Codex Vaticanus
Greek Old Testament and Greek New Testament | |
Date | 4th Century |
---|---|
Script | Greek |
Now at | Vatican Library |
Cite | C. Vercellonis, J. Cozza, Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus, Roma 1868. |
Size | 27 × 27 cm (10.6 × 10.6 in) |
Type | Alexandrian text-type |
Category | I |
Note | very close to 𝔓66, 𝔓75, 0162 |
The Codex Vaticanus (The Vatican, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209), designated by siglum B or 03 (in the Gregory-Aland numbering of New Testament manuscripts), δ 1 (in the von Soden numbering of New Testament manuscripts), is a Christian manuscript of a Greek Bible, containing the majority of the Greek Old Testament and the majority of the Greek New Testament. 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.[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 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
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
The manuscript is a codex (precursor to the modern book) in
The Greek lettering in the codex is written continuously in small and neat letters.[11] 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.[12]: 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.[11] The first letter of a new chapter sometimes protrudes a little from the column.[11] The OT citations were marked by an inverted comma or diplai (>).[11] There are no enlarged initials; no stops or accents; no divisions into chapters or sections such as are found in later manuscripts.[13]
The text of the Gospels is not divided according to the Ammonian Sections with references to the
Text
Text-type
In the Old Testament, the type of text varies, with a received text in Ezekiel and a rejected one in the
: 83In 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.[15] In the Pauline epistles there is a distinctly Western element.[10] 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
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.[16]
The extant
Non-included verses
The text of the New Testament lacks several passages:
- Matthew 12:47[21]: 32
- Matthew 16:2b–3[21]: 44
- Matthew 17:21[21]: 48
- Matthew 18:11[21]: 49
- Matthew 23:14[21]: 65
- Mark 7:16[21]: 111
- Mark 9:44[21]: 121
- Mark 9:46[21]: 121
- Mark 11:26[21]: 128
- Mark 15:28[21]: 144
- Mark 16:9–20 — The Book of Mark ends with verse 16:8.[21]: 147–149
- Luke 17:36[21]: 218
- Luke 22:43–44 (Christ's agony at Gethsemane)[21]: 234
- John 5:4[21]: 260
- John 7:53-8:12 (Pericope Adulterae)[21]: 273–274
- Acts 8:37[21]: 345
- Acts 15:34[21]: 367
- Acts 24:7[21]: 395
- Acts 28:29[21]: 408
- Romans 16:24[21]: 440 [21]: 440
- 1 Peter 5:3[21]: 607, 626
- 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 bopt mae
- incl. - Majority of manuscripts[23]: 16
- omit - B
- 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)
- ἢ τὴν μητέρα (αὐτοῦ) (or (his) mother)
- omit - B sa
- incl. - Majority of manuscripts[21]: 41
- omit - B
- καὶ τὸ βάπτισμα ὂ ἐγὼ βαπτίζομαι βαπτισθήσεσθε (and be baptised with the baptism that I am baptised with)
- omit - B sa
- incl. - Majority of manuscripts[21]: 56
- omit - B
- καὶ προσκολληθήσεται πρὸς τὴν γυναῖκα αὐτοῦ (and be joined to his wife)
- μη αποστερησης
- 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 bo
- incl. - Majority of manuscripts[21]: 190
- omit - B
- αλλα ρυσαι ημας απο του πονηρου (but deliver us from evil)
- omit - B boarm geo
- incl. - Majority of manuscripts[23]: 256
- omit - B
- 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 bo
- incl. - Majority of manuscripts[21]: 239
- omit - B
Additions
- 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)
Some notable readings
- Matthew 17:23
- τη τριημερα (the third day) - B (singular reading)
- τη τριτη ημερα (the third day) - Majority of manuscripts[25]
- Matthew 23:38
- ερημος (desert)
- omit - B bo
- incl. - Majority of manuscripts[21]: 67
- omit - B
- ερημος (desert)
- Luke 6:2
- οὐκ ἔξεστιν (not lawful) - B boarm geo
- οὐκ ἔξεστιν ποιεῖν (not lawful to do) - Majority of manuscripts[21]: 170
- οὐκ ἔξεστιν (not lawful) - B
- John 12:28
- δοξασον μου το ονομα (glorify my name) - B (singular reading)
- δοξασον σου τον υιον (glorify Your Son)- bo
- δοξασον σου το ονομα (glorify Your name) - Majority of manuscripts[21]: 292
- Ephesians 2:1
- αμαρτιαις (sins) - B (singular reading)
- επιθυμιαις (desires) - Majority of manuscripts[21]: 505
- Hebrews 1:3
- φανερων (revealing) - B (singular reading)
- φερων (upholding) - Majority of manuscripts[21]: 563
History
Provenance
The provenance and early history of the codex are uncertain;
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."[14]: 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).[14]: 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".[10]
It has been postulated the codex was at one time in the possession of Cardinal
The codex is generally assigned to the middle of the fourth century and considered contemporary 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.[32]
Scribes and correctors
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.
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.[34]
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][10] According to Tischendorf, one of the scribes is identical to (and may have been) one of the scribes of Codex Sinaiticus (scribe D),[35][36]: XXI-XXIII [37] but there is insufficient evidence for his assertion.[9] 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".[34]
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.[10] Accents, breathing marks, and punctuation were added by a later hand.[10] 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.[9] 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.[38][39]
The manuscript contains unusual small horizontally aligned double dots (so called "distigmai", formerly called "umlauts") in the column margins and are scattered throughout the New Testament.[n 2] 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.[36] 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.[36] 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][22]: 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
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).[29]
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][14]: 77
Collations
In the 16th century, Western scholars became aware of the manuscript as a consequence of the correspondence between
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.[14]: 78 Another collation was made in 1720 for Bentley by Mico, then revised by Rulotta, which was not published until 1799.[14]: 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 scholar
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
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][12]: 165
Cardinal
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]
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".[8]: 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]
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.[9][6] In 1867 Tischendorf published the text of the New Testament of the codex on the basis of Mai's edition.[36] It was the "most perfect edition of the manuscript which had yet appeared".[9]
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[update], a digitised copy of the codex is available online from the Vatican Library.[72]
Importance
Codex Vaticanus is considered as one of the most important manuscripts for the text of the
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.[20][10] The manuscript is not complete. Aland notes: "B is by far the most significant of the uncials".[2]
See also
- List of New Testament uncials
- Biblical manuscript
- Textual criticism
- Minuscule 2427
- Differences between codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus
- Fifty Bibles of Constantine
Notes
- ^ For more textual variants of this verse see: Textual variants in the Acts of the Apostles.
- ^ List of umlauts in the New Testament of the Codex Vaticanus Archived 2009-07-26 at the Wayback Machine
- Andrew Birchwas the first, who identified this note with 365 readings of Sepulveda.
- ^ Besides the twenty-five readings Tischendorf observed himself, Cardinal Mai supplied him with thirty-four more his NT of 1849. His seventh edition of the text of New Testament (1859) was enriched by 230 other readings furnished by Albert Dressel in 1855.
References
- ^ ISBN 0-19-516667-1.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-8028-4098-1.
- ^ "Liste Handschriften". Münster: Institute for New Testament Textual Research. Retrieved 16 March 2013.
- ^ a b c Carlo Maria Martini, La Parola di Dio Alle Origini della Chiesa, (Rome: Bibl. Inst. Pr. 1980), p. 287.
- ^ a b S. P. Tregelles, An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures, London 1856, p. 108.
- ^ ISBN 9781409708261.
- ^ "Catholic Encyclopedia: Codex Vaticanus". newadvent.org. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
- ^ a b c d Scrivener, Frederick Henry Ambrose; Edward Miller (1894). A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament. Vol. 1 (4 ed.). London: George Bell & Sons. pp. 105–106.
- ^ a b c d e f Kenyon, Frederic George (1939). Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts (4th ed.). London: Eyre & Spottiswoode.
- ^ ISBN 978-0-19-502924-6.
- ^ a b c d Gregory, Caspar René (1900). Textkritik des Neuen Testaments. Vol. 1. Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs. p. 33.
- ^ a b Hug, John Leonard (1827). An Introduction to the Writings of the New Testament. Daniel Guildford Wait (trans.). London: C. &. J. Rivington.
- ^ Gregory, Caspar René (1907). Canon and Text of the New Testament. New York: Charles Scribner's sons. p. 343.
- ^ ISBN 9780837093949.
- ^ Calvin L. Porter, Papyrus Bodmer XV (P75) and the Text of Codex Vaticanus, JBL 81 (1962), pp. 363–376.
- ISBN 3-438-06006-X.
- ^ Swete 1902, p. 104].
- ^ Swete 1902, p. 105.
- ^ Souter, Alexander (1913). The Text and the Canon of the New Testament. London: Duckworth & Co. p. 20.
- ^ a b Waltz, Robert. Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism.
- ^ ISBN 3-438-051001. (NA26)
- ^ a b Payne, Philip B. (1995). Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus and 1 Cor 14.34-5. Vol. 41.
- ^ ISBN 9783438051103. (UBS3)
- ^ Septuaginta, ed. A. Rahlfs, Stuttgart 1979, vol. 1
- ISBN 978-1888328097.
- Burkitt, Francis Crawford(1899). Introduction. The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles. By Barnard, P. Morduant. Texts and Studies. Vol. 5. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. p. VIII-XI.
- ^ Hort, Fenton John Anthony(1882). Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix. New York: Harper & Bros.
- ^ Robinson, J. Armitage (1895). Euthaliana: Studies of Euthalius Codex H of the Pauline Epistles and the Armenian Version. Wiesbaden: Cambridge University Press. pp. 42, 101.
- ^ ISBN 90-04-13920-6.
- ISBN 978-2-940351-05-3.
- ^ T. C. Skeat, "The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine", JTS 50 (1999), pp. 583–625.
- ^ Brent Nongbri," The Date of Codex Sinaiticus," Journal of Theological Studies 73 (2022) 516-534. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flac083
- Editio octava critica maior, ed. C. R. Gregory (Lipsiae 1884), p. 360.
- ^ Skeat, Theodore Cressy (1938). Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus. London: Trustees of the British Museum.
- ^ Constantin von Tischendorf, Editio octava critica maior, ed. C. R. Gregory (Lipsiae 1884), pp. 346, 360.
- ^ Giesecke & Devrient. p. XXI.
- ^ Harris, James Rendel. Stichometry. London: C. J. Clay and Sons. p. 73.
- ^ C. R. Gregory, "Canon and Text of the New Testament" (1907), pp. 343–344.
- ^ Wieland Willker (2008). "Dittographies and other corrections". Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03. Archived from the original on 2011-05-31. Retrieved 2011-01-25.
- S2CID 170111716.
- ^ G. S. Dykes, Using the "Umlauts" of Codex Vaticanus to Dig Deeper, 2006. See: Codex Vaticanus Graece. The Umlauts Archived 2009-08-26 at the Wayback Machine.
- ^ Payne, Philip B.; Canart, Paul (2000). The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus (PDF). Novum Testamentum. Vol. 42. pp. 105–113. Archived (PDF) from the original on 2010-05-08.
- ^ Curt Niccum, The voice of the MSS on the Silence of the Women: ..., NTS 43 (1997), pp. 242–255.
- ^ Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03, Wieland Willker. "A critical note". University of Bremen. Archived from the original on 2008-09-15. Retrieved 2008-02-12.
- ISBN 9780192802903.
- ^ ATIYA, AZIZ S. "CODEX VATICANUS". In Saad, Saad Michael (ed.). Claremont Coptic Encyclopedia. Claremont Colleges. Retrieved January 10, 2016.
- ^ Grenz, Jesse R. (October 2021). The Scribes and Correctors of Codex Vaticanus. England: Faculty of Divinity of the University of Cambridge. pp. 2–3. Retrieved 3 June 2023.
- ^ R.C. Jebb, Richard Bentley (New York 1966), p. 487.
- ISBN 90-390-0105-7.
- ^ Andreas Birch, Variae Lectiones ad Textum Actorum Apostolorum, Epistolarum Catholicarum et Pauli (Copenhagen 1798).
- ^ Andreas Birch, Variae lectiones ad Apocalypsin (Copenhagen 1800).
- ^ Andreas Birch, Variae Lectiones ad Textum IV Evangeliorum (Copenhagen 1801).
- ^ Andreas Birch, Variae Lectiones ad Textum IV Evangeliorum (Copenhagen 1801), p. XXVII.
- ^ a b Wettstein, Johann Jakob (1751). Novum Testamentum Graecum: Tomus I. Amstelodami: Ex Officina Dommeriana.
- ^ Constantin von Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece: Editio Octava Critica Maior (Leipzig: 1869), p. 345.
- ^ J. J. Griesbach, Novum Testamentum Graecum, vol. I (Halle, 1777), prolegomena.
- ^ J. J. Griesbach, Novum Testamentum Graecum, 2 editio (Halae, 1796), prolegomena, p. LXXXI. See Edition from 1809 (London)
- ^ https://www.cairn.info/revue-napoleonica-la-revue-2013-2-page-66.htm
- ^ Hug, J. L. (1810). De antiquitate Codicis Vaticani commentatio (in Latin). Freiburg: Herder. Retrieved 2010-12-08.
- ^ a b Eberhard Nestle and William Edie, "Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament", London, Edinburgh, Oxford, New York, 1901, p. 60.
- ^ Constantin von Tischendorf, Editio Octava Critica Maior (Lipsiae, 1884), vol. III, p. 364.
- ^ a b J. K. Elliott, A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts (Cambridge University Press, 1989), p. 34.
- ^ E. de Muralt, Novum Testamentum Graecum ad fidem codicis principis vaticani, Hamburg 1848, p. XXXV.
- ^ S. P. Tregelles, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, London 1856, p. 162.
- ^ S. P. Tregelles, "A Lecture on the Historic Evidence of the Authorship and Transmission of the Books of the New Testament", London 1852, pp. 83–85.
- ^ H. Alford, The Greek Testament. The Four Gospels, London 1849, p. 76.
- ^ T.L. Montefiore, Catechesis Evangelica; bring Questions and Answers based on the "Textus Receptus", (London, 1862), p. 272.
- ^ a b Burgon, John William (1883). The Revision Revised. London: John Murray.
- ^ H. Alford, Life by my Widow, pp. 310, 315.
- ^ Bibliorum Scriptorum Graecorum Codex Vaticanus 1209 (Milan, 1904–1907).
- ^ Codex Vaticanus B Greek Old & New Testaments Magnificent Color Facsimile, Roma: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato, 1999.
- ^ "DigiVatLib". digi.vatlib.it. Retrieved 3 April 2018.
- ISBN 0-89130-140-2.
Cited books
- ISBN 3-438-06010-8.
- Swete, Henry Barclay (1902). An Introduction to the Old Testament in Greek. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Further reading
Facsimile editions of the codex
- Giesecke & Devrient.
- Vercellonis, Carlo & Giuseppe Cozza-Luzi (1868). Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecus Codex Vaticanus. Rome: Vatican.
- Bibliorum Scriptorum Graecorum Codex Vaticanus 1209. Milan: Unknown. 1904–1907.
- Bibliorum Sacrorum Graecorum Codex Vaticanus B. Rome: Istituto Poligrafico e Zecca dello Stato. 1999.
Textual character of the codex
- Hoskier, Herman C. (1914). Codex B and Its Allies, a Study and an Indictment. London: Bernard Quaritch.
- Kubo, Sakae (1965). P72 and the Codex Vaticanus. Studies and Documents. Vol. 27. Salt Lake City: University of Utah Press.
- Martini, C. M. (1966). Il problema della recensionalità del Codice B alla luce del papiro Bodmer XIV (P75. Analecta biblica. Rome.
- Voelz, James W. (2005). The Greek of Codex Vaticanus in the Second Gospel and Marcan Greek. Novum Testamentum. Vol. 47. Leiden: Brill. pp. 209–249.
Distigmai
- Miller, J. Edward (2003). "Some Observations on the Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1. Corinthians 14.34–35". Journal for the Study of the New Testament. 26 (2): 217–236. .
- Amphoux, Christian–B. (2007). "Codex Vaticanus B: Les points diacritiques des marges de Marc" (PDF). doi:10.1093/jts/flm024. Archived from the original(PDF) on 2009-07-30. Retrieved 2010-02-08.
Other
- Streeter, Burnett Hillman(1924). The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins. Oxford: MacMillan and Co.
- Sagi, Janko (1972). Problema historiae codicis B. Divius Thomas.
For more bibliographies see: J. K. Elliott, A Bibliography of Greek New Testament Manuscripts (Cambridge University Press: 1989), pp. 34–36.
External links
- Codex Vaticanus. Entry in the Manuscript Database of the Göttinger Septuaginta by Felix Albrecht, published 30 June 2023
Digitised copy
- Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209 Biblioteca Apostolica Vaticana.
Typographical facsimile (1868)
Documenta Catholica Omnia
- Recensio Codice Vaticano – Documenta Catholica Omnia (2006)
- Old Testament Greek (LXX) Text Codex Vaticanus. Cambridge University Press 8vols, Brooke McLean 1906–1935.
Articles
- Waltz, Robert (2007). "An Introduction to New Testament Textual Criticism". A Site Inspired By: The Encyclopedia of New Testament Textual Criticism. Retrieved 2010-12-25.
- Universität Bremen Detailed description of "Codex Vaticanus" with many images and discussion of the "umlauts".
- Der "Codex Vaticanus" – ("B") EFG Berlin Hohenstaufenstr (2006) (in German)