Codex Vaticanus

From Bible Encyclopedia

The Codex Vaticanus, or Vatican Manuscript, which is preserved in the Vatican Library at Rome, is also written on vellum in uncial characters, and most probably before the close of the fifth century, though some critics assign to it an earlier, and others a later date. It wants, in the Old Testament, from Gen. i. to xlvi. and from Psalm cv. to cxxxvii. inclusive ; and in the NewTestament, from Hebrews, ch. ix. 14, to the end of that epistle, as well as St. Paul's other epistles to Timothy, Titus, and Philemon, and the entire book of the Revelations. This last book, however, has been added, as well as the latter part of the epistle to the Hebrews, by a modern hand in the fifteenth century. In many places, the faded letters have been retouched by a modern but careful hand. Various defects, both in orthography and language, indicate that this MS. was written by an Egyptian copyist.

Codex Vaticanus is said to be the oldest extant vellum manuscript. It and the Codex Sinaiticus are the two oldest uncial manuscripts. They were probably written in the fourth century. The Vaticanus was placed in the Vatican Library at Rome by Pope Nicolas V. in 1448, its previous history being unknown. It originally consisted in all probability of a complete copy of the Septuagint and of the New Testament. It is now imperfect, and consists of 759 thin, delicate leaves, of which the New Testament fills 142. Like the Sinaiticus, it is of the greatest value to Biblical scholars in aiding in the formation of a correct text of the New Testament. It is referred to by critics as Codex B.

The Codex Vaticanus (The Vatican, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209; Gregory-Aland no. B or 03) is one of the oldest extant manuscripts of the Bible. It is slightly older than Codex Sinaiticus, both of which were probably transcribed in the 4th century. It is written in Greek, on vellum, with uncial letters.

1. Content

Vaticanus originally contained a complete copy of the Septuagint ("LXX") except for 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. Genesis 1:1 - 46:28a (31 leaves) and Psalm 105:27 - 137:6b (10 leaves) are lost and have been filled by a recent hand. 2 Kings 2:5-7, 10-13 are also lost due to a tear in one of the pages. The order of the Old Testament books is as follows: Genesis to 2 Chronicles as normal, 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras (which includes Nehemias), the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit, the minor prophets from Hosea to Malachi, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel and Daniel.

The extant New Testament of Vaticanus contains the Gospels, Acts, the General Epistles, the Pauline Epistles and the Epistle to the Hebrews (up to Heb 9:14, καθα[ριει); thus it lacks 1 and 2 Timothy, Titus, Philemon and Revelation. These missing pages were replaced by a 15th century minuscule supplement (no. 1957).

The Greek is written continuously with small neat writing, later retraced by an 11th century scribe. 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 and markings of OT citations.

The manuscript contains mysterious double dots (so called "umlauts") in the margin of the New Testament, which seem to mark places of textual uncertainty. There are 795 of these in the text and around another 40 that are uncertain. The date of these markings are disputed among scholars and are discussed in a link below.

2. Provenance

The manuscript has been housed in the Vatican Library (founded by Pope Nicholas V in 1448) for as long as it has been known, appearing in its earliest catalog of 1475 and in the 1481 catalogue. Its place of origin and the history of the manuscript is uncertain, with Rome, southern Italy and Caesarea all having been suggested. There has been speculation that it had previously been in the possession of Cardinal Bessarion because the minuscule supplement has a text similar to one of Bessarion's manuscripts. According to Paul Canart's introduction to the recent facsimile edition, p.5, the decorative initials added to the manuscript in the middle ages are reminiscent of Constantinopolitan decoration of the 10th century, but poorly executed, giving the impression that they were added in the 11th or 12th century. T C Skeat, a paleographer at the British Museum, first argued that Codex Vaticanus was among the 50 Bibles that the Emperor Constantine I ordered Eusebius of Caesarea to produce. The similarity of the text with the papyri and Coptic version (including some letter formation), parallels with Athanasius' canon of 367 suggest an Egyptian or Alexandrian origin.

3. Importance

Codex Vaticanus is one of the most important manuscripts for Textual criticism and is a leading member of the Alexandrian text-type. It was heavily used by Westcott and Hort in their edition, The New Testament in the Original Greek (1881).

Though there are many manuscripts of the New Testament in the Vatican, yet that which is noted in the Vatican Library, 1209, is called in general Codex Vaticanus, without any further mark of distinction. This most ancient and valuable manuscript is written with uncial letters and without intervals; neither is any difference observed in the size of the letters, which in other manuscripts are generally larger at the beginning of a section ; but in this they are all of the same size, except at the beginning of a book. This is a proof of very high antiquity. The abbreviations are very few, being confined to those words which are in general abbreviated. It has, however, accents and marks of aspiration of the form most anciently used, which were sometimes used in the manuscripts of the Greek Testament, even in the fifth century. The characters are said to resemble those of the Greek manuscripts which have been discovered in the ruins of Herculaneum. This manuscript, like its rival, the Codex Alexandrinus, contained originally the whole Greek Bible, including both the Old and the New Testament. It contests the point of seniority with its rival; but no two manuscripts are so similar to each other in antiquity, characters, and contents.

We must observe, however, with regard, to the readings of the Codex Alexandrinus and Codex Vaticanus, that they differ very considerably both in the Old and New Testament. This manuscript carries internal marks of very great antiquity. A particular division of the Greek Testament, adopted for convenience by Eusebius, and afterwards used generally, is not observed, which is a presumptive proof that it was written before the canons of Eusebius were in general use in the country where the transcriber lived; and we may certainly pronounce that the Codex Vaticanus was written before the close of the fifth century.

In the Gospels the Codex Vaticanus has a great resemblance to two manuscripts, the Codex Ephrem and Codex Cantabrigiensis, and to the Latin, Coptic, and Ethiopic versions. It is written with great accuracy, and is evidently a faithful copy of the more ancient manuscript from which it was transcribed. It has received some corrections from a modern hand, but these alterations leave the ancient reading distinctly visible. We may therefore conclude, with the best critics, that the celebrated Codex Vaticanus is a manuscript of the highest antiquity and greatest authority.

Literature

H.J.M. Milne and T.C. Skeat "Scribes and Correctors", London 1938

Janko Sagi "Problema historiae codicis B", Divius Thomas 1972, 3 - 29

T.C. Skeat "The Codex Vaticanus in the 15th Century.", JTS 35 (1984) 454 - 65

T.C. Skeat "The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine.", JTS 50 (1999) 583 - 625

Philip B. Payne "Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus and 1 Cor 14.34-5.", NTS 41 (1995) 251 - 262 [Payne discovered the first umlaut while studying this section.]

Curt Niccum "The voice of the MSS on the Silence of the Women: ...", NTS 43 (1997) 242 - 255

Philip B. Payne and Paul Canart "The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus.", Novum Testamentum 42 (2000) 105 - 113

J. Edward Miller "Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35.", JSNT 26 (2003) 217-236 [Miller disagrees with Payne on several points. He notes and uses this website.] Philip B. Payne and Paul Canart "The Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34-35: A Response to J. Edward Miller.", JSNT 27 (2004) 105-112 [Payne still thinks, contra Miller, that the combination of a bar plus umlaut has a special meaning.]