Codex Vaticanus: From Where?

           The provenance of a manuscript, when it can be ascertained, is an important thing to know.  For instance, when Codex W came to light in Egypt, the discovery of its essentially Byzantine text of Matthew and most of Luke (alongside the mainly Alexandrian text of the opening chapters of Luke and most of John) shows that before the mid-400s (working on the premise that Codex W has been correctly dated to the early 400s), showed that a well-developed Byzantine Text of the Gospels existed in Egypt by the time Codex W was made.

          Many textual critics consider no manuscript more valuable than Codex Vaticanus.  But what is Codex Vaticanus’ (Codex B, 03) provenance?   It has been at the Vatican Library ever since the Vatican Library was founded in 1475 (using earlier library-collections) under Sixtus IV.   There is no record of Codex Vaticanus’ presence in Rome prior to that time.  Sepulveda drew attention to Codex Vaticanus in the 1530s, and informed Erasmus of some of its readings. 

Basil Bessarion

          Is there anything we can say about where Codex Vaticanus was before that?  Perhaps.  It may have been in the possession of Basil Bessarion (1403-1472), who lived a very interesting life in the 1400s.  Born in Trebizond (modern Trabzon on the Black Sea), he became a monk and worked his way up through the ranks, so to speak, becoming metropolitan of Nicea in 1437.  In the same year, Bessarion traveled to Italy to take part in the Council of Ferrara-Florence.  By 1440, Bessarion had become a Cardinal and had even composed and signed a statement of unity (Oratio dogmatica de unione) which was perhaps the strongest formal expression of a desire for the reunion of the Western Roman Catholic Church with the Eastern Orthodox Church church since the earlier schism about the filioque clause.   After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, and the fall of Trebizond in 1461, Bessarion’s efforts to promote a formal ecclesiastical reunion foundered, but his influence in the West continued to rise.  He nearly became pope, but apparently some bishops were averse to giving such a position to a man who was from the East. 

          In 1468, Bessarion donated his personal library (which included more Greek manuscripts than any other library at the time) to the Republic of Venice, and this became the core of the Biblioteca Marciana (a.k.a. the Sansovino Library).  Among the volumes which can now be found at the Biblioteca Marciana is the manuscript known as Codex Venetus Marc. Gr. 6 (Old Testament Manuscript 122), in which, according to T.C. Skeat (in the essay “The Codex Vaticanus in the Fifteenth Century”), the text of Esther, Sirach, Judith, and Tobit was copied from Codex Vaticanus.  Skeat goes on to say that Codex Venetus Marc. Gr. 6 was among the manuscripts that had been owned by Bessarion. 

          If Bessarion was responsible for bringing Codex Vaticanus to Rome, this elicits another question:  where was Codex Vaticanus before that?  If we look at the data in Euthaliana, by Joseph Armitage Robinson, published in 1895 as Text & Studies, Vol. 3, (beginning on digital page 448 of the download) we will see proof, in a sub-chapter titled “Chapters of the Acts in À and B,” that the chapter-numbers in part of the book of Acts in Codex Sinaiticus (up to 15:40) are the same as the chapter-numbers in the book of Acts in Codex Vaticanus.  

          Robinson reasoned:  “Where did this system of numbers, common to À and B, come from?  The two codices have got hold of it quite independently of one another.  It cannot have been copied from B into À, for À has one number (M) [i.e., 40] which is not found in B : nor can it have been copied from À into B, for nearly a third of the numbers (from MB onwards) are not found in À.  We must go back to a common source – some MS which gave its numeration to them both :  and this seems to imply that the À and B were at an early stage of their history lying side by side in the same library.”

          What library?  Probably the library at Caesarea.  Sinaiticus was probably made there (not by Eusebius, but slightly later when Acacius was bishop).  J. R. Harris argued for a connection between Sinaiticus and Caesarea in 1893 in his composition “Stichometry” in the chapter “The Origin of Codices À and B,” on the basis of a small detail in Sinaiticus’ text.

    In Matthew 13:54, the scribe of À initially wrote Ἀντιπατρίδα instead of πατρίδα.  Antipatris (mentioned in Acts 23:31) was not far from the city of Caesarea, and the scribe’s thoughts may have wandered a bit, eliciting this blunder in À.  Harris put his suspicion this way:  “It is to my mind much the same as if a printed text of Shakespeare should put into Mark Antony's speech the line “I come to Banbury Caesar, not to praise him.”  Such a text would probably be the work of Oxford printers.”  (Harris’ meaning may be better appreciated if one understands that the town of Banbury is about 20 miles northwest of Oxford, and Antipatris is about 25 miles from Caesarea.)          

          One could augment Harris’ argument by pointing out two other readings in À: 

          —  In Luke 24:13, Codex À says that the distance between Emmaus and Jerusalem was 160, rather than sixty, stadia.  (I go into detail about this reading in the blog-post here.)  This reading almost certainly originated after Nicopolis was recognized (incorrectly) as being the same place as Emmaus, as Eusebius mentioned in his composition Onomasticon. 

          — In Acts 8:5, the scribe wrote Καισαριας where he should have written Σαμαριας.

          If Caesarea was the place where Sinaiticus was made, what evidence is there that Vaticanus (which supports none of À’s readings in Matthew 13:54, Luke 14:13, and Acts 8:5) was also produced there?  One item may point in this direction:  One of Bessarion’s better-known manuscripts, known as minuscule 205, was made for Bessarion in the 1400s by John Rhosus.  Its Gospels-text is Caesarean, agreeing at many points with the Armenian version.  205 was copied from 2886 (formerly called 205^abs); re-numbering was called for after Alison Sarah Welsby showed in 2011 that earlier scholars who had stated that 205abs was copied from 205 had gotten it backwards (at least, as far as the text of the Gospel of John is concerned).

          But there is another possibility.  Codex Vaticanus’ nearly unique format (having most of its text, other than the books of poetry in the Old Testament) written in three columns of text per page.  And B. H. Streeter wrote (on p. 113 of The Four Gospels – A Study of Origins, 1924 ed.), “It is stated in the Menologies – short accounts of a Saint for reading on his day – that Lucian bequeathed his pupils a copy of the Old and New Testaments written in three columns in his own hand.”  (The day assigned to Saint Lucian is either January 7 or October 15.)  Bruce Metzger (in Chapters in the History of New Testament Textual Criticism, in the chapter The Lucianic Recension of the Greek Bible, p. 6) refers to the same report, and adds the detail that the Menaeon states this three-column manuscript written in three columns per page ended up at a church in Nicomedia.   And prior to becoming cardinal of Nicea, Bessarion may have encountered it (and obtained it) there, and took it to Italy. 

          It is not impossible, considering that the three-column format is nearly unique to Vaticanus and the manuscript attributed to Lucian – that they are one and the same.  This would imply that Lucian of Antioch, rather than being the initiator of a recension that begat the Byzantine Text of the New Testament, perpetuated the mainly Alexandrian text he found in exemplars at Caesarea which had been taken there from Egypt about a hundred years earlier by Origen.  If these MSS were also the ancestors of Codex Sinaiticus, then the genealogical connection between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus does not go back to the second century (as Hort seems to have thought) but to the third century. 

          To review the steps in Vaticanus’ history that have been suggested:
          (1)  Vaticanus was produced at Caesarea under the supervision of Lucian of Antioch, no later than 312 (when Lucian was martyred), using as exemplars manuscripts that had been brought to Caesarea by Origen in 230-231.

          (2)  Before Vaticanus was taken from Caesarea to Nicomedia, its text in Acts was supplemented with chapter-numbers from the same non-extant source which supplied the chapter-numbers to Acts in Codex À.  

           (3) Vaticanus was taken to Nicomedia.  (Meanwhile, Codex Sinaiticus was taken to St. Catherine's monastery.)  Much later, in the 1400s, Bessarion acquired it and took it with him to Italy, where, via means unknown, it was placed in the collection in the Vatican Library.   

 

Hand to Hand Combat: Codex Sinaiticus vs. Minuscule 4

          Codex Sinaiticus returns to the combat-ring today!  Facing this heavyweight is a relatively obscure challenger:  minuscule 4.  This Gospels-manuscript from the 1200’s is so little-known that it seems appropriate to offer some information about its background (or possible background) before the contest begins.

          In the 1430’s, a clergyman named John of Ragusa (a place known today as the coastal region around Dubrovnik, Croatia) took part in church councils at Basel (in Switzerland) and Florence (in Italy) as a representative of the Dominican monastic order.  The top item on the agenda of these councils was reconciliation with the Orthodox Church based in Constantinople.  In the course of his work, John of Ragusa served as an emissary to Constantinople in 1435-1437.  The leaders of the Orthodox Church sent representatives – including Basilios Bessarion, who united with the Roman Catholic church and was made a cardinal in 1439 – to the Council of Florence, where, after much debate, a formal statement of unity was drawn up – only to be rejected later by Orthodox clerics in Constantinople.

          On May 29, 1453, Constantinople fell to Islamic invaders.  Something else had happened ten years earlier which, as it turned out, was also significant:  when John of Ragusa died in 1443, he bequeathed a small collection of manuscripts – possibly souvenirs from his visit to Constantinople, or perhaps gifts from Bessarion – to the Dominican convent at Basel.  This collection included not only some classical works but also a few manuscripts of parts of the New Testament.

          Seventy-two years later, in 1515-1516, Desiderius Erasmus visited Basel in order to use the manuscripts known to be in the possession of the Dominican monks there.  With the help of those manuscripts, along with his vast knowledge of patristic material and other data amassed in his previous research (plus the research-notes of Lorenzo Valla), Erasmus produced the first published printed edition of the Greek New Testament.

          Minuscule 4 – presently kept at the National Library of France as Greek MS 84 (formerly Regius MS 2867) – is either one of those manuscripts which John of Ragusa gave to the monks at Basel, or else it came from some other source.  There seems to be some confusion about whether or not 4 was ever at Basel, and whether or not it was used by Erasmus.  But in any event, readings from this manuscript were known to Robert Stephanus; this manuscript was denoted by the Greek letter γʹ (gamma) in the notations in Stephanus’ 1550 edition of the Greek New Testament.  Minuscule 4 helped define the Textus Receptus.     

          Now let’s get down to business.  Two pages of minuscule 4 conveniently contain, more or less, John 6:65-71 and 7:1-16.  These 23 verses constitute the textual battleground of today’s contest.  Here are the contest’s rules, applied to the text in both manuscripts:

          ● The text of the first hand of each manuscript will be compared to the text of NA27.  Words in brackets in the text of NA27 are considered part of the text.

          ● Transpositions that do not involve any gain or loss of words are mentioned, but are not included in the final totals.

          ● The introduction of one non-original letter = 1 point.

          ● The loss of an original letter = 1 point.

          ● Abbreviations of sacred names, abbreviations of και, and easily deciphered contractions are not counted as variants.

          ● If a sacred name is absent, all its letters are considered absent, even if it is very probable that it would have been abbreviated in the manuscript.

             

Here are the deviations from the text of NA27 in 4.  I have marked each reading in 4 that agrees with the Byzantine Text (RP2005) with a triangle, except for transpositions.

6:65 – 4 has ηρηκα instead of ειρηκα.  (+1, -2)

6:65 – 4 has ει instead of η (+2, -1)

6:65 – 4 has μου (+3) ▲

6:66 – 4 does not have the second εκ (-2) ▲

6:66 – 4 has a transposition

6:67 – 4 has θελεται instead of θελετε (+2, -1)

6:68 – 4 has ουν (+3) ▲

6:69 – 4 has (in abbreviated form) Χριστος ο υιος instead of Αγιος (before του Θυ) (+12, -7)  [Note:  one could plausibly reduce this to +9, -4, since both readings, when uncontracted, share the letters ιος at the end.  But I did not.] ▲

6:69 – 4 has (after του Θυ) του ζωητος (+9) ▲

6:70 – 4 does not have ο Ιησους (-7)   

6:71 – 4 has ελεγε instead of ελεγεν (-1)

6:71 – 4 has Ισκαριωτην instead of Ισκαριωτου (+2, -2) ▲

6:71 – 4 has a transposition

6:71 – 4 has ων (after εις) (+2) ▲

7:1 – 4 has a transposition

7:2 – 4 has no differences

7:3 – 4 has has θεωρησουσι instead of θεωρησουσιν (-1)

7:4 – 4 has a transposition

7:4 – 4 has another transposition

7:5 – 4 has επιστευων instead of επιστευον (+1, -1)

7:6 – 4 has no differences

7:7 – 4 has no differences

7:8 – 4 is missing εγω ουκ αναβαινω εις την εορτην (-26) 

7:8 – 4 has a transposition

7:8 – 4 adds ο before transposed εμος (+1) ▲

7:9 – 4 has αυτοις instead of αυτος (+1) ▲

7:10 – 4 has a transposition

7:10 – 4 has αλλ instead of αλλα (-1) ▲

7:11 – 4 has ελεγων instead of ελεγον (+1, -1)

7:12 – 4 has a transposition

7:12 – 4 does not have δε (-2) ▲

7:12 – 4 has ελεγων instead of ελεγον (+1, -1)

7:13 – 4 has μεντι instead of μεντοι (-1)

7:14 – 4 has ο before Ις (+1) ▲

7:15 – 4 has Και before εθαυμαζον (+3) ▲

7:15 – 4 does not have ουν (-3) ▲

7:15 – 4 has ουτως instead of ουτος (+1, -1)

7:16 – 4 has no differences

Thus in John 6:65-7:16, compared to NA27, minuscule 4 contains 45 non-original letters, and has lost 61 original letters, for a total of 106 letters’ worth of corruption.  (In addition, there are six transpositions in this passage in 4.)

Now let’s look at the deviations from NA27 in the same passage in Codex Sinaiticus (in the “Western” portion of the manuscript):

6:65 – א has ουδις instead of ουδεις (-1)

6:65 – א has εμε instead of με (+1)

6:65 – א does not have αυτω (-4)

6:66 – א has ουν after τουτου (+3)

6:67 – א does not have εκ after πολλοι (-2)

6:67 – א does not have αυτου after μαθητων (-5)

6:67 – א has υμις instead of υμεις (-1)

6:67 – א has θελεται instead of θελετε (+2, -1)

6:68 – א has no differences

6:69 – א has ημις instead of ημεις (-1)

6:70 – א does not has αυτοις ο (-7)

6:70 – א has και ειπεν (+8)

6:70 – א has ουχι instead of ουκ (+2, -1)

6:70 – א has a transposition

6:70 – א does not have τους (-4)

6:70 – א does not have εις (-3)

6:71 – א does not have τον (-3)

6:71 – א has απο (+3)

6:71 – א has Καρυωτου instead of Ισκαριωτου (+1, -3)

6:71 – א has και after γαρ (+3)

6:71 – א has εμελλον instead of εμελλεν (+1, -1)

6:71 – א has a transposition

6:71 – א has ων after εις (+2)

7:1 – א has αποκτιναι instead of αποκτειναι (-1)

7:2 – א has no differences

7:3 – א has a transposition

7:3 – א has θεωρουσιν instead of θεωρησουσιν (-2)

7:3 – א has a transposition

7:4 – א has ουδις instead of ουδεις (-1)

7:4 – א has ποιων instead of ποιει (+2, -2)

7:4 – א does not have και (-3)

7:4 – א has ζητι instead of ζητει (-1)

7:5 – א has no differences

7:6 – א does not have ουν (-3)

7:6 – א does not have ο before Ις (-1)

7:7 – א has a transposition

7:7 – א does not have εγω (-3)

7:7 – א does not have περι αυτου (-9)

7:7 – א has πονιρα instead of πονηρα (+1, -1)

7:8 – א has αναβηται instead of αναβητε (+2, -1)

7:8 – א has ταυτην before εγω (+6)

7:9 – א does not have δε (-2)

7:9 – א has εμινεν instead of εμεινεν (-1)

7:10 – א has αλλ instead of αλλα (-1)

7:10 – א does not have ως (-2)

7:11 – א has εκινος instead of εκεινος (-1)

7:12 – א has a transposition

7:12 – א has τω οχλω instead of τοις οχλοις (+2, -6)

7:12 – א does not have δε (-2) 

7:13 – א has ουδις instead of ουδεις (-1)

7:13 – א has a transposition

7:14 – א has ερτης instead of εορτης (-1)

7:15 – א has no differences

7:16 – א does not have ο before Ις (-1)

Thus in John 6:65-7:16, compared to NA27, Codex Sinaiticus contains 39 non-original letters, and has lost 83 original letters, for a total of 122 letters’ worth of corruption.  (In addition, there are seven transpositions in this passage in Codex Sinaiticus.)

          Now we all know what we have been told about the manuscripts upon which the Textus Receptus was based:   they were “The feeblest of manuscript resources” and “Late medieval manuscripts of inferior quality” and so forth.  But this collides with what we see in John 6:65-7:16, where minuscule 4 has less corruption than Codex Sinaiticus.  (This calculation is made, remember, using the NA27 compilation as the standard for comparison.  If the Byzantine Text were used as the standard of comparison instead, then 4 would only have 52 letters’ worth of corruption in this passage (half of which would be in 7:8), and Codex Sinaiticus would still have over twice that amount.)

          If the rate of corruption were even in all transmission-streams, then we could expect late manuscripts to be more corrupt than early ones.  But direct evaluations of sample-passages show that the rates of corruption in different transmission-streams were not the same.  About 260 years after the Gospel of John was written, Codex Sinaiticus had more corruptions in John 6:65-7:16 than minuscule 4 had at the end of a 1,100-year-long transmission-stream.

          To sum up:  even though the copyist of 4 made a major mistake in John 7:8, the text of 4 still has less corruption in John 6:65-7:16 than Codex Sinaiticus.  To be precise:  4 has 106 letters’ worth of corruption (45 non-original letters gained; 61 original letters lost – and six transpositions) and Codex Sinaiticus has 122 letters’ worth of corruption (39 non-original letters gained; 83 original letters lost – and seven transpositions).  Once again the famous heavyweight has lost to a younger opponent.

          (A tangential note:  Papyrus 66, Papyrus 75, and Codex Vaticanus read ουπω in John 7:8, thus agreeing with the usual Byzantine reading, and disagreeing with Codex Sinaiticus.)

          [Readers are invited to double-check the data and the math in this post.]