World's Oldest Bible Going Online

99luftballon writes "The British Museum is putting online the remaining fragments of the world's oldest Bible. The Codex Sinaiticus dates to the fourth century BCE and was discovered in the 19th century. Very few people have seen it due to its fragile state — that and the fact that parts of it are in collections scattered across the globe. It'll give scholars and those interested their first chance to take a look. However, I've got a feeling that some people won't be happy to see it online, since it makes no mention of the resurrection, which is a central part of Christian belief."On Thursday the Book of Psalms and the Gospel According to Mark will go live at the Codex Sinaiticus site. The plan is to have all the material up, with translations and commentaries, a year from now.

So they did what Hollywood does

They took an OK script and tacked on a happy ending...

!= The Septuagint

This text is NOT the same text as what was compiled during the Council of Nicaea [wikipedia.org] in 325. Nor is it the same as the Vatican bible. It is a third text written/compiled between 330-350 [wikipedia.org]. T

Not BCE

It would be a neat trick to have a gospel of Matthew from the fourth century BCE. It should be CE (or AD).

Bad Summary, Questionable Claim

Where to start, where to start...

First of all, there's some dispute as to whether Sinaiticus is indeed the oldest -- a cursory Google will show that Codex Vaticanus is believed by some to be older [wikipedia.org].

Second, it's patently untrue that Sinaiticus "makes no mention of the resurrection". The version of the gospel of Mark in it omits the last passage where Jesus appears to his disciples, but other post-resurrection appearances occur in the other gospels -- and even the Sinaiticus Mark version ends with an angel's pronouncement that he has risen. You can read an English translation for yourself here [jacksonsnyder.com].

Summary is wildly inaccurate

First, as others have pointed out, the Codex is from the 4th century CE (i.e. "AD") rather than BCE (or "BC").

Second, saying "it makes no mention of the resurrection" is inaccurate. It doesn't contain the final 8 verses from Mark's Gospel, which have been considered to be a late addition for years and are usually square-bracketed in modern Bible editions.

However, if you actually *read* Mark's Gospel, it has plenty of references to the resurrection of Jesus earlier in the text. Plus the Codex Sinaiticus also includes the other three Gospels, all of which include post-resurrection appearances of Jesus.

But apart from misdating the document by 800 years, misstating the impact of putting it online and misrepresenting the likely attitude of Christians to its publication, the summary is fine...

Yes, and to take it further

Mark's Gospel was considered by some theologians to been written in a style of "play". Mark writes like you could play it on a stage. People come in, talk, go out.

Mark's ending, with the cross, was in many ways like the ending of a drama. It opened doors not just for talk about the play, but also for thinking about the matter.

I cant recite what I have read further, but the theologian was going into detail, why the ending did suggest something else to happen, which would have been obvious for people of that time, so mark didn't need the resurrection to be mentioned. it was obvious for them that there was more to it, like it is obvious for us now, that "I am your father" is a reference to Star Wars, but later, when time passed, the resurrection was added to the book.

Most christians know, that Mark did not mention the resurrection chronologically in the original. But, there were 3 other gospels, and plenty of people writing about the resurrection, and even Mark pointed the resurrection out in a lot of passages. So, no, there is no debate at all on our side.

Still, thanx for the news. Accurate timing (BCE?) and some insights which books are in this old bible would have been better, though.

Wrong Interpretation by Poster

However, I've got a feeling that some people won't be happy to see it online, since it makes no mention of the resurrection, which is a central part of Christian belief."

This is a misleading statement by the poster and the article itself. The post-resurrection text in Mark (which is the only text the article seems to mention is in contention) has always been recognized by the modern Christian church as not appearing in the earliest manuscripts. Don't take my word for it; pick up the latest NIV Bible and look at Mark 16:9-20. It most likely mentions this very fact.

The article only mentions the text in Mark missing. From the article:

The Gospel of Mark ends abruptly after Jesus' disciples discover his empty tomb, for example. Mark's last line has them leaving in fear.

"It cuts out the post-resurrection stories," said Juan Garces, curator of the Codex Sinaiticus Project. "That's a very odd way of ending a Gospel."

Unfortunately, you still need to deal with the resurrection stories in the other three gospels (Matthew, Luke and John) as well as the Old Testament references such as Psalms 16:10.

I really wish people would get a clue

but there were never any books I wasn't allowed to read while going to a Catholic school. The earth wasn't flat, gays weren't out to get me, and doing a book report on Darwin didn't get me excommunicated. If anything religion was the framework for how one behaved in school and did not control what I learned there.

If anything going to a public school was more of a shocker, stepping back the equivalent of two grades and being bombarded with more ignorance than one can shake a stick at.

Re:I really wish people would get a clue

I think the grandfather comment was a reminder of how the Catholic Church has been known to react toward "open sourcing" their knowledges. One of the big differences between Catholics and Protestants was that Catholics were not allowed to read the bible. In fact it was illegal to own a Bible at home (in XVIIth century France at least)

The Index (of forbidden books) was updated until the Vatican II council (1966) and is still considered by the Holy See to have a moral value as a list of the books one should prevent oneself from reading.

The general feeling is that the Roman Catholic Church's main dogma is the "the doctrine is the truth" so if something seems to be the truth outside of the doctrine, it is dangerous and should be fought. The Church is not known for its research centers trying to find archaeological proofs of the Bible or to correct its versions with the many manuscript fragments that are found regularly.

Re:I really wish people would get a clue

I see your anecdote and raise you another.

My Father was caned by Maris Brothers every day he went to school, he was also punched and beaten on a regular basis. On "sports" days they would be required to sit in the middle of a field in the summer heat, with out water or food. Their names would be called and they would have to run around the field. If a student didn't run fast enough a brother would run up behind him and kick him in the arse until he speed up.

Anything considered hearsay or heresy would result in an even more severe beating.

Those men were animals.

I really wish people would get a clue too

Can anyone spot the logical flaw in your argument that "I didn't know about any banned books therefore there were no banned books"?

I'm sure if you'd tried working your way through the Index Librorum Prohibitorum (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Index_Librorum_Prohibitorum [wikipedia.org]) then I'm sure you'd have been in a lot of trouble.

Re:As a literary....

Warning: Religious POV ahead...

I could comment on the Catholic one, it is so true, well at least in our area (or at least with the devouts). People ( not just Catholics ) would tend to follow their religion blindly even if it contradicts with the Bible (or their religious texts)

I had encountered some that rants that they're doing this and that and that they're not doing this and that... I sometimes would ask them if what they're doing is in the Bible (or the other way around, i.e. they're not doing the things stated in the Bible) (or any other religious text)

I often get the answer that the leaders of their sect tells so. I would tell them that it is pointless to contradict or not follow your "manual" or "foundation". Well my point is moot to them most of the time.

Conclusion: Most of the religions use the Bible as a front. If it contradicts their purpose, they would ignore that part. If it is not there and they like to do it, they would still do it.

okay back to regular programming..

Re:As a literary....

higher level than other infidels

Oh, so there's a caste system for infidels? Goody! Put me at the bottom, k?

I don't see the Muslims disparaging other religions

Really? I've heard Muslims call Jews rats, dogs, bastards, pigs....

As a side issue: wtf is up with Islam and dogs? Jesus friggin' Christ. Any religion that doesn't "allow" a boy to have a dog as a pet is... sick.

after the Mohammed cartoon controversity, I'd imagine they'd want more "protection"

You mean censorship?

"protected" against blasphemy

Fail.

Re:As a literary....

Muslims don't have a problem with dogs, they have a problem with *pet* dogs.

You can own a dog to protect your property or yourself, but it shouldn't be allowed into the house.

Re:As a literary....

This will probably never get seen and not get modded up, but while you are correct in one sense you are not in another; as a Muslim let me explain:

A fundamental belief in Islam is that through the ages, the uncorrupted Bible became rife with revisions and mistakes - the resurrection of Jesus being a prime example (the other big one being the trinity). For Muslims then, this version of the Bible bolsters the belief that Christianity during the time when Islam was beginning, was corrupted - not the word of God, but the word of man, if you will.

Without these changes there isn't a need for Islam because Islam (like Christianity) and Muslims perceive Islam as a correction to faiths before it.

I say all this as a Muslim and you are right - most Muslims do and all should respect the other people of the book (and other faiths as well - I was born in the West and other people's religions are none of my business). Moreover, there is an overlap in the views of people of faith especially extremists): Muslim-Americans voted in droves for George W. Bush in droves the first time around because they saw the Christian's right family/conservative values issues as overlapping with their own (as a small L liberal I found that particularly disgusting and as a result refuse to have anything to do with CAIR, who endorsed Bush).

Some Muslims may see a "hierarchy of infidels" but I think calling anyone an infidel, regardless of their faith or lack thereof, is pretty blasphemous myself.

Re:Oh noes!

"It's too risky for anybody to translate that [The Bible] into other languages. Mistakes can creep in... and that can lead to heresy. True Christians should only read English."

"If your original Hebrew disagrees with my original King James --- your original Hebrew is wrong. If your original Hebrew agrees with my original King James, your original Hebrew is right."

http://wanusmaximus.livejournal.com/1131751.html [livejournal.com]

Re:Oh noes!

There are people who do believe that the King James version is the "inspired" Word of God. I don't fully understand why would they consider a translation the "inspired" one.
From a religious point of view, if there is anything inspired, it would be the first version in its original language. So the closer you get to the original ones, theoretically would be the better.
This news is great, we could actually see one of the oldest copies around. Part of me truly wonders how many more manuscripts (religious or not) would have been available today if people back then don't have the habit of burning every piece of paper they dislike.

Re:Oh noes!

inspired in this case does not mean it is "over other books", or "very special" - it means, that the rough parts of translation were made in such a right sense, that it kind of reflects the original meaning.

inspired also means, it is not translated word by word. which would be very dangerous for people, reading a book that old, withouth knowing about the habits in this era, can lead to extreme one sided reading of the bible, and a lot of misunderstandings.

Re:Oh noes!

You say it like people don't use and extreme one sided reading of the bible when they want to justify something and don't already suffer from a lot of misunderstandings.

re-written

Some of us cope by not believing in inerrancy in the first place.

And, for some of us, the idea that the copying and translation has introduced both unintentional errors and intentional variation is not particularly news.

Re:re-written

The slashdot article is wrong. The codexsinaiticus website says it's 1600 years old, which would put it at about 400AD (or 400CE for the politcally correct crowd), not 400BC.

Re:Oh noes!

The same way that anyone interested in any historical events copes. Multiple sources, comparison with other sources of information, finding older sources when possible etc.

The Bible is not a book. It is a collection of books. The New Testament is a collection of what were considered the best sources available: mostly books and letters.

You might understand better if you knew what faith was and why people have it.

Same as always?

Well,

1. It was perverted from the start.

E.g., right after Christ's death, we already know that there was a sect called the Ebionites, which actually contained relatives of Jesus and people who knew him personally. (They actually insisted that the leadership of the church should go to a relative of Jesus, not to Peter.) They also made no claim of resurrection, nor that Mary was a virgin (much less the later idiocy that she stayed a virgin even after giving birth), etc. Generally they thought of him as a _human_. Prophet and divinely inspired, yes, but not the divine incarnation that the later church turned him into.

What we inherited as Christianity is actually mostly due to Paul, who went fanboy and convinced the others that they must (A) proselitise at all cost, and (B) that it's ok to change stuff, e.g., about half the Old Testament, if it makes it easier to swallow by potential new followers. I wouldn't be too surprised if it involved some embellishing about Jesus too, especially given the following fact:

The Ebionites actually considered Paul an apostate. Not a misunderstanding, or mis-representation, or whatever, but outright apostate. That's how much it deviated.

2. That wouldn't even be the end of massaging it into a different shape.

The new religion wasn't even too clear about who Jesus was, or wth did it all mean. A lot of the early "heresies", like Arianism or Pellagianism are, strictly speaking, compatible with what was actually written. They just filled the blanks in differently.

It took several generations of Byzantine philosophers to define exactly wth _do_ they believe in, down to the smallest details. (The schism between Eastern Orthodoxy and Catholicism came much later, so yes, you did inherit the byzantine construct even if you're Catholic or Protestant.) A lot of things that resulted don't even reflect the original context or meaning, but the effort of fitting Christianity into the Greek way of seeing the world, which at times was like fitting a square peg in a triangular hole. E.g., they had to make Mary and the birth even more perfect and wondrous, because they thought that something perfect (e.g., Jesus) can't possibly come out of something imperfect (e.g., a normal human mother.)

And even then it created even more schisms and heresies, because some things made no sense to cultures who thought differently. At least one schism was because stuff that made sense in Greek, made no sense when translated into Syriac, because the words didn't have the same nuances.

They also defined very strictly what is included in the Bible, what you can write or say about it, and in which terms.

3. Which brings me to the point, they had no problem dealing with the Ebionites or with the Syriac churches which were a lot closer to where it all happened. They just proclaimed them heretics.

I'm guessing it will be the same today. People will just proclaim this manuscript as some gnostic heresy, and continue as if nothing happened.

Re:Fourth century BCE you say

I always wondered that if all human knowledge/evidence was lost, books, video clips etc. (With one exception) and a handful of humans survived, with no prior knowledge of anything before themselves except a grasp of English, and these people were to find the only surviving books, a complete works of J. R. R. Tolkien, what the hell religion would be like then.

First Comment on topic! ... oh wait... lol

So, if it was dated to 4 BCE (thats BC for you christians who havn't adopted the new format for dates) ... how does it have the gospel of mark (which was written after christ?)