Loading...In my previous post I talked about Constantin von Tischendorf and his discovery of the Codex Sinaiticus in St. Catherine’s Monastery on the Sinai peninsula in 1844 and then 1859. I have a personal anecdote to relate about the manuscript, one of the most interesting things ever to happen to me on my various travels hither and yon.
To make sense of the anecdote I need to provide some background information. As I indicated in my previous post, when Tischendorf discovered the codex Sinaiticus (as it was later called), he considered it to be the most ancient biblical manuscript then known to exist. He was right. It was.
Tischendorf claimed that the manuscript was gifted to him by the head of the monastery. The monastery later claimed, and still claims to this day, that he stole it from them.
The manuscript consists of both the Old Testament and the New Testament (all in Greek). It is generally dated today to the middle of the fourth Christian century. Since Tischendorf’s day, many much older manuscripts have been discovered, but none of these is anywhere near as complete as this one, which includes the entire New Testament along with two other books that its scribe appears to have considered to be Scripture as well, the Letter of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas (incompletely preserved – it’s a very long book), both of which are now normally cited among the Apostolic Fathers.
The Old Testament was not complete in the codex Sinaiticus. A number of its pages were missing when Tischendorf came away with the manuscript.
In the late 1970s there was a fire at the monastery, and when they
Get access to Dr. Ehrman's library of 4,000+ articles plus five new articles per week about the New Testament and early Christianity. It costs as little as $2.99/mth and every cent goes to charity!
Unlock 4,000+ Articles Like This!
I remember your telling me this story on our Flavors of Northern Italy tour. Looking forward to hearing the cool conclusion again.
Ha! Hope you’re doing well.
Regarding Bogus Arguments for Disbelief: I don’t see how Fundamentalists can say you’re not a Christian if you don’t believe the Bible is inerrant. But do you think a major reason they say that is because they don’t think you can be “certain” Christianity is true if it’s not based (entirely?) on divine revelation? Don’t they believe the Bible is the only record of divine revelation? Isn’t it logical to say that if there is even one clear-cut flaw in the Bible that fact falsifies the proposition that the Bible is divine revelation – or at least nothing but that? And doesn’t that cast doubt on the rest of the Bible as divine revelation? Are they saying you can’t be be sure which parts if any of the Bible are divinely revealed and therefore can’t be sure the parts about Christianity are true? It seems to me that’s logical if you require certainty and start by assuming the Bible is inerrant based solely on faith without any reasons at all — except maybe one’s subjective inspiration by the Holy Spirit (which may itself be referred to in the Bible). The basic flaw is relying so much on faith.
What was significant about the pages separated from the codex? Or do I need to tune in tomorrow to find out? I’m intrigued.
Just the other day I was watching one of those TV adventurers visit that site and see, with astonishment, “that” bush! Of course, it plays better to the audience if you don’t ask any tough questions about it but just go with it. I still think the burning bush episode was legendary, possibly based on the drug experiences of ancient people (see my Platinum post of 1/27/23 about this, excuse this self-promotion!).