Another new missing part of the Bible found

ExBethelitenowPIMA

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/22011278/new-bible-chapter-hidden-verses-discovered-erased-scribe/

I wonder what the remaining members of the GB will make of this?

I excited to read all of this once it’s released and compare with the rest of Mathew

Sea Breeze

The article you cite is vague. It doesn't mention the name of the manuscript that it is referring to.

Jeffro

The Sun? Really? Any real sources rather than a peddler of tabloid nonsense?

And it doesn't say anything notable as to the content anyway. The misleading headline (big surprise) pretends they found previously 'unknown chapters' and 'hidden verses', whereas scientists actually just were able to find traces of erased copies of known verses.

Earnest

This is not a missing part of the Bible, but a translation in Old Syriac. What is new about it is that prior to identifying the underlying text in this parchment in 2016 there were only two other manuscripts known to contain parts of the Gospels in Old Syriac.

In a less dramatic fashion, New Testament Studies, Volume 69, Issue 2, April 2023, pp.210-221 reported:

Vat. iber. 4, a membrum disjectum [scattered fragment] of the manuscript Sin. geo. 49, contains on two of its folios the Syriac Gospel text as the lowest layer (scriptio ima) within a double palimpsest. Comparison with known Syriac versions of the extant text – Matt 11.30–12.26 – shows that the text represents the Old Syriac version, and is particularly akin to the Curetonianus (Syc). On palaeographic grounds, the original Gospel manuscript can be dated to the first half of the sixth century. The fragment is so far the only known vestige of the fourth manuscript witness to the Old Syriac version.

nicolaou

https://youtu.be/b4VqbmeJ32U

BluesBrother

It is a pity that tabloid newspaper is our source for this . We shall see if anything more develops . However, I won’t hold my breath.. There have been many “wonderful “ finds that have promised more than they delivered. This might be a better article, if link works

https://catholicherald.co.uk/long-lost-chapter-of-bible-discovered/

BoogerMan

A total non-story by the looks of things.

Here is the best they come up with:

"...offers slightly more detail than the Greek translation of Matthew chapter 12. In verse 1 of the Greek translation, a sentence reads "at that time Jesus went through the grainfields on the Sabbath; and his disciples became hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat," while the Syriac translation discovered by Kessel ends "began to pick the heads of grain, rub them in their hands, and eat them". Wow!!!

https://www.iflscience.com/new-chapter-of-the-bible-found-hidden-inside-1750-year-old-text-68417

dropoffyourkeylee

Sounds like it is a palimpsest, which is a re-used parchment. The first use of this parchment was of the gospel of Matthew in Syriac, then it was erased or otherwise rubbed out, then the parchment used over again for another purpose. The underlying writing can be rediscovered. Several of the NT manuscripts that are used for textual analysis are palimpsests; at least one at St Catherine's was a palimpsest. I would characterize this as a neat find, contributing to textual criticism, but to headline it as a 'New Bible Chapter' containing 'hidden verses' is surely misleading.

Anony Mous

The thing is that archeologists regularly find new parts of Christian writings, it often doesn’t stroke with the current ‘accepted’ translations or canon so theologians will ignore it. The Cave of Horror was discovered in 1960 and is an active dig site since 2017 and continues to dig up Old Testament translations from ~100BC-100CE that haven’t survived the millennia,

Disillusioned JW

"... rub them in their hands ...", is also mentioned in Luke 6.1. It is mentioned in the English translation of the Greek text. If the Greek text in Matthew originally included the phrase "rub them in their hands" (the phrase found in the Old Syriac manuscript) then it means the wording of the parallel passage is Luke is to that extent more close to that of Matthew than previously realized, and thereby reduces the extent of the differences between Matthew and Luke. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synoptic_Gospels which says in part the following.

'The double tradition's origin, with its major and minor agreements, is a key facet of the synoptic problem. The simplest hypothesis is Luke relied on Matthew's work or vice versa. But many experts, on various grounds, maintain that neither Matthew nor Luke used the other's work. If this is the case, they must have drawn from some common source, distinct from Mark, that provided the double-tradition material and overlapped with Mark's content where major agreements occur. This hypothetical document is termed Q, for the German Quelle, meaning "source".'

Another new missing part of the Bible found

Share this