Codex Sinaiticus: The Facts vs. Hype

"Oldest known Bible goes online" the headline says.  The article raises some familiar questions about the reliability of the Bible, particularly the New Testament text, as we know it.

Discovered in a monastery in the Sinai desert in Egypt more than 160 years ago, the handwritten Codex Sinaiticus includes two books that are not part of the official New Testament and at least seven books that are not in the Old Testament.

The New Testament books are in a different order, and include numerous handwritten corrections -- some made as much as 800 years after the texts were written, according to scholars who worked on the project of putting the Bible online. The changes range from the alteration of a single letter to the insertion of whole sentences.

And some familiar -- very important -- passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus, they said.

Juan Garces, the British Library project curator, said it should be no surprise that the ancient text is not quite the same as the modern one, since the Bible has developed and changed over the years.

"The Bible as an inspirational text has a history," he told CNN.

The Codex Sinaiticus dates to the middle of the fourth century. It was discovered in a monastery at Mt. Sinai (thus the name) in the 19th century and other portions were discovered more recently.  It's not in one piece and portions are kept in four libraries around the world.  The largest portion is at the British Library, which is the text being put online. 

There are a couple of things in this article that are somewhat misleading.  First, this is a codex, not a Bible.  And the terms are not synonyms.  A codex is a collection or book of writings.  Codex Sinaiticus includes Old and New Testament books, and other writings that weren't considered "Bible" at the time of it's compilation.  So Codex Sinaiticus is not a Bible - it's a collection that includes Biblical writings along with other writings.

Second, Codex Sinaiticus has all 27 books of the New Testament that we have today and only two other writings that were understood at the time of the compilation to be disputed.  The inclusion of the Epistle of Barnabas and The Shepherd of Hermas doesn't mean this was a different version of the Bible used at the time.  F.F. Bruce points out in his book on the Biblical canon that writings other than those that were considered authoritative were used for additional readings by church bodies for the insight and benefit they offered, devotional-type readings.  Collections of what was read were made sometimes for convenience.  So simply because this volume includes Biblical books doesn't necessarily mean that the people who compiled the codex or collection considered everything in it "Bible" or on par with the authoritative writings it does include.

Third, there was much more agreement than disagreement about the books of the Bible that were to be considered "canon."  Juan Garces says in this article that "the Bible has developed and changed over the years."  There is some truth to this, but that statement is easily misleading because there really hasn't been that much change or development, and the little there was was resolved quite early on.  Though there was some debate in the first couple of centuries, there was primarily agreement on the books that were authoritative.  These were the writings that could be traced to an Apostle of Jesus, the people who had learned directly from Jesus (this includes Paul), or could be traced to eyewitnesses (Luke).  There was some minor disagreement about other books, but the New Testament books included today were agreed upon by the middle of the 4th century. 

Emperor Constantine asked Eusebius in AD 330 to prepare 50 copies of the New Testament, and the volumes he compiled were the 27 books of the New Testament we have today and the five catholic epistles, which he noted were still disputed.  By the time Codex Sinaiticus was compiled around the same time, the New Testament was upon with little more disagreement.  So the Bible didn't develop much after the first couple of centuries and was fairly well settled by the time of Codex Sinaiticus.

Fourth, Codex Sinaiticus has some passages that are different or missing.  This isn't surprising or problematic for the reliability of the text we have today.  Scribes copied these collections by hand and were known to make mistakes.  In fact, the text of this codex has markings of later corrections.  But the good news is that we don't have to rely on one copy of the New Testament to determine what the text was or check the accuracy of the text.  If we did, then were would be left to wonder about scribal mistakes.  Codex Sinaitucs is only the earliest known complete collection of the New Testament, it's by no means the earliest manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament text.  We have literally thousands of pieces of manuscripts of the New Testament and even more quotations of the the New Testament in the writings of the church fathers to compare and arrive at a very reliable text.  Greg describes the process here:  Is the New Testament Text Reliable?

So Codex Sinaiticus is a significant text, but it doesn't at all call into question the authority and reliability of the Bible.  It's not one copy that tells the story of the Bible, it's the multitude of copies and pieces that can be examined.  The canon of Scripture was agreed upon very early, prior to Codex Sinanticus.  And the manuscript evidence we have gives us great confidence in the accuracy of the text.

You may also want to read Greg's article No "Lost" Books of the Bible.

Comments

[ryan]

Nicely written Melinda. Thank you.

[Matt B.]

You say that the Codex is not a "Bible" but a collection of Books. When you state that what are you saying? The reason being is that I know that someone could come back and say that the Bible is also just a collection of books. I assume you are speaking about authority here, but I want to be sure.

[Ed "What the" Heckman]

Back when this article first came out, I had someone throw it at me as "proof" that the resurrection accounts were added later. Fortunately, the article also includes a link to the Codex Sinaiticus Project site. So I was able to go there and directly compare what's in the Codex Sinaiticus to what we have now.

The resurrection accounts are in Matthew 28, Mark 16:1-8, Luke 24, and John 20. The only portion missing from those passages in the CS was John 20:14:

Having said this, she turned around and saw Jesus standing there, though she did not know it was Jesus.
(John 20:14 HCSB)

As you can see, the inclusion or exclusion of this verse doesn't make any difference whatsoever to the actual gospel claims that there was a resurrection.

The site is actually quite cool. You can find it here:

http://www.codexsinaiticus.org/en/

That CNN article is actually a great example of false claims of evolution of the Bible's text which do not bear up under scrutiny. In fact, just including the link to the CS site essentially was the article's suicide pill.

[Rodrigo]

What are the 7 old testament books that are not in the Bible? If you're referring to what Protestants call the apocrypha, it's a big claim since more Christians in the world belong to a faith with them in than removed.

[Michael]

Rodrigo: I don't know if the number of Catholics in the world is greater than the number of Protestants. There is a chance you are correct about this. However, even if it were true, that would do nothing to prove that the apocrypha is actual scripture. If the truthfulness of a claim were only dependent upon how many people believed the claim, then before Copernicus became a scientist the earth really was the center of the universe.

[doug]

It seems to me that the supernatural option doesn't negate the possibility of "lost books". Who is to say that all of God's prophetical writings are in the Bible? Couldn't He have spoken to prophets whose writings haven't yet been included? If we found additional writings couldn't such findings be part of God's plan?

[Jason Bridges]

Rodrigo, yes, the 7 books are part of the apocrypha: 2 Esdras, Tobit, Judith, 1 Maccabees, 4 Maccabees, Wisdom of Solomon, and Sirach

[Rodrigo]

I agree Michael, that just because the majority of Christians are Catholics, and the Catholic Church didn't remove those 7, that the 7 don't necessarily belong there. My point was that was a big claim to be made.

What do you think of the synod of Hippo in 393AD, the three Synods of Carthage (393, 397, 419) and the Council of Rome in 382 AD all including those 7 books?

[Branden]

Doug, here's the problem I have; everything we have availible in the New Testiment must be sufficent for teaching in righteousness. If God had left stuff out until now what kind of salvation would that be?

"Dear people, I sent my son, I told those guys about it. They're all dead now. I know it's 500 years later but by the way, please do this too and don't do that other thing. Love, God"

"God, what about those other folks who didn't hear about that?"

God "oh, whoops."

I think the Bible was compiled right in time because the authority of the eyewitnesses was beomcing second and third generations removed.

Someone with more time could probably put this argument into clearer terms.

These are just my thoughts off the top of my head. Critique away!

[WisdomLover]

Branden-

Aren't the following propositions at least conceivable:

1. A controversy will arise in the 22nd century that has not been considered so far.

2. God will allow the book of III Corinthians to be discovered at that time.

3. The book of III Corinthians will resolve the controversy without conflicting with any prior teachings.

4. Parts of III Corinthians would be difficult to understand apart from the controversy it resolves.

God wouldn't come across as quite as much of a dunce in that case, would He?

Of course, I'm not arguing for the so-called lost books of the Bible, like the Gospel of Thomas. These books were lost because they were rejected by the Church for excellent reasons. Nor am I arguing for any post-apostolic revelation like the Book of Mormon. I'm just saying that the canon should remain open, at least in principle, to the future addition of newly discovered apostolic writings.

[Daniel K]

I must have stared at Codex Sinaiticus for an hour while I was at the British Library. I don't know Greek, but just being able to see such an ancient copy of the Scriptures was fascinating. The ink looks pretty faded, and it's written in all caps which seems unusual to me but I guess that was the style of the day.

[Bill Oliver]

Let me throw a real spanner into the works!

Jay P Green Sr (+John W Burgon) have written 4 scholarly books called "Unholy Hands on the Bible" I, II & III (last one not in print) + "The Gnostics, The New Versions and the Deity of Christ".

In a nutshell, the MAJORITY texts which have supernatural agreement go to make the Textus Receptus (Received Text). Only KJ, Geneva, & Jay P Green's Literal stick to the Textus Receptus + NKJV uses this Greek + makes notes about the next 3 I mention.

HOWEVER: Hort & Wescott gathered these 3 - Vaticanus, Sinaiticus & Alexandrius* (called Minority Texts) with 6,000 + variations to make their Greek NT. MOST of the modern translations use H&W.

*Alexandrius came from the 'spiritual descendents' of those that argued against the gospel in Acts 6:9. These had a Gnostic bent and opposed the Deity of Christ.

I note with interest that both Unitarians and Jehovah's Witnesses accept the 1901 ASV translated exclusively from H&W - and their doctrines of the 3 in 1 and Deity of Christ suffer accordingly.

Bill Oliver
Australian in Malaysia

[WisdomLover]

Bill-

I thought that the newer translations used the Nestle-Aland text type. Is that a descendant of H&W's work?

I'll note that if their goal was to diminish the Deity of Christ they didn't do very well. It still shines through brightly.

I tend to use the NASB, not for any considerations of its text type, but because of its reputation for being the closest translation short of a scholarly work like Green's.