How do you think the Arians teaching effected the Oldest and Best Manuscripts.

[57Logos]

The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanius were both from the 4th Century AD--the 300's. Both would have been handled by Predominantly a Christian Church that taught Arians view of God. So I was wondering does anyone beside myside think that would have effected the "Oldest and Best Manuscripts" as many scholar call the Sinaiticus and Vaticanius.

 

[CryptoLutheran]

The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanius were both from the 4th Century AD--the 300's. Both would have been handled by Predominantly a Christian Church that taught Arians view of God. So I was wondering does anyone beside myside think that would have effected the "Oldest and Best Manuscripts" as many scholar call the Sinaiticus and Vaticanius.

Is there any reason you'd think they were intentionally tampered with by Arians?

-CryptoLutheran

 

[wayseer]

The Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanius were both from the 4th Century AD--the 300's. Both would have been handled by Predominantly a Christian Church that taught Arians view of God. So I was wondering does anyone beside myside think that would have effected the "Oldest and Best Manuscripts" as many scholar call the Sinaiticus and Vaticanius.

You have to establish some sort of link between Arianian teaching and those texts. Codex S and V are but copies of other texts. What you have to establish is that Arian influenced the original writings of the NT and OT authors. As Arian lived 250–336 he probably did not have any influence at all.

That is not to annul the influence Arian had on the formation of orthodoxy.

 

[57Logos]

Is there any reason you'd think they were intentionally tampered with by Arians?

-CryptoLutheran

It not so much a reason, I have, although these two manuscripts are largely the reason that many scholars consider Mark 16, to only contain 8 verses. It just human nature, that I'm considering and why do we give these two manuscripts, so much honor without taking a thought for the fact that Arius' views where supreme for most ot the 4th Century AD, and the copiers during this time where more than likely of the Arianism view. For remember that Athanius was exile, by Emperor Constantine, because Eusibeus favored Arius' teaching (and Eusibeus was a close friend of the Emperor). And Athanius hold to the view of the modern day Godhead/Trinity, being greatly persecuted for it.

This is not to say they necessarily did, but shouldn't it be token under consideration?

Wayseer, what I trying to say is human nature, even with good intention, is pretty much bias. And if at one time it was say to Athanius, why don't you give up you are against the world (or something to this contexts), and Athanius replied, "is the world against Athanius, than Athanius is against the world." If Athanius was the only Orthodox teacher for a certain time period, that means that all the others where teaching a false doctrine, even those copying the Greek Manuscripts, would have been Arians. So why don't we consider this before calling them the Best.

 

[markedward]

Athanasius was as much a persecutor as he was persecuted. Athanasius was exiled several times... Arius was exiled several times... that doesn't make either of their views true or orthodox just because they were "persecuted".

The Arians did not, as far as we know, intentionally alter the texts of the New Testament. What they did was disagree with how they were interpreted by others.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

The synoptic Gospels really don't proclaim his deity in any uncertain terms. It's the Gospel of John that arians would find the most trouble with. Origen and Irenaeus both called it the "spiritual Gospel" because it looked at Christ through a divine or spiritual perspective. The Gospel of John wasn't a shoe in for canonicity in the catholic church though. There was a lot of debate.

If they edited any of them I would assume that would be the one.

 

[Korah]

This thread has wrong assumptions. The Arians had imperial power behind them, but they remained outnumbered as they had at the Council of Nicaea.
20th Century papyrus discoveries have reinformed the status of B and Sinaiticus as the best texts. Both P66 and P75 are from the 2nd Century and are neutral texts like those 4th Century uncials known earlier. Westcott and Hort were right.

 

[Standing_Ultraviolet]

Neither the Codex Vaticanus nor the Codex Sinaiticus deny the Divinity of Christ at any point, so I really doubt that they were influenced by the Arian heresy. The parts they don't include that the Textus Receptus does don't seem like something that would have been removed specifically by Arians, either.