
Codex Sinaiticus: the earliest manuscript of the complete New Testament - Petiver
http://britishlibrary.typepad.co.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2015/10/codex-sinaiticus-both-british-library-volumes-on-display-in-london.html
======
snockerton
Fascinating stuff for history buffs. There's a great subreddit for this kind
of thing, /r/AcademicBiblical, that has similar gems for those interested...

[https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/](https://www.reddit.com/r/AcademicBiblical/)

------
jorangreef
People not used to working with history sometimes think that an entire copy of
the original manuscript of the New Testament is required to have confidence
that we read the original documents as they were written. If that can't be
produced then it must be myth. Take this comment here:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10504940](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=10504940)

This may be the popular influence of 20th century liberalism and postmodernism
(just another form of ancient skepticism) which would trade the historical
method and the primary evidence for poor late-dated gnostic sources and
sociological reconstructions (which have little data to go on). And sadly,
sometimes people just believe that the Da Vinci code was non-fiction, and that
the church was in cahoots in the 3rd century.

In fact, the historicity of the New Testament is astounding. If you wanted to
take seriously the claims of Jesus, you couldn't ask for better. Here are a
few examples off the top of my head:

1\. Primary sources dated as close as 22-25 years and as late as 70 years
after the event of Jesus' death and resurrection.

2\. Thousands of transcribed copies in several ancient languages, from
different locations and periods.

3\. Many manuscript fragments with early dates, e.g. the earliest, the John
fragment (Papyrus P52) at the John Rylands Library in Manchester in England,
dates from as early as 125 AD.

4\. Multiple independent accounts of eye witness testimony including hostile
sources.

5\. Biographical accounts written as history.

6\. The evidence and weight of the incidental accounts, the New Testament
letters, which contain numerous historical details, facts, references and
mutual understanding, taken for granted and mentioned in passing.

7\. The disciples are frequently portrayed in a negative light in the gospels.

8\. The testimony of women is relied on at various key points in the gospels,
something which a 1st century fraud would not likely have included.

9\. Integrity of the eye witnesses under intense pressure and scrutiny and
brutal persecution. Most of the original apostles died horrific deaths,
refusing to recant what they saw and heard (1 John 1). In contrast, the
Watergate scandal lasted all of a few days before the group fell apart.

10\. Many accurate geographical and political references, often of a very
technical nature (e.g. various political offices and ranks, shipping
navigation, climates, architecture).

In summary, Christianity is an historical claim about an historical person,
Jesus of Nazareth. Anyone is free to investigate these claims for themselves,
according to the historical method.

For more on this, read Paul Barnett's "Jesus and the Logic of History"
([http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-
Theolog...](http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-History-Studies-Biblical-
Theology/dp/0830826033)), or "New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?" by
FF Bruce (himself a Rylands Professor).

~~~
cholantesh
>1\. Primary sources dated as close as 22-25 years and as late as 70 years
after the event of Jesus' death and //resurrection.//

The historical method is not equipped to discuss supernatural events, so
however trustworthy any of the gospels are, the pivotal event of Christian
theology is still an article of faith as far as history is concerned.

~~~
jorangreef
The historical method simply discusses events within the natural universe,
regardless of their meaning.

------
bediger4000
Bravo, it's on line. Now, how close is it to, say, the King James New
Testament? Why is it different?

~~~
wl
It's fairly close, but of course there are differences. The King James
translators were basing their Bible off of previous English translations and
guided by the Textus Receptus rather than this manuscript or critical editions
(which didn't exist yet). There were some politics involved that biased
translations here and there, but the theological implications aren't that
significant. And there are some mistakes in translation that slipped through.

The most significant difference between this text and the King James is
probably the
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comma_Johanneum)
, which is likely a forged addition to later Greek editions of the New
Testament providing explicit textural support for the doctrine of the Trinity.

The King James translation is rather dated, though. Some modern translations
are much, much better in the sense that they come from a reconstructed text
using the earliest manuscripts and they use our modern knowledge of Koine
Greek.

~~~
themodelplumber
> Some modern translations are much, much better

Not that this issue is really closed for debate or anything...far from it

------
ommunist
What is fascinating, how true can be description of the acts after 400 years?
At the best its a legend. At the worst - Roman imperial propaganda. By the way
I admire the codex layout. Calligraphy is astonishing.

~~~
Natsu
They could be roughly as accurate as our accounts of Galileo.

[http://mashable.com/2009/08/24/galileos-
telescope/](http://mashable.com/2009/08/24/galileos-telescope/)

~~~
ommunist
This is what I am talking about. The article you are referring contains image
of the 19th century, it has nothing to do with the original telescope.

~~~
Natsu
And I could just as easily say that it's typical to focus on later sources and
ignore the fact that there are earlier ones :) The Codex is just everything
gathered together: the items gathered were much older.

~~~
ommunist
Do you know that in late medieval Germany there were several official heads of
John the Baptist in reliquaries at different places? How on Earth such things
can justify anything? Older lies are still lies, right? The only good thing is
calligraphy and writing school that emerged within the Church, that started to
serve science later.

