The Codex Sinaiticus

[Lisa44]

I saw this article on the BBC website today:

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7651105.stm

Its about the codex sinaiticus.

I’m a new convert and I know relatively nothing about this topic.

I was wondering if anyone has a comment on this article or the codex? This article says the codex is the oldest bible. Is this true?

 

[Verbum]

Hi Lisa,

The article reveals basic ignorance on the part of its author. The text of the Bible is not established through one manuscript, but from ALL the extent manuscripts including early translations into various languages. A “genealogy” of the manuscripts is established (which came before which; which came from which etc.) Then a text is established, based on all the available information, using scientific criteria. Bibles that record this are called “critical editions”. There are thousands of variants for the New Testament alone, most of them being minor. These are listed at the bottom of the page in critical edition bibles.

This process is not different than that used for other ancient literary works : Demosthenes, Cicero, etc. In fact, there is no work that comes close to the Bible as far as the number and antiquity of the manuscripts is concerned.

Because of this, and because the Church has given us a guarantee on this matter, we know that the Bible we read today is the Bible that God inspired various people to write.

IThe Sinaiticus is said to be the oldest and because of this it received special consideration, but its antiquity does not mean that it is 100% correct.t should be noted that no one manuscript is 100% correct. The text of the Bible is established by using all the manuscripts.

Verbum

 

[COPLAND_3]

I have not read the article, but ancient Bible manuscripts is an area that I have some experience at, I have translated codex 967 Old Greek version of Daniel, and I have worked with the codex Sinaiticus. Here is a sample of what id did with 967 litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Daniel+Old+Greek+Version+My+Translation

The Sinaiticus can be considered the “Oldest Christian Bible” since it contains most of the Bible in ancient Greek. It dates back to around 325-350AD. It is not the oldest ancient Bible manuscript by any means, but as far as a collection all together it probably is the oldest. Codex Vaticanus is very close to being the same age, and Vaticanus is actually a better manuscript than Sinaiticus.

There are lots of other Bible manuscripts that are much older than the Sinaiticus, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain the Old Testament, and some of those manuscripts date to around 200-150BC.

Here is a link that has many photocopies of anicent Bible mss including the Sinaiticus. litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Ancient+Bible+Manuscripts

 

[patrick457]

For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer. It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today’s bible.

The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.

Thank God that Catholics (and Orthodox) always had most of the books “which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians (read: Non-Catholic/Orthodox denominations) are familiar with today” in their Bibles, so these statements are not much news to us!

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be “angry” as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with “compassion”.

I have actually adressed this once here:

And being moved with compassion: So in the majority of MSS. A few manuscripts, though, have the curious variant orgistheis, “moved with anger”.

The late Bruce Metzger, in his Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, says thus about the variant:

It is difficult to come to a firm decision concerning the original text. On the one hand, it is easy to see why orgistheis (“being angry”) would have prompted over-scrupulous copyists to alter it to splagchnistheis (“being filled with compassion”), but not easy to account for the opposite change. On the other hand, a majority of the Committee was impressed by the following considerations. (1)

The character of the external evidence in support of orgistheis is less impressive than the diversity and character of evidence that supports splagchnistheis. (2) At least two other passages in Mark, which represent Jesus as angry (3:5) or indignant (10:14), have not prompted over scrupulous copyists to make corrections. (3) It is possible that the reading orgistheis either (a) was suggested by embrimesamenos “warn sternly”] of ver. 43, or (b) arose from confusion between similar words in Aramaic (compare Syriac ethraham, “he had pity,” with ethra’am, “he was enraged”).

The scholar R.T. France (in his commentary on Mark) disagrees with the reason no. 2 given by Metzger above, saying that in the other two passages in Mark (3:5; 10:14), the reasons why Jesus is angry or indignant is clear, as opposed to this passage which is more ambiguous as to why.

With regards to the ‘anger’ variant, a number of people (for example the Christian economist and theologian Chad Myers) have suggested that the leper ‘dared’ Jesus to declare him clean, something only priests could do. Because of this, Jesus becomes angry. Then, after healing the man, He “snorted with indignation” (Greek: embrimesamenos, originally used to describe the snorting of horses) and ‘drove out’ the man back to the priests (the probable meaning of exebalen, a word which was also used to describe Jesus ‘casting out’ demons).

On the other hand, others (such as R.T. France) suggest that Jesus was not angry with the leper himself, but with his disease, which represents the work of the Evil One. Another factor which may have also angered Jesus is the system which had ostracized this man (and those like him) as an outcast on the grounds of ‘impurity’, forever dooming the man to a life outside of ‘normal’ society.

As for the use of the word exebalen, this word is also used Mark 5:40 to describe Jesus sending the dead girl’s family out of the room where she is lying. Obviously, the image here is not of Jesus grabbing the girl’s family by the collar and angrily throwing them out!

 

[COPLAND_3]

As I just read Patrick’s post and the citations from the article, I realize what the BBC was trying to do, as usual, that is to influence the preception of people about the reliability of the Traditional beliefs about the Bible. Media outlets usually have something against us Christians and our beliefs.

But this does bring to mind about one of the reasons that I came to the Catholic Church. I had always enjoyed studying the ancient Bible mss, and while studying textual criticism I found it extremely hard to be subjective about determining what manuscripts were authoritative and what was not because there are thousands and thousands of ancient mss of the Bible with many variant readings. I finally saw the need for Apostolic authority, something beyond myself and above the many viewpoints of scholars.

 

[patrick457]

As I just read Patrick’s post and the citations from the article, I realize what the BBC was trying to do, as usual, that is to influence the preception of people about the reliability of the Traditional beliefs about the Bible. Media outlets usually have something against us Christians and our beliefs.

But this does bring to mind about one of the reasons that I came to the Catholic Church. I had always enjoyed studying the ancient Bible mss, and while studying textual criticism I found it extremely hard to be subjective about determining what manuscripts were authoritative and what was not because there are thousands and thousands of ancient mss of the Bible with many variant readings. I finally saw the need for Apostolic authority, something beyond myself and above the many viewpoints of scholars.

That means: If you ever want to know what the Christian faith is NOT about, the first place you should look is your local news.

The author of the article seems to think that a majority of Christians are Fundamentalists who adhere to Sola Scriptura (or something like that) and that the differences of the textual tradition of Sinaiticus are sure to cause the foundations of Christianity to shake…while not aware that the ‘differences’ in the text are mostly not unique to it and are also in other MSS:

The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.

Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be “angry” as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with “compassion”.

Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.

Nor are there words of forgiveness from the cross. Jesus does not say “Father forgive them for they know not what they do”.

Fundamentalists, who believe every word in the Bible is true, may find these differences unsettling.

For those confused as to what is the article referring to here:

1.) The ending of Mark (or the absence thereof)
2.) Jesus heals a leper (Mark 1:40-45)
3.) The Pericope Adulterae
4.) The absence of Luke 23:34. However, many consider the text as authentic, which was later removed from the Gospel by someone. The usual reason given is that those who did this were copyists who either considered the fall of Jerusalem to be proof that God had not forgiven the Jews (what the perpetrator/s assumed were the subject of Jesus’ prayer), which makes it appear that the prayer of Jesus had remained unanswered, or that because the statement was difficult enough to believe, but almost impossible to practice with hated enemies (just like Jesus’ radical statement ‘Love your enemies’, which had been rendered in some Biblical MSS into the less radical ‘Pray for your enemies’).

As an aside, it would be better if you check the comments section of the article. At least one commenter stated a fact:

Unfortunately the Bible has always been altered by the hand of man. The Reformation decided to leave out entire books of the Bible including Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Baruch, Maccabbees 1& 2. Large chinks of Esther and Daniel also made it to the “cutting room floor.”

 

[Lisa44]

Hi Lisa,

…Bibles that record this are called “critical editions”. There are thousands of variants for the New Testament alone, most of them being minor. These are listed at the bottom of the page in critical edition bibles…

Verbum

Hi Verbum, thanks for your reply,
Are all Catholic bibles critical editions?

 

[CalCatholic]

Even if this codex was the oldest COPY of the Bible that we possess, it does not mean it is the most accurate. They are all copies of copies of the originals. So a newer codex could be a copy of an older text, older than source of the older codex (hope this makes sense). The fact that the Codex Sinaiticus does not mention the resurrection is not a concern for Catholics because we have traditon of the Church which has been handed down for two thousand years, inc the Church Father which firmly speak of the resurrection. The article had an obvious BBC secular spin to it.

 

[Lisa44]

I have not read the article, but ancient Bible manuscripts is an area that I have some experience at, I have translated codex 967 Old Greek version of Daniel, and I have worked with the codex Sinaiticus. Here is a sample of what id did with 967 litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Daniel+Old+Greek+Version+My+Translation

The Sinaiticus can be considered the “Oldest Christian Bible” since it contains most of the Bible in ancient Greek. It dates back to around 325-350AD. It is not the oldest ancient Bible manuscript by any means, but as far as a collection all together it probably is the oldest. Codex Vaticanus is very close to being the same age, and Vaticanus is actually a better manuscript than Sinaiticus.

There are lots of other Bible manuscripts that are much older than the Sinaiticus, especially the Dead Sea Scrolls which contain the Old Testament, and some of those manuscripts date to around 200-150BC.

Here is a link that has many photocopies of anicent Bible mss including the Sinaiticus. litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/Ancient+Bible+Manuscripts

Hi Copland,
Fascinating websites. Thanks very much. Interesting work you do. I couldn’t open all the links, but the ones that did were very interesting.

 

[Lisa44]

Even if this codex was the oldest COPY of the Bible that we possess, it does not mean it is the most accurate. They are all copies of copies of the originals. So a newer codex could be a copy of an older text, older than source of the older codex (hope this makes sense). The fact that the Codex Sinaiticus does not mention the resurrection is not a concern for Catholics because we have traditon of the Church which has been handed down for two thousand years, inc the Church Father which firmly speak of the resurrection. The article had an obvious BBC secular spin to it.

Hi CalCatholic,
You raise an interesting point which is accuracy. How do we know which text is the most “accurate”? That would be impossible to know wouldn’t it? I suppose it would fall on the preponderance of evidence. So which text or remnent is the most accurate? Can that question even be answered?

 

[Lisa44]

Thank God that Catholics (and Orthodox) always had most of the books "which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians (read: Non-Catholic/Orthodox denominations) are familiar with today

" in their Bibles, so these statements are not much news to us!

I have actually adressed this once here:

Hi Patrick, yeah, I wonder why they don’t just write “missing from the Protestant versions.” That’s lazy journalism if they can’t distinguish between Catholic and Protestant bibles.

Thanks, I will take a look at that.

 

[CalCatholic]

Hi CalCatholic,
You raise an interesting point which is accuracy. How do we know which text is the most “accurate”? That would be impossible to know wouldn’t it? I suppose it would fall on the preponderance of evidence. So which text or remnent is the most accurate? Can that question even be answered?

I do think that the majority of the codices and the fragments that we have today, do confirm that our modern Bibles are pretty accurate to what the original authors wrote. And again we have the tradition of the Church (that wrote and assembled the New Testament).

 

[Lisa44]

As I just read Patrick’s post and the citations from the article, I realize what the BBC was trying to do, as usual, that is to influence the preception of people about the reliability of the Traditional beliefs about the Bible. Media outlets usually have something against us Christians and our beliefs.

But this does bring to mind about one of the reasons that I came to the Catholic Church. I had always enjoyed studying the ancient Bible mss, and while studying textual criticism I found it extremely hard to be subjective about determining what manuscripts were authoritative and what was not because there are thousands and thousands of ancient mss of the Bible with many variant readings. I finally saw the need for Apostolic authority, something beyond myself and above the many viewpoints of scholars.

Yes, they are trying to make all Christians out to be people of “blind faith.” Would it kill these people (journalists) to do a little bit of research? Honestly, I hate the brush that paints all Christians to be idiots.

Exactly my question, what manuscripts are authoritative?
How does the Church decide that?
(I’m not sure what “apostolic authority” means?

 

[COPLAND_3]

Exactly my question, what manuscripts are authoritative?
How does the Church decide that?
(I’m not sure what “apostolic authority” means?

We do need to point out what we mean by authoritative. There are not any ancient Bible mss that would be considered perfect. But some things are taken into account when determining what manuscripts are the most reliable, such as how old the manuscript is, and how many manuscripts have the same readings. The older the manuscript is the less chance that it has of being affected of scribal errors because there were not printing presses and all manuscripts were copied by hand, so if you have 2 manuscripts and one is a 2nd century manuscript and the other is a 11th century manuscript, then the 2nd century is probably the most accurate because it has gone through many less stages of copying and less room for scribal errors. Also if most manuscripts possess the same readings then that is another way to dertermine reliability, in other words majority rules. But both of those rules come into play. You not only have the ancient Bible manuscripts themselves to go by but you also have citations of Scripture from the early Church Fathers that help determine. It is a very very very big process.

By apostolic authority I saw the need of a final authority to determine what was inspired or not, lead by the Spirit, established by Christ Himself, and exercised on earth by those whom Christ annointed.

 

[Verbum]

Hi Lisa,

Are all Catholic bibles critical editions?

Critical editions of the Bible exist only for the original languages (Hebrew and Greek). They are published for scholars. Modern translations of the Bible follow one or other of the critical editions. Here’s a page from a critical edition. The top, in large characters is the text, and the bottom, in smaller characters is the variants and quotes from authors.

Verbum

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[COPLAND_3]

Here is a scanned image of a very awesome work of Reuben Swanson, who took 40 of the best Greek manuscripts and lined them up horizontally so you can compare them all in the glance of an eye. You will notice that at the end of each row there are symbols indicating what manuscripts read what. I have been collecting his works over the years. litteralchristianlibrary.wetpaint.com/page/swanson

 

[4me2live]

I thought it would be good to quote the BBC article and give a direct response. If you’ll accept a few comments from a ‘proddy’ that is. My mother-in-law is a very devout Catholic so maybe that qualifies me to post on this site!
“It is markedly different from its modern equivalent.” (1st paragraph) Right from the outset I strongly disagree with this statement. I would argue it is remarkably similar. Many of the comments above already deal with is. Because of the incredible number of texts we can refer to we can be far more certain of the original than if we only had one uniform surviving text.
“For those who believe the Bible is the inerrant, unaltered word of God, there will be some very uncomfortable questions to answer.” (5th paragraph) I don’t find any of these questions ‘uncomfortable’. I would never argue that the Bible is word for word exactly as the original (and I don’t know any Christian who would). I would argue that meaning for meaning the Bible is incredibly reliably and the textual evidence is there to prove it. The Bible is not the Qur’an. It has a very different function. The ultimate revelation in Christianity is the Lord Jesus himself. He is the supreme ‘Word of God’. The Bible points towards him and the gospel message it presents is entirely consistent with all reliable textual variations.
“It shows there have been thousands of alterations to today’s bible.” (5th paragraph) This is very misleading. For example there were different methods used for transcripting Jewish names into Greek. When the same Jewish name is written in two ways is that a significant alteration? Obviously not - but to be able to say there are thousands of alterations you have to count all these type of variations.
“The Codex, probably the oldest Bible we have, also has books which are missing from the Authorised Version that most Christians are familiar with today - and it does not have crucial verses relating to the Resurrection.” The Greek translation of the Hebrew Scriptures is called the Septuagint - which means 70 books. The Old Testament has 39 books. Thank you BBC for great investigative journalism to point this out! The ‘crucial’ verses about the resurrection are the ending to Mark’s Gospel. I don’t agree - these are not crucial. The theme of resurrection is strong all through Mark’s Gospel - not to mention Matthew, Luke and John. I very happily say that the conclusion to Mark’s Gospel (verse 16:9 onwards) are not authentic.
“Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.
One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas.” These are not ‘little-known’ and have been around for a very long time. One of the key criteria for the NT canon was a direct link to apostle authority. This was why these two were rejected. The Shepherd in particular is a great little book and well worth a read.
“This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. “His blood be upon us,” Barnabas has the Jews cry. Had this remained in subsequent versions, “the suffering of Jews in the subsequent centuries would, if possible, have been even worse”, says the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman.” I find this the most bizarre. I would have thought in order to qualify as a NT Professor you would have to at least read the NT. These very words are in Matthew’s Gospel! (Mt 27:25) and it has been used by anti-semitic. I don’t know much about the Epistle of Barnabas but it did not have a strong claim for inclusion in the canon. If it is full of anti-Jewish vitriol then I’m not surprised it was not seriously considered.
“Faced with differing texts, which is the truly authentic one?
Mr Ehrman was a born again Bible-believing Evangelical until he read the original Greek texts and noticed some discrepancies.” Sorry to repeat the point but if I have 100 variants with very little detective work I can show you what the original said. If I have 100 identical copies I can’t - the one the 100 copies were made from could have been significantly changed and I would be none the wiser. Textual variations greatly strengthen the authenticity of the Bible, it doesn’t weaken it. I don’t believe this was the reason for Mr Ehrman to abandon his faith - it’s not a reason - there was probably a lot more going on in his life.
“The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.” At last the writer has said something factually accurate! The archbishop did say that the resurrection is key to Christian belief and I agree with him. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that when dealing with ancient scrolls the most vulnerable section to being damaged or lost is the last section. It is true that the ascension at the end of Luke is missing from some texts - but the textual support for the account in the 1st chapter of Acts is very strong! It does not omit any ‘key’ references to the Resurrection. It omits one spurious one.
The writer then lists a few specific variations. Without going into each one in detail it is interesting to note how little they change the meaning of the text. When one considers how the NT came about and how it was compiled it is truly amazing that there are only two passages - John 8 and Mark 16 - where there is any doubt.
As you can tell I was not impressed with this article. I am all for informed debate but when something is strewn with so many factual errors and is deliberately misleading it ceases to be debate but an attempt at propaganda.

 

[CalCatholic]

What this article fails to mention, is that we had an active and vibrant Church for 20 years before the first words of the NT were even written down by St. Paul (in his letter to the Thessalonians).
We had a rapidly growing Church for at least 60-70 years before all the words of the NT were even written down. And the Church had overtaken the Roman Empire 300 years later before the NT had even been canonized.

Our Church was here with our traditions before the written word was. Yes there have been changes over time to which books and letters were used by the various Churches throughtout the Universal (catholic) Church, and there have been changes to those manuscripts over time but the teachings of our faith in the death and resurrection of the Son of God, Jesus Christ, has not changed. These teachings (traditions) have been passed on orally and in writting throughtout the Church for 2000 years. So what the BBC does not understand, is that the Church is not a church of the book, but that the Bible is a book of the Church.