Codex Sinaiticus to go online

iBrian

iBrian

Peace, Love and Unity
Veteran Member
Messages
6,721
Reaction score
217
Points
63
Location
Scotland
Great news - the Codex Sinaiticus is going to go online next year:

BBC NEWS | Magazine | The rival to the Bible

When the different parts are digitally united next year in a £1m project, anyone will be able to compare and contrast the Codex and the modern Bible.

Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.

One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say "Father forgive them for they know not what they do".
Click to expand...
 
It is interesting that the article writer thinks that one of the books is 'full of antisemitic kindling ready to be lit'. It will hopefully have the opposite affect since 'Antisemitism' already exists. Everything depends upon the prevaling ideas of the day.
 
the codex sinaiticus on line, nice one .:) ​

We should be grateful to Tischendorf for devoting his life and talents to searching for ancient Bible manuscripts and particularly for rescuing the great Codex Sinaiticus from destruction all those years ago .​

But our highest thanks go to Jehovah God, who has seen to it that his Word has been so accurately preserved for our benefit today ​

i think it was in 1844 that Tischendorf discovered the Codex Sinaiticus .

Because Sinaiticus was among the oldest original-language manuscripts, it not only revealed that the Greek Scriptures had remained essentially unchanged but also helped scholars to uncover errors that had crept into later manuscripts.


For example, the reference to Jesus at 1 Timothy 3:16 in Sinaiticus reads: "He was made manifest in the flesh." In place of "he," the majority of then-known manuscripts showed an abbreviation for "God," made by a small alteration of the Greek word for "he." However, Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading "God."

so ,it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text,

evidently introduced to support the Trinity doctrine. (oh dear) :( :rolleyes:

another example, is John 1;18

John 1:18 reads: "No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."

The footnote of the "New World Translation Reference Bible" reveals that "the only-begotten god," rather than the alternative rendering of "the only-begotten Son," is supported by the Codex Sinaiticus and other old manuscripts.


As the trickle of newly discovered ancient Greek manuscripts turned into a virtual flood, scholars were able to compare them critically. This textual criticism should not be confused with "higher criticism," which tends to lessen respect for the Bible as the Word of God.

Textual criticism involves a careful comparison of all known manuscripts of the Bible in order to determine the true or original reading, eliminating any additions.


In 1881 a small but earnest band of Bible teachers and students formed what later became the Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society.

At first, they distributed Bibles produced by other Bible societies, including Tischendorf’s Greek Scriptures.

By 1890, however, they had entered directly into Bible publishing, sponsoring the first of a number of Bible editions.

In 1926 the Society began printing the Bible on its own presses.
But the need for an updated translation of the Bible was becoming more evident.

Could the knowledge gained through the discoveries and scholarship of the preceding century be incorporated in an understandable, affordable Bible?

With this objective, associates of the Society set out in 1946 to produce a fresh translation of the Scriptures.


and here it is online :)












.​


 
Hi Mee —

mee said:
Because Sinaiticus was among the oldest original-language manuscripts, it not only revealed that the Greek Scriptures had remained essentially unchanged but also helped scholars to uncover errors that had crept into later manuscripts.
Click to expand...
Not really, what has been shown is a large number of errors in the Sinaiticus (mostly omissions). Scholars do not treat the Sinaiticus as a 'proof text' — it is not free of errors either.

mee said:
For example, the reference to Jesus at 1 Timothy 3:16 in Sinaiticus reads: "He was made manifest in the flesh." In place of "he," the majority of then-known manuscripts showed an abbreviation for "God," made by a small alteration of the Greek word for "he." However, Sinaiticus was made many years before any Greek manuscript reading "God."
Click to expand...
But the point surely is that the 'he' of the text refers to God. Some say 'he' (as does the older Codex Vaticanus), some 'who', 'which' and 'God' ... but in each case the meaning is the same.

mee said:
so, it revealed that there had been a later corruption of the text, evidently introduced to support the Trinity doctrine. (oh dear) :( :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
Oh dear ... for those who might be interested —
Whilst there are many, indeed myriad discrepancies among the various texts of the Bible, and this is the material context, scholars all agree that the formal content — the message communicated by the text — is the same and consistent throughout. There is no version of the Bible that refutes traditional Christian doctrine.

Scholars have compared well over a thousand (I think it might be two thousand) text versions, tracing back, as far as possible, their family tree, and agree that whilst there is no discernable, single source, nevertheless the content, in essence, is the same.

So unless you make your case in point, Mee, I am inclined to think that's just your usual dig at Christianity.

Oh, and by the way, translating a text and so altering is formal content, the essential message, is a far greater error ... ;)

mee said:
another example, is John 1;18
"No man has seen God at any time; the only-begotten god who is in the bosom position with the Father is the one that has explained him."
Click to expand...
What version of the text did your translation come from?

The Greek text reads: "monogenes huios 'onlybegotten son'

mee said:
The footnote of the "New World Translation Reference Bible" reveals that "the only-begotten god," rather than the alternative rendering of "the only-begotten Son," is supported by the Codex Sinaiticus and other old manuscripts.[/FONT]
Mee ... I think you're fibbing ... as the texts of the Sinaiticus I have seen say 'son' not 'god' ...

mee said:
With this objective, associates of the Society set out in 1946 to produce a fresh translation of the Scriptures.
Click to expand...
With not a Greek or Hebrew linguist of any salt between 'em — as was proved in a test case. In court a 'specialist' could not even recognise, let alone translate, a quite simple Hebrew phrase from the Bible.

Thomas
Click to expand...
 
Thomas said:
But the point surely is that the 'he' of the text refers to God. Some say 'he' (as does the older Codex Vaticanus), some 'who', 'which' and 'God' ... but in each case the meaning is the same.
Click to expand...
No, it is not reasonable to assume that "he" means "God" in that passage.
 
bob x said:
No, it is not reasonable to assume that "he" means "God" in that passage.
Click to expand...

King James Version 1611, 1769 (and the NKJV)
"And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

New Living Translation © 1996 Tyndale Charitable Trust:
"Without question, this is the great mystery of our faith: Christ appeared in the flesh and was shown to be righteous by the Spirit. He was seen by angels and was announced to the nations. He was believed on in the world and was taken up into heaven."
Footnote points out some Greek texts read 'who' or 'God'.

New International Version © 1973, 1978, 1984 International Bible Society
"Beyond all question, the mystery of godliness is great:
He appeared in a body,
was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
was taken up in glory."
Footnote points out some Greek texts read 'who' or 'God'.

Of nine other common Bible translations read 'He' (5 times), or 'God' (4 times).

In all cases the object of the 'mystery of faith' is translated as 'which', 'he', 'who', 'God' and at least once, 'Christ'. The subject refers to the object, the mystery of godliness, or the mystery of faith.

So I fail to see how it is unreasonable?

Thomas
 
Alex P said:
That at every turn you try to ram JW's teachings down everyones throat ;/
Click to expand...

thats ok, he is Jehovas Witness
thats what they do
the world would be less interesting without them

the trick is when they ring at your door just open it standing naked, that usually makes them realize they acidentaly ringed the wrong doorbell and now have to go in a hurry, with apologies
otherwise they get stuck and you have to listen to a 5 minute monologue, before politely accepting the pamflets and saying good bye to them after assuring all that yes you will read them
once i attempted to start a conversation but it all ends up in "but the scripture informs us" kind of sentences
you could just slam the door but thats rude, and a couple of years ago they had this habit of putting the foot in, literarly, so one is alvais careful not to cause injury

besides the pamflets are an amusing read each and ewery time

no Jehovas Witness have been around i the last year or so, i kind of miss them
 
back to the codex sinaiticus



why Are They Missing? ​



Regarding the timing of the "great tribulation," Matthew 24:36 reads, according to the Authorized Version, or the King James Version: "But of that day and hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels of heaven, but my Father only." ​









Notice that the words "nor the Son" are omitted although they appear in many other translations. ​



Why are they missing? ​



Evidently this verse worried Trinitarians! ​



For how could the Son not know things the Father knows—if they are coequal? ​



Commenting on Matthew 24:36, The Codex Sinaiticus and The Codex Alexandrinus, published by the trustees of the British Museum, explains: "Sinaiticus and Vaticanus [Bible manuscripts] add nor the Son after heaven, apparently the original reading which was removed through fear of doctrinal misunderstanding." ​



so it seems yet again more errors being revealed. ​

that trinity doctrine certainly has done much to contaminate the pure words of God :rolleyes: ​

i am glad to know that the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION (published by Jehovahs witnesses) ​

has always had it right ​


Concerning that day and hour nobody knows, neither the angels of the heavens nor the Son, but only the Father. matthew 24;36


no cloudyness there then:)
 
Hi Mee —

This is a bad post Mee, it's a blatant piece of JW self promotion, and it's riddled with errors and, dare I say it, deceptions aimed at discrediting the True Faith. I would recall Scripture to you: "Judge not, lest ye be judged" (Matthew 7:1)

mee said:
... Evidently this verse worried Trinitarians!
Click to expand...
Did it? Really? Or is this you assuming in your ignorance that it did? Or are you trying to suggest it did? Or is this just another instance of anti-Christian propaganda promoted by the JWs who saw religion as a free-enterprise money-making industry?

mee said:
For how could the Son not know things the Father knows—if they are coequal?
Click to expand...
If you understood Christianity, you'd not ask that question.

mee said:
Commenting on Matthew 24:36 ... so it seems yet again more errors being revealed.
Click to expand...
Yes ... yours, and if I may paraphrase, the JW's have: "certainly done much to contaminate the pure words of God :rolleyes:"

mee said:
I am glad to know that the NEW WORLD TRANSLATION (published by Jehovahs witnesses) has always had it right
Click to expand...
According to yourselves. According to actual scholars of Hebrew and Greek, those who can read the texts, it's a self-serving exercise in deception.

mee said:
Commenting on Matthew 24:36, The Codex Sinaiticus and The Codex Alexandrinus, published by the trustees of the British Museum, explains: "Sinaiticus and Vaticanus [Bible manuscripts] add nor the Son after heaven, apparently the original reading which was removed through fear of doctrinal misunderstanding."
Click to expand...
Well someone is making a huge error, or that's a lie.

For example, in the Codex Alexandrinus, Matthew is missing up to 25:6, so Alexandrinus has nothing to say on the matter, can it?
Likewise, in the Codex Vaticanus there is no addition of the text 'nor the Son' in the manuscript.

So I don't know where you got that quote from, but it wasn't the British Museum.

Thomas
 
Thomas said:
Hi Mee —

This is a bad post Mee,

Thomas
Click to expand...
that would depend on if a person was after the truth of Gods word , some think it would be bad , some think it is enlightenment .



mee thinks its great:)
 
1 John 5:7 includes a spurious addition, and Matthew 24:36, which lacks "nor the Son," is a fraudulent omission.

See The Emphatic Diaglott, footnote, page 803, published by the Watchtower Bible and Tract Society of New York, Inc., and The Codex Sinaiticus and The Codex Alexandrinus, page 27, published by the Trustees of the British Museum.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top