RE: The Historical Reliability of the New Testament
May 15, 2015 at 6:40 pm
(This post was last modified: May 15, 2015 at 6:41 pm by Minimalist.)
We have two more-or-less complete early bibles: The Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Sinaiticus.
Dismissing claims that Sinaiticus is a later forgery and considering it valid, we still find that they do not agree with each other...let alone what passes for the "bible" now. And, of course, we have no fucking clue what the originals may have said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_..._Vaticanus
Dismissing claims that Sinaiticus is a later forgery and considering it valid, we still find that they do not agree with each other...let alone what passes for the "bible" now. And, of course, we have no fucking clue what the originals may have said.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_..._Vaticanus
Quote:Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus, two of great uncial codices, representatives of the Alexandrian text-type, are considered excellent manuscript witnesses of the text of the New Testament. Most critical editions of the Greek New Testament give precedence to these two chief uncial manuscripts, and the majority of translations are based on their text. Nevertheless, there are many differences between these two manuscripts. According to Dean Burgon: "It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses in which these two MSS differ the one from the other, than two consecutive verses in which they entirely agree."[1]
According to Herman C. Hoskier,[2] there are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone, enumerated as follows:
Matthew: 656
Mark: 567
Luke: 791
John: 1022
