Editing Codex Vaticanus (section)

=== Collations ===
In the 16th century, Western scholars became aware of the manuscript as a consequence of the correspondence between [[Desiderius Erasmus|Erasmus]] and the prefects of the Vatican Library, successively [[Paulus Bombasius]], and [[Juan Ginés de Sepúlveda]]. In 1521, Bombasius was consulted by Erasmus as to whether the Codex Vaticanus contained the [[Comma Johanneum]], and Bombasius supplied a transcript of 1 John 4:1–3 and 1 John 5:7–11 to show that it did not.<ref>{{cite book |last1=Grenz |first1=Jesse R. |title=The Scribes and Correctors of Codex Vaticanus |date=October 2021 |publisher=Faculty of Divinity of the University of Cambridge |location=England |pages=2–3 |url=https://api.repository.cam.ac.uk/server/api/core/bitstreams/2ad5217b-7aac-40ae-bebf-de044061dcbb/content |access-date=3 June 2023}}</ref> Sepúlveda in 1533 cross-checked all places where Erasmus's New Testament (the [[Textus Receptus]]) differed from the Vulgate, and supplied Erasmus with 365 readings where the Codex Vaticanus supported the latter, although the list of these 365 readings has been lost.<ref group="n">We know nothing about these 365 readings except one. Erasmus in his ''Adnotationes'' on Acts 27:16 wrote that according to the Codex from the Library Pontifici, the name of the island is καυδα (Cauda), not κλαυδα (Clauda) as in his ''[[Novum Instrumentum omne|Novum Testamentum]]'' (''Tamet si quidam admonent in codice Graeco pontificiae bibliothecae scriptum haberi, καυδα, id est, cauda''). See: Erasmus Desiderius, ''Erasmus' Annotations on the New Testament: Acts – Romans – I and II Corinthians'', ed. A. Reeve and M. A. Sceech, (Brill: Leiden 1990), p. 931. [[Andrew Birch]] was the first, who identified this note with 365 readings of Sepulveda.</ref> Consequently, the Codex Vaticanus acquired the reputation of being an old Greek manuscript that agreed with the Vulgate rather than with the Textus Receptus. Not until much later would scholars realise it conformed to a text that differed from both the Vulgate and the Textus Receptus – a text that could also be found in other known early Greek manuscripts, such as the [[Codex Regius (New Testament)|Codex Regius]] (L), housed in the French Royal Library (now {{Lang|fr|[[Bibliothèque nationale de France]]|italic=no}}).<ref name=Tregelles108>[[Samuel Prideaux Tregelles|S. P. Tregelles]], ''An Introduction to the Critical Study and Knowledge of the Holy Scriptures'', London 1856, p. 108.</ref>

[[Giulio Bartolocci]], librarian of the Vatican, produced a collation in 1669 which was not published; it was never used until a copy of it  was found in the Royal Library at Paris by [[Johann Martin Augustin Scholz|Scholz]] in 1819. This collation was imperfect and revised in 1862.{{r|keny-hand|p=78}} Another collation was made in 1720 for [[Richard Bentley|Bentley]] by Mico, then revised by Rulotta, which was not published until 1799.{{r|keny-hand|p=78}} Bentley was stirred by [[John Mill (theologian)|Mill's]] claim of 30,000 variants in the New Testament and he wanted to reconstruct the text of the New Testament in its early form. He felt that among the manuscripts of the New Testament, Codex Alexandrinus was "the oldest and best in the world".<ref>R.C. Jebb, ''Richard Bentley'' (New York 1966), p. 487.</ref> Bentley understood the necessity to use manuscripts if he were to reconstruct an older form than that apparent in Codex Alexandrinus. He assumed that by supplementing this manuscript with readings from other Greek manuscripts, and from the Latin Vulgate, he could triangulate back to a single recension which he presumed existed at the time of the [[First Council of Nicaea]]. He therefore required a collation from Vaticanus. The text of the collation was irreconcilable with Codex Alexandrinus and he abandoned the project.<ref>{{Cite book | first=William L. | last=Petersen | editor1=Barbara Aland | editor2=Joel Delobel | chapter=What Text can New Testament Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach | title=New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History: A Discussion of Methods | page=137 | year=1994 | publisher=Kok Pharos | location=Kampen | isbn=90-390-0105-7}}</ref>

A further collation was made by scholar [[Andrew Birch]], who, in 1798, in Copenhagen, edited some textual variants of the Acts of the Apostles and the Epistles,<ref>Andreas Birch, ''Variae Lectiones ad Textum Actorum Apostolorum, Epistolarum Catholicarum et Pauli'' (Copenhagen 1798).</ref> in 1800 for the Book of Revelation,<ref>Andreas Birch, ''Variae lectiones ad Apocalypsin'' (Copenhagen 1800).</ref> in 1801 for the Gospels.<ref>Andreas Birch, ''Variae Lectiones ad Textum IV Evangeliorum'' (Copenhagen 1801).</ref> They were incomplete and included together with the textual variants from the other manuscripts.{{r|keny-hand|p=83}} Many of them were false. Andrew Birch reproached [[John Mill (theologian)|Mill]] and Wettstein, that they ''falso citatur Vaticanus'' (cite Vaticanus incorrectly), and gave as an example Luke 2:38 – Ισραηλ [Israel] instead of Ιερουσαλημ [Jerusalem].<ref>Andreas Birch, ''Variae Lectiones ad Textum IV Evangeliorum'' (Copenhagen 1801), p. XXVII.</ref> The reading Ισραηλ could be found in the codex [[Minuscule 130|130]], housed at the Vatican Library, under shelf number Vat. gr. 359.{{r|ubs3|p=210}}

Before the 19th century, no scholar was allowed to study or edit the Codex Vaticanus, and scholars did not ascribe any value to it; in fact, it was suspected to have been interpolated by the Latin textual tradition.<ref name=Martini>[[Carlo Maria Martini]], [https://books.google.com/books?id=5pZyQmwXhdsC&pg=PA155 ''La Parola di Dio Alle Origini della Chiesa''], (Rome: Bibl. Inst. Pr. 1980), p. 287.</ref> [[John Mill (theologian)|John Mill]] wrote in his ''Prolegomena'' (1707): "in Occidentalium gratiam a Latino scriba exaratum" (''written by a Latin scribe for the western world''). He did not believe there was value to having a collation for the manuscript.{{r|Martini}} [[Johann Jakob Wettstein|Wettstein]] would have liked to know the readings of the codex, but not because he thought that they could have been of any help to him for difficult textual decisions. According to him, this codex had no authority whatsoever (''sed ut vel hoc constaret, Codicem nullus esse auctoris'').<ref name="wettstein">{{Cite book | first=Johann Jakob | last=Wettstein | title=Novum Testamentum Graecum: Tomus I | year=1751 | publisher=Ex Officina Dommeriana | location=Amstelodami }}</ref>{{rp|24}} In 1751 Wettstein produced the first list of the New Testament manuscripts, Codex Vaticanus received symbol B (because of its age) and took second position on this list (Alexandrinus received A, Ephraemi – C, Bezae – D, etc.){{r|wettstein|p=22}} until the discovery of Codex Sinaiticus (designated by א).<ref>Constantin von Tischendorf, ''Novum Testamentum Graece: Editio Octava Critica Maior'' (Leipzig: 1869), p. 345.</ref>

[[Johann Jakob Griesbach|Griesbach]] produced a list of nine manuscripts which were to be assigned to the Alexandrian text: [[Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus|C]], [[Codex Regius (New Testament)|L]], [[Codex Cyprius|K]], [[Codex Basilensis A. N. IV. 2|1]], [[Minuscule 13|13]], [[Minuscule 33|33]], [[Minuscule 69|69]], [[Minuscule 106|106]], and [[Minuscule 118|118]].<ref>J. J. Griesbach, ''Novum Testamentum Graecum'', vol. I (Halle, 1777), prolegomena.</ref> Codex Vaticanus was not in this list. In the second (1796) edition of his Greek NT, Griesbach added Codex Vaticanus as a witness to the Alexandrian text in Mark, Luke, and John. He still believed the first half of Matthew represented the Western text-type.<ref>J. J. Griesbach, ''Novum Testamentum Graecum'', 2 editio (Halae, 1796), prolegomena, p. LXXXI. See [https://books.google.com/books?id=BLk9AAAAIAAJ&q=graece Edition from 1809 (London)]</ref>