Codex Vaticanus 1209 ('B')

[Nazaroo]

Here is a good link to a concise history of the (in)famous Codex Vaticanus, or simply 'codex B', an uncial manuscript variously dated from the 4th or 5th century, and often indirectly referred to in the margins of modern New Testaments as one of the "oldest and best" (!?) manuscripts which support some change or other to the traditional text.

Codex Faticanus: History

 

[FreezBee]

Here's a quote from the beginning of the article:

Last year in Hagerstown I spoke about gnosticism, or the ancient theology, and how it has played the roles of antagonist, imitator, and infiltrator of Christianity. In particular it influenced the choice of Greek manuscripts by Westcott and Hort for the English Committee of Revision.

Is this to be understood as an accusation that gnosticism influenced ....? I noticed later on the page that Cardinal Bessarion, that is believed by some to have brought the codex to the west, is accused of neoplatonistic affiliations.

Is this "poisoning the well", or what is going on?


- FreezBee

 

[HuntingMan]

Here is a good link to a concise history of the (in)famous Codex Vaticanus, or simply 'codex B', an uncial manuscript variously dated from the 4th or 5th century, and often indirectly referred to in the margins of modern New Testaments as one of the "oldest and best" (!?) manuscripts which support some change or other to the traditional text.

Codex Faticanus: History

I avoid all the Minority Texts altogether.
Ill use bibles based on them only because some of the rendering is much better in 'todays' english, but whenever there is a conflict I stick to the Majority Texts.
Oldest does not necessarily mean 'best' by default.

 

[Nazaroo]

...Is this to be understood as an accusation that gnosticism influenced ....? I noticed later on the page that Cardinal Bessarion, that is believed by some to have brought the codex to the west, is accused of neoplatonistic affiliations.

Is this "poisoning the well", or what is going on?

- FreezBee

It's hard to poison a poisoned well...

But actually this is all part of the good-natured fun and comradery we enjoy in the field of textual criticism. Especially the gay jokes.

 

[KingZzub]

I swallowed the Codex... mmm, tasty...

Cheers,
|ZZ|

 

[Nazaroo]

Here's a link to some good images of Vaticanus:

Vaticanus and Greek text

To elaborate, the quality of the manuscript itself is secondary.
The important thing is to be able to actually view it,
in order to understand what people are actually talking about.
With good photographic reproduction, you can evaluate evidence for yourself.

You can click on the left-hand column to view the photos double-size to see details!

 

[KingZzub]

This is got to be one of the most corrupt manuscripts there is though.

Oldest possibly.

Most accurate: no way.

Cheers,
|Z|

 

[Counter-Reformer]

This is got to be one of the most corrupt manuscripts there is though.

Oldest possibly.

Most accurate: no way.

Cheers,
|Z|

Well it is once of the earliest Bibles to be printed and possibly the same Bible that was printed when Constantine comissioned the publication of 30 Bibles for each of Great Sees in honor of the Council of Nicea's convoction. What Most of the OT is missing (first 46 chapters of Genesis, Psalm 105-137, 2 Chapters of 4th Kings (2nd Kings).

What it does contain in the Ot in adition from Genesis to Second Kings is: 1 and 2 Esdras, 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.

It contains the Most of the NT sans the books that come after Hebrews. Most of the missing pages in the Old and NT were added in supplements in the 15th century to make it more complete as a Bible. Though, Both this and Codex Sinaiticus are pretty much in close agreement with each other in the original textual translations.

 

[KingZzub]

There are 1000s of differences between Sinai and Vatican.

They are not similar!

Cheers,
|ZZ|

 

[Counter-Reformer]

There are 1000s of differences between Sinai and Vatican.

They are not similar!

Cheers,
|ZZ|

Actualy, the Vaticanus is older than the Sinaii:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Codex_Vaticanus
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04086a.htm

IIRC 1209 refers to the date of discovery.

 

[Nazaroo]

Well, it depends upon the details of interest.
One thing the two manuscripts have in common is alot of errors by haplography!

Many half-verses have been dropped accidentally by the scribe's eye skipping a line through similar beginning or ending of consecutive lines (homoeoteleuton or homoeoarcheon)

 

[KingZzub]

Indeed.

Which is why I do not understand the trend of modern Bible translations to favour them.

Cheers,
|ZZ|

 

[jabechler]

I agree that both the " sinai and vaticus" are corrupt. why then have so many choosen to study and follow the teachings of the modern bibles that used these in their development. Though I am a fervent KJV user, I am not saying that it is a perfect bible but I do believe it is the most accurate to the original writings. Some question why so many beliefs and denominations exists and it could be that so many false manuscripts exist and false bibles are being used. Satan is hard at work destroying the truths of God.

here is a site I found some useful info on the bible and manusctriptswww.angelfire.com/la/prophet1/kjvbook2.

 

[KingZzub]

Yes, I have to be careful in case people assume I am a KJV onlyist. I am not. I simply believe the textual evidence gives compelling evidence that the textus receptus is more accurate to the autographs than the sinai and vatican texts.

Cheers,
|ZZ|

 

[Nazaroo]

Here's a link to some good images of Vaticanus:

...
With good photographic reproduction, you can evaluate evidence for yourself.

You can click on the left-hand column to view the photos double-size to see details!

The new site is here:
VATICANUS: Gospel of JOHN

This now has the entire Gospel of John online column by column, (but the Greek on the right isn't complete yet).

 

[filosofer]

Yes, I have to be careful in case people assume I am a KJV onlyist. I am not. I simply believe the textual evidence gives compelling evidence that the textus receptus is more accurate to the autographs than the sinai and vatican texts.

Cheers,
|ZZ|

Since we don't have any autographs, how are you making the determination that the TR is "more accurate to the autographs"?

In Christ's love,
filo