Why Codex Sinaiticus is so important

[Fogetaboutit]

I'll let you decide for yourself but this certainly seem to go along with my view of modern textual criticism.

The Beauty of Books (BBC) - Ancient Bibles, the codex Sinaiticus - YouTube

 

[JM]

Wow.

 

[BibleCyst]

What a biased video...

I'm not sure we should disregard Codex Sinaiticus altogether, though, based on a smear piece by the BBC.

 

[JP Wallace]

The narrative is highly interpretative and dishonest concerning Mark's theology of Christ's divinity - it makes it sould like Mark described how Christ became divine after the baptism of Holy Spirit - however that is not so. What Mark (according to Sinaiticus) does do is omit reference to him being the Son of God until after that point in time - but that is VERY differenet from what the narrative says!

Also they clearly are taking a view of a gradually being developed theology which is not in keeping with the facts (See 'The Heresy of Orthodoxy' by Kostenberger and Kruger).

It's typical BBC over dramatized history - pleasant to look at, presents some facts but then over interpreting them to magnify the dramatic story.

However to answer your question; (and the video did in the first 30 seconds) it is important because it is the oldest complete New Testament. That is significant and important whatever else is to be said about it.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

The question in the title was meant as statement, I do not attribute any importance to this manuscripts. Even if it's as old as they say it is (paleography is far from exact science), it's obvious it's not reliable, it is the most corrected (or corrupted) manuscript known. Even if you do not agree with the people in this documentary the fact is that many who cherish this manuscript do so for the same reason these people do. I'm actually shocked how believing christians can still defend this manuscript even after knowing how corrupt it is. It's obvious that this manuscript (along with other mss such as B and D etc) cannot be trusted.

 

[Free Christian]

Hello. I have not seen the video but I did read about the Siniaticus and how it was found on a trash heap in 1844. A man named John Burgeon said of it that 10, 20, 30, 40 words are dropped through carelessness. Letters words or even whole sentences are often written twice over, cancelled and begun again and whole clause's omitted.
Phillip Mauro wrote that it was obviously impure and "it was finally cast aside as worthless for any practical purpose".
Obviously corrupt. And one of the old manuscripts along with the Vaticanus which is was used in the writing of many of the modern translations. When you read a footnote on some of the new versions that says "this verse probably not in the oldest mss" or a similar thing being said which can cast doubt on the authenticity of that verse it is more than likely the Vaticanus and Siniaticus which that footnote refers to. Two corrupt manuscripts.

 

[One Little Nail]

adullam films has a film called Tares among the Wheat, which debunks Sinaiticus

Product Page

can be watched for free on Youtube

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=67f2JjeZ_84

a sequel to a lamp in the dark

http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=2-59ze_WynY

i will also say it is corrupt & worthless , and ought not to be used, particularly loose translations (niv) based on
corrupt & unreliable manuscripts Sinaiticus & its ally Codex B

 

[MW]

A few criticisms: (1.) Sinaiticus is not regarded as the "ancestor" of all the others. No critic will accept this seeing as different families are clearly recognised. (2.) The markings can be regarded by critics as options, not as corrections. (3.) The "earliest and most reliable mss." is not considered a maxim of text criticism seeing as most of the corruptions of the text are dated back to the second century. (4.) The ending of Mark 16 leaves space for the longer ending, so the claim that it intended to show that Mark ends with the disciples being afraid is unsubstantiated. (5.) Jesus becoming divine at His baptism is a false interpretation of Mark's account of the baptism whether or not "Son of God" is accepted at the beginning of the Gospel.

A few observations: (1.) Sinaiticus bears early witness to the traditional text of the NT in a great majority of places. It therefore holds some relative apologetical value for establishing a stable transmission of the text. Those who hold to the traditional text should not discard it as useless, but only oppose the uncritical use which has been made of it. (2.) It is true that some doctrines are affected by the variant readings in Sinaiticus and other mss. If not the doctrine itself, then at least the degree of certainty with which it can be held or proved, or the place it should hold in the theological system, comes under question. But the reality is that false doctrines are only proved by bringing some foreign presupposition to the text, and this is more likely to the degree that an individual regards the Bible as a collection of human writings and rejects its divine inspiration and infallibility. (3.) The liberal use which is being made of ms. evidence and variant readings with respect to doctrine and history demonstrates that text-critical work is not neutral. The old idea that text-critical theories do not affect the canon of Scripture or the substance of the faith cannot be upheld. The acceptance of certain text-critical theories go hand hand with specific attitudes to history and doctrine which have serious consequences for the canon of Scripture and the substance of the faith. The idea of an "eclectic" method, in particular, presupposes a developmental theory of text and canon which immediately conflicts with traditional conservative views. (4.) The degree to which Sinaiticus is accepted as being a text-critical document instead of an ecclesiastical text in current use should affect the value one places in its variant readings. The idea of a neutral text (which still continues to predominate modern critical texts even though the theory itself has been replaced) should be well and truly rejected. (5.) The whole issue demonstrates that one must presuppose not only the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, but the integrity of its preservation, in order to be able to stand upon the Word of God and declare, Thus saith the Lord. Much of the criticial methodology has proven destructive to conservative Christianity in general and to reformed theology in particular. As we are bound to accept the Bible on the basis of its own witness, we are shut up to the conclusion that it has been preserved pure and entire, and is readily accessible as a final court of appeal (WCF 1.8). This means there is an historical and doctrinal presupposition which strongly favours the ecclesiastical text on which the reformers and their successors based the Protestant witness and tradition.

 

[Fogetaboutit]

A few criticisms: (1.) Sinaiticus is not regarded as the "ancestor" of all the others. No critic will accept this seeing as different families are clearly recognised. (2.) The markings can be regarded by critics as options, not as corrections. (3.) The "earliest and most reliable mss." is not considered a maxim of text criticism seeing as most of the corruptions of the text are dated back to the second century. (4.) The ending of Mark 16 leaves space for the longer ending, so the claim that it intended to show that Mark ends with the disciples being afraid is unsubstantiated. (5.) Jesus becoming divine at His baptism is a false interpretation of Mark's account of the baptism whether or not "Son of God" is accepted at the beginning of the Gospel.

I'm not sure if the criticism is pointing at my comments or at the documentary, but if it is aimed at my comments I accept most of your critic. I agree that in general the commentators in this documentary do not represent the majority view of textual critics (at least not the more "conservative" ones). But most critics from my understanding attribute way to much weight to the ages of this manuscripts, it might not be their maxim but it certainly is one of their main arguments. I also agree that most critics do recognize the different families but this is not a unanimous view within this school of thinking. I believe that some critics including Metzger have acknowledged that the families are not as clearly defined as they originally thought. As for the ending of Mark I completely agree and I thought is was dishonest to omit to mention this fact in the documentary. I also completely agree with you 5th point, that was purely their biases and not something that can be inferred because of this one omission.

(1.) Sinaiticus bears early witness to the traditional text of the NT in a great majority of places. It therefore holds some relative apologetical value for establishing a stable transmission of the text. Those who hold to the traditional text should not discard it as useless, but only oppose the uncritical use which has been made of it.

Point taken, I guess instead of saying it has no importance I should have said it's not as valuable as many critics would like us to believe.

(2.) It is true that some doctrines are affected by the variant readings in Sinaiticus and other mss. If not the doctrine itself, then at least the degree of certainty with which it can be held or proved, or the place it should hold in the theological system, comes under question. But the reality is that false doctrines are only proved by bringing some foreign presupposition to the text, and this is more likely to the degree that an individual regards the Bible as a collection of human writings and rejects its divine inspiration and infallibility. (3.) The liberal use which is being made of ms. evidence and variant readings with respect to doctrine and history demonstrates that text-critical work is not neutral. The old idea that text-critical theories do not affect the canon of Scripture or the substance of the faith cannot be upheld. The acceptance of certain text-critical theories go hand hand with specific attitudes to history and doctrine which have serious consequences for the canon of Scripture and the substance of the faith. The idea of an "eclectic" method, in particular, presupposes a developmental theory of text and canon which immediately conflicts with traditional conservative views. (4.) The degree to which Sinaiticus is accepted as being a text-critical document instead of an ecclesiastical text in current use should affect the value one places in its variant readings. The idea of a neutral text (which still continues to predominate modern critical texts even though the theory itself has been replaced) should be well and truly rejected. (5.) The whole issue demonstrates that one must presuppose not only the inspiration and infallibility of Scripture, but the integrity of its preservation, in order to be able to stand upon the Word of God and declare, Thus saith the Lord. Much of the criticial methodology has proven destructive to conservative Christianity in general and to reformed theology in particular. As we are bound to accept the Bible on the basis of its own witness, we are shut up to the conclusion that it has been preserved pure and entire, and is readily accessible as a final court of appeal (WCF 1.8). This means there is an historical and doctrinal presupposition which strongly favours the ecclesiastical text on which the reformers and their successors based the Protestant witness and tradition.

I completely agree,


Thanks for your sober and concise corrections and clarifications.

 

[MW]

I'm not sure if the criticism is pointing at my comments or at the documentary

Etienne, sorry for the confusion. The criticisms were directed at the BBC clip; the reflections were an attempt to show what I think is the relevance for us. Blessings!