Can I view the Bible manuscripts anywhere?

quote:

---

A copy of the book may be found in this collection:
Library, Museums and Press – Online Exhibitions

---

Which book and where ?

There's a copy of Simonides' book about his "discovery" in the University of Delaware's collection of forgeries and hoaxes and books about them. If you followed the link you would have seen that.

Until you brought up possible nefarious activity by Simonides I never knew this.Dr. Scott is a major player in the ancient mss market/auctions. He is an experts expert, and the involvement of Simonides does not mean the Mayer/Stobart codex is a forgery.You should ask the British Museum what they think of Dr. Scott.Nontheless, I am going to ask Dr. Scott about this.If you care I will let you know what he says.

Simonides is known as a forger - he even claimed (probably falsely) to have forged the Codex Siniaticus. Nevertheless the "codex" you refer to is certainly not accepted as genuine by the vast majority of experts - it is almost entirely ignored. If Scott is really a big name in authenticating ancient mss and claims that it is genuine then there should be a genuine controversy. Instead all I can find is a few references indicating that it is a forgery.

Dr. Scott owns a reproduction.The only "scholars" who deny this Codex are Jesus Seminar types. Their selective scholarship is well known to only recognize sources that agree with their pseudepigrapha. Why won't they address 7Q5 ?
Or the Magdalen fragments ? Or Tatians harmony ?I can't even find the title "Mayerianus" on the Net - nothing.If this is part of your evidence to say it is fake by this basis (not existing on the Internet) then this is as mental midget yuppie as it gets.Dr. Scott has verified it to be genuine which further exposes this conspiracy to deny the existence of First Century sources.Anyone who is even mildly involved in the ancient mss market knows that Dr. Scott is the eminent scholar.You assume any involvement of Simonides to automatically mean the mss to be a forgery. This is rhetoric, the misuse of logic.This message has been edited by WILLOWTREE, 07-01-2004 05:45 PM

It is obviouslt false to claim that the Jesus Seminar have anythign to do with the obscurity of the alleged codex. It was identified as a fake before the Jesus Seminar formed. It is not identified as genuine even be scholars who oppsoe the Jesus Seminar. I haven't even seen a hint that Carsten Thiede who ha made controversial claims of eraly Bible manuscript has endorsed this codex.And if a respected expert stood up and said that the "Codex" was genuine there WOULD be contorversy. No matter what the final outcome was. SO the fact that Gene Scott endorses it without producing a controversy does not tell us that there is a conspiracy. It tells us that Gene Scott's opinion is NOT taken seriously by scholars in the relevant areas. No matter what their religious views.And your claim that I assume that it is a forgery because of Simonides involvement is wholly false. I accept the - apparently unanimous - judgement of the relevant experts that it cannot be counted as genuine.

Just exactly how many languages do you speak? I speak 3, and I can definitely tell you that translating a phrase from one language to another is not as simple as listing every word and translating each word to the new language. For example, let me translate the following from english to vietnamese.I want to have sex with you.I = Toi
want = muon
to have = co
sex = ngu chung duong
with = voi
you = anh/em/ba/ong/chau/bac...If I back translate the sentence, it's going to sound like:I want to sleep in the same bed with you.Wait, vietnamese doesn't have a word for "sex" in vietnamese. Wait, there's no word for "you" in vietnamese. If you want to describe either of these words, you have to use at least a sentence each, and even then the meaning is often lost during the process of translation.Trust me, I've spent the last 7 years translating for people. There is no such thing as a non-interpretational translation. So, when it comes to some of the stuff that can have more than one meaning after you translate, it depends on the translator to make out what the heck the passage really mean.Same thing with French. In french, there's no word for "cool" or "warm". You need a whole sentence to describe the word, and it usually involves something like "not too hot but not too cold..."Another thing about the difficulty of translation is that the sentencing structure changes from language to language. Here is an example:This is a black dog.Con nay la den cho.I just translated word for word, but the vietnamese sentence makes absolutely no sense to a vietnamese speaking person. If you speak out that sentence to a vietnamese, you are going to get nothing but a weird look. It makes no sense.Saying that the translation process is not hard is like saying calculus based college physics is not hard because it involves only addition and multiplication.Thanks for bringing a whole new meaning to the word ignorance.

---

The Laminator

​

Is a House cat the same as a Cat house? In Latin?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

And,Lam if you tend to believe Salibi`s metathesis discussion (putting aside the Arabia bit), the translators (Masoretes?) still got it wrong.:-)

In fact, there is no such thing as a 100% correct translation. Every translation of anything requires interpretation. Once something is interpreted, the original idea is at the mercy of the translator.My literature prof once told me that the french version of Madame Bovary (the origional version) is somewhat different than the english version. Some of the foreshadows, metaphors, and a bunch of other things that english students analyse are completely different if you read the french version. I have a friend who is a french native speaker who is fluent in english and she told me the same thing. I've only read the english version, but I've learned to trust my friends.You just can't avoid changing some of the origional meanings intended by the authors when translating something, especially with a work that has been translated several times.

---

The Laminator

​

Greetings all,Won't it be great when all MSS are viewable online...Meanwhile, a few sites have some -Several varied images here -
Biblical Manuscripts Project
http://alpha.reltech.org:8080/Some images here -
The Early Greek Bible Manuscript Project:
http://www.tyndale.cam.ac.uk/Tyndale/staff/Head/NTPapyri.htmLinks to many NT images -
Page not found | theLABMany MSS, some NT (main source for above)
Oxyrhynchus Online
Page not found | Centre for the Study of Ancient DocumentsA list of many images -
http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/bibel.html#papSeveral images of important NT MSS-
http://faculty.ltss.edu/BPeterson/Greek/MssImages.htmDSS Isaiah scroll COMPLETE -
http://www.ao.net/~fmoeller/qumdir.htmAdded -Here is a great site with images good enough for real MSS work -
Early Manuscripts at Oxford University
Digital Bodleian
Not so much early NT though.A compilation of late MSS, good quality site and images -
Object not found!Here'e something different - cuneiform online with images -
http://early-cuneiform.humnet.ucla.edu/digitlib.htmlA rather variable list of images, mostly late MSS -
http://members.aol.com/johnprh/manuscripts.htmlIasionThis message has been edited by Iasion, 07-04-2004 04:49 AM

Check out this little beauty -http://www.linguistsoftware.com/codexvat.htmIasion