Codex Sinaiticus

It has recently been announced that the 4th Century Manuscript, Codex Sinaiticus, will be scanned, translated, and made available online. This has in turn reinvigorated many critics of the Bible, who think that this will deal some some of blow to Christianity as we know it today. Why? Because, now the whole world can see how the Bible has been manipulated over the years, and how untrustworthy the thing Protestants call the Bible is.

Codex Sinaiticus is the oldest document in existence that contains a full version of the New Testament. (Scholars call this an "extant copy" of the New Testament.)

Here is an example of a recent article on the Codex (from CNN) that makes some pretty large implications:

http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/07/06/ancient.bible.online/index.html?iref=newssearch

Much of the article is accurate, but a few things are misleading.

For example, they say “And some familiar—very important—passages are missing, including verses dealing with the resurrection of Jesus”.

This does not mean the resurrection is not supported by Sinaiticus at all. Quite the contrary.

The one text that refers to the resurrection that CNN has in mind is Mark 16:9–20, a passage that scholars have questioned for over 125 years. This is nothing new.  The same passage is not found in Codex Vaticanus, a manuscript known since 1475. And this missing text doesn't even refer to the resurrection; it is about a post resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples. The resurrection is very present in the rest of the Gospel of Mark (as seen in the codex).

CNN also says "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Bible has developed and changed over the years” This seems to imply that "modern" versions of the Bible are based on outdated manuscripts and don't take in to account recent discoveries. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Most modern translations (for example the ESV) are based on the best scholarship with the earliest documents we have discovered. Codex Sinaiticus has actually helped get us closer to what the original documents must have said, and modern translations reflect that. In fact, close inspection and comparison has shown just how accurate most of the translations we have been using are to the originals! Sure, there are some minor differences, but nothing that affects any major doctrines. Most differences are the equivalent of using the word "a" versus "the".

There are some other issues people may bring up.

The order of books are different. So what. I don't think anyone has ever said the "order" of books in the New Testament was inspired. OK, maybe someone said it, but most people haven't.

It contains "other" New Testament books like "The Epistle of Barnabus" and "The Shepherd of Hermas". Again, so what. There is nothing in the Codex to suggest that EVERY book it contains was considered inspired or even authoritative. They were just books in use by that religious community. I have a copy of Star Wars Episode III in my bookshelf next to a Bible. I even make reference to it in my sermons. That doesn't mean I view both books the same way.