Izvorna Evanđelja (Sinai Bible)

Konin je napisao/la:

Nedavno sam naišao na ovaj članak, koji govori o krivotvorinama u današnjim evanđeljima. Analiza se temelji uglavnom na otkrićima i zapisima Sinajske Biblije. Autor članka izvlači dosta nategnute, čudne i antikršćanske zaključke, ali ima vrlo zanimljive izvore.
Evo nekih "činjenica":

When the New Testament in the Sinai Bible is compared with a modern-day New Testament, a staggering 14,800 editorial alterations can be identified.
....
One glaring example is subtly revealed in the Encyclopaedia Biblica (Adam & Charles Black, London, 1899, vol. iii, p. 3344), where the Church divulges its knowledge about exclusions in old Bibles, saying: "The remark has long ago and often been made that, like Paul, even the earliest Gospels knew nothing of the miraculous birth of our Saviour".
...
The Gospel of Mark in the Sinai Bible carries the "first" story of Jesus Christ in history, one completely different to what is in modern Bibles. It starts with Jesus "at about the age of thirty" (Mark 1:9), and doesn't know of Mary, a virgin birth or mass murders of baby boys by Herod. Words describing Jesus Christ as "the son of God" do not appear in the opening narrative as they do in today's editions (Mark 1:1), and the modern-day family tree tracing a "messianic bloodline" back to King David is non-existent in all ancient Bibles, as are the now-called "messianic prophecies" (51 in total).
...
No supernatural appearance of a resurrected Jesus Christ is recorded in any ancient Gospels of Mark, but a description of over 500 words now appears in modern Bibles (Mark 16:9-20).
...
Not only are those narratives missing in the Sinai Bible, but they are absent in the Alexandrian Bible, the Vatican Bible, the Bezae Bible and an ancient Latin manuscript of Mark, code-named "K" by analysts.
...
The resurrection verses in today's Gospels of Mark are universally acknowledged as forgeries and the Church agrees, saying "the conclusion of Mark is admittedly not genuine ... almost the entire section is a later compilation" (Encyclopaedia Biblica, vol. ii, p. 1880, vol. iii, pp. 1767, 1781; also, Catholic Encyclopedia, vol. iii, under the heading "The Evidence of its Spuriousness"; Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. iii, pp. 274-9 under heading "Canons").
...
The final chapter of the Gospel of John (21) is a sixth-century forgery, one entirely devoted to describing Jesus' resurrection to his disciples. The Church admits: "The sole conclusion that can be deduced from this is that the 21st chapter was afterwards added and is therefore to be regarded as an appendix to the Gospel" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. viii, pp. 441-442; New Catholic Encyclopedia (NCE), "Gospel of John", p. 1080; also NCE, vol. xii, p. 407).
...
Modern-day versions of the Gospel of Luke have a staggering 10,000 more words than the same Gospel in the Sinai Bible
...
The Church maintains that "the titles of our Gospels were not intended to indicate authorship", adding that "the headings ... were affixed to them" (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. i, p. 117, vol. vi, pp. 655, 656).
...

Ako nekog zanima, cijeli članak se može pročitati na: http://www.nexusmagazine.com/articles/NewTestament.html

Mene zanima mišljenje, pošto imamo teologa na ovoj stranici, ili budućih, ili amaterskih, uglavnom šta kažete na ove izjave i koliko su one točne. Ne zanima me rasprava o zaključcima koje autor izvlači, nego više ove navedene činjenice, koje su večinom iz katoličke enciklopedije. Nedavno smo imali raspravu "tko je sastavio kanon", pa je bilo različitih tvrdnji i mišljenja, ali koliko sam primjetio nitko nije spomenuo, ovo što se ovdje tvrdi, a to je da katolička crkva priznaje nepznavanja autorstva evanđelja, kao i njihove kasnije "nadopune".
Koliko su ova evanđelja koja danas čitamo izvorna?