THE ARTICLE ON CODEX SINAITICUS from the Dallas Morning News has been reprinted by Christianity Today [correction: Christian Today - see update] with errors intact. I would have expected them to have a clue and add some corrections.

UPDATE: Oops! Peter Head e-mails:

It is "Christian Today" - a UK based Christian news agency (it is too easily confusable I think, perhaps deliberately so). Not to excuse poor journalism.

I did email the author with the following list:


Dear Eunice,

It is a pity for Christian Today to publish such an un-informed article on Codex Sinaiticus:

E.G.:
Sinaiticus was originally produced on high-grade papyrus
WRONG: parchment/vellum = animal skins

written between the 1st and 4th centuries A.D.,
WRONG: written in the fourth century

The Codex was produced as the Greek version of the principal Jewish and Christian scriptures to match Greek heritage.
UNKNOWABLE CONCLUSION


The Codex has a very special significance in Theology because the texts were written so soon after the life of Jesus, therefore it is the largest and longest-surviving Biblical manuscript in existence, including both the Old and New Testaments.
WRONG: many earlier fragments, individual books and smaller collections of Biblical books in Greek survive. Sinaiticus is 300 years after the life of Jesus. It is neither the largest Biblical manuscript in existence nor the longest-surviving (Codex Vaticanus is more complete in the OT and on most accounts older).

In addition, it contains two Christian texts written by the Shepherd of Hermas and Apostle Barnabas at around 65 A.D.
WRONG: Both Hermes and Barnabas (Not actually by the apostle) are mid-second century compositions. CHECK ANY REFERENCE BOOK!

However, since then, the texts were divided when visitors bribed and deceived monks into letting certain sections be removed for further examination in Russia, Britain and Germany, according to the Dallas Morning News.
WRONG: DMN gives only the Orthodox side of a complex issue (we might expect such from Dallas I suppose).

By comparing the texts in the world's oldest Bible with the prevalent interpreted Bible in modern language, the team of top experts and scholars involving in the project will be able to trace back and research how and more importantly, why changes were made to the original version of the Bible.
NONSENSE: this doesn't make any sense as a research method. Nor is it widely accepted that Sinaiticus is 'the world's oldest Bible'

Thanks, Peter, for the correction and my apologies to Christianity Today.

Also, on the Textual Criticism list Peter notes the following more accurate but still overstated press release from the British Library.