# Which uncial is the best in the list?



## larryjf (Aug 2, 2006)

Which uncial do you think is best on this list?


----------



## Maestroh (Aug 3, 2006)

On what basis is one to make such a conclusion?


----------



## larryjf (Aug 3, 2006)

> On what basis is one to make such a conclusion?


On personal preference.


----------



## Jerusalem Blade (Aug 4, 2006)

Yes, personal preference based upon an informed mind.

Understanding the qualities of, as well as the differences between, these MSS is crucial in determining which Greek manuscript tradition one chooses as the most reliable, and the consequent English translation one uses.

Vaticanus (B) is the codex that was in the Vatican Library since at least the late 1400s; it was unused by Rome at the time as the Latin Vulgate was the "œtrue Bible" as far as their teaching went in those days. Odd that this presently preferred text made its appearance during Rome´s Inquisition, where multitudes of Bible-believing Christians were slaughtered. It is one of the oldest complete Bible MSS; it is written on vellum (expensive animal skin). The 1881 revisors of the Greek text, Westcott and Hort and their committee, preferred this MS over all others, despite (what others have discovered to be) serious flaws in its contents.

Sinaiticus (a), also known as Aleph, is the "œsister" MS to B, and the 1881 Revision Committee, under Hort´s direction, decided that whenever a agreed with B the two of them would overturn all other MSS, even if it were 2 against 5,000! This is exactly why Mark 16:9-20 is missing or noted to be "œspurious" in almost all modern Bible versions based upon the 1881 critical text. Upon internal examination its flaws are far greater than its sister, notwithstanding the two of them are often termed (in Bible margin notes), "œthe oldest and most reliable manuscripts". Such disparity of reports _demands_ close scrutiny, as the quality of the Bibles we use is at stake. This MS was found at a Greek Orthodox monastery, St. Catharine´s, on Mt. Sinai. Despite the claim this and B are the best, they disagree between themselves in 3,036 places in the Gospels alone. These two MSS are considered part of the Alexandrian textual tradition, and are considered to have been written in the 4th century.
<FONT SIZE=?></FONT>
Alexandrinus (A), though it is missing much of Matthew and part of John, in the Gospels exhibits a Byzantine text (that which comprises the majority textual tradition), and an Alexandrian text elsewhere. It is considered a 5th century MS, and the critic Frederick Kenyon believes it had its origin in Alexandria, Egypt.

Ephraemi Rescriptus (C) is another 5th century document, although in the 12th century it was written over by one Ephraim Syrus, and many leaves were thrown away. It was restored at some point and much of the original writing was restored, according to Kenyon. One critic, Thomas Strouse, considers the text "œmixed but proto-Byzantine". According to Jack Moorman (in his _Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents And History of the Bible_), "œBurgon would rank this codex behind Alexandrinus as having the fewer corruptions among the "˜five old uncials´" (p. 117)

Bezae (D) is considered by some the worst MS of the five. Kenyon considers it the chief representative of the Western textual tradition. Moorman says, "œThe extent of its corruption can be seen in the ways that it agrees with Aleph and B (against the TR), in omitting key passages, but then expanding passages in other places." (Ibid. p. 118)

Quoting from Moorman (p. 119):

<blockquote>Here then are the "œfive old uncials" that modern scholarship would have us base our Bibles upon.

Burgon gives the following summary:

<blockquote>The serious deflections from the Received Text in

Alexandrinus"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦....0842
Ephraemi Rescriptus"¦"¦"¦1798
Vaticanus"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦......2370
Sinaiticus"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦......3392
Bezae"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦"¦.........4697</blockquote>

Each deflection may include anything from one word, to a phrase, to a verse, to several verses, etc. In the previous comparison between B, Aleph and the TR, the total number of words were counted. Also as each of these uncials do not have in every instance the same portion of Scripture remaining, the comparison is drawn only from those portions where all is extant.

Notice how the above graphically proves not only their conflict with the TR but also with each another.

Burgon´s comment on this evidence sums up the sordid state of affairs that modern textual criticism has brought us to:

<blockquote>We venture to assure you, without a particle of hesitation, that Aleph, B, and D are three of the most scandalously corrupt copies extant. They have become the depositories of the largest amount of fabricated readings, ancient blunders, and intentional perversions of Truth, which are discoverable in any known copies of the Word of God."</blockquote></blockquote>

It is probably clear (for those who have not been reading the "œWhy do KJ Only types believe the Westcott and Hort manuscripts are bad?" thread) that I favor the Majority Text/Byzantine/Ecclesiastical textual tradition. Moorman´s little book, from which I quoted (and used) for the above is a handy little book for getting an overview of these things, and most valuable if you hold to the King James or the MT. As this is a hotly disputed topic, both here at PB and in the wider Christian community, it is good to be exercised in these things. Our Bibles "“ and our faith in them "“ depend on it.

Steve


----------

