Introduction to Codex Vaticanus

Among the magnificent treasures of the Vatican Library, few are as esteemed or as significant for Biblical studies as the Codex Vaticanus. This Greek manuscript, usually dated to the 4th century (300-330) C.E., is one of the oldest nearly-complete copies of the Greek Bible, including the Old Testament or what in the realm of Christian scholarship is termed the Septuagint. Its value for textual critics, scholars, and anyone interested in the original texts of Scripture is inestimable.

The Codex Vaticanus originally contained a nearly complete copy of the Septuagint (“LXX”), lacking only 1-4 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasseh. The initial 20 leaves that included Genesis 1:1–46:28a (31 leaves in total) and Psalm 105:27–137:6b have been lost. These were later replaced by pages transcribed by a different hand in the 15th century. Additionally, 2 Kings 2:5–7, 10-13 are missing due to a tear in one of the pages. The order of the Old Testament books in the codex is as follows: Genesis to 2 Chronicles, followed by 1 Esdras, 2 Esdras (Ezra–Nehemiah), the Psalms, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes, Song of Songs, Job, Wisdom, Ecclesiasticus, Esther, Judith, Tobit, and the minor prophets from Hosea to Malachi. However, the arrangement of the minor prophets is unique: Hosea, Amos, Micah, Joel, Obadiah, Jonah, Nahum, Habakkuk, Zephaniah, Haggai, Zechariah, and Malachi. The codex then includes Isaiah, Jeremiah, Baruch, Lamentations and the Epistle of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel. This sequence of books differs from that found in the Codex Alexandrinus.

Historical Context and Significance

The Codex Vaticanus has its origins in a time of tremendous religious and textual ferment. The 4th century witnessed the Councils of Nicaea and Constantinople, which were seminal in defining Christian orthodoxy. Simultaneously, the Christian Biblical canon was getting solidified. This manuscript offers a snapshot of the Old Testament text as it was read and understood in this pivotal period, albeit in its Greek form, which is itself a translation of the Hebrew original.

Provenance of Codex Vaticanus

The provenance and early history of the Codex Vaticanus are subjects of scholarly debate. Several locations have been proposed as its place of origin, including Rome, as suggested by Hort; southern Italy; Alexandria, according to Kenyon; and Caesarea, as proposed by T.C. Skeat and Burkitt.

Hort based his argument for a Roman origin on specific spellings of proper names, such as Ισακ and Ιστραηλ, which show Western or Latin influence. He further pointed to the unique chapter divisions in Acts, which align with those in the Codex Sinaiticus and are not found in other Greek manuscripts. These divisions, however, are present in several Latin Vulgate manuscripts. Robinson cautiously proposed that these divisions might have been introduced by Jerome, who studied in Caesarea. Hort also argued that the Codex Vaticanus was copied from a manuscript with 12–14 letters per line because large omissions in the text typically contained that number of letters.

Kenyon, on the other hand, suggested that the codex originated in Alexandria. He pointed out that the section numbering of the Pauline Epistles in the codex shows that it was copied from a manuscript where the Epistle to the Hebrews was situated between Galatians and Ephesians—an arrangement found only in the Sahidic version. According to Metzger, the text’s similarity to both the Coptic versions and Greek papyri, along with distinctively Coptic characters in some titles, points to an Alexandrian origin.

T.C. Skeat believed that the codex might have been brought to Rome from Constantinople by John Chortasmenos, a patriarchal notary and mentor to Cardinal Bessarion. This speculation is based on the fact that the minuscule supplement in the codex closely resembles one of Bessarion’s manuscripts. Paul Canart further added that the decorative initials incorporated into the manuscript in the Middle Ages are characteristic of Constantinopolitan decoration from the 10th century, although poorly executed, suggesting they were added in the 11th or 12th century. Skeat also theorized that the Codex Vaticanus could be one of the 50 Bibles commissioned by Emperor Constantine I from Eusebius of Caesarea.

Finally, the Codex Vaticanus is generally dated to the beginning of the 4th century (300-330) C.E., making it contemporary with, or perhaps slightly earlier than, the Codex Sinaiticus (330-360 C.E.).

This myriad of scholarly opinions and theories surrounding the Codex Vaticanus attests to its complex history and the challenges inherent in tracing the origins of such an ancient manuscript. And it is sad that I must bring this up in the midst of the article, but modern-day scholarship since the 1990s has taken on the mindset that if you are not uncertain and skeptical, you are a knuckle-dragging Neanderthal; that is, no scholar at all.

Physical Description and Paleographical Features

The Codex Vaticanus is written on fine vellum (prepared animal skin) and is in remarkably good condition given its age. The text is written in scriptio continua, meaning without spaces between words, a common feature in ancient manuscripts. Its script is an excellent representation of what is known as biblical majuscule or uncial, which makes it particularly easy to read for those familiar with this script type. The quality of the materials and the workmanship suggest it was a manuscript of considerable importance, perhaps designed for liturgical use or as a master copy for scribes.

Textual Character of the Codex Vaticanus

As a text of the Septuagint, the Codex Vaticanus is invaluable for Old Testament scholarship. It provides a form of the text that predates many alterations and variations introduced in later copies. By comparing its readings with those of the Hebrew Masoretic Text and other ancient versions, scholars have often discerned instances where the Septuagint preserves an older or alternative reading, some of which may bring us closer to the original words of the Old Testament writers. It should be noted that its readings do not always align neatly with the Masoretic Text, as the textual history of the Hebrew Bible and its ancient translations is complex and multifaceted.

A Text of Many Facets

Codex Vaticanus is a significant ancient manuscript, and its Old Testament text presents a complicated picture due to its variation in the types of texts it contains. Let’s break down what this means in a way that’s easy to understand. Imagine a single puzzle made up of pieces from different sets. Some of these pieces belong to the main picture, while others seem out of place or are even missing. This is what we see when we look at the Old Testament text of Codex Vaticanus; it’s a mix of various textual traditions.

Ezekiel and Isaiah: A Tale of Two Texts

In the Book of Ezekiel, Codex Vaticanus contains what is considered a “received text,” or the traditional text that has been accepted by scholars and religious authorities. However, in the Book of Isaiah, the text is what would be termed a “rejected text,” meaning it diverges from the commonly accepted version. Think of it as having an official narrative in one case and an alternative narrative in another.

Judges: Aligning with Lesser-Known Texts

The text of the Book of Judges in Codex Vaticanus substantially differs from the majority of manuscripts but agrees with the Old Latin and Sahidic versions as well as with the early Christian scholar Cyril of Alexandria. It’s like singing a well-known song but using a different tune that only a few people know. This brings in an additional layer of complexity when studying the text of Judges in this codex.

Job and Theodotion’s Extra Verses

In the Book of Job, Codex Vaticanus includes an additional 400 half-verses that are attributed to a later translation by Theodotion. These verses aren’t found in the Old Latin and Sahidic versions. Imagine reading a book and finding extra chapters not included in other editions; these extra verses in Job are somewhat analogous.

The Link to Origen’s Hexapla

The Old Testament text in Codex Vaticanus has been considered by critics, such as Hort and Cornill, to substantially align with Origen’s Hexapla. This was a monumental work by Origen that presented the Hebrew text of the Old Testament alongside several Greek translations for comparison. Eusebius and Pamphilus later issued this text as an independent work, separate from the other versions Origen had included. To put it simply, imagine a master chef combining ingredients from various recipes to create a unique but authoritative dish. In this analogy, Origen is the master chef, and the Hexapla is his unique dish.

Concluding Thoughts

Understanding Codex Vaticanus’s Old Testament text is like piecing together a complicated puzzle. It contains different types of text, some accepted and some not, along with additional material and links to other ancient works. This complexity makes it an intriguing but challenging object of study for Bible scholars.

Would it be fair to say that Codex Vaticanus is a “pure” or “consistent” manuscript? Definitely not. Its value lies in its complexity and the insight it offers into the textual traditions of its time. This makes it an indispensable tool for textual criticism and an endless source of scholarly investigation.

By recognizing these complexities, we can better appreciate the effort that goes into Biblical scholarship and textual criticism. This deepens our understanding of the Scriptures and helps us to engage with the text in a more meaningful way.

Scribes and Correctors

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.

[H.J.M. Milne & T.C. Skeat, “Scribes and Correctors” (British Museum: London 1938).]

The Codex Vaticanus, one of the most ancient manuscripts of the Bible, has a fascinating history when it comes to its scribes and correctors. According to Tischendorf, a well-known Biblical scholar, three scribes—referred to as A, B, and C—were responsible for writing the manuscript. Scribes A and B worked on the Old Testament, while Scribe C was said to have written the entire New Testament. However, this theory has been challenged. T.C. Skeat, who did a more thorough examination, argues that only two scribes, A and B, were involved. Scribe A wrote portions that span from Genesis to 1 Kings and Psalms to Tobias. Scribe B penned 1 Kings to 2 Esdra, Hosea to Daniel, and the entire New Testament.

This manuscript has also undergone corrections over time. Two primary correctors, known as B2 and B3, were identified. B2 is believed to have been contemporary with the original scribes, while B3 made corrections around the 10th or 11th century C.E. Tischendorf’s suggestion of a first corrector, B1, has been generally rejected by later scholarship.

An interesting note is Tischendorf’s claim that one of the scribes for the Vaticanus might also have worked on the Codex Sinaiticus, specifically scribe D. While the writing styles in the two codices are indeed similar, there isn’t enough evidence to definitively say that the scribes are the same. Skeat concurred, pointing out that while the scribes may not be identical, they likely followed the same scribal traditions.

Over time, the Codex Vaticanus underwent some modifications. A later scribe retraced the original text, generally thought to be around the 10th or 11th century. This re-tracing altered the aesthetic beauty of the original script. Additional accents, breathing marks, and punctuation were added, although not by the original scribes. Unlike later manuscripts, Vaticanus does not have enlarged initials or conventional divisions into chapters or sections but rather follows its unique system of division.

The manuscript also contains distinct markings called “distigmai” (formerly referred to as “umlauts”), particularly in the New Testament. These markings have generated much debate among scholars regarding their purpose. Philip Payne, who extensively studied these, posited that they likely mark places where another textual variant was known to the scribe or corrector, thus indicating areas of textual uncertainty.

An intriguing marginal note found next to Hebrews 1:3 states, “Fool and knave, leave the old reading and do not change it!” This admonishment, written in Greek, suggests that unauthorized changes were a recognized issue in scriptoriums where manuscripts like the Codex Vaticanus were copied. This gives us a glimpse into the quality control concerns of ancient scribes and hints at the challenges they faced in maintaining textual integrity.

Variants and Marginal Notes

The manuscript features some marginal notes, though these are generally sparse compared to later manuscripts. These notes, usually brief symbols or abbreviated Greek words, indicate places of textual uncertainty or offer alternative readings. They serve as a rudimentary apparatus criticus, showing that the scribes or later correctors were engaging in a form of textual criticism. This attests to the concern for textual accuracy and reliability even in antiquity.

Reception History and Modern Scholarship

The Codex Vaticanus remained largely unnoticed by the wider scholarly community until it was cataloged in the Vatican Library in the 15th century. Subsequently, it has become a cornerstone of modern textual criticism. Its importance was recognized by scholars like Constantine Tischendorf, who compared its readings meticulously with other textual witnesses. In more recent times, it has been digitized and made available online, granting even broader access to scholars and students of the Bible. Its readings are frequently cited in critical editions of the Greek Old Testament, such as the Rahlfs-Hanhart Septuaginta and the Goettingen Septuagint, as well as in eclectic editions of the Hebrew Bible.

Concluding Thoughts: The Enduring Legacy of Codex Vaticanus

The Codex Vaticanus remains a cornerstone in the study of the Old Testament. Its textual witness is a testimony to the meticulous care that ancient scribes invested in the transmission of the Scriptures. Despite various challenges posed by its age, its text-type, and the limitations inherent to any manuscript tradition, it serves as a crucial link to the Old Testament text as it existed in antiquity. While scholars will continue to debate its precise relationship to the original Hebrew, its value as a textual witness remains beyond dispute.

In the landscape of Biblical scholarship, particularly in the realm of textual criticism, the Codex Vaticanus stands as a venerable elder, offering wisdom and insights that have yet to be fully plumbed. As we endeavor to seek the original words of the Old Testament writers, it will undoubtedly continue to be a manuscript of first resort, inviting each new generation of scholars to engage with it in the unending quest for textual clarity and understanding.

About the Author

SCROLL THROUGH THE DIFFERENT CATEGORIES BELOW

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLE TRANSLATION AND TEXTUAL CRITICISM

BIBLICAL STUDIES / BIBLE BACKGROUND / HISTORY OF THE BIBLE/ INTERPRETATION

EARLY CHRISTIANITY

HISTORY OF CHRISTIANITY

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETIC EVANGELISM

TECHNOLOGY AND THE CHRISTIAN

CHRISTIAN THEOLOGY

CHRISTIAN DEVOTIONALS

CHRISTIAN FICTION