The Codex of Sinaiticus

I'm really excited about this, actually. It is long past time for some of these older works to be made available on the internet. I'm all about redundancy, and it is a lot harder to lose a work if there are plenty of copies around.

As to Mark 16:9-20, here is the text, and you have to admit the resurrection gets cast into a whole different light if the story ends before the red text.

In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
Real fascinating stuff. Parallel work is being completed at St. Catherine's by a Greek Orthodox Monk, Fr. Justin. He's been working on cataloging and scanning the monastery's literature collection for a few years now, and is working on the fragments of Sinaticus that were not stolen from St. Catherine's. I really don't think that we can appreciate the vastness of the early Christian literature in possession in monasteries in Egypt, the Middle East, and Mt. Athos. The Didache is another example of the kind of stuff that gets found by accident in these libraries. Fr. Justin's efforts to catalog and digitize these libraries is going to be a great resource to Christians and scholars. From what I understand, similar initiatives are being undertaken on Mt. Athos as well.

Fr. Justin, by the way, is a native Texan and attended the University of Texas. What starts here... sometimes ends up in a ascetic desert community in the Egyptian Desert and...changes the world.

An NYT article on Fr. Justin's work, from 2004:

Link
 
I guess I don't see the big issue here. Don't get me wrong, I am very glad to see these things being available online, but the compilation of ALL major (and minor) reliable texts have already been compiled in The Greek New Testament (Duetsche Bibelgesellschaft/United Bible Society), and Novum Testamentum Graece (Nestle-Aland) These use the same compiled text, which brings out all the relevant materials and any textual differences.

Is the difference that online their is going to be in English?
 
The difference is that you will be able to view them in their original form, images of the actual text. Whether your interested in religion, history, art or whatever it is a chance to "see" something from long long ago and have near direct access to a primary source. It is remarkable.
 
^ Exactly. And if you are inclined to approach the Scriptures in the Protestant tradition of Sola Scriptura and Biblical Inerrancy, these are the closest things to a "window into heaven" that you are going to find.

IMO, anything that serves to stimulate others interest in Christian history is a step in the right direction. Most Christians have only a limited appreciation of the history of the canon or the texts that comprise the canon. ****, there are some people who seem to think that JC dropped off the approved KJV at Pentecost. Anything that serves to increase the historical literacy of Christians is a plus in my book. And if the related endeavors, such as those taking place on Mt. Athos and at St. Catherine's, reveal more in the way of ancient Christian texts, long lost in the libraries of isolative monastery communities for a couple millenia, so much the better.

This is definitely not a "so-what?".
 
I guess I still don't get it. Maybe I am just dense. I know what you mean about seeing the actual texts. I remember going to the Field Museum in Chicago when the Dead Sea Scrolls were being shown, and I had a professor who actually worked on part of them while doing her PhD. at Harvard.

I mean it was great to see the actual text. The issue is that most of the texts are incredibly hard to read because of their age. As far as study, I would rather have them laid out in a compiled form, with footnotes.
Maybe I just miss the point. I am NOT saying this isn't a great thing, and I agree that anything that helps us all learn more about history is a great thing.
 
That they are hard to read is all the more reason why access to the actual document is so important. Having them available just as they are, with no editorial or interpretation is something which is exceedingly hard to come by. That they would be available in this form does nothing but increase scholarship... and let's not forget these things have value beyond the words printed upon them. Hell, the pages are almost 400 years older than Charlemagne, were likely written within a few decades of the Council of Nicaea, which decided which books were canon. This is as close to the original new testament as we are likely ever to get... and you yourself will have access to it in a form far more personal than ever before.
 
It is kind of misleading to say the "oldest surviving copy of the New Testament". It is the oldest COMPLETE New Testament, but individually there are many older single letters and books and incomplete copies. Even if there weren't, there is so much correspondence from early Christian leaders in the 2nd and 3rd century that you could recreate 70% or so of it just from people talking about it. One guy from the 2nd century wrote a whole book on just the first verse in John.
 
BT, I think our conversation is more misleading than the actual statement. That said, these specific books in collection are our bible, this is the first appearance of that... and it is remarkable.
 
"You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." --Inigo Montoya

"Begging the question" is the logical fallacy of circular reasoning. I think some around here have been using "beg" in instances that would call more for "raise."
 
Manuscripts, both scrolls and codices, tend to lose text at the beginning and the end, not unlike a coverless paperback in a backpack. The missing verses at the back could easily be lost in that manner from the Codex source. Because Irenaeus, c. 180, quoted from the long ending, specifically as part of Mark's gospel, and that predates the Codex by over 200 years, it seems to me that the verses are legit.

This information from the wiki explanation makes the missing verses less ominous to me.:
In reply to:
Click to expand...
 
constantine-1.jpg
 
That's interesting softynow, hadn't heard that before.

The Constantine answer is too easy though. No doubt the Edict of Milan and subsequent Emperors' patronization of Christianity didn't hurt
wink.gif
, but by the time of Constantine Christianity had enough inertia such that its place as a major world religion was not in question. A better answer to jackray's question, IMO, is "women". Christianity thrived in large part, especially early on, because women were drawn the faith in ways that they weren't to other religious cults. As the women go, so go their children and in many cases their husbands. For an Imperial example of this, consider Helen, mother of Constantine.
 
Anastasis,

I agree with your retort of my answer. My purpose was to get people thinking along those lines, not for that to be the actual answer. I also don't care to argue this one in full, since I've gone through it many, many times. IMO, the best way to get people arguing on the right track is start with Constantine and move backwards in time, focusing on what made Christianity what it was by the time of Nicea. Also, IMO, any one simple answer just isn't going to cut it. I will say, however, that the allure of a supernatural life of happiness following a corporeal life of what must have been a mostly miserable existence had to be a key selling point.

This is likely also key as to why atheism/agnosticism has become more alluring as our lives on earth have become easier and more enjoyable. Also the rise in the numbers of people for whom leisure is their primary time expense but for whom ruling the masses is not a major time constraint is key. Without the need to perpetuate the social controls of rigorous religious dogma and protocol, much of what made Christianity tick throughout its history began to fall away 2-3 centuries ago.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Weekly Prediction Contest

* Predict HORNS-AGGIES *
Sat, Nov 30 • 6:30 PM on ABC

Recent Threads

Prediction Results Threads

2024 Schedules

Back
Top