Codex Sinaiticus

[Christian2]

Is the Codex Sinaiticus the oldest copy of the New Testament we have?

Is the Codex Sinaiticus reliable?

Which translation of the New Testament uses the Codex Sinaiticus?

Are there older and more reliable manuscripts than the Codex Sinaiticus?

See this link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm

Codex Sinaiticus online link:

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/manuscript.aspx

Thank you.

[jlay]

Older doesn't necessarily equate to more reliable.

[PaulSacramento]

The codex sinaiticus and vaticanus are both from around the same era, circa 300-350 CE.
They are important not only because they are the oldest writings in CODIFIED (book) form but because they tell us what books and letters were viewed as authorative at the time of their compiling.
I have copies of both.
It is important to realize that the further back we go, the close to the source (original documents) but that doesn't mean that there wasn't already some altering and editing (typically because of the change of languages and more common words being used).
Like the original writers, the copyists and editors were writing to a specific group and because of that, they would favour certain words and expressions over others that may have a slightly different meaning.
THe original Matthew, for example, was written to hebrews so the wording would have been a bit different than the later versions written with greek speaking/ reading gentiles in mind. The CONTEXT would remain the same but certian words that had little meaning to gentiles may have been replaced with words that they could relate to, BUT they would always keep in mind the correct context.

[Christian2]

Older doesn't necessarily equate to more reliable.

I realize this.

[Christian2]

The codex sinaiticus and vaticanus are both from around the same era, circa 300-350 CE.
They are important not only because they are the oldest writings in CODIFIED (book) form but because they tell us what books and letters were viewed as authorative at the time of their compiling.
I have copies of both.
It is important to realize that the further back we go, the close to the source (original documents) but that doesn't mean that there wasn't already some altering and editing (typically because of the change of languages and more common words being used).
Like the original writers, the copyists and editors were writing to a specific group and because of that, they would favour certain words and expressions over others that may have a slightly different meaning.
THe original Matthew, for example, was written to hebrews so the wording would have been a bit different than the later versions written with greek speaking/ reading gentiles in mind. The CONTEXT would remain the same but certian words that had little meaning to gentiles may have been replaced with words that they could relate to, BUT they would always keep in mind the correct context.

I found this article written by Daniel B. Wallace.

http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2 ... -line-now/

It's a good one.