Did a man who saw more of Sinaiticus than anyone but Tischendorf
grow in faith by trusting its words?
In May of 1843, after Constantin Tischendorf's
private meeting with pope Gregory XVI,
he raised money and waited anxiously for the weather to clear.
In 1844 he made a beeline to Egypt, found the Sinaiticus
in St. Catherine's monastery, and stole 5 quires and 3 leaves from it,
a total of 43 leaves, or 86 pages.
Then he went to other countries, covering his tracks,
until he planned on returning to get the rest of Sinaiticus.
Not until 15 years later, in 1859, with help from a Russian delegation
and money from the Tsar, did he succeed.
There's so much to tell you about what he was really doing.
In 1847, Tischendorf wrote "Travels in the East."
He told his backers his reason for scouring the earth
for Greek Bibles:
"...to obtain a valid text of the New Testament Scriptures,
the bulwark of theology against the attacks of doubting science
and the sacred and indestructible foundation of our faith."
He wrote this 4 years after his private meeting with the pope
and 3 years after he "found" Sinaiticus
in the St. Catherine's monastery in the Egyptian peninsula.
Now, does reading and trusting the Codex Sinaiticus lead to faith?
Let's look at what I found in the writings of a man who spent years with its text.
Hi, I'm David Daniels from Chick Publications.
This is a book called, "The Religion of Yesterday
and Tomorrow."
It's by Kirsopp Lake,
the very man who spent more time
with Codex Sinaiticus than pretty much
anybody but Tischendorf that I know of.
He and his wife photographed the Sinaiticus New Testament
in the Summer of 1908 and published it in 1911.
Then he photographed the Sinaiticus Old Testament in 1913
and published it in 1922.
In chapter 3 of Is the World's Oldest Bible a Fake? and
in a previous video I stated that the original version of the Sinaiticus
would affect somebody's faith, if you read them as they were written.
I am talking about the first physical writing on the vellum
(animal skin) by the hand of by Simonides,
from the manuscripts handed to him by his great uncle Benedict in 1839-40.
And as I've said before, in Mark 1:1, when it doesn't say "the Son of God,"
then by the time you get to verse 10, 11, and 12, you start realizing:
"Wait a second.
This original version, the original handwritten
part of Sinaiticus is saying that Jesus didn't 'become God'
or at least 'become called God' until He was baptized."
That's called Adoptionism.
It was a belief of some early Gnostics who pretended to be Christians.
Is that amazing, or what?
Now, could those missing words affect somebody's faith?
Short answer: Yes.
I heard about this book, "The Religion of Yesterday
and Tomorrow."
This is a rare book.
It was hard to find.
I am thankful to God I got one.
It's from Houghton Mifflin Company, published in 1925.
So that's, 17 years after Lake photographed the New Testament
with his first wife.
Listen to Lake from page 134.
"... it may be argued that Mark ... only shows that Jesus was believed
to have become a 'Son of God,' possibly at the Baptism,
and that the disciples (and perhaps Jesus himself) believed that
he was the 'Son of Man' (which only means 'Man'),
who would come from heaven at the last day
to judge the living and the dead.
This is 'Adoptionism' [Jesus wasn't God in the flesh; he was
an ordinary man that God adopted] ... for it is historically unsound
to identify with God a 'Son of God' (which may mean in Jewish language
an angel, or a king, or a righteous man); and whatever the 'Son of Man,' means,
it certainly is not God and cannot ever have meant this
to Jewish ears."
So by 1925, Kirsopp Lake, photographer of the Sinaiticus,
didn't believe that Jesus was God come in the flesh.
That's bad.
But he also declared that he did believe Adoptionism,
God adopting the man Jesus as His son, little "s."
So Lake's Jesus isn't really God the Saviour.
And I can prove it.
Back on page 18 Lake said "From Greek and Oriental sources
came belief in a Divine Saviour..."
And look at what Lake said the heathen sources taught
about this "Divine Saviour:"
"who was able and willing to give to those
who trusted and believed in him a supernatural power
of obtaining in a future life an immortality and happiness
denied to the rest of the world."
Wow.
That sounds like Lake is explaining away John 1:12.
Listen carefully:
12 "But as many as received him [Jesus Christ],
to them gave he power to become the sons of God,
even to them that believe on his [that's Jesus'] name:"
So Lake is saying that this doctrine didn't come from
the inspiration of God.
It came from Greek and Oriental, that is, heathen, sources.
And that's not all.
I can't read this whole book to you, but listen to some excerpts
from page 147:
"Whether therefore he [Jesus] claimed to be the Messiah... or was
merely so acclaimed by his disciples, is likely to be disputable..."
"I doubt very much whether any one will think
that such questions are important, except for the special student.
No one will believe in a 'Messiah' in any sense
in which the word is valuable..."
Maybe Google will get this book scanned and online,
so you can see it for yourself.
But just one more small quote, from page 148.
Lake said regarding the terms "anointed" and "suffering servant"
being applied to Jesus:
"1) that in every case the reference is to a man, not to a God,
and therefore indicates that those who had heard Jesus, and
produced the Synoptic tradition [Matthew, Mark and Luke],
did not regard him as God incarnate.
2) All of them, with the possible exception
of the 'suffering servant,' belong to the cycle of
Jewish eschatological [end times] belief, which is as mythical
as the gods of Olympus..."
Does it sound to you like Tischendorf's stated purpose
in finding ancient manuscripts was fulfilled?
"...to obtain a valid text of the New Testament Scriptures,
the bulwark of theology against the attacks of doubting science
and the sacred and indestructible foundation of our faith."
Does this sound like faith to you?
No, it doesn't.
It sounds like doubt to me.
And not just any doubt.
This is industrial sized doubt, served up with a helping of
disbelief in the scriptures.
But the only verses Kirsopp Lake seemed to believe
were the original handwriting of Mark 1 in Sinaiticus,
which removed the words "the Son of God," and thus
changed the chapter to imply that Jesus was only adopted by God
as His Son, not that Jesus was
the actual Son of God from all eternity.
The doubt logically followed.
Romans 10:17 "So then faith cometh by hearing, and
hearing by the word of God."
Lake didn't get faith.
He got doubt.
I think what he had wasn't the words of God.
We cannot trust any Bible that bases its teachings and its readings on the Sinaiticus.
I'll stick with the Bible that produces what God said
His words produce, faith.
And in English, that Bible is the King James Bible.
That's what led to the faith you see in me today.
I hope you trust its words and let it lead to your faith, as well.
God bless you, and have a wonderful day.