British Library Puts Oldest Surviving Bible Online 568
Peace Corps Library writes "BBC reports that about 800 pages of the earliest surviving Christian Bible, the 1,600-year-old Codex Sinaiticus manuscript, have been recovered and put on the Internet. 'The Codex Sinaiticus is one of the world's greatest written treasures,' says Dr. Scot McKendrick, head of Western manuscripts at the British Library. 'This 1,600-year-old manuscript offers a window into the development of early Christianity and first-hand evidence of how the text of the Bible was transmitted from generation to generation.' The New Testament of the Codex Sinaiticus appears in Koine Greek, the original vernacular language, and the Old Testament in the version, known as the Septuagint, that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians. For 1,500 years, the Codex Sinaiticus lay undisturbed in a Sinai monastery until it was found in 1844 and split between Egypt, Russia, Germany, and Britain. It is thought to have survived because the desert air was ideal for preservation and because the monastery, on a Christian island in a Muslim sea, remained untouched, its walls unconquered. The British Library is marking the online launch of the manuscript with an exhibition which includes a range of historic items and artifacts linked to the document. 'The availability of the virtual manuscript for study by scholars around the world creates opportunities for collaborative research that would not have been possible just a few years ago.'"
Re:The validity of this manuscript ... (Score:5, Informative)
If there's a substantial OT manuscript dating to the 4th cent. BCE on consensus then I'd love to see it.
The reason why Sinaiticus is so important is because it substantially a transcript of what is agreed to be the most accurate record of the original text of the New Testament. It's called the "Alexandrian text-type." Almost all of the tiny fragments that predate the fourth century (and they are very scanty indeed) agree with the text of Sinaiticus extensively. As a result, Bible scholars believe that the alterations we find in later manuscripts are untrustworthy corruptions rather than viable alternate readings.
As to the textual corruption that took place in the late first and second centuries AD we have very little evidence and therefore no remedy. Christians believe that God would not have permitted His word to be corrupted beyond our ability to understand it. I am an atheist and work extensively on ancient Greek textual criticism so you can imagine I do not have much patience for this point of view, but the fact is that the New Testament is the most well-attested ancient Greek or Latin text still in existence. Even Vergil's Aeneid, for which we have three manuscripts predating the fifth century CE, is not supported so well, and in the cases like the tragedies of Sophocles we are on much shakier footing.
Re:Celebrate! (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Potential for translations (Score:4, Informative)
The additional books are typical for this period of church history. In the fourth century the church was hashing out the canon of Scripture as evidenced by Sinaiticus, Vaticanus and the various letters that circulated from church leaders discussing the issue. What is more interesting is that Sinaiticus doesn't exclude any of the now recognized books, it only adds to the list. And never mind that certain Christians still hold that these other books are at least useful if not wholly inspired works. If you take the historical context into account your "discrepancies" and objections are not nearly as substantial, especially if you entertain the idea that God works through the processes of history.
Re:Written Before Christianity Was PAGANIZED (Score:5, Informative)
Why would Paul write so strongly about the resurrection even in prison?
What makes you think that Paul wrote that gospel? The Bible was assembled by committee and included the the works submitted and voted in. Is it based on faith alone that you assume that the gospels were not embellished before publication?
Re:Written Before Christianity Was PAGANIZED (Score:5, Informative)
Mod parent down. That's not correct at all.
1. Codex Sinaiticus mentions the resurrection many times. What is omitted is the description of the Gospel of Mark. The description in the Gospel of Luke, however, is NOT missing from that text. At best Codex S. supports the theory that the ending of Mark was added later---a theory that a fair number of biblical scholars hold, mind you.
2. Codex Sinaiticus was either written in the last few years of Constantine or after his death. This proves nothing about Constantine's effect on the early church. You'd need something at least a hundred years older.
Re:Info pulled from CNN article??? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Written Before Christianity Was PAGANIZED (Score:1, Informative)
Sorry friend, but that is complete and utter BS. The "tail end" of Mark, which Codex Sinaiticus omits, is only one account of the resurrection. Most bibles today flag that passage as a possible later edition -- no surprise.
Resurrection was there from the beginning. It's why Christians met on Sunday. It's why Christians were persecuted. You can believe it or not believe it. But to claim it's some sort of Osiris-pagan idea is completely ignorant of history, text, and common sense.
Re:Celebrate! (Score:5, Informative)
When a wealthy lord had too many sons, he would have the extras sent either to serve in the military (which cost money, but it was part of the dues to the liege), or to the church. This conveniently got the extra sons out of the way so that his lands could be passed in entirety to his first son.
The son(s) shipped to the church would get a nice title, if the lord donated enough cash (or preferably, land) to the church when he sent his son to them.
The problem is that when some of these sons had sons of their own, they wanted to pass those lands to their sons... and the Church wanted to keep those lands. This caused schisms between the Church and the lords who supported the Church. So the solution was to require celibacy. Then those lordlings could not have sons inherit those lands. If they recognized an heir, then they were guilty of celibacy and the lands were forfeit to the Church (and the lordling would lose their title).
I'm not sure I explained it as well as others could... but the point is that it wasn't just about paying for the children of priests, it was about holding onto the bequests that came in exchange for appointing the sons of Lords to high office.
Re:It's all Greek to me (Score:3, Informative)
What year did we invent the spacebar anyhow?
I guess the spacebar was invented around the same time as the keyboard... But the space was invented in the 7th century [wikipedia.org].
Re:The validity of this manuscript ... (Score:3, Informative)
Actually, the "corruptions" appear in every new Bible. They are listed in the footnotes. The King James text actually contains all of them in the text itself. This dynamic is well understood and nobody is freaking out over it.
Also, Papyrus fragments predating Siniaticus contain most of the New Testament if you look at all of them as a whole. There is far more agreement than disagreement between the mass, which is to be expected if you understand copying and textual criticism.
Re:Written Before Christianity Was PAGANIZED (Score:2, Informative)
Why would any of the followers of Islam fly to their deaths or blow themselves up if their religion was a lie?
Because they genuinely believe that what they are dying for is true. The disciples (all but one of which died a martyr's death) all would have KNOWN that what they were dying for were a lie if Jesus had not really risen from the dead.
Why would Christian American soldiers be ready to die for God and country (and oil) if it was a lie?
I'm not sure what you're referring to as the lie here, but if it's "Christianity," the same logic applies here.
Why do all the people in insane asylums believe they are Napoleon or Jesus if it's JUST A LIE?!
Again, they don't KNOW that it's a lie, they believe it's true. And this is irrelevant because they aren't DYING for the lie.
Re:Written Before Christianity Was PAGANIZED (Score:5, Informative)
C'mon. Why is it that people who are otherwise intelligent, rational thinkers suddenly turn that part of their brains off when it is time to attack Christianity?
Jesus' resurrection is also recounted in the gospels of Matthew (28:1-10) and Luke (24:1-35), passages which are present in the Codex.
Re:Wow, that took awhile! (Score:3, Informative)
Tried finding it, didn't. Did find this [slashdot.org] but that's only a few days shy of a year ago.
But the wiki [wikipedia.org] mentions:
In June 2005, a team of experts from the UK, Europe, Egypt, Russia and USA undertook a joint project to produce a new digital edition of the manuscript (involving all four holding libraries), and a series of other studies was announced.
Re:Potential for translations (Score:4, Informative)
The bible we read today is not vastly different than the one on display (apart from Gutenberg's contribution: the printing press). Practically every bible has footnotes indicating where there are variations in the various manuscripts used in the translations.
Re:The validity of this manuscript ... (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the "corruptions" appear in every new Bible. They are listed in the footnotes. The King James text actually contains all of them in the text itself. This dynamic is well understood and nobody is freaking out over it.
Well, nobody who practices Christianity. It's an example of deliberate blindness to textual defects that would cause infinitely more doubt and discussion if their context was not as emotionally felt as one's relationship with one's God. These variants were never problems in the early church and they are not not in Catholicism and the Orthodox churches because there is a very long tradition among them that church fathers, even today, can transmit to their followers the ultimate meaning of God's message and effectively channel God's will through themselves. Protestants are long since severed from that tradition, and their dependence on the determinacy of the text destroys the power of their message. I'm convinced that you cannot have a good knowledge of the history of the textual transmission of the Bible and be a Protestant.
Papyrus fragments predating Siniaticus contain most of the New Testament if you look at all of them as a whole.
That's possibly true but totally irrelevant. The intrinsic reliability of a papyrus fragment is not determined by its age, and if you try to piece together a text based on nothing but papyri of completely different provenances and values you're going to get a Frankentext that looks far worse than even a comparatively late but integral and complete exemplar. I am extremely well-trained in textual criticism and I don't appreciate your snarky comments. If you want to whip out your degrees I'd be happy to compare, but don't think that passive-aggressive appeals to what you think is my lack of understanding will help you.
Re:Written Before Christianity Was PAGANIZED (Score:5, Informative)
Paul's writings predate the gospels. They are generally accepted to be the earliest in the New Testament.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_the_Apostle#Writings [wikipedia.org]
Re:Potential for translations (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Bible 0.1.1-beta (Score:3, Informative)
Conspiracy theorists who hint darkly about secret councils that burned books or suppressed certain ancient Christian beliefs tend to forget that, even if that was possible, there were no such organizations or counsels like that for many, many centuries .
Um... What about the Apocrypha [wikipedia.org]
No seriously. What about it? It is there and it is real. This isn't a conspiracy theory. Why isn't that in the Bible? Why are the dead sea scrolls different from what we have today?
And why does the Orthodox and Western Bibles differ slightly since the schism [wikipedia.org]?
Secondly what remains of other religions of the time that we still have records of? Like Druidism which the Romans persecuted as much as the Christians. Of course they weren't destroyed on purpose, it is just that 2,000 has a toll on ancient documents (including fires of libraries) and that most people at the time didn't have a need to keep documents that weren't deemed official by the Church.
Most people couldn't read bad then so they didn't know... The few people who could read and write started copying the official versions when they came out in 400AD and from there the old copies were simply lost because of time problems.
Not to mention that for Europeans owning any non-approved paper work in the 1500 to 1600s were put to the stake so if they had any ancient heretical texts they most likely burned them at that time as well. Every now and then we find something like the dead seas scrolls and we find out differences.
It isn't a conspiracy, but Europe in general was a great place to store non-official religious texts long term for 2,000 years.
Re:Celebrate! (Score:4, Informative)
Examples:
The veneration of Mary.
The praying to the saints. Yes some Catholics understand that differently, but so many stumble into something that resembles polytheism.
Indulgences.
The vows of celibacy. Sure celibacy is fine (and so is marriage), but they made it into a _requirement_ that priests must have.
The chastity/celibacy of Christ is sometimes used as justification but Jesus and others have referred to himself as the Bridegroom, and there going to be a wedding, so since he's not married yet, he has to be celibate.
We already have enough trouble with the really necessary stuff (following Jesus), why add extra unnecessary stuff that causes problems in so many cases?
Re:Written Before Christianity Was PAGANIZED (Score:3, Informative)
Actually it seems in the middle east, most Suicide bombers are doing it because the Talaban threatens to kill their children if they dont blow themselves up.
It's an effective terrorism in a society that makes you nothing and your life is meaningless if you dont have heirs.