FYI – “Oldest Bible” DOES include resurrection

FYI – “Oldest Bible” DOES include resurrection September 20, 2009

I was recently asked “How are Christians dealing with the resurrection not appearing in the Bible recently published online as the worlds oldest bible?”
I thought you might be interested in my answer:

I take it you are talking about the “codex sinaiticus” The resurrection does appear in all four gospels… However there is a part of mark that is “missing” this really isn’t news. Most modern bibles note that some manuscripts don’t include the end. The codex itself is something scholars have had access to for some time, although it was split up. It’s not actually that old compared to many of the other manuscripts (4th century vs 1st Century). The media has reported poorly on this. I am excited to have it online though. It is a VERY important manuscript.

However it is not oldest manuscript

Also it does not leave out the resurrection anywhere but does “omit” appearances of Jesus to many people FOLLOWING the resurrection at the end of MARK (one of four gospels)

The way Christians deal with that is pretty simple.
1) We either believe that particular section is not “inspired”
2) We believe it was an Oral tradition similar to the “women caught in adultery” passage that was added by a scribe, but validated in the process of Canonization (my personal take)
3) We don’t care… or some other perspective

The main thing to remember is that none of the variations in the Scripture change the message and story of Jesus in such a way that the Christian faith would be very different.

FYI the “codex sinaiticus” also includes the Epistle of Barnabas, and portions of The Shepherd of Hermas. If these books were included the faith would be quite different… but they’re not and that’s the subject for another day.

I think the reader’s question highlights one of the main ways the media looks for ratings. Instead of informing the population about this incredible text that is now available to everyone, the media makes up some nonsense about the resurrection not being included. It makes me angry.

Just in case you were wondering

Here is a English translation on the end of Mark from the Codex Sinaiticus…. As you can see the resurrection is there

16:1 And when the sabbath had passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint him. 2 And very early on the first of the week they came to the sepulcher, the sun having risen. 3 And they said among themselves: Who shall roll away for us the stone from the door of the sepulcher? 4 And looking up they see that the stone had been rolled away; for it was very great. 5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him. 7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you. 8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.

"I think it is abolute ignorance on the the part of the converts as to ..."

Controversial Celebrity Religious Conversions: Who Switched ..."
"More on the topic:"Conversion to Catholicism shouldn't be a right-wing power play", by Rebecca Bratten ..."

Controversial Celebrity Religious Conversions: Who Switched ..."

Browse Our Archives