Oldest known bible goes online...

[Locutus]

 LONDON, England (CNN) -- The world's oldest known Christian Bible goes online Monday -- but the 1,600-year-old text doesn't match the one you'll find in churches today.
The British government bought most of the pages of the ancient manuscript in 1933.

The British government bought most of the pages of the ancient manuscript in 1933.

Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.

The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

And some familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said.

Juan Garces, the British Library project curator, said it should be no surprise that the ancient text is not quite the same as the modern one, since the Bible has developed and changed over the years.

"The Bible as an inspirational text has a history," he told CNN.

"There are certainly theological questions linked to this," he said. "Everybody should be encouraged to investigate for themselves."

That is part of the reason for putting the Bible online, said Garces, who is both a Biblical scholar and a computer scientist.

"Scholars will want to look very closely at it, and some of the Web site functionality is specifically for them -- the ability to search the text, the ability to highlight a word, the degree of detail is particularly interesting for scholars interested in the text," he said.

But, he added, "It's for everyone, really a wide audience, because of curiosity, because they appreciate the value of it."

By the middle of the fourth century, when the Codex Sinaiticus was written, there was wide but not complete agreement on which books should be considered authoritative for Christian communities, according to the Web site where the Codex is posted.

The Bible comes from the Monastery of St. Catherine in the Sinai desert, where a scholar named Constantine Tischendorf recognized its significance in 1844 -- and promptly took part of it, Garces explained.

"Constantine Tischendorf was in search for ancient manuscripts, so he appreciated the age and value of it," Garces said.

He took a handful of pages to Germany to publish them, then returned in 1853 and in 1859 for more. On that last trip, he took 694 pages, which ended up in St. Petersburg, Russia.

The Soviet government decided to sell them in 1933 -- to raise money to buy tractors and other agricultural equipment.

The British government bought the pages for £100,000, raising half the money from the public. Garces called that event one of the first fundraising campaigns in British history.

Film footage from the time shows crowds of people turning out to see the manuscript, which was considered a national treasure, he said.

Though the Bible has been reassembled online, in the real world it remains scattered.

Most of it is in London. Eighty-six pages are held at the University Library in Leipzig, Germany, parts of 12 pages are held at the National Library of Russia in St. Petersburg, and 24 pages and 40 fragments remain at St. Catherine's Monastery, recovered by the monks from the northern wall of the structure in June 1975.

The manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. (A copy held at the Vatican dates from about the same period.) Older copies of individual portions of the Christian Bible exist, but not as part of a complete text.

The Codex also includes much of the Old Testament that was adopted by early Greek-speaking Christians.

That portion includes books not found in the Hebrew Bible and regarded in the Protestant tradition as apocryphal, such as 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach.

The New Testament portion includes the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas.

As it survives today, Codex Sinaiticus comprises just over 400 large leaves of parchment -- prepared animal skin -- each of which measures 15 inches by 13.6 inches (380 mm by 345 mm).

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html

[Locutus]

Now a couple of interesting points from the article.

The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

And some familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said.


Now if the passages regarding the resurrection of ole' Jeebus are missing from this old Bible, indicating that they were inserted later, that actually may have been the tomb of ole' Jeebus that we were discussing on that other thread once upon a time.

[Locutus]

Another point:

Juan Garces, the British Library project curator, said it should be no surprise that the ancient text is not quite the same as the modern one, since the Bible has developed and changed over the years.

The bible has developed and changed over the years, however it's the word of some god?  And even worse, some Xtians view it as the literal and inerrant word of said god. 

This is just more evidence that you really must turn off your brain to buy into ANY sort of religion. 

[me]

Sounds like there are some interesting differences. 

[Locutus]

There always have been.  They're simply swept under the rug. 

[Locutus]

Also, most Xtians won't comment on articles like this.  I guess it may seem a bit uncomfortable for them.

[Sandy Eggo]

Of course not, because it't proof that they are referencing a flawed or at least an altered source for religious guidance.

[Henry Hawk]

Also, most Xtians won't comment on articles like this.  I guess it may seem a bit uncomfortable for them.

I will gladly comment on this...and I find it fascinating...THIS actually supports Christian beliefs MORE than it disrupts them, by a long shot.

Those verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus that is missing in the last section in the book of Mark IS true....but, the resurrections IS stated in the OTHER Gospels and the epistles, plus it is also found in the book of Acts...

also, there are other Christian writings included in this, that also mention the resurrection....the missing pages of Mark alone, does not damage anything as far as the overall accuracy of the Bible as we know it.

It really amazes me how many of you guys JUMP all over something like this...EVERYTIME something comes out....you are so quick to grab a hold of something that you HOPE will support your beliefs....

this manuscript has been available to biblical translators and scholars for over a century...and because it is NOW released, the skeptics are JUMPING all over it.....

I say, it only supports the Bible as we know it even MORE so....to know there is such an early and complete version of the Bible with somewhat little discrepancy to our current Bibles in terms of its content.....

I think you will find, that this is NOT going to disrupt but only support the views of Christians.

[LOsborne]

Those verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus that is missing in the last section in the book of Mark IS true....but, the resurrections IS stated in the OTHER Gospels and the epistles, plus it is also found in the book of Acts...

I believe the point of Locutus's post is that the resurrection passages are missing in books other than the gospel of Mark, in this early manuscript.

[Henry Hawk]

I believe the point of Locutus's post is that the resurrection passages are missing in books other than the gospel of Mark, in this early manuscript.

From what I understand, the other books of the gospel DOES support the resurrection....also, there are other books that are in this Codex Sinaiticus, that supports the resurrection....

Honestly, I am only getting info from other sources, and I am relying on them for the facts....It is MY position that to me, it seems that everytime somebody THINKS they found pertinent information that MIGHT disrupt the Bible, it ALWAYS comes back empty.

The so-called tomb of Jesus, has so far NOT done anything to prove or support that Jesus of the Bible is the one in the tomb.

I simply find it ... amusing (or maybe sad is a better word), how badly some people want to disprove the Christian religion..and so far, has not been able to even scratch it....in my opinion.

[Locutus]

I believe the point of Locutus's post is that the resurrection passages are missing in books other than the gospel of Mark, in this early manuscript.

Thank you; that's exactly the point.  People who view the bible as the infallible and inerrant word of some deity must have blinders on as to how the book in which they claim such a familiarity was put together. 

[Exterminator]

People who view the bible as the infallible and inerrant word of some deity must have blinders on as to how the book in which they claim such a familiarity was put together.

Yep!

[me]

I know this is neither here nor there just wanted to make the comment.  Every time I read these discussions on the Bible I think of the Twilight Zone story where the people were given a book by the aliens and the title was To Serve Man and it ended up being a cookbook.

[Anne]

Really, these discussions almost always end up in a name calling session. Those who don't believe probably never will and those who do probably aren't going to change.

That was one of my favorite episodes of Twilight Zone.

[Exterminator]

Really, these discussions almost always end up in a name calling session.

Whatever, poopy-head!

Those who don't believe probably never will and those who do probably aren't going to change.

Not true; I once believed until I thought it through critically.