Thanks Ross! I must say though, that even though I may know a bit more than many on TC related issues, Peter and Maurice are the real experts here. I'm an amateur!
This video is how Christians who favor certain manuscripts should conduct themselves in a thoughtful discussion. I respect both Robinson and Gurry. This is what adult conversation looks like without all the slander, accusations, assumptions misinformation and conspiracy theories like that are in the comments. This is why I dont lean to any certain manuscripts because scholars like Robinson and Gurry make very good cases for why they prefer their particular manuscripts.
It's not at all surprising. Dr. Robinson and friends might want to do some sets and then they'd realise we should expect the divisions to frequently match the Byz. I think I need to draw a nice diagram (something I'm hopeless at) but it really isn't rocket science.
@@hefinjones9051 That seems like it would be significant in supporting the superiority of the Byzantine. But I have been told that other manuscripts would have to be figured in but if text types are not a thing anymore, what difference would that make?
@@rossjpurdy I really need to draw you the diagram... The fact that a lot of the points where 01 and 03 disagree are also points where one of 01 and 03 agree with Byz is not that significant. That's because they agree with Byz in many places across the board.
@@rossjpurdy We have the commonly received texts of the churches, and those other texts were probably sold in the streets or by other groups. e.g. Novatianists , Arians...etc.
In 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
Everyone should read David W.Daniels book:" Is the " World's Oldest Bible A Fake"?. It's a very up to date examination of Siaiticus ,proving Its NINETEENTH CENTURY fake! Read it and see.
@@jamessheffield4173 Who knows the provenance of the vast majority of manuscripts? Even Byzantine ones. The ones where we know the scribe's name and date often don't tell us anything about their locatrion or thier exemplars....
I really appreciate this from an Old Testament perspective. I know traditionally Vaticanus is the considered the "best" manuscript for the LXX and I always wondered why. Dr. Peter Gurry helped clarify why that is.
See? This is my problem with CT advocates: Dr. Gurry's preference for Vaticanus is based on internal evidence created from a series of assumptions that were conjured up by previous experts like Bruce Metzger whose faulty analysis was framed by data from even earlier CT experts like Westcott & Hort whose opinions have largely been disproven by modern CT experts!
How does that last sentence work when Dr Gurry *is* a modern CT expert, who has been at the forefront of change in text criticism? Just a question. I'm not yet committed to either "side" and greatly appreciate videos like this where simpletons like me get to hear in good faith from different perspectives ❤.
@@russell13904 Dr. Gurry wants to determine each biblical reading based on a string of internal criteria rather than on which text type a reading comes from. The problem is that the criteria by which he and other CT advocates use to judge a reading's or a manuscript's weight is based on logic developed by Westcott, Hort, Metzger and others whose work is rejected by Dr. Gurry. The criteria I refer to are things like: the shorter reading is preferable to a longer reading, the style of a sentence must precisely match the style of everything else written by a particular author, the harder reading is the best reading, the reading that's less like a parallel text is the best reading, etc., etc.! It's all insufferably subjective nonsense!
@@rossjpurdy the constant (sometimes sloppy) emphasis on this point by KJVO/TRO's may be playing a role in why Robinson is distancing himself(?). I personally don't think optics are more important than reality, but honey does catch more flies than vinegar.
@@hefinjones9051 thanks for clarifying. would it have been better if i had said 'empirical measures'? and to entertain the possibility, and not come off close minded, what from tregelles would be the work to read?
I have still NOT heard a satisfactory answer as to why Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are better manuscripts. “They are older” is not an answer. I don’t believe they are garbage, as some groups say. Did someone along the line say they were better because they discovered them (ie. Tischendorf)? Are these the only reasons why? Byzantine might not have been placed somewhere in complete book form, but when Byzantine texts agree when they are on opposite sides of the Mediterranean and also agree with early church fathers….. then why is Byzantine not better at certain points?
This was a good video. However, I don't think Dr. Robinson's answer quite squares. The division of Christianity into, essentially, different churches really begins in the fifth century. Prior to that we had rivalry of schools, dirty politics, but it didn't bleed over to a level that would meet that level or prevent the sharing of manuscripts or teachers. For example, Origen was revered everywhere but Alexandria at the time, where the bishop was embroiled in a political power struggle with him (he was an advocate of strongly centralizing episcopal power, and Origen's teaching and reputation rivaled his). It was much later, when Theophilus needed to clamp down on the Origenists that Origen became extremely controversial. They conflated Origen's teachings with the Evagrian monks, and he was subsequently condemned (not to say Origen didn't hold heretical ideas; he just held to far fewer than people credit him with and often denied the ones he's accused of). The main doctrinal point he was accused of in the day was his belief about the soul and body. However, this wasn't regional. He was typically Alexandrian, and it was Alexandria that was attacking him. The divisions began with an archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius. He rebuked a priest for calling Mary Theotokos, Mother/Birthgiver of God. Mary could not be the mother of a divine nature, he argued. An Alexandrian rose against him, St. Cyril. Cyril argued that it was the Church's ancient practice to call her that, that if Mary isn't the Mother of God, then Jesus wasn't God. If God didn't die on the cross but the man Jesus, then Jesus wasn't God. If God wasn't tempted in the wilderness, then Jesus wasn't God. Nestorius, he concluded, had unwittingly denied the Incarnation. There was a general council held in 431, and Nestorius was condemned. Several Syrian communities then broke communion. It was an ugly, dirty, and divisive fight. Nestorius took the throne in 428, so that's the earliest we can date this strong division. It was Alexandria that represented the opinions and theology of most of Christianity. While the dispute did take on trappings from eariler schools of thought, it wasn't caused by them. It was, in fact, caused by Nestorius being angry about the emperor entering the sanctuary. Prior to this time Alexandrian teachers, and most likely manuscripts, were accepted all over the world. You can see the influence of Alexandria in Rome and Carthage. The next dispute is where Alexandria was set at odds. St. Cyril's formula was that there was one φύσις that was both human and divine. The people expounding that were taken to believe that Jesus had a hybrid nature. The politics, and sadly nationalism, are especially dirty here, so the facts are obtuse. However, the rest of the Christian world acted on a perception that they did argue that Jesus was a hybrid, neither fully God nor fully man, created a new formula. God has one ὑπόστασις (I don't think "person" quite covers the meaning), and that ὑπόστασις united divine and human φύσις without mixing them so that God did have a mother, did suffer, did die, was tempted, did grow, but the divine nature remained impassable. This is where Alexandria broke off and formed a new church. At this point, Alexandria became the bad guy to most of the Church, but even then not entirely. It became a situation of two parallel churches existing in the same place. So some Alexandrians still had a high place. For instance, it was Theophilus of Alexandria who managed to get Origen's teachings conflated with Evagrius' to combat the desert monks (they believed things like souls are spherical, perfect, eternal, descend down into bodies, and so the Logos became one of every intelligent race, they would inevitably return to their proper station, but they would fall again and be enslaved by flesh through their sin once more). He could not have done this if Alexandria were a pariah, because up to this point Origen was by far one of the most popular teachers. The two parallel jurisdictions also used different languages. The breakaway churches used Coptic. The Church in communion with everyone else used Greek with the other churches. The parallel jurisdictions exist to this day. So the characterization he gives for distrusting the flow of manuscripts from Alexandria would postdate the creation of א or B, but it wouldn't necessarily be true of the situation after the divisions. I think Dr. Gurry's understanding is probably closer to the reality of the eras (and I'm acknowledging that Dr. Robinson doesn't consider Sinaiticus a terrible mss, but I do think he's created more division between Egypt and the rest of the world than can be defended).
@@FishermensCorner No, that they weren't different churches at the time, and Alexandria wasn't a pariah that was distrusted by the rest of the faith. The divisions he speaks about didn't exist yet, so there wasn't a barrier to manuscripts moving around. I think Dr. Gurry's view is more realistic.
Because scholars want to disprove the Bible . These probably are not even as old as the claim ,but the If these were correct we would have copies of them .
The text of the scriptures should only be handled in editing and translation by right-minded believers - also preferably the clergy not the laity. When you have the heterodox or outright skeptics and nonbelievers handling the Word, they are liable to intentionally corrupt it, or make the most unflattering-to-the-faith choices in translation. I don't think either the received text or the majority text is perfect, but a text based on literal garbage edited by Romanists and skeptics should NOT be the basis of our bibles even if translated by right-minded believers.
@@hefinjones9051 Some of them were certainly either Anglo-Catholic or full-on Catholic. At least until very recently (don't know if Trent is still binding canon) the Vatican declared an anathema on anyone not accepting their extended OT canon exactly as it stands which meant all Protestants and many Orthodox would be unpersons.
In fact kirsopp lake wrote a paper demonstrating that the codex B and aleph only was used during origen not before or after in fact why wasn't it copied and the autographs where not in Egypt
@@hefinjones9051I have put the reference below he actually states that Westcott and hort reconstructed the text was dominant in alexandria and based on secondary rather than primary sources. He actually called WH text a failure
@@hefinjones9051 I just read it. It didn't convince me א, A, and B are oldest and best, it didn't convince me of a BC LXX, it didn't convince me to study the apocrypha.
28:16 - In Hoskier's defense, a variation is a variation. There has to be a baseline, and all variations should be counted as variations. The sum can be subsequently sorted through and orthographic variants can be minimized - but the initial count is the place to start. Right?
@@JamesSnapp this isn't the first time Robinson wouldn't jump on board the "א and B are corrupt train." If you recall, he also pooh-poohed Nazaroo's HT/HA dataset.
They are "special" alright. Not used by the People of God for 1000 plus years. Why is this the case? Why does 6% of its content always seem to be in places which have significant difference to Christian doctrine then the Byz/TR texts? Why did the Church stick with that stream and not Aleph and B? Does modern scholarship trump the People of God's choice throughout church history? The Critical text and its method is such a nonsense.
They are survivors of when Constantine asked for seven copies of the scriptures from each of the cities of Alexanderia, Antioch, and Rome. These are the two survivors of that request. They may have had errors, but they were the ancestors of the severely error prone Byzantine family of texts.
the debated phrase is "threefold and fourfold form" from Eusebias and it's uncertain as to what he's actually referring to. With that being said, even if it were speaking of the number of columns per page, that's not much to go on to link it back to Constantine's order.
@@Dwayne_Green a link to Constantine's order would be impossible to prove unless there's a note saying this copy was created to send to Constantine, or such wording.
But the question is why is modern bibles rely heavily on these 2 manuscripts while rejecting the majority of manuscripts I first saw Siniaticus 25 years ago I'm surprised how well maintained considering how old it was
@@FishermensCorner, there is no intercessor that died for our sins, but Hod didn't deliver you the Bible directly. You are surrounded by a cloud of saints.
@E-pistol yea, The Cloud of saints, that would be me and you and our ancestors, but that's not anybody that's dead that you pray to. Jesus is the intercessor that died for our sins, it's literally Romans 8... it's literally Hebrews 4 ... the scriptures were written by people, and those are witnesses that were inspired by the holy spirit... literally nothing to do with praying to dead people.
![Summer Walker - Heart Of A Woman [Official Lyric Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/SFddctbZzw8/mqdefault.jpg)
Great to see a graceful conversation by three Christian textual experts! Thanks & Blessings!🙏📖
Thanks Ross! I must say though, that even though I may know a bit more than many on TC related issues, Peter and Maurice are the real experts here. I'm an amateur!
@@Dwayne_Green I agree with Dwayne ;-)
@@Dwayne_Green How about expert, "prophetically speaking?" I am a "pre-novice."
Agree
This video is how Christians who favor certain manuscripts should conduct themselves in a thoughtful discussion. I respect both Robinson and Gurry. This is what adult conversation looks like without all the slander, accusations, assumptions misinformation and conspiracy theories like that are in the comments. This is why I dont lean to any certain manuscripts because scholars like Robinson and Gurry make very good cases for why they prefer their particular manuscripts.
Need more of these. Blessings.
Very informative and gracious. Thanks, Dwayne, for hosting this. I really enjoy your channel.
Thanks!
When Vaticanus and Sinaiticus divide, One or the other will agree with the Byzantine Text! Thank you DR Robinson!
It's not at all surprising.
Dr. Robinson and friends might want to do some sets and then they'd realise we should expect the divisions to frequently match the Byz.
I think I need to draw a nice diagram (something I'm hopeless at) but it really isn't rocket science.
@@hefinjones9051 That seems like it would be significant in supporting the superiority of the Byzantine. But I have been told that other manuscripts would have to be figured in but if text types are not a thing anymore, what difference would that make?
@@rossjpurdy I really need to draw you the diagram...
The fact that a lot of the points where 01 and 03 disagree are also points where one of 01 and 03 agree with Byz is not that significant. That's because they agree with Byz in many places across the board.
@@rossjpurdy We have the commonly received texts of the churches, and those other texts were probably sold in the streets or by other groups. e.g. Novatianists , Arians...etc.
Thanks for another good discussion.
In 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
Everyone should read David W.Daniels book:" Is the " World's Oldest Bible A Fake"?. It's a very up to date examination of Siaiticus ,proving Its NINETEENTH CENTURY fake! Read it and see.
Robinson explicitly distanced himself from Burgon in the video on that very matter.
@@hefinjones9051 Tommy Wasserman in To Cast the First Stone writes on page 186 that those two codices are of unknown provenance. Blessings.
@@hefinjones9051 not specifically in regards to their survival, and not to his credit.
@@jamessheffield4173 Who knows the provenance of the vast majority of manuscripts? Even Byzantine ones. The ones where we know the scribe's name and date often don't tell us anything about their locatrion or thier exemplars....
Appreciate the humble discussion
I really appreciate this from an Old Testament perspective. I know traditionally Vaticanus is the considered the "best" manuscript for the LXX and I always wondered why. Dr. Peter Gurry helped clarify why that is.
Good questions Dwayne
Peter Gurry, give it time, and you'll become an advocate of equitable eclecticism.
More experts, please. Fun AND educational--thanks!
Dwayne if you still have these guys. Ask them about what would be considered good, weighty Internal evidence.
I think that would be helpful.
See? This is my problem with CT advocates: Dr. Gurry's preference for Vaticanus is based on internal evidence created from a series of assumptions that were conjured up by previous experts like Bruce Metzger whose faulty analysis was framed by data from even earlier CT experts like Westcott & Hort whose opinions have largely been disproven by modern CT experts!
Gurry preferred Vaticanus.
@@rodneyjackson6181 Right!!
How does that last sentence work when Dr Gurry *is* a modern CT expert, who has been at the forefront of change in text criticism? Just a question. I'm not yet committed to either "side" and greatly appreciate videos like this where simpletons like me get to hear in good faith from different perspectives ❤.
@@russell13904 Dr. Gurry wants to determine each biblical reading based on a string of internal criteria rather than on which text type a reading comes from. The problem is that the criteria by which he and other CT advocates use to judge a reading's or a manuscript's weight is based on logic developed by Westcott, Hort, Metzger and others whose work is rejected by Dr. Gurry. The criteria I refer to are things like: the shorter reading is preferable to a longer reading, the style of a sentence must precisely match the style of everything else written by a particular author, the harder reading is the best reading, the reading that's less like a parallel text is the best reading, etc., etc.! It's all insufferably subjective nonsense!
25:00. Since when does "probability" reproduce the inerrant original autographs?
13:55 How do you know that these mss "moved" around the entire Roman empire????
any news on the byzantine text/GNT project?
It's plugging along, we're almost finished with some initial reviewing.
So how overblown is Burgon and Hoskier's critique? Now I would like to see a critique of their critiques!
@@rossjpurdy the constant (sometimes sloppy) emphasis on this point by KJVO/TRO's may be playing a role in why Robinson is distancing himself(?). I personally don't think optics are more important than reality, but honey does catch more flies than vinegar.
@@matthewmurphyrose4793 Definitely, Dr MR has distanced himself from the KJVonly/TRonly folks.
they are considered "the best" by those who deem them the best, simply because they desire them to be the best, based on naturalistic measures.
Read Tregelles.
@@hefinjones9051 i assume you are saying that tregelles would agree with my statement? ...or are you saying that to contra my statement?
@@a_hanna I'm questioing whether a fair reading of Tregelles (as one example) would conclude he's operating from naturalistic 'measures.'
@@hefinjones9051 thanks for clarifying. would it have been better if i had said 'empirical measures'? and to entertain the possibility, and not come off close minded, what from tregelles would be the work to read?
I have still NOT heard a satisfactory answer as to why Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus are better manuscripts. “They are older” is not an answer. I don’t believe they are garbage, as some groups say. Did someone along the line say they were better because they discovered them (ie. Tischendorf)? Are these the only reasons why? Byzantine might not have been placed somewhere in complete book form, but when Byzantine texts agree when they are on opposite sides of the Mediterranean and also agree with early church fathers….. then why is Byzantine not better at certain points?
Why is Mr. Robinson on the show and hardly is given an opportunity to talk? It’s like 99% Mr. Gurry talking.
It is part of a series of videos and he speaks a lot in the others.
My thoughts exactly!!!
25:00. Since when does "probability" reproduce the inerrant original autographs?
You can clearly see where the insults and curse words were removed from this video.
😂😂😂
This was a good video.
However, I don't think Dr. Robinson's answer quite squares. The division of Christianity into, essentially, different churches really begins in the fifth century. Prior to that we had rivalry of schools, dirty politics, but it didn't bleed over to a level that would meet that level or prevent the sharing of manuscripts or teachers. For example, Origen was revered everywhere but Alexandria at the time, where the bishop was embroiled in a political power struggle with him (he was an advocate of strongly centralizing episcopal power, and Origen's teaching and reputation rivaled his). It was much later, when Theophilus needed to clamp down on the Origenists that Origen became extremely controversial. They conflated Origen's teachings with the Evagrian monks, and he was subsequently condemned (not to say Origen didn't hold heretical ideas; he just held to far fewer than people credit him with and often denied the ones he's accused of). The main doctrinal point he was accused of in the day was his belief about the soul and body. However, this wasn't regional. He was typically Alexandrian, and it was Alexandria that was attacking him.
The divisions began with an archbishop of Constantinople, Nestorius. He rebuked a priest for calling Mary Theotokos, Mother/Birthgiver of God. Mary could not be the mother of a divine nature, he argued. An Alexandrian rose against him, St. Cyril. Cyril argued that it was the Church's ancient practice to call her that, that if Mary isn't the Mother of God, then Jesus wasn't God. If God didn't die on the cross but the man Jesus, then Jesus wasn't God. If God wasn't tempted in the wilderness, then Jesus wasn't God. Nestorius, he concluded, had unwittingly denied the Incarnation. There was a general council held in 431, and Nestorius was condemned. Several Syrian communities then broke communion.
It was an ugly, dirty, and divisive fight. Nestorius took the throne in 428, so that's the earliest we can date this strong division. It was Alexandria that represented the opinions and theology of most of Christianity. While the dispute did take on trappings from eariler schools of thought, it wasn't caused by them. It was, in fact, caused by Nestorius being angry about the emperor entering the sanctuary. Prior to this time Alexandrian teachers, and most likely manuscripts, were accepted all over the world. You can see the influence of Alexandria in Rome and Carthage.
The next dispute is where Alexandria was set at odds. St. Cyril's formula was that there was one φύσις that was both human and divine. The people expounding that were taken to believe that Jesus had a hybrid nature. The politics, and sadly nationalism, are especially dirty here, so the facts are obtuse. However, the rest of the Christian world acted on a perception that they did argue that Jesus was a hybrid, neither fully God nor fully man, created a new formula. God has one ὑπόστασις (I don't think "person" quite covers the meaning), and that ὑπόστασις united divine and human φύσις without mixing them so that God did have a mother, did suffer, did die, was tempted, did grow, but the divine nature remained impassable.
This is where Alexandria broke off and formed a new church. At this point, Alexandria became the bad guy to most of the Church, but even then not entirely. It became a situation of two parallel churches existing in the same place. So some Alexandrians still had a high place. For instance, it was Theophilus of Alexandria who managed to get Origen's teachings conflated with Evagrius' to combat the desert monks (they believed things like souls are spherical, perfect, eternal, descend down into bodies, and so the Logos became one of every intelligent race, they would inevitably return to their proper station, but they would fall again and be enslaved by flesh through their sin once more). He could not have done this if Alexandria were a pariah, because up to this point Origen was by far one of the most popular teachers.
The two parallel jurisdictions also used different languages. The breakaway churches used Coptic. The Church in communion with everyone else used Greek with the other churches. The parallel jurisdictions exist to this day. So the characterization he gives for distrusting the flow of manuscripts from Alexandria would postdate the creation of א or B, but it wouldn't necessarily be true of the situation after the divisions. I think Dr. Gurry's understanding is probably closer to the reality of the eras (and I'm acknowledging that Dr. Robinson doesn't consider Sinaiticus a terrible mss, but I do think he's created more division between Egypt and the rest of the world than can be defended).
That's not quite right, but I think your point is different churches with sufficient infrastructure?
@@FishermensCorner No, that they weren't different churches at the time, and Alexandria wasn't a pariah that was distrusted by the rest of the faith. The divisions he speaks about didn't exist yet, so there wasn't a barrier to manuscripts moving around. I think Dr. Gurry's view is more realistic.
BOTH FORGERY ..NOT OLD NOT BEST
Because scholars want to disprove the Bible . These probably are not even as old as the claim ,but the If these were correct we would have copies of them .
The text of the scriptures should only be handled in editing and translation by right-minded believers - also preferably the clergy not the laity. When you have the heterodox or outright skeptics and nonbelievers handling the Word, they are liable to intentionally corrupt it, or make the most unflattering-to-the-faith choices in translation.
I don't think either the received text or the majority text is perfect, but a text based on literal garbage edited by Romanists and skeptics should NOT be the basis of our bibles even if translated by right-minded believers.
So Tregelles was an unbeliever? And Tischendorf? And Jongkind? And Head? And Gurry etc etc.
@@hefinjones9051 Even Erasmus was questionable (he was a mariolater).
@@fnjesusfreak quite possibly, but not Tregellies et al ?
@@hefinjones9051 Some of them were certainly either Anglo-Catholic or full-on Catholic. At least until very recently (don't know if Trent is still binding canon) the Vatican declared an anathema on anyone not accepting their extended OT canon exactly as it stands which meant all Protestants and many Orthodox would be unpersons.
@@fnjesusfreak who's the "them"? I gave you a list, which one of those is an AngloCatholic?
In fact kirsopp lake wrote a paper demonstrating that the codex B and aleph only was used during origen not before or after in fact why wasn't it copied and the autographs where not in Egypt
Problem for Lake (if lake said that anyway) is called P75
@@hefinjones9051 But was P75 copied from B???
@@rossjpurdy Are you suggesting that P75 was copied from 03?
The paper is called the The text of the gospels in alexandrian the American journal of theology Jan 1902 volume 6 p88
@@hefinjones9051I have put the reference below he actually states that Westcott and hort reconstructed the text was dominant in alexandria and based on secondary rather than primary sources. He actually called WH text a failure
Has anyone looked into David Danielson from Chick publications?
See Elijah Hixson's essay
@@hefinjones9051 I just read it. It didn't convince me א, A, and B are oldest and best, it didn't convince me of a BC LXX, it didn't convince me to study the apocrypha.
@@d-bo6411 ?
It’s a well made 19th century “Bible” 😂
Sinaiticus. Yaticanus.
One starts with sin, the other ends with anus.
I'll stick with the TR.
"The best" do no agree with one another.
28:16 - In Hoskier's defense, a variation is a variation. There has to be a baseline, and all variations should be counted as variations. The sum can be subsequently sorted through and orthographic variants can be minimized - but the initial count is the place to start. Right?
@@JamesSnapp this isn't the first time Robinson wouldn't jump on board the "א and B are corrupt train." If you recall, he also pooh-poohed Nazaroo's HT/HA dataset.
There's a lot of errors in the vaticanus and sinaticus.
They are just as erroneous as the Alexandrian of Egypt texts.
They are "special" alright. Not used by the People of God for 1000 plus years. Why is this the case? Why does 6% of its content always seem to be in places which have significant difference to Christian doctrine then the Byz/TR texts? Why did the Church stick with that stream and not Aleph and B? Does modern scholarship trump the People of God's choice throughout church history? The Critical text and its method is such a nonsense.
Both are corruption of God's word.
They are survivors of when Constantine asked for seven copies of the scriptures from each of the cities of Alexanderia, Antioch, and Rome. These are the two survivors of that request. They may have had errors, but they were the ancestors of the severely error prone Byzantine family of texts.
the debated phrase is "threefold and fourfold form" from Eusebias and it's uncertain as to what he's actually referring to. With that being said, even if it were speaking of the number of columns per page, that's not much to go on to link it back to Constantine's order.
@@Dwayne_Green a link to Constantine's order would be impossible to prove unless there's a note saying this copy was created to send to Constantine, or such wording.
NO no no no no. Start over.
But the question is why is modern bibles rely heavily on these 2 manuscripts while rejecting the majority of manuscripts I first saw Siniaticus 25 years ago I'm surprised how well maintained considering how old it was
The Bible is a Catholic book ♥
....
@@FishermensCorner , Saint Peter pray for us ♥
@@E-pistol ah, no, only Christ, there is no other intercessor.
@@FishermensCorner, there is no intercessor that died for our sins, but Hod didn't deliver you the Bible directly. You are surrounded by a cloud of saints.
@E-pistol yea, The Cloud of saints, that would be me and you and our ancestors, but that's not anybody that's dead that you pray to. Jesus is the intercessor that died for our sins, it's literally Romans 8... it's literally Hebrews 4 ... the scriptures were written by people, and those are witnesses that were inspired by the holy spirit... literally nothing to do with praying to dead people.