Another question about the Codex Sainaticus - Sorry!


#1

I’ve searched for an answer from previous posts, but cannot find what I’m looking for.

My question is simple:
If the CS omits the resurrection - and the story of the Pharisees and the female adulterer, why?

And surely then the copies contained within the CS cannot be copies of the original Greek scripture, because the resurrection story wasn’t simply manufactured out of thin air in the mid to late 200s.

So why does the CS omit these pertinent details, and which original Greek scriptures do we take out text from today?


#2

In my mind the original ending of Mark is a more powerful ending than the tacked on stuff at the end. Jesus was gone, the angel told them Jesus had gone on to Galilee, the women were amazed and frightened and didn’t tell anyone

As for the adulterer story, I don’t think that is very important at all, in fact, I don’t really know for what purpose it was added. I don’t know what Pharisee story you are talking about.

But if you are implying that Jesus did not resurrect from the dead, I don’t think the Gospel of Mark in the CS version at all implicates that. It’s clear that Jesus is gone from the tomb, the angel it there, and there is clearly more to follow…

What do you think?


#3

Codex Sinaiticus

It’s generally believed to have been produced mid 4th century (around 350). This gives evidence of a “bible” as late in time as this date which was NOT the true Canon of Scripture.


#4

I think the Canon of Scripture, with all verses, is Sacred and “better” than anything less.

The woman caught in adultery story is amazing! The “religious unbelievers” came at Jesus ready to corner and attack Him. They were using this woman like a useless object. He dismantled them and their scheme so effortlessly and calm.


#5

Why do you think Codex Sinaiticus omits the resurrection ? it doesn’t check for yourself

codexsinaiticus.org/en/


#6

It only leaves off the end of Mark’s gospel. Some people think that because that was the first gospel written, that the other gospels were contrived or something like that. It doesn’t really make any sense to me.


#7

Most people agree that story was added later, but I agree it is a good story. Just because it was added later, doesn’t mean it isn’t true.


#8

Added later?


#9

I’ve heard. When is later?


#10

It only leaves off the end of Mark’s gospel. Some people think that because that was the first gospel written, that the other gospels were contrived or something like that. It doesn’t really make any sense to me.
[/quote]

What do you mean by “leaves off the end” ?

Mark’s gospel in Codex Sinaiticus ends like this,

16:1 And when the sabbath had passed, Mary Magdalene and Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices, that they might come and anoint him.

2 And very early on the first of the week they came to the sepulcher, the sun having risen.

3 And they said among themselves: Who shall roll away for us the stone from the door of the sepulcher?

4 And looking up they see that the stone had been rolled away; for it was very great.

5 And they entered the sepulcher and saw a young man, sitting at the right side, clothed in a white robe; and they were amazed.

6 But he says to them: Be not amazed. You seek Jesus the Nazarene who was crucified; he has risen, he is not here: see the place where they laid him.

7 But go, tell his disciples, especially Peter, that he goes before you into Galilee: there you shall see him, as he said to you.

8 And going out they fled from the sepulcher; for trembling and astonishment had seized them; and they said nothing to any one, for they were afraid.


#11

I agree, this is the ending for me too, but what the OP is referring to is this part which is usually tacked on in most Bibles today:

“Now when he rose early on the first day of the week, he appeared first to Mary Magdalene, from whom he had cast out seven demons. She went and told those who had been with him, as they mourned and wept. But when they heard that he was alive and had been seen by her, they would not believe it. After these things he appeared in another form to two of them, as they were walking into the country. And they went back and told the rest, but they did not believe them. Afterward he appeared to the eleven themselves as they were reclining at table, and he rebuked them for their unbelief and hardness of heart, because they had not believed those who saw him after he had risen. And he said to them, “Go into all the world and proclaim the gospel to the whole creation. Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned. And these signs will accompany those who believe: in my name they will cast out demons; they will speak in new tongues; they will pick up serpents with their hands; and if they drink any deadly poison, it will not hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover. So then the Lord Jesus, after he had spoken to them, was taken up into heaven and sat down at the right hand of God. And they went out and preached everywhere, while the Lord worked with them and confirmed the message by accompanying signs.”


#12

Are you talking about the longer ending of Mark? Shameless plug, but here’s me from a while back.


#13

Thanks Patrick, I wondered where you have been hiding! So you seem to conclude the longer ending is probably more authentic than the short ending? Very interesting.

How about the story of the adulterous woman and Jesus writing in the sand?


#14

So should you, if you are Catholic. :wink:

But I’m certainly not saying I don’t appreciate learning “why” the Church professes whatever she does. And Patrick is gifted at this research! Thanks Patrick!


#15

Very interesting, I found these hypotheses on why the different endings:

Mark intentionally ended his Gospel at 16:8, and someone else (later in the transmission-process) composed the “Longer Ending” as a conclusion to what was interpreted to be a too-abrupt account.

Mark did not intend to end at 16:8, but was somehow prevented from finishing (perhaps by his own death or sudden departure from Rome), whereupon another person finished the work (still in the production-stage, before it was released for church-use) by attaching material from a short Marcan composition about Jesus’ post-resurrection appearances.

Mark wrote an ending which was accidentally lost (perhaps as the last part of a scroll which was not rewound, or as the outermost page of a codex which became detached from the other pages), and someone in the 100’s composed the “Longer Ending” as a sort of patch, relying on parallel-passages from the other canonical Gospels.

Verses 16:9–20 were written by Mark and were omitted or lost from Sinaiticus and Vaticanus for one reason or another, perhaps accidentally, perhaps intentionally. (Possibly a scribe regarded John 21 as a better sequel to Mark’s account, and considered the “Longer Ending” superfluous.)

Mark wrote an ending, but it was suppressed and replaced with 16:9–20, which are a pastiche of parallel passages from the other canonical Gos


#16

I’ve graduated. I don’t have time to kill like I used to. :cool:

Re. the endings of Mark: well, if we’re talking about which of the two or three endings of Mark are more “authentic” (which I don’t think is really the best term to use), my gist is that only the longer ending (16:9-20) and the ‘abrupt’ ending (16:8) are the serious contenders. Nobody seriously claims that the short or intermediate ending (“And the women went to Peter …”) is ‘original’ or ‘authentic’ or whatever - it’s always the longer ending that’s in question.

How about the story of the adulterous woman and Jesus writing in the sand?

Again, that thread.


#17

:thumbsup:
Blue fin tuna on me!!!


#18

I believe, the Gospel of Mark was following the principles: “inform with facts, omit controversies”. It was aimed at supplying the believers (only those who already believe!) with the information on the key events in Christ’s ministry. This is why it did not include the oral tradition about Christ’s infancy: they were not seen as very relevant and open to controversy. This is also why it does not mention the post-Resurrection appearances: the readers already knew the accounts, but they were still subject to debates, as many heretics held that these were “visions”, “ghosts” of Christ. Mark intentionally avoids theologically controversial topics - only the uncontroverted facts on Christs biography.


#19

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.