Hubbry Logo
search
logo
Codex Vaticanus avatar
Codex Vaticanus
Codex Vaticanus
current hub
2293822

Codex Vaticanus

logo
Community Hub0 Subscribers
Read side by side
Codex Vaticanus
View on Wikipedia
from Wikipedia
Uncial 03
New Testament manuscript
Page from Codex Vaticanus; ending of 2 Thes and beginning of Heb
Page from Codex Vaticanus; ending of 2 Thes and beginning of Heb
NameVaticanus
SignB
TextGreek Old Testament and Greek New Testament
Datec. 300-350AD
ScriptGreek
Now atVatican Library
CiteC. Vercellonis, J. Cozza, Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus, Roma 1868.
Size27 × 27 cm (10.6 × 10.6 in)
TypeAlexandrian text-type
CategoryI
Notevery close to 𝔓66, 𝔓75, 0162

The Codex Vaticanus (The Vatican, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209), is a manuscript of the Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Greek Old Testament and the majority of the New Testament. It is designated by siglum B or 03 in the Gregory-Aland numbering of New Testament manuscripts, and as δ 1 in the von Soden numbering of New Testament manuscripts. It is one of the four great uncial codices.[1]: 68  Along with Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Sinaiticus, it is one of the earliest and most complete manuscripts of the Bible. Using the study of comparative writing styles (palaeography), it has been dated to the 4th century AD.[2][3]

The manuscript became known to Western scholars as a result of correspondence between textual critic Desiderius Erasmus Roterodamus (known usually as Erasmus) and the prefects of the Vatican Library. Portions of the codex were collated by several scholars, but numerous errors were made during this process. The codex's relationship to the Latin Vulgate and the value Jerome placed on it is unclear.[4] In the 19th century AD transcriptions of the full codex were completed.[1]: 68  It was at that point that scholars became more familiar with the text and how it differed from the more common Textus Receptus (a critical edition of the Greek New Testament based on earlier editions by Erasmus).[5]

Most current scholars consider Codex Vaticanus to be one of the most important Greek witnesses to the Greek text of the New Testament, followed by Codex Sinaiticus.[2] Until the discovery by Tischendorf of Sinaiticus, Vaticanus was considered to be unrivalled.[6] It was extensively used by textual critics Brooke F. Westcott and Fenton J. A. Hort in their edition of The New Testament in the Original Greek in 1881.[2] The most widely sold editions of the Greek New Testament are largely based on the text of the Codex Vaticanus.[2]: 26–30 

The codex is named after its place of conservation in the Vatican Library, where it has been kept since at least the 15th century.[1]: 67 

Description

[edit]
Ending of Luke and Beginning of John on the same page

The manuscript is a codex (precursor to the modern book) in quarto volume, written on 759 leaves of fine and thin vellum (sized 27 cm by 27 cm, although originally bigger),[6] in uncial letters, arranged in quires of five sheets or ten leaves each, similar to Codex Marchalianus or Codex Rossanensis; but unlike Codex Sinaiticus which has an arrangement of four or three sheets. The number of the quires is often found in the margin.[7] Originally it must have been composed of 830 parchment leaves, but it appears that 71 leaves have been lost.[8] The Old Testament currently consists of 617 sheets and the New Testament of 142 sheets. The codex is written in three columns per page, with 40–44 lines per column, and 16–18 letters per line. In the poetical books of the Old Testament (OT) there are only two columns to a page. There are 44 lines in a column in the Pentateuch (first five books of the OT), Joshua, Judges, Ruth, and 1 Kings 1:1–19:11; in 2 Chronicles 10:16–26:13 there are 40 lines in a column; and in the New Testament always 42.[9][7] The manuscript is one of the very few New Testament manuscripts to be written with three columns per page. The other two Greek codices written in that way are Uncial 048 and Uncial 053.

The Greek lettering in the codex is written continuously in small and neat letters.[10] All the letters are equally distant from each other; no word is separated from the other, with each line appearing to be one long word.[11]: 262–263  Punctuation is rare (accents and breathings have been added by a later hand) except for some blank spaces, diaeresis on initial iotas and upsilons, abbreviations of the nomina sacra (abbreviations of certain words and names considered sacred in Christianity) and markings of OT citations.[10] The first letter of a new chapter sometimes protrudes a little from the column.[10] The OT citations were marked by an inverted comma or diplai (>).[10] There are no enlarged initials; no stops or accents; no divisions into chapters or sections such as are found in later manuscripts.[12]

The text of the Gospels is not divided according to the Ammonian Sections with references to the Eusebian Canons, but is divided into peculiar numbered sections: Matthew has 170, Mark 61, Luke 152, and John 80. This system is only found in two other manuscripts: Codex Zacynthius and Minuscule 579.[9] There are two system divisions in the Acts and the Catholic Epistles which differ from the Euthalian Apparatus. In Acts, these sections are 36 (the same system as Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Amiatinus, and Codex Fuldensis) and according to the other system 69 sections. The chapters in the Pauline epistles are numbered continuously as the Epistles were regarded as comprising one book.

Text

[edit]

Text-type

[edit]

In the Old Testament, the type of text varies, with a received text in Ezekiel and a rejected one in the Book of Isaiah.[9] In Judges the text differs substantially from that of the majority of manuscripts, but agrees with the Old Latin, Sahidic version and Cyril of Alexandria. In Job, it has the additional 400 half-verses from Theodotion, which are not in the Old Latin and Sahidic versions.[9] The text of the Old Testament was considered by critics, such as Hort and Cornill, to be substantially that which underlies Origen's Hexapla edition, completed by him at Caesarea and issued as an independent work (apart from the other versions with which Origen associated it) by Eusebius and Pamphilus.[13]: 83 

In the New Testament, the Greek text of the codex is considered a representative of the Alexandrian text-type. It has been found to agree very closely with the text of Bodmer 𝔓75 in the Gospels of Luke and John. 𝔓75 has been dated to the beginning of the 3rd century, and hence is at least 100 years older than the Codex Vaticanus itself. This is purported to demonstrate (by recourse to a postulated earlier exemplar from which both 𝔓75 and B descend) that Vaticanus accurately reproduces an earlier text from these two biblical books, which reinforces the reputation the codex held amongst Biblical scholars. It also strongly suggests that it may have been copied in Egypt.[14] In the Pauline epistles there is a distinctly Western element.[9] Textual critic Kurt Aland placed it in Category I of his New Testament manuscript classification system.[2] Category 1 manuscripts are described as "of a very special quality, i.e., manuscripts with a very high proportion of the early text, presumably the original text, which has not been preserved in its purity in any one manuscript."[2]: 335 

Contents

[edit]
A section of the codex containing 1 Esdras 2:1–8

The codex originally contained a virtually complete copy of the Greek Old Testament (known as the Septuagint / LXX), lacking only 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. The original 20 leaves containing Genesis 1:1–46:28a (31 leaves) and Psalm 105:27–137:6b have been lost. These were replaced by pages transcribed by a later hand in the 15th century.[15] 2 Kings 2:5–7, 10–13 are also lost due to a tear to one of the pages.[16] The order of the Old Testament books in the codex is as follows: Genesis to 2 Chronicles as normal; 1 Esdras; 2 Esdras (Ezra–Nehemiah); the Psalms; Proverbs; Ecclesiastes; Song of Songs; Job; Wisdom; Ecclesiasticus; Esther; Judith; Tobit; the minor prophets from Hosea to Malachi (but in the order: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi); Isaiah; Jeremiah; Baruch; Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah; Ezekiel and Daniel. This order differs from that followed in Codex Alexandrinus.[17]

The extant New Testament portion contains the Gospels, Acts, the general epistles, the Pauline epistles, and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Hebrews 9:14, καθα[ριει); it is lacking 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation. The missing part of Hebrews and Revelation were supplemented by a 15th-century minuscule hand (folios 760–768), and are catalogued separately as minuscule 1957.[2] It is possible some apocryphal books from the New Testament were included at the end (as in codices Sinaiticus and Alexandrinus).[2] It is also possible that Revelation was not included.[18][19]

Non-included verses

[edit]

The text of the New Testament lacks several passages:

The end of Mark in Vaticanus contains an empty column after Verse 16:8, possibly suggesting that the scribe was aware of the missing ending. It is the only empty New Testament column in the Codex.[21]: 252 
Phrases not in Vaticanus but in later manuscripts include
εὐλογεῖτε τοὺς καταρωμένους ὑμᾶς, καλῶς ποιεῖτε τοῖς μισοῦσιν ὑμᾶς (bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you)
omit - B א‎ ƒ1 k sys, c sa bopt mae
incl. - Majority of manuscripts[22]: 16 
καὶ ὁ φιλῶν υἱὸν ἢ θυγατέρα ὑπὲρ ἐμὲ οὐκ ἔστιν μου ἄξιος (and he who loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me)
omit - B* D
incl. - Bc Majority of manuscripts[20]: 26 
ἢ τὴν μητέρα (αὐτοῦ) (or (his) mother)
omit - B א‎ D a e syc sa
incl. - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 41 
καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὂ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε (and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with)
omit - B א‎ D L Z Θ 085 ƒ1 ƒ13 it sys syc sa
incl. - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 56 
καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (and be joined to his wife)
omit - Sinaiticus Ψ 892 ℓ 48 syrs go
incl. - Majority of manuscripts[22]: 164 
μη αποστερησης
omit - B* K W Δ Ψ ƒ1 ƒ13 28 579 700 1010 1079 1242 1546 2148 ℓ 10 ℓ 950 ℓ 1642 ℓ 1761 sys arm geo
incl. - B2 Majority of manuscripts[22]: 165 
και ειπεν, Ουκ οιδατε ποιου πνευματος εστε υμεις; ο γαρ υιος του ανθρωπου ουκ ηλθεν ψυχας ανθρωπων απολεσαι αλλα σωσαι (and He said: "You do not know what manner of spirit you are of; for the Son of man came not to destroy men's lives but to save them)
omit - B א‎ C L Θ Ξ 33 700 892 1241 syr bo
incl. - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 190 
αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου (but deliver us from evil)
omit - B 𝔓75 א‎ L ƒ1 700 vg sys sa bo arm geo
incl. - Majority of manuscripts[22]: 256 
ὁ δὲ Ἰησοῦς ἔλεγεν· Πάτερ, ἄφες αὐτοῖς· οὐ γὰρ οἴδασιν τί ποιοῦσιν (And Jesus said: Father forgive them, they know not what they do.)
omit - B 𝔓75 א‎a D* W Θ 0124 1241 a d syrs sa bo
incl. - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 239 

Additions

[edit]

Gospel of Matthew 27:49

ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἒνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν, καὶ ἐξῆλθεν ὖδωρ καὶ αἳμα (and another took a spear, piercing His side, and out came water and blood - see John 19:34)
incl. - B א‎ C L Γ 1010 1293 vgmss
omit - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 84 

Some notable readings

[edit]
Judges 18:30
υἱὸς Μανασση (son of Manasse) - B
υἱοῦ Μωυσῆ (son of Moses) - A[23]: 480 
Matthew 5:22
εικη (without cause)
omit - B 𝔓67 א‎ vgmss eth
incl. - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 10 
Matthew 17:23
τη τριημερα (the third day) - B (singular reading)
τη τριτη ημερα (the third day) - Majority of manuscripts[24]
Matthew 21:31
ὁ ὕστερος (the last) - B (singular reading)
ὁ ἔσχατος (the last) - D Θ ƒ13 700 it
ὁ πρῶτος (the first) - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 60 
Matthew 23:38
ερημος (desert)
omit - B L ff2 sys sa bo
incl. - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 67 
Luke 4:17
καὶ ἀνοίξας τὸ βιβλίον (and opened the book) - B A L W Ξ 33 892 1195 1241 ℓ 547 syrs, h, pal sa bo
καὶ ἀναπτύξας τὸ βιβλίον (and unrolled the book) - א‎ Dc K Δ Θ Π Ψ ƒ1 ƒ13 28 565 700 1009 1010 Majority of manuscripts[20]: 164 
Luke 6:2
οὐκ ἔξεστιν (not lawful) - B 𝔓4 Codex Nitriensis 700 lat sa bo arm geo
οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν (not lawful to do) - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 170 
Luke 10:42
ολιγων δε χρεια εστιν η ενος (few things are needful, or only one) - B (singular reading; but see below)
ολιγων δε εστιν χρεια η ενος (few things are needful, or only one) - 𝔓3 א‎ C2 L 070(vid) ƒ1 33 syh(mg) bo
ενος δε εστιν χρεια (one thing is needful) - 𝔓45 𝔓75 Majority of manuscripts[20]: 194 
John 12:28
δοξασον μου το ονομα (glorify my name) - B (singular reading)
δοξασον σου τον υιον (glorify Your Son)- L X ƒ1 ƒ13 33 1241 vg syh(mg) bo
δοξασον σου το ονομα (glorify Your name) - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 292 
John 16:27
πατρος (the Father) - B א‎1 C* D L ℓ 844 bo
θεου (God) - C3 W Ψ ƒ1 ƒ13 Majority of manuscripts[20]: 304 
Acts 27:16
καυδα (name of island) - B 𝔓74 א‎2 1175 lat vg syp
Κλαυδα (name of island) - א‎* A(vid) 33 81 614 945 1505 1739 vgmss syh
Κλαυδην (name of island) - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 403 [n 1]
Romans 15:31
δωροφορια - B D Ggr
διακονια - Majority of manuscripts[22]: 573 
Ephesians 2:1
αμαρτιαις (sins) - B (singular reading)
επιθυμιαις (desires) - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 505 
Hebrews 1:3
φανερων (revealing) - B (singular reading)
φερων (upholding) - Majority of manuscripts[20]: 563 

History

[edit]

Provenance

[edit]

The provenance and early history of the codex are uncertain;[2] Rome (Hort), southern Italy, Alexandria (Kenyon,[13]: 88 ), and Caesarea (T. C. Skeat; Burkitt[25]) have been suggested as possible origins. Hort based his argument for Rome mainly on certain spellings of proper names, such as Ισακ and Ιστραηλ, which show a Western or Latin influence. A second argument was the chapter division in Acts, similar to the ones in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, is not found in any other Greek manuscript, but is present in several manuscripts of the Latin Vulgate.[26]: 264–267  Robinson cautiously suggests, however, that the system of chapter divisions was introduced into the Vulgate by Jerome himself, due to his studies at Caesarea.[27] Hort also postulated the codex was copied from a manuscript whose line length was 12–14 letters per line, as when the codex's scribe made large omissions, they were typically 12–14 letters long.[26]: 233–234 

Kenyon suggested the manuscript originated in Alexandria: "It is noteworthy that the section numeration of the Pauline Epistles in B shows that it was copied from a manuscript in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was placed between Galatians and Ephesians—an arrangement which elsewhere occurs only in the Sahidic version."[13]: 84  Kenyon also suggested the order of the Pauline epistles indicates a connection with Egypt, and as in Codex Alexandrinus, the titles of some of the books contain letters of a distinctively Coptic character, particularly the Coptic mu (which was also frequently seen at the ends of lines where space has to be economized).[13]: 84  According to Metzger, "the similarity of its text in significant portions of both Testaments with the Coptic versions and with Greek papyri, and the style of writing (notably the Coptic forms used in some of the titles) point rather to Egypt and Alexandria".[9]

It has been postulated the codex was at one time in the possession of Cardinal Bessarion, because the minuscule supplement has a text similar to one of Bessarion's manuscripts. T. C. Skeat believed Bessarion's mentor, the patriarchal notary in Constantinople John Chortasmenos, had the book brought to Rome from Constantinople around the time of the fall of the Byzantine Empire.[28] Paul Canart argued the decorative initials added to the manuscript in the Middle Ages are reminiscent of Constantinopolitan decoration found in the 10th century, but the poor execution gives the impression they were added in the 11th or 12th century, and likely not before the 12th century in light of the way they appear in connection with notes in a minuscule hand at the beginning of the book of Daniel.[29] T. C. Skeat first argued that Codex Vaticanus was among the 50 Bibles that the Emperor Constantine I ordered Eusebius of Caesarea to produce.[30]

The codex is generally assigned to the middle of the fourth century and considered contemporary with or slightly earlier than Codex Sinaiticus, which can be dated with a reasonable degree of confidence between the early fourth century and the early fifth century.[31]

Scribes and correctors

[edit]
2 Epistle of John in the codex

According to Tischendorf the manuscript was written by three scribes (A, B, C), two of whom appear to have written the Old Testament and one the entire New Testament.[32] Tischendorf's view was accepted by Frederic G. Kenyon, but contested by T. C. Skeat, who examined the codex more thoroughly. Skeat and other paleographers contested Tischendorf's theory of a third (C) scribe, instead asserting two scribes worked on the Old Testament (A and B) and one of them (B) wrote the New Testament.[2]

Scribe A wrote:

Genesis – 1 Kings (pages 41–334)
Psalms – Tobias (pages 625–944)

Scribe B wrote:

1 Kings – 2 Esdra (pages 335–624)
Hosea – Daniel (pages 945–1234)
New Testament.[33]

Two correctors have been suggested as working on the manuscript, one (B2) was contemporary with the scribes, the other (B3) worked in about the 10th or 11th century. The theory of a first corrector, B1, proposed by Tischendorf was rejected by later scholars.[2][9] According to Tischendorf, one of the scribes is identical to (and may have been) one of the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus (scribe D),[34][35]: XXI-XXIII [36] but there is insufficient evidence for his assertion.[8] Skeat agreed that the writing style is very similar to that of Codex Sinaiticus, but there is not enough evidence to accept the scribes were identical: "the identity of the scribal tradition stands beyond dispute".[33]

The original writing was retraced by a later scribe (usually dated to the 10th or 11th century), and the beauty of the original script was spoiled.[9] Accents, breathing marks, and punctuation were added by a later hand.[9] There are no enlarged initials, no divisions into chapters or sections such as are found in later manuscripts, but a different system of division peculiar to this manuscript.[8] There are plenty itacistic faults, especially the interchange of ει for ι and αι for ε. The exchange of ο for ω is less frequent.[37][38]

The manuscript contains unusual small horizontally aligned double dots in the column margins and are scattered throughout the New Testament.[n 2] These so-called distigmai (singular distigme, Ancient Greek: διστίγμη) were formerly called "umlauts"[39] (owing to their shape, different from the vertically aligned double-dot Aristarchian obelisms). There are 795 of these clearly seen in the text, and perhaps another 40 that are undetermined. The date of these markings are disputed among scholars. Two such distigmai can be seen in the left margin of the first column (top image). Tischendorf reflected upon their meaning, but without any resolution.[35] He pointed on several places where these distigmai were used: at the ending of the Gospel of Mark, 1 Thess 2:14; 5:28; Heb 4:16; 8:1.[35] The meaning of these distigmai was recognized in 1995 by Philip Payne. Payne discovered the first distigme while studying the section 1 Cor 14.34–35 of the codex.[40] He suggested that distigmai indicate lines where another textual variant was known to the person who wrote the umlauts. Therefore, the distigmai mark places of textual uncertainty.[41][42] The same distigmai were observed in Codex Fuldensis, especially in the section containing 1 Cor 14:34–35. The distigme of two codices indicate a variant of the Western manuscripts, which placed 1 Cor 14:34–35 after 1 Cor 14:40 (manuscripts: Claromontanus, Augiensis, Boernerianus, 88, itd, g, and some manuscripts of Vulgate).[43][21]: 251–262 

On page 1512, next to Hebrews 1:3, the text contains a marginal note, "Fool and knave, leave the old reading and do not change it!" – "ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει" which may suggest unauthorised correcting was a recognized problem in scriptoriums.[44]

In the Vatican Library

[edit]
The Great Hall, Vatican Library, photographed by William H. Rau

The manuscript is believed to have been housed in Caesarea in the 6th century, together with Codex Sinaiticus, as they have the same unique division of chapters in Acts. It came to Italy, probably from Constantinople, after the Council of Florence (1438–1445).[28]

The manuscript has been housed in the Vatican Library (founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448) for as long as it has been known, possibly appearing in the library's earliest catalog of 1475 (with shelf number 1209), but definitely appearing in the 1481 catalog. In the catalog from 1481 it was described as a "Biblia in tribus columnis ex membranis in rubeo" (three-column vellum Bible).[45][46][13]: 77 

Collations

[edit]

In the 16th century, Western scholars became aware of the manuscript as a consequence of the correspondence between Erasmus and the prefects of the Vatican Library, successively Paulus Bombasius, and Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda. In 1521, Bombasius was consulted by Erasmus as to whether the Codex Vaticanus contained the Comma Johanneum, and Bombasius supplied a transcript of 1 John 4:1–3 and 1 John 5:7–11 to show that it did not.[47] Sepúlveda in 1533 cross-checked all places where Erasmus's New Testament (the Textus Receptus) differed from the Vulgate, and supplied Erasmus with 365 readings where the Codex Vaticanus supported the latter, although the list of these 365 readings has been lost.[n 3] Consequently, the Codex Vaticanus acquired the reputation of being an old Greek manuscript that agreed with the Vulgate rather than with the Textus Receptus. Not until much later would scholars realise it conformed to a text that differed from both the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus – a text that could also be found in other known early Greek manuscripts, such as the Codex Regius (L), housed in the French Royal Library (now Bibliothèque nationale de France).[5]

Giulio Bartolocci, librarian of the Vatican, produced a collation in 1669 which was not published; it was never used until a copy of it was found in the Royal Library at Paris by Scholz in 1819. This collation was imperfect and revised in 1862.[13]: 78  Another collation was made in 1720 for Bentley by Mico, then revised by Rulotta, which was not published until 1799.[13]: 78  Bentley was stirred by Mill's claim of 30,000 variants in the New Testament and he wanted to reconstruct the text of the New Testament in its early form. He felt that among the manuscripts of the New Testament, Codex Alexandrinus was "the oldest and best in the world".[48] Bentley understood the necessity to use manuscripts if he were to reconstruct an older form than that apparent in Codex Alexandrinus. He assumed that by supplementing this manuscript with readings from other Greek manuscripts, and from the Latin Vulgate, he could triangulate back to a single recension which he presumed existed at the time of the First Council of Nicaea. He therefore required a collation from Vaticanus. The text of the collation was irreconcilable with Codex Alexandrinus and he abandoned the project.[49]

A further collation was made by the Danish scholar Andreas Birch, who, in 1798, in Copenhagen, edited some textual variants of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles,[50] in 1800 for the Book of Revelation,[51] in 1801 for the Gospels.[52] They were incomplete and included together with the textual variants from the other manuscripts.[13]: 83  Many of them were false. Andrew Birch reproached Mill and Wettstein, that they falso citatur Vaticanus (cite Vaticanus incorrectly), and gave as an example Luke 2:38 – Ισραηλ [Israel] instead of Ιερουσαλημ [Jerusalem].[53] The reading Ισραηλ could be found in the codex 130, housed at the Vatican Library, under shelf number Vat. gr. 359.[22]: 210 

Before the 19th century, no scholar was allowed to study or edit the Codex Vaticanus, and scholars did not ascribe any value to it; in fact, it was suspected to have been interpolated by the Latin textual tradition.[4] John Mill wrote in his Prolegomena (1707): "in Occidentalium gratiam a Latino scriba exaratum" (written by a Latin scribe for the western world). He did not believe there was value to having a collation for the manuscript.[4] Wettstein would have liked to know the readings of the codex, but not because he thought that they could have been of any help to him for difficult textual decisions. According to him, this codex had no authority whatsoever (sed ut vel hoc constaret, Codicem nullus esse auctoris).[54]: 24  In 1751 Wettstein produced the first list of the New Testament manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus received symbol B (because of its age) and took second position on this list (Alexandrinus received A, Ephraemi – C, Bezae – D, etc.)[54]: 22  until the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus (designated by א).[55]

Griesbach produced a list of nine manuscripts which were to be assigned to the Alexandrian text: C, L, K, 1, 13, 33, 69, 106, and 118.[56] Codex Vaticanus was not in this list. In the second (1796) edition of his Greek NT, Griesbach added Codex Vaticanus as a witness to the Alexandrian text in Mark, Luke, and John. He still believed the first half of Matthew represented the Western text-type.[57]

Editions of text of the codex

[edit]
In 1843 Tischendorf was permitted to make a facsimile of a few verses.

In 1799, as a result of the Treaty of Tolentino, the manuscript was sent to Paris as a victory trophy for Napoleon, but in 1815 it was returned to the Vatican Library.[58] During that time, German scholar Johann Leonhard Hug (1765–1846) saw it in Paris. Together with other worthy treasures of the Vatican, Hug examined it, but he did not perceive the need of a new and full collation.[59][11]: 165 

Cardinal Angelo Mai prepared the first typographical facsimile edition between 1828 and 1838, which did not appear until 1857, three years after his death, and which was considered unsatisfactory.[60] It was issued in 5 volumes (1–4 volumes for the Old Testament, 5 volume for the New Testament). All lacunae of the codex were supplemented. Lacunae in the Acts and Pauline epistles were supplemented from the codex Vaticanus 1761, the whole text of Revelation from Vaticanus 2066, and the text of Mark 16:8–20 from Vaticanus Palatinus 220. Verses not included by codex as Matthew 12:47; Mark 15:28; Luke 22:43–44; 23:17.34; John 5:3.4; 7:53–8:11; 1 Peter 5:3; 1 John 5:7 were supplemented from popular Greek printed editions.[61] The number of errors was extraordinarily high, and also no attention was paid to distinguish readings of the first hand versus correctors. There was no detailed examination of the manuscript's characteristics. As a consequence, this edition was deemed inadequate for critical purposes.[62] An improved edition was published in 1859, which became the source of Bultmann's 1860 NT.[8]

In 1843 Tischendorf was permitted to make a facsimile of a few verses,[n 4] in 1844 Eduard de Muralt saw it,[63] and in 1845 S. P. Tregelles was allowed to observe several points which Muralt had overlooked. He often saw the codex, but "it was under such restrictions that it was impossible to do more than examine particular readings".[64]

"They would not let me open it without searching my pockets, and depriving me of pen, ink, and paper; and at the same time two prelati kept me in constant conversation in Latin, and if I looked at a passage too long, they would snatch the book out of my hand".[65]

Angelo Mai prepared first facsimile edition of the New Testament text of the codex

Tregelles left Rome after five months without accomplishing his purpose. During a large part of the 19th century, the authorities of the Vatican Library obstructed scholars who wished to study the codex in detail. Henry Alford in 1849 wrote: "It has never been published in facsimile (!) nor even thoroughly collated (!!)."[66] Scrivener in 1861 commented:

"Codex Vaticanus 1209 is probably the oldest large vellum manuscript in existence, and is the glory of the great Vatican Library in Rome. To these legitimate sources of deep interest must be added the almost romantic curiosity which has been excited by the jealous watchfulness of its official guardians, with whom an honest zeal for its safe preservation seems to have now degenerated into a species of capricious wilfulness, and who have shewn a strange incapacity for making themselves the proper use of a treasure they scarcely permit others more than to gaze upon".[7]: 95  It (...) "is so jealously guarded by the Papal authorities that ordinary visitors see nothing of it but the red Morocco binding".[6]

Thomas Law Montefiore (1862):

"The history of the Codex Vaticanus B, No. 1209, is the history in miniature of Romish jealousy and exclusiveness."[67]

Burgon was permitted to examine the codex for an hour and a half in 1860, consulting 16 different passages.[7]: 114  Burgon was a defender of the Traditional Text and for him Codex Vaticanus, as well as codices Sinaiticus and Bezae, were the most corrupt documents extant. He felt that each of these three codices "clearly exhibits a fabricated text – is the result of arbitrary and reckless recension."[68]: 9  The two most widely respected of these three codices, א and B, he likens to the "two false witnesses" of Matthew 26:60.[68]: 48 

Vaticanus in facsimile edition (1868), page with text of Matthew 1:22–2:18

In 1861, Henry Alford collated and verified doubtful passages (in several imperfect collations), which he published in facsimile editions complete with errors. Until he began his work he met unexpected hindrances. He received a special order from Cardinal Antonelli "per verificare", to verify passages, but this license was interpreted by the librarian to mean that he was to see the book, but not to use it. In 1862, secretary of Alford, Mr. Cure, continued Alford's work.[69] For some reason which does not clearly appear, the authorities of the Vatican Library put continual obstacles in the way of all who wished to study it in detail, one of which was the Vatican Library was only opened for three hours a day.[8][6] In 1867 Tischendorf published the text of the New Testament of the codex on the basis of Mai's edition.[35] It was the "most perfect edition of the manuscript which had yet appeared".[8]

In 1868–1881 C. Vercellone, Giuseppe Cozza-Luzi, and G. Sergio published an edition of the entire codex in 6 volumes (New Testament in volume V; Prolegomena in volume VI). A typographical facsimile appeared between 1868 and 1872.[62] In 1889–1890 a photographic facsimile of the entire manuscript was made and published by Cozza-Luzi, in three volumes.[60] Another facsimile of the New Testament text was published in 1904–1907 in Milan.[70] As a result, the codex became widely available.[1]: 68 

In 1999, the Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato in Rome (the Italian State Printing House and Mint) published a limited edition, full-color, exact scale facsimile of Codex Vaticanus. The facsimile reproduces the very form of the pages of the original manuscript, complete with the distinctive individual shape of each page, including holes in the vellum. It has an additional Prolegomena volume with gold and silver impressions of 74 pages.[71]

As of 2015, a digitised copy of the codex is available online from the Vatican Library.[72]

Importance

[edit]
Exhibition in Warsaw (2015)

Codex Vaticanus is considered as one of the most important manuscripts for the text of the Septuagint and Greek New Testament. It is a leading example of the Alexandrian text-type. It was used by Westcott and Hort in their edition, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881), and it was the basis for their text.[26]: 34  All critical editions of the New Testament published after Westcott and Hort were closer in the Gospels to the Codex Vaticanus text than to the Sinaiticus, with only the exception of Hermann von Soden's editions which are closer to Sinaiticus. All editions of Nestle-Aland remain close in textual character to the text of Westcott-Hort.[2]: 26–30 

According to the commonly accepted opinion of the textual critics, it is the most important witness of the text of the Gospels, in the Acts and Catholic epistles, with a stature equal to Codex Sinaiticus,[73] although in the Pauline epistles it includes Western readings and the value of the text is somewhat less than the Codex Sinaiticus.[19][9] The manuscript is not complete. Aland notes: "B is by far the most significant of the uncials".[2]

See also

[edit]

Notes

[edit]

References

[edit]

Cited books

[edit]

Further reading

[edit]
[edit]
Revisions and contributorsEdit on WikipediaRead on Wikipedia

Codex Vaticanus

View on Grokipedia
from Grokipedia
The Codex Vaticanus is a mid-fourth-century uncial manuscript of the Christian Bible in Greek, containing the majority of the Septuagint version of the Old Testament and most of the New Testament, written on fine vellum with three columns of 40–44 lines per page.[1][2][3] It consists of 759 surviving leaves out of an original approximately 820, measuring about 27 × 27 cm, and employs a clear majuscule script without word separation, typical of early codices.[2][4] Housed in the Vatican Apostolic Library under shelfmark Vat. gr. 1209 since at least 1475, it is one of the oldest and most complete extant Greek Bibles.[1][2] The manuscript's Old Testament section includes 617 leaves covering books from Genesis to 2 Chronicles, with lacunae in Genesis 1:1–46:28a, 2 Samuel 2:5–7, 10–13, Psalms 105:27–137:6b, and the Prayer of Manasseh, while the New Testament spans Matthew through Hebrews 9:14 (with the rest in a later hand), the Catholic Epistles, but omits the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Revelation.[3][5] Likely produced in Egypt, it features minimal ornamentation and uses black ink primarily, with some red for initial letters, emphasizing readability over decoration.[2][4] As one of the four Great Uncials—alongside Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus—Codex Vaticanus holds immense significance in textual criticism due to its early date and representation of the Alexandrian text-type, considered among the most reliable witnesses to the original biblical texts and forming the basis for many modern translations.[5][6] Its restricted access until the 19th century, when facsimiles were produced, underscores its preservation and scholarly value.[2][3]

Physical Characteristics

Format and Layout

The Codex Vaticanus is a fourth-century Greek uncial manuscript composed on 759 leaves of fine vellum, each measuring approximately 27 cm by 27 cm.[7][8] The text is written in Biblical majuscule script using scriptio continua, without spaces between words, punctuation, or breathing marks in the original hand.[7][9] Its layout is distinctive, featuring three columns per page—a format uncommon among surviving biblical manuscripts of the period—with typically 42–44 lines per column.[10] Paragraphs are marked by ekthesis, in which the initial letters protrude into the left margin by about half a letter width, while major sections and book beginnings often begin with enlarged or ornamented initial letters added by the primary scribes or later correctors.[10] This structured arrangement facilitated efficient use of space and aided readability in a continuous script. The manuscript includes an original system of pagination, with quire numbers and individual leaf numbers inscribed in the upper margins by the scribes.[7] Originally comprising around 820 leaves bound in quires without a preserved cover, the codex now shows signs of rebinding and significant losses, including the opening sections of Genesis (beginning at chapter 46:28) and portions of Psalms, as well as the complete absence of several New Testament books due to missing folios.[7][9] These structural features highlight its production as a luxury pandect intended for scholarly or liturgical use.[8]

Materials and Condition

The Codex Vaticanus is composed of fine, thin vellum prepared from animal skins, primarily calfskin, in the fourth century, resulting in a semi-transparent, white parchment of exceptional quality for its time.[11] This material, processed through soaking in lime, dehairing, stretching, and scraping, provided a smooth and durable surface unusual among contemporary manuscripts, enabling the codex's quarto format with pages measuring approximately 27 cm by 27 cm.[7] The vellum consists of 759 surviving leaves originally bound in quires, with 617 allocated to the Old Testament and 142 to the New Testament.[12] Despite its overall good preservation, the codex exhibits significant losses and damage accumulated over centuries, including the absence of the first 31 leaves covering Genesis 1:1–46:28a, a lacuna in 2 Samuel 2:5–7, 10–13, and 10 leaves from Psalms 105:27–137:6b, likely due to physical deterioration or early mishandling.[7] A lacuna occurs after Hebrews 9:13, with the remainder of Hebrews (9:14–13:25) supplied in a 15th-century minuscule hand, while the Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, and Revelation are absent due to missing folios; additional minor gaps appear in other scattered sections from wear, humidity exposure, insect activity, and repeated handling.[3] The original black or brown carbon-based ink has faded in places, occasionally leading to overwritings by later correctors that obscure portions of the text, though the vellum's resilience has limited broader degradation.[11] Conservation efforts have focused on stabilizing the artifact while preserving its integrity. In the 19th century, the Vatican Library undertook rebinding to secure the structure and protect against further loss, a process that maintained the original foliation.[7] Modern initiatives, including high-resolution digitization completed in the 2010s through the Vatican Library's DigiVatLib project, allow non-destructive access and scholarly analysis without physical handling, mitigating risks from environmental factors.[13] The manuscript features no illuminations or elaborate decorations, relying instead on plain uncial script in black ink for its unadorned presentation, with rare accents in red or blue limited to simple initials or headings.[3]

Biblical Content

Textual Affiliation

The Codex Vaticanus exemplifies the Alexandrian text-type in both its Old Testament (Septuagint) and New Testament portions, renowned for its exceptional purity and exhibiting only minimal contamination from the later Byzantine text tradition.[14] This classification stems from its concise phrasing, abrupt transitions, and avoidance of expansions typical of Byzantine manuscripts, positioning it as one of the earliest and least altered witnesses to the Alexandrian textual tradition.[15] Scholars regard its text as a benchmark for reconstructing the original biblical readings due to this fidelity, with deviations primarily limited to scribal errors rather than deliberate harmonizations or additions.[16] In comparative analysis, the Codex Vaticanus aligns closely with other key Alexandrian witnesses, such as the Codex Sinaiticus, despite thousands of differences—such as 3,036 in the Gospels alone—reinforcing their mutual reliability over more conflated traditions. (Note: Wikipedia cited only for factual count from Hoskier, but avoid as primary; use scholarly reference if possible, but for now.) The Codex Vaticanus's text serves as a foundational pillar for the Critical Text underlying modern critical editions, including the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece, where it frequently supports the preferred readings against Byzantine majorities.[17] A distinctive feature of the Old Testament section is the presence of over 700 distigmai—pairs of horizontally aligned marginal dots or oblique strokes—primarily in the Prophets and Octateuch, which annotate potential discrepancies between the Septuagint translation and the Hebrew Vorlage.[18] These marks, estimated at 765 to 858 in total, likely originated from a scholarly comparison process around the manuscript's production, highlighting translation variants without altering the main text.[18] Their systematic placement underscores the codex's role in early textual scrutiny of the Greek Old Testament. Additionally, the Codex Vaticanus includes unique marginal notations employing the Greek letter kappa (κ), which appear to flag instances of omitted movable nu (ν), a grammatical particle often added at word ends for euphony in Greek.[19] These symbols, absent in other major uncials, reflect the scribe's meticulous attention to orthographic accuracy and are confined to the New Testament portions, aiding later correctors in restoring the intended readings.[9]

Included Books and Omissions

The Codex Vaticanus includes a substantial portion of the Greek Old Testament in its Septuagint form, encompassing books from Genesis through 2 Chronicles, though it originally lacked 1–4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh (not part of its Septuagint canon, unlike some other manuscripts). Several lacunae exist due to physical damage, such as the loss of Genesis 1:1–46:28a (the first 20 folios), 2 Samuel 2:5–7 and 2:10–13, Psalms 105:27–137:6b, and the Minor Prophets from Hosea 13:7 to Malachi 4:6.[3][20] Non-canonical material appears in limited instances, such as the inclusion of Psalm 151 immediately following Psalm 150, treated as an appendix to the Psalter. The manuscript also incorporates the Septuagint additions to Daniel, including the Prayer of Azariah and the Song of the Three Young Men (inserted after Daniel 3:23), the story of Susanna (as Daniel 13), and Bel and the Dragon (as Daniel 14), presenting them as integrated parts of the book without separate titles.[21] In the New Testament, Codex Vaticanus preserves the four Gospels in full, the Book of Acts, the Catholic Epistles (James through Jude), and the Pauline Epistles up to 2 Thessalonians, followed by Hebrews (1:1–9:14 in the original hand).[3] The Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus), Philemon, and the Book of Revelation are entirely absent, likely due to deliberate exclusion from the codex's original composition rather than damage, as no traces or spaces indicate their former presence. Hebrews 9:14–13:25, 1–2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon, and Revelation were later supplied in a 15th-century minuscule hand to fill these gaps.[3] Physical lacunae affect minor sections in the Old Testament as noted above, but the New Testament's major absences align with the manuscript's selective canon. Some lacunae, including those in Acts and Pauline epistles, were supplemented from other manuscripts like Codex Vaticanus 1761. Several notable textual omissions distinguish Codex Vaticanus from later traditions, reflecting intentional scribal decisions rather than loss. The longer ending of Mark (16:9–20) concludes abruptly at verse 8, followed by an unusually large blank space spanning two-thirds of a column, suggesting the scribe was aware of the passage but chose to exclude it.[22] Similarly, the Pericope Adulterae (John 7:53–8:11) is entirely absent, with the text transitioning directly from John 7:52 to 8:12 without interruption or notation. The Comma Johanneum (1 John 5:7–8, the explicit Trinitarian formula) is omitted, reading simply "For there are three that testify: the Spirit, the water and the blood; and the three are in agreement" without the interpolated clause. These exclusions align with the Alexandrian textual tradition and are not attributed to damage, as the manuscript shows deliberate formatting choices throughout.[3]

Complete List of Books in Codex Vaticanus

The Codex Vaticanus contains the following books in its Septuagint Old Testament portion (with some deuterocanonical books interspersed, as typical in Septuagint manuscripts; exact order may vary slightly in descriptions but reflects standard scholarly reconstruction): Pentateuch (Torah):
  • Genesis (missing 1:1–46:28a)
  • Exodus
  • Leviticus
  • Numbers
  • Deuteronomy
Historical Books:
  • Joshua
  • Judges
  • Ruth
  • 1–4 Kingdoms (1–2 Samuel and 1–2 Kings; lacuna in 2 Samuel 2:5–7, 10–13)
  • 1–2 Chronicles (Paralipomenon)
  • 1 Esdras (Greek version, sometimes called 3 Esdras)
  • 2 Esdras (Ezra-Nehemiah)
  • Esther (with Greek additions)
Wisdom/Poetic Books:
  • Job
  • Psalms (150 psalms + Psalm 151 as appendix; lacuna in Psalms 105:27–137:6b)
  • Proverbs
  • Ecclesiastes
  • Song of Songs (Canticles)
  • Wisdom of Solomon
  • Sirach (Ecclesiasticus / Wisdom of Jesus Son of Sirach, including prologue)
Deuterocanonical Books (interspersed):
  • Tobit
  • Judith
Prophetic Books:
  • The Twelve Minor Prophets (Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, Malachi; partial lacuna from Hosea 13:7 onward)
  • Isaiah
  • Jeremiah (including Lamentations and Baruch with the Letter of Jeremiah)
  • Ezekiel
  • Daniel (with Septuagint additions: Prayer of Azariah and Song of the Three Young Men after Daniel 3:23, Susanna as Daniel 13, Bel and the Dragon as Daniel 14)
Note: The manuscript originally omitted 1–4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. New Testament Contents:
  • The four Gospels: Matthew, Mark, Luke, John (full)
  • Acts of the Apostles
  • Catholic (General) Epistles: James, 1–2 Peter, 1–3 John, Jude
  • Pauline Epistles (including Hebrews): Romans, 1–2 Corinthians, Galatians, Ephesians, Philippians, Colossians, 1–2 Thessalonians, Hebrews (up to 9:14 in original hand; 9:14–13:25 supplied later)
Absent from the original manuscript: Pastoral Epistles (1–2 Timothy, Titus), Philemon, Revelation (likely deliberate omission; unlike the end of Hebrews, these were not supplied by later hands and remain absent from the codex). This list reflects the manuscript's accumulated Septuagint tradition as used in early Christianity, incorporating protocanonical and most deuterocanonical books except the noted omissions.

Notable Variants

The Codex Vaticanus exhibits several notable textual variants in the New Testament that distinguish it from later Byzantine manuscripts and the Textus Receptus, often supporting shorter, earlier readings considered more authentic by textual critics. In Mark 1:1, it omits the phrase "Son of God" (υἱοῦ θεοῦ), presenting the verse as "The beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ," a reading shared with some early papyri and minuscules but absent in most later witnesses; this shorter form is viewed as original, with the addition likely a scribal harmonization to parallel other titles for Jesus. Similarly, in Matthew 6:13, the codex lacks the doxology "For thine is the kingdom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen," which appears in later liturgical texts but is absent in early Alexandrian and Western traditions, indicating it as a post-original expansion. Another significant variant occurs in Luke 22:43-44, where Vaticanus omits the passage describing an angel strengthening Jesus in agony and his sweat becoming like drops of blood; this omission aligns with early witnesses like Papyrus 75 and is deemed a later interpolation drawn from extra-canonical traditions, though retained in modern editions with reservations due to its antiquity in some sources.[23] In the Old Testament, Codex Vaticanus follows the Septuagint tradition, which diverges from the Masoretic Text in key passages. For instance, Isaiah 7:14 renders the Hebrew "almah" (young woman) as "parthenos" (virgin), a translation that influenced early Christian interpretations of messianic prophecy and differs from the Masoretic emphasis on a youthful figure without explicit virginity; this reading is consistent across major Septuagint manuscripts and critical editions based on Vaticanus.[24] Overall, the codex shows approximately 2,800 differences from the Textus Receptus in the Gospels alone, the majority being minor orthographic or stylistic variations that favor concise, pre-Byzantine phrasing, though a smaller subset involves substantive omissions supporting the Alexandrian textual affiliation. Regarding navigational aids, Vaticanus lacks the full Eusebian Canons and Ammonian Sections found in later codices, instead employing a unique system of numbered sections—170 in Matthew, 61 in Mark, 152 in Luke, and 80 in John—adapted for cross-referencing without the accompanying tables.[25][26]

Production History

Scribes and Corrections

The Codex Vaticanus was penned by three principal scribes, conventionally labeled A, B, and C, who divided the workload according to content sections. Scribe B copied the bulk of the New Testament, from the Gospels through most of Hebrews, demonstrating a precise and steady hand. Scribes A, B, and C handled the Old Testament, with A covering Genesis 46:28 to 1 Kingdoms 19:11, B covering extensive portions from 1 Kingdoms 19:11 to Psalms 77:71a and the prophetic books from Hosea onward, and C responsible for Psalms 77:71b through Tobit. This division is evident in subtle shifts at quire boundaries, such as variations in column line counts and letter forms like alphas, deltas, and lambdas.[27][8] The scribes' work exhibits a uniform Biblical majuscule uncial script—small, delicate, and unadorned majuscules written in scriptio continua without spaces or initial punctuation—reflecting professional training in 4th-century Alexandrian or Egyptian paleographic traditions. They consistently applied nomina sacra, the abbreviated sacred names (e.g., ΘΣ for Theos), a hallmark of early Christian scribal reverence that varies slightly by hand, such as in the treatment of πνευμα. Subscription notes at book ends include colophons with distinctive coronides (ornamental flourishes) and tail-pieces, underscoring the scribes' structured approach to concluding sections without explicit dates or personal ascriptions.[28][29][30][31] Paleographic analysis dates the original scribal activity to the mid-4th century, around 325–350 CE, based on the script's evolution from earlier uncials and its close similarity to Codex Sinaiticus, which shares comparable letter proportions, slant, and bilinear tendencies indicative of contemporary Egyptian production. This places Vaticanus slightly earlier or contemporaneous with Sinaiticus, before the widespread adoption of more rigid majuscule forms.[32][7] Corrections appear in multiple layers, beginning with contemporary revisers in the 4th century (often labeled B2) who addressed orthographic inconsistencies, itacisms, and minor omissions using the original ink or similar, suggesting diorthotes (official correctors) oversaw the initial transcription. These early interventions preserved the Alexandrian textual base while fixing scribal slips. Subsequent correctors, active from the 8th to 15th centuries (including B3 in the 10th–11th and sporadic later hands), introduced alterations aligning passages with the emerging Byzantine text-type, such as expansions in harmonizations or preferred readings; these are identifiable by paler or browner inks, minuscule insertions amid uncials, and stylistic mismatches like enlarged letters or tremulous lines. Over 1,000 such later corrections occur, primarily in the Gospels and Acts, though the core text remains largely intact.[27][20][33]

Provenance

The Codex Vaticanus is believed to have been produced in the mid-4th century CE, with paleographical analysis dating its uncial script to approximately 325–350 CE.[34] Scholars propose origins in either Alexandria, Egypt, or Caesarea, Palestine, based on textual characteristics and historical context.[34] T.C. Skeat argued for a Caesarean origin in the 330s, suggesting it was one of the fifty Greek Bible manuscripts commissioned by Emperor Constantine from Eusebius of Caesarea between 331 and 335 CE, produced in a scriptorium there.[35] Alternatively, its book order for the included books closely matches the list in Athanasius of Alexandria's 39th Festal Letter of 367 CE, supporting an Alexandrian provenance.[34] Early historical references to the codex are scarce, with no direct mentions by name in late 4th-century sources like Jerome, though its Alexandrian text type aligns with Greek manuscripts Jerome consulted for the Vulgate translation around 382–405 CE.[36] The manuscript's subsequent history involves unverified traditions of movement, including possible time in Egypt or Constantinople, potentially as part of imperial or ecclesiastical collections before reaching Rome.[37] One theory posits exile or hiding in Byzantine monasteries during the iconoclastic periods of the 8th and 9th centuries to protect it from destruction, though this remains speculative without documentary evidence.[38] The provenance features significant gaps, with no records documenting the codex's location or ownership from the 4th century until the 15th century, leading to hypotheses of preservation in Eastern monastic libraries.[39] Its first certain attestation occurs in the Vatican Library's earliest catalog of 1475, compiled under Pope Nicholas V (r. 1447–1455), who founded the library in 1448 and amassed Greek manuscripts, including this one described as a three-column vellum Bible.[7] By this point, the codex had likely arrived in Rome, possibly via Byzantine émigrés or earlier papal acquisitions, marking the end of its pre-Vatican itinerary.[34]

Custody and Scholarship

Acquisition by Vatican Library

The Codex Vaticanus entered the collections of the Vatican Library, formally established by Pope Nicholas V in 1448, sometime before its first documented appearance in the library's catalog of 1475, though its exact acquisition date remains uncertain and may predate that record. By 1481, it was definitively cataloged as part of the library's holdings, reflecting its integration into one of the world's premier repositories of ancient manuscripts. As a key element of the Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana's ancient collection, the codex has been preserved alongside other significant Greco-Roman and biblical artifacts, underscoring the institution's role in safeguarding early Christian texts.[14][40] For centuries, access to the manuscript was severely restricted, with the Vatican Library permitting study only to a select few privileged individuals until the 19th century, often limiting examinations to indirect collations rather than direct handling. This policy contributed to its enigmatic status among scholars, who relied on partial reports rather than full inspection. In 1809, during the Napoleonic occupation of Rome, the codex was removed to Paris as a trophy of war but was repatriated to the Vatican Library in 1815 following Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo.[38][40][41] The mid-19th century marked a turning point in access policies, as the Vatican granted limited permission in 1845 to English biblical scholar Samuel Prideaux Tregelles to collate the manuscript in Rome under strict supervision, including searches for writing materials to prevent unauthorized copying. This rare allowance fueled international scholarly interest, highlighting the codex's growing recognition as a vital witness to the Greek Bible and prompting further diplomatic efforts for broader examination.[42][43]

Collations and Textual Editions

One of the earliest significant collations of Codex Vaticanus was undertaken in the early 18th century by Apostolo Mico on behalf of the scholar Richard Bentley, completed around 1720 and later revised by Michele Rulotta, though it remained imperfect and was not published until 1799.[44] Full collations followed in the mid-19th century, with Constantin von Tischendorf producing a detailed examination during his limited access in the 1840s, culminating in his 1867 edition Novum Testamentum Vaticanum.[42] Samuel Prideaux Tregelles also conducted a collation in the 1850s, relying partly on prior copies due to restricted Vatican permissions but verifying readings through direct inspection where possible.[44] Among key textual editions drawing heavily from Codex Vaticanus, Henry Barclay Swete's The Old Testament in Greek according to the Text of Codex Vaticanus (1887–1894) established the manuscript as the primary base text for the Septuagint, supplemented by other uncials like Codex Alexandrinus when Vaticanus was deficient.[45] For the New Testament, Augustinus Merk's Novum Testamentum Graece et Latine (1933) featured Vaticanus readings prominently alongside a Vulgate parallel, reflecting its influence in Catholic textual scholarship.[46] Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort's 1881 critical edition prioritized Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus over later witnesses, shaping subsequent reconstructions by dismissing Byzantine influences.[38] Modern critical texts continue this tradition: the Nestle-Aland 28th edition (NA28, 2012) and United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament 5th edition (UBS5, 2014) incorporate Vaticanus variants in their apparatuses and adopt its readings in the main text where supported by early evidence, particularly in the Catholic Epistles revised via the Editio Critica Maior.[47] Recent developments have enhanced accessibility and analysis of Codex Vaticanus. In 1999, the Vatican Library issued a limited-edition, full-color photographic facsimile reproducing the entire manuscript at exact scale, facilitating global scholarly study without physical handling.[48] The DigiVatLib project digitized the codex in 2014–2015, launching high-resolution images online by February 2015 for open virtual access.[49] Methodologically, post-20th-century research has employed ultraviolet imaging to reveal obscured corrections and features, such as the distigmai (double dots marking variants), confirming their 16th-century addition and aiding precise identification of scribal interventions.[18] In 2024, An-Ting Yi published From Erasmus to Maius: The History of Codex Vaticanus in New Testament Textual Scholarship, providing a comprehensive historical analysis of the manuscript's role and perception in textual criticism from the 16th to 19th centuries.[50]

Scholarly Importance

Role in Textual Criticism

The Codex Vaticanus holds a foundational position in biblical textual criticism as one of the four great uncial manuscripts, alongside Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus, due to its early fourth-century date and representation of the Alexandrian text-type. These uncials provided scholars with access to pre-Byzantine textual traditions, enabling more accurate reconstructions of the original New Testament and Septuagint texts.[51] In the nineteenth century, Brooke Foss Westcott and Fenton John Anthony Hort elevated Codex Vaticanus as a primary exemplar of their "neutral text," a relatively unaltered Alexandrian tradition that they posited as the closest approximation to the autographs, free from later Western or Syrian revisions.[52] This assessment supported the eclectic method in textual criticism, where readings are selected based on internal and external evidence rather than adherence to a single manuscript family, with Vaticanus often serving as a benchmark for evaluating variant authenticity.[53] Additionally, its marginal distigmai—paired dots marking over 700 locations—have contributed to Old Testament source criticism by highlighting discrepancies between the Septuagint and Hebrew texts, potentially echoing Origen's Hexaplaric notations for textual alignment.[54] Debates persist regarding the codex's textual "purity," particularly in comparison to Codex Sinaiticus, with which it agrees in about 70% of New Testament readings but diverges in over 3,000 instances in the Gospels alone, raising questions about scribal interventions or distinct transmission streams within the Alexandrian type.[55] Critics like Herman C. Hoskier challenged Westcott and Hort's heavy reliance on Vaticanus, arguing its unique readings sometimes reflect corruptions rather than superior fidelity.[55] Nonetheless, Vaticanus has profoundly influenced the rejection of Byzantine majority readings, as Westcott-Hort's methodology dismissed the Syrian text as a secondary conflation, prioritizing Alexandrian witnesses to excise perceived expansions and harmonizations.[56] Codex Vaticanus is frequently cited in modern critical apparatuses, such as those in the Nestle-Aland and United Bible Societies editions, underscoring its enduring role in establishing scholarly consensus on the Greek New Testament. For instance, its omission of the longer ending of Mark (16:9-20) exemplifies a key variant where it aligns with early papyri against the Byzantine majority.

Influence on Modern Bibles

The Codex Vaticanus has profoundly shaped the textual basis of modern Bible translations through its prominent role in critical editions of the Greek New Testament. Westcott and Hort's 1881 edition, The New Testament in the Original Greek, relied extensively on Vaticanus as a primary witness, favoring its readings to reconstruct what they viewed as the neutral, early text type, which in turn influenced the Revised Version of the same year.[38][57] This approach carried forward into subsequent critical texts, such as Nestle-Aland and the United Bible Societies' Greek New Testament, which prioritize Vaticanus alongside Codex Sinaiticus, forming the foundation for translations like the New International Version (NIV), English Standard Version (ESV), and New Revised Standard Version (NRSV).[38] A notable example of its influence is the omission or bracketing of the longer ending of Mark (16:9–20) in these modern versions, as Vaticanus abruptly concludes the Gospel at 16:8, leaving a blank column that scholars interpret as intentional exclusion of the later addition.[58] This decision reflects Vaticanus's authority in textual criticism, leading translation committees to adopt shorter readings for passages deemed non-original, thereby promoting a more streamlined New Testament text in contemporary editions.[59] The codex's significance extends to ecumenical efforts, bridging Catholic and Protestant traditions by serving as a key source in both. In the Catholic Church, the Nova Vulgata (1979), promulgated by Pope John Paul II as the official Latin Bible, incorporates modern textual criticism of the original Greek and Hebrew sources, drawing indirectly on Vaticanus through critical editions like the Novum Testamentum Graece.[60] This shared reliance on early uncials like Vaticanus fosters unity, as Protestant translations such as the NIV and ESV also utilize these same Greek bases, enabling cross-denominational alignment in renderings of contested passages. In the digital era, digitized facsimiles of Vaticanus have enhanced accessibility for scholars and translators via Bible software platforms. The Center for the Study of New Testament Manuscripts provides high-resolution images of the codex online, allowing direct consultation of its readings.[3] Similarly, Logos Bible Software integrates Vaticanus-based texts and translations, such as the Old Testament in Greek according to its readings, while Accordance offers manuscript images for comparative study, facilitating real-time variant analysis in translation workflows.[61][62] The Vatican Library has adopted AI and robotics for digitizing its collections of ancient manuscripts as of 2025, enhancing preservation and accessibility for artifacts like the already-digitized Codex Vaticanus.[63] These tools aid in broader biblical scholarship, informing revisions in editions like the NRSV Updated Edition and ensuring translations reflect the latest paleographic insights.[38]

References

  1. Biblical Manuscripts: Greek OT Manuscripts - SEBTS Library
  2. Biblical Manuscripts: Where Is The Original Bible? | HCU
  3. Manuscript GA 03 - CSNTM
  4. The Copts and the Bible - Religious Studies Center
  5. New Testament Manuscripts, Textual Families, and Variants
  6. [PDF] Codex Vaticanus
  7. The Codex Vaticanus - History of Information
  8. Codex Vaticanus B – Graecus 1209 Facsimile Edition
  9. W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: General description
  10. [PDF] Textual Divisions in Codex Vaticanus
  11. [PDF] The Text of the New Testament: Its Transmission, Corruption, and ...
  12. https://archive.org/details/bruce-m.-metzger-manuscripts-of-the-greek-bible.-an-introduction-to-palaeography
  13. Vat.gr.1209 | DigiVatLib
  14. The Codex Vaticanus—Careful Preservation
  15. Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament Explained
  16. Alexandrian Text-Type of Greek New Testament Manuscripts
  17. New Testament Text-Types - World History Encyclopedia
  18. https://brill.com/view/journals/vlr/3/2/article-p125_2.xml
  19. (DOC) Glossary of New Testament Textual Criticism - Academia.edu
  20. Codex Vaticanus | Catholic Answers Encyclopedia
  21. “Daniel” in Select Codices - Evangelical Textual Criticism
  22. The “Strange” Ending of the Gospel of Mark and Why It Makes All the ...
  23. [PDF] A Textual Commentary On The Greek New Testament Contents
  24. Paul and the Septuagint Canon - Text & Canon Institute
  25. Majority Text vs. Critical Text vs. Textus Receptus - Berean Patriot
  26. CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Codex Vaticanus - New Advent
  27. [PDF] The Scribes and Correctors of Codex Vaticanus - Tyndale Bulletin
  28. CODEX VATICANUS: Why Is it a Treasure?
  29. Biblical Majuscule | Greek Paleography
  30. The Nomina Sacra in the Marcan Portion of Codex Vaticanus
  31. W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: The colophons
  32. https://brill.com/display/book/9789004391819/BP000005.xml
  33. https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/b...
  34. [PDF] New Perspectives on the Textual Character of Codex Vaticanus
  35. https://brill.com/downloadpdf/book/edcoll/9789047405658/B9789047405658-s027.pdf
  36. 4. JEROME'S VULGATE AS THE MAJOR SOURCE OF TEXTUAL ...
  37. Codex Vaticanus: From Where? - The Text of the Gospels
  38. The Changing Fortunes of Codex Vaticanus - Text & Canon Institute
  39. The Story of Codex Vaticanus - Zondervan Academic
  40. https://www.cojs.org/codex_vaticanus-_350_ce/
  41. Codex Vaticanus - Artifact - OMNIKA Museum
  42. Tischendorf and the New Testament - Ministry Magazine
  43. [PDF] review of Stunt, The Life and Times of Samuel Prideaux Tregelles
  44. Codex Vaticanus - Bible Research
  45. https://www.cambridge.org/us/universitypress/subjects/religion/biblical-studies-old-testament-hebrew-bible/old-testament-greek-according-text-codex-vaticanus-supplemented-other-uncial-manuscripts-critical-apparatus-containing-variants-chief-ancient-authorities-text-septuagint-volume-1
  46. Bibliography of Textual Criticism "M" - Bible Research
  47. UBS 5 and Nestle and Aland 28th Edition - Beautiful Manscripts
  48. Vaticanus Facsimile: Highlight of a New Acquisition
  49. Vaticanus Online - Evangelical Textual Criticism
  50. https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/9783111453651/html
  51. https://madainproject.com/great_uncial_codices
  52. Older is Not Always Better: Remembering Wescott and Hort
  53. 1 Development of the Westcott-Hort Greek New Testament - Brill
  54. [PDF] Page 1 Critique of “The Marginalia of Codex Vaticanus
  55. [PDF] 3 THE WESTCOTT-HORT CRITICAL THEORY
  56. The 'Majority Text Debate': New Form of an Old Issue
  57. The Revised Version (1881-1895) - Bible Research
  58. A Case for the Longer Ending of Mark - Text & Canon Institute
  59. Codex Vaticanus and the Ending of Mark - The Text of the Gospels
  60. https://www.academia.edu/33939780/The_Neo_Vulgata_as_Official_Liturgical_Translation_full_text_
  61. The Old Testament in Greek, according to the text of Codex ...
  62. images for OT in Sinaiticus and Vaticanus - Accordance How-To
  63. Vatican and other Catholic libraries turn to AI and robotics to digitize ...
User Avatar
No comments yet.