Slashdot Mirror
British Library Puts Oldest Surviving Bible Online
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.'"
a good use for technology instead of just another way to twitter/facebook/blog what you had for lunch.
Actually I plan on pointing out the major discrepencies as a sign that the bible is in fact fallible and has been manipulated to change it's message over the centuries.
What major discrepancies? Yes, there have been a few changes over the years by different translators, typos, etc. But I don't think any of them could be considered major. There are many different ways to translate things from any language. And there weren't any copiers back when the first books first came out. Yes, we can't pretty much be guaranteed that Paul's letters that are in the bible differ slightly from those Paul himself wrote. However, the message is kept constant. If you question the bible with several old sources, you would have to put the same scrutiny in a lot of other historical texts to make sure they haven't been manipulated through the ages where we have a whole lot less evidence than with the bible.
With several additonal books that aren't in the current versions one has to wonder why the "words of god" Would be left out.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
From the images they have of the document, it gives "its all Greek to me" a whole new meaning, and it prompts important questions, spiritally meaningful questions, like: What year did we invent the spacebar anyhow?
stuff |
The Qu'ran is over 500 years younger than much of the New Testament, and well over a thousand years younger than the Old Testament. That's like bragging that Macbeth is better than the Norse Sagas because we have a much better textual history for Shakespeare's plays than for Nordic mythology. In other words, it's a moronic, childish argument.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
...Yet why would many of the followers of Christ before that time go to their deaths believing it if it were a lie? I mean, if you helped lead a lie about a resurrection would you die because of it? Or would you simply shut up when people threatened you? Yet there is no evidence that any of them did that. Why would Paul write so strongly about the resurrection even in prison? Heck, why would Paul leave his life of luxury as a Jewish leader stoning Christians if he didn't experience something supernatural?
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
Variants in the text are already noted in the footnotes of most bible translations. As another poster mentioned earlier, this is a non-event as far as textual criticism goes. Scholars have had access to photographic copies and to the genuine article for decades. What makes this newsworthy is that now non-scholars have some access.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
And since God is infallible, there are no changes that were not intended by Him!
You also need to understand the world view of the people who were writing it. Understanding NT Greek is a lot more than just a reading knowledge. It's the "lifetime study" category of things, which is why this document is of very little use to so many people. (And no, I know just enough to have an idea of the sheer amount I don't know.) It's a bit like putting the data from the LHC on line for anybody to look at; very few if any people who don't currently have access will be able to draw any meaningful conclusions from it.
From scarped cliff or quarried stone she cries "A thousand types are gone, I care for nothing, no not one."
Let me guess: you're either posting from somewhere outside America (most likely Europe), or you're Roman Catholic. American Evangelical Christians do not accept that the Bible is fallible, nor do they recognize denominations that do as actually being Christians! (Yes, as far as a large percentage of Americans are concerned, the Catholics are no more Christian than the Latter Day Saints or the Rastafarians or the Tibetan Buddhists.)
Being Christian definitely does not mean you're a "religious nutjob" as GPP suggested, but, on the other hand, thinking that Christians are all religious nutjobs is not an entirely unreasonable position for an American. In America, those that aren't are very nearly lost in the noise (the nutjobs are very noisy), and can be dismissed as a statistical anomaly if you're not paying careful attention.
Frankly, if some of the sane and smart Christian out there (and I know they're out there) would speak out more often and more loudly against the religious nutjobs who proclaim so vehemently that they are the only true Christians, I would have a lot more respect for Christians in general.
Furthermore you reveal your own prejudices when you assume that someone who doesn't approve of the Christian nutjobs must be an atheist. I assure you that there are plenty of Jews, Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Unitarians, Pagans, just plain agnostics, and even a fair number of Christians (especially Catholics) who would be just as happy to slap these fruitcakes who claim to be the One True Christians with a common-sense fact or two.
...Mock all you want...
--------
Not that I need your permission, but I mock the Qur'an and any other religious text any chance I get, as they are all based on the same absurd premise, namely omnipotence.
You are comparing ONE work of ONE person in "completeness" to the bible, of which the youngest parts are a few centuries older, by several authors, originally in several languages.
But that's not your point. You bizarrely agree that chopping off hands is fair, in the same post where you claim that your god is the "truest" :)
I live in Denmark, and I'm extremely proud that the gov'ment didn't bow to the pressure and apologise for what a private newspaper printed, or even punished them. This was after massive
protests and demands from countries that didn't quite understand the idea that freedom of expression isn't up for discussion, and the government was indeed powerless to punish something
that wasn't illegal.
I've seen religion destroy so much it pains me. /end rant
Paul wrote NO Gospel.
His are the epistles. Long after the four gospels.
He was already polluted with Hellenised Judeo/Roman Levantine religion: he was an enforcer of the Orthodoxy before his conversion. Christianity had no orthodoxy at his arrival on the scene - so he constructed it for his unresolved needs and the social/psychological needs of intended mission.
His epistles explicitly define and defend this new orthodoxy. Ultimately, Saul changed his name and religion - but the fundamental nature of his being remained unconverted from one thing to another. His role was the same, and his intention unchanged and unrepentant.
"Speaking the Truth in times of universal deceit is a revolutionary act." -- George Orwell
But it isn't responding to a troll, PKD is correct.
They should call it Paulism instead of Christianity.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
He saw there was more money in it?
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
What major discrepancies? Yes, there have been a few changes over the years by different translators, typos, etc. But I don't think any of them could be considered major. There are many different ways to translate things from any language. And there weren't any copiers back when the first books first came out. Yes, we can't pretty much be guaranteed that Paul's letters that are in the bible differ slightly from those Paul himself wrote.
Well, the debate between if the commandment is "Thou shall not kill" or "Thou shall not murder" is a pretty major discrepancy to me. Here, one word makes a huge impact on the actual message. Is killing always wrong, or is it ok in self defense? Contrary to what you think, a simple typo CAN change the message. We'd need other copies aroudn the same age to really compare, since later copies may have all "standardized" on the same message, even though that chosen standard is not what the older texts said.
Just because they aren't in everyone's Wal-Mart bibles doesn't mean that they aren't studied, just that most Christians and the early church doubted that they came from God.
So, how exactly DO you decide if the books in question are the word of god or not? You can say they are studied all you want, but if the religion doesn't accept them as word of god, then it calls into question just how they decide what is or isn't the word of god. That doesn't sound like god then, it sounds like man making the story he wants to control others.
Unfortunately, all I have to believe any of this are translations of translations of recollections years after the fact. Do you know any U.S. soldiers in Iraq? I do, and 2 out of 3 of them believe Saddam was involved in 9/11, and would happily have died believing that ridiculous lie.
Judging Truth based on how many people believe it -- particularly when those people died 2000 years ago -- is beyond asinine.