Hodos Sphaenodon
New member
accounts elsewhere are a fraud? "The resurrection of Jesus is a hoax because Mark, the earliest gospel, never
contained the story. The "resurrection" passages were later added to Mark, and
his gospel was changed by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel writers are anonymous. It
was necessary for Matthew and Luke to change Mark according to their own
understanding, they also relied upon the Q source. Regarding the Gospel of John,
it's completely different and draws upon ambiguous sources. The oldest
manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of
these Greek manuscripts have no ending for Mark!
<snip>
Almost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that
neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel,
though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer
ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of
the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the
original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles
decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel,
but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included
as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending. [1]
The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not record the resurrection:
Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8, Luke 22:43 f., John 5:4 and the
Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23.
Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians. [2]
The `Longer Ending' of Mark is preserved in the Byzantine texts, which are
interpolated. The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort discredited the Byzantine
(KJV) text. Yet, the oldest Greek manuscripts do not have the longer ending. The
Alexandrian (NIV) omits the longer ending (Aleph and B). The Anglican scholars
Westcott and Hort attest the Byzantine text was conflated in the 4th century.
There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the fourth century when Lucian of
Syria conflated the various readings and produced what became the Byzantine or
Traditional Text. We know this is true because we have no Byzantine readings
before the middle of the fourth century, but we do have Alexandrian and Western
readings. Therefore, any second century reading which supports the third or
fourth century readings of the Alexandrian line are considered important and are
offered as proof that these textual lines are more original than the Byzantine
line. However, if a reading is found in these very same manuscripts which agrees
with the fourth century Byzantine reading, it is considered unimportant and
unconsequential. [1]
In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically,
and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text,
later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Forth century tradition called it
the text of Lucian. [2]
Hort characterized the Byzantine text as 'late, conflated, heavily edited and
revised', whereas Hort extolled the Alexandrian text as 'pure, primitive,
carefully corrected, and neutral'.
The Gospels are clear that no one witnessed Jesus' resurrection. It was seen by
NO ONE.
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them
with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which
had seen him after he was risen. (Mark 16:14)
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women
that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words
seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. (Luke 24:10-11)
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_resurrection_hoax.htm
Nothing to do with Muslims let me clarify ; http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
This Greek book Codex Sinaiticus is the earliest complete bible extant, about 400 ad.
I think the significance of the Codex is around several factors. First must be
that it's the earliest complete manuscript or copy of the New Testament. Second
to that, maybe, is that it's arguably the oldest Christian Bible full stop.
With the Codex what you have is a debate about the text that's going on not
in learned treatises but actually, physically, on the page of those manuscripts.
So you have, if you like, a 'first take', the scribe writes down 'the text' -
and then you get changes or revisions. Whether it's 'correct' is a moot point,
but there are changes to the text, occurring on every single page and continued
from the fourth century through to the 12th century. And so you can literally
see at one point a particular part of the text may be written in a certain way,
and then that may be changed or revised a little la
contained the story. The "resurrection" passages were later added to Mark, and
his gospel was changed by Matthew and Luke, the Gospel writers are anonymous. It
was necessary for Matthew and Luke to change Mark according to their own
understanding, they also relied upon the Q source. Regarding the Gospel of John,
it's completely different and draws upon ambiguous sources. The oldest
manuscripts of the New Testament are Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, both of
these Greek manuscripts have no ending for Mark!
<snip>
Almost all contemporary New Testament textual critics have concluded that
neither the longer or shorter endings were originally part of Mark's Gospel,
though the evidence of the early church fathers above shows that the longer
ending had become accepted tradition. The United Bible Societies' 4th edition of
the Greek New Testament (1993) rates the omission of verses 9-20 from the
original Markan manuscript as "certain." For this reason, many modern Bibles
decline to print the longer ending of Mark together with the rest of the gospel,
but, because of its historical importance and prominence, it is often included
as a footnote or an appendix alongside the shorter ending. [1]
The Codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus do not record the resurrection:
Matthew 16:2 f. is omitted, Mark ends at 16:8, Luke 22:43 f., John 5:4 and the
Pericope de adultera are omitted. The doxology of Romans comes after 16:23.
Hebrews follow immediately after II Thessalonians. [2]
The `Longer Ending' of Mark is preserved in the Byzantine texts, which are
interpolated. The Anglican scholars Westcott and Hort discredited the Byzantine
(KJV) text. Yet, the oldest Greek manuscripts do not have the longer ending. The
Alexandrian (NIV) omits the longer ending (Aleph and B). The Anglican scholars
Westcott and Hort attest the Byzantine text was conflated in the 4th century.
There are no Byzantine manuscripts before the fourth century when Lucian of
Syria conflated the various readings and produced what became the Byzantine or
Traditional Text. We know this is true because we have no Byzantine readings
before the middle of the fourth century, but we do have Alexandrian and Western
readings. Therefore, any second century reading which supports the third or
fourth century readings of the Alexandrian line are considered important and are
offered as proof that these textual lines are more original than the Byzantine
line. However, if a reading is found in these very same manuscripts which agrees
with the fourth century Byzantine reading, it is considered unimportant and
unconsequential. [1]
In Antioch the early form was polished stylistically, edited ecclesiastically,
and expanded devotionally. This was the origin of what is called the Koine text,
later to become the Byzantine Imperial text. Forth century tradition called it
the text of Lucian. [2]
Hort characterized the Byzantine text as 'late, conflated, heavily edited and
revised', whereas Hort extolled the Alexandrian text as 'pure, primitive,
carefully corrected, and neutral'.
The Gospels are clear that no one witnessed Jesus' resurrection. It was seen by
NO ONE.
Afterward he appeared unto the eleven as they sat at meat, and upbraided them
with their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they believed not them which
had seen him after he was risen. (Mark 16:14)
It was Mary Magdalene and Joanna, and Mary the mother of James, and other women
that were with them, which told these things unto the apostles. And their words
seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not. (Luke 24:10-11)
http://www.answering-christianity.com/abdullah_smith/the_resurrection_hoax.htm
Nothing to do with Muslims let me clarify ; http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/
This Greek book Codex Sinaiticus is the earliest complete bible extant, about 400 ad.
I think the significance of the Codex is around several factors. First must be
that it's the earliest complete manuscript or copy of the New Testament. Second
to that, maybe, is that it's arguably the oldest Christian Bible full stop.
With the Codex what you have is a debate about the text that's going on not
in learned treatises but actually, physically, on the page of those manuscripts.
So you have, if you like, a 'first take', the scribe writes down 'the text' -
and then you get changes or revisions. Whether it's 'correct' is a moot point,
but there are changes to the text, occurring on every single page and continued
from the fourth century through to the 12th century. And so you can literally
see at one point a particular part of the text may be written in a certain way,
and then that may be changed or revised a little la