Talk:Codex Vaticanus/Archive 1

Untitled
Link to faximile doesn work :(
 * Found another link to it, should work now (warning: 16MB PDF file!) - Heycos 10:41, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

NPOV
This article implies, without justification, that new testament books that were missing from the codex vaticanus were "missing pages." However it is clear that consensus about which books merited inclusion in the New Testament had not been reached by the date of the codex. Argument must be made to support the claim that the codex originally included the Pastoral epistles, Philemon and Revelation--otherwise, the term missing pages should be changed. --CRATYLUS22 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.42.143.168 (talk) 22:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Date of Production
What is "probably older" supposed to mean? Either you do have a conclusive date on it or you don't! 71.194.189.222 (talk) 22:30, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. [List_of_New_Testament_uncials] lists the year the Vaticanus was produced as 350, just as the Sinaiticus was (where the Sinaiticus article provides historical reasoning for Sinaiticus being written somewhere between 325 and 350). If anyone has any real information or links regarding this, it would surely be appreciated. Else, the assertion of the date of writing without evidence should most likely be removed.--WinterNightz (talk) 00:59, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Diagree. Dating of these old MSS is always a consideration of probabilities. Conclusive dates are rare. Several arguments are given in the footnote why Vaticanus is probably slightly older than Sinaiticus. This is not very important, but perhaps of interest to some. --Harnack (talk) 10:45, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

Differences between King James version
The Daily Telegraph reports that "It offers different versions of the Scriptures from later editions of the bible, notably in St Mark's Gospel which ends 12 verses before later versions, omitting the appearance of the resurrected Jesus Christ."

I think a section on differences would be useful. 210.48.101.110 (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2009 (UTC) -- This text currently states that a blank space after the ending of Mark would be the only blank space in the codex, however the wiki entry for Mark 16 states there are three other blanks in this codex. This should be resolved. --Dailycare (talk) 23:00, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

It is only one empty column in New Testament part of the codex. It is also marked by umlaut. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 03:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Title bias
"Codex Vaticanus" basically means nothing else than "a Vatican codex". I do not think that this name can designate just one special codex, as the usual convenience of naming them (the codices) is "codex" + name of the library, or "codex" + name of the city, where it is preserved. Thus, since the Vatican library is a very large one, there are many manuscripts in it which are known as "codex Vaticanus". Consequently, there is f.e. codex Vaticanus of Seneca the Elder, which has nothing to do with the Bible, it is just a name for one of the manuscripts of such author. So, perhaps in a Biblic encyclopaedia the Bible's manuscript can be described under such a lemma, but in general purpose encyclopaedia this should be more precise, f.e. as "Codex Vaticanus of the Bible". Mamurra (talk) 22:55, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * A disambiguation page may be necessary if and once we have articles on those other manuscripts. But we have to consider what the most common meaning of the phrase "Codex Vaticanus". If we were to do a google search, a google book search, and a google scholar search, what document would the top 20 results be referring to the most (if there even is a majority meaning). If it is discovered that the biblical manuscript is the most common use of that phrase, then I see nothing wrong with keeping this article here. If not, then disambiguation would be needed. Do we mention Codex Vaticanus 354 and Codex Vaticanus 2066 at the top of the page. Are either one of those manuscripts more notably known as simply "Codex Vaticanus"?-Andrew c [talk] 16:26, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Any codex preserved in the Vatican library can be "simply" called/known as "codex Vaticanus", this only depends what you are referring to. For a biblist, "THE codex Vaticanus" is supposedly the one which is described in this article. But this is so only for a biblist or anyone involved in such studies. For a classicist involved in research on Seneca the Elder (let me recall this example), "THE codex Vaticanus" is the relevant codex containing Seneca. When you are researching St. Augustine or Varro or whatever work is preserved in manuscripts, you most probably sooner or later come across a "codex Vaticanus" containing one of te copies of your text. I hope that my point is clear enough: describing a specific codex as "codex Vaticanus" in wiki article is like making an article entitled "car", which describes only one type of a car, e.g. a Ford. And it is irrelevant, whether most cars are Fords or not. Mamurra (talk) 19:29, 24 December 2008 (UTC)


 * See Encyclopedia Britannica. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 20:24, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * So? Every error in Britannica is sacred, or what? Mamurra (talk) 13:32, 13 January 2009 (UTC)


 * For what it is worth, we have a convention for naming manuscripts, Naming conventions (manuscript names). In this case, the manuscript is widely known as Codex Vaticanus, so that shold be the basis of the name. The translation of the name is largely irrelevent A similiar example is the Vergilius Vaticanus. There are three ancient manuscripts of Virgil in the Vatican, but only one is known as the Vergilius Vaticanus. It doesn't make sense, perhaps, but that is its name. The fact that name of this manusctipt means "a (or the)Vatican Codex", doesn't alter that it is nevertheless its name. That said, since the a quick google search (Codex Vaticanus seneca) indicates that there does need to be some sort of disambiguation, as their other manuscripts that are called the Codex Vaticanus. If there is not consensus on whether or not this manuscript has priority on the name as being the primary usage, then perhaps appending the shelfmark would be best. (I personally think that this manuscript does have priority as the primary usage.) Dsmdgold (talk) 15:20, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you for the reply. I think that it is clear, that I do not (personally think that this manuscript does have priority etc.). To repeat, I think regardless of its (alleged or real) priority over the other manuscripts of the Bible, it certainly does not have any priority over all the manuscripts preserved in the Vatican library, looking at it from the philological point of view. So, such a generic name ("the codex Vaticanus", meaning this very one) is acceptable in a) a Catholic encyclopaedia, b) in any text concerning primarily Biblical studies. But the Wikipedia is a general purpose encylopaedia, and so this naming falsely suggests to an accidental reader, that only one codex in the world can be named "codex Vaticanus" without further specification. This is false, there are many codices Vaticani containing a large variety of authors, so I think that this needs a disambiguation, or at least a clarification in the article. Mamurra (talk) 16:38, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

If there are no further objections, I propose to move the article to "Codex Vaticanus of the Bible". Mamurra (talk) 14:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Better "Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209" or "Codex Vaticanus Gr. 1209". We have a lot of manuscripts of the Bible housed at the Vatican Library (on en-wiki more than 20). In many printed encyclopedias you can find "Codex Vaticanus" adressed to the "Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209". Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 19:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but that's entirely unsupported. WP:COMMONNAME expects that a reader find a sensible destination when they're looking for something, so I've moved this page back to that spot, and the disambiguation page to a (disambiguation) page. Naming conventions (manuscript names) doesn't specify what to do when multiple manuscripts share a common name. Furthermore, "Codex Vaticanus Graecus 1209" may well be a common way to refer to this Codex Vaticanus when many are at issue, but it is not, itself, a title--rather, it's a catalogue reference. Jclemens (talk) 22:03, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * A Google News search shows that 8 of 8 references (although there is quite a bit of overlap--perhaps 3 sources are unique) of the last month's news citations to Codex Vaticanus apply to this specific document. I expect we'd be hard pressed to find any of the other Codices Vaticanus referred to in such an abbreviated manner. Jclemens (talk) 22:17, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
 * And all printed encyclopedias in numerous languages. It is not problem for me. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 22:56, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Not for use in the article
James Sightler, Codex "B" - Its History - interesting but not reliable enough. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:35, 2 May 2009 (UTC)

Gospel of Mark
Hello, the sentence right after my most recent edit says that the Codex Vaticanus doesn't have the ending of the Gospel of Mark. Shouldn't this rather say that the Codex doesn't have the longer ending of Mark, i.e. Mark 16:9-20? Thank you. Loves Macs  (talk) 13:47, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * It also does not have the shorter ending of Mark. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:25, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Then that, too, should probably be clarified in the text. Jclemens (talk) 21:05, 22 October 2009 (UTC)
 * We have not Greek manuscripts with only the shorter ending (only one Latin), several Greek manuscripts have two endings (the oldest from 8th century). It is explained in the article Mark 16. It is enough. The shorter ending is not authentic. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 01:10, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Do you mean then that this Codex ends at Mark 16:8? This should be clarified in this article. The full discussion of variant endings of Mark can be kept in the Mark 16 article but something short and to the point should be here. Loves  Macs  (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it had never endings. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:26, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for explaining that point. Loves  Macs  (talk) 13:42, 23 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, it has also two empty colums in the Old Testament. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 13:52, 23 October 2009 (UTC)

(moving indent back) Does the article already describe what is affected by the two empty columns? Loves Macs  (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
 * This is interesting for me, but actually it will only Original Research. In several sources - which I used - is written: "it is only one empty column in New Testament", but only in one suorce I found that also in Old Testament the manuscript has two empty column. Without any more detailed explanation (perhaps before some non-canonical books). Empty columns has also Codex Alexandrinus, which you several times copyedited (good work). One is after Gospel of John (The ending of John) and another before 1 Epistle of Clement (The ending of Revelation). The First Epistle of Clement is non-canonical (that is why empty column was placed). Why after Gospel of John? New sections of New Testament books (after four Gospels). Originally in Alexandrinus Pauline epistles followe the Gospels, Book of Acts was placed before Book of Revelation. But we should talk about Vaticanus. According to Elliott - he tried to be original - the empty column in the Gospel on Mark is a result of the original sequens of the Gospels: Matthew, John, Luke, and Mark (Western order). Perhaps, but it is not sure. We can include this hypothesis to the article, why not. About empty columns in the Old Testament I do not want to write, because in literature I can not find more detailed informations. The Old Testament of the Codex Vatricanus actually is not abailable in digitalized form in the internet (free download). All we can say, it is the best manuscript of the New Testament. The text of the Old Testament is only translation, and it is not subject of interest for the majority of textual critics. I think these two columns were placed before non-canonical books of the Old Testament. Leszek Jańczuk (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

How to read
Is there a page or article somewhere that explains how to read indexes and references ? For example:

(The Vatican, Bibl. Vat., Vat. gr. 1209; no. B or 03 Gregory-Aland, δ 1 von Soden)

- since not all the terms here are hyperlinked, I am left guessing at the rest of them. I know it isn't entirely relevant to this article but it's one of those things I'd like to learn. Thanks.76.113.104.88 (talk) 05:19, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Lacunae
I'm having some difficulties understanding the statment "consisting of three lacunae" in the introduction. Maybe the correct phrase should be "having only three lacunae", or "having three types of lacunae". However, the subsection "Lacunae" adds to confusion as clearly there aren't just three lacunae. Aldo L (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What the scribe did not include
This is a POV way of saying the Codex does not support the KJV in many places. It suggests that the scribe left words out for some reason, whereas the extensive use of Vaticanus by Westcot and Nestle-Aland shows that scholars believe Vaticanus does not "leaves words out". On the contary, these words were not in the manuscripts being copied (and the new words in the KJV for example were inventions of a leter century) 58.106.29.87 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 09:17, 6 November 2011 (UTC).

Tischendorf's 1867 edition "perfect"?
Confusing:

One one place, it says, "In 1867 Tischendorf published the text of the New Testament of the codex on the basis of Mai's edition.[112] It was the first perfect edition of the text of this manuscript, but in fact it was only full and exact collation.[35]"

But EARLIER, it said, "Cardinal Angelo Mai prepared the first typographical facsimile edition between 1828 and 1838, which did not appear until 1857, three years after his death, and which was considered unsatisfactory.[99] ... The number of errors was extraordinarily high, and also no attention was paid to distinguish readings of the first hand versus correctors. ... As a consequence, this edition was deemed inadequate for critical purposes.[101] An improved edition was published in 1859, which became the source of Bultmann's 1860 NT.[35]"

How can Tischendorf's 1867 published text be "the first perfect edition of the text of this manuscript" if Mai's had a number of errors that was "extraordinarily high", even if there was an "improved edition" in 1859? It seems to have magically gone from "errors ... extraordinarily high" (1857) to "improved" (1859) to PERFECT (1867), without explanation of HOW it became perfect.

Can someone add how that occurred, with citations? (Thanks!)

---

Also, I am also wondering how it became improved, and by whom; and how Tischendorf's 1867 edition became "perfect", especially considering the article's several mentions of Vatican personnel not really allowing people full access to the codex.

From 1868 on, it seems that better access was given to the Codex, but the article doesn't really state that for that year. Then, finally in 1889–1890, a "photographic facsimile of the entire manuscript was made and published", which seems to say to me that it was actually photographed then (during some of the early days of photography).

Cheers! Misty MH (talk) 04:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Catalog's text
An IP User recently changed the text "Biblia in tribus columnis ex memb" to say "Biblia in tribus columnis ex membranis" and left no explanation nor it supported its change with sources (only included "spelling errors"). Warned about the change and after checking the sources, I reverted it to what it said before. A vexed user, then, left a polite message in my TP.

In the paragraph where the article originally quoted the catalog's text, it wrongly cited one of Kenyon's works; the quote was not present in that work. Fortunately, I did find it in his 1912 publication on the New Testament, and I changed the citation to comply more accurately with it. Check Kenyon's translation here. However, despite Kenyon's reputation, it seems that the IP User may have been partially correct. For example, the Oxford Dictionary of the Christian Church quote it in this way, "Biblia in tribus columnis ex membranis in rubeo." In fact, this translation (with the "in rubeo" included) is the most prevalent in the literature. I am inclined to change it to reflect the Oxford Dictionary mainly because of its widespread use. Caballero / / Historiador   ☊  16:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC)
 * You may notice I changed the text to reflect the discussion above, and have added two new sources supporting the text. Caballero / / Historiador    ☊  17:40, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Codex Vaticanus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090726091645/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.txt to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.txt
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090826085959/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.html to http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915143328/http://www.user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html to http://www.user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090912002742/http://csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03 to http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080915143323/http://www.user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/index.html to http://www.user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:21, 10 August 2017 (UTC)

2 Peter numeration
The article said: 2 Peter has no numeration, leading to the conclusion that the system of divisions dates prior to the time the Epistle came to be commonly regarded as canonical.

And I still find the claim repeated in the late 20th century. However, more recent sources that have clearly studied the manuscript at first hand indicate an original numeration of two chapters in 2 Peter, so that it is not really treated differently from the other epistles. My guess is that the older sources were working from the pseudo-facsimile, which seems to have omitted the numeration in 2 Peter, rather than the actual manuscript. But perhaps someone more knowledgeable in these matter could kindly confirm.

SlothMcCarty (talk) 06:42, 5 September 2017 (UTC)