|
So what did they do? Let us ask Rev. Dr. George L.
Robertson. In his book “Where did we get our Bible?” he writes:
“Of the MSS. of Holy Scripture in Greek still
existing there are said to be several thousand of varying worth ... Three or
four in particular of these old, faded out, and unattractive documents
constitute the most ancient and the most precious treasures of the Christian
Church, and are therefore of special interest.” First in Rev. Richardson's list
is the “Codex Vaticanus” of which he says: “This is probably the most ancient
of all Greek MSS. now known to exist. It is designated as Codex 'B.' In 1448,
Pope Nicholas V brought it to Rome where it has lain practically ever since,
being guarded assiduously by papal officials in the Vatican Library. It's
history is brief: Erasmus in 1533 knew of its existence, but neither he nor any
of his successors were permitted to study it... becoming quite inaccessible to
scholars, till Tischendorf in 1843, after months of delay, was finally allowed
to see it for six hours. Another specialist, named de Muralt in 1844 was
likewise given an aggravating glimpse of it for nine hours. The story of how
Dr. Tregelles in 1845 was allowed by the authorities (all unconscious to
themselves) to secure it page by page through memorizing the text, is a
fascinating one. Dr. Tregelles did it. He was permitted to study the MS.
continuously for a long time, but not to touch it or to take notes. Indeed,
every day as he entered the room where the precious document was guarded, his
pockets were searched and pen, paper and ink were taken from him, if he carried
such accessories with him. The permission to enter, however, was repeated,
until he finally had carried away with him and annotated in his room most of
the principle variant readings of this most ancient text. Often, however, in
the process, if the papal authorities observed he was becoming too much
absorbed in any one section, they would snatch the MS. away from him and direct
his attention to another leaf. Eventually they discovered that Tregelles had
practically stolen the text, and that the Biblical world knew the secrets of
their historic MS. Accordingly, Pope Pius IX ordered that it should be
photographed and published; and it was, in five volumes which appeared in 1857.
But the work was very unsatisfactorily done. About that time Tischendorf made a
third attempt to gain access to and examine it. He succeeded, and later issued
the text of the first twenty pages. Finally in 1889-90, with papal permission,
the entire text was photographed and issued in facsimile, and published so that
a copy of the expensive quartos was obtainable by, and is now in the possession
of all the principle libraries in the biblical world.”
What were all of the Popes afraid of? What was the Vatican as a whole afraid of? Why was the concept of releasing the text of their most
ancient copy of the Bible to the general public so terrifying to them? Why did
they feel it necessary to bury the most ancient copies of the inspired word of
God in a dark corner of the Vatican never to be seen by outside eyes? Why? What
about all of the thousands upon thousands of other manuscripts which to this
day remain buried in the darkest depths of the Vatican vaults never to be seen
or studied by the general masses of Christendom?
“[And remember] When God took a Covenant from those who were
given the Scripture: You shall make it known and clear to mankind, and you
shall not to hide it; but they flung it behind their backs, and purchased with
it a miserable gain! How evil was that which they purchased!” (Quran 3:187)
“Say: 'O People of the Book! exceed not in your religion the
bounds [of what is proper], trespassing beyond the truth, nor follow the vain
desires of people who went astray in times gone by, who misled many, and
strayed [themselves] from the straight path.'“ (Quran 5:77)
Returning to our study of some of the “discrepancies” to
be found between our modern Bibles and between the most ancient copies of the
Bible available to the chosen few, we find that the verse of Luke 24:51
contains Luke's alleged account of the final parting of Jesus, may the mercy
and blessings of God be upon him, and how he was “raised up into heaven.”
However, as seen in previous pages, in the Codex Sinaiticus and other ancient
manuscripts the words “and was carried up into heaven” are completely
missing. The verse only says:
“And it came to pass, while he blessed them, he was
parted from them.”
C.S.C. Williams observed, if this omission were correct,
“there is no reference at all to the Ascension in the original text of the
Gospel.”
Some other “inspired” modification of the Church to
Codex Sinaiticus and our modern Bibles:
·
Matthew 17:21 is missing in Codex Sinaiticus.
·
In our modern Bibles, Mark 1:1 reads “The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God;” however, in this
most ancient of all Christian manuscripts, this verse only reads “The
beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ” Strangely, the very words which
are most grating to the Muslim's Qur'an, “the Son of God,” are
completely missing. Isn't that interesting?
·
The words of Jesus in Luke 9:55-56 are missing.
·
The original text of Matthew 8:2 as found in Codex
Sinaiticus tells us that a leper asked Jesus to heal him and Jesus “angrily
put forth [his] hand, and touched him, saying, I will; be thou clean.” In
our modern Bibles, the word “angrily” is strangely absent.
·
Luke 22:44 in Codex Sinaiticus and our modern
Bibles claim that an angel appeared before Jesus, strengthening him. In Codex
Vaticanus, this angel is strangely absent. If Jesus was the “Son of God” then
obviously it would be highly inappropriate for him to need an angel to
strengthen him. This verse, then, must have been a scribal mistake.
Right?
·
The alleged words of Jesus on the cross “Father,
forgive them, for they know not what they do” (Luke 23:34) were originally
present in the Codex Sinaiticus but was later erased from the text by another
editor. Bearing in mind how the Church regarded and treated the Jews in the Middle
Ages, can we think of any reason why this verse might have stood in the way of
official Church policy and their “inquisitions”?
·
John 5:4 is missing from Codex Sinaiticus.
·
In Mark chapter 9, the words “Where their worm
dieth not, and the fire is not quenched.” are again missing.
·
In Matt. 5:22, the words “without cause” are
missing in both the codex Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
·
Matt. 21:7 in our modern Bibles reads “And [the
disciples] brought the ass, and the colt, and put on them their clothes, and
they set [Jesus] thereon.” In the original manuscripts, this verse read “and
they set [Jesus] upon them,” However, the picture of Jesus being placed
upon two animals at the same time and being asked to ride them at once was
objectionable to some, so this verse was changed to “and they set [Jesus] upon him”
(which “him”?). Soon after, the English translation completely avoided this
problem by translating it as “thereon.”
·
In Mark 6:11, our modern Bibles contain the words “Verily
I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of
judgment, than for that city.” However, these words are not to be found in
either of these two most ancient of Christian Biblical manuscripts, having been
introduced into the text centuries later.
·
The words of Matthew 6:13 “For thine is the
kingdom, and the power, and the glory, for ever.” Are not to be found in
these two most ancient manuscripts as well as many others. The parallel
passages in Luke are also defective.
·
Matthew 27:35 in our modern Bibles contains the
words “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, they parted
my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots.” This passage,
once again, is not found according to Rev. Merrill in any Biblical uncial
manuscript dating before the ninth century.
·
1 Timothy 3:16 originally read “And without
controversy great is the mystery of godliness: which was manifest in the flesh.”
This was then later (as seen previously), ever so subtly changed to “And
without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the
flesh….” Thus, the doctrine of the “incarnation” was born.
|
