Gold Standard? Hardly. It is barely more than a regurgitation of the older Wescott-Horte manuscript.
They decided to use the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus. These are of very questionable origin and the presence of forgeries like Tobit in the Siniaticus throw them into serious doubt (and that's before looking at the poor quality of the copy, erasures/replacements, etc).
Another point of contention is the dating. In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Church of Rome was at open war with other Christian factions over both doctrine and the Bishop of Rome's desire to coalesce political power. They seem to support the Bishop of Rome's claim to power rather well (as well as supporting their side of the doctrinal dispute).
While they may be the oldest Bibles with that much intact, they are hardly the oldest manuscript in general and the Textus Receptus seems to agree much better with the body of work (something like 95+% of all found texts agree with the Textus Receptus). These works were known and rejected by Protestant translators because of their dubious origin and low quality.
I agree with holding it as a translation of interest, but it is hardly a gold standard of anything.
They decided to use the Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, and Codex Alexandrinus. These are of very questionable origin and the presence of forgeries like Tobit in the Siniaticus throw them into serious doubt (and that's before looking at the poor quality of the copy, erasures/replacements, etc).
Another point of contention is the dating. In the 3rd and 4th centuries, the Church of Rome was at open war with other Christian factions over both doctrine and the Bishop of Rome's desire to coalesce political power. They seem to support the Bishop of Rome's claim to power rather well (as well as supporting their side of the doctrinal dispute).
While they may be the oldest Bibles with that much intact, they are hardly the oldest manuscript in general and the Textus Receptus seems to agree much better with the body of work (something like 95+% of all found texts agree with the Textus Receptus). These works were known and rejected by Protestant translators because of their dubious origin and low quality.
I agree with holding it as a translation of interest, but it is hardly a gold standard of anything.