Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus Oldest and Best Manuscripts?

[Forgiven83]

So why do we neglect the history of the 4th Century 300's AD in the Church age and call Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus the Oldest and Best Manuscripts?
Yes I will grant you these are the oldest Greek Manuscripts we have but the best I don't really think so.

For during this 4th Century the Church had it great Arius--Arianism conflict/schism. If you don't know Arianism's view of who God the Father and Jesus Christ is, it is the same as our modern day Jehovah Witnesses. Even after the Nicean Creed, there was at least a fifty year period during the 300, in which Arianism was taught instead of the truth of the Trinity. During this period of time Athanasius was often accounted as one of the few (sometimes even the only one) who taught God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as being the Godhead/Trinity. For which he was exiled that least 3 times.

So if the Arius view was being so will taught during this century and these two manuscripts which show signs of alterations in several places, where written then, how do we say they are the best? Would not Arius followers have no problem changing or leaving verses out that disputed their view say such as I John 5:7, Acts 8:37.
We have older Latin Translation, which yes they are translations but these site most verses that we our now questioning as authentic, and many of the verses we question are because these two manuscripts that come from the Church Age of Arianism, are consider oldest and best. So why ignore what the Church taught in this period?

 

[Scotth1960]

So why do we neglect the history of the 4th Century 300's AD in the Church age and call Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus the Oldest and Best Manuscripts?
Yes I will grant you these are the oldest Greek Manuscripts we have but the best I don't really think so.

For during this 4th Century the Church had it great Arius--Arianism conflict/schism. If you don't know Arianism's view of who God the Father and Jesus Christ is, it is the same as our modern day Jehovah Witnesses. Even after the Nicean Creed, there was at least a fifty year period during the 300, in which Arianism was taught instead of the truth of the Trinity. During this period of time Athanasius was often accounted as one of the few (sometimes even the only one) who taught God the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit as being the Godhead/Trinity. For which he was exiled that least 3 times.

So if the Arius view was being so will taught during this century and these two manuscripts which show signs of alterations in several places, where written then, how do we say they are the best? Would not Arius followers have no problem changing or leaving verses out that disputed their view say such as I John 5:7, Acts 8:37.
We have older Latin Translation, which yes they are translations but these site most verses that we our now questioning as authentic, and many of the verses we question are because these two manuscripts that come from the Church Age of Arianism, are consider oldest and best. So why ignore what the Church taught in this period?

I am not an expert on NT textual criticism, but I believe the book by Sturz, "The Byzantine Text Type of New Testament Textual Criticism", has a good answer. The majority of manuscripts follow a Byzantine text type, a Majority Text type, a type similar to the TR Textus Receptus behind the KJV. These types are very similar, and are from the church at Constantinople. I believe these are the NT texts favored by the Greek Orthodox Church. I don't know what if any are the significant differences between Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus and these Byzantine manuscripts. I believe we should follow the traditional NT text, though.
I believe 1 John 5:7, although a highly disputable text, and not in the majority of manuscripts, should be retained. That's just a theologoumenon, and not necessarily something I couldn't change my mind about. But I do not want to change my mind about retaining the original form of the Nicene Creed of the First Council of Constantinople of 381 AD, just as it was written in Greek. Take care.
God save us and have mercy on us in Christ Jesus: AMEN. In Erie PA Scott R. Harrington

 

[Pard]

Codex Sinaiticus is the one they found in the trash? Probably should have stayed there. Whoever was throwing it out knew what was what! Its got freaking corrections and changes written all over it! Also, it is a complete NT, which is simply unheard of for most manuscripts.

The vatican one is the one that you have to read under the presence of vatican officials and they can have you dismissed at any time. I don't like such ideas and until it can be properly vetted without the vatican worrying about who is reading which passage for to long, its useless.