I must admit I am really looking forward to the day this hits the web. I am really interested to see what kind of differences there will be and of course how a bible believer will respond and explain the discrepanices within.
I'm not sure what you think a 'bible believer' believes about the bible that you think it would be challenged by the contents of this that has been known about and a key source for modern translations for some years.
Christian views of the bible are not the same as muslim views of the Quran. There are no 'stone tablets' in heaven. There is no contention that the words I read in my current English translation are those that God himself spoke (although a few seem to think that about the King James). I wonder if you are assuming that these views are the same.
Perhaps this quote is where this comes from:
The Bible we now use can't be the inerrant word of God, he says, since what we have are the sometimes mistaken words copied by fallible scribes.
As I said, I know very few evangelical Christians who have bothered to think about this issue who would contend that 'the bible we use now is the inerrant word of God'. If that's what you are knocking down, it's a strawman.
From
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy:
Biblical inerrancy is the historically traditional and currently conservative evangelical doctrinal position[1] that in its original form, the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; "referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture, including the historical and scientific parts.
Firstly, the Codex contains two extra books in the New Testament.
One is the little-known Shepherd of Hermas, written in Rome in the 2nd Century - the other, the Epistle of Barnabas. This goes out of its way to claim that it was the Jews, not the Romans, who killed Jesus, and is full of anti-Semitic kindling ready to be lit. "His blood be upon us," Barnabas has the Jews cry.
Why would any scribe leave out two books from the bible?
I haven't read the Epistle of Barnabas but the 'His blood be upon us' is also in Matthew:
Matt 27:24-25
24 When Pilate saw that he was accomplishing nothing, but rather that a riot was starting, he took water and washed his hands in front of the crowd, saying, "I am innocent of this Man's blood ; see to that yourselves." 25 And all the people said, " His blood shall be on us and on our children!"
NASU
..so I wouldn't expect that to be particularly contraversial. Of course this could be 'anti-semitic kindling' or just what the crowd said that has been picked up by many to justify their racist hatred. The fact that Paul also said of the Jews:
Rom 9:3-4
3 For I could wish that I myself were accursed, separated from Christ for the sake of my brethren, my kinsmen according to the flesh, 4 who are Israelites,
NASU
doesn't seem to have influenced them.
And the Canon of the bible was under discussion both before and after this codex was written. These books are still included in some bibles. Again, you seem to be assuming that the bible is the Quran here.
The Codex - and other early manuscripts - do not mention the ascension of Jesus into heaven, and omit key references to the Resurrection, which the Archbishop of Canterbury has said is essential for Christian belief.
Even if you say that scribes can make mistakes and the bible is the work of man but inspired by god, how would you explain one of the main beliefs of Christianity as being missing from one of the earliest bibles in existance?
I think you are misunderstanding the claim here. The main belief referred to is the resurrection (which Paul claimed was essential far before the Archbishop of Canterbury did) for which some references are missing but which is not completely absent. The ascension of Jesus into heaven is only mentioned at the end of Luke, the beginning of Acts and one verse in Mark so it doesn't particularly worry me that it might have been omitted by a copyist.
Also, while an important early source, it isn't the only one and so what is recorded there can be cross-checked with other sources to determine, as far as possible, what the original texts contained.
Other differences concern how Jesus behaved. In one passage of the Codex, Jesus is said to be "angry" as he healed a leper, whereas the modern text records him as healing with "compassion".
Sure. Such differences are not really new. Whether they call into question the gospel message as a whole is the real question.
Also missing is the story of the woman taken in adultery and about to be stoned - until Jesus rebuked the Pharisees (a Jewish sect), inviting anyone without sin to cast the first stone.
Now I have heard many christians claim that Jesus did this, and it is a tale of how compassionate and kind Jesus was. A warning to others to not judge, and yet it is also missing.
Again, this has been known for some time. Possibilities include that it is a later addition or that it was originally in another gospel. See
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pericope_Adulter%C3%A6 for a discussion. As you will see, it is not so simple to say 'Jesus never said it'.
All in all I can't wait to see this.
Ok, but I don't think it will have the effect that you (and the BBC) seem to think it will.
Cheers,
sparky
Topic: The Codex Sinaiticus