Codex Sainaiticus "heavily corrected"

[Bern]

Hi folks,

Wasn't sure if this should go in apologetics or not...

I'm currently discussing (via facebook) the reliability of the bible. I've given some evidence for its reliability based on the fact that there are many copies that hardly vary at all. In his last message he mentioned the project being undertaken to digitise the Codex Sainaiticus, and told me about how it was "heavily corrected". If you guys don't mind I'd like to post his response here... could anyone help me at all here... he's sick and tired of people saying "just believe it", so I want to be able to engage him on an intellectual level, but I'm not very knowledgeable about this side of things... HELP

Here it is:

Mate, i am obviously researching what you have told me, i found this by the BBC

What is probably the oldest known Bible is being digitised, reuniting its scattered parts for the first time since its discovery 160 years ago. It is markedly different from its modern equivalent. What's left out?
The world's oldest surviving Bible is in bits.
For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery, until it was found - or stolen, as the monks say - in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany and Britain.... Read More
Now these different parts are to be united online and, from next July, anyone, anywhere in the world with internet access will be able to view the complete text and read a translation.
For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.
The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

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.

Discrepancies

Faced with differing texts, which is the truly authentic one?
Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.

The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.
"When people ask me if the Bible is the word of God I answer 'which Bible?'"

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - omit some mentions of ascension of Jesus into heaven, and key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

But the picture is complicated. Some argue that another early Bible, the Codex Vaticanus, is in fact older. And there are other earlier texts of almost all the books in the bible, though none pulled together into a single volume.

Many Christians have long accepted that, while the Bible is the authoritative word of God, it is not inerrant. Human hands always make mistakes.

"It should be regarded as a living text, something constantly changing as generation and generation tries to understand the mind of God," says David Parker, a Christian working on digitising the Codex.

Others may take it as more evidence that the Bible is the word of man, not God.

I may need longer than the one day i told you i would need for my reply LOL, there is a lot to learn, (i thought i new alot but this has shown me i am wrong!!), this riposte is really just to show you i am taking your information serious and trying to look at all the facts before coming back to you.
[/FONT]

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Hello Bern,

This is sort of a tough one, as there are many different and conflicting views, and you will have to study the issues and come to your own conclusions. Perhaps you will be aware (if you have frequented this section) I take the stand that the King James Bible (and Textus Receptus Greek and Masoretic Hebrew underlying it) is the most reliable and accurate, as was the conviction of the Reformers. Your LBCF 1689 chapter 1:8 affirms (as does the WCF 1:8),

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic...​

In modern times things have changed. New text-forms have gained the ascendancy in the estimation of textual critics, and the majority of Christians have followed them.

I, personally, am glad for the likes of Bart Ehrman, for he attacks that which can be attacked, and his approach concerning Codices Sinaiticus (Aleph) and Vaticanus (B) was inevitable, given his apostatizing from the Christian faith and his textcritical acumen learned under his liberal mentor, the late Bruce Metzger. There are defenses against him, and you would have to study some of them. I'm not sure yet of his approach / attack on the KJV-Textus Receptus, but I am studying his works.

Some dinosaurs are still bent on pursuing and fomenting the internecine warfare between Protestant Bible versions, but I think this myopic in the face of Ehrman's broadside — a waste of brains and energy. The saints going after one another while an infidel levels deadly attacks on their camp!

Let one choose his or her position, and learn to defend it against the New Bible Demolition Scholars. There one's mettle and knowledge will be proved.

I don't know what your stance is presently, whether it's based on the Codices Aleph and B and the Critical / Eclectic Texts, or the Majority Text, or the Textus Receptus (not even getting into the Hebrew mss). If these terms are new to you, then you need to know what they represent and what their positions entail defense-wise.

You need not be a casualty of the satanic text-wars (many are being devastated by the likes of Ehrman), but you will have to study to show thyself approved (2 Tim 2:15).

Here is a link to the online version of Forever Settled: A Survey of the Documents and History of the Bible. It's a pretty good survey from the King James point of view.

Here are some of the materials I've gathered for inquiring minds:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/KJV-byz-tr-resources-53502/

And here some of the work I've posted here at PB:

http://www.puritanboard.com/f63/jerusalem-blades-posts-partial-compilation-48676/

I hope this is of some help in getting you started. The bottom line in all this is that with confidence we be able to cleave to our Lord, by His word apprehending His great and precious promises and entering into them with full assurance of faith, living in His presence and receiving His sufficiency imparted to us for all things that pertain to life and godliness (2 Pet 1:3).

Steve

 

[Bookmeister]

Bern,
Here is an exercise I find helpful and enlightening. In the following ten messages not one of them is the original, and each one has a 10% error but we can get the original messages without a doubt.

Tom Robbind
Tim Robbins
Jom Robbins
Tom Kobbins
Tom Rabbins
Ton Robbins
Tom Rolbins
Tom Robbans
Tom Robdans
Tom Robbams

 

[TimV]

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today's bible.

I would point out to your friend that the BBC article is either purposely misleading or ignorant of history.

From the second century after Christ Christian scholars have had do deal with the fact that there are differences between early manuscripts of the Bible. This is no shock to anyone, and the subject has been dealt with from Origen to Augustine to Erasmus, who put together the underlying text of the KJV New Testament from several different Greek manuscripts, all of which differed from each other.

So, while that doesn't answer your friend's question, at least he should be informed that the article is wrong in the sense that it portrays a fairly recent discovery as causing a crises of faith. It's an issue that has been central to Bible translation and transmission from the very first years after Christ, and has largely been dealt with in the Christian community.

Once you stick a pin in the shock value balloon, maybe you can get to the next stage of the debate.

 

[Peairtach]

The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered by Tischendorff at a monastery near Mount Sinai in the 19th C.

It doesn't materially disagree with other ancient copies of the Bible we have or with the King James Version.

No doctrine was, or is, overturned or changed by the Codex Sinaiticus.

I notice that the article fails to mention how many of the differences were spelling or grammatical errors.

If the Lord had done a miracle whereby everycopy made of the New Testament was always perfect, the BBC would be the first to doubt it.

But God isn't doing tricks for this generation, when they have Moses and the Prophets and the Gospel. If they don't believe them they wouldn't believe if someone rose from the dead, or a miracle of copying was done.

The providential preservation and illumination of the Scriptures over the past 2,000 years has been somewhat extraordinary anyway, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear.

 

[Bern]

Thanks for those responses gents. This is one area (of many I suspect) where my knowledge is lacking to say the least, as I've never encountered this kind of debate before. Steve, I especially thank you for the resources you listed, they'll help me a lot. I spend most of my time studying the Word in order to obey the Lord and know Him... not to have to defend the text itself!

 

[Bern]

Steve,

The info you posted earlier really did help thanks Its a shame that it comes from a site that is staunchly arminian though.. they even have a section on "Calvinism Refuted"! Grrr.

 

[Jerusalem Blade]

Yes, Bern, many of the Fundamentalist Baptists are Arminian and strongly anti-Calvinist. I usually note this as a caveat when I use their materials — sorry I neglected to do so here.

On the other hand, they have some of the finest King James and Textus Receptus scholarship available, so I would not ignore them on account of their serious errors in other areas.

It seems these die-hard Baptists don't care about the disapproval — and even scorn — of the scholars who use secular methodologies that are inimical to the presuppositions of faith (i.e., seeing God's promises of preservation trumping apparent evidences). Although they are opponents regarding the doctrines of grace, they are comrades in the fight for the intact Scripture God gave to His people. And it is a fight. The more you study these things, the more you will see it.

I came to see there is only one Bible I can defend in its entirety, though I do see great worth in the other versions.