I recently was sent a link to the worlds oldest Christian Bible that was written over 1600 years ago. It is written in Greek and is called “Codex Sinaiticus”. I found some things very interesting about this Bible and will share some quotes from the website that stick out to me.
- The Original Bible included some books from the Apocropha not included today.
By the middle of the fourth century there was wide but not complete agreement on which books should be considered authoritative for Christian communities. Codex Sinaiticus, one of the two earliest collections of such books, is essential for an understanding of the content and the arrangement of the Bible, as well as the uses made of it.
The Greek Septuagint in the Codex includes books not found in the Hebrew Bible and regarded in the Protestant tradition as apocryphal, such as 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach. Appended to the New Testament are the Epistle of Barnabas and ‘The Shepherd’ of Hermas.
2. The Original Order of the Books is different than it is today
The idiosyncratic sequence of books is also remarkable: within the New Testament the Letter to the Hebrews is placed after Paul’s Second Letter to the Thessalonians, and the Acts of the Apostles between the Pastoral and Catholic Epistles. The content and arrangement of the books in Codex Sinaiticus shed light on the history of the construction of the Christian Bible.
3. This is the Oldest known Complete Version of the Original Bible
Codex Sinaiticus is generally dated to the fourth century, and sometimes more precisely to the middle of that century. This is based on study of the handwriting, known as palaeographical analysis. Only one other nearly complete manuscript of the Christian Bible – Codex Vaticanus (kept in the Vatican Library in Rome) – is of a similarly early date. The only manuscripts of Christian scripture that are definitely of an earlier date than Codex Sinaiticus contain small portions of the text of the Bible.
4. The Original Transcript is Viewable with a Greek to English Translator
Check it out by clicking here.
I found this very interesting. What do you find interesting about these points and possibly other points as you visit the site?
11 comments
Comments feed for this article
July 10, 2009 at 6:27 am
Ezra
The formation of the Bible is fascinating, to be sure.
It is important to keep a couple of things in mind about when considering how the Bible came to us in this familiar form.
While the Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest extant Bible, we must not assume, as some might, that there was no Bible before this copy. Even before the Biblical “canon” was established, various scrolls were written and copied and circulated to the people.
Books, as we know them, were a relatively late invention. Scrolls were regarded as the best way to transmit the written word–and would be so for centuries. Consider what it would have been like to have a complete Bible in such a format–you would likely have needed van to carry it around.
Because of the cost and care of these scrolls, a synagogue would likely not have a full set of the scriptures. The scripture they did have would be treasured. Scribes, like good librarians, would likely keep track of where Scriptures were and where various other scriptures could be found. Like good librarians, they would try to fill in their shelves as they had opportunity.
Manuscripts were made of papyrus (or parchment, if you could afford it), and because the material was subject to decay, care had to be taken to copy and transmit the document before it became illegible.
Scribes were carefully selected; from early on, children were noted for their skills in writing and their aptitude as careful copyists. Care was take in the transmission of texts, as supervisors checked and double-checked the copies from the master copy. Schools became known for their accuracy and reliability in this process; to this day, translators carefully consider the wording of a text and take into account the reputation of schools in certain areas (like Syria or Rome or Alexandria or Byzantium, etc) as they go about their work of translation.
Hebrew is an ancient language–and one that was almost extinct some three hundred years before Christ. In 285-245 BC, Emperor Ptolomy insisted that major literature be translated into Greek. The Hebrew Scriptures were translated into Greek, which was the universal language of the Empire. This was truly a blessing, because the various Hebrew books were then codified into what we call the Septuigent (the LXX), and the canon of the Hebrew Scripture was affirmed.
Hebrew had already began to fall out of favor, due to the prominence of the Greek language. After all, even the Book of Daniel was written in Aramaic, since that had been the language of the land at Daniel’s time. Therefore, even the literature of this time was not written in Hebrew; the Apocryphal writing of this time was of Hebrew/Jewish origin, most certainly, because it described the history of the Jewish people; but, again, it was written in Greek because that is what the Hebrew/Jewish people now spoke and read.
Hellenistic Jews were those who embraced the Greek language and culture. Some had no choice: knowing Greek was beneficial to commerce and survival. Other Jews willingly embraced it; the Herods, for instance, became influential because of their willingness to abandon Jewish ways. Many of the priests and scribes and Jewish leaders of the Saducee class became the cultural liberals of their times; these people clashed with the Pharisees, who desired to keep the teachings and commands, as found in Scripture. Interestingly, the Saducees only respected the books of Moses, considering only these to be inspired by God (perhaps because the priestly system was defined in these five books!). The Pharisees acknowledged and abided by the Torah (Moses’ books) and the books of Wisdom and the Prophets. While Jesus took issue with both the Pharisees and the Saducees, he agreed that the full council of God was contained in the TaNaK (Torah/ Writings/ Prophets) and that this was fully the Word of God which had its focus upon Jesus himself.
By Jesus’ time, Israel was largely bilingual (if not tri-lingual, knowing Latin). Recall that Pilate had the placard above Jesus’ head written in Latin, Greek and Hebrew.
And, yet, not everyone gave themselves over the the Greek language. A group of Jewish scholars, called the Essenes, separated themselves from the cultural change that was sweeping over the land. Living a simple life out in the desert, the Essenes continued gathering and copying the Scriptures and storing these in caves. This treasure trove was well protected over the centuries; discovered in the 1950s, the Dead Sea Scrolls continue to shed much light on history, Biblical literature, and the careful transmission of holy Scripture.
Interestingly, the Hebrew Bible actually came together FORMALLY, as we know it today, after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD. At that time, the Jews realized the importance of keeping their Scriptures together in an orderly and uniform way–Christianity had already been on the rise and their own religious kingdom was shattered by the devastation inflicted by the Romans. This work was done at the Council of Jamnia (AD 87?).
The Christians not only valued the Jewish Scriptures, of course, but were gathering their own collections of Jesus’ life and teaching and passing around the letters that Paul and other Apostles were writing. The canon of the New Testament therefore was being arranged and codified around the same time that the Jewish Scriptures were being codified. Conservative scholars believe that the New Testament writings as we know it was complete before the end of the century; though, like the history of the Old Testament writing, the canon of the New Testament would not be officially endorsed and organized until Christians were able to go about their work openly and freely, without the threat of persecution.
FWIW–blessings in Christ
LikeLike
July 10, 2009 at 7:06 am
Ezra
Oops… I meant to note that at Jesus’ time, the language of the Jews was not Hebrew, but Aramaic. (The words above Jesus were in Greek, Latin, and ARAMAIC; Mary addresses Jesus “in Aramaic”; etc.)
If you are wondering about the connection between Hebrew and Aramaic, go find some English literature from the 1500s and try reading it. Language has a way of morphing, doesn’t it? Even the original King James of 1611 is difficult to read and comprehend.
Therefore, if I understand matters correctly, the real scholars of Jesus’ time had to be able to understand the Hebrew–and later generations of Jews who wanted to embrace their ethnic roots would have had to move away from the Aramaic back to the more ancient Hebrew.
Anywho…
Blessings in Christ!
LikeLike
July 12, 2009 at 3:17 pm
Dan
Very interesting post. I went to the site and pulled up a few of my favorite verses, John 3:16, etc. The context appeared to be the same as my King James Version but the words were not exact.
I reflected how fortunate I was to live now so that when modern prophets receive revelations I can read them as they received them. Of course, then I paused and realized that people non-english speaking countries speak different languages and are still getting their transcriptions via translation from one language to another.
Then I reflected how grateful I am to have the Gift of the Holy Ghost. Regardless of the language or translation that I am reading, I can be led to truth by Him.
LikeLike
July 13, 2009 at 3:40 am
ama49
Nice thoughts Dan! Thanks for the insight. You are right that the Holy Ghost is the ultimate teacher of truth and confirms the truth of all things. That is very important to remember.
LikeLike
July 13, 2009 at 5:17 am
Mormon Heretic
It is my understanding that the Catholic Bible still contains the “apocryphal” books you mention: Esdras, Tobit, etc. The Catholic and Protestant Bibles are different, and the LDS seem to follow the Protestant KJV Bible.
LikeLike
November 3, 2009 at 4:17 pm
CHop
Yes, the two bibles are different. LDS follow the KJV and all the surrounding translations such as the New Living, New King James Version, etc.
LikeLike
August 3, 2009 at 5:39 am
Placebo
I think it is a wonderful thing such a complete, ancient bible has been found and what a boon it would be to the claims put forth by Mormonism within and without the scholarship community if they had the original text from whence was derived the BOM.
LikeLike
August 4, 2009 at 5:19 am
ama49
Hi Placebo,
You bring up a good point. However, there is a point where faith comes into play.
For example. There are old texts of the Quoran. Does this mean I’m going to believe the Quroan? Also by merely having the old texts of this Bible it is faith and conversion that lead me to believe in the Bible.
That being said, I do see your point. If one had faith in the Book of Mormon and also an old original text it could lead to strenghening one’s faith they already have in the Book.
LikeLike
November 3, 2009 at 4:26 pm
CHop
A few quotes I enjoy:
George Bernard Shaw- “No man ever believes that the Bible means what it says: He is always convinced that it says what he means.”
Albert Camus- “I would rather live my life as if there is a God and die to find out there isn’t, than live my life as if there isn’t and die to find out there is.”
(Great quote)Gilbert K. Chesterton- “Let your ‘religion’ be less of a theory and more of a love affair.”
Albert Einstein- “Morality is of the highest importance- but for us, not for God.”
H. L. Mencken- “It is now quite lawful for a Catholic woman to avoid pregnancy by a resort to mathematics, though she is still forbidden to resort to physics or chemistry. ”
Hope they cause some thinking. 🙂
LikeLike
November 5, 2009 at 6:06 am
ama49
Nice quotes! thanks for sharing! I like the one by Albert Camus and also the one by Gilbert Chesterton. Where did you get the quotes?
LikeLike
November 12, 2009 at 9:49 pm
Mark
Thanks for the post. Its true that Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are the two oldest complete Bibles. Another very interesting codex is p46–which was composed of 10 of Paul’s letters. It is actually about 150 years older than Sinaiticus, but it is not a complete Bible. In the first two centuries after Christ most Churches had a collection of the four Gospels and a collection of Paul’s letters, then maybe a few other early documents.
Anyway, the photographs of p46 are fabulous. You can enlarge them so that you can see the individual fibers in the papyrus. I have posted a link: http://biot500.wordpress.com/2008/12/04/p46-links/.
Link number 10 in the list is very interesting. It shows the end of one epistle (Romans) and the beginning of the next (Hebrews). It also includes a line count: Romans had 1000 lines of text–I think maybe that was an estimate because there are 40 pages and an average of 25 lines per page.
LikeLike