Ok, so I needed a sexy title -- and "World's Oldest Bible" was it. But let me add some disclaimers. We have older manuscripts and collections of manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Chester Beatty Papyri are both examples of older bible manuscripts--but not compiled in a way that looks like our modern bible. What do you think? Does it matter that Codex Sinaiticus raises these issues? Let me know!! 👇👇👇
I viewed CS in October at the British Library in London. Tobit happens to be a favorite of mine along with Sirach. The benefit of seeing it in London is that it sits next to Alexandrinus and a few feet from the Great Bible and Tyndale’s NT. I think apologists should teach that the Bible is a community project with warts and all, so that people do not become shocked and catastrophic when they learn about critical theory. Good for you for this content. The Canticles are some of my favorite inclusion in the codices, which are a type of non-davidic psalms that appear in the Bible outside of the book of psalms, like the prayer of Manasseh or Zechariah song from the gospel. The Tyndale House Greek New Testament is a nice product representing a new translation based on codices rather than majority Byzantine papyri although my favorite Greek NT is the UBS and NA28. The NRSVue is a fantastic Bible translation although I love the DSS-heavy NABRE as well, particularly psalm 110 NABRE.
@ Wow, that's fantastic. And you're right. I think the history and tradition is so much more interesting when we don't just read it to learn what confirms us. All these beautiful works that I never considered before. I had an older version of NA and was distressed to realize one of their decisions was really not supported--but I should try 28
I’m finding your channel very helpful. This is perfect timing for me as I’m distancing myself from fundamentalist Christianity. I’m looking forward to more like this. Thank you!
Very cool video! What a priceless piece of history! The original ending of Mark would've been so much better if the author had said, "and they said nothing to no one... um, except me. The end."
Who recorded/retold the story of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness? It had to be Jesus or the devil, there were no other witnesses, and if it was Jesus, wasn't that a bit prideful/boastful? Or it was all made up...
We don't have the original manuscripts but we do perhaps have fragments of near original manuscripts. So called critical Greek texts attempt to compile the oldest "best" texts into a complete Greek edition, a constantly ongoing process thanks to computers and ability to transmit data over the internet. Lovers of the Reformation period "received text" resist this idea of compiling a New Testament from ancient fragments mistrust such a process, but new discoveries of more ancient texts do not confirm the idea of textual drift...something that should reassure lovers of such translations as the King James.
I think the fuss over the received text and the UBS text is a bit silly. There are few differences that any but dyed in the wool Fundamentalists would find a problem that it seems like a tempest in a teapot.
Very interesting - many thanks for your work on this video. St Augustine was well aware that some manuscripts missed the story of the forgiving of the adulteress and has a shocking but plausible explanation, namely that some scribes were embarrassed by the story and left it out.
Bizarrely, one US "christian"* told me that the British Library didn't exist. I've visited it when young and been past it many times, but maybe I'm the one in the wrong...? * There's really no such thing as a christian.
@@cjohnyrun I can't remember what the video was about (Evolution, I think, which, of course, this christian didn't believe in), but I suspect that the thread did include the Codex Sinaiticus.
The adulterer story and the ending of Mark ARE HUGE. Christians, like I was, were taught that these were god-inspired scriptures! Especially the adulterer story, so emotional to so many. When I learned this years ago, I was aghast.
Guy am sorry you left Christianity but if your reason for leaving was Mark' s ending and the Pericope of the Adultress, you left for the wrong reason Marks ending swell attested in the Fathers some of whom wrote over 100years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus citing the long end of Mk and even commenting on it. Besides even if the long ending was an addition It does not change any essential doctrine of the faith In the cade of the passage of the Adultress you have to understand that these and others were stories circulating at the time some of which were adopted and some where not In John 30.30-31 the apostle explains that not everything that Jesus did or taught could have been written down, but the things that were written were written so that we may belief. On other words he was saying the contexts of the NT were edited. So it's more than likely that some material was used by some copier and not by another. These however do not affect the essentials Al doctrines Although they may de-emphasize some.
It is interesting to see how Scripture developed over the centuries. Even today, we have, as you said, books that are included in the Catholic Bible that are not in the Protestant Bible. Then, too, there are books that are unique to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches. So the question remains: What books should be considered Scripture? We can be confident about certain books because they're recognized by every church tradition. Yet, the canon of Scripture remains somewhat open. Frankly, I like it that way.
Interesting information, I was aware of the original shorter ending to Mark, but not of the other points made. People often cling to whatever they already believe because of "tradition", but we should be ready to adjust our beliefs when new authoritative data becomes available. This ancient manuscript shows that the Bible wasn't just handed down in it's complete modern form, but that it evolved over time, books were edited, added to, deleted altogether, etc.
Pagans making fun of Mark 16:9-20 may have caused some to drop it. Macarius, Apocriticus III: 16: Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them." So the right thing would be for those selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things Jesus said. For if it is a peculiarity of the faith to overcome the evil of a poison and to remove the pain of a sick man, the believer who does not do these things either has not become a genuine |86 believer, or else, though his belief is genuine, the thing that he believes in is not potent but feeble. Bing search
It really broke my heart when I found out the story of Jesus saving the woman from being stoned wasn’t in the original manuscript. That was one of my favorites.
@cjohnyrun Even if it isn't in the original bible and only a story, the scenario still highlights the moralty of fairness and grace, in a situation where, it would be easy for many of us to cast judgment on someone without reflecting on our own behavior. Thank you for bringing things to light.
Just found your channel and am excited to follow as you grow! The proper spelling is "Sinaiticus"; you may want to change the title as it is currently misspelled. Other than that great content!
Luke and John contain statements regarding motive and method in their gospels. Luke begins with "In as much as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully....to write it out for you..." John, writing in a more approachable style writes in 20:30 that Jesus had done many things which were not recorded in his book, but those things he did write about were selected for a specific purpose: "that you might believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, you may have life in his name." Two authors, one interviewing people who were with Jesus, the other stating that he himself was with Jesus. Both stating they were selective in what they wrote down. Luke's Gospel continues on with a second book, the book of Acts which moves past Jesus' resurrection and ascension. John's record ends with a tantalizing statement "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." We who follow Jesus often say the book of Acts has no ending because it is still being written. The books about Jesus are still being written...
The funny thing about John is that it ends so conclusively in 20:31, and then someone came along later and seemingly added a whole new chapter with new resurrection sightings in Galilee.
@InquisitiveBible it's such an interesting text critical problem, and to be honest I haven't spent a lot of time with it. I might dive into it for a future video
I like the question, "What is the Bible?", or "Which Bible". It seems to me the Biblical canon was created to support the theology, not that theology was created from the Bible. Even down to Martin Luther theologians cherry picked books to make their theology work. Our theology is not based on the inspired word of God, but on past theologians and what we believe. Christians can still say the God worked through the theologians to create the Bible. But can it be argued, as many Christians I know do, that the King James version of the Bible is the true, inerrant word of God? Why do we argue about the autographs, as we can simply let things out of the Bible that do not support our theology? Thank you for your videos. They always make me think. I know I believe what I believe because I believe it, which I believe is not a safe way to think. Always question.
To the best of my knowledge, the Codex Sinaiticus is the 2nd oldest (almost) intact early Bible manuscript. The oldest is generally acknowledged to be the Codex Vaticanus, predating Sinaiticus by a few to several decades (roughly 300-ish CE vs. 350-ish CE). Also, it's not pronounced "sigh-knee-AT-i-kus." We say "SIGH-nigh Peninsula," but in relation to the manuscript, we say "Codex sigh-NIGH-tee-kus," since as you correctly acknowledged, the codex was discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery in the SIGH-nigh Peninsula.
When it comes to Biblical scholarship, it is always worth considering the views of the various established Churches. Firstly, the Catholic Church - in England and Wales, it decided recently to use only the ESV both in the Lectionary and for teaching and study purposes, as representing the best Biblical scholarship currently available. The Church of England still uses the NRSV in its Lectionary, but has, of course, approved the ESV for use for teaching and study purposes. The Eastern Orthodox Churches in England prefer the NKJV. The Pentecostal Churches also prefer the NKJV. So, we have a number of recognised established Churches, some older than others, but all taking the view that they should adopt the best of modern Biblical scholarship available, deciding that one or other of the revisions of the KJV represents the best scholarship available. Internationally, the Catholic Church adopts the New Vulgate as its official translation. This replaces the earlier Clementine Vulgate, which, itself, was a revision of St. Jerome’s original text. The main advantage, of course, in having an official translation in Latin is that it is not a living language, so that the meaning of the words used does not change over time. Having said all that, there is no reason why any Christian should not have a range of translations available. I have the official translation in English of the Jewish Bible, which is used by English Jews. I also have an English translation of the Septuagint. I have the 1560 Geneva Bible. The translation which I most prefer reading is Monsignor Knox’s translation from the Vulgate. He translated the whole Bible himself, single handed, so that it reads, from start to finish, with the same translation style. I have the full three volume set with translator’s notes, which consider the original Greek and Hebrew where the best of the ancient texts now available cast doubt on the rendering in the Vulgate. However, the style of English is now becoming a little out of date, of course, since this translation dates back to the 1940s.
That's neat. I don't have a copy of the vulgate. I'd be curious to see it. For most protestants the obsession was always the manuscripts behind the translation, but once you let go of the idea of looking for an "original" it seems neat to read from different lenses on the history of the Bible.
@ The Vulgate was translated in the fourth century, so used texts which were available then - the Hebrew texts would have been close to those used by St. Paul, for example. That does not mean, of course, that texts which have been discovered more recently are not better, in being more ancient, so closer to what the original Old Testament writers actually wrote. However, it does make sense to approach the Old Testament by reference to the same texts which were available to St. Paul, and the other Apostles. There are various translations of the Vulgate - the Douay-Rheims was published in 1609, two years earlier than the original King James in 1611. This was revised in the eighteenth century. The Knox is the best modern translations of. What is interesting is that the translators of the King James Bible were heavily influenced by the Vulgate. Take, for example, the account of the capture of the Ark of the Covenant by the Philistines. St. Jerome translates the Hebrew (which refers vaguely to swellings in the nether regions) as haemorrhoids and the associated plague of vermin as mice. In context, it is almost certain that the swellings referred to were those associated with the bubonic plague (buboes) and the reference was to rats, not to mice (Hebrew uses the same word for both mice and rats). The translators of the King James Bible must have been aware that St. Jerome had misunderstood the original Hebrew. However, since this plague had been accepted in the Church for over a thousand years as having been haemorrhoids and mice, they were reluctant to correct this. Interestingly, if they had done so, when the next outbreak of bubonic plague occurred, it might have occurred to those reading this passage that the bubonic plague was associated with rats (which is how it was spread in most cases) and this might have caused people to think about exterminating the rats which spread the plague. It is quite likely that St. Jerome had never heard of the bubonic plague and the only way he thought of translating “swellings in the nether regions” was as haemorrhoids but, in context, it is unlikely that an outbreak of haemorrhoids would have caused the Philistines to panic and return the Ark.
My favorite line in the New Testament is out of the story of the woman taken in adultery where, after Jesus challenges the person without sin to throw it, it says, “One by one they left, oldest first.” A subtle Johannine-tradition one liner reminding us that, the only reason most of us are not in her shoes were either; a) we never got caught, or b) our opportunity never came at quite the right time.
@@Ken_Scaletta It's not a medieval interpolation. We know for certain it already existed in the fourth century. Maybe it was added before, in the third century, or even the second century.
@@pakimonsas The earliest manuscript with the pericope is the Codex Bezae, which is 5th Century at the earliest (possibly 6th) and which is considered to be unreliable in its Greek and contains a number of differences and additions not found in other texts. "Medieval" refers to 5th-15th Centuries. The Pericope Adulterae (AP) is NOT found in 4th Century manuscripts. We have nothing but fragments before the 4th Century. It wasn't until after Constantine that the Bible began to be published in mass quantities. Sometime the AP is found in Luke instead of John. It is what scholars call a "floating pericope," which means it changes locations. Some people liked the story and just stuck it in the Gospels wherever they thought seemed appropriate. The Codex Bezae has other stories that are not in any other Bible. It looks like it was a dumping ground for apocryphal material. Sometimes the copyist even makes notations that certain sections are suspicious and possibly non-authentic (although it does not give that disclaimer for the AP).
Of course we don't have just one modern bible, and I'm not talking languages and translations. The Protestant Bible has 66 books, the Catholic 73, the Tewehado 81, and there are many more books that have not been included in any of those for various reasons.
The one longer ending of Mark.It is actually well attested by the Church Fathers for example Mk 16.9 is commented on by Tertulian of Carthage writing around AD 220, 130 years BEFORE Siniaticus. Justin Martyr commented on Mk 16.15 around 165 AD and so did Tertulian of Carthage. Mk 16.16, by by is cited in the Apostolic Constitutions, which is around 300- 326 AD. By by Ireanaus of Lyons about 208 AD & both The Apostolic Constitutions and Cyprian of Carthage who wrote around 258 AD comment on Mk 16.17 Mk 16.19 is commented on by Gregory the Theologian, who is contemporary with Siniaticus.And also by the above mention Tertilian and Ireanaus both over 100 years be justfore Sinaiticus. Finally Mk 16.20 is commented on by Aphrahad the Persian, who wrote around 345 and is also contemporary with Sinaiticus. All these Fathers, obviously had before them texts with the longer ending of Mk 16 some of them over 100 years before Sinaiticus. The question of which text is older and or better is far more complex than you seem to think. And also the provenience of the Sinaiticus,is at least somewhat suspect. Not only because its texts are byof Alexandrian origins, which suggests a reason for their poor geographical circulation Since Alexandrian readings were considered often overly mystic and symbolic, by the rest of the Church But also because, the Orthodox monks at the monastery where it was found value them so little that they were using text copies, as fuel, and did not seem to place any value on them. Something, that if you know anything about the Orthodox reverence for Scripture, makes no sense at all, if they considered them Scripture.
What this is telling to me, (I've already know) those who wrote the finale bible (s) were writing from some version of the OT. What is truthful and what is not. If any part of a story that is flawed is safe to assume, the who story is flawed, and that's only the tip of this iceberg.
My guess is that Mark may have been written in Greek Ephesus or somewhere else in the Province of Asia. Jerusalem had been destroyed and there doesn't seem to be evidence of early Aramaic versions from Antioch.
Mark, if we are to trust Tradition, was almost surely written in Egypt, as he is identified in Traditions the Evangelize of Egypt. Now the fact that we'll over half a dozen Church Fathers attest to the longer ending of Mark, all of them either prior to or contemporary to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, leads me to believe that it is an original part of Mk. To me it seems far likelier that there were at least 2 families of manuscripts. One Alexandrian or Egyptian and one Eastern or Bizantine. Something, either council's decision or some unknown disagreement, caused the slow disappearance, in circulation, of the Alexandrian type text ByWhich largely stopped being used starting from the 5th Century on, while the Bizantine text became the norm. But to me both texts types are contemporary, even though, todays supporters of the so called critical text seem to think that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older, all the whole ignoring the evidence of the Church Fathers and the lectionaries, which both cite and or otherwise use, Bizantine texts, well before both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus dates.
I was reading the comments, and I was thinking how many of the stories and parables of Jesus in the Bible have antecedents found in other myths, legends, or stories that predated their inclusion in the Bible? Is there a book that tries to catalog them. I am always amazed at Jesus' replies in the gospels, with the woman being saved from being stoned being a prime example. Is it possible that this story was know if the Hebrew or Roman world at the time, and as the commentor below suggests, it is so appropriate that the author felt it was compelling enough to include it, regardless of whether there was evidence happened or not. The author might have reasoned it could have, or even should have, happened, even if there was no evidence it did. Are other stories that predate the scriptures included by authors in the Bible? Not that it matters, and it would not change anything for me, but I wonder. Also, I want to add comments to get up your you tube search results. I am hoping to see you break 1000 subscribers this week!
Everyone keeps saying that Sinaiticus (which you have misspelled in your video title, btw 😜) is the oldest mostly complete Bible that we have; but I believe the scholarly consensus is that Codex Vaticanus is slightly older, not to mention being of better quality and higher value than Sinaiticus.
lol thanks re: misspelling. I'll get it corrected. I find the digital version of Vaticanus to be so annoying to work with.. I wish there was a better one. re: dating, I'm reading Brent Nongbri's latest book on the many problematic ways we date biblical books--I'm curious to see if it has anything to say about it.
@ date-wise, the two are so close, I don’t suppose it really matters much-generally dated within about 50 years of each other. I’m no scholar, but in my limited education I’ve always understood Vaticanus was thought to be the considerably better of the two.
C.J. does tell us solid Information about the history of the Bible. It is information most Christians are not acquainted with. It should not be troubling, however. If the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in John's text, it does fit well with the character of Jesus and may have been a story that was drifting around in the oral tradition very early. But including it or not including it makes little difference. Including or not including the endings of Mark are similar. They are what we might consider epilogues. But the actual ending of Mark at 16:8 is so remarkable and powerful that passing over it to end with the epilogue is anticlimactic. Ending with the women trembling in ecstasy (the actual Greek word) in deep reverent fear and then rushing to tell the disciples about the resurrection, not stopping to talk to anyone on the way is just the reversal of the crushing defeat of the crucifixion that completes the chiasm that is the plot organization of the Gospel of Mark. It is genius. It is powerful. The story begins with 1:1 and the statement that this is the good news announcement of the Messiah the Son of God. From there is goes downward as Jesus the Messiah and Son of God is revealed in his works and words but rejected. That is followed by what seems like defeat. But surprise, it reverses direction and ends with the amazement of the resurrection which affirms dramatically the truth of the beginning verse. Our passion for evidence for the resurrection makes this ending seem truncated or broken. We should remember that the resurrection was not a controversial topic to Mark's readers. The wonder and excitement of the women better captured the thrill of early believers. It was what they could resonate with. It is what they felt. If they were charismatics, they would have shouted Hallelujah!! My Christian friends in Pakistan certainly do.
I first learned about this text through the wonderful Jeff Rose documentary "Bible Hunters". though just an overview, it covered all the pertinent points and clearly showed me that the bible is NOT totally inerrant. In fact, it has been changed often over the centuries.
@@cjohnyrun Both episodes are on YT. I saw it on TV years ago. On PBS, I think. I think his scholarship and presentation are brilliant. Yes, it's succinct, but that's TV. But it also makes one think. Well...I certainly made me think. Having been brought up in the bible belt...in Texas...but I've grown to doubt. Seeing this showed me that even the bible up with which I grew, is not really perfect.
Well done. Great video and pointing out these issues. I have a big problem with things being added in later such as Mark....then who is the real author? How much of the Gospels are really true? And people defending the bible say these are the inspired words of God. How can these Gospels be trustworthy?
The other meta question is probably, "Do they need to be completely trustworthy?" We put a lot on them with modern eyes--especially those protestants who have no other connection to christian history
@@cjohnyrun "Do they need to be completely trustworthy?" Many Christians would say: sure, otherwise how can we be saved? If the resurrection itself is not trustworthy, then the whole bible is worthless. For many, all these tweaks and manipulations pointed to a man made book.
Thanks for sharing. Great info. But it's not a problem for Catholic Christians. 4 Macabees isn't keeping the Orthodox churches from full communion. Conserving various Bible translations has been the norm in the history of the Church. We're not a religion of the Book like Muslims are, but a religion of the Word. That is Jesus. The Vulgate tradition (older than the Masoretic) is what Western Christians conserved until 500 years ago.
So, everyone has their own Cannon, so problem number one isn't really a problem. Codex Alexandrinus is just a few decades older than Sinaiticus, and it has the long ending, I also bet heavy coin that if the pages were there we would read about an adulterous woman in John. About that woman, Codex Bezae is really close to Alexandrinus, and in it Jesus says cast the first stone. The real issue is the academic quality of Sinaiticus. There are so many errors that a professor would not accept it from an undergrad. I hypothesize its why it exists. It was so bad that it was round filed into a drawer to be scraped and then forgot about. I have a real problem giving it the weight that everyone does for a few decades.
I don’t agree with you on the adulterers story. Oldest manuscript does not mean best manuscript. The new Nestle Aland 28 contains the story. There are several critical arguments against the Codex Sinaiticus.
3 ? húndreds .. both OT (but especially-) NT is heartbreakingly corrupted .. only Christ's sacrifice is original : the rest is 80-90% corrupted themes .. no change + water + in wine , but the enemy has changed + the words of + God .. hundreds of examples like that ...
A lot of information spoken very quickly, and somehow I missed the main point and even the subpoints. Was it that these different scriptures are inconsistent with each other and with the propagandized Christian versions?
Dear 🌹🌹 Thank you for showing the manuscripts 🌻 You speak very fast and I can't keep up with you 🌲 I don't speak English well 🌱 I hope the show is slower 🌳 My question to you is where did Christ live 🥀? You will answer that he was born and lived in Palestine. This is definitely not the case 💐 But I will assume that in Palestine. Do Palestinians speak Arabic or Greek? 🌺 Christ spoke sadly and cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me and abandoned me?" Is this an Arabic or Greek language? 🥀 Aramaic is derived from the mother tongue Arabic. Why was Christ removed and banished from his Arab environment and culture? Doesn't that raise suspicion? You talked about Hermes. Who is Hermes? People were confused about this strange character who saw everything. Among Muslims, I am one of them. There are those who consider him the Prophet Idris mentioned in the Quran, and that he lived in Egypt, teaching and studying medicine, astronomy, engineering, etc., and calling for the path of God. He moved to other countries, such as Greece, teaching them medicine, engineering, and astronomy = Hermes. There are those who say he is Enoch, and others say he is the Prophet Idris. But with the passage of time, his teachings were deviated from and he was worshipped as a god, linked to the Egyptian trinity, Osiris. The two names in Arabic are very similar. Osiris is Odris, but the Mandaeans, followers of the Prophet John the Baptist, believe he is the Prophet Idris. My dear, have you ever thought that Christ might not be from Palestine and that everything you have received is a falsification of the truth?
There's not an honest biblical scholar out there that will back up your claim. This is just wishful thinking on your part. The Bible as we know it has been copied, copied with errors, copied with intentional interpolations, copied with deletions from the original. We have only bits and pieces of what we suppose to be original documents. Meanwhile, we have entire letters, stories, and books from before 3000 BCE.
None of these problems affect Christianity. The NT writers and Jesus all quote the Septuagint. If there was a problem, God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit could have corrected it. The Canon was discovered over centuries as the Holy Spirit led Christians. It goes against today's wham bang thinking. The ending of Mark doesn't affect any major doctrine apart from being a source of radicalism to the unbalanced. Why look at problems? Why not let Jesus shine forth? He is the source of eternal life. Raise Him up. (John 12:32)
@@milanterzic859 thats just more unsupported claims. Nobody has ever shown any perception/conciousness without a working brain. Make your conclusions from that fact.
WOW! This guy does not know much about the history of the Bible. He has a lot of odd untruthful facts concerning the history of the Bible and it's creation.
Ok, so I needed a sexy title -- and "World's Oldest Bible" was it. But let me add some disclaimers. We have older manuscripts and collections of manuscripts. The Dead Sea Scrolls and the Chester Beatty Papyri are both examples of older bible manuscripts--but not compiled in a way that looks like our modern bible.
What do you think? Does it matter that Codex Sinaiticus raises these issues? Let me know!!
👇👇👇
Excellent content. Thank you .
I viewed CS in October at the British Library in London. Tobit happens to be a favorite of mine along with Sirach. The benefit of seeing it in London is that it sits next to Alexandrinus and a few feet from the Great Bible and Tyndale’s NT. I think apologists should teach that the Bible is a community project with warts and all, so that people do not become shocked and catastrophic when they learn about critical theory. Good for you for this content. The Canticles are some of my favorite inclusion in the codices, which are a type of non-davidic psalms that appear in the Bible outside of the book of psalms, like the prayer of Manasseh or Zechariah song from the gospel. The Tyndale House Greek New Testament is a nice product representing a new translation based on codices rather than majority Byzantine papyri although my favorite Greek NT is the UBS and NA28. The NRSVue is a fantastic Bible translation although I love the DSS-heavy NABRE as well, particularly psalm 110 NABRE.
@ Thanks!
@ Wow, that's fantastic. And you're right. I think the history and tradition is so much more interesting when we don't just read it to learn what confirms us. All these beautiful works that I never considered before. I had an older version of NA and was distressed to realize one of their decisions was really not supported--but I should try 28
@@cjohnyrun I think if they had included The Infancy Gospel of Thomas, that may have been a bridge to far for the faithful. 😳
I’m finding your channel very helpful. This is perfect timing for me as I’m distancing myself from fundamentalist Christianity. I’m looking forward to more like this. Thank you!
I'm so glad! Thanks for this encouragement
Just commenting to boost your algorithm. Glad I found this channel!
Awesome! Thank you!
My new favorite channel ❤
aww thanks so much!
Very cool video! What a priceless piece of history! The original ending of Mark would've been so much better if the author had said, "and they said nothing to no one... um, except me. The end."
"...and also I really do know what Pilate said to Jesus in private, so trust me, bro..."
lol maybe it did! and it got lost. 😃
😄 🤣 😂
@@cjohnyrun The original "a bit longer" ending.
Who recorded/retold the story of the temptation of Jesus in the wilderness? It had to be Jesus or the devil, there were no other witnesses, and if it was Jesus, wasn't that a bit prideful/boastful?
Or it was all made up...
Great video. Keep em coming. I'm keen to hear your comprehensive deconversion story.
thanks so much. I'll have to give some thought to how to share it
We don't have the original manuscripts but we do perhaps have fragments of near original manuscripts. So called critical Greek texts attempt to compile the oldest "best" texts into a complete Greek edition, a constantly ongoing process thanks to computers and ability to transmit data over the internet. Lovers of the Reformation period "received text" resist this idea of compiling a New Testament from ancient fragments mistrust such a process, but new discoveries of more ancient texts do not confirm the idea of textual drift...something that should reassure lovers of such translations as the King James.
I think the fuss over the received text and the UBS text is a bit silly. There are few differences that any but dyed in the wool Fundamentalists would find a problem that it seems like a tempest in a teapot.
Very interesting - many thanks for your work on this video. St Augustine was well aware that some manuscripts missed the story of the forgiving of the adulteress and has a shocking but plausible explanation, namely that some scribes were embarrassed by the story and left it out.
Glad you enjoyed it
Just found your channel! Subbed and watching now. Like your stuff my friend.
@greg-op2jh Thanks so much! Welcome aboard :)
Bizarrely, one US "christian"* told me that the British Library didn't exist. I've visited it when young and been past it many times, but maybe I'm the one in the wrong...?
* There's really no such thing as a christian.
lol that's hilarious. Why? Because Codex S is there?
@@cjohnyrun I can't remember what the video was about (Evolution, I think, which, of course, this christian didn't believe in), but I suspect that the thread did include the Codex Sinaiticus.
Lol then what did you visit?
@@VictorianMaid99 Well, the British Library, but obviously this berk didn't want any truck with reality,
The adulterer story and the ending of Mark ARE HUGE. Christians, like I was, were taught that these were god-inspired scriptures! Especially the adulterer story, so emotional to so many. When I learned this years ago, I was aghast.
Guy am sorry you left Christianity but if your reason for leaving was Mark' s ending and the Pericope of the Adultress, you left for the wrong reason
Marks ending swell attested in the Fathers some of whom wrote over 100years before Sinaiticus and Vaticanus citing the long end of Mk and even commenting on it. Besides even if the long ending was an addition
It does not change any essential doctrine of the faith In the cade of the passage of the Adultress you have to understand that these and others were stories circulating at the time some of which were adopted and some where not In John 30.30-31 the apostle explains that not everything that Jesus did or taught could have been written down, but the things that were written were written so that we may belief. On other words he was saying the contexts of the NT were edited. So it's more than likely that some material was used by some copier and not by another. These however do not affect the essentials Al doctrines Although they may de-emphasize some.
It is interesting to see how Scripture developed over the centuries.
Even today, we have, as you said, books that are included in the Catholic Bible that are not in the Protestant Bible.
Then, too, there are books that are unique to the Eastern and Oriental Orthodox churches.
So the question remains: What books should be considered Scripture?
We can be confident about certain books because they're recognized by every church tradition.
Yet, the canon of Scripture remains somewhat open.
Frankly, I like it that way.
Interesting information, I was aware of the original shorter ending to Mark, but not of the other points made. People often cling to whatever they already believe because of "tradition", but we should be ready to adjust our beliefs when new authoritative data becomes available. This ancient manuscript shows that the Bible wasn't just handed down in it's complete modern form, but that it evolved over time, books were edited, added to, deleted altogether, etc.
absolutely. And unfortunately, a lot of things people believe about the bible aren't ancient at all.
Pagans making fun of Mark 16:9-20 may have caused some to drop it.
Macarius, Apocriticus III: 16:
Again, consider in detail that other passage, where He says, "Such signs shall follow them that believe: they shall lay hands upon sick folk, and they shall recover, and if they drink any deadly drug, it shall in no wise hurt them." So the right thing would be for those selected for the priesthood, and particularly those who lay claim to the episcopate or presidency, to make use of this form of test. The deadly drug should be set before them in order that the man who received no harm from the drinking of it might be given precedence of the rest. And if they are not bold enough to accept this sort of test, they ought to confess that they do not believe in the things Jesus said. For if it is a peculiarity of the faith to overcome the evil of a poison and to remove the pain of a sick man, the believer who does not do these things either has not become a genuine |86 believer, or else, though his belief is genuine, the thing that he believes in is not potent but feeble. Bing search
Great video, very clear and concise...which is nice considering how others approach this subject matter! Here's hoping your channel explodes 👍 thanks
Much appreciated!
Thank you for the links. Think I'll be going down some rabbit holes. 😂
Have fun!
It really broke my heart when I found out the story of Jesus saving the woman from being stoned wasn’t in the original manuscript. That was one of my favorites.
@mrsmax3071 Does it matter? It's still a fantastic story!
@cjohnyrun Even if it isn't in the original bible and only a story, the scenario still highlights the moralty of fairness and grace, in a situation where, it would be easy for many of us to cast judgment on someone without reflecting on our own behavior. Thank you for bringing things to light.
@ I guess it doesn't, but it used to mean a lot to me that God would protect a woman who had done wrong.
I recall wondering why the story was missing in earlier manuscripts too.
@ I feel like it's authentically part of the early Christian tradition. And in fact, it's so powerful it was worth adding in.. That says something
Just found your channel and am excited to follow as you grow! The proper spelling is "Sinaiticus"; you may want to change the title as it is currently misspelled. Other than that great content!
ahhh good catch! lol. Thanks
Luke and John contain statements regarding motive and method in their gospels. Luke begins with "In as much as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, just as they were handed to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully....to write it out for you..." John, writing in a more approachable style writes in 20:30 that Jesus had done many things which were not recorded in his book, but those things he did write about were selected for a specific purpose: "that you might believe Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing, you may have life in his name." Two authors, one interviewing people who were with Jesus, the other stating that he himself was with Jesus. Both stating they were selective in what they wrote down. Luke's Gospel continues on with a second book, the book of Acts which moves past Jesus' resurrection and ascension. John's record ends with a tantalizing statement "And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself would not contain the books that would be written." We who follow Jesus often say the book of Acts has no ending because it is still being written. The books about Jesus are still being written...
The funny thing about John is that it ends so conclusively in 20:31, and then someone came along later and seemingly added a whole new chapter with new resurrection sightings in Galilee.
@InquisitiveBible it's such an interesting text critical problem, and to be honest I haven't spent a lot of time with it. I might dive into it for a future video
I like the question, "What is the Bible?", or "Which Bible". It seems to me the Biblical canon was created to support the theology, not that theology was created from the Bible. Even down to Martin Luther theologians cherry picked books to make their theology work. Our theology is not based on the inspired word of God, but on past theologians and what we believe.
Christians can still say the God worked through the theologians to create the Bible. But can it be argued, as many Christians I know do, that the King James version of the Bible is the true, inerrant word of God? Why do we argue about the autographs, as we can simply let things out of the Bible that do not support our theology?
Thank you for your videos. They always make me think. I know I believe what I believe because I believe it, which I believe is not a safe way to think. Always question.
100%. I like to think of this as exploration even for myself, I certainly don't have all the answers. thanks for this wonderful response
@@TheDanEdwards Nah!
To the best of my knowledge, the Codex Sinaiticus is the 2nd oldest (almost) intact early Bible manuscript. The oldest is generally acknowledged to be the Codex Vaticanus, predating Sinaiticus by a few to several decades (roughly 300-ish CE vs. 350-ish CE).
Also, it's not pronounced "sigh-knee-AT-i-kus." We say "SIGH-nigh Peninsula," but in relation to the manuscript, we say "Codex sigh-NIGH-tee-kus," since as you correctly acknowledged, the codex was discovered at St. Catherine's Monastery in the SIGH-nigh Peninsula.
Yeah, definitely re: dating. It's not certain though. And I always pronounce it wrong. I've tried to change my ways, but always revert back.
When it comes to Biblical scholarship, it is always worth considering the views of the various established Churches. Firstly, the Catholic Church - in England and Wales, it decided recently to use only the ESV both in the Lectionary and for teaching and study purposes, as representing the best Biblical scholarship currently available. The Church of England still uses the NRSV in its Lectionary, but has, of course, approved the ESV for use for teaching and study purposes. The Eastern Orthodox Churches in England prefer the NKJV. The Pentecostal Churches also prefer the NKJV. So, we have a number of recognised established Churches, some older than others, but all taking the view that they should adopt the best of modern Biblical scholarship available, deciding that one or other of the revisions of the KJV represents the best scholarship available. Internationally, the Catholic Church adopts the New Vulgate as its official translation. This replaces the earlier Clementine Vulgate, which, itself, was a revision of St. Jerome’s original text. The main advantage, of course, in having an official translation in Latin is that it is not a living language, so that the meaning of the words used does not change over time. Having said all that, there is no reason why any Christian should not have a range of translations available. I have the official translation in English of the Jewish Bible, which is used by English Jews. I also have an English translation of the Septuagint. I have the 1560 Geneva Bible. The translation which I most prefer reading is Monsignor Knox’s translation from the Vulgate. He translated the whole Bible himself, single handed, so that it reads, from start to finish, with the same translation style. I have the full three volume set with translator’s notes, which consider the original Greek and Hebrew where the best of the ancient texts now available cast doubt on the rendering in the Vulgate. However, the style of English is now becoming a little out of date, of course, since this translation dates back to the 1940s.
That's neat. I don't have a copy of the vulgate. I'd be curious to see it. For most protestants the obsession was always the manuscripts behind the translation, but once you let go of the idea of looking for an "original" it seems neat to read from different lenses on the history of the Bible.
@ The Vulgate was translated in the fourth century, so used texts which were available then - the Hebrew texts would have been close to those used by St. Paul, for example. That does not mean, of course, that texts which have been discovered more recently are not better, in being more ancient, so closer to what the original Old Testament writers actually wrote. However, it does make sense to approach the Old Testament by reference to the same texts which were available to St. Paul, and the other Apostles. There are various translations of the Vulgate - the Douay-Rheims was published in 1609, two years earlier than the original King James in 1611. This was revised in the eighteenth century. The Knox is the best modern translations of. What is interesting is that the translators of the King James Bible were heavily influenced by the Vulgate. Take, for example, the account of the capture of the Ark of the Covenant by the Philistines. St. Jerome translates the Hebrew (which refers vaguely to swellings in the nether regions) as haemorrhoids and the associated plague of vermin as mice. In context, it is almost certain that the swellings referred to were those associated with the bubonic plague (buboes) and the reference was to rats, not to mice (Hebrew uses the same word for both mice and rats). The translators of the King James Bible must have been aware that St. Jerome had misunderstood the original Hebrew. However, since this plague had been accepted in the Church for over a thousand years as having been haemorrhoids and mice, they were reluctant to correct this. Interestingly, if they had done so, when the next outbreak of bubonic plague occurred, it might have occurred to those reading this passage that the bubonic plague was associated with rats (which is how it was spread in most cases) and this might have caused people to think about exterminating the rats which spread the plague. It is quite likely that St. Jerome had never heard of the bubonic plague and the only way he thought of translating “swellings in the nether regions” was as haemorrhoids but, in context, it is unlikely that an outbreak of haemorrhoids would have caused the Philistines to panic and return the Ark.
Please note the Hebrew translation was only of the first 5 books
My favorite line in the New Testament is out of the story of the woman taken in adultery where, after Jesus challenges the person without sin to throw it, it says, “One by one they left, oldest first.” A subtle Johannine-tradition one liner reminding us that, the only reason most of us are not in her shoes were either; a) we never got caught, or b) our opportunity never came at quite the right time.
That's not original to the Gospel of John, it's a medieval interpolation. Sometimes it's found in Luke. It's not Johannine in any case.
@@Ken_Scaletta It's not a medieval interpolation. We know for certain it already existed in the fourth century. Maybe it was added before, in the third century, or even the second century.
@@pakimonsas The earliest manuscript with the pericope is the Codex Bezae, which is 5th Century at the earliest (possibly 6th) and which is considered to be unreliable in its Greek and contains a number of differences and additions not found in other texts. "Medieval" refers to 5th-15th Centuries. The Pericope Adulterae (AP) is NOT found in 4th Century manuscripts. We have nothing but fragments before the 4th Century. It wasn't until after Constantine that the Bible began to be published in mass quantities. Sometime the AP is found in Luke instead of John. It is what scholars call a "floating pericope," which means it changes locations. Some people liked the story and just stuck it in the Gospels wherever they thought seemed appropriate. The Codex Bezae has other stories that are not in any other Bible. It looks like it was a dumping ground for apocryphal material. Sometimes the copyist even makes notations that certain sections are suspicious and possibly non-authentic (although it does not give that disclaimer for the AP).
Of course we don't have just one modern bible, and I'm not talking languages and translations.
The Protestant Bible has 66 books, the Catholic 73, the Tewehado 81, and there are many more books that have not been included in any of those for various reasons.
Are there places in the text which reveal such things as corrections, erasures, alterations, and overwrites?
yah, lots. I just did a quick google search--there are some examples here - jbtc.org/v20/TC-2015-Malik.pdf
The one longer ending of Mark.It is actually well attested by the Church Fathers for example Mk 16.9 is commented on by Tertulian of Carthage writing around AD 220, 130 years BEFORE Siniaticus. Justin Martyr commented on Mk 16.15 around 165 AD and so did Tertulian of Carthage. Mk 16.16, by by is cited in the Apostolic Constitutions, which is around 300- 326 AD. By by Ireanaus of Lyons about 208 AD & both The Apostolic Constitutions and Cyprian of Carthage who wrote around 258 AD comment on Mk 16.17
Mk 16.19 is commented on by Gregory the Theologian, who is contemporary with Siniaticus.And also by the above mention Tertilian and Ireanaus both over 100 years be justfore Sinaiticus. Finally Mk 16.20 is commented on by Aphrahad the Persian, who wrote around 345 and is also contemporary with Sinaiticus.
All these Fathers, obviously had before them texts with the longer ending of Mk 16 some of them over 100 years before Sinaiticus. The question of which text is older and or better is far more complex than you seem to think. And also the provenience of the Sinaiticus,is at least somewhat suspect. Not only because its texts are byof Alexandrian origins, which suggests a reason for their poor geographical circulation Since Alexandrian readings were considered often overly mystic and symbolic, by the rest of the Church But also because, the Orthodox monks at the monastery where it was found value them so little that they were using text copies, as fuel, and did not seem to place any value on them. Something, that if you know anything about the Orthodox reverence for Scripture, makes no sense at all, if they considered them Scripture.
Are you sure Tertulian is quoting from Mark, or could he have got this from the other gospels?
What this is telling to me, (I've already know) those who wrote the finale bible (s) were writing from some version of the OT. What is truthful and what is not. If any part of a story that is flawed is safe to assume, the who story is flawed, and that's only the tip of this iceberg.
My guess is that Mark may have been written in Greek Ephesus or somewhere else in the Province of Asia. Jerusalem had been destroyed and there doesn't seem to be evidence of early Aramaic versions from Antioch.
Mark, if we are to trust Tradition, was almost surely written in Egypt, as he is identified in Traditions the Evangelize of Egypt. Now the fact that we'll over half a dozen Church Fathers attest to the longer ending of Mark, all of them either prior to or contemporary to Vaticanus and Sinaiticus, leads me to believe that it is an original part of Mk. To me it seems far likelier that there were at least 2 families of manuscripts. One Alexandrian or Egyptian and one Eastern or Bizantine. Something, either council's decision or some unknown disagreement, caused the slow disappearance, in circulation, of the Alexandrian type text
ByWhich largely stopped being used starting from the 5th Century on, while the Bizantine text became the norm. But to me both texts types are contemporary, even though, todays supporters of the so called critical text seem to think that the Sinaiticus and Vaticanus are older, all the whole ignoring the evidence of the Church Fathers and the lectionaries, which both cite and or otherwise use, Bizantine texts, well before both Sinaiticus and Vaticanus dates.
I was reading the comments, and I was thinking how many of the stories and parables of Jesus in the Bible have antecedents found in other myths, legends, or stories that predated their inclusion in the Bible? Is there a book that tries to catalog them. I am always amazed at Jesus' replies in the gospels, with the woman being saved from being stoned being a prime example. Is it possible that this story was know if the Hebrew or Roman world at the time, and as the commentor below suggests, it is so appropriate that the author felt it was compelling enough to include it, regardless of whether there was evidence happened or not. The author might have reasoned it could have, or even should have, happened, even if there was no evidence it did. Are other stories that predate the scriptures included by authors in the Bible? Not that it matters, and it would not change anything for me, but I wonder.
Also, I want to add comments to get up your you tube search results. I am hoping to see you break 1000 subscribers this week!
I love your Canadian 'tells' : )
hahaha yes I can't avoid those
Everyone keeps saying that Sinaiticus (which you have misspelled in your video title, btw 😜) is the oldest mostly complete Bible that we have; but I believe the scholarly consensus is that Codex Vaticanus is slightly older, not to mention being of better quality and higher value than Sinaiticus.
lol thanks re: misspelling. I'll get it corrected. I find the digital version of Vaticanus to be so annoying to work with.. I wish there was a better one.
re: dating, I'm reading Brent Nongbri's latest book on the many problematic ways we date biblical books--I'm curious to see if it has anything to say about it.
@ date-wise, the two are so close, I don’t suppose it really matters much-generally dated within about 50 years of each other. I’m no scholar, but in my limited education I’ve always understood Vaticanus was thought to be the considerably better of the two.
C.J. does tell us solid Information about the history of the Bible. It is information most Christians are not acquainted with. It should not be troubling, however. If the story of the woman caught in adultery was not in John's text, it does fit well with the character of Jesus and may have been a story that was drifting around in the oral tradition very early. But including it or not including it makes little difference.
Including or not including the endings of Mark are similar. They are what we might consider epilogues. But the actual ending of Mark at 16:8 is so remarkable and powerful that passing over it to end with the epilogue is anticlimactic.
Ending with the women trembling in ecstasy (the actual Greek word) in deep reverent fear and then rushing to tell the disciples about the resurrection, not stopping to talk to anyone on the way is just the reversal of the crushing defeat of the crucifixion that completes the chiasm that is the plot organization of the Gospel of Mark. It is genius. It is powerful.
The story begins with 1:1 and the statement that this is the good news announcement of the Messiah the Son of God. From there is goes downward as Jesus the Messiah and Son of God is revealed in his works and words but rejected. That is followed by what seems like defeat. But surprise, it reverses direction and ends with the amazement of the resurrection which affirms dramatically the truth of the beginning verse.
Our passion for evidence for the resurrection makes this ending seem truncated or broken. We should remember that the resurrection was not a controversial topic to Mark's readers. The wonder and excitement of the women better captured the thrill of early believers. It was what they could resonate with. It is what they felt. If they were charismatics, they would have shouted Hallelujah!! My Christian friends in Pakistan certainly do.
Early church is nothing like todays, wild, smoke generators and flashing lights!
I first learned about this text through the wonderful Jeff Rose documentary "Bible Hunters". though just an overview, it covered all the pertinent points and clearly showed me that the bible is NOT totally inerrant. In fact, it has been changed often over the centuries.
@@LyleFrancisDelp Woah, I hadn't heard about that one. I will check it out
@@cjohnyrun Both episodes are on YT. I saw it on TV years ago. On PBS, I think. I think his scholarship and presentation are brilliant. Yes, it's succinct, but that's TV. But it also makes one think. Well...I certainly made me think. Having been brought up in the bible belt...in Texas...but I've grown to doubt. Seeing this showed me that even the bible up with which I grew, is not really perfect.
Well done. Great video and pointing out these issues. I have a big problem with things being added in later such as Mark....then who is the real author? How much of the Gospels are really true? And people defending the bible say these are the inspired words of God. How can these Gospels be trustworthy?
The other meta question is probably, "Do they need to be completely trustworthy?" We put a lot on them with modern eyes--especially those protestants who have no other connection to christian history
@@cjohnyrun "Do they need to be completely trustworthy?"
Many Christians would say: sure, otherwise how can we be saved?
If the resurrection itself is not trustworthy, then the whole bible is worthless.
For many, all these tweaks and manipulations pointed to a man made book.
Early Christians used the Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, the Septuagint, or LXX
And the Hebrew Bible was not written in greek.
Yes. And how can an edited, translated, translated to English be considered more accurate than the original. The Isaiah 7:14 issue comes to mind.
The oldest biblical documents have not been found yet.
Thanks for sharing. Great info. But it's not a problem for Catholic Christians. 4 Macabees isn't keeping the Orthodox churches from full communion. Conserving various Bible translations has been the norm in the history of the Church. We're not a religion of the Book like Muslims are, but a religion of the Word. That is Jesus. The Vulgate tradition (older than the Masoretic) is what Western Christians conserved until 500 years ago.
Visions and prophesies after the apostles are a flag for apostacy plus the book of Barnabas claims a false authority
So, everyone has their own Cannon, so problem number one isn't really a problem. Codex Alexandrinus is just a few decades older than Sinaiticus, and it has the long ending, I also bet heavy coin that if the pages were there we would read about an adulterous woman in John. About that woman, Codex Bezae is really close to Alexandrinus, and in it Jesus says cast the first stone.
The real issue is the academic quality of Sinaiticus. There are so many errors that a professor would not accept it from an undergrad. I hypothesize its why it exists. It was so bad that it was round filed into a drawer to be scraped and then forgot about. I have a real problem giving it the weight that everyone does for a few decades.
The took
Away Hebrew idea in septinuntant
I don’t agree with you on the adulterers story. Oldest manuscript does not mean best manuscript. The new Nestle Aland 28 contains the story. There are several critical arguments against the Codex Sinaiticus.
3 ? húndreds .. both OT (but especially-) NT is heartbreakingly corrupted .. only Christ's sacrifice is original : the rest is 80-90% corrupted themes .. no change + water + in wine , but the enemy has changed + the words of + God .. hundreds of examples like that ...
A lot of information spoken very quickly, and somehow I missed the main point and even the subpoints. Was it that these different scriptures are inconsistent with each other and with the propagandized Christian versions?
thanks Chris! super cool! 👍
@@SamDupree-bw4rt I'm so glad you found it interesting
Thanks for sharing. Looking forward to reading the books that got axed.
Enjoy!
Have it tested for its actual date. I strongly suspect it is NOT old at all.
The New Testament was _only_ written in Greek.
The Old Testament was written in Hebrew/Aramaic.
Hebrew Matthew was found in the Vatican and they didn't even know they had it😂
Dear 🌹🌹 Thank you for showing the manuscripts 🌻 You speak very fast and I can't keep up with you 🌲 I don't speak English well 🌱 I hope the show is slower 🌳 My question to you is where did Christ live 🥀? You will answer that he was born and lived in Palestine. This is definitely not the case 💐 But I will assume that in Palestine. Do Palestinians speak Arabic or Greek? 🌺 Christ spoke sadly and cried out, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me and abandoned me?" Is this an Arabic or Greek language? 🥀 Aramaic is derived from the mother tongue Arabic. Why was Christ removed and banished from his Arab environment and culture? Doesn't that raise suspicion? You talked about Hermes. Who is Hermes? People were confused about this strange character who saw everything. Among Muslims, I am one of them. There are those who consider him the Prophet Idris mentioned in the Quran, and that he lived in Egypt, teaching and studying medicine, astronomy, engineering, etc., and calling for the path of God. He moved to other countries, such as Greece, teaching them medicine, engineering, and astronomy = Hermes. There are those who say he is Enoch, and others say he is the Prophet Idris. But with the passage of time, his teachings were deviated from and he was worshipped as a god, linked to the Egyptian trinity, Osiris. The two names in Arabic are very similar. Osiris is Odris, but the Mandaeans, followers of the Prophet John the Baptist, believe he is the Prophet Idris. My dear, have you ever thought that Christ might not be from Palestine and that everything you have received is a falsification of the truth?
It's name is Sinai-ticus.
I have ALWAYS pronounced it wrong. Something just never stuck in my brain... I see "Mt. Sinai"...
@@cjohnyrunbecause the common English pronunciation of Mount Sinai is wrong. Sinai is derived from the name of the Babylonian moon-god Sin
This bible looks like getting back to the spiritual Egypt...
"And the seven brothers are murdered. Cool book"
If it were heavy metal it would have :parental advisory: sticker on it
The story of the woman caught in adultery was in the original gospel of John.
@TheDanEdwards Wrong. Don't be ignorant.
There's not an honest biblical scholar out there that will back up your claim. This is just wishful thinking on your part. The Bible as we know it has been copied, copied with errors, copied with intentional interpolations, copied with deletions from the original. We have only bits and pieces of what we suppose to be original documents. Meanwhile, we have entire letters, stories, and books from before 3000 BCE.
None of these problems affect Christianity. The NT writers and Jesus all quote the Septuagint. If there was a problem, God, Jesus or the Holy Spirit could have corrected it. The Canon was discovered over centuries as the Holy Spirit led Christians. It goes against today's wham bang thinking. The ending of Mark doesn't affect any major doctrine apart from being a source of radicalism to the unbalanced. Why look at problems? Why not let Jesus shine forth? He is the source of eternal life. Raise Him up. (John 12:32)
why not let jesus shine forth? because he probabky didnt exist, at least not as desribed in the gospels.
@@matswessling6600 Not to worry. You'll get to meet Him.
@@milanterzic859 thats just more unsupported claims. Nobody has ever shown any perception/conciousness without a working brain. Make your conclusions from that fact.
@@milanterzic859what do you think of Isaiah 53?
@@TheDanEdwards A belief is superior because it works. A aeroplane mechanic uses the manufacturer's handbook and not You Tube videos.
WOW!
This guy does not know much about the history of the Bible.
He has a lot of odd untruthful facts concerning the history of the Bible and it's creation.
WOW! ok
OK, self-appointed expert, demonstrate your superior knowledge by substantiating your claims.
Anyone can naysay.
Isn't "untruthful fact" an oxymoron?
Jeez, Becky. You okay?
@@ronrussell5676No, the word fact doesn't mean truth.
You could take it with Wes Huff, but I doubt u have the authority for him to give u the time of day. So I won't bother either.