backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 47 comment(s) - last by dhalilahma.. on Jul 13 at 8:14 AM


Written in the fifth century, the Codex Sinaiticus is oldest known Bible. It is being put online by the British Library.  (Source: British Library)

One of the book's greatest controversies is that it makes no mention of the resurrection story, a story considered critical by many sects of the Christian Church.  (Source: British Library)
Religious document carries controversy online with it

The Bible has been one of the most controversial works in history, inspiring many of the world's greatest works of literature and art, but also leading indirectly to warfare and conflict that has claimed millions of lives.  People to this day continue to fight and die over which interpretation of the book is considered the accurate work of God.

Thus it is intriguing that the oldest known Bible is at last going on line for the world to see.  Known as the Codex Sinaiticus, the Bible was handwritten on just over 400 large leaves of animal skin parchment in the fifth century.  The book was discovered in the Sinai desert in Egypt by German scholar Constantine Tischendorf in 1844. 

Constantine Tischendorf took part of the book, a few pages back home with him.  He returned in 1853 and in 1859 and retrieved 694 pages, which he transported to St. Petersburg, Russia.  The Russian government sold the book to England for £100,000 in 1933 -- to raise money to buy tractors and other agricultural equipment.   The pages currently mostly reside in Britain, with some in Russia and Germany still.  Many pages are being restored.

The Bible provides a very different text from modern Bibles.  Noticeably absent are many of the verses supporting the theory of a physical resurrection of Jesus a central component of the dogma of many Christian sects, such as the Catholic and Baptist Churches.  The text does contain some passages, such as part of Luke that refers to a resurrection, though others are noticeably absent. 

In the early Christian church there was debate over whether a resurrection literally occurred, and the view that it did indeed prevailed in most modern Biblical texts.  The resurrection story proved a popular draw to the religion echoing such past myths as story of the death and repair of Egyptian God Osiris and the Roman god Dionysus, who was resurrected and reborn from only a heart after being brutally murdered.

The book also contains Old Testament passages such as 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 & 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Sirach, which are considered apocryphal (of questionable authorship) and not included in most Bibles.  Many other noticeable differences in both the Old and New Testaments exist

Juan Garces, the British Library project curator, says placing the work online will inspire in a modern era.  He states, "The Bible as an inspirational text has a history.  There are certainly theological questions linked to this.  Everybody should be encouraged to investigate for themselves."

The home of the online version can be visited here.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Erroneous info in your article
By fizzgig on 7/7/2009 12:57:01 PM , Rating: 5
I created an account just to post this message.

Your statement that the resurrection was left out of this Bible is erroneous and thus you should rewrite your article to show that you are not purposefully being biased in your writing. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you just didn’t research before making this statement.

It actually DOES include the story of the resurrection. Please look up passage Luke, chapter 24, verse 1 on the website. I’ll copy and paste it here for your convenience:

24:1 But on the first of the week, very early in the morning, they came to the sepulcher, bringing the spices that they had prepared.

2 And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulcher;

3 but entering, they found not the body of the Lord Jesus.

4 And it came to pass as they were perplexed about this, behold, two men stood by them in bright clothing

5 and the women being afraid and bowing their faces to the earth the angels said to them: Why see among the dead for him that lives?

6 He is not here, but has risen. Remember how he spoke to you while he was yet in Galilee,

7 saying of the Son of man that he must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and rise on the third day.

8 And they remembered his words,

sooo...there you have it. I would appreciate it if you would please alter your article to express the truth in this matter. Not for the sake of even a Christian agenda, but for the sake of truthfulness in journalism.

Thanks,

J




RE: Erroneous info in your article
By fizzgig on 7/7/2009 1:22:35 PM , Rating: 3
also refer to Acts, chapter 10, Verse 40:

38 JESUS OF NAZARETH, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and power, who went about doing good and giving health to all that were oppressed by the devil, for God was with him;

39 and we are witnesses of all things that he did in the country of the Jews and in Jerusalem: whom they slew by hanging upon a tree.

40 This man God raised on the third day and made him manifest,

41 not to all the people, but to witnesses that were before appointed by God, to us who ate and drank with him after he had risen from the dead;

42 and he charged us to preach to the people, and to testify that it is he that has been appointed by God as judge of living and dead.

43 To him give all the prophets witness that, through his name, every one that believes on him shall receive remission of sins.


By fizzgig on 7/7/2009 4:25:26 PM , Rating: 2
Thank you for addressing this. If only Google would update their link info. A horrible mis-information.


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By cmontyburns on 7/7/2009 6:36:54 PM , Rating: 4
confirmed.
this excerpt is taken from a tischendorf text:
_________________________________________________ _

Luke 24:1-8 [TIS]
1 Th/| de. mia/| tw/n sabba,twn o;rqrou baqe,wj evpi. to. mnh/ma h=lqon fe,rousai a] h`toi,masan avrw,mataÅ
2 eu-ron de. to.n liqon avpokekulisme,non avpo. tou/ mnhmei,ou(
3 eivselqou/sai de. ouvc eu-ron to. sw/ma tou/ kuri,ou VIhsou/Å
4 kai. evge,neto evn tw/| avporei/sqai auvta.j peri. tou,tou( kai. ivdou. a;ndrej du,o evpe,sthsan auvtoi/j evn evsqh/ti avstraptou,sh|\
5 evmfo,bwn de. genome,nwn auvtw/n kai. klinousw/n ta. pro,swpa eivj th.n gh/n ei=pan pro.j auvta,j\ ti, zhtei/te to.n zw/nta meta. tw/n nekrw/nÈ
6 ouvk e;stin w-de( avlla. hvge,rqhÅ mnh,sqhte w`j evla,lhsen u`mi/n e;ti w'n evn th/| Galilai,a|(
7 le,gwn to.n ui`o.n tou/ avnqrw,pou o[ti dei/ paradoqh/nai eivj cei/raj avnqrw,pwn a`martwlw/n kai. staurwqh/nai kai. th/| tri,th| h`me,ra| avnasth/naiÅ
8 kai. evmnh,sqhsan tw/n r`hma,twn auvtou/(
_________________________________________________ _______

my browser apparently does not support greek language, resulting in what you see above, but in my computer, the source does show it to be correct ( meaning~ it contained such passages).
but lets show some christian love by not crucifying Jason over this. i rather see him as a victim instead of a perpetrator. we love you, man... even if we never met before.


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By ThePooBurner on 7/8/2009 5:06:42 PM , Rating: 5
quote:
but lets show some christian love by not crucifying Jason over this. i rather see him as a victim instead of a perpetrator.

Except he is a perpetrator. In every article on this subject he purposely bashes the Christan faiths and mocks them. For an example of some of his previous trash, just see the very first link in the article. He goes out of his way to present false information in these articles, which is why eh ahs to post them in the blog section rather than the news section: because they are his opinion and not facts at all.

He is no victim.


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By cmontyburns on 7/8/2009 11:58:17 PM , Rating: 1
i insist.
maybe he's both.

but look at the opportunity we're getting here: defending scriptural infallability, where it can be seen by a lot of people who may still be shopping or who dont like it, only to find out the bible CAN withstand the real-world.
i doubt Jason is going to change now (or try pulling something like this again), but he'll learn something that will help him next time.

still, thank you for your vigilance with the truth good sir. kindness will make it more attractive and desirable.


By ThePooBurner on 7/9/2009 4:08:23 PM , Rating: 4
quote:
i doubt Jason is going to change now ( or try pulling something like this again ), but he'll learn something that will help him next time.

I don't want this to sound harsh or argumentative. I am saying this as someone who is concerned for someone who might not have as much history with Jason as I do. You didn't read the article he linked at the very top of this one did you? My point is that by exposing him as having extreme prejudice and bias against, and that he blatantly lies and reports falsely, he will be discredited and those who may be learning will know that he is not a source they can trust to get accurate information in their search. I have dealt with a lot of people that got bad information from bad sources and were pretty irate to find they had been lied to. By knowing who the liars are ahead of time I am doing them a better service than letting think this is right and then correcting them later.

Now, jason could change, miracles can happen, but he is not a simple repeat offender. He's got an agenda that he is pushing. He will not only "pull something like this again" he will look for any chance he can get to do so.


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By Nowitzki25 on 7/9/2009 8:50:35 PM , Rating: 2
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

good article outlining the flawed reasoning of christian apologetics, you can either do some outside research or you can continue to submit to dogma like a little boy submitting to a perverted catholic priest.


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By ThePooBurner on 7/10/2009 11:00:42 AM , Rating: 2
A world without god is a world without meaning or values. There would be no reason to be good and no reason not to be bad because nothing would have meaning. If we are all just accidents of nature then three is no rights to do or have anything. There is no right to life. There is no right to fair treatment, there is no right to anything. If there was no God, and no higher authority to answer to then what is there to stop anyone from doing anything for whatever reason? If we are just accidents of nature it doesn't matter if someone rapes your daughter because she wouldn't share her lollipop. If we are just accidents, then child molesters aren't doing anything wrong and we shouldn't punish them. If we are just accidents, then someone can kill you because they think you are ugly. And in all of those cases no one can complain about any of it because if there isn't more out there then all of it is totally meaningless.

If you do not believe in God, then you have no reason what so ever to have any sense of moral decency (because what would be point. it's not logical.). Essentially if you don't believe in God you are saying it is ok for someone to rape and murder our kids. For all we know, you personally want to rape and murder kids.


By Jabroney701020 on 7/10/2009 12:36:28 PM , Rating: 2
I agree completely. Morals did not come from nature. A conscience is not something that manifests itself anywhere in the galaxy, it is not a property of physics or part of any rules of "survival of the fittest". If a person really believes there is no existence of God or any creator that we give the name "God" to, basically that our development is random and there is no outside influence then they should embrace that conscience is not necessary. They would see morals as weakness or lunacy of a weaker mind, that is, if they truely believed that there was no creator. Think about if, when you are formulating your reasoning for your opinion, are you reasoning a whole and complete opinion and accepting all that goes with your opinion or are you reasoning an argument to something that you oppose? If you are reasoning a whole opinion you have to accept "both ends of the stick", the good and the bad.


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By geddarkstorm on 7/7/2009 7:09:32 PM , Rating: 4
This is one of the most erroneous and misleading (slanted) articles I've ever read, not just here but elsewhere.

Also, the accounts in Mark, Matthew, and John of the resurrection are all there. The actual part that's missing is Mark 16:9-20, which comes after the resurrection and deals with Christ's multiple appearances -- however, those are still included in Matthew, John, and Luke.

Furthermore, Jason's statements that this bible is very different from the modern one is utterly ridiculous to the point of falsehood. The vast majority is no different, which is stunningly remarkable (as it's on-line, one can directly cross check!). Because the Sinaiticus came before the apocryphal was separated from the 'cannon', it's no surprise that some of those books are included with the rest.

Even worst, the Codex Sinaiticus is not the oldest mostly complete bible, that distinction belongs to the Codex Vaticanus. Both are believed to have been made within the same time frame (contemporaries) with the Vaticanus possibly slightly older (325-350 AD, verses Sinaiticus' 330-360 AD window).

It isn't entirely Jason's fault, though he did slant the article even more than it was already. It was also erroneously reported at CNN.com, almost as badly. The sad thing is, this being on-line means the claims for it are easily researched by any journalist in ten minutes (I did)... which, regrettably, didn't happen here or elsewhere.


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By Gondorff on 7/9/2009 2:56:05 PM , Rating: 2
The Markan omission is also no surprise--any student of Biblical literature (particularly in historical-critical studies) will know that the end of Mark is not original. Other manuscripts that we have confirm this. If you simply look at it, you can see that it is a paraphrase of the ends of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. Basically, some scribe got confused how Mark didn't write about resurrection appearances and decided to "improve" it. In fact, this happened at least twice, which is why we have the shorter and the longer endings of Mark in the Bible. Neither are original.

Nevertheless, Jesus' resurrection is still attested to by Mark, just not his appearances afterward. Whether this omission is because Mark was unaware of such appearances is debatable, but even if he was aware of them, there is much reason for his not including them given the theological themes that he is trying to portray in his gospel.


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By pyrosity on 7/10/2009 3:54:42 AM , Rating: 2
I would pay money for people to read the above post.

Jason, I would encourage you to pay heed to some of these replies. I learned about the Markan omission two years ago in university; I will attest to Gondorff's post.


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By Nowitzki25 on 7/9/2009 9:33:55 PM , Rating: 1
jesusneverexisted.com

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By ThePooBurner on 7/10/2009 11:04:32 AM , Rating: 1
A world without god is a world without meaning or values. There would be no reason to be good and no reason not to be bad because nothing would have meaning. If we are all just accidents of nature then three is no rights to do or have anything. There is no right to life. There is no right to fair treatment, there is no right to anything. If there was no God, and no higher authority to answer to then what is there to stop anyone from doing anything for whatever reason? If we are just accidents of nature it doesn't matter if someone rapes your daughter because she wouldn't share her lollipop. If we are just accidents, then child molesters aren't doing anything wrong and we shouldn't punish them. If we are just accidents, then someone can kill you because they think you are ugly. And in all of those cases no one can complain about any of it because if there isn't more out there then all of it is totally meaningless.

If you do not believe in God, then you have no reason what so ever to have any sense of moral decency (because what would be point. it's not logical.). Essentially if you don't believe in God you are saying it is ok for someone to rape and murder our kids. For all we know, you personally want to rape and murder kids


RE: Erroneous info in your article
By Narcofis on 7/10/2009 2:20:16 PM , Rating: 3
quote:
If you do not believe in God, then you have no reason what so ever to have any sense of moral decency(because what would be point. it's not logical.).


I think here your misjudging the human race. Logically god doesn't need to exist for morale decency to exist. What about pure basic instinct of survival just like animals. As civilization progressed, we added rules of conduct to better profit from each other. Plain and simple...

And I personnaly don't like the quote about if you don't believe in god you say Raped or Murder is ok. This is how you misjudge and create wars. You categorize everybody else has being bad.

<Philosophical Saying>
Always look at yourself before criticizing everybody else...
</Philosophical Saying>


By Jabroney701020 on 7/10/2009 6:14:15 PM , Rating: 2
Common decency is not a trait that was developed to further a species. Conscience does not benefit survival of a species or making someone more powerful, it as seen as weakness from a non-creationistic prospective. A creator does need to exist in order for moral decency to exist. What the person that you are commenting on is doing is using an extreme example "rape and murder" where in nature the dominant take from the weak. No, not all creatures behave that way but there are still no examples of conscience in nature outside of our definition of conscience developed from the fundamental teaching of thinking about someone else before ourselves (thinking about the creator first).


By Sandersann on 7/7/2009 7:39:27 PM , Rating: 4
Jason Mick,

The only controversy is the one you are maladroitly trying to create

Since you are not an expert in the field, it would be a good practice to quote your secondary sources (or even better use primary sources).

The physical resurrection of Christ was denied by Gnostics who did not believe that Christ had a physical body in the first place. They saw all matter including the flesh as evil. For them, the incarnation never happened. This view called docetism is combated by the gospels, Paul, and especially the first epistle of John.
The apostle Paul said the following in the 60’s AD in 1 Corinthians 15 (even liberal scholars do not dispute the date and authenticity of this letter).
Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead?
13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised;
14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain.
15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised.
16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised;
17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins.
(1Co 15:12-17)

The oldest extant manuscript of this passage is P46 from the Chester Beatty Collection. It is dated from the late first century to the middle of the second century BC.

Notice how he how he proves that believers will be resurrected based on the fact of Jesus’ resurrection.

It would have been helpful if you gave the verses that are allegedly omitted

In textual criticism, the Codex Sinaiticus dating in the fourth century is not considered an early witness (or early manuscript) of the New Testament, it value is primarily in the fact that it is one of the earlier collection of entire books as opposed to preserved fragments.

What this means is that whether or not a passage is found in the Codex Sinaiticus says little about whether or not it is authentic or goes back to Christ or the first century, for that, one has to look at early witnesses such as:

The earliest copy of the Luke is P75 from the Bodmer Collection (late second to early third century)

The earliest copy of the John (aside of P52 which is a fragment) is P66 from the Bodmer Collection (middle second to century) and so on

These are sources that all predate the Codex Sinaiticus by centuries

There are approximately 5,400 preserved New Testament manuscripts and fragments, some dating merely within decades of the original

How do they compare to other ancient literary works?

Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian war dating 460-400 BC only has 8 extant manuscripts (complete) dating from AD 900 with a few fragments dating from the first century AD

Julius Caesar’s Gallic War was composed 58-60 BC, only 9 or 10 good quality manuscripts. The oldest manuscript is date 900 years after Caesar’s time

Tacitus’ history and Annals dating AD 100, a few fragments for the 4th centuries (books 3-6) and complete manuscripts of 4 ½ out of 16 books in two surviving manuscripts from the 9th and 11th centuries AD

At least Dan Brown pretended to do some research
you should apologize and retract that sorry excuse for an article

Sources
Comfort and David P. Barrett, The Text of the Earliest New Testament Greek Manuscripts, (Wheaton, Ill.: Tyndale House, 2001)
Paul D. Wegner, the Journey from Texts to Translations




By Nowitzki25 on 7/9/2009 9:36:40 PM , Rating: 1
jesusneverexisted.com

http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm


By ThePooBurner on 7/10/2009 11:03:46 AM , Rating: 2
A world without god is a world without meaning or values. There would be no reason to be good and no reason not to be bad because nothing would have meaning. If we are all just accidents of nature then three is no rights to do or have anything. There is no right to life. There is no right to fair treatment, there is no right to anything. If there was no God, and no higher authority to answer to then what is there to stop anyone from doing anything for whatever reason? If we are just accidents of nature it doesn't matter if someone rapes your daughter because she wouldn't share her lollipop. If we are just accidents, then child molesters aren't doing anything wrong and we shouldn't punish them. If we are just accidents, then someone can kill you because they think you are ugly. And in all of those cases no one can complain about any of it because if there isn't more out there then all of it is totally meaningless.

If you do not believe in God, then you have no reason what so ever to have any sense of moral decency (because what would be point. it's not logical.). Essentially if you don't believe in God you are saying it is ok for someone to rape and murder our kids. For all we know, you personally want to rape and murder kids


By Karim on 7/10/2009 8:21:14 PM , Rating: 2
You sound pathetic. Do you not have a mind? Do you not have feelings? Is there not a point in the human maturation process where one can honor one's responsibilities without someone telling them to?

If you derive pleasure from raping and killing, then by all means! Enjoy! Revel in the pain of others. After all, the only thing keeping you from having your fun is God.

Whether there are gods or not doesn't change the fact that we love, hate, laugh, cry, and have a natural sense of what is fair and what is not. Where did you think the feelings you've expressed here came from?

A proper adult, unless they have a chemical imbalance or damaged disposition, doesn't need to be threatened with hellfire and brimstone just to get them to do the right thing. It doesn't matter that we all were or were not "accidents." We're here now and we are what we are, so what difference does it make? You have a brain and it gives you the power to choose.

Choose to be responsible and fair. Don't let invisible people in the sky choose that for you. You're wasting a perfectly good brain.


By ThePooBurner on 7/11/2009 3:22:04 PM , Rating: 2
You are missing my point. From a non-creationist point of view it is all survival of the fittest. Compasion, sympathy, and all other forms of moral decency have no place in that model. It isn't logical to because it is a form of weakness under that model. From a non creationist point of view it is take what you can to be the biggest and the best so that you are the one to survive. To be morally decent prevents doing the things that ensure that only the biggest, best, and strongest survive. In nature if a baby is born deformed or with any imparment it is usually killed quickly to remove it's offending presence from existence, and so it's affront to health and survival can be stopped. What makes Humans different from the animals is our senses of decency and value of all life instilled in us by our creator. The knowledge that there is more to life than just living. We know there is value beyond just "survival of the fitest" and we do what we can to ensure that everyone lives as long as possible. If we were nothing but a big accident, and there wasn't anything more to life, and there wasn't anything after life to worry about there would be NO reason to try and help people live good long lives regardless of their apparent weaknesses. There would be no need for compassion. These come only from the inherent knowledge and sense of there being something more that gives our lives a value that other things don't. The lack of something more and compassion and morality are incompatible. This is the point.

quote:
Where did you think the feelings you've expressed here came from?
They come from the Light of Christ, which is given to all men when they are born into this world. The sectarian world calls this "conscience." It is the seed of good, the moral compass, the virtue that makes man man and not animal. It is a gift from our creator to help us to know what is right and what is not. What is becoming of those who have a greater destiny than to just live and die by brawn and genetic superiority. It is the thing that tells us there is more to life than just living. It is the thing inside all men that cause them to wonder and to seek out their Creator. And like a plant, those who nurture it cause it to grow and they become better people, and those who neglect it and ignore it become dark and loathsome. The scum of society who all but other scum look down on because they are not living up to the standard we all know they should because we are all inborn with that standard.

quote:
You have a brain and it gives you the power to choose.
Actually it doesn't. Look at all the aminals of the world. They have brains, yet they don't always have the power to choose. They cannot decide to be something more than what they are. They are animals and always will be. Their instincts overpower everything. We are not governed by our instincts and impulses. We can choose to be something different, and something more than we are. The reason is because God gave us that power. He gave us free-will. Agency. The power to choose. And with that power it is up to us how we use it. Do we choose to control and master our impulses, our desires, etc. or do we choose to become as animals and give ourselves over to them? We admire those who do the first, and we detest those who do the second. Usually because those who do the second become the theives, the murderers, the rapists, the criminals. The ones who only look out for themselves in a mentality of "survival of the fittest". They give themselves over to being animals and not humans. And because of that all of humanity looks down on them and casts them out from among them.

I am being fair in this. I am giving credit where it is due: My God and my creator. He gave me the ability to not be an animal, and so i am not. Without Him, i would be no better than the stray dogs that roam the street and kill, eat, take, and hump whatever they like. And because I know better, i raise the warning voice to others, and the voice of compassion: to let others know what they are capable of being, and give them instructions on how to become such. Why be nothing but animals when we can be so much more? When we can Men.


Credible?
By crusadex on 7/7/2009 1:44:21 PM , Rating: 3
It would do us all a favor if you reseachered your articles.
There are older texts.The Luke Ommision does not mean christ's ressurection was ommited from the entire manuscript.Etc.
either this was a copy and paste job or you have an agenda.
Most of your comments sound like politically correct retoric.
But hey,who needs credibility when you have popular opinion.




RE: Credible?
By The Sword 88 on 7/7/2009 2:21:12 PM , Rating: 1
He does sort of cite the source by hyper-linking it in his article but his badly misquotes the source and takes anti-Christian lines out of context.

Wouldn't expect much else from this author though.


RE: Credible?
By The Sword 88 on 7/7/2009 2:29:01 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry for the double post but:

Jason states that this text does not include the same 27 books in the modern Bible, which is true but not very important as an older source, the writings of St. Athanasius, lists these books and cites the books Jason notes were included as apocryphal.

I know the link if from wikipedia but you can verify the information elsewhere if you wish.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/St._Athanasius

This same source along with other early church fathers, whose writings we have in some form or another, discuss the ressurection of Christ so it is highly unlikely that such a topic was added later.

As far as the disagreement on this topic the only groups I can fidn that disputed the literal resurrection are some gnostic heretical teachers and possibly later Aryan heretics. Note, I use the word heretic in a historical context not as a way of passing judgement.


Another bias noted...
By yacoub on 7/8/2009 8:43:25 PM , Rating: 2
In his desire to write off the significance of the resurrection testimonies by painting them as a theft from pagan myths, he ignores that the resurrection was not an "echo of past myths" (the use of the word "past" being itself questionable chronologically), but the fulfillment of prophetic messianic promises made by YHWH to the forefathers of the nation of Israel (the Jewish faith) -- prophecies that started in the Torah, a work first put to written form circa 1400BC, with its origins established long before that people group made contact with Egypt and over a millennium before Rome established itself or its religion.

If anything, it seems much more likely that resurrection-style myths in those pagan religions are directly the result of Jewish influence upon those cultures -- in Egypt after Joseph rises to a powerful office in Pharaoh's administration and wins Pharaoh's favor and is invited to bring his people, the ethnic Jews then called Israelites, to live and work in Egypt -- and in Rome via trade with (and eventually the conquest of) the Levant and soon-to-be-called Palestine, their homeland. Those pagan religions would have been borrowing from the Jewish prophecies and not the other way around.

So the pagan myths are actually quite irrelevant, as the Jewish faith already had its native resurrection prophecies of the coming Messiah in the TaNaKh, and the life of Jesus of Nazareth, a Jew himself, is directly a fulfillment of that, as the New Testament authors demonstrate in numerous passages.




RE: Another bias noted...
By andrinoaa on 7/9/2009 6:35:41 AM , Rating: 2
read the history of how the "bible" came into being and then have another go. You obviously strongly beleive what you have been taught. Thats ok, just keep in mind its FAITH based not fact based. You can argue all the nuances as strong as you want, but ultimately its only faith based.


RE: Another bias noted...
By yacoub on 7/9/2009 12:42:05 PM , Rating: 2
Incorrect. We weren't discussing whether or not you agree with the teachings of Jesus. I was discussing matters of history not matters of faith.
We're discussing a real, physical piece of literature, large sections of which are historical accounts, and those have been consistently corroborated by archaeological evidence, certainly more consistently than other ancient historical works. You are completely miss the point to start discussing matters of faith.


Definition
By wishmaster2020 on 7/7/2009 11:15:35 AM , Rating: 1
What is the definition of Codex Sinaiticus?




RE: Definition
By wishmaster2020 on 7/7/2009 11:27:52 AM , Rating: 2
Nvm, this is from the site:

quote:
The name 'Codex Sinaiticus' literally means 'the Sinai Book'. It reflects two important aspects of the manuscript: its form and a very special place in its history.


RE: Definition
By taleril on 7/7/2009 11:31:31 AM , Rating: 2
Source is wikipedia(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Sinaiticus ), so take with a grain of salt:
"It[the Codex Sinaiticus] came to the attention of scholars in the 19th century at the Greek Monastery of Mount Sinai"

I'm guessing that the "Sinaiticus" part comes from Mount Sinai. And Codex is latin for "book". Something like that.


missing
By Alphafox78 on 7/7/2009 12:11:40 PM , Rating: 3
Maybe this bible didnt include the books of the apostles. they detail his resurection; the arcicles makes it sound as if they are included yet they would have to omit most of the book as a lot of it talks about his resurection.




RE: missing
By Nowitzki25 on 7/9/2009 8:47:58 PM , Rating: 2
almost every historian knows that matthew, mark, luke, and john did not write the gospels. It's evident in the writing style of the "all seeing author" that the earliest gospels had many authors.


Wow, I am still waiting for a correction...
By Hawkido on 7/8/2009 1:52:59 PM , Rating: 2
Jason!?!?

are you there. Correct YOUR mistake. Lest we start thinking all of your articles are bunk! Are your Pro-AGW articles just as flawed? Your political rants just as flawed? Your scientific articles flawed too?

Make your correction!




By andrinoaa on 7/9/2009 6:27:40 AM , Rating: 2
How do you guys define "bible" ? Personally I think its an interesting collection of scrolls and parables collated by the late King James to suite his image of god. Remembering that anything that he didn't like got tossed. "still a man hears what he wants to hear and disregards the rest"
New findings? Come on, how can you project anything from obscure manuscripts written by obscure writers who thought that God was coming anyday.


Again
By team45620 on 7/8/2009 4:20:28 PM , Rating: 3
It's not just Jason, CNN too.. http://edition.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/anc...

Just another hit piece on Christianity.....Nothing new.

Thanks all who posted here defending the faith. Fight the good fight!




By d3872 on 7/8/2009 6:13:32 PM , Rating: 2
I love how all the news stories on this are carrying on like it's some controversial new discovery, completely ignoring the fact that this codex has been available to scholars and translators for the past century and a half .




Biased article
By ddalton on 7/11/2009 10:52:02 PM , Rating: 2
This is a very biased article. Irrespective of the different versions of the Bible the central theme is the same, the GOSPEL (Good news of Jesus Christ).

All that I can say is Quote these verses. The first one I took from the Codex Sinaiticus translation:

Luke 16:31 - But he said to him: If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded though one should rise from the dead.

Daniel 12:8-10 - Although I heard, I did not understand. Then I said "My lord, what shall be the end of these things?"
And he said, "Go your way Daniel, for the words are closed up and sealed till the time of the end
"Many shall be purified, made white, and refined, but the wicked shall do wickedly; and none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand.




fizzgig should read news elsewhere
By Snoodge on 7/10/2009 6:23:41 PM , Rating: 1
If you dont like the way the author presents the news, read it somewhere that appeals to your fairy tale worldview.




Everyone knows....
By Nowitzki25 on 7/9/09, Rating: -1
RE: Everyone knows....
By Gondorff on 7/9/2009 3:06:43 PM , Rating: 2
Wow... I really thought this one had died a while ago. I mean, you don't have to like the guy, but we're all quite sure he existed. There's not a legitimate scholar out there who'd disagree.


RE: Everyone knows....
By Nowitzki25 on 7/9/2009 8:25:15 PM , Rating: 2
No, actually a lot of modern scholars have suggested that Jesus of Nazerith never existed at all. Most don't say it in public for the fear of losing their jobs. Take for example the history teacher that said the story of the garden of eden was only a parable; he lost his teacher position! Historians are beginning to challenge this myth. The fact still remains that not one piece of so called evidence for jesus is comtemporary with the alleged time he lived. Not one writing or artifact remains, this coming from someone who allegedlly had thousands of followers and was a source of much political unrest.


RE: Everyone knows....
By Gondorff on 7/10/2009 2:48:36 AM , Rating: 3
The fact that there is no evidence that is contemporary with Jesus is not surprising at all--he clearly was not a writer, but a traveling preacher and healer. This is no different a case than Socrates--we have nothing to suggest that he lived other than writings of Plato after Socrates died. Plus, in the case of Jesus, we have writings dated to approximately twenty years after his death--verified against impartial Roman documents--that state that there are numerous people who had seen the man himself. These are things that don't just get fabricated--what is the motive for that?

As to his thousands of followers: Jesus clearly preached not to the literate upper classes, but to the Judean peasants who had no means or desire to record Jesus' doings. His ministry was short (one year according to the first three gospels--a more likely amount of time than the three years in John), and took place in the backwaters of Galilee and the like. When he finally got to Jerusalem, he spoke out against the Temple authorities, was reported to the Romans, who, fearing unrest during the Passover (which then was like what the hajj to Mecca is today) put him to death before anything could break out. The timeline isn't exactly conducive to a large trail of evidence during his life. And the political unrest was commonplace in his day. There were numerous "prophets" who tried to stir things up in Jerusalem against the Romans. They were often nicknamed "bandits". Like the two that Luke has crucified at the same time as Jesus. That he was causing unrest was clearly not unusual, and would not be cause for any particular note for the history books as the Romans recorded it.

Meanwhile, twenty years after his death, we have writings talking about Jesus' brothers, disciples, and other eyewitnesses, whom Paul of Tarsus (the source) has met personally. So these people just decided to get together and create an elaborate hoax?

Lastly, if someone were to create a mythical figure, then certainly some of the stories would have been different. The gospels show certain scenes that the gospel authors are "embarrassed" of. Such as: their leader died a humiliating death; he was betrayed by one of his close followers despite his otherwise perfect judgment; he was baptized by someone lesser than him; the list goes on. Look at the baptism of Jesus in Matthew's Gospel and the way Matthew has to bend over backwards to explain how come Jesus is the baptized and not the baptizer. Such scenes would never have found a place in the gospel if they were not historically true, and thus necessary parts of the story.

Most ancient historical figures don't have a tenth the legitimate evidence for their existence as Jesus does, yet they are never called into question. The only reason to doubt Jesus' existence is personal bias against him or his followers, so you might as well own up to it. You'd hardly be the first...

And please. Don't throw around the word "scholar". There are none, and haven't been any since the USSR tried to put that spin on things for their own reasons. The reason why no one would say anything is because they'd lose their jobs for being complete morons. This is just as bad as the Creationist/ID persecution complex.


RE: Everyone knows....
By Jabroney701020 on 7/10/2009 1:05:11 PM , Rating: 2
Since when are scholars that denounce faith and religeon repressed?


RE: Everyone knows....
By Jabroney701020 on 7/10/2009 1:12:17 PM , Rating: 2
*Religion


RE: Everyone knows....
By cmontyburns on 7/10/2009 1:51:12 PM , Rating: 2
Bertrand Russell rehashed ideas put forward by cynical 19th century german scholars and concluded, "Historically, it is quite doubtful whether Jesus existed at all, and if he did, we do not know anything about him". One hardly knows whether to laugh or cry. Quite apart from the mass of data in the Bible, at least 19 celebrated authors in the first and second centuries (who shared Russell's athiesm but were somewhat better placed to comment) record more than 100 facts about Jesus. These give details of His birth, life, teaching and death, all without the slightest hint that he was not a real historical person. These writers include the distinguished Jewish historian Flavius Josephus, Suetonius (official historian of the Roman Imperial House, Cornelius Tacitus (another historian who was also governor of Asia), and Pliny the Younger (a Roman proconsul in Bithynia in Asia minor and "one of the world's greatest letter writers" whose letters have attained the status of Literary Classics). These guys are not exactly "friendly" to Jesus.

Very little literature from their time has survived, making it all the more remarkable that these historians, seeking to record the major events of their day, should devote reams of writing to a penniless peasant who lived in a scruffy little town (Nazareth) in a remote part (Galilee) of one of the world's smallest countries (Palestine), especially as they all rejected the main thrust of His teaching, Tacitus calling it "a mischievous superstition".
The second-century Greek philosopher Celsus went even further, and in The True Doctrine mounted a ruthless, sarcastic attack on virtually every aspect of Jesus' teaching, yet even he made some 80 allusions to New Testament quotations and never once claimed that he was merely deriding a myth.
No wonder british anthropologist and historian James Frazer concludes that doubts cast on the historical reality of Jesus are "unworthy of serious attention". As Paul Johnson wrote in the Daily Mail on Good Friday 1997, the argument that Jesus never existed "has been DEMOLISHED... by the march of historical research".

If you, brother Nowitzki25 did something great like inventing something that eliminated world hunger and poverty and have followers of millions that lasted into the next two thousand years and beyond, if some dude at that time didnt like you, he could disagree and attack your good name all he wants, but the one one thing he cannot say is that you never existed. History would force him to live with that fact.

We love you brother. Peace.


RE: Everyone knows....
By dhalilahma on 7/13/2009 8:14:08 AM , Rating: 2
I think they should change the story a little, its like a zombie movie with only one zombie. If Jesus ascaped from the cave and started biting people, causing spontaneous outbreaks of christianity I would have enjoyed reading the bible much more.


"When an individual makes a copy of a song for himself, I suppose we can say he stole a song." -- Sony BMG attorney Jennifer Pariser

















botimage
Copyright 2009 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki