Codex Bezae

[DeaconDean]

Researching, and need links to any textual criticism on Theodore Beza's codex.

I remember reading that there "disputed" texts in, and lacuna's.

And if memory serves me, I also read that the Codex Bezae was also used by the authors of the 1611 Authorized Version.

Any help would be appreciated.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[JM]

Researching, and need links to any textual criticism on Theodore Beza's codex.

I remember reading that there "disputed" texts in, and lacuna's.

And if memory serves me, I also read that the Codex Bezae was also used by the authors of the 1611 Authorized Version.

Any help would be appreciated.

God Bless

Till all are one.

I believe the AV was translated from Beza's fourth Greek edition, 1598.

Interesting note:

Textus Receptus type manuscripts and versions have existed as the majority of texts for almost 2000 years.

• All of the Apostolic Churches used the Textus Receptus
• Peshitta (150 A.D.) was based on the Textus Receptus
• Papyrus 66 used the Textus Receptus
• The Italic Church in the Northern Italy (157 A.D.) used the Textus Receptus
• The Gallic Church of Southern France (177 A.D.) used the Textus Receptus
• The Celtic Church used the Textus Receptus
• The Waldensians used the Textus Receptus
• The Gothic Version of the 4th or 5th century used the Textus Receptus
• Curetonian Syriac is basically the Textus Receptus
• Vetus Itala is from Textus Receptus
• Codex Washingtonianus of Matthew used the Textus Receptus
• Codex Alexandrinus in the Gospels used the Textus Receptus
• The vast majority of extant New Testament manuscripts all used the Textus Receptus (99% of them)
• The Greek Orthodox Church used the Textus Receptus.

Greek manuscript evidences point to a Byzantine/Textus Receptus majority.

• 85% of papyri used Textus Receptus, only 13 represent text of Westcott-Hort
• 97% of uncial manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 9 manuscripts used text of WH
• 99% of minuscule manuscripts used Textus Receptus, only 23 used text WH
• 100% of lectionaries used Textus Receptus.

Textus Receptus - Textus Receptus

 

[tall73]

Will see what I can find for support, but as I recall the text had some anti-nomian leanings.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Researching, and need links to any textual criticism on Theodore Beza's codex.

I remember reading that there "disputed" texts in, and lacuna's.

And if memory serves me, I also read that the Codex Bezae was also used by the authors of the 1611 Authorized Version.

Any help would be appreciated.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Codex Bezae is a 5th or 6th century diglot codex containing most of the four Gospels (in the Western order—that is, Matthew, John, Luke, Mark) and Acts and a small fragment of 3rd John. The text is in Greek and Latin on facing pages with the Greek on the left (but the Greek and the Latin do not always agree with each other), and varies considerably from other New Testament texts in that it not only has described incidents in a different order, but includes, especially in Acts, incidents not found in any other New Testament text. In other places, full sentences and even incidents are omitted. In 1899, Cambridge University Press published a fine facsimile edition of the entire codex. English translations have been published.

The translators of the King James Version had access to the Codex Bezae, but they apparently used it very little, if at all.

 

[DeaconDean]

One of the disputed texts in the codex is the story of the adultress.

I know most of the above, but I accidentally threw away an article on the Codex that included a lot of the disputed texts, and other information.

And granted, most of the 1611 AV information is from pro-KJV websites, so as far as I knew, the KJV translators used Beza's notes and his editions.

Anyhow, thanks and I'll continue to check back.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[now faith]

Wikimedia Commons has media related to Codex Bezae.
High resolution digital facsimile of the Codex Bezae with full transcription, from Cambridge University Library
R. Waltz, Codex Bezae at the Encyclopedia of Textual Criticism
Bible Researcher website discusses the Codex Bezae
Greek and Latin Text of Luke according to codex Bezae; translation and comments in French
History of Research on Codex Bezae
Codex Bezae and the Da Vinci Code The alleged parchment 1 has been copied from Codex Bezae
Real secrets and hoaxes, of Da Vinci Code, Rennes-le-Château and Codex Bezae, analyzed on the "Mercure de Gaillon"
Codex Bezae and Codex Claromontanus (French)
Catholic Encyclopedia 1910: Codex Bezae

 

[tall73]

The Catholic encyclopedia listing has a recounting of the missing passages:

CATHOLIC ENCYCLOPEDIA: Codex Bezae

 

[DeaconDean]

High resolution digital facsimile of the Codex Bezae with full transcription, from Cambridge University Library

Referring to this specifaclly, we see in the Greek:

"καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι:"


And on the next page, Beza translated into the Latin showing:


"et iratus extendit manum suam et tetigit eum et ait illi · uolo mundare"

Am I wrong in seeing a quandry?

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Referring to this specifaclly, we see in the Greek:

"καὶ σπλαγχνισθεὶς ἐκτείνας τὴν χεῖρα αὐτοῦ ἥψατο καὶ λέγει αὐτῷ, Θέλω, καθαρίσθητι:"


And on the next page, Beza translated into the Latin showing:


"et iratus extendit manum suam et tetigit eum et ait illi · uolo mundare"

Am I wrong in seeing a quandry?

God Bless

Till all are one.

It appears to me that you are confusing the Codex Bezae (a 5th or 6th century document) with the Greek text edited by Beza which was published in 1565. For detailed information regarding the relationship between the two, please pages 48-76 in the third volume of The Cambridge History of the Bible.

 

[faroukfarouk]

It appears to me that you are confusing the Codex Bezae (a 5th or 6th century document) with the Greek text edited by Beza which was published in 1565. For detailed information regarding the relationship between the two, please pages 48-76 in the third volume of The Cambridge History of the Bible.

They are apples and oranges.

Underlying the King James is Beza's 5th NT Greek text, more or less.

 

[DeaconDean]

It appears to me that you are confusing the Codex Bezae (a 5th or 6th century document) with the Greek text edited by Beza which was published in 1565. For detailed information regarding the relationship between the two, please pages 48-76 in the third volume of The Cambridge History of the Bible.

I'll take your word for it. But it, the above, does match the description of the diglot Codex Bazae.

Greek on the left, Latin on the right.

And I could provide the link if you would like in order to verify what I said.

And it matches what the on-line articles and on-line books I have read that elaborate on this verse.

Never hurts to have somebody check behind me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

And on the next page, Beza translated into the Latin showing:

I'll take your word for it. But it, the above, does match the description of the diglot Codex Bazae.

Greek on the left, Latin on the right.

And I could provide the link if you would like in order to verify what I said.

And it matches what the on-line articles and on-line books I have read that elaborate on this verse.

Never hurts to have somebody check behind me.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Dear brother,

Never take my word for anything if does not seem right to you. I am as human as you are, and I also make mistakes. Always check against the facts any doubtful statements that I make. In this particular case, I do believe that you are confused, but not in the way you apparently think that I mean. You are quoting from Codex Bezae, but Beza did Not translate the Greek into Latin. He could not have, because he was not even born for about another 1,000 years! The Codex Bezae is not called the Codex Bezae because Beza wrote it, translated it, or anything else concerning it other than that he owned it. Théodore de Bèze (Beza) was an earlier editor of the Greek Text of the New Testament who lived in the 16th century.

 

[DeaconDean]

Dear brother,

Never take my word for anything if does not seem right to you. I am as human as you are, and I also make mistakes. Always check against the facts any doubtful statements that I make. In this particular case, I do believe that you are confused, but not in the way you apparently think that I mean. You are quoting from Codex Bezae, but Beza did Not translate the Greek into Latin. He could not have, because he was not even born for about another 1,000 years! The Codex Bezae is not called the Codex Bezae because Beza wrote it, translated it, or anything else concerning it other than that he owned it. Théodore de Bèze (Beza) was an earlier editor of the Greek Text of the New Testament who lived in the 16th century.

I understand what your saying, and believe me, I was looking forward to your input.

Theodore Beza, the successor of John Calvin.

As I understand it, the Latin on the right, is derived from the Vulgate, and various other Commentaries from the ECF's. Most especially the Early, early Church Fathers.

Anyhow, my only point was to show that in the diglot, between the Greek and the Latin, there is a disagreement.

Have you heard of Dr. Kenneth Clark?

I have an article, written by him, in "The Biblical Theological Journal" (I think is the name) about the possible causes for the different "modifications".

I do, look forward to a more "civilized" discussion than we have had in the past.

Perhaps you might give me a few tips in my study on "Textual Criticism".

Have you read Marvin Vincent's "A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament" (1899)?

I have used this as base to provide an overview of the beginnings up to the dawn of the 20th Century.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Have you heard of Dr. Kenneth Clark?

I have an article, written by him, in "The Biblical Theological Journal" (I think is the name) about the possible causes for the different "modifications"..

I know very little about him.

I do, look forward to a more "civilized" discussion than we have had in the past.

That would be a good thing!

Perhaps you might give me a few tips in my study on "Textual Criticism".

Leave it to the experts. Virtually all experts in the field of textual criticism favor the Minority Text. Their reasons are many, and some of them are complicated—but they are all sound. Therefore, for the most part, I defer to them. If, however, I am studying a particular N. T. passage in great detail and I see that the commentators on the Greek Text (of the book in which the passage is found) are far from certain about a particular reading, I pause to consider the evidence for the various readings.

Have you read Marvin Vincent's "A History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament" (1899)?

No, but I would like to have it. The only book by him that I have in my personal library is his commentary on the Greek text of Philippians and Philemon in the I.C.C. series. It is a very scholarly but outdated (1897) and brief work (201pages. John G. Nordling’s commentary on Philemon alone is a whopping 431 pages!)

I have used this as base to provide an overview of the beginnings up to the dawn of the 20th Century.

God Bless

Till all are one.

May God bless you also!

 

[DeaconDean]

No, but I would like to have it. May God bless you also!

Here is a link to an "on-line" version that you can save.

Vincent - History of Textual Criticism

I printed it out for my own use.

I also downloaded Gordon Fee's disertation on

"THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PAPYRUS BODMER II AMD PAPYRUS BODMER XIV-XV FOR METHODOLOGY IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM"

(1966)

I have to admit, I like this one.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Here is a link to an "on-line" version that you can save.

Vincent - History of Textual Criticism

I printed it out for my own use.

I also downloaded Gordon Fee's disertation on

"THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PAPYRUS BODMER II AMD PAPYRUS BODMER XIV-XV FOR METHODOLOGY IN NEW TESTAMENT TEXTUAL CRITICISM"

(1966)

I have to admit, I like this one.

God Bless

Till all are one.

Thank you!

 

[DeaconDean]

Thank you!

Glad I could help.

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[DeaconDean]

PrincetonGuy,

Have you had a chance to review Vincent yet?

Your opinion.

I believe its atleast "reliable" from a standpoint of historical from a pre-20th century viewpoint.

I found an article:

"Crossing Boundries in New Testament Textual Criticism: Historical Revisionism and the Case of Fredrick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, by Maurice A. Robinson"

At: http://rosetta.retech.org/TC/v07/Robinson2002.html

Where in looking at problems in Scrivener, he used Vincent's "History of Textual Criticism of the New Testament".

See specifically: endnotes 94-100

God Bless

Till all are one.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PrincetonGuy,

Have you had a chance to review Vincent yet?

Yes, but only briefly, and I liked what I read. However, I need to read the entire book before making a final decision regarding its value.

I made an error in post #14 where I wrote, “The only book by him that I have in my personal library is his commentary on the Greek text of Philippians and Philemon in the I.C.C. series.” I also have in my personal library his Word Studies in the New Testament. Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, 1887. It is a four-volume work and full of interesting insights.

I found an article:

"Crossing Boundries in New Testament Textual Criticism: Historical Revisionism and the Case of Fredrick Henry Ambrose Scrivener, by Maurice A. Robinson"

I read parts of the article, but Scrivener is not of enough interest to me to read all of it.

 

[DeaconDean]

Yes, but only briefly, and I liked what I read. However, I need to read the entire book before making a final decision regarding its value.

No problem.

I made an error in post #14 where I wrote, “The only book by him that I have in my personal library is his commentary on the Greek text of Philippians and Philemon in the I.C.C. series.” I also have in my personal library his Word Studies in the New Testament. Charles Scribner and Sons, New York, 1887. It is a four-volume work and full of interesting insights.

Nice.

I read parts of the article, but Scrivener is not of enough interest to me to read all of it.

I only mention it because of my research in "textual criticism", and the fact that Maurice Robinson used it as well.

Anyway, hope you enjoy it and find it useful in some small way.

God Bless

Till all are one.