Greek Texts

Schmuel schmuel at
Fri May 24 13:27:06 EDT 2002

Hi B-Greek,

I agree with the importance of this information,
whether this forum will dialog on it I dunno....

Would like to separate out..

Dr. Edward Hill and Dr. D.A. Waite,

(and I would add at least the late Dean John Burgon, David Cloud,
  and William P. Grady (author of Final Authority)

from Gail Riplinger, who seems to be very sensationalist and also
sloppy on scholarship, ergo an easy target...

(leaving aside the question of Peter Ruckman, whose Scripture scholarship
  and views should best be considered independent from his other views)

two minor corrections..

   Westcott and Hort relied *principally* (not only) on those two manuscripts..
     (as do every modern UBS, Nestle-Aland, NU, eclectic text)

   The KJV translators were aware of Vaticanus,  but not Sinaticus (found 

one addition

    Dean Burgon's comments about the scribal corruption of Codex Sinaticus,
    in particular, are extremely telling, no one has ever contended with 
them, afaik,
    (10+ hands changing and redacting, missing spaces, double words and lines,
     basic scribal errors throughout) ... Those who have any concept of Scribal
     integrity, and Scriptural Perservation, can never explain why this text
     should ever be included in a translation..
     (what good is an "old" text if it is simply corrupt).


>It seems that the United Bible Socity or the Nestle-Aland text is the
>preferred Greek New Testament. I do not wish to stir up atomic shock
>waves, but I would simply like to relay some information I have learned
>from books by Dr. Edward Hill, Dr. D.A. Waite, G.A. Riplinger and others.
>The Greek texts mentioned above are based on two manuscripts.
>1. Codex Vaticinus: was found in the pope's library in Rome in about 1481.
>2. Codes Sinaiticus: was found in an Orthodox monastery at the foot of Mt.
>Sinai in 1844, by Tischendorf. Tischendorf reported that the Orthodox
>monks were intending on burning this manuscript, but he presuaded them to
>salvage it and allow him to study this manuscript.
>Wescott and Hort relied only on these two manuscripts when creating the
>Greek texts which are mainly used today. (The UBS and Nestle-Aland) The
>Vaticanus and Sinaiticus texts were based on manuscripts created by
>scholars in Alexandria who felt at liberty to change the Word of God as
>they pleased, to fit their own ideas. (A.D. 175-225)
>On the other hand, it is widely known, (but not often openly stated), that
>the Textus Receptus is based on nearly 5000 reliable manuscripts which
>agree with each other in almost every detail. No vital doctrines are lost
>or changed in any of these manuscripts. Also, some of the greatest
>scholars who ever lived, the King James Version translators, chose this
>text above the Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. (Yes, the KJV translators were
>well aware of these texts and others similar to them.)


>I have decided to stand firm with the Textus Receptus.

omein :-)

>Please reply off-board if you feel the discution get to heated.

Schmuel at

Messianic_Apologetic-subscribe at

More information about the B-Greek mailing list