Codex Sinaiticus: World's Oldest Bible Now Online

1. edc2
   July 7th, 2009 at 4:03 am

   cool.
   this would make for a good read.

2. GQ
   July 7th, 2009 at 5:13 am

   Further proof that those who take the Bible literally are idiots. Surely if it was literally true then THIS version should be adhered to as it was written closer to the time of Christ than the modern version?

3. ted
   July 7th, 2009 at 6:19 am

   That's a pretty unscientific conclusion, GQ.

4. Frink
   July 7th, 2009 at 7:58 am

   Further proof that it is possible to be a trigger happy anti-religious idiot :¬)

   [Plenty of evidence elsewhere regarding religious idiots.]

   This is the earliest complete compendium of the books that make up what might be called a Bible (modulo the differences noted in the original article). There are much earlier texts available for the constituent books. Those other earlier texts as well as the texts making up this codex are used by Biblical scholars to work towards the original text.

5. Rich
   July 7th, 2009 at 8:51 am

   it's all greek to me...

6. Robert Macias
   July 7th, 2009 at 8:57 am

   The current translations, in their many forms, are called the "word of God". They are a guide to the "living Word" which is Jesus Christ. Whether you believe in scripture literally or not, it still accomplishes the same goal. It points us to the nature and purpose of God.

7. Kat2
   July 7th, 2009 at 9:36 am

   GQ has a point. The bible has 'changed' so much over the centuries that its hard to imagine how some people think its the word of god... please. Read the old testament and all of the contradictions in there then tell me an all-knowing being wrote that!

8. Dan6
   July 7th, 2009 at 9:53 am

   There are a lot of reasons for the world to doubt the consistency of the Word of God. There is no scientific proof, of course, for us to "see" that Christ was bodily resurrected, when in fact, the proof that early Christians went to their death to defend the resurrection could be given proof enough. No human being would die for a cleverly-crafted tale or legend that they "made up." And, let's point at that they offered themselves as sacrifices, not taking anyone with them. Christ is seen as 'eternal', and what can be seen is 'temporal,' therefore illustrating God's message that 'the righteous will live by faith.' Robert Macias is correct. The entire story of God's plan of redemption is illustrated from Genesis to Revelation, with its focal point being the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. In John's Gospel, in all translations, he writes, "The word was made flesh, and dwelt among us." From Genesis to Revelation, each word, in a sense, is divinely inspired by the Holy Spirit to prepare for Jesus Christ (Old Testament) and to introduce the world to its only true salvation, Jesus Christ (New Testament). In Him and through Him God has reconciled all things to Himself, and it will all culminate with the Second Coming of Jesus Christ.

   To illustrate this point, I do not have a college degree. I am a Quality Assurance engineer. Before Christ, I would've said that the resurrection was a silly thing. But after being baptised by the Holy Spirit, God confirmed the truth in me through His word and by His Spirit. Whether written 1600 years ago and leaving out some accounts, the world will still look for the 'temporal' when what it needs is the 'eternal.'

   I'm thankful to have a God that is faithful.

9. dutchboy
   July 7th, 2009 at 10:02 am

   Whether you like it or not, the bible contains some of the oldest documentation of human history. Some people do not find that stimulating or interesting, and thats fine, not very scientific though.

10. gesikah
    July 7th, 2009 at 10:32 am

    the proof that early Christians went to their death to defend the resurrection could be given proof enough

    Christian or not, that's poor logic.

    Firstly, people die for crap reasons all the time. Lung cancer, cirrhosis, suicide; none of those should be regarded as proof of the divinity of cigarettes, alcohol, or mental illness. People also give their lives in support of assholes and phonies all the time, Hitler, Kim Jong-Il, Jonestown Massacre. Never underestimate the power of mass hysteria.

    Now that being said, secondly, one doesn't have to believe that someone is divine in order to believe they are right. It sounds perfectly plausible to me that someone could have never heard of the virgin birth, the Resurrection, or even that Jesus was anything more than *A* child of God and still feel that the words he preached and principles he stood for, together with the belief in the right to worship freely, were worth dying for.

11. Petite Poi
    July 7th, 2009 at 10:33 am

    It's a fake.

12. Juan Jose Forero
    July 7th, 2009 at 10:34 am

    It's something great to know.JJF

13. teb
    July 7th, 2009 at 10:58 am

    it would seem that if the passage of Jesus's resurrection is missing, that it didn't happen and was edited in later for the church's purpose.

    maybe Jesus is not the son of God after all and the Jewish people are closer to the truth.

    p.s. i'm unitarian universalist, not jewish

14. Gauldar
    July 7th, 2009 at 11:03 am

    I dislike the RCC's addition of the resurrection to make the religion more marketable, and original sin used as a population control. It's quite shallow, and I don't see how a story of a guy dying for what he believes in just isn't good enough.

15. teb
    July 7th, 2009 at 11:14 am

    FRINK - what are the earlier texts?

    thanks

16. zav
    July 7th, 2009 at 11:33 am

    Rich, scriptum continuo. (Sorry if that's not spelled properly). Good luck reading it. All caps, no spacing AND it doesn't even mention Jesus rising from the dead. I want my money back.

17. zav
    July 7th, 2009 at 11:35 am

    Teb - also, the Ascension of Mary was added later as well because church leaders felt it MUST have happened. It's not historical record, and by that, I mean, it's made up.

18. zav
    July 7th, 2009 at 11:40 am

    Dan6 - I'm thankful that I don't believe in a god and realize that the only way I can guarantee that anything constructive happens is if I do it myself. No one is looking after me but me. Once I have my own back, it's time to improve the world by my own doing. And guess what? It's not because a god wants me to, it's because I want to. And that, that is a very powerful feeling. Help create businesses, drive innovations, enrich the lives of others, and create positive influences where there were none. That's the reality I have because I do not believe in a god. Think about it as a "church of self determination". You can pray to do something or you can work towards it and do it yourself. I'd rather accomplish things on my own than hope an unseeable creature might do them for me.

19. Ashley
    July 7th, 2009 at 12:18 pm

    That text/website would be way cooler and more useful to the average person if it were translated.

20. mmm
    July 7th, 2009 at 12:22 pm

    Good grief! There are so many errors in the comments, above, that I don't have time to refute them all -- or even to copy them here. Lord, the ignorance -- and worse, the bigotry -- of some people nowadays is phenomenal! I have time only to point out a very big blunder found in the quoted text of the original post, which states this: "... includes and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament." Incorrect! Those "seven books" are recognized as divinely inspired and thus are present in the Old Testament editions used by more than 1/2 of the world's Christians today. Moreover, they were in ALL Bibles (including the Gutenberg and first edition of King James) that were used by 100% of the world's Christians prior to 1500.

21. MD
    July 7th, 2009 at 2:11 pm

    This just goes to show you that man will alter history to suit his needs. I have not read this version of the bible, but by all accounts if this was an accurate reflection of Christianity at the time the really anything added or deleted from it was just for the sake of keeping it up to date with the times.

    Take it for what it is, the perception of Christianity 1600 years ago and probably more historically accurate than the bibles written today.

22. Alex
    July 7th, 2009 at 2:44 pm

    It's always been amazing to me that some people (from both sides of the religion/atheism argument) insist on "proofs."

    If it can be proven, it's no longer faith. Actually, faith is all about the absence of proof. It's how humans believe - not because it can be proven, but exactly because it cannot be proven.

23. tina
    July 7th, 2009 at 3:35 pm

    well i think any old book is cool and worth the study even if to learn about our past but religion? nah...its just too crazy

24. ted
    July 7th, 2009 at 9:16 pm

    The Bible was assembled somewhere in the 3rd or 4th century AD from different sacred writings. At that time, there were several other writings, such as the "Judas scriptures" and the Apocrypha, which were removed from, or not included in, the "official" version of the Bible, not all at the same time.

    Today, scholars try to discover and translate the true meaning of the words of the Bible. They bring out new versions as the English language changes, and as our knowledge progresses. They study this version and compare it with other versions of the Bible in the hopes of determining which words are original and which may have changed.

    The comment about the website not being useful because there are no translations, is ironic. We have copies of the Bible everywhere. You want a translation? Google it. The work involved in translating the Bible and its related sacred works is massive.

    Christians from the 1st century onward did believe in the resurrection of Jesus and had faith in his return.

25. LisaL
    July 7th, 2009 at 11:23 pm

    Amazing to me how a discussion about religion (and politics for that matter) always, ALWAYS ends up with both sides flinging insults at eachother.

26. sockmonkey
    July 7th, 2009 at 11:32 pm

    I have never understood how an apparently intelligent person could, in the guise of a Christian, say with their hand on their heart that the Bible is "The Word of God" It is manifoldly obvious that various human beings wrote it, not God. So if this is true then the basic foundation of Christianity is a misrepresentation. Maybe the good Christians should say "The Bible is the word of men who are pretending to be God"

27. VG
    July 8th, 2009 at 7:06 am

    Learn koine Greek, read the manuscript, then come back with a critique. Don't rely solely on opinions, particularly those that are 2nd, 3rd, etc derivatives. Also, cross-check the codex sinaiticus with earlier and later manuscripts.

28. Clive
    July 8th, 2009 at 10:26 pm

    Historical revisionism's still alive! - Gauldar, this codex is pre-RCC. Bishops were the highest church leaders till 600. The idea of papal primacy was seeded by the bishop of Alexandria in 250, mused about by Gregory in 595, and history indicates that Boniface III first to appropriate the term "universal bishop" in 607. I find it awesome to see various antiquity holders are getting up-to-snuff with technology so the rest of us can see the "real-deal" close-up. Those that think RCC dogma, control and textual intervention was in motion in the fist four centuries, are misinformed. Sadly, they end-up over-emphasizing the baseless theories of early papal succession by expressing hatred for any thing that calls itself a church. For those that talk about "versions" - PLS understand that Biblical Greek is no longer spoken, so any translation will still be a "version" touted by some funded (or possibly biased) group of translators. The onus is on the reader to find out.. Anyway, if you've ever used a 4-way parallel Bible, you'd see that the "version" argument is more like a straw-man.

29. mikos
    July 8th, 2009 at 10:55 pm

    Hmm... It always amazed me how stupid most people are to think in our day and age that a book can be "the word of god". Just goes to show you how little we have changed from the time when we were sitting on a trees, eating bananas.

30. boneman
    July 9th, 2009 at 9:45 am

    I dunno...Dan6 said :"No human being would die for a cleverly-crafted tale or legend that they “made up.”" but, dang. Bush junior made up his little story about Iraq and some 4200 lives later....

    No, not only is this an interesting find, no doubt it will fly in the face of that which we call the bible because Jewish, Christian, and Muslim scholars have been changing their bibles as time progresses.

31. DG. Brainworks
    July 9th, 2009 at 10:40 am

    If this presumed story of Jesus being a savior and "the son of god" bears any validity, isn't it kind of selfish and tasteless that only the peoples of the last 1,600 years got the "message. And of those peoples, how many even heard this "miraculous " story of this alleged savior. How egotistical of you or anyone that think they have the answers. And where did thid "God" come from ? Wrap your mind around that !

32. MJR
    July 9th, 2009 at 11:41 am

    "And some familiar — very important — passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said."
    Richard Allen Greene of CNN

    I found the above comment very interesting and misleading. After a brief 20 minute search of the Codex Siniaticus and comparison with the modern day NIV version of the Bible, through a few passages relating to the resurrection of Jesus, I found surprising continuity. I will continue my search to find those that may be "missing" and seek answers as to why that may be.

    I would encourage all of those interested in this subject to study and compare. Simply reading Mr. Greene's comment and then walking away with a shrug of the shoulders believing that the resurrection of Jesus is false would be a mistake.

    Each of us must ask ourselves if we are seeking truth or simply justification of our own chosen lifestyle.

    "Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8 NIV Bible

    “Ask, and it shall be given you: seek, and you shall find: knock, and it shall be opened to you. For every one that asks receives; and he that seeks finds; and to him that knocks it shall be opened.” Matthew 7:7-8 Codex Siniaticus Bible

33. curt
    July 9th, 2009 at 2:47 pm

    One of the first comments above mentioned that since this was written 'closer to the time of Christ than the modern version', we Christians should give up our faith in the resurrection. Not sure why this would make sense. I'm not even sure what he means by "Modern Version". If he means that the english language translations are newer than this manuscript, that's true, but i can's see what possible difference that makes. They were taken from manuscripts that I believe were older than this one. Either way, refutations to the resurrection began the morning after Jesus arose. The Bible tells us that there was a denial of his resurrection immediately by the Jewish leaders who opposed him. The Jewish people that followed him believed that he had risen. Difference of opinion the day after it happened. Finding a document that was written over 100 years later that leaves out these key references proves only that there were still unbelievers around 100 years later.......just like today. Doesn't prove a thing, and shouldn't shake anyone's confidence that Peter, James, John and many, many others saw the resurrected Christ!

34. Gauldar
    July 9th, 2009 at 10:21 pm

    Heck if I care, you can belive in whatever god you want be it Zeus, Thor, or Chthuhlu. Many people say they saw Bigfoot and have video proof. You have to wonder though, are they misleading people because they think the believers are gullable enough to buy into it, or is it because they are believers and would fabricate the truth in order to attempt to gain validity? Meh, just a random thought.

35. voenhenry
    July 12th, 2009 at 5:09 am

    Thank you MJR.

    People would deny what their eyes could see never mind what is required by faith. What is more loving than asking you to love thy neighbour and do good to all men. If people need proof of a Creator they should look around them and if they cannot find the proof they seek around them then no matter what is put before them they will never believe. Remember, "he who refuses to be convinced is of the same opinion still".

    The difference between christianity and other religions is the resurrection of Jesus and Him being the Son of God. I believe in God and believe that Jesus is the Christ. Put one million 'contradictory' Bibles before me and it would not change that. Call me stupid or blind if you will. Believing in and/or praying to a God does not preclude me from doing nothing to better my life or those of others. I do not sit down and wait for my creator to do things for me. My faith encourages me to work and provide for those I am responsible for.

    The key is your relationship with your God. It doesn't matter what transcribers, pastors, bishops, imams, jews, etc., delete or insert in the various versions. The facts is that the main message of Christ and the path he opened for us to reach God runs through each of the versions. Take that and run with it.

    May His Love and Grace birng us salvation.

36. jordan talaban
    July 14th, 2009 at 12:54 am

    ei...!!!

    1.)do you still have to jump off from the top of the empire state building to prove that gravity is there?

    2.)anyone (anything) that does not confess that Jesus Christ has risen is simply not from God...and not of God.

    3.)go ahead live your life the way you want it. You want to live without God? then go and spend it according to your pleasure. If you really don't want it then no one can force you to do it.
    You want to live under the God of the Bible? then live your life according to what He says in the Bible. just think to yourself that without this book, there would be no CONCRETE basis and meaning to what we call MORALITY in our society these days. M.O.R.A.L.I.T.Y.

    4.) after all, if man dies believing that there is a sovereign God when there's really no God, then he would lose nothing. But if man dies without believing that there is God or God is there, i would be so sorry for him that his body would just ROT under the ground and his soul cries out in hell because of great, unquenchable, eternal suffering while all others who live their lives believing in God would rise up with a glorified body from the grave or be caught up alive from the world and be joined to their Creator in heaven. that simple.

    5.)Oh...forgive them, Lord. They just don't know what they're doing.

37. CARINA
    July 17th, 2009 at 12:13 pm

    Me gustaria si lo pasaran al castellano dado que no tengo un fluido ingles. Desde ya muchas gracias.

38. child of God
    July 18th, 2009 at 11:23 pm

    responce to zav..what a wonderful attitude..you are a very capable of being a stewart of God..forgive us Lord for we think we know what we do...suppose there is no God? it`s still a good way to live...

39. shuayb
    September 3rd, 2009 at 4:41 pm

    the Quran has been saying over 1400 years that the bible has been altered, but christians laughed, ?????????????????????????

40. Doug Smith
    September 29th, 2009 at 9:39 am

    "Whether you like it or not, the bible contains some of the oldest documentation of human history. Some people do not find that stimulating or interesting, and thats fine, not very scientific though."

    Have you studied human history? Most historians like myself agree the Rig Veda is thus far the oldest documentation of human history. It is 8000 years old from 6500 BC. That is about 6400 years before the bible. Sorry to burst your bubble.

41. NATSARIM
    November 15th, 2009 at 7:41 am

    Both the New Testament and secular histories had their texts altered to create the impression that Christians / Christianity had a legitimate beginning. In Christian bible translations, Christian appears in three places; Acts 11:26, Acts 26:28, and 1 Peter 4:16. The oldest known Greek manuscript of the New Testament is the Sinaiticus, the second oldest is the Vaticanus. Neither of these texts contain the Greek term Christian. However, copies made after these replace the original Greek term XPHCTIAN (CHRESTIAN) with XPICTIAN (CHRISTIAN).

    The earliest extant Greek New Testament to explicitly contain the name Christian is the Codex Alexandrinus 450 c.e. This is just far too late for Christian to begin appearing in manuscripts if it were the original term given to followers of the Nazarene Messiah. The appearance of Christian in the Greek text is clearly an anachronism which has been paraded as supporting evidence for the Christian name and faith, both of which are counterfeit.

    In effect, "Christians" were later integrated - and are clearly identified as the Beast of Revelation. The True followers of Yahushua are the Natsarim. Discover the truth at: http://www.Natsarim.com.

42. bb
    November 17th, 2009 at 12:25 am

    Where is Jesus now, I thought he came back? Where is your god? Nobody has ever heard or seen him.

PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT