The Codex Sinaiticus was discovered at a Greek monastery on Mount Sinai by a German Bible scholar in 1844, and subsequently stolen and divided up amongst the project's four constituent institutions. It was written sometime in the mid-4th century, and contains most of the Old Testament and a complete copy of the New. Along with the Codex Vaticanus, another copy of about the same age, it's considered the most important Biblical manuscript known to exist, a vital "witness" to the accuracy of the modern text.
Yet I can't help but notice a lot of empty space. Do the math. Better yet - I'll do it for you. Because of how its text is divided, the earliest the Sinaiticus could have been written is 325 A.D. Most estimates put the birth of Jesus at around 4 B.C., making his death, if the popular accounts of his life can be trusted, at around 30 A.D. That means that the oldest intact copy of the Christian Bible was produced almost 300 years after the events it claims to record. And that's under the best case scenario - the Sinaiticus could have been written as late as 360, adding another 35 years to the space between it and the actual life of Jesus.
Many believers assert that their Bible, particularly the synoptic gospels of the New Testament, is the literal word of God. Evangelicals tell us that faith in its teachings is the only way to escape eternal damnation after death. I've heard it described as God's love letter to humanity. Leaving aside that it's by far the most menacing and blood-soaked love letter I've ever read for the moment, it seems strange to me that God would treat his perfect and eternal revelation with such neglect for so many years. Even the most credulous Christian historians have admitted that the oldest portions of the Old Testament were not written until at least fifteen to twenty years after the crucifixion of Jesus, and none of those original texts are known to still exist. The gospels themselves, purported to contain the all-important literal words of God, weren't written until at least thirty years after the fact, and are apparently largely plagiarized from each other and from an earlier source that has been lost to history. The celebrated Gospel of John, which contains some of the most quoted verses of the entire Bible, as well as several drastic contradictions of the three synoptic gospels, came last of all, at least sixty years after Jesus, more than enough time for most of the eyewitnesses to his ministry to have died.
Let's assume there is a God and he is more or less as the adherents to Judaism and Christianity describe him. And let's assume further that he decided to pass on his eternal word, knowledge and acceptance of which being essential to escaping permanent torture in hell, to humanity in the form of a book. Finally, let's assume that the Bible as presented in the Codex Sinaiticus is that book. (This last one is a very necessary assumption, since there are almost as many versions of the Bible as there are ancient manuscripts. Nevermind the canon - the texts of the Old and New Testaments themselves weren't finalized by church authorities until many centuries after the supposed events they describe.) Why, assuming all of this to be true, would God allow the lineage of his book to become so muddied? Why would God not take steps to record the words and deeds of Jesus and his apostles immediately, and see to it those original manuscripts were preserved for future generations? Hell, why not have Jesus write it all down himself? Wouldn't that have been the best way to ensure his exact words were handed down after his death?
The last questions are the easiest to answer. Jesus didn't write it all down himself because, like most humans of his generation, he couldn't even write his own name, let alone an exact narrative of his life and ministry. He was illiterate. The gospels record him studying the scriptures, but if that's true he probably studied them the same way everyone else did outside of the priesthood, by hearing and reciting them orally. But look at me taking cheap shots at Jesus like an asshole. The illiteracy of the Lord and Savior of mankind isn't the point.
The Bible is solely the work of flawed, imperfect and sometimes careless human beings, not divinely inspired, and it's blindingly obvious to anyone who cares to look - that is the point. Most Christians don't hear about the history of their holy scriptures at church on Sunday. They are compelled to read their Bibles without ever being told where they came from or how they came to look like they do. The question never even occurs to most believers. As far as they're concerned the first five books of the Old Testament came from the very hand of Moses, and the Gospel of Matthew was written by a man named Matthew who was a disciple of Jesus, and his words have been passed down unchanged from then to now.
There's a reason for that. The divinity of the Bible can be disproved merely by reading it. Thomas Paine did it two hundred years ago and no one has refuted him yet. But knowing the whole history of the supposedly infallible word of God - seeing what a puzzle it is, with so many pieces missing - makes the case undeniable. Now to remind us here is the digitized Codex Sinaiticus, produced over three centuries after the fact, copied by multiple scribes from earlier texts, containing a canon that would be revised over a millennium later by a committee of men almost as backwards and ignorant as those who made it all up in the first place.
Published by Steve Shives
I'm not especially intelligent or eloquent, but I'm honest, independent, and prolific, so I'm bound to stumble across an insight now and then. View profile
- Interpreting the Bible: New Testament InterpretationUnderstanding the process of interpreting the New Testament
- Book Review: The New Testament and the People of God by N.T. WrightReview of N.T. Wright's "The New Testament and the People of God".
- Christianism: Incorporating the New Testament into JudaismChristianism is one of the three great monotheistic religions, together with judaism and islamism. Christianism combines traditions from the judaism, and enriches them with the proofs from the New Testament.
- Criteria for Assembling the New Testament Canon: Books of the BibleBooks in the New Testament canon passed three tests: apostolic authority, orthodox message, and widespread early church approval. Of course, God guided the whole process as well.
- The New Testament Position on Unity and DivisionA brief discussion regarding the issues of unity and division in the New Testament
- Ego, Death, Religion and Human Purpose
- The Evidence Bible by Ray Comfort
- The Ten Plagues of the Exodus; Nature or Miracle
- The Categories of the New Testament Books
- The Communities of the New Testament
- Understanding Covenant, Part IV: The New Testament Covenant
- Justice in the Old and New Testament





3 Comments
Post a CommentDavid, I never said the Old Testament didn't pre-date Jesus. The oldest OT texts I'm aware of date back to something like the sixth century BC. And there are the Dead Sea Scrolls, as you mentioned, which were probably written sometime in the second century BC. But even then, I can't help but notice that the supposed events of the Old Testament are still even more remote and shrouded in antiquity than the life of Jesus was to the authors of the New Testament. No matter how you try to slice it, the Bible -- both halves -- was written down long after the supposed events took place, and not by the original eyewitnesses. And my feelings about Christianity weren't issued to me at birth; my skepticism comes from the unsupportable claims and dark, blood-soaked history of the faith itself.
This is perhaps the greatest example of a hack piece I have ever read. The Old Testament most definitely predates Jesus. Ever here of the Dead Sea Scrolls? Codex Sinacticus is just one of many New Testament codexes/manuscripts. The Rylands Papyrus is dated to the early second century. The church fathers were quoting the New Testament as early as the late 1st century. Your anti-Christian bias is definitely shown in this piece.
Jesus was an oral tradition, recited from his elders before him and those that came after. When we get to the writing of the books, yes it is years after the events, and many oral stories later that could have been altered passing from one person to another, and the other factor is the understanding of the words that were written down by man, each man in a different culture and time far removed from the actual situation and each man translated earlier texts most of the time not in their native language. I am told that aramaic language still exists in the middle east but not the dialect that was spoken by Jesus. Then there is the translation again from the ancient greek and roman texts. The scholars have already established that english translations are flawed, for example we always thought that Jesus was crucified with nails driven into his hands, from the greek work, but we know know that the greek word that was translated to me hands was actually referring to wrists and that makes