/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

looks like you'll just have to tough it out

>>783788

>looks like you'll just have to tough it out

If they don't make it widely available like codex Sinaiticus, then it's probably because it doesn't exist. Just like Vaticanus.

>>783780

I hope it is what you were looking for.

https://archive.org/details/CodexAlexandrinus-Cowper/

https://archive.org/details/OldTestamentGreeklxxTextCodexVaticanus

https://archive.org/details/CodexVaticanusNT

>>783931

>in regular type (old testament only)

sorry anon, it seems to be the same facsimile, but at least it includes the OT:

https://archive.org/details/TheCodexAlexandrinusV.1

https://archive.org/details/TheCodexAlexandrinusV.2

https://archive.org/details/TheCodexAlexandrinusV.3

https://archive.org/details/TheCodexAlexandrinusV.4

https://archive.org/details/TheCodexAlexandrinusV.5

>>783931

wow. you found vaticanus too. that's amazing. i heard they only released a digital copy like 10 years, and before that vaticanus was their big secret, only letting people look at it for a few minutes here and there.

>>783947

>sorry anon, it seems to be the same facsimile

yeah that is a shame. it's going to make it very difficult to match things up and compare texts.

My goal is to see how Alexandrinus differs from vaticanus.

>>784524

I doubt it was a “big secret” really old manuscripts are a pain to take care of since they’re easily damaged. Even turning the pages could potentially destroy it.

>>784535

>I doubt it was a “big secret” really old manuscripts

If you compare it to how widely distributed and attainable Codex Sinaiticus has been since even the 1800's, it does throw up a red flag that the Vatican only realeased vaticanus only 10 years ago.

>>784549

>it does throw up a red flag that the Vatican only realeased vaticanus only 10 years ago.

Anon, you were just provided with books proving otherwise, please don't fall for conspiracy theories. The old collotype edition of the NT linked in the thread was published under the papacy of Pio IX, in 1871. The Brooke-McLean edition of the OT, also linked in this thread was published in 1909. There's a newer facsimile edition from 1996, and the newest, beautifully digitalized one from 2015 that's available here: https://digi.vatlib.it/view/MSS_Vat.gr.1209

Documents can be hard to come by when someone has a very specialized interest like yours, so sometimes it takes some serious digging on the internet, and sometimes you even have to examine the references in the scientific literature and track down old editions of primary sources at auctions, but there's no evil catholic conspiracy here.

>>784575

Oh, I see, your concerns are understandable as far as my very limited understanding of CV and its history goes. Yup, there's a lack of historical provenance from before the late 15th century, and there's no scholarly consensus about its origins, a more serious issue (even though no classical biblical scholar/textual critic treats its as an outright forgery AFAIK).

I guess it "popping out of nowhere" could be semi-convincingly explained by the influx of ancient church documents around the fall of Constantinople combined with the humanist impulse to treat ancient manuscripts in a scholarly manner and to catalogize what was formerly the Popes' private collection, scattered between Rome and Avignon into a single entity, but indeed, no hard facts here.

Then you have the renewed 19th century interest in the text, leading to a lasting controversy between biblical scholars, some with heavy presuppositions, and the overzealous librarians, treating each other in a very distrustful manner, that endorsed all kinds of speculations about the authenticity of the document among textus receptus adherents…

Anyway, may God bless you in your endeavour, and may you come to the right personal conclusions about Alexandrinus and Vaticanus, whatever they may be!

>>784601

>a lasting controversy between biblical scholars… that endorsed all kinds of speculations about the authenticity of the document among textus receptus adherents…

At least call them Bible adherents. Its not like Matthew 24:35 says "my words shall pass away and be returned once again by Tischendorf in 1859."

>>784663

Witty, but I really can't see how the textus receptus tradition equals, or holds special authority concerning the biblical text.

In my understanding TR is one historical tradition of biblical translation rooted in the northern renaissance and early 16th century bible scholarship with a very pronounced Byzantine text-type preference that became the foundation of the German and English language traditions of Bible translation, thus playing an important part in the reformation as a cultural and political project.

Translations originating in the TR tradition did came to have an immense effect on the evolving national secular literatures and played a defining ecclesiastical function in protestant churches. However, outside its ecclesiastical use St. Jerome's preceding Vulgate continued to be regarded as the standard referential text among bible scholars and intellectuals, catholics and protestants alike.

The TR tradition reflects the state of 16th century bible scholarship and textual criticism: it has its virtues, its errors, its stylistic preferences and its unique beauty, as each and every tradition of translation does. Its not like Matthew 24:35 says "my words shall pass away and be returned once again by Erasmus/Luther/Tyndale in the 1500's, never to be questioned by higher textual criticism."

>>784717

>St. Jerome's preceding Vulgate continued to be regarded as the standard referential text among bible scholars and intellectuals, catholics and protestants alike.

Ok couple things here.

First of all, the Vulgate didn't precede the original language words, obviously, since according to 1 Peter 1:23-25, Matthew 24:35, Isaiah 59:21, Psalm 119:160 and more the original language words have never been lost to any generation. This is called the doctrine of preservation and it is firmly rooted in belief and practice in true christian churches today. It's not just an empty saying, it is held as a self evident and reliable truth.

What this means is that we know the original sources are always available. And nothing preceded the originals.

That's point one. Next, There were more than one version of the Vulgate text. There was no standardized version until the Tridentine era and the Sixtine and after that Clementine versions of it. So right away we have two different sorts of Vulgate, Sixtine Vulgate and Clementine. And many more preceding them pre-Tridentine era. And further even before any of these earlier vulgata, before Jerome, we happen to be aware even now of faster copies that existed in Latin that had non-corrupted John 3:5 and Matthew 6:11 text. So what you're referring to is something that changed and morphed, not something that works as a "referential document," that never happened.

Third, you may be simply a priori defining "bible scholars and intellectuals" as those that agree with your point of view. In which case, I question these peoples' scholarship. Fourth, you say catholics and protestants, which were state churches, but what about baptists? Why only include state churches? Fifth, there is no way you seriously believe that scholars in England for instance did this. For instance the over 50 Authorized version translators regarded it very lowly according to their preface. So you might say many do today, but this would be only due to corrupted unbelieving scholarship— The same people who now support sodomy for instance.

>The TR tradition reflects the state of 16th century bible scholarship and textual criticism: it has its virtues, its stylistic preferences and its unique beauty, as each and every tradition does.

You are saying here that there are more than one word of God. Meanwhile, I am saying that there is only one original truth and all others are corrupted! There is a difference between us. Only one of us is consistent to what scripture says, the other one is not. You are the one not being consistent to what scripture says. You say there are many different versions each with corruptions, but the claim of God is that there is one truth and 1 Peter 1:23-25 says it is the incorruptible seed. There are no flaws, no changes and nothing errant about it whatsoever. And I have it right now. You can't find the fault with it.

So you see, there's a difference between me and the people who say that the words have passed away and teach that. I just showed that difference. That's why there is no point in reading Tischendorf's discoveries.

>>785008.

1.For me, the existence of a truth that's self evident and reliable in and by itself is entirely alien from any intellectual system, including theology. I really appreciate your honest efforts of remaining very civil and and refraining from interconfessional wrestling during our conversation. I'd like to act in the same spirit so I won't get into sacred scripture and tradition as original sources preserved and interpreted by the magisterium of the church tenant that appears as the valid historical process to me in relation to the texture. I'm sure you've heard it many times and I guess we can't find common ground here. As of the original textual sources, we don't have the autographs, nor do we have a single textual tradition, but three. It's suffice to say that the 16th century humanist supposition that Byzantine text-type manuscripts are more ancient and thus provide a more reliable base for translation in the textus receptus tradition was entirely put into doubt by the discovery of even more earlier Alexandrian text-type documents and the accompanying historical-critical scholarship.

2. Sure, and we had the old italic texts in use before and, for quite a time, after Saint Jerome's translation and compilation was made. Indeed, there were even hybrid codex versions and then the authorized Sistine and Clementine versions and their different editions… However, the vulgate was the standard text in all of pre-reformation period Christianity, including the use of the greek vulgate in eastern orthodoxy. I was exactly trying to point out that while scripture and tradition was preserved, the translation methods, the emphases and structuring of the texture itself indeed changed and morphed with time. What I think you're unwilling to recognize is that it's just as true when it comes to the "textus receptus" tradition. It's not like textural criticism and bible scholarship reached its final stage in the 16th century, and new archeological findings and historical-critical methods contradicting it are just conspiratory means to corrupt the texture.

3-4. I don't mean it in a diminutive manner, but from a historical perspective baptists were a numerically peripherical radical protestant separatist movement with virtually no ties to earlier anabaptist affiliations, one among many during the early 17th century religious turmoil. It swiftly splintered into dissident groups, making it hard to speak of a singlular baptist movement even in the early modern period. The feature that they organized as a "grassroots" movement among the common men and held views incompatible with state authority meant that their representatives were largely cut off from the intellectual public and the scientific infrastructure of the era. Again, it is not meant as criticism. I understand if your personal conviction is that of a baptist perpetuity, but I honestly can't find a historical base for that view.

5. The KJV was as much a cultural and political project as a theological one, and in that context it was important for the translators to denounce the vulgate as a symbol of latin exclusivism and papal authority, even though unlike Tyndale they clearly used it in their translation. What you had then was the kjv as the standard english vernacular version in public use as read by protestant believers and used in public worship, and the vulgate as the common reference among "intellectuals", secular and religious, as latin remained the shared language of learned people and religious literacy regardless of nationality or religious affiliation. That's why you have the vulgate as the referential text at Calvin and Beza, and even at Walton.

6. As you probably recognize, your position, while consistent with what your (!) interpretation of scripture says is largely incompatible with contemporary mainstream history, bible scholarship and textual criticism. At least for me, it gives no rational explanation of why an early 17th century english language protestant translation of the texture, born in a very specific political and theological context, mirroring that era's stage of bible scholarship and textual criticism should be the perfect, final and entirely flawless one. At least for me, it doesn't give a rational explanation why new archeological findings and hermeneutical methods should be entirely discarded.

However, even though I don't think we'll ever come to agree I do respect and understand that it's a hard personal conviction that's based entirely on faith and religious affiliation. I wish you all the best and thank you for the interesting and enjoyable conversation.

>>785125

>For me, the existence of a truth that's self evident and reliable in and by itself is entirely alien from any intellectual system, including theology.

For you perhaps. But what did Jesus say in John 8:42-47.

>refraining from interconfessional wrestling during our conversation.

Maybe this is a technicality, but I don't have a confession to defend, only scripture.

>I'd like to act in the same spirit so I won't get into sacred scripture and tradition as original sources preserved and interpreted by the magisterium of the church tenant that appears as the valid historical process to me in relation to the texture.

It may appear that way, to you. But also "the heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked."

>I'm sure you've heard it many times and I guess we can't find common ground here.

I'm always willing to build common ground by appealing to God's eternal word. I think in fact, that this is the only possibility to do it. In fact I might even go so far as to say this is precisely the only reason I come here. 2 Peter 1:20 says that no prophecy of the scripture is of any private interpretation. Whereas all the rest of these matters outside of this are weakly defined and shiftless.

>nor do we have a single textual tradition, but three

It really doesn't matter how you try to break it down though. There's only one uncorrupt, eternally unchanging waypoint. It's the one that speaks truly of itself in the very assertion.

>was entirely put into doubt by the discovery of

It was put into doubt for whom?

>the vulgate was the standard text in all of pre-reformation period Christianity,

Only if you define the people (and I can call it that) who safeguarded the Bible as outside of Christianity, which I've seen done. So either this is another case of that as we saw above with the a-priori definition of "scholars and intellectuals," or else a case of wishful thinking.

>the translation methods, the emphases and structuring of the texture itself indeed changed and morphed with time

You admitted this, I will agree here immediately. It changed John 3:5 and Matthew 6:11.

>you're unwilling to recognize is that it's just as true when it comes to the "textus receptus" tradition.

Where?

>It's not like textural criticism and bible scholarship reached its final stage in the 16th century

No of course not. Real Bible scholarship began with the first word of it spoken or written and continues to this day. However, unbelieving corrupt scholarship has existed since long before Mark 7:7-13.

>It's suffice to say that the 16th century humanist supposition that Byzantine text-type manuscripts are more ancient and thus provide a more reliable base for translation

This isn't the supposition or reasoning or the archetype of the faith at all. First of all, humanists were active in state church denominations yes, but they did not affect authentic churches nor did they manage to drag true Biblical scholarship off course. No, not at any time. And whatever they supposed is not relevant here.

No, the reason why we know what the original language sources are is because we know from the doctrine of preservation as I've just explained. Only someone who fundamentally believes that everything they have is corrupt would even start to think about "levels of reliability" and looking for something "more ancient" instead of looking the correct way.

Third, the real reason why the received text is different is because it is the unchanged original language sources, not because of the ancientness of its sources.

>and new archeological findings and historical-critical methods contradicting it are just conspiratory means to corrupt the texture.

It validates everything 2 Corinthians 2:17 says. There be many which corrupt the word of God. I'm not delving into their motivations for doing this.

>one among many during the early 17th century religious turmoil. It swiftly splintered into dissident groups

Are you talking about the confessional baptist denominations? Yeah there were various attempts at political organizations starting around 1529, but these are merely denominations framed after other denominations and state entities. But the only "movement" to speak of is scripture itself. It's inevitable that anything else would splinter and fracture into millions of pieces.

>even though unlike Tyndale they clearly used it in their translation.

You seriously need to start backing up your claims with hard examples.

>That's why you have the vulgate as the referential text at Calvin and Beza, and even at Walton.

Stephanus, Beza, the AV translators, Elzivir were all examples of real scholarship, with the translators among those being named being by far the most time and resources available to them. But you can find collations of all of their work in an apparatus by Mill. You will find that the majority of the variations between these publications have to do with spelling differences that would not amount to any change in the translation. Yet despite this great similarity they all clearly worked diligently on their respective work, going back to the sources, and a careful comparison will reveal this. But it's important to bring up that it's not like every word has a magic spelling that has to be saved, or that the word of God must be written in a certain style or in any certain special way. Only that those original words providentially would be preserved.

And that did happen. There exists scholarship not just from that time but from every time that participated in this, keeping it together even until now.

>it gives no rational explanation of why an early 17th century english language protestant translation of the texture, born in a very specific political and theological context, mirroring that era's stage of bible scholarship and textual criticism should be the perfect, final and entirely flawless one.

I personally use the 1900 format, not the 1611 format. There's really no problem with using updated spelling of the same translation. Where's the problem with that? That's also what I've been citing from whenever I post scripture. But also, and even more importantly, if you find another, newer translation that comes afterward that you think does justice to the received text and doesn't change anything, please post it here.

>At least for me, it doesn't give a rational explanation why new archeological findings

Because God's word wasn't lost and rediscovered in 1859 and at last finally released to the public in 1881, to replace all formerly incorrectly written Bibles in the whole world.

>and hermeneutical methods should be entirely discarded.

I've shown how that hermeneutical method of assumes that all available sources are corrupt and we're going for the next best thing. It's unfaithful and tacitly admits the premises for demonstrating that this is the case. I could go on to show how "reasoned eclecticism," which is the REAL method behind this, is fundamentally even more flawed and intellectually bankrupt. I could bring up real examples of how independent modern groups cultivate their individual, mutually conflicting cafeteria selections from majority and eclectic readings and their translational methodologies chosen with no semblance of consistency or permanence. I could show how these groups admit this and shrug their shoulders about it. Even while continuously presenting an image of scriptural continuity to the masses it sells them to. Even while posturing themselves as "peerless" and impartial experts. When really how its all done very casually and flippantly and with a mind for retaining business.

>However, even though I don't think we'll ever come to agree I do respect and understand that it's a hard personal conviction that's based entirely on faith

Let me quote the following.

If we receive the witness of men, the witness of God is greater: for this is the witness of God which he hath testified of his Son.

He that believeth on the Son of God hath the witness in himself: he that believeth not God hath made him a liar; because he believeth not the record that God gave of his Son. — 1 John 5:9-10

For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe. — 1 Thessalonians 2:13

>>784575

>Vaticanus, it just POPPED up out of nowhere suddenly "actually WE have one of the oldest most important manuscripts right here too!"

Yep, the KJV translators even had access to it at the time, yet chose not to use it. They would have figuratively put it in the same trash bin where Sinaiticus was placed.

>>783780

>I want to read the oldest manuscript of the old testament.

Why, do you think it changed or something?

If so, let's do a thought experiment. If you actually possessed the oldest known manuscript, wouldn't you still think in the back of your mind there could be an older, "better" one out there that you don't know about?

What if some jews from israel came out with an even "older and better" manuscript tomorrow that they just "discovered"? Would you throw this one away as it is no longer the "best"?

I'm really interested to hear what your thought process is.

>>785729

I'm not expecting him to be able to answer.

>>785729

>Why, do you think it changed or something?

yes

>If so, let's do a thought experiment. If you actually possessed the oldest known manuscript, wouldn't you still think in the back of your mind there could be an older, "better" one out there that you don't know about?

>What if some jews from israel came out with an even "older and better" manuscript tomorrow that they just "discovered"? Would you throw this one away as it is no longer the "best"?

The idea is that you can't trust manuscripts that just randomly pop up, like sinaiticus, or vaticanus. Cuz they could be forgeries.

You can far better trust manuscripts that have a history of being passed around: Like Codex Vercellensis, Bezae, Alexandrinus. Forging an entire historical tradition of a manuscript would be much more difficult if not impossible.

When studying scripture, you should start with the oldest, historically established manuscripts, then work your way up, compare differences.

If you have pictures of the pages, why not just number them and roll to transcribe? See if you can make some stone soup in this thread.

>>786027

Oh, I see. I tried to take my own advice by following the archive.org link to the first volume and transcribing page 027, and what I found there was completely unreadable.

Can we get better pictures of the pages, then, to start with?

>>785983

>you should start with the oldest, historically established manuscripts

Historically established. You mean like the original language sources that are known and used by historical nations to make actual Bibles historically speaking? Ok, sounds good. We won't have any problem there.

>>786099

historically established. Mean like there is a story of the book's existence (made by this person or for that person, in that city, during that time, gifted to him or her and held in this library for this many years then stolen, people famously took oaths on it….etc.

Honestly, the manuscript I use for the gospel of Mark is Vercellensis, the one where people used it famously to take oaths in recorded history.

Don't you see how Vaticanus and Sinaiticus just are less trustworthy?