, glance at the link I posted in the portion you just responded to with that question. You never would have had to answer it. Please peruse the links I send.

Not true. A number of manuscripts were only considered forgeries after the examination of their contents. Some paleographers were good enough to fool anyone.

And yet the majority of scholars don't seem to agree with your assessment. I don't accept your theory because the theory has gone through peer review, and those reviews seem to be negative toward it.

 

[thankfulttt]

Not afraid to look at them. I'm just wondering whether or not you're some guy who trusts the propaganda of the KJVO crowd saying they are corrupt. Even removing the Sinaiticus from the picture, you can still get the full text using the partials. I doubt that there were enough grifters out there to make that many forgeries of texts that weren't even commonly used.

It has been said to not believe anything you hear, and only half of what you see. That does not mean that everything you hear is false, only that it is better to assume its false until you go about to establish its truth.

Psa 116:11 I said in my haste, All men are liars.
1Th 5:21 Prove all things; hold fast that which is good.

You could just, I don't know, glance at the link I posted in the portion you just responded to with that question. You never would have had to answer it. Please peruse the links I send.

I was interested in what you thought, not what someone else thought.

There was an interesting statement in that link. "Most of the work in textual criticism in the past forty years has been done by Kurt Aland in Münster and Bruce Metzger in Princeton. The latest translations of the New Testament are based on their work."

Your answer is the Codex Sinaiticus, is that not true?

Here is a line from the Codex Sinaiticus.

MHCENAYTONKC

Notice that there is no punctuation or space between letters. Here First Chronicles 19:17 ends in the middle between N and A, and then we have Ezra 9:8 starting from A, right there in the middle, no separation. There is a line over KC, the abreviation for Lord. The main scribe did not know how to spell Isaac. There are numerous spelling errors indicating that it was transcribed through dictation. It would also appear that it was copied from Vaticanus, since they both have an identical error that seems highly unlikely if only by chance.

And yet the majority of scholars don't seem to agree with your assessment. I don't accept your theory because the theory has gone through peer review, and those reviews seem to be negative toward it.

They haven't investigated. They have sat in class and absorbed, and believed, and now espouse the same rhetoric.

 

[Unix]

No it doesn't appear to be copied from Vaticanus, those errors You are talking about have crept into manuscripts at an earlier stage:

[...] Codex Sinaiticus.

[...] There are numerous spelling errors indicating that it was transcribed through dictation. It would also appear that it was copied from Vaticanus, since they both have an identical error that seems highly unlikely if only by chance.

 

[thankfulttt]

No it doesn't appear to be copied from Vaticanus, those errors You are talking about have crept into manuscripts at an earlier stage:

And we know this because we have been told? While it is possible that it crept in from an earlier stage, why wasn't it caught. It is said that there is more than 8,000 variations between the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. Surely to have that many variations there had to be enough stages where this obvious blunder would have been caught.

What is wrong with the following verse?

Mar 4:21 And he said unto them, Is a candle brought to be put under a bushel, or under a bed? and not to be set under a candlestick?

With all the so called correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus surely one of them should have noticed over 1400 years.

Obviously no one was reading this bible.

Grace and peace in Jesus Christ.

 

[sculleywr]

At the point that you said the scholars haven't investigated their own field of expertise, you lost all credibility. So you do accept the propaganda.

 

[thankfulttt]

At the point that you said the scholars haven't investigated their own field of expertise, you lost all credibility. So you do accept the propaganda.

They don't teach intelligent design in the Ohio School System because they claim that the students would not be able to obtain employment in the scientific community.

I wouldn't say all scholars haven't investigated their own field, but those that disagree with their professors are ostracized.

What is wrong with, not just taking someones word, but rather investigating to see what truth is?

Best regards, Terry

 

[sculleywr]

They don't teach intelligent design in the Ohio School System because they claim that the students would not be able to obtain employment in the scientific community.

I wouldn't say all scholars haven't investigated their own field, but those that disagree with their professors are ostracized.

What is wrong with, not just taking someones word, but rather investigating to see what truth is?

Best regards, Terry

Scholars of textual criticism and Biblical manuscripts are not to be considered frauds because other fields have frauds.

I investigated the claims by Simonides. Supposedly, he gave it to a monastery in Sinai, but then when the monastery went to sell it, he claimed it as his own work. Considering that he spent time at Sinai, it is equally likely that Simonides was familiar with the Sinaiticus. Given that there is no corroboration of his having forged it, I'll accept the standard underestanding.

 

[James Is Back]

Scholars of textual criticism and Biblical manuscripts are not to be considered frauds because other fields have frauds.

I investigated the claims by Simonides. Supposedly, he gave it to a monastery in Sinai, but then when the monastery went to sell it, he claimed it as his own work. Considering that he spent time at Sinai, it is equally likely that Simonides was familiar with the Sinaiticus. Given that there is no corroboration of his having forged it, I'll accept the standard underestanding.

And here lies the problem that the KJV Advocates don't realize that the Received Text is outdated and no modern Textual Critic uses it. Heck they don't even use the Westcott and Hort method either.

 

[thankfulttt]

Scholars of textual criticism and Biblical manuscripts are not to be considered frauds because other fields have frauds.

True, but it doesn't mean they should be given a free pass either.

I investigated the claims by Simonides. Supposedly, he gave it to a monastery in Sinai, but then when the monastery went to sell it, he claimed it as his own work. Considering that he spent time at Sinai, it is equally likely that Simonides was familiar with the Sinaiticus. Given that there is no corroboration of his having forged it, I'll accept the standard underestanding.

If you research the archives of "The Guardian Newspaper" you will find some actual events regarding Simonides that actually took place.

There was a book written by J. A. Farrer that was published in 1907 called Literary Forgeries. It contains 282 pages of which 27 are dedicated to Simonides, of which 6 are dedicated to the Codex Sinaiticus.

Farrer's summary-

"On the side of Simonides is his unlimited skill in calligraphy; the very audacity of such a claim if entirely baseless; the remarkable presence in the Codex of a portion of the Shepherd of Hermas, which Simonides was the first scholar ever to have seen in Greek; the very natural allusions to the work in the lithographed letters; the fact that no visitor to the monastery at Mount Sinai before 1844 had ever seen or heard of such a work as belonging to the monks; and the very extraordinary story told by Tischendorf of his discovery and acquisition of the Codex. The question therefore, pending the acquisition of further evidence, must remain among the interesting but unsolved mysteries of literature."

 

[sculleywr]

True, but it doesn't mean they should be given a free pass either.



If you research the archives of "The Guardian Newspaper" you will find some actual events regarding Simonides that actually took place.

There was a book written by J. A. Farrer that was published in 1907 called Literary Forgeries. It contains 282 pages of which 27 are dedicated to Simonides, of which 6 are dedicated to the Codex Sinaiticus.

Farrer's summary-

"On the side of Simonides is his unlimited skill in calligraphy; the very audacity of such a claim if entirely baseless; the remarkable presence in the Codex of a portion of the Shepherd of Hermas, which Simonides was the first scholar ever to have seen in Greek; the very natural allusions to the work in the lithographed letters; the fact that no visitor to the monastery at Mount Sinai before 1844 had ever seen or heard of such a work as belonging to the monks; and the very extraordinary story told by Tischendorf of his discovery and acquisition of the Codex. The question therefore, pending the acquisition of further evidence, must remain among the interesting but unsolved mysteries of literature."

By your own admittance, though, the Guardian got their information from Simonides, which means it does not qualify as corroboration.

Corroboration would be eyewitness testimony (it would be quite difficult to conceal efforts at forging a copy of the entire New Testament in a busy monastery), or other information. Since Tischendorf technically never met with Simonides, he doesn't really corroborate it, either.

Your corroboration is the lack of evidence. Is it not equally possible that the codex was simply lost to memory before its rediscovery?

 

[thankfulttt]

By your own admittance, though, the Guardian got their information from Simonides, which means it does not qualify as corroboration.

Corroboration would be eyewitness testimony (it would be quite difficult to conceal efforts at forging a copy of the entire New Testament in a busy monastery), or other information. Since Tischendorf technically never met with Simonides, he doesn't really corroborate it, either.

There is physical evidence in the form of two lithographed letters that Simonides sent to his friend describing the manuscript he was writing.
Those letters are in the British library. The foreman at the lithograph company attested to them.

Your corroboration is the lack of evidence. Is it not equally possible that the codex was simply lost to memory before its rediscovery?

Yes it is possible, but there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence.

Letter dated April 19, 1853 from John Hort to Reverend John Ellerton.

Excerpt-

"He(Westcott) and I(Hort) are going to edit a Greek text of the NT some two or three years hence, if possible. Larchmann and Tischendorf will supply us with rich materials(Codex Sinaiticus), but not nearly enough,--.

Timeline of Tischendorf's finds.

1844 According to Tischendorf he was allowed to purchase 43 sheets of the Codex Sinaiticus from Mt Sinai, which he named Codex Frederico Augustanus. (1 Chronicles chapter 11-19:17, Ezra 9:8-Esther 10, Jeremiah11-Lamentations 2:20)

1853 Tischendorf is back at Mt. Sinai looking for rich material for Hort. Unable to find more of the Sinaiticus.

1859 Tischendorf miracusly finds every single leaf of the Codex Sinaiticus New Testament in whole condition.(Hort was not concerned with the Old Testament.) The Old Testament portion was fragmented with much of it missing. (Remember this is the same Codex Sinaiticus that the greatest forger of the nineteenth Century claimed to have written.

The strongest proponent for the codex was Henry Bradshaw. Henry Bradshaw was Hort's best friend. While at Cambridge they worked together to put down a revolt against the Vatican.

Then there was the fact that only Simonides had seen a partial copy of the Shepherd of Hermas in Greek, and the Codex Sinaiticus ended in the place in Hermas as Simonides had recorded.

Best regards, Terry

 

[sculleywr]

There is physical evidence in the form of two lithographed letters that Simonides sent to his friend describing the manuscript he was writing.
Those letters are in the British library. The foreman at the lithograph company attested to them.



Yes it is possible, but there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence.

Letter dated April 19, 1853 from John Hort to Reverend John Ellerton.

Excerpt-

"He(Westcott) and I(Hort) are going to edit a Greek text of the NT some two or three years hence, if possible. Larchmann and Tischendorf will supply us with rich materials(Codex Sinaiticus), but not nearly enough,--.

Timeline of Tischendorf's finds.

1844 According to Tischendorf he was allowed to purchase 43 sheets of the Codex Sinaiticus from Mt Sinai, which he named Codex Frederico Augustanus. (1 Chronicles chapter 11-19:17, Ezra 9:8-Esther 10, Jeremiah11-Lamentations 2:20)

1853 Tischendorf is back at Mt. Sinai looking for rich material for Hort. Unable to find more of the Sinaiticus.

1859 Tischendorf miracusly finds every single leaf of the Codex Sinaiticus New Testament in whole condition.(Hort was not concerned with the Old Testament.) The Old Testament portion was fragmented with much of it missing. (Remember this is the same Codex Sinaiticus that the greatest forger of the nineteenth Century claimed to have written.

The strongest proponent for the codex was Henry Bradshaw. Henry Bradshaw was Hort's best friend. While at Cambridge they worked together to put down a revolt against the Vatican.

Then there was the fact that only Simonides had seen a partial copy of the Shepherd of Hermas in Greek, and the Codex Sinaiticus ended in the place in Hermas as Simonides had recorded.

Best regards, Terry

Notice the bold and underlined words. Everything you have is circumstantial, none of it discounts the standard narrative. And as I said before, your physical evidence all comes from Simonides. The "corroboration" neither confirms nor denies your theory.