The world's oldest surviving Bible

[MISFIT]

A friend sent me this article thought I'd share, and see what y'all think.

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

 

[John]

Very, Very interesting.

 

[MISFIT]

Very, Very interesting.

What do you think about the 2 "extra" books? I for one would like to read them for myself.

 

[John]

Very, Very interesting.

What do you think about the 2 "extra" books? I for one would like to read them for myself.

I (like always) am skeptical, but yes i would like to read them.

 

[Allen1901]

Thanks Misfit for posting the link!

I look forward to reading the tranlated Codex.

God Bless!
Allen

 

[Veritas]

The article sure seems quite critical of the Bible. However, christian scholars have known about these things and have already taken them into consideration for our modern translations.

What do you think about the 2 "extra" books? I for one would like to read them for myself

Here's an online translation of the Sinaiticus New Testament from Henry Anderson. Those other books are there.
http://www.sinaiticus.com/

 

[Gabe]

Just some comments i find to be relivant, posted on the linked web page:

Would it be too much to ask for a balancing voice in this article? The codex has been studied for years and globally the evangelical church is growing faster than ever so there must be a response. My understanding is that this codex was compiled by a Christian sect who even then was considered unorthodox and whilst it is the oldest complete bible many earlier copies of the gospels predate this codex. It is these gospels from which modern bibles are translated. They are both more numerous and closer in age to the events describe in the New Testement.
Frank Hill, Bristol

Christians have known all of this for a while. Most bibles place the story of the woman taken in adultery in brackets and state that the earliest and most reliable manuscripts do not contain the story. They also state that the ascension account in Mark's gospel is unreliable. This is old news and there were other reasons why the 2 "extra" books were not passed by the council of Nicea. Please check your facts before publsihnig the story.
Emma, Sheffield

Concerning "His blood be upon us", the distinguished New Testament scholar Professor Bart Ehrman needs to get his facts right before making such bold assertions. Obviously he's never read Matthew 27:25, which is exactly the verse he states is missing from modern versions of the Bible (unless he's been misquoted of course).Martin

Could we have a balanced article, please? Christians have known about these documents for over a century and yet there are still many of us, evangelicals (not necessarily fundamentalists) who believe the bible is God's word. Could we not have had a response in your article explaining some of these things?
Robin, Winsford

 

[MISFIT]

Alright, now that there are a few replies here's my 2 cents. I dont really know what to think about the 2 "extra books yet I will read them with the link provided and get back to you. The friend of mine that sent me this is an Atheist, and he and I go back and forth about GOD all the time so he sent me this trying to prove me wrong, but of course my faith is solid.

 

[leesw]

I wonder if it was autographed. Imagine how much an autographed copy of the book of John would be.

It's a joke!

 

[Veritas]

Barnabas may not be inspired, but it certainly doesn't contradict anything we know. Seems like a good extra commentary to the Bible. I've read through it several times now and still don't see the part where the article claims the author is so harsh on the Jews. In fact, some things in it speak extremely clearly to our modern world and clearly to certain modern churches.

thou shalt not doubt whether a thing shall be or not; thou shalt not take the name of the Lord in vain. Thou shalt love thy neighbour beyond thine own soul; thou shalt not kill a child by abortion, neither shalt thou destroy it after it is born. Thou shalt not remove thy hand from thy son or thy daughter, but shalt teach them from their youth the fear of the Lord. Barnabas 19:5

 

[John]

What about the extra book...erm the book of moron *cough* I mean Mormon :wink:

 

[MISFIT]

What about the extra book...erm the book of moron *cough* I mean Mormon :wink:

Not in there, but I've read it if you want to know more ask.

 

[Paidion]

Barnabas may not be inspired, but it certainly doesn't contradict anything we know.

From Barnabus chapter 10

Moreover, “Thou shalt not eat the hyena.â€Â
He means, “Thou shalt not be an adulterer, nor a corrupter, nor be like to
them that are such.†Wherefore? Because that animal annually changes its
sex, and is at one time male, and at another female.

We know that the hyena does not annually change its sex from male to female and vice versa..

Moreover, he has rightly detested the weasel. For he means, “Thou shalt not be like to those
whom we hear of as committing wickedness with the mouth, on account of their uncleanness; nor shalt thou be joined to those impure women who commit iniquity with the mouth. For this animal conceives by the mouth.â€Â

We know that the female weasel does not become pregnant from acts of fellatio with the male.

 

[Veritas]

ahh.. I see. I stand corrected.

 

[Allen1901]

I was wondering what this statment from Barnabas 2:1 meant:

"and the adversary hath the authority"

Here's the complete verse for context:

1 Since, therefore, the days are evil, and the adversary hath the authority, we ought to take heed to ourselves and seek out the ordinances of the Lord.
2 For the helpers of our faith are fear and patience, and they that fight on our side are long-suffering and continence.

God Bless!
Allen

 

[Vic C.]

This is why the Codex Sinaiticus was in the trash heap at St. Catherine's Monastery in the first place.

 

[Paidion]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Vic. I know we disagree concerning Sinaiticus.

I possess transcripts of all manuscripts from the New Testament (which still exist), and which were copied by scribes prior to 300 A.D., and they are much closer to Sinaiticus than they are to Alexandrinus. There are many additions in Alexandrinus which are not found in any of the early manuscripts.

 

[Vic C.]

It was in response to your previous post. You yourself refuted some errant passages in Barnabas. Maybe the ones who threw them out also knew that the hyena does not annually change its sex from male to female and that the female weasel does not become pregnant from acts of fellatio with the male. 8-)

 

[MISFIT]

I'm not sure what you're getting at, Vic. I know we disagree concerning Sinaiticus.

I possess transcripts of all manuscripts from the New Testament (which still exist), and which were copied by scribes prior to 300 A.D., and they are much closer to Sinaiticus than they are to Alexandrinus. There are many additions in Alexandrinus which are not found in any of the early manuscripts.

I would like to know these additions you speak of.

 

[Paidion]

It was in response to your previous post. You yourself refuted some errant passages in Barnabas. Maybe the ones who threw them out also knew that the hyena does not annually change its sex from male to female and that the female weasel does not become pregnant from acts of fellatio with the male.

Rejecting Barnabus as part of the "canon" would not discredit the rest of the Sinaiticus codex.
Actually the hyena and weasel errors is not the reason I would not include Barnabus in the Bible. It is the writer's fanciful interpretations of the Old Testament.

After all, there are several mythical creatures regarded as actual in the Old Testament. God created dragons (Genesis 1:21) and the fire-breathing Leviathan, which God describes to Job (Job 40:1-19). Job also speaks of the Phoenix bird in Job 29:18 (in the Greek Septuagint)

Now I said, "My span of life shall continue as a Phoenix; I shall live a long time."

The Phoenix supposedly lived 500 years, and was then reborn.

So I don't think Barnabus was thrown out along with the rest of Sinaiticus just because of the hyena and weasel errors.

It is interesting that Alexandrinus which you prefer to Sinaiticus, also contains the sections of the Septuagint known by Catholics as the Deutero-canonical writings which they accept as part of the Bible, but Protestants don't. Sinaiticus also contains 3rd and 4th Maccabees, of very late origin, which the Catholics do NOT accept.

In the New Testament, Alexandrinus includes Clement's letter to the Corinthians. Clement was Paul's fellow labourer in the gospel, who wrote a powerful letter to the Corinthian church shortly after Paul and Peter's deaths. This is a powerful letter which I, too, think should be included in the New Testament. However, Clement used the Phoenix as a symbol of the resurrection, since it supposedly lived 500 years, died, and then arose alive again out of its remains. I don't know whether this was the reason the letter was eventually rejected, but Clement's letter was widely read in the early church along with the letters of Paul and Peter.

Alexandrinus also included the so-called "2nd letter of Clement" (actually written by a different person).

In conclusion, it does not seem rational to accept Alexandrinus above Sinaiticus because of the inclusion of writings beyond those which comprise our present Bible.