reply to post by Joecroft
Shouldn’t we go with the oldest/original version, as being the most accurate?
First lets clear this up a little. You said,
The Codex Sinaiticus includes the oldest copy of the New Testament, which is written in Greek and there is no “Comma Johanneum” contained within
it.
The Codex Sinaiticus May contain the oldest COMPLETE New Testament,However it is not the oldest we have, And definitely does not contain the oldest
and full text of the Old Testaments as it is dated around 350 A.D.obviously.
Wiki is correct to tell you that it is the oldest complete. However, not 100%. It is missing these verses,
Matthew 12:47, 16:2b-3, 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, 24:35
Mark 7:16, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, 16:9-20
Luke 17:36
John 5:4,7:53-8:11,16:15, 20:5b-6, 21:25
Acts 8:37; 15:34; 24:7; 28:29;[16]
Romans 16:24 And many, many phrases
.
Now,
There are over 5300 early Greek Manuscripts of the New Testament in existence.Which means that these were the original copies of copies onto them
selfs or from the original Autographs, That were either written by the author themselves like St Paul or from first hand eyewitnesses such as a
scribe.
The oldest New Testament manuscript we have is "p 52" (p stands for papyrus) it was copied around 125 A.D. it contains a portion of John 18
Bodmer p66 contained a large portion of John. copied around 200 A.D.
Chest Beatty p46 Pauline Epistles and Hebrews. 100 and 50 years before the Codex Sinaiticus.
Bodmer p75 contains Luke and John 125 years before Codex Sinaiticus
250-300 A.D. Chester Beatty p45 contains the four Gospels and Acts
Although these too are not Complete copies, they do contain portions of most of all of the New Testament and are older that the Codex Sinaiticus
respectfully.
.
Around the same time as the Codex Sinaiticus (a little newer) in 350 A.D. we have the Codex Vaticanus
It has all the books except 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation.
The Old Testament portion contains all except 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh.
Im gonna stop here because you most likely see where I am going with this.(and my RA is acting up. lol)
See how newer versions of the New Testament contain books that some older versions do not and vise~versa.This means that there is no complete New
Testament which contain all the books before
the the date of the Codex Sinaitics, the date of the Codex Sinaitics, and after the Codex Sinaitics.
Thus making the Comma Johanneum irrelevant as to a date in which it "appeared" sinse all these books are inconsistent with each other
.
Now, out of those 5300 early Greek manuscripts ten of these contain the Comma.
#61, #88m, #221m, #429 , #636 ,#918, #2318 , #634, and omega 110.It also appears in the margin of #6359 oh, and I forgot the Codex Wizanburgensis.
There are many more that are confirmed which appear in the margin ,and there are many more in text but are currently unconfirmed as of today.
It may seem like an overwhelming number but consider this, Out of those 5300 manuscripts, there are only 501 that even contain the book of 1 John (
the same book the Comma is in) that is 4799 original Greek manuscripts that do not contain the book of 1 John. And this is only on the Greek side of
the fence
Just because the Comma Johannem doesn't "appear"in original Greek manuscripts until later, does not mean it is not authentic and could have very
well been in earlier manuscripts as documented and quoted from the early church fathers. But where these are today who knows, most likely
destroyed.
Now on the Latin side of the fence, Around 195 A.D. the Greek New Testament was translated into Latin termed Old Latin. It is documented that the
early Church Father Tertullian who wrote treatises on theology and used the Old Latin Bible made all kinds of references about the Comma.This remind
you was 155 years before the Codex Sinaiticus. Thus the Comma must have been in earlier versions of the Greek manuscripts.I believe its also in a few
Old Latin books too, either as a marginal note or in the text itself, I think its In at least 3 (I don't have my references with me but I can look
them up for you).
The historical evidence, seems pretty clear cut, in that later versions had changes made to them, regarding the “Comma
Johanneum”
This is where it becomes kinda blurry.(and I could be wrong but I dont think I am)My understanding is that on the Latin side Jerome copied it as a
marginal note when he compiled the Vaulgate then later it was added to the text because they thought it belonged only after finding earlier books that
contained it.Sort of like If we found a new peace of Luke's Gospel today would we include it?Look at the Dead Sea Scrolls for ex. they contained bits
and peaces that the Codex Sinaitics does not. Should we add to it?
Point is that no Bible can be 100% complete because it has not all been discovered yet, as we know.
I hope this can help a little in understanding why old is not always best.
You can now tear this apart if you like and reply back if you want. However, Please research what I said to see If I am correct as I am going off the
top of my head.
