Codex Sinaiticus

[Formosus Viriustus]

Codex Sinaiticus: text, Bible, book

International conference, 6-7 July 2009 at the British Library

 

Codex Sinaiticus

Codex Sinaiticus is one of the most important books in the world. Handwritten well over 1600 years ago, the manuscript contains the Christian Bible in Greek, including the oldest complete copy of the New Testament. Its heavily corrected text is of outstanding importance for the history of the Bible and the manuscript

[Melvadius]

Of related interest is this article from the Independent newspaper in the UK:

 

'Fragment from world's oldest Bible found hidden in Egyptian monastery

 

A British-based academic has uncovered a fragment of the world's oldest Bible hiding underneath the binding of an 18th-century book.

 

Nikolas Sarris spotted a previously unseen section of the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates from about AD350, as he was trawling through photographs of manuscripts in the library of St Catherine's Monastery in Egypt.

 

The Codex, handwritten in Greek on animal skin, is the earliest known version of the Bible. Leaves from the priceless tome are divided between four institutions, including St Catherine's Monastery and the British Library, which has held the largest section of the ancient Bible since the Soviet Union sold its collection to Britain in 1933. ...

 

Continued at:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/af...ry-1780274.html

Edited September 4, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

Of related interest is this article from the Independent newspaper in the UK:

 

'Fragment from world's oldest Bible found hidden in Egyptian monastery

 

A British-based academic has uncovered a fragment of the world's oldest Bible hiding underneath the binding of an 18th-century book.

 

Nikolas Sarris spotted a previously unseen section of the Codex Sinaiticus, which dates from about AD350, as he was trawling through photographs of manuscripts in the library of St Catherine's Monastery in Egypt.

 

The Codex, handwritten in Greek on animal skin, is the earliest known version of the Bible. Leaves from the priceless tome are divided between four institutions, including St Catherine's Monastery and the British Library, which has held the largest section of the ancient Bible since the Soviet Union sold its collection to Britain in 1933. ...

 

Continued at:

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/af...ry-1780274.html

Just for the record, by "Bible" you mean "Christian Bible".

[Melvadius]

Just for the record, by "Bible" you mean "Christian Bible".

 

 

Given that the first posting on this thread includes a definition of 'Codex Sinaiticus' as the 'oldest Christian' bible and I specified the link as 'of related interest' then yes

Edited September 4, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

Just for the record, by "Bible" you mean "Christian Bible".

 

 

Given that the first posting on this thread includes a definition of 'Codex Sinaiticus' as the 'oldest Christian' bible and I specified the link as 'of related interest' then yes

By "the 'oldest Christian' bible", the source quoted by FV rightly implies that the Codex is the oldest extant copy (early IV century) that in his New Testament section includes all the 27 Books Canon currently comsidered as canonical by most Christian Churches (a theological, not a scientific definition), including some disputed Catholic Epistles (II Peter, II & III John and Jude), questioned even by Eusebius; the latter Epistle is especially problematic because it explicitly quotes some apocryphal Books (especially Enoch).

 

Now, the Codex is not exempt of problems for the current Canon, because aside from some editing, it includes two additional books almost universally considered today as Apocryphal; the Epistle of Barnabbas and the Shepherd of Hermas; it seems both were best-sellers at the IV century.

Therefore, the Codex Sinaiticus NT would actually be a "Canon-plus" version, and the Codex Vaticanus would then be the oldest extant strictly canonical version by current standards.

 

The Old Testament version of the Codex Sinaiticus is an almost complete copy of the Septuagint, including then also some non-canonical books ( Tobit, Judith, 2 Esdras, 1 and 4 Maccabees, Wisdom and Ecclesiasticus). Not included in the Tanakh (the original [Jewish] bible) such books are considered "Deuterocanonical" and their level of canonicity depends mainly on who you ask; for example, the Roman Catholic Church accepts all of them, except 4 Maccabees.

Edited September 4, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

So in fact you have agreed that irrespective of whether or not all of it is currently accepted as 'orthodox' teaching the 'Codex Siniaticus' is the oldest written example of the New Testement text ?

Edited September 4, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

So in fact you have agreed that irrespective of whether or not all of it is currently accepted as 'orthodox' teaching the 'Codex Siniaticus' is the oldest written example of the New Testement text ?

I suppose you're going to hate me for decomposing your question .

 

Naturally, your original statement was entirely right and I haven't checked the first post of FV then; I have only read the name of the thread.

 

By definition, we cannot talk about the New Testament without some care for their canonicity (ie, their acceptance status) because it's exactly such canonicity which determines which book is and which book isn't New Testament; non-canonical books are by definition apocryphal and therefore, not NT.

 

The Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest example of an almost complete Christian Bible (NT + OT), acknowledging its "canon-plus" status; otherwise, priority would go to the Codex Vaticanus (strictly canonical).

 

Regarding exclusively the NT text (ie, canonical or proto-canonical Christian books) there are several older manuscripts (essentially papyri) which predate the Codex Sinaiticus by many years; some of them may have come from as early as the late II century.

Edited September 4, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

<SNIP>

I suppose you're going to hate me for decomposing your question .

 

<SNIP>

 

Not at all, I am glad that you now realise that your original interpretation of what was being said was incorrect.

 

While I understand that you may have theological views on what or what is not a constituent part of the New Testament historically several different books have been included or excluded from different Chrisitian sects versions of the Bible - sometimes even splitting the earlier Old Testament books into more than one book or at other times merging books together. In fact even today there is a degree of disagreement in the order in which the books should be read and a few additional books included by at least one 'Christian' sect in their version of the bible - and I don't mean the 'M' group

 

On that basis there is little point in spirallling off into what is or isn't canonical because as you have now agreed the 'Codex Sinatiacus' is currently the oldest and most complete version of what historically has been included in the Christian Bible - not just the New Testament. The papyri versions you mentioned tend to be even more incomplete. For historians, if not theologians, the latest discovery of additional leaves from the codex bound into the spines of other library books potentially will make the Codex's 'virtual' recreation even more 'complete'.

 

I am sure that you will agree that from a historical standpoint that can only be a good thing.

Edited September 4, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

<SNIP>

I suppose you're going to hate me for decomposing your question .

 

<SNIP>

 

Not at all, I am glad that you now realise that your original interpretation of what was being said was incorrect.

 

While I understand that you may have theological views on what or what is not a constituent part of the New Testament historically several different books have been included or excluded from different Chrisitian sects versions of the Bible - sometimes even splitting the earlier Old Testament books into more than one book or at other times merging books together. In fact even today there is a degree of disagreement in the order in which the books should be read and a few additional books included by at least one 'Christian' sect in their version of the bible - and I don't mean the 'M' group

 

On that basis there is little point in spirallling off into what is or isn't canonical because as you have now agreed the 'Codex Sinatiacus' is currently the oldest and most complete version of what historically has been included in the Christian Bible - not just the New Testament. The papyri versions you mentioned tend to be even more incomplete. For historians, if not theologians, the latest discovery of additional leaves from the codex bound into the spines of other library books potentially will make the Codex's 'virtual' recreation even more 'complete'.

 

I am sure that you will agree that from a historical standpoint that can only be a good thing.

Indeed, but you will also agree that its relevance is far more theological than historical .

(That may be the reason why this article was written by J Taylor, the "Religious Affairs Correspondent" of The Independent).

 

Just for the record:

- the theological views depicted here are not "mine"; when I am here and for all purposes, I'm an absolute passive agnostic.

- the definition of what the Bible and the New Testament are is entirely theological.

- My "interpretations", as far as I can say, are still the same.

- As far as I'm aware of, my only mistake so far was not checking carefully on the explanation of FV in the first post of this thread (ie, the "Christian bible" line) .

 

Now, let see if we may agree on why and for whom is this finding such a big thing:

 

In Mr. Taylor own words: "it often raises questions about the evolution of the Bible and how close what we read today is to the original words of Christ and his early followers".

Estimations on the number of versions of the Bible vary; for the English language alone, they are regularly in the order of 450-500 or more.

Obviously, each and any of such versions is the only and whole truth for at least some group(s) of Christians; so imagine the potential religious and economic value of the "scientifically" validated original version of the Bible.

Mr. Taylor reported here the study of a parchment fragment that may (or may not) be a tiny fraction of the Codex; however, in the monastery's librarian opinion, "even if there is a one-in-a-million possibility that it could be a Sinaiticus fragment", it's worth the research (and this article, BTW).

IF the fragment is indeed from the Codex, reportedly it may contain "the beginning of Joshua, Chapter 1, Verse 10".

Now, the Codex Sinaiticus is already essentially complete; in fact, that's the main reason why it is so valuable for Christianity, as you rightly pointed.

We already know the Codex OT section is based on the Septuagint, and the Septuagint version of Joshua has been well known for a long time; obviously, translations vary, but a reasonable transcription of Jos 1:10 would be something like:

 

"So Joshua ordered the officers of the people:".

 

Of course, religious wars have begun for disagreements in just a couple of characters; but as you can see, its unlikely that this fragment would eventually have too much extra-religious impact.

Edited September 5, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

[<Snip>

Now, the Codex Sinaiticus is already essentially complete; in fact, that's the main reason why it is so valuable for Christianity, as you rightly pointed.

We already know the Codex OT section is based on the Septuagint, and the Septuagint version of Joshua has been well known for a long time; obviously, translations vary, but a reasonable transcription of Jos 1:10 would be something like:

 

"So Joshua ordered the officers of the people:".

 

Of course, religious wars have begun for disagreements in just a couple of characters; but as you can see, its unlikely that this fragment would eventually have too much extra-religious impact.

 

I definately agree that religious wars have been started through differences in interpretation/ translation however the main point I was making is that the discvovery of the fragment raises the question of how many other fragments may have survived in similar circumstances. Until (if or when) the other books rebound by the same team can be investigated it is open to question how much other material remains to be discovered which was similarly used and the question of 'completeness also remains open no matter how complete the Codex currently appears. That is the beauty of archaeological and historical investigation there is always something unexplained / unexpected which mauy be discovered.

 

If one was being entirely unbiased in that investigation you also have to consider that the very name bible comes from the word biblos or library so there is always the possioblity of another 'book' having originally been included in the Codex .

 

Melvadius

[sylla]

I definately agree that religious wars have been started through differences in interpretation/ translation however the main point I was making is that the discvovery of the fragment raises the question of how many other fragments may have survived in similar circumstances. Until (if or when) the other books rebound by the same team can be investigated it is open to question how much other material remains to be discovered which was similarly used and the question of 'completeness also remains open no matter how complete the Codex currently appears. That is the beauty of archaeological and historical investigation there is always something unexplained / unexpected which mauy be discovered.

 

If one was being entirely unbiased in that investigation you also have to consider that the very name bible comes from the word biblos or library so there is always the possioblity of another 'book' having originally been included in the Codex .

My point is simply that the non-religious (in fact, non-Christian) relevance of this finding is questionable at best.

 

Check your sources; we positively know that what is lacking from Codex Sinaiticus New Testament are not entire books, but just passages, lines or even isolated words; as you stated, that's the main reason why CS is so relevant, at least for Christianity.

 

In fact, the list of the missing material is currently reasonably well-known; that's why Jos 1:10 was identified a potential candidate for a CS fragment.

 

Recovering all those fragment will essentially just make this Codex a better Christian relic.

[Melvadius]

My point is simply that the non-religious (in fact, non-Christian) relevance of this finding is questionable at best.

 

Thereby hangs the difference in our viewpoints I see the discovery of any new archaeologically or historically related material as perscriptive for wider research and/ot interest rather than proscrtiptive as only being of interest to a limited interest group whether a religious one or not.

 

[Endit]

Edited September 5, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

My point is simply that the non-religious (in fact, non-Christian) relevance of this finding is questionable at best.

 

Thereby hangs the difference in our viewpoints I see the discovery of any new archaeologically or historically related material as perscriptive for wider research and/ot interest rather than proscrtiptive as only being of interest to a limited interest group whether a religious one or not.

 

[Endit]

Yup, we fundamentally disagree; I firmly believe that the historical and cultural relevance of archaeological findings can and should be graded and distinguished from purely theological concerns .

 

I understand that you have been intermitently working in the Marcham/ Frilford Romano-British Temple complex for almost a decade; with all due respect, it's clear that the risk of acquiring relevant historical or cultural information is far greater for the work of your team than for the high-budget biblical paleography that may with some luck eventually determine which of the 500+ ways of reading Joshua 1:10 is closer to the oldest one (ie, the "original") .

Edited September 5, 2009 by sylla

[Melvadius]

Yup, we fundamentally disagree; I firmly believe that the historical and cultural relevance of archaeological findings can and should be graded and distinguished from purely theological concerns .

 

I understand that you have been intermitently working in the Marcham/ Frilford Romano-British Temple complex for almost a decade; with all due respect, it's clear that the risk of acquiring relevant historical or cultural information is far greater for the work of your team than for the high-budget biblical paleography that may with some luck eventually determine which of the 500+ ways of reading Joshua 1:10 is closer to the oldest one (ie, the "original") .

 

You obviouisly misunderstand how risks are seen in the archaeological world in which the main 'concerns', rather than 'risks' in the British climate, are that the site will be rained off and we will be unable to complete what we wish to in the time remaining to us or we won't have funding in place to conserve all that we wish to keep for research which has come out of the ground.

 

Risk is a term usually reserved for health and safety assessments of have we gone too deep and need to consider shoring up the sides of the trench and/or should we be using fluoresent jackets and hard hats because of nearby heavy machinery.

 

Risk to academic reputation is an occupational hazard and generally only lasts as long as the newest theory is current - there is always the chance that a new discovery will make clearer exisiting (or more likely raise new) questions that need to be asked about a site.

 

Archeologists are fundamentally aware that there never is 'one true' answer and that is the difference from the theological stance you apear to have been arguing huntil now where there is more commonly an unceasing desire to present one 'truth' which historically may never have existed.

 

For several thousand years Jewish scholars have been arguiing in their commentaries on the bible which is the correct reading of every single word and passage their dawning horror has been the discovery that many of the older commentaries refer to passages whcih now appear different from the modern versions. Basically despite precise copying of text being a fiundamental requirement of their faith the 'meaning' of or even the text itself appearing to have changed.

 

On the above basis I am afraid Christian scholars are on an equal hiding to nothing BUT can understand the theological imperative that 'demands' their continuing attempts.

 

 

Melvadisu

Edited September 6, 2009 by Melvadius

[sylla]

You obviouisly misunderstand how risks are seen in the archaeological world in which the main 'concerns', rather than 'risks' in the British climate, are that the site will be rained off and we will be unable to complete what we wish to in the time remaining to us or we won't have funding in place to conserve all that we wish to keep for research which has come out of the ground.

Risk is a term usually reserved for health and safety assessments of have we gone too deep and need to consider shoring up the sides of the trench and/or should we be using fluoresent jackets and hard hats because of nearby heavy machinery.

Risk to academic reputation is an occupational hazard and generally only lasts as long as the newest theory is current - there is always the chance that a new discovery will make clearer exisiting (or more likely raise new) questions that need to be asked about a site.

Nope, please don't fear, I perfectly get the concept.

When I used the word "risk" in my last post, that was irony.

However, if you check on your statistical methodology source, you wll verify that this is actually an academic valid use for the term "risk"; for example, "good" (HDL) cholesterol is currently considered a negative risk factor for coronary heart disease; See?

Archeologists are fundamentally aware that there never is 'one true' answer and that is the difference from the theological stance you apear to have been arguing huntil now where there is more commonly an unceasing desire to present one 'truth' which historically may never have existed.

As Santa Esmeralda used to say, Don't let me be misunderstood.

Previously in this same thread, I described myself as a "passive agnostic"; in plain English, that means I can care less if any deity has ever existed or not.

For several thousand years Jewish scholars have been arguiing in their commentaries on the bible which is the correct reading of every single word and passage their dawning horror has been the discovery that many of the older commentaries refer to passages whcih now appear different from the modern versions. Basically despite precise copying of text being a fiundamental requirement of their faith the 'meaning' of or even the text itself appearing to have changed.

As a passive agnostic with reading powers, I must agree with the Jewish view; after all, by definition, the Bible (not "a Bible") was and is their sacred book.

As an archaeologist, you must be aware that no copyst from any religion (or non-religious group) has ever been able to perfectly copy any sacred text (at least previous to Xerox); after all, they were not God.

On the above basis I am afraid Christian scholars are on an equal hiding to nothing BUT can understand the theological imperative that 'demands' their continuing attempts.

Melvadisu

All the above basis already said, I'm afraid my original point was just that we can and should differentiate such "theological imperative" that so intensely 'demands' their "continuing attempts" (as it was so eloquently expressed by the Monastery's librarian in the original article from this whole thread) from the simple historical and cultural relevance. Edited September 6, 2009 by sylla