@@g0thamite how do 44 leaves remain white for 1594(+/-) years while the others turn brown? this is almost as good as the "worm" tricks, 3 leaves where the worm hole is only through the middle leaf.
It is a corrupt fraud which paid off handsomely for the liar Tischendorf. This was a Catholic set up along with the Vaticanus. There is no evidence that either of the. Existing before 1944.
Text Critic J Neville Birdsall and no fan of the received text said “We cannot be certain of the exact date nor the place of origin of codex Vaticanus nor in spite of scholarly efforts can its history before the 15th century be traced.”
Alexandrinus a truly old 5th century manuscript can not be handled since it disintegrates at the very touch while the keeper of the facsimile copy of the Vaticanus (B) in the British Library has stated "we know that Vaticanus is a 4th century manuscript, yet it looks like a 15th century manuscript". On the other hand Sinaiticus is older than B but the pages of it are flexible and can be leafed through. Furthermore it has worm holes on a given page but the pages before and after do not have worm holes. Pretty incredible if you ask me.
n short, these two codices are old simply because, first, they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away." John Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Bing search
Thank you for this fantastic episode diving in the artifact of the Codex Sinaiticus. I had vaguely know that it was written in MAJUSCULES (that is upper case); and without spaces or punctuation marks. I have become unconfused about the term "Uncial" (which means the same as Majuscules). I recall 1John 5:7-9 is another passage which is highly controversial for the KJV-Onlyist people - is 1John 5:7-9 in Sinaiticus?
The only Greek manuscript containing the _Comma Johanneum_ (1 John 5:7) is the well-known early 16th century forgery called Codex Montfortianus that the RCC used to sneak the verse into Erasmus' 3rd printed edition of the Greek New Testament in 1522 and, from there, into the KJV and, ultimately, into the Textus Receptus.
I really loved that this was a non-doctrinal explanation. So many times, today, people's biases tend to ruin these videos for me. I'm sure you have your own deeper thoughts though. I do not know Hebrew and might be able to eke out the alphabet in Greek, and badly pronounce a few words, but have a tremendous desire to grow. Are you open to personal questions? Maybe I missed a few things, but little details can do a world of good to those that are more comfortable with firsthand details. Have you ever been in it's presence? Do the pages seem to be exacting in size? Do the margins look like stops were used. Are there notes between lines or in margins? The story of monks burning pages has always bothered me, especially of a book so professionally built. Do the pages appear to be form cut to size, or knife cut? I doubt they had scissors such as in the video. Who know? The account of the woman caught in adultery also seemed rather odd, because it said Jesus was writing in the dust of the temple floor, and I imagine that was pretty clean. Bringing a woman caught in adultery into the temple seems rather odd too.
Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, I have seen the Codex up closer and personal in the British Library (across from St. Pancras station in London). The pages do look uniform in size. There are notes in the margins at a number of places. You can view the manuscript digitally on the codexsinaniticus.org website. Here is a page in Matthew where there are comments at the bottom of the page: tinyurl.com/7r8fk65w The story about the monks burning the manuscript to me is a) either a misunderstanding by Tischendorf or b) a story he justified to take possession of the manuscripts. I find it hard to believe that they would knowingly burn ancient manuscripts. Parchment is not an easy material to burn and wouldn't be suitable for kindling. Regarding Jesus writing on the floor of the Temple: remember that the Temple was not just one building, it was a large complex with large open areas, porticoes, etc. It is easy for me to see how there would be dust on the floor. These are my thoughts. I'm glad you found the video helpful. Please subscribe and share with friends. God bless.
I just want to point out that scissors were invented by the Nordic people, sometimes refered to incorrectly as 'Vikings ' as 'Viking ' was not an ethnic designation, but an activity. Still, a much later period in history.
Tischendorf claimed that the monks were going to use it for kindling. Vellum does not burn, is smolders and is unsuited for kindling. He was clearly lying about how he found the MS.
Enumerating the steps to make vellum helps drive home the amount of work involved. Good job.
Superb video filled with lots of good details! Appreciate the work you did here :)
Thanks a lot! I appreciate you for listening and sharing your thoughts. More to come!
Found your channel thru the NT Textual Criticism group in Facebook and enjoying the content, keep it up! 👍👍
@@G.D.9 Thanks so much! I appreciate you sharing your thoughts and hope you continue to enjoy the new and old episodes. God bless.
@ 10:00 The first 44 leaves that Tischendorf retrieved and gave to his benefactor are still white. How is it then that the others are brownish?
@@barryjtaft The manuscripts were separated into four sections and were stored under differing conditions. No surprise to me.
@@g0thamite how do 44 leaves remain white for 1594(+/-) years while the others turn brown?
this is almost as good as the "worm" tricks, 3 leaves where the worm hole is only through the middle leaf.
@@g0thamitebaloney. It is a fraud along with the Vaticanus. It is corrupt.
It is a corrupt fraud which paid off handsomely for the liar Tischendorf. This was a Catholic set up along with the Vaticanus. There is no evidence that either of the. Existing before 1944.
Text Critic J Neville Birdsall and no fan of the received text said “We cannot be certain of the exact date nor the place of origin of codex Vaticanus nor in spite of scholarly efforts can its history before the 15th century be traced.”
No doubt it’s provenance is complicated but most textual scholars have dated it early based on paleological and codicologal reasons.
@@g0thamitePaleography - handwriting analysis invented by Catholic monks Jean Mabillon and Bernard de Montfaucon.
Diaeresis Erasmus came to the same conclusion as Birdsall.
Alexandrinus a truly old 5th century manuscript can not be handled since it disintegrates at the very touch while the keeper of the facsimile copy of the Vaticanus (B) in the British Library has stated "we know that Vaticanus is a 4th century manuscript, yet it looks like a 15th century manuscript".
On the other hand Sinaiticus is older than B but the pages of it are flexible and can be leafed through. Furthermore it has worm holes on a given page but the pages before and after do not have worm holes. Pretty incredible if you ask me.
It is a Catholic affected fraud. No record that it existed before 1844.
n short, these two codices are old simply because, first, they were written on extremely expensive and durable antelope skins, and secondly, they were so full of errors, alterations, and deletions, that they were never used by true believers and seldom even by their own custodians. Thus they had little chance of wearing away." John Burgon on Sinaiticus and Vaticanus Bing search
I wish it were that simple, but it is not.
@@g0thamite The fact is the orthodox Christians did not copy that type of text. Peace.
Thank you for this fantastic episode diving in the artifact of the Codex Sinaiticus. I had vaguely know that it was written in MAJUSCULES (that is upper case); and without spaces or punctuation marks. I have become unconfused about the term "Uncial" (which means the same as Majuscules). I recall 1John 5:7-9 is another passage which is highly controversial for the KJV-Onlyist people - is 1John 5:7-9 in Sinaiticus?
Thanks for your kind comments. No, Sinaiticus does not contain 1 John 5:7-9.
The only Greek manuscript containing the _Comma Johanneum_ (1 John 5:7) is the well-known early 16th century forgery called Codex Montfortianus that the RCC used to sneak the verse into Erasmus' 3rd printed edition of the Greek New Testament in 1522 and, from there, into the KJV and, ultimately, into the Textus Receptus.
@@g0thamite , Rather Sinaiticus has First John 5:7-9; it does not feature the interpolation known as the Comma Johanneum
Better said, thank you.
I really loved that this was a non-doctrinal explanation. So many times, today, people's biases tend to ruin these videos for me. I'm sure you have your own deeper thoughts though. I do not know Hebrew and might be able to eke out the alphabet in Greek, and badly pronounce a few words, but have a tremendous desire to grow. Are you open to personal questions? Maybe I missed a few things, but little details can do a world of good to those that are more comfortable with firsthand details. Have you ever been in it's presence? Do the pages seem to be exacting in size? Do the margins look like stops were used. Are there notes between lines or in margins? The story of monks burning pages has always bothered me, especially of a book so professionally built. Do the pages appear to be form cut to size, or knife cut? I doubt they had scissors such as in the video. Who know? The account of the woman caught in adultery also seemed rather odd, because it said Jesus was writing in the dust of the temple floor, and I imagine that was pretty clean. Bringing a woman caught in adultery into the temple seems rather odd too.
I will get back to you later on this…
Thank you for your kind comments. Yes, I have seen the Codex up closer and personal in the British Library (across from St. Pancras station in London). The pages do look uniform in size. There are notes in the margins at a number of places. You can view the manuscript digitally on the codexsinaniticus.org website. Here is a page in Matthew where there are comments at the bottom of the page: tinyurl.com/7r8fk65w The story about the monks burning the manuscript to me is a) either a misunderstanding by Tischendorf or b) a story he justified to take possession of the manuscripts. I find it hard to believe that they would knowingly burn ancient manuscripts. Parchment is not an easy material to burn and wouldn't be suitable for kindling. Regarding Jesus writing on the floor of the Temple: remember that the Temple was not just one building, it was a large complex with large open areas, porticoes, etc. It is easy for me to see how there would be dust on the floor.
These are my thoughts. I'm glad you found the video helpful. Please subscribe and share with friends. God bless.
The woman caught in adultery was brought to the temple for trial…
I just want to point out that scissors were invented by the Nordic people, sometimes refered to incorrectly as 'Vikings ' as 'Viking ' was not an ethnic designation, but an activity. Still, a much later period in history.
@@Gabby-bot Earliest “scissors” were actually shears invented in Mesopotamia about 4000 years ago for shearing sheep…
Tischendorf claimed that the monks were going to use it for kindling. Vellum does not burn, is smolders and is unsuited for kindling. He was clearly lying about how he found the MS.
@@barryjtaft True. It doesn’t burn.
If a witness at court lies about fact, the jury may conclude that he lied about all the rest his testimony
@@g0thamite if he was deceptive on one point it can be assumed that he was deceptive on other points.
Sinaiticus has a lot of missing text because of eye skip. Accidental mistakes.