Posts
The oldest full copy of the New Testament, the Codex Sinaiticus, is going digital..
That's pretty neat. It means anyone can look at it for themselves. Of course, they can't read it unless they know Koine Greek, but it's neat, nevertheless.
The CS has been studied for a couple hundred years and has been an important text for figuring out what the original authors of the Bible meant. It, of course, has been important in the authoring of modern English translations, such as the NIV, TNIV, ESV, RSV, NASV, etc. So it's neat that it's online, but it's not world-shattering.
Looking up stories on Google News, I was surprised and pleased for the most part with the way the press has handled it. They did not run with the popular "The true Bible is so different from the one in your house" story. (It is clear most of the stories on the Codex Sinaiticus are written from a press release.)
There were exceptions, though:
- TechRadar reports that the CS is different from today's Bible's in that it doesn't include the resurrection. But the CS affirms the resurrection in all four Gospels. What it doesn't include are the last 12 verses in Mark (which contains all of Jesus' resurrection appearences from Mark, not his resurrection). These twelve verses are noted as probably unoriginal in most modern translations of the Bible.
- Slashdot made the same mistake. Whoops!! (I'm not sure how this site works. Was this on the front page, selected by the editors? Perhaps not.)
- The AP contends that the CS has "a few interesting differences" from my Bible, such as missing the resurrection appearences of Mark. But my Bible, which is TNIV, makes it very clear that those verses likely don't belong.
- This website highlights the many differences between modern Christian belief and this ancient manuscript. (Actually that site is a nice jab on the unbiblical thinking of most Christians. I found it to be quite humorous.)
I have to admit, I do hear Christians quote the end of Mark more often than I'd like. But its absence from the CS is neither troubling nor surprising. (Nor is it indicative of the level of difference between the rest of the CS and a modern Bible.)
Overall I am pleased with the media's reporting of the event. The only thing that makes me sad is how many Christians are surprised to discover the end of Mark doesn't belong there!
3 hatched thoughts:
Scribe 1: Alright, I'm almost finished making this copy of the Gospel of Mark. Only one more page to go... hey, where is it?
Scribe 2: Ummm... Joseph needed some paper for the grocery list so...
Scribe 1: Now what am I supposed to do?
Scribe 2: Well, you could just make it up... you read Luke and Acts, right? Just put all that stuff in there.
Scribe 1: I suppose that would work... even that part about snakes?
Scribe 2: Sure, why not?
Scribe 1: You don't think anyone will notice?
Scribe 2: Hey, 2000 years from now, they won't know the difference.
Admittedly, I'm extremely ignorant, so I'm posting this just to get more of your thoughts.
The End of John says something along the lines of "Jesus did a lot more, so much more that it can't all be recorded with all the pages of all the books."
Something along those lines. Anyway, as a result of that, I've never had a problem believing the end of Mark and the John chapters 7-8 event happened. I'd like to believe God inspired the scribes to add it. Of course, that begs the question, why didn't God just inspire John and Mark?
Enough ranting for now. Keep up the good work.
Yeah, it's fair that maybe that stuff happened... It just probably wasn't put in by the original authors.
Post a Comment