The Codex Sinaiticus: The Oldest Surviving Christian New Testament - The Beauty of Books - BBC Four

Subscribe and 🔔 to the BBC 👉 bit.ly/BBCKZbinSub
Watch the BBC first on iPlayer 👉 bbc.in/iPlayer-Home More on this programme: www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b00ydj1m
Among the most highly prized treasures at the British Library is the largest book ever to survive from antiquity. Produced in the 4th century, the magnificent Codex Sinaiticus contains the oldest complete Christian New Testament in the world.
#bbc
All our TV channels and S4C are available to watch live through BBC iPlayer, although some programmes may not be available to stream online due to rights. If you would like to read more on what types of programmes are available to watch live, check the 'Are all programmes that are broadcast available on BBC iPlayer?' FAQ 👉 bbc.in/2m8ks6v.

[@3seven5seven1nine9]

I can't believe we're watching a man turn the pages of the world's oldest known new testament without gloves

[@Mrpallekuling]

Agree. He treats this manuscript like a newspaper. Incomprehensible. Arrogant.

[@TheBereanAtheist]

…..unless…..

[@camille11ize]

My thoughts exactly 💯

[@MimiYouyu]

Doubt very much that this is the oldest, but of course the british must own everything.

[@037016]

@@TheBereanAtheist exactly

[@scottschwartz5106]

Scot McKendrick, whom I have known for since around 1985, is a very thorough scholar and erudite speaker, who has done so much to make the British Library not only a vast repository of knowledge, but a strong research tool to compete in a world ruled by High Tech. He is an inspiration.

[@bengiyardimli1925]

The last statement doesn’t necessarily have to be true, though. It being the oldest surviving one doesn’t mean all others were copied from THIS exact one.

[@stephencornett5520]

​@bengiyardimli1925 That's an odd way of thinking. If this is the oldest known manuscript, meaning nothing we have predates it then the other versions must match or be frauds. The newer versions had to come from a primary. This version being the oldest would have to be the primary.

[@abecross3]

@@stephencornett5520 Unless the newer versions had an older primary source that was eventually lost before we found either copy.

[@stephencornett5520]

@@abecross3If we had an older source "to read" that still existed I would run with it. As of right now we don't. You are literally talking about the original Hebrew version.

[@seungk8607]

Such a marvelous statement by a scholar, such a marvelous work - as a Christian - and to know how deep and far our manuscripts go astounds me even today. Such a beautiful work of history

[@ZMA_831]

To assume that something is more accurate simply because it is older is dangerous and not of sound logic

[@ZMA_831]

When we have a clear definition of what truth is and it has no correlation to age. Rather what is true is that which has Fidelity to its original. Not that which is closest in age to its original

[@hanzo90]

@@ZMA_831 who said that?

[@dexterplameras3249]

@ZMA_831 The scribes job was to write it down word for word. When historians, archaeologists, theologians and linguists compare texts of ancient scripture copied by hand multiple times over the centuries, until the printing press was invented, the accuracy is very high, so high you can rely on copied Greek, Hebrew and Aramaic texts from later centuries as accurate. When ever they find a ancient manuscript, the septuagint in this case, or the dead sea scrolls in other cases, they find the scribes copied accurately word for word. Any discrepancies are very very very small and is often put in modern bibles, but has no bearing on the overall text at all.

[@frankhill4358]

@@dexterplameras3249 there is no original version of the Bible and the earliest versions were written in Greek. At best the Bible is a translation of a translation of events decades before they occurred with non primary sources

[@opsimathics]

why isn't that man wearing gloves?????????

[@nikolausmalkovich3309]

It's copy of Codex

[@oldyoutubevideos1262]

+Nikolaus Malkovich. They made a copy out of Animal skin in our modern times?

[@joeltunnah]

opsimathics, because it’s a 19th century forgery, so no worries. 👍🏻

[@Craftero]

my thoughts exactly

[@IXIDrunkenScotsman]

blogs.bl.uk/digitisedmanuscripts/2011/08/white-gloves-or-not-white-gloves.html

[@ineendubh]

@bernusdellus. Oddly enough, the normal practice is to wear gloves for paper manuscripts and none for vellum, the oils from your skin can only do serious damage to the former. Gloves can often make readers more clumsy and damage the work, so most librarians try to minimise their use. Also, Scot McKendrick *is* the custodian - he's curator of western manuscripts in the British library - so if anyone is allowed to handle it, it's him ;)

[@rolandiuxpanzilla909]

Organic tissues disintegrate, degrade, just because of time, they become delicate and break without using force (I have held books from 500 years ago with leather bindings in my hands, their delicacy is evident), in this video that fragility is not visible, I suppose you will not agree, for me, It Is not ancient, It Is a fraud

[@DefenderOfChrist_]

Love these Old Manuscripts God bless these manuscripts

[@user-uy8kg6iy2q]

I would say this is the most important book that exists.

[@XYZ19856]

Narrator: "they're perfectly crafted" A few seconds later: "there's a small flaw here..."

[@moisesvelez9859]

Beautiful, amazing...very emotional to see it....

[@no1aviator]

The oldest New Testement manuscript has been dated 125AD and it is called John Ryland's manuscript. It is also assumed that the whole new testement was already completed before 125AD because of the discovery of this manuscript.

[@spanishfly7709]

Yeah it's in Latin I know about that one but your about 5 years off 120 A.D.

[@ukulelemike]

That would be the Italic version? Not Latin exactly. Translated just before the pershitta, or the Syriac translation in about 150AD. Still used today.

[@no1aviator]

@@ukulelemike They are written in Greek

[@no1aviator]

@therockkkkher Your welcome bro. Have a wonderful day

[@ukulelemike]

In fact there is a piece of one of the gospels that dates from around 60ad. The NT canon was completed in the early 90s by. The first one translations of the whole NT from Greek were between 125-150ad into Italic and Syriac.

[@pme96]

@bernusdellus Its vellum ( treated animal skin) not paper. If stored properly it can last thousands of years and is much more durable than paper. Note how fresh and clear it still appears after 1600 years.

[@ethanhair1460]

Maybe that's because it's only 150 years old?

[@jeaneneday6563]

I'm not convinced it was written in the 4th century. But edited over many more centuries. Where are the texts it was copied from?

[@yjk5737]

He should be wearing gloves. The codex belongs to humanity, not to him personally to do whatever he likes with it.

[@The7mikalo]

it's a copy of the original codex

[@toth.42]

Actually it belongs to the monastery in Egypt, st Catherine

[@Jonmad17]

Handlers of antique paper no longer wear gloves, because it's easier to tear pages while turning them if you don't have the tactile sensation of your finger tips

[@zemongo]

Even magic the gathering investors use gloves to pick up cards! ! Dirty greasy.hands pick up the rarest book

[@sovereigngracedoctrine5774]

Codex Sinaiticus,The worlds oldest Bible is a fake, and so is your Bible if it's made from it!

[@nmngirl]

wow some of those books are HUGE, wonder what they're about

[@Hallowed_Knight]

It's the new testament bro

[@echoes5476]

to clarify, this is not the oldest gospel written account we have, as there are other manuscripts of Mathew, Mark, Luke and John older than the Codex.

[@savvassavva2121]

Why would you want to be handling such a precious and delicate work of art as if it were a local newspaper.

[@javiermandujano35]

The Codex sinaiticus is not the oldest the masoretic text the Aleppo codex the Dead Sea Scrolls the bologna codex dates way older than codex sinaiticus codex sinaiticus only dates to around the 18th century AD

[@huynhngocnamgiang]

Oldest New Testament. The Dead Sea Scrolls are Old Testament books.

[@javiermandujano35]

@@huynhngocnamgiang I never said New Testament and plus there could be a possibility in the future there could be New Testament Dead Sea Scrolls I am assuming of course but you never know probably not tho

[@alexsmith2766]

Read the title of the video, it says "oldest surviving christian new testament" ... dead sea scrolls are old testament.

[@javiermandujano35]

@@alexsmith2766 did I just mention the Dead Sea Scrolls. You are missing the point on what I said the Aleppo codex, the Hebrew gospel of Matthew is the way older. The Codex sinaiticus is one of the latest New Testament Scrolls of them all lol.

[@alexsmith2766]

@@javiermandujano35 The aleppo codex was written in 10th century I can't find any source saying hebrew gospel of matthew is older. And even if it is older, do we have a full copy of the New Testament in it? If not, then it is completely useless because codex sinaticus is available in FULL copy. You mentioned dead sea scrolls and saying it was older, you are wrong because dead sea scrolls are OT not NT, the video is about NT. Therefore dead sea scrolls is invalid.. Also did you just thumb up your own comment lol

[@Cascadia007]

Why the papers look like thyre modern for a 4th century?

[@foxdogs1st]

Does anyone know if Satan is mention in this version ?

[@Noochieano]

It was found @ saint Catherin in EGYPT

[@MultiArchangel]

Beautiful book really. Just beautiful.

[@joshportie]

Too bad it's a fraud.

[@andrei4yzeee]

@@joshportie too bad you’re a clown

[@masterbaiter7537]

Highly unlikely. Paleographic and computer-based dating, along with the Alexandrian-text type the codex was written in, strongly suggests it was written in the 4th century AD. @@joshportie

[@TheFamilyguy421]

Vellum is not normal paper. The oil from your fingers that would typically harm paper, actually helps preserve the longevity of animal skin pages (vellum) by helping it avoid becoming too brittle and crack.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Thanks. I didn’t know that

[@tonyrock7375]

read the book The Forging of Codex Sinaiticus

[@dennisboyce813]

I am surprised that they are not using gloves even if it is a reenactment.

[@rayhannum9088]

The authentic NT gospel was used and worn then recorded. And you would not expect to find an old pristine copy but you would expect to find the ones that were concidered tainted and not used by serious early Christians.

[@davidlutz1176]

In other words, it was written and assembled centuries after any living eye witness.

[@eS-ql7vm]

We westerners severely underestimate ancient oral cultures and their ability to simply just remember things. It is perfectly reasonable to believe that stories were passed down accurately relating events. It’s perfectly reasonable not to believe it, of course. But it’s perfectly reasonable to believe it. The strangeness of a thing (like a story transmitted over centuries) is not an argument against its veracity. Just a statement regarding its potential. If I’m correct, you’re trying to make a point that the stories are unreliable based on the distance in time between the events and their recordings in this manuscript, right? I am just responding to that idea with my comment.

[@andrewaguas3672]

This is just the complete New Testament. We have manuscripts of individual parts going back to 125 AD, still not great though

[@willnichols6470]

​@@andrewaguas3672But even that is just what we've discovered, the source documents would be even older.

[@showmeanedge]

The church wrote and compiled the Bible during hundreds of years of persecution. It wasn't as if they could just hang out in Jerusalem and write it all down while the Pharisees and the Romans left them to their own devices.

[@davidlutz1176]

@@showmeanedge your statement rebukes what I said in no way what so ever.

[@y2k42y2k42]

Yet there is no mention of the resurrection or the trinity in it

[@phantomsylla4617]

No just no mention of the trinity lmao

[@NomadJournalistNews]

To Herbert's range given is the first half of the second century. There's no way to pinpoint a specific year...

[@perbondesen]

Age and quality are not necessarily positively correlated. The very best of my Bibles was a rather recent acquisition, and it is the first that I will wear out and have to replace.

[@kacgchannel4554]

Now we have the book of Eli

[@bernie4268]

Wasn’t it “borrowed” from the Sinai monastery and never returned?

[@Hopamptube]

{Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful.}Quran, Alaraf :157

[@spazomaz]

No one cares mate respectfully this is a Christian video.

[@helioselexandros]

Mohomod is not in the torah or gospel.

[@Hopamptube]

@@helioselexandros so which torah or gospel you believe in? Do you read the same books as the oldest bibles discovered? Why they are different? Why there are tens of different versions (if you count the burnt and eliminated/omitted one then it might be hundreds !)

[@mr3rdxxx]

​@@Hopamptubethey even dont have oldest scriptures in original language..😅

[@Surfxeo]

/* why was it written 400 years */ That's like asking why was any book copied. Its a non-question. The Codex Sinaiticus is oldest known surviving complete New Testament. It does not mean it was the original New Testament. All manuscripts are copied. Every one we have today are copies of the original. It is however not the oldest surviving NT manuscript. The oldest manuscript we have today is P52 from the early first half of the 2nd century (120 A.D). Oldest manuscript from antiquity in fact.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

It's age is far from being documented. The word I would use to describe the claim as to its age is "alleged". Not one thing about it has been proven to be ancient.

[@phantomsylla4617]

Yea but that manuscript is the size of my credit card 💀💀

[@posthawk1393]

We actually have a manuscript fragment of Mark from 80-105 AD.

[@sharonhenry5479]

Why are the pages snow white?

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

It’s a good question

[@ethanhair1460]

Because it's only about 150 years old not 1600 as they claim

[@aws8536]

Nobody willing to reveal exactly how many number of books this Codex Sinaiticus contains.

[@greekgod300george6]

GREEK💪🏼🇬🇷

[@bryanbradley6871]

No way that's over 1500 years old

[@Ballu12345]

Just a lie.

[@VacouverCanucks]

It's called carbon dating, easily verifiable.

[@bfras33]

It's a forgery. See Tares among the Wheat by Chris Pinto.

[@snirahman]

....still short of another 400

[@VacouverCanucks]

@@Anoneemus_Noenayme Nope. It was carbon dated.

[@tolukofo]

I want it

[@GregoryTheGr8ster]

I'm confused. Doesn't a book like this make holy/heavenly music when it is opened? Something is wrong here.

[@forestvvoods577]

😂😂😂😂😂

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

😂 that’s funny

[@sreenathjohnsonsaysnotolgbtq]

Am I the only one here who heard the music.

[@ukulelemike]

That is some mighty white parchment for being 1700 years old. And that flaw he mentions, the worm hole, that he wrote around it tells me that the paper is much older than the writing, which is weird since I doubt early Bible scribes wpuld have used flawed paper for scripture. That it was written around it says it is a later writing.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Do you think it to be a fraud?

[@ukulelemike]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I do, in fact. A study was done on it by a man named David Sorenson, who gives numerous reasons why he believes it isnt authentic. Maybe not a fraud, but at the time of its "discovery" by Tischendorf, another biblical scholar named Constantine Simonides claimed to have written it as a gift to, I believe, the Tzar of Russia, and subsequently ended up at the monastery at Sinai, where Tischendorf acquired it.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@ukulelemike it’s fascinating. The problem is whether or not there was actually fraud, the whole thing seems shady.

[@ukulelemike]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews I dont think the fraud was on the part of Simonides, it was on the part of Tischendorf. There is a reason Sinaiticus has never been chemically dated, either the paper or the ink.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

@@ukulelemike ahh that would be a HUGE SCANDAL!!

[@kenciolek843]

The Codex sinaiticus is not the textus receptus or received text

[@Mark4Jesus]

0:18 "Within it lies surprising challenges to Christian orthodoxy." - Like what for example?

[@phantomsylla4617]

Bc u idiots say u have the original church and teachings ……….. 💀

[@bonniekarp3715]

Gloves man GLOVES!!!!!!!!!

[@livealive3323]

I've examined hundreds of ancient manuscripts, I can't ever look at this one without suspicion. Everything seems wrong about it--the number of columns is wrong for the time period. The white and supple pages should have become yellow and brittle by now. The number of correctors allegedly at work for centuries still failed to detect and correct hundreds of obvious instances of homoioteleuton (full line omissions). There are modern Greek words and Latinized forms in Hermas and Barnabas, which don't match quotations by the early writers. Tischendorf's story of it's discovery has been dismissed as a work of fiction. Etc.! They really need to sample the ink--including some of the alleged correctors. It may be as old as they say, but to me, too many red flags that scream "potential forgery" to not investigate further.

[@hawk8110]

livealive Its a Copy the original is somewhere safe

[@livealive3323]

@@hawk8110 Hi Denis, thank you for your response. No, that's the original he's holding. They pulled it out of the box and he's showing features of the vellum in the video.

[@livealive3323]

If you look at a verifiably ancient codex, the Freer manuscript (kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z2PaipmEgKelnaM) you can see the color these manuscripts become after so many years. But you can see here at 0:44 that the edge is only just starting to turn. In addition, collagen fibers break down and the pages should not be so supple. So again, too many red flags.

[@The7mikalo]

it's a copy, not a single person in this wolrd is allowed to touch it much less without gloves

[@livealive3323]

@@The7mikalo Yes, that is the real thing. He is showing actual features of the vellum at 1:39 and 1:43. That is real vellum, not a reproduction. That is also why it is kept in a box. And yes, he can handle it without gloves. The British Library policy is that it is better to handle the manuscript with clean, dry hands rather than gloves. The gloves increase the risk of tearing and damage due to reduced dexterity.

[@stevenvalett1231]

The ink has never been tested for an accurate dating. Forged in 1840 by Constantine Simonides. Source: Cambridge Guardian News December 27, 1933.

[@Gabriel-zm2ue]

Codex syriacus is older

[@joshportie]

Older than an 1840 fraud? No way lol.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

How old is it?

[@aquillafleetwood8180]

Google, the Northern Cross, by Aquilla Fleetwood, youtube!

[@yakovmatityahu]

Guys we have the same Bible as the early Christians...stop the doubt and believe...

[@djscottdog1]

@Xon0sc0peoX cool thanks

[@jeaneneday6563]

How do we know it was written in the 4th century and not later?

[@masterbaiter7537]

It's dated to the 4th century AD via paleographic and computer-based dating, and the Alexandrian-text type it was written in also strongly suggests it was written in the 4th century.

[@phantomsylla4617]

@@masterbaiter7537see that’s the funny thing tho. Jesus left on 33AD.. yet ppl claim they have the same teachings from the “early church fathers”

[@TJPoppy]

Codex Sinaiticus ends in the book of Hebrews, no more books after that. Yet there’s translation of the whole Bible by this incomplete manuscripts. WHY? TEXTUS RECEPTUS translation only.

[@toth.42]

You should give this back to the monastery, it isn't yours.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Yes indeed

[@joshuaa3075]

It was written in the 1800’s. See David Daniels research on it.

[@BiblicalStudiesandReviews]

Have heard that. I’m sort of inclined to think it wasn’t a forgery. But what if it was????

[@JesusProtects]

@@BiblicalStudiesandReviews then the textus receptus and majority text are the word of God. The word was never lost, as God promised. Don't trust alexandrian manuscripts either, they were corrupted with gnostic teachings.

[@megamillion2461]

@@JesusProtects so is it fake

[@sovereigngracedoctrine5774]

@@megamillion2461 Yes it is. info on the Codex Sinaiticus that proves that is is a fake, This is from the books "Is the worlds oldest Bible a fake" and "Who faked the worlds oldest Bible".

[@dtcowlick]

ABSOLUTELY, Joshua. Also, David H. Sorenson's book, "Neither Oldest Nor Best" gives a very thorough and well-researched history of Siniaticus, with plenty of damning evidence that it is a fraudulent document.

[@matthew28-acts238]

Prove it's age by carbon dating or other dating science. My hypothesis is that Codex Sinaiticus is only from the 18th or 19th century AD.

[@edvardzv5660]

Reading the books of the New Testament, we probably asked ourselves more than once: *"Why 2000 years we do not see those miracles that accompanied the Сhurch of Christ in the I century, as described in the New Testament?"* Why do the so-called preachers of Christ have to prove that Jesus really existed and atheists boldly deny the historicity or divine origin of Christ? Maybe because the Сhurch of Christ has not existed for 2000 years? The Сhurch does not exist in the form in which it is presented in the books of the New Testament, but there are Catholic, Orthodox, Protestant and other christian sects claiming to be the place of the Church, but they not have the only thing that distinguishes the divine from the human and is characteristic of just the Сhurch of Christ -the reinforcement of the word with signs, that is, miracles (Mark 16:15-20). Therefore, some researchers doubt the historicity of Christ, and some of them are not opposed to declaring him a an ordinary philosopher, teacher. But even if Jesus were an ordinary philosopher, his disciples would be ordinary followers of Jesus. And they would not dare to write about the miracles that not only Jesus, but also his disciples, could perform. In this world, the great fertility of atheism can be explained by the fact that there is no main opponent of critics of the Bible - the Church. If there were the Church in our time as described by the authors of the New Testament books, where miracles are performed, the sick are healed, where prophesied, and the dead are raised, no one would doubt the historicity of Christ. Then there would be the same controversy throughout the world as in the first century - Jesus the Son of God or the false prophet who seduces the world by miracles. As a result, we can say that the emergence and development of christian sects and atheism was the result of the fact that over the 2000 years the Сhurch of Christ did not exist. Find *"The Mystery about the Church of Christ"* video on KZbin. The video reveals the prophecy of the disappearance and reappearance of the Church of Christ before the End of the World. Watching this video will give hope to all who sincerely seek God and will interest those who are not too lazy to think freely. Click on my name to watch the video (The video is in Russian, but English subtitles are included).

[@Yt_trixy]

In codex woman caught in adultery never found here

[@whisperingsage]

Very White pages, sign it is not ancient at all. It was a replica written by simonides, as a gift to the Tsar if Russia, but was imperfect so instead was taken to st Catherine's monastary. Simonides had marked pages with mistakes with initials. "Experts" ignored the discrepancies.

[@LordDirus007]

This Book disproves Muhammad as a Prophet and Islam. This Book Pre-dates Muhammad by several hundred years. It states what is in the New Testament. 1. Jesus was Crucified 2. Jesus Died on the Cross 3. Jesus rose from the Dead 4. Jesus was the Son of God.

[@gingerteddy618]

Which part of the book?

[@LordDirus007]

@@gingerteddy618 All 4 Gospels!

[@alrealmediacenter]

"The dead sea scrolls are older than codex sinaticus and don't mention Jesus, therefore jesus isnt god. Harry Potter doesnt mention jesus therefore jesus isnt god" youre humiliating yourself. Apparently to you, if something is old its true. Get a brain.

[@user-yw4fz6xk2j]

And stolen from St. Catherine's monastery in Mount Sinai... How British...

[@user-yw4fz6xk2j]

@Mavors better for Brits

[@user-yw4fz6xk2j]

@Mavors better for Anglicans

[@djscottdog1]

@Xon0sc0peoX but its animal hide shorly it can be damaged

[@terpkilla6674]

The Quran has remained unchanged and memorised.

[@gabrielvicol607]

Wipe your behind with it

[@segante]

Did they steal it from Sinaitic monks?

[@annacorts8609]

🤔🧐☝️Stolen back in the 19th century from Saint Catherine's Monastery, Sinai Peninsula. It's time for this codex to go home. This book should be return to their owners.

[@paultrosclair1775]

And it's a forgery, not an ancient document.

[@RoseSharon7777]

How do we know its not from the 1500s?

[@aprilrosequartz]

Because the words are in ancient language. They weren’t just speaking 1500s language, I mean VERY OLD language. Like 300AD language. It's discovered in Mount Sinai around 1800s I think. Also in the Bible, Moses found the burning bush below mount Sinai

[@cheapstixxx]

They used Google

[@joshuaa3075]

David Daniels of the ChickTracts youtube channel has the best info on Sinaiticus. He and others can prove it is far from the oldest Bible. It's likely even to have been transcribed as late as the 1800's.

[@jacobsmith6445]

Joshua A proved? by making impossible assertions in order to "protect" the kjv and tr ?

[@joshuaa3075]

Jacob Smith The evidence is there for you to review yourself. David Daniels of the ChickTracts youtube channel has it all there. The Sinaiticus was written in the 1800's. Go watch it yourself or you are just a troll.

[@virtuousglean7216]

David Daniels of the Chick Tracts is a total con artist.

[@chuckschillingvideos]

No more so than the British Museum, which will not allow any testing to be done on Sinaiticus which would prove it is a 19th century manuscript.

[@HectorHernandez-qn1wm]

@@virtuousglean7216 prove it..

[@ManiM-km9bp]

2 Corinthians 1:4 ►❤️😂😂😂 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. I never believed this above verse for Many years and believed that apostle Paul may be lieing ,, because I was in a confused state of mind and fear ,,( verse for example:--🙄 like Without God and without hope,,) But after reading Romans 2:-9 I started getting energy,, God's touch 😂😂😂 ,,after in all my troubls GOD comforts me with a His verse (word of God)Romans 2:9 There will be trouble and distress for every human being who does evil: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile; Once I was very proud of a my achievement and to support my joy God reminded a verse from philippines chapter 1,,,but that joy vanished in just a day time ,,after this I myself took a verse 1 Peter 4 VERSES 1 and 2,,, We must always conscience of 1 john 2:16 when you travel to the world ( a bad christian society,,) ecclesiastes chapter 7,,you must know that we must keep away from gentile world ,,( hell ),, 2 corinthians 12 here Apostle Paul prays only three times for his sickness,,( but you must pray at least one hours before bed when God gives a good place to sleep ,,but avoid sleep but pray ,,) secret of a christian life 👍👍👍👍👍

[@xbemos]

Why are we touching with out gloves???

[@colby4390]

Where are your gloves?!?!?!

[@urbanmeyer9725]

it’s a copy

[@Dimitris4110]

Return it from where it was stolen maybe?

[@Ballu12345]

Don't worry, after sometime they will find new bible that will be older than this and Will be different from existing ones

[@jspanyer]

Why do you lie? Most scholars agree the codex Vaticanus is slightly older and more complete and thus possibly the more accurate. However the codex Sianiticus does have a slightly more complete New testament. But the important point is when you mislead people everything you say become suspect.

[@Ballu12345]

No two scripts are Identical Each and Every Scripts Contradictes each other Better Read Quran It's Preserved and On Original Language

[@Anonymous-co3jv]

I can't believe that Jesus or his companions were speaking Greek! I thought they were speaking semitic language 😅 I'm speaking Japanese, imagine I died yesterday.. So if someone wrote a book in Greek after 350 years, and then said to the world that I said what he wrote in Greek is what I said exactly no one would believe it.! yet people today believe that, how surprising.

[@X4VER279]

Greek was a very common language because Greeks were great sailsmen and they probably brought the language there. A bit like English today 👍

[@marcosponce960]

Why don't they use surgical gloves to handle it?

[@mir8215]

@marcos ponce Nowadays it's considered best practice to not wear gloves when handling archival material. The wearing of gloves makes it harder to feel the pages, and can make tearing of pages easier, especially if the documents are already fragile. I work in an archive, and the conservators have told us this. You're right in that rubber gloves are better than cloth ones, as sense of touch is better in rubber gloves. However, having to show the book to an audience would put pressure on the man which could cause fumbling, and therefore some damage, when turning the pages with any kind of glove.

[@WatchingThere]

Why hasn't the parchment oxidised - gone golden - IF it is as old as you say it is - it's as WHITE as the day it was forged !

[@X4VER279]

It is made out of skins

[@snirahman]

So there you have it, the Bible was complied 4 centuries later by an unknown author in a language (Koine Greek) which was not even spoken by Jesus (Aramaic). People need to open their eyes and understand the possibility of change. Also learn about "Hadith Science", this was the only true way to preserve history before carbon dating

[@andridefian_]

Christ, Jesus lived in an Aramaic village which was an area of Greek spoken Roman province. So obviously the Gospels would be written in Koine Greek to reach more audiences. That's why it's called New Testament and every Bibles always have 27 of New Testament books. Always with 4 Gospels within (Luke, Mark, Matthew, John).

[@andridefian_]

Bible has three original language. Hebrew: majority of the Old Testament books Aramaic: Old Testament (only 1-2 books. Ezra is an example) Greek: New Testament (27 books). For translation copies: Greek: Septuagint (Greek version of Old Testament and the Original New Testament), used by Eastern Orthodox Church. Latin: Vulgate (Latin version of Old Testament and New Testament), used by Roman Catholic Church. Aramaic (Syriac alphabet): Peshitta (Aramaic Syriac version of Old Testament and New Testament. Same like Septuagint and Vulgate), mostly used by Maronite Catholic Church. Ge'ez: Ethiopian Bible (Ge'ez version of Old Testament and New Testament. Again same like Peshitta, Vulgate, and Septuagint), used mostly by Ethiopian Tewahedo Orthodox Church. All translations are directly from the original languages of the Bible, meaning the original book. And for Septuagint is only Old Testament because New Testament was originally written in Greek.

[@phantomsylla4617]

@@andridefian_false. Every translation says something different.

[@betawithbrett7068]

Erroroneous title. What makes Codex Sinaiticus unique is it is the oldest NT codex that is COMPLETE. We have older NT manuscripts...as much as 200 years.

[@nexusgroupnxt]

Back when islam did not existed

[@Yt_trixy]

😂😂😂😂😂woman cuaght in adultery never found bruh he say islam

[@bakhtiyarguseinov9402]

I like how you find a way to bring up Islam when it has nothing to do with the video

[@Yt_trixy]

Islam was the first religion on earth like it or not hell and paradise are there

[@nexusgroupnxt]

@@Yt_trixy That is just not true ;')

[@camille11ize]

Why would they handle that with their bare hands? If preservation were important to them they would obviously have gloves on. What a shame!

[@bfras33]

It's a forgery and part of a conspiracy. See Tares among the Wheat by Chris Pinto

[@camille11ize]

@@bfras33 Then your book reference is the only sourse that claims this I'veheard of. I have found tons of sources that say different and scholars that have seen it feel it's real. But I'll look into your book reference. You can even read it online. Have you just looked at this sourse or have you throughly researched this claim.?

[@camille11ize]

@@bfras33 the only book I see with that name on Amazon has a different author and is about the restrainer.

[@Michaelmop]

Burn it gogo.

[@vickiewoolford5682]

I cringe when people DO NOT WEAR GLOVES!!! DID YOU SEE THE DIRTY FINGERPRINTS ON IT? UGH!!!!!!!!! Lord have mercy!!!

[@urbanmeyer9725]

ITS A COPY!!!!!

[@markgushue9482]

Not worth anything. It's a corrupt manuscript.

[@dawnjohnson8739]

OMG, why the ridiculous closeups?

[@user-uy8kg6iy2q]

insane.

[@LucLheureuxLucCyrille]

Je découvre cette vidéo et suis surpris que les deux personnes manipulant le codex ne portent pas de gants...

[@saborfrancias]

LOL, first of all, the "Curator at the British library" has never make a research and study about the interpretation he made to the differences among bibles. It's just irresponsible speculation when they make conclusions saying that the Bible has been re-written according to the power of the period etc. This is just a ridiculous effort from the "New Atheists"...

[@MasSigit88]

How do you defend your argument that there is no distortion in new testament in 300 years? The oldest one is from 4th century and for me, personally, it is opposed the Abrahamic monotheism faith.

[@X4VER279]

The oldest nearly complete one is from then. We have even older ones which are just pieces of parchment

[@Hopamptube]

Even after burning of books killings of opponents, the word Muhammed still mentioned in the bible old Testament in Hebrew, not only on the omitted books. Mem = מַ ⁠Het = חֲ⁠ Mem = מַ⁠ Dalet = דִּ֑⁠ Majestic Plural = ים same in Arabic MHMD / محمد =arabic (Name of our Prophet *peace be upon him*) Its clearly MHMD Hebrew letters without Vowels. The Original Hebrew Bible was written without Vowels . Hebrew word " מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים" it says: MHMD+ Majestic plural pronunciation :ma-ḥă-mad-dîm; (Noun) In Song of Solomon 5:16 the verse in Hebrew transliteration is: ḥikkōw mamṯaqqîm wəḵullōw maḥămaddîm zeh ḏōwḏî wəzeh rê‘î, bənōwṯ yərūšālim חִכּוֹ֙ מַֽמְתַקִּ֔ים וְכֻלּ֖וֹ מַחֲמַדִּ֑ים זֶ֤ה דוֹדִי֙ וְזֶ֣ה רֵעִ֔י בְּנ֖וֹת יְרוּשָׁלִָֽם׃ where maḥămaddîm is translated as "[is] lovely". But normally, in Hebrew, when the suffix "im" is added to a word, it's the use of majestic plural, that is giving respect to the entity referred to by the set of characters preceding "im". Just like "Eloh-im" (giving respect to Eloah).

[@Hopamptube]

“Those who follow the Messenger, the unlettered prophet, whom they find written in what they have of the Torah and the Gospel, who enjoins upon them what is right and forbids them what is wrong and makes lawful for them the good things and prohibits for them the evil and relieves them of their burden and the shackles which were upon them. So they who have believed in him, honored him, supported him and followed the light which was sent down with him - it is those who will be the successful.” The Holy Quran meaning translation Alaraf 157

[@holyleague8286]

MA-ḤĂ-MAD-DÎM = Lovely = Muhammad Then MACHMAD meaning "Desire" So "Desirable Thing= Muhammad" was muhammad a thing?😁

[@holyleague8286]

@@Hopamptube If MA-ḤĂ-MAD-DÎM = Muhammad. Then Hebrew AKBER also = Arabic AKBAR Then In Hebrew "AKBER" means "A Mouse🐁"..so if you add Hebrew Word...then what will you mean when you say "Allahu Akbar"? 🤣😂 🤣😂 " Allah is a Mouse" 🐁 😂

[@Hopamptube]

@@holyleague8286 and that is another proof of lying, no Hebrew speaker ever have any translation to that name because it is a NAME, not even google translator (not after the latest release), checking out different translators there is no translation for that name, that is why it is a pure fabrication and lie :)

[@Hopamptube]

@@holyleague8286 so please show me where in Hebrew the word (MACHMAD) was used a (Desire) . A pure ugly lie you know it, but poor english speakers don't :(

[@paulvogt8492]

Not the case, this is the oldest bible.

[@paulvogt8492]

@Mavors Codex Sinaiticus

[@RafaelCosta-fy7tb]

Humm...no..

[@josephusormocanus6252]

Wrong! The oldest and most complete is its sister codex, the Codex Vaticanus now stored in the Vatican library. The Codex Sinaiticus was only found in the St. Catherine Monastery in Alexandria, Egypt around early 1800s by a British citizen. It is now stored in the British library

[@christswayministries5414]

Codex Sinaiticus was written in 1840 by Constantine Simonides. When will it and the Vaticanus be tested to find out how old they are?

[@MN-fw6id]

No gloves! Ahhh... He also has long nails.

[@maynardewm]

How come this book from the 4th century is completely clear and legible, where’s books and papers from only a couple hundred years ago are completely faded and unintelligible?

[@blackhawk7r221]

You are thinking of paper. This is written on parchment (animal skin).

[@robinearle7225]

Dean Burgon thoroughly refutes this manuscript, suggesting that it has survived so long as nobody wanted to read it due to the multitude of errors and omissions. It was actually found in a waste paper basket.

[@us.nyc.10011]

Why was it in Greek? Jesus early followers were Jewish, Hebrew or Aramaic speaking people !

[@Ballu12345]

Because Paul Was Greek And Paul Actually Taught Everyone That Jesus Should Be Worshipped as God Incarnate But if you See Prophet Abraham, Isaac Ishmael Jacob David Solomon Moses Jesus Christ Mohammed ﷺ (PBUT all) they all Worshipped One True God No Incarnation, No Partners, No Sons, No Daughters No Wives No Associates Of God Was ever There

[@spazomaz]

@@Ballu12345 Not again the Paul idiotic arguments. Paul and the Gospel authors wanted as much coverage and believers as possible. Why would they write in Galilean aramaic when it was such a small minority language and in Hebrew when Jesus already spread the Gospel there and most Israelites had a hardened heart. Greek was a major language. Even Jesus said there will be more converts from the Gentiles nations than the actual Jews.

[@Yt_trixy]

@@Ballu12345😂😂😂😂

[@paultrosclair1775]

This is NOT an ancient document. If you think it is, you need your eyes or your brain examined.

[@BradCGZ]

Exactly. Someone needs animate Tischendorfs story south park style with the caption "This is what Modern Bible Scholors Actually Believe" layed over it

[@unclesmoke4690]

Put some gloves on

[@mcpastor]

I rarely ever comment-but this jerk needs to wear gloves when he touches this codex!!!

[@saintpepsi8602]

Nope gloves would be more damaging, oil from your hands on animal skin pages like this actually help preserve it You seem like a jerk now

[@bobbymichaels2]

It's a forgery.

[@skitzwaz7019]

So Christians don't see the problem of believing NON eyewitness testimony from random authors who came DECADES after Prophet Jesus (peace be upon him), wrote translated in a language thats NOT existed today (Aramaic) and on top of that, there are "many many grave errors and defects" .... (Thats me quoting over 300 Christian scholars and theologians of the HIGHEST emmenience) such as: -Trinity is not mentioned ANYWHERE in the Bible. -The concept of Original Sin was never taught by Jesus. -Many Gospels have been proven to be COPIES or plagiarized from other random authors. -Every year they add and remove verses. God is perfect. He doesn't make mistakes. His word should be as well. All praise due to God for Islam.

[@TheMrpalid]

Well said. I also studied the Bible’s history, compilation and plentiful contradictions , searching for faith for over 15 years. I’m glad Allah SWT guided me to Islam. Alhamdulillah

[@skitzwaz7019]

@Saad Bin Masud what are you talking about?

[@afollowerofchrist5789]

@@skitzwaz7019 You mean just like Osman burned all existing Qu'ra'ns and only left out O'NE rand'oml'y?? Who was HE to say which Q'ur'a'n gets to stay? Also, your A'll'a'h is f'ak'e by the way you described God. You said He doesn't m'ak'e m'istak'es, yet the Q'ur'a'n holds m'an'y evidence when you read the verses themselves c'lea'rl'y stating that over 200 verses from a single c'ha'pte'r were lost, and 2 ch'ap'te'rs are missing! There are those who argue that A'll'a'h gave even better verses... well then, doesn't that mean that Allllah DID make a mistake to give out "better" verses??? Doesn't that mean that A'll'a'h so EASILY changes his mind? Do you not see that y'o'u'r p'ro'p'h'et was nothing but the tool of a devious Jinn EXACTLY BECAUSE he was so illiterate (didn't know how to read and write)?? It's soooo obvious! ANYONE could tell that by reading the Quran! This is why it's a "h'id'de'n" re'li'gio'n of al S'h'ay'ta'n al-rajeem! About the Trinity, you don't need to use that word to prove that Jesus is God the Son, and that God the Father, God the Son (Jesus), and God the Holy Spirit are but ONE God, the one and only. All you have to do is identify the functions that God has. The first is that of the Father, He adopted us all. The second is that of the Son, the perfect example of how a man should be, and our only way to salvation (if you want something done right (the prophets before Jesus), then do it yourself (Jesus)). As for the Holy Spirit, we actually have been blessed with it all, because we are all able to do good. Atheists, Christians, Muslims alike are all blessed with this, otherwise no man would be able to do good, unless they willingly renounce it. Even without the word "Trinity", all of which I've stated remain true.

[@afollowerofchrist5789]

@@skitzwaz7019 The concept of Original sin is to state that despite being blessed by the Holy Spirit, we are still born as sinners. We cannot "not" sin. It's in our blood, our human nature, it's the devil's temptation. Nothing can make us "not" sin. It is indeed as if it's our "INHERENT" ability to sin, inherited from Adam and Eve. That's what "Original Sin" actually means, and concerning how much we sin, Ohhhhooohooohhh, Jesus talks A LOT about it in the Bible. You should try and read it instead of stating a mere opinion.

[@afollowerofchrist5789]

​@@skitzwaz7019 Are you talking about different translations of the Bible? If so, then you must understand that there are many of these Bibles that actually were rejected because they didn't reflect the true word or correct definition of what had been written (in English that is). If you're talking about different Gospels altogether, then pray tell: Where is this proof?? I can easily state that the ori'gina'l Q'ur'an was also lo'st, and this is why we a'ctu'al'ly have different versions of the Q'ura'n with D'IF'FE'RENT' verses in the Arabic language alone. Don't believe me? Here you go: 33 different versions of the Arabic Quran by name: 1. Qaloon 2. Al-Susi (Ibn Katheer) 3. Khallad 4. Idrees 5. Warsh 6. Hafs Ad-Duri (Abu Amro alBasri) 7. Al-Laith 8. al-Bazzi 9. Al-Azraq 10. As-Susi (Abu Amro alBasri) 11. Ad-Duri (alKisa’i) 12. Ibn Shanboodh 13. Al-Asbahaani 14. Hisham 15. Isa BinWardan 16. Sulayman 17. al-Bazzi 18. Ibn Dhakwan 19. Ibn Jammaz 20. Ahmad bin Farah 21. Qunbul 22. Showba 23. Ruwais 24. Shujaa’ bin Abi Nasr Al-Balakhi 25. Abu Amro Al-Ala 26. Hafs 27. Ruh 28. Al-Duri (alHasan alBasri) 29. Hafs Al-Duri (Ibn Katheer) 30. Khalf 31. Ishaq 32. Al-Hasan bin Said Al-Matuu’i 33. Abu Farah Al-Shan-budhi

[@paulflannigan888]

See "Who Faked the 'World's Oldest Bible?" by David W. Daniels.

[@mirandahotspring4019]

Oldest complete new testament but they wouldn't say how old it was! Disappointing!

[@teefx5681]

So no new testament at the time of jesus.

[@spazomaz]

There was, in the form of Papyrus. Please research

[@DefenderOfChrist_]

We have the texts from the NT from the 1st Century

[@teefx5681]

@@spazomaz you mean the p52 which is the size of a credit card

[@phantomsylla4617]

@@DefenderOfChrist_buddy we have a single page the size of a credit card. Stop lying u goofy

[@phantomsylla4617]

@@spazomazsingle pages and there only a few. Ur a idiot