Codex Sinaiticus is an ancient Greek manuscript of the Bible which was handwritten around 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, which is said to include “the oldest complete copy of the New Testament”.
To view this text online is of great value for the theologian and for those who enjoy theology.
Click the link to view http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
"ancient Greek manuscript", "British Library", "Christian Bible in Greek", "Codex Sinaiticus", "enjoy theology", "enjoyingtheology", "The Greek New Testament", "The New Testament"
This entry was posted on January 13, 2013, 4:09 PM and is filed under The Bible, Theology. You can follow any responses to this entry through RSS 2.0. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Simon Peter Sutherland
#1 by MackQuigley on January 13, 2013 - 5:06 PM
It’s terrible – was found in the trash can where it belongs. Not oldest and certainly not best.
#2 by Simon Peter Sutherland on January 15, 2013 - 1:41 PM
Oldest complete?
What other older complete NT manuscript do you have in mind?
#3 by MackQuigley on January 15, 2013 - 2:21 PM
Not complete either – it contains many (scary) deletions and errors.
There are earlier dated papyrus fragments, earlier translations (Peshitta, Old Italic, Gothic), and earlier quotes by Church fathers that all show the fuller text to be the true one (without the deletions).
(Of English bibles those fuller/accurate readings, called the “textus receptus,” are exclusively in the King James Bible).
It is important to recognize the devil’s attempts to corrupt the bible (“we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God” 2 Cor. 2:17).
Bart Ehrman didn’t and he ended up an apostate who wrote “Misquoting Jesus.”
Tons of resources on this issue exist at Trinitarian Bible Society and from Chick Publications.
#4 by Simon Peter Sutherland on January 15, 2013 - 3:45 PM
The manuscript is complete in the sense of ‘The New Testament‘ excluding textual deletions and variants.
Of course there are earlier fragments, but fragments are not the context of this post. I have others on that topic.
1) Peshitta. Older? The earliest copies are said to be 5th century?
2) Quotes by the church fathers do not make up a New Testament manuscript.
The Textus Receptus, a Greek New Testament I admire, is not contextual to this post. It is a 16th century manuscript and not exclusive in the King James Bible. The AV uses words from the Latin Vulgate, including Lucifer, Genesis etc.
I agree the devil corrupts translations, such as the NIV, ESV but Bart Ehrman is not an issue here. I do not agree with him nor regard him as authentic. He is not a Theologian, but some form of a historian.
I have most of the Trinitarian Bible society publications on the KJV.
#5 by MackQuigley on January 15, 2013 - 4:24 PM
Aleph is only “a complete NT” in the sense of including all 27 books – but it also contains 2 spurious ones. Calling it “complete” is misleading because that is effectively re-defining the cannon as 29.
The text has many errors, is missing many important NT verses, and adds the spurious books. The importance of older texts – whether they are a “complete bible” or not – is to disprove speculations like the “Lucian recension theory” and to establish the certainty of the Textus Receptus tradition as the correct one.
#6 by MackQuigley on January 15, 2013 - 4:31 PM
edit – I misspelled canon.
#7 by Simon Peter Sutherland on January 15, 2013 - 9:02 PM
Not sure of your intended meaning behind your logic or conclusion concerning the “Lucian recension theory” comment?
The original John Wycliffe or Wycliffite New Testament contained Paul’s epistle to the Laodiceans, not in our canons. That version had 28 books. (The Wycliffe New Testament. 1388. The British Library. P 343-345)
Laodiceans was also included in the 4th century Latin Vulgate, an ancient Roman translation consulted by Tyndale and even the KJ translators. As I have shown that the KJV contains influence and text of the Latin Vulgate, and even all our Bibles today. The title Genesis is Latin, as are many other words in our Bibles, which all come from the Latin Vulgate.
The original versions of the reformation Bibles such as the Luther Bible, Coverdale Bible, Geneva (Breeches) Bible and more all differ to our current Bibles. They differ not only in some content, but in running order. Will you acknowledge that?
They all also contain the Apocrypha. Something our modern AV prints have edited out. Will you acknowledge that also?
The CS manuscript may well contain errors, as does the King James Bible. Translation errors that is.
The Textus Receptus cannot be a final Greek New Testament, since that would imply that we are to reject the Stephanos 1550 Greek New Testament.
The Textus Receptus was the work of a Roman Catholic Priest and humanist, Erasmus. Not that such would mean that the TR is corrupt, but that that point should be noted by you.
I think if you claim that the King James Bible is the only Bible, then you need to explain to me why the current prints do not contain the Apocrypha, as the original AV prints from 1611 – early-mid 19th centuries contain it.
Which King James Bible is the only Bible then? The true KJV or the modern prints?
#8 by MackQuigley on January 16, 2013 - 1:42 AM
Looks like my Bart Ehrman comment really got under your skin.
The AV is God’s perfect word in English – you can either accept that on faith or just keep spinning your wheels.
#9 by Simon Peter Sutherland on January 16, 2013 - 10:19 AM
“Looks like my Bart Ehrman comment really got under your skin.”
Bart Ehrman gets under my skin, the man does not know what he is talking about, yet he leads many astray.
Anyhow, that is a flawed attempt at “Ad hominem.” A fallacy that will not work in this case, neither will your ignorance and rejection of the facts. There is not one thing that connects Biblical faith to the King James Bible, not one.
God has never even once in His word stated that there will be an olde English Bible that will come along nearly 16 hundred years after the crucifixion and resurrection and that will be the only Bible.
What about all those who lived before 1611, did they not have Gods word? What about all those who do not speak English, do they not have Gods word? Or does God only speak like a 17th century Englishmen?
You say, “The AV is God’s perfect word in English – you can either accept that on faith or just keep spinning your wheels.”
I don’t accept it. Faith has nothing to do with translation issues or Olde English Bibles. And No Christian pre 1611 had the AV yet they had Gods word, faith and salvation.
The AV is a good translation, but the Geneva Bible is far better and John Calvin, William Whittingham, the Puritans and all the true 16th – 17th century reformers would agree with me, after all, they used it. And King James had to ban the Geneva Bible because Christians did not like it when it came out, they understood the Geneva Bible to be better.
Anyhow, the choice is yours, but please don’t try and force your favourite translation upon me, you sound like those people who burned Christians for translating the ancient Roman Latin Vulgate into common English. Your idolatry of the AV is akin to their idolatry of their ancient translation.
#10 by MackQuigley on January 16, 2013 - 8:22 PM
You can’t define “Biblical faith” when you have no certainty what the “original” says in English.
You can’t claim “God has never even once in His word stated …” because you don’t know for certain what the “original” really said.
You follow men as your religious “authorities” to validate your own infidelity. The Catholics do it too. So do the Moslems. So do people like Bark Erhman. The “authority” that wins is the guy who kills the others – like your hero Calvin who did burn his enemies. So you’re a hypocrite and a slander to accuse me of your own inclinations.
I chose the Holy Scriptures as my final authority – unlike you because I define that as something certain in English: the Authorized Version. I got the real deal – God’s words in English, “Thus saith the LORD…”
You define “holy scriptures” as lost originals that have disputed copies with uncertain meanings that are translated into English with reservations that it is inexact and subject to being disputed by various “scholars” so you either have to fight and argue about the right words or else throw up your hands and follow men and their definitions of “biblical faith” (while having no Bible!). That’s why you are contentious and heady and faithless.
You need to repent.
#11 by Simon Peter Sutherland on January 17, 2013 - 12:44 PM
You say, “You need to repent.”
Yes I do need to repent and I do so every day, along with fellow brothers and sisters in China, India and so forth who do not read English so cannot read the King James Bible. I guess they need to repent too for not reading Olde English lest they be cast into hell for it?
I am glad you are not the judge of all the world, or only the English speaking world would be saved.
Did Paul read the King James Bible? Matthew, John, Luke, Barnabas, or Mark? Did Moses, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob? Yet you say I follow men because I believe what they wrote?
I regard the original Hebrew and Greek as the word of God, not the translations of the word of God.
I admire all ancient Biblical manuscripts. The Biblia Hebraica, Textus Receptus and Stephanos are fine with me too, I like them all.
I think it is you who follow men, not I, through your idolatry of the works of a Roman Catholic priest (Erasmus: Textus Receptus) and the ancient Olde English translation dedicated to a homesexual King James.
For your information “CB” whatever that means? In 2011 I had the honour of re-binding and restoring an original 1619 print of the KJB, for free. I love the AV but not this what you claim. You are clearly immune to reason, common in the cultish King James only movement.
I have attempted to reason with you, but you lower the debate with ad hominem methods.
If you have anything constructive to say, please do so, but if not, don’t bother.