[Jeremy]

Originally Posted by Bro. Parrish

Ahhh yes, the celebrated VATICANUS...
of course we know what comes in VATS, and we know what comes in CANS.

Bad me. Well,that's not exactly what i was thinking.

[tonybones2112]

http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htm

Above is a site given rights to sell an exact facsimile reproduction of Vaticanus in it's entirety, relesaed in 1999. This thing weighs almost 30 pounds and was sold at the time of publication for almost $6,500. Read the sales pitch where they talk about this being the first time "...the LXX and New Testament..." in Greek being released. The love of who being the root of all what?

Being a limited edition God only knows what this thing costs now if there was a purpose in having one. Of course, this exact photo facsimile(down to the very holes in the vellum)is not "inspired", only the "original" locked away in Rome is "inspired", according to the Original Manuscript Frauds.

Is there a Smilie with it's tongue in its cheek?

Grace and peace friends, I'm just stuck with this leatherbound KJV and Swordsearcher(both gifts)and will have to make do.

I hope they saved a copy for Judas Iscariot(the Anti-Christ) when he shows up in Jerusalem.

Tony

[Jeremy]

Well,people will attack the KJB,but nothing will ever be said against the vaticanus/ sinaiticus.

Tony,guess your stuck with that old archaic KJ.

I am sure there will be more than enough copies of vaticanus to go around.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by Jeremy

Well,people will attack the KJB,but nothing will ever be said against the vaticanus/ sinaiticus.

Tony,guess your stuck with that old archaic KJ.

I am sure there will be more than enough copies of vaticanus to go around.

The world watches out for it's own brother. One thing the Original Manuscript Frauds fail to bring out when they use the Translator's Dedication to the 1611 to attack the 1611 is the phrase "...Popish persons..."

We are not ignorant of their devices...

Grace and peace

Tony

[Greektim]

Originally Posted by tonybones2112

It's written in Cllassical, or Attic, Greek, not Koine', the street Greek. I understand W&H and others retranslated it over to Koine' for the various text editions.

All the letters are run in together with no separation, guess they figgered you were smart enough to pick out the words.
Tony

Uhhh...Vaticanus is a Koine mss. It was not written in Classical or Attic unless you think the passages that match the TR are also Classical. Classical or Attic is a stage of development in Greek the Greek language just as Koine is. The letters were uncial in form (like ALLCAPS). But that does not make it classical.

Just wanted to clarify.

[George]

Minor Correction

Originally Posted by Greektim

Uhhh...Vaticanus is a Koine mss. It was not written in Classical or Attic unless you think the passages that match the TR are also Classical. Classical or Attic is a stage of development in Greek the Greek language just as Koine is. The letters were uncial in form (like ALLCAPS). But that does not make it classical.

Just wanted to clarify.

GREEKtim,

"Uhhh...." When you make a statement with such "finality" - as if it were "authoritative", you should be sure of your "FACTS"!

From Nestle's Greek Text: "NESTLE-ALAND NOVUM TESTAMENTUM GRAECE" (25TH. EDITION - Page 63) - and I quote: "a) The Greek orthography, which in HTW was substantially that of the Greekwriters of the 4th. and 5th. centuries , has now been regulated according to that accepted by philological scholars for the time in which the N. T. writings originated." {G.A. NOTE: H=Hort / T=Tischendorf / W=Westcott}

Brother Tony is CORRECT and you are terribly WRONG! The "orthography" of Vaticanus & Sinaiticus have been CHANGED in the LATER "GREEK TEXTS" to MATCH the "orthography" of the genuine GREEK SCRIPTURES written by the Apostles and faithfully rendered in the Byzantine (Traditional or Textus Receptus) Greek manuscripts.

Vaticanus (the product of a "Classical" Greek education, i.e. - "snooty" classical philosophical "scholars") is NOT a "Koine" Greek manuscript - although the modern day Bible deniers ("textual CRITICS") have made every attempt to make it appear so, by even CHANGING THE "ORTHOGRAPHY" TO MATCH the older genuine New Testament writings.

Perhaps the next time you make an attempt to "clarify" an issue and make such a definitive statement, you might check your FACTS more carefully. But on the other hand, by the "tenor" of your Posts - I doubt it!

[Greektim]

Originally Posted by George

Minor Correction



GREEKtim,

"Uhhh...." When you make a statement with such "finality" - as if it were "authoritative", you should be sure of your "FACTS"!

Brother Tony is CORRECT and you are terribly WRONG! The "orthography" of Vaticanus & Sinaiticus have been CHANGED in the LATER "GREEK TEXTS" to MATCH the "orthography" of the genuine GREEK SCRIPTURES written by the Apostles and faithfully rendered in the Byzantine (Traditional or Textus Receptus) Greek manuscripts.

Vaticanus (the product of a "Classical" Greek education, i.e. - "snooty" classical philosophical "scholars") is NOT a "Koine" Greek manuscript - although the modern day Bible deniers ("textual CRITICS") have made every attempt to make it appear so, by even CHANGING THE "ORTHOGRAPHY" TO MATCH the older genuine New Testament writings.

Perhaps the next time you make an attempt to "clarify" an issue and make such a definitive statement, you might check your FACTS more carefully. But on the other hand, by the "tenor" of your Posts - I doubt it!

Your quote has nothing to do with Vaticanus. It only has to do w/ the presentation of HTW's text versus the NA25 text.

And speaking of hypocrisy, your tenor is not much better. I would have expected a quote to prove your point to at least directly deal with the thing you are seeking to prove.

The orthographic changes that are mentioned are mostly accents, iota subscripts, and capital letters. This is not an issue from Classical & Attic Greek versus Koine Greek.

[tonybones2112]

Originally Posted by George

Minor Correction



GREEKtim,

"Uhhh...." When you make a statement with such "finality" - as if it were "authoritative", you should be sure of your "FACTS"!

Brother Tony is CORRECT and you are terribly WRONG! The "orthography" of Vaticanus & Sinaiticus have been CHANGED in the LATER "GREEK TEXTS" to MATCH the "orthography" of the genuine GREEK SCRIPTURES written by the Apostles and faithfully rendered in the Byzantine (Traditional or Textus Receptus) Greek manuscripts.

Vaticanus (the product of a "Classical" Greek education, i.e. - "snooty" classical philosophical "scholars") is NOT a "Koine" Greek manuscript - although the modern day Bible deniers ("textual CRITICS") have made every attempt to make it appear so, by even CHANGING THE "ORTHOGRAPHY" TO MATCH the older genuine New Testament writings.

Perhaps the next time you make an attempt to "clarify" an issue and make such a definitive statement, you might check your FACTS more carefully. But on the other hand, by the "tenor" of your Posts - I doubt it!

http://www.st-andrews.ac.uk/divinity...ctures/altman/

Brother George, above is a rather neutral, more forensic discussion that pretty well backs up our information on Vaticanus and its orthography and caligraphy. Also, Hoskier("Codex B & Its Allies", Vols. 1&2), Otis Fuller, and I believe(I don't have a copy of Burgon right now) if memory serves me right John Burgon discusses this in one of his works, I believe The Revision Revised.

I am not aware of any Greek Byzantine/Majority texts written in uncial(block capital) Attic orthography with proto Classical vocabulary, the ones I am aware of are the cursive Koine'. I was taught in college by a rather prestigious and well known professor that Koine' of course is a derivative of Attic, what he described as a "...stepchild to Classical Greek...the speech of the common man or hoplite(soldier)..." but in examination of the various texts on both side the issue(Alexandrian vs Majority) there is a world of difference between "three blind mice" and "a trio of sightless rodents", as is the difference between Koine' and Attic vocabulary and usage.

This link above decsibes also some interesting facts on Sinaiaticus and Vaticanus: Aleph appears to have been written originally with the various apocryphal books in it while Vaticanus had to have them added, as well as pages removed, the most noted being Hebrews from chapter 9 on in order to hide the doctrine that Jesus's sacrifice was only offered ONCE, which checkmates the "Mass".

Grace and peace brother

Tony

[Brother Tim]

This is why I don't bother with the Greek!

I once found a koine in my uncial Bob's attic on top of a box a classical records.

[Greektim]

I think you accurately touched on the major difference between attic and koine - lexical meanings. Your blind mice illustrated that well. But word meanings do not determine whether Vaticanus is Classical or Attic.

Now for some honesty...

I stepped into this issue without researching it extensively. In fact, I have never heard a view that Vaticanus is not koine. I don't see any compelling reason why it is not koine. But I wish I hadn't rushed in (as fools do). Koine or Attic, it can still be used to determine readings just as Latin, Coptic, Syrian,... can as well. And I like to point out that Vaticanus makes an argument for the longer reading in Mark 16 w/ the blank space at the end.