Oldest known bible

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

A full translation is in the works, but some notable differences from current accepted versions are already apparent. 

I would perfer to see the thing for myself before I make any conclusions.

Edit: Though through a quick check of the Sinaiticus on wiki Tells me that it does have mentions of the ressurection in the gospels, just not the ending of Mark. Also tells me it has the Epistles of Paul within it, so it most likely does mention the ressurection.

Disclaimer: I fully acknowledge that there are Christians here who serve as definite exceptions to this rule. Please note that if something in the post below doesn't apply to you, I'm more than likely not talking about you, and I would ask that you not take it personally, and that you also not deny that the people I am takling about do exist - in very large and powerful numbers.

I've actually known about this for quite some time, and have shown some of the examples to a few Christians. Their overall response was a sad and sadly predictable "......................................nope, nope, this is nonsense and my faith still stands." followed by a smug victory dance and a steadfast refusal to continue the conversation.

What's important to remember is that the countless sects and denominations of Christianity are not based on a rigid, literal or even informed interpretation of the Bible (thankfully), because the vast majority of Chrisitans throughout history unto today have never read the Bible all the way through, and the few who have were, in all likely-hood, Christians beforehand, meaning their impressions were already colored in advance, allowing them to plow through the various discrepancies, absurdities and atrocities without batting an eye. But again, this is uncommon.

True inspiration towards the faith is almost always provided by contemporary humans and their typically massive and tight-knit ministries. Directly, this occurs via either a parental unit feeling obligated to spoonfeed the doctrine to their innocent, curious, yet conveniently unquestioning children, or in the case of adults, a bit of duping with some time-tested lies/fallacies/conspiracy theories, the primary choice being Creationism.

Either way, the newly born-again's loyalty will usually be towards the particular church and/or pastor that started them along in to begin with, or in the case of the (comparatively) more individual-minded follower, a specific ideal or doctrine that will have them bouncing all over the place to different churches and/or pastors in pursuit of one that perfectly adheres to it. Both, however, are the products of modern humans and their ever-changing and ever-branching dogmas, not the actual text in whatever version of the Bible.

The point being, because of the essentialy human element involved in their religion, a Christian who believes in the inerrancy of King James I of England will do so with every ounce of faith and devotion that they afford their own God, and if by some miracle you can get them to question that, you've already won half the battle. Not likely to happen, though.

Disclaimer: I fully acknowledge that there are Christians here who serve as definite exceptions to this rule. Please note that if something in the post below doesn't apply to you, I'm more than likely not talking about you, and I would ask that you not take it personally, and that you also not deny that the people I am takling about do exist - in very large and powerful numbers.

I've actually known about this for quite some time, and have shown some of the examples to a few Christians. Their overall response was a sad and sadly predictable "......................................nope, nope, this is nonsense and my faith still stands." followed by a smug victory dance and a steadfast refusal to continue the conversation.

What's important to remember is that the countless sects and denominations of Christianity are not based on a rigid, literal or even informed interpretation of the Bible (thankfully), because the vast majority of Chrisitans throughout history unto today have never read the Bible all the way through, and the few who have were, in all likely-hood, Christians beforehand, meaning their impressions were already colored in advance, allowing them to plow through the various discrepancies, absurdities and atrocities without batting an eye. But again, this is uncommon.

True inspiration towards the faith is almost always provided by contemporary humans and their typically massive and tight-knit ministries. Directly, this occurs via either a parental unit feeling obligated to spoonfeed the doctrine to their innocent, curious, yet conveniently unquestioning children, or in the case of adults, a bit of duping with some time-tested lies/fallacies/conspiracy theories, the primary choice being Creationism.

Either way, the newly born-again's loyalty will usually be towards the particular church and/or pastor that started them along in to begin with, or in the case of the (comparatively) more individual-minded follower, a specific ideal or doctrine that will have them bouncing all over the place to different churches and/or pastors in pursuit of one that perfectly adheres to it. Both, however, are the products of modern humans and their ever-changing and ever-branching dogmas, not the actual text in whatever version of the Bible.

The point being, because of the essentialy human element involved in their religion, a Christian who believes in the inerrancy of King James I of England will do so with every ounce of faith and devotion that they afford their own God, and if by some miracle you can get them to question that, you've already won half the battle. Not likely to happen, though.

creepy_mike

While a large portion of the christian population are epistemological hedonists (if it feels good they believe it) there is most certainly another population who believe these things because they think they are actually true.  Which population have you spoken with that dismissed it right away?  

I think the first group could take it or leave without much care, but I think the reaction of the second group might be a bit more interesting.  If they truly are interested in the word of god, it would seem they would do everything in their power to get to the "original truth," but at the same time, these are the people who are most dogmatic about the current version.  And what happens if the "original truth" comes out perceptually worse than the accepted version.  I think this "should" make for quite a dilemma.   I think a commitment to dogma without deep consideration on this matter would display a very high level of disregard for "god's truth."

Is there a realiable copy of the Sinaiactus anywhere on the net? Heard it was supposed be coming out soon.123625

I gave about a 15-20 look for it but think it is still not out yet.  The article says it will be completely available in June or July.

I was just curious of your motivation. 

I would think people would care about the extra chapters also but this was the only response I got in another union:

I wouldn't worry about it.  We still have the Dead Sea scrolls.

I'm going to find this fascinating; and you guys are right, I have no doubt that many people, fundamentalist Christians at that, are up in arms over this; it's the same reason they still use the KJV. They find whichever Bible version bests supports their cultural and ideological dogmas, and not actively going for accuracy.

On another note, I've been leafing through 1984again, and sociologically speaking, it is terribly frightening to notice the similarities in how fundamentalist Christianity operates and Oceania.

Except they don't yet have the power to torture and execute at will.

I find this and the Gnostic (SP!?) Chapters fascinating. How the Roman Catholic changed many of the rules of very early Christianity is very, very interesting to me. My Catholic wife, who of course is fairly open minded being married to me, also found it stunning which led to a great discussion on how the Vatican would respond. I look forward to comparing this with my normal KJV, thanks for the link and info Sitri_.btaylor2404

What did they change?

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]I find this and the Gnostic (SP!?) Chapters fascinating. How the Roman Catholic changed many of the rules of very early Christianity is very, very interesting to me. My Catholic wife, who of course is fairly open minded being married to me, also found it stunning which led to a great discussion on how the Vatican would respond. I look forward to comparing this with my normal KJV, thanks for the link and info Sitri_.123625

What did they change?

Well I think obviously what Chapters would and would not make it into the "final cut" of the Bible we know today,  that Priests may not marry, that the Winter Solace would become Christmas, the "smearing" of Mary Magdalene, and many "rituals" of the Catholic dogma, some of which other forms of Christianity did or did not pick up.

[QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]I find this and the Gnostic (SP!?) Chapters fascinating. How the Roman Catholic changed many of the rules of very early Christianity is very, very interesting to me. My Catholic wife, who of course is fairly open minded being married to me, also found it stunning which led to a great discussion on how the Vatican would respond. I look forward to comparing this with my normal KJV, thanks for the link and info Sitri_.btaylor2404

What did they change?

Well I think obviously what Chapters would and would not make it into the "final cut" of the Bible we know today, that Priests may not marry, that the Winter Solace would become Christmas, the "smearing" of Mary Magdalene, and many "rituals" of the Catholic dogma, some of which other forms of Christianity did or did not pick up.

Hmm, its my recollection when compiling the bible they collected the books that most represented their faith altogether into one format. To my understanding thats nothing wrong in itself. And what is this smearing of Mary your refferring too?

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="123625"]

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]I find this and the Gnostic (SP!?) Chapters fascinating. How the Roman Catholic changed many of the rules of very early Christianity is very, very interesting to me. My Catholic wife, who of course is fairly open minded being married to me, also found it stunning which led to a great discussion on how the Vatican would respond. I look forward to comparing this with my normal KJV, thanks for the link and info Sitri_.123625

What did they change?

Well I think obviously what Chapters would and would not make it into the "final cut" of the Bible we know today, that Priests may not marry, that the Winter Solace would become Christmas, the "smearing" of Mary Magdalene, and many "rituals" of the Catholic dogma, some of which other forms of Christianity did or did not pick up.

Hmm, its my recollection when compiling the bible they collected the books that most represented their faith altogether into one format. To my understanding thats nothing wrong in itself. And what is this smearing of Mary your refferring too?

I understand your point, but I would like to see all the Chapters, not just the one's who a few people centuries ago decided wouldn't be needed.  And I'm sure that was because it didn't benefit the church.  The turning of Mary M into the "whore", I for one subscribe to the notion that she was a member of Jesus inner circle, and by giving the contrasting virgin Mary, and whore Mary M, it painted women in an either or that stood really until the 1960's.  I am an Atheist that believes Jesus did live, was just not the son of God, to clarify. All my opinion of course.

I assume by chapters you mean the books that were not included in the final cannonized bible? Those texts are called the apocrypha and are available in some modern bibles. They were not added into cannon (I think) because they were unsure whether it constituted as scripture (correct me if I'm wrong). But your probably refferring to gnostic gospels, in that case they weren't added to the cannon because they are heresy, and didn't belong.

And are you suggesting they changed the Gospel to shun Mary's image? Also most christians would agree that Mary was a companion of Jesus.

You know, that's a real problem nowadays. Anyone can start a Christian sect because they said God told them so and say they're right about theology. If any church has any credibility whatsoever, wouldn't it make sense that it would be the oldest ones, such as the Roman Catholics or the Orthodox churches?Strategist1117

It would probably be the church of Peter which was the first movement (according the gospels) of christianity that would have the most authority. Though thats not to say that no one else can draw their own interpretation.

I assume by chapters you mean the books that were not included in the final cannonized bible? Those texts are called the apocrypha and are available in some modern bibles. They were not added into cannon (I think) because they were unsure whether it constituted as scripture (correct me if I'm wrong). But your probably refferring to gnostic gospels, in that case they weren't added to the cannon because they are heresy, and didn't belong.

And are you suggesting they changed the Gospel to shun Mary's image? Also most christians would agree that Mary was a companion of Jesus.

123625

Yes, chapters/books.  Again "they were unsure", your partially, maybe even completely right.  But I think it's because the RCC bent, if you will, the Bible to meet the RCC's needs and what it wanted it to say.  Yes I think Mary's image was "soiled/changed", I was raised in a non-denominational church, and go to one now, both refer to her as a prostitute which dirty's her image and infer's Jesus brought her up from prostitution, not that she was ever his equal or peer.

[QUOTE="123625"]

I assume by chapters you mean the books that were not included in the final cannonized bible? Those texts are called the apocrypha and are available in some modern bibles. They were not added into cannon (I think) because they were unsure whether it constituted as scripture (correct me if I'm wrong). But your probably refferring to gnostic gospels, in that case they weren't added to the cannon because they are heresy, and didn't belong.

And are you suggesting they changed the Gospel to shun Mary's image? Also most christians would agree that Mary was a companion of Jesus.

btaylor2404

Yes, chapters/books. Again "they were unsure", your partially, maybe even completely right. But I think it's because the RCC bent, if you will, the Bible to meet the RCC's needs and what it wanted it to say. Yes I think Mary's image was "soiled/changed", I was raised in a non-denominational church, and go to one now, both refer to her as a prostitute which dirty's her image and infer's Jesus brought her up from prostitution, not that she was ever his equal or peer.

The roman Catholic church didn't bend the bible, they formed and compiled what was considered scripture at the time that was most in line with their beleifs, as with many of church fathers who formed their own cannon agreed mostly with what we use now (unconfirmed).

And where do you get this basis that they edited the image of Mary? How do you prove this basically?

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"][QUOTE="123625"]

I assume by chapters you mean the books that were not included in the final cannonized bible? Those texts are called the apocrypha and are available in some modern bibles. They were not added into cannon (I think) because they were unsure whether it constituted as scripture (correct me if I'm wrong). But your probably refferring to gnostic gospels, in that case they weren't added to the cannon because they are heresy, and didn't belong.

And are you suggesting they changed the Gospel to shun Mary's image? Also most christians would agree that Mary was a companion of Jesus.

123625

Yes, chapters/books. Again "they were unsure", your partially, maybe even completely right. But I think it's because the RCC bent, if you will, the Bible to meet the RCC's needs and what it wanted it to say. Yes I think Mary's image was "soiled/changed", I was raised in a non-denominational church, and go to one now, both refer to her as a prostitute which dirty's her image and infer's Jesus brought her up from prostitution, not that she was ever his equal or peer.

The roman Catholic church didn't bend the bible, they formed and compiled what was considered scripture at the time that was most in line with their beleifs, as with many of church fathers who formed their own cannon agreed mostly with what we use now (unconfirmed).

And where do you get this basis that they edited the image of Mary? How do you prove this basically?

Well in regards to the Church, we just disagree on the motives.  Mary, I'll research more info as to facts, my info is just from memory at church.

Yeah I've seen most of them, need to read more anyways :). You addicted to those as well?btaylor2404

They certainly provoke me to think more on the subject, like the idea that Mary was actually Jesus's lover.

[QUOTE="btaylor2404"]Yeah I've seen most of them, need to read more anyways :). You addicted to those as well?123625

They certainly provoke me to think more on the subject, like the idea that Mary was actually Jesus's lover.

Yeah, though it's absurd, the thought of a bloodline is very interesting.

I actually heard a theory in some History Channel documentary that he [Jesus] might have had a daughter named Sairah, who was moved to southern France because of the threat of the Romans. Can't remember what evidence they provided for it, but it's an interesting thought.Strategist1117

Yes, that's a theory that Mary M. was pregnant and fled to France, had a daughter, and eventually the family tree led to a early French royal family.  Don't think there was any hard evidence though, but what hard evidence of anything from that time is there?

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

A full translation is in the works, but some notable differences from current accepted versions are already apparent.

Sitri_

The Codex Siniaticus isn't exactly a "rival" To the Bible. at best it conflicts with teh KJV (which no serious apologist uses). The inclusion of extra-canonical works and differing order of books is of absolutely no relavence.

What both skeptics and christians should be aware of is the fact that the discovery of these majuscule and miniscule manuscripts and especially the papyri fragments have really just shown that the new testament has been transmitted reliably and faithfully throughout its textual history.

First things first, thanks for letting me join this union. It sounds like a great concept and a great opportunity for serious discussion on religious matters.

Second, I read through this thread and there seems to some very serious ignorance on these subjects, particularly on the formation of the Canon of Scripture, and on textual criticism.

Now for a good introduction to both of these topics I would strongly suggest you all read through Reinventing Jesus
http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Jesus-J-Ed-Komoszewski/dp/082542982X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229963016&sr=8-1

But basically, the books of the canon were chosen because of their authorship. If they were known to be written by an apostle or someone with connection to an apostle, then they were chosen for inclusion in the canon. If not then they were left out. Secondly, the Codex Siniaticus and most other manuscripts of the New Testament have shown that the text of the New Testament was transmitted faithfully and reliably because they by and large agree with the later Byzantine manuscripts.

 The title of that news report is ridiculously misleading (I'm not entirely sure if even Bart Ehrman would use such words).

The Codex Siniaticus isn't exactly a "rival" To the Bible. at best it conflicts with teh KJV (which no serious apologist uses). The inclusion of extra-canonical works and differing order of books is of absolutely no relavence.

danwallacefan

I agree that the title was a bit sensational; I thought that when I read it.  But I think it was presented in such a way as to make clear the implications of the differences.

What is the appoligist book of choice?  KJV is obviously that of the proletariat.

What both skeptics and christians should be aware of is the fact that the discovery of these majuscule and miniscule manuscripts and especially the papyri fragments have really just shown that the new testament has been transmitted reliably and faithfully throughout its textual history.

danwallacefan

Yes they have been largely similar, but just like when tracing the evolution of man, it is the differences that hold the most insight into origins and history.  

First things first, thanks for letting me join this union. It sounds like a great concept and a great opportunity for serious discussion on religious matters.

danwallacefan

Well I don't think that any thanks should be necessary as I think it should be taken for granted that you are welcomed.  But considering Lansdowne's recent banning, this notion falls under a bit of suspicion.  Needless to say, I am bit bitter about it.

 

Second, I read through this thread and there seems to some very serious ignorance on these subjects, particularly on the formation of the Canon of Scripture, and on textual criticism.

Now for a good introduction to both of these topics I would strongly suggest you all read through Reinventing Jesus
http://www.amazon.com/Reinventing-Jesus-J-Ed-Komoszewski/dp/082542982X/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1229963016&sr=8-1

But basically, the books of the canon were chosen because of their authorship. If they were known to be written by an apostle or someone with connection to an apostle, then they were chosen for inclusion in the canon. If not then they were left out. Secondly, the Codex Siniaticus and most other manuscripts of the New Testament have shown that the text of the New Testament was transmitted faithfully and reliably because they by and large agree with the later Byzantine manuscripts.

 

danwallacefan

Well the canonization happened long after the attributed authors were dead so I think the actual source is rather dubious.  Homer was credited for many works that he didn't write.  It was a common writing method of old to write as someone famous to get acclaim for the work. Expounding on this idea could really do with its own thread.

I agree that the title was a bit sensational; I thought that when I read it. But I think it was presented in such a way as to make clear the implications of the differences.

What is the appoligist book of choice? KJV is obviously that of the proletariat. Sitri_

I usually use the HCSB (Holman Christian standard version)

Well the canonization happened long after the attributed authors were dead so I think the actual source is rather dubious. Homer was credited for many works that he didn't write. It was a common writing method of old to write as someone famous to get acclaim for the work. Expounding on this idea could really do with its own thread.

Sitri_