Editing Codex Vaticanus (section)

== History ==
=== Provenance ===
The provenance and early history of the codex are uncertain;{{r|Aland}} [[Rome]] ([[Fenton John Anthony Hort|Hort]]), [[southern Italy]], [[Alexandria]] ([[Frederic G. Kenyon|Kenyon]],{{r|keny-hand|p=88}}), and [[Caesarea Maritima|Caesarea]] ([[Theodore Cressy Skeat|T. C. Skeat]]; [[F.C. Burkitt|Burkitt]]<ref>{{Cite book | first=P. Morduant | last=Barnard | contributor-first=Francis Crawford | contributor-last=Burkitt | contributor-link=F.C. Burkitt | contribution=Introduction | title=The Biblical Text of Clement of Alexandria in the Four Gospels and the Acts of the Apostles | series=Texts and Studies | volume=5 | page=VIII-XI | year=1899 | publisher=Cambridge University Press | location=Cambridge }}</ref>) have been suggested as possible origins. Hort based his argument for Rome mainly on certain spellings of proper names, such as {{lang|grc|Ισακ}} and {{lang|grc|Ιστραηλ}}, which show a Western or Latin influence. A second argument was the chapter division in Acts, similar to the ones in [[Codex Sinaiticus|Sinaiticus]] and Vaticanus, is not found in any other Greek manuscript, but is present in several manuscripts of the Latin [[Vulgate]].<ref name="West-Hort">{{Cite book | first1=Brooke Foss | last1=Westcott | author-link1=Brooke Foss Westcott | first2=Fenton John Anthony | last2=Hort | author-link2=Fenton John Anthony Hort | title=Introduction to the New Testament in the Original Greek: Appendix | year=1882 | publisher=Harper & Bros | location=New York}}</ref>{{rp|264–267}} [[Armitage Robinson|Robinson]] cautiously suggests, however, that the system of chapter divisions was introduced into the Vulgate by [[Jerome]] himself, due to his studies at Caesarea.<ref>{{Cite book | first=J. Armitage | last=Robinson | author-link=Armitage Robinson | title=Euthaliana: Studies of Euthalius Codex H of the Pauline Epistles and the Armenian Version | pages=42, 101 | year=1895 | publisher=Cambridge University Press | location=Wiesbaden}}</ref> Hort also postulated the codex was copied from a manuscript whose line length was 12–14 letters per line, as when the codex's scribe made large omissions, they were typically 12–14 letters long.{{r|West-Hort|pp=233–234}}

Kenyon suggested the manuscript originated in [[Alexandria]]: "It is noteworthy that the section numeration of the Pauline Epistles in B shows that it was copied from a manuscript in which the Epistle to the Hebrews was placed between Galatians and Ephesians—an arrangement which elsewhere occurs only in the Sahidic version."{{r|keny-hand|p=84}} Kenyon also suggested the order of the Pauline epistles indicates a connection with Egypt, and as in [[Codex Alexandrinus]], the titles of some of the books contain letters of a distinctively Coptic character, particularly the Coptic [[Mu (letter)|mu]] (which was also frequently seen at the ends of lines where space has to be economized).{{r|keny-hand|p=84}} According to Metzger, "the similarity of its text in significant portions of both Testaments with the Coptic versions and with Greek papyri, and the style of writing (notably the Coptic forms used in some of the titles) point rather to Egypt and Alexandria".{{r|Metzger}}

It has been postulated the codex was at one time in the possession of Cardinal [[Johannes Bessarion|Bessarion]], because the minuscule supplement has a text similar to one of Bessarion's manuscripts. [[T. C. Skeat]] believed Bessarion's mentor, the patriarchal notary in Constantinople [[John Chortasmenos]], had the book brought to Rome from [[Constantinople]] around the time of the fall of the [[Byzantine Empire]].{{r|elliot-skeat}} Paul Canart argued the decorative initials added to the manuscript in the Middle Ages are reminiscent of Constantinopolitan decoration found in the 10th century, but the poor execution gives the impression they were added in the 11th or 12th century, and likely not before the 12th century in light of the way they appear in connection with notes in a minuscule hand at the beginning of the book of Daniel.<ref>{{Cite book | first=Paul | last=Canart | editor=Patrick Andrist | contribution=Notice paléographique et codicologique | title=Le manuscrit B de la Bible (Vaticanus graecus 1209) | year=2009 | pages=26, 32–38 | publisher=Éditions du Zèbre | location=Lausanne | isbn=978-2-940351-05-3 }}</ref> [[Theodore Cressy Skeat|T. C. Skeat]] first argued that Codex Vaticanus was among the [[Fifty Bibles of Constantine|50 Bibles]] that the Emperor [[Constantine I of the Roman Empire|Constantine I]] ordered [[Eusebius of Caesarea]] to produce.<ref>T. C. Skeat, "The Codex Sinaiticus, the Codex Vaticanus and Constantine", JTS 50 (1999), pp. 583–625.</ref>

The codex is generally assigned to the middle of the fourth century and considered contemporary with or slightly earlier than [[Codex Sinaiticus]], which can be dated with a reasonable degree of confidence between the early fourth century and the early fifth century.<ref>Brent Nongbri," The Date of Codex Sinaiticus," ''Journal of Theological Studies'' 73 (2022) 516-534. https://doi.org/10.1093/jts/flac083</ref>

=== Scribes and correctors ===
[[File:2IWANNOU-B.JPG|thumb|right|''2 Epistle of John'' in the codex]]
According to Tischendorf the manuscript was written by three scribes (A, B, C), two of whom appear to have written the Old Testament and one the entire New Testament.<ref>Constantin von Tischendorf, ''[[Editio octava critica maior]]'', ed. C. R. Gregory (Lipsiae 1884), p. 360.</ref> Tischendorf's view was accepted by [[Frederic G. Kenyon]], but contested by [[T. C. Skeat]], who examined the codex more thoroughly. Skeat and other paleographers contested Tischendorf's theory of a third (C) scribe, instead asserting two scribes worked on the Old Testament (A and B) and one of them (B) wrote the New Testament.{{r|Aland}}

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.<ref name="Skeat">{{Cite book | first1=H. J. M. | last1=Milne | first2=Theodore Cressy | last2=Skeat | author-link2=T. C. Skeat | title=Scribes and Correctors of the Codex Sinaiticus | year=1938 | publisher=Trustees of the British Museum | location=London | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=I4dbAAAAMAAJ }}</ref>

Two correctors have been suggested as working on the manuscript, one (B{{sup|2}}) was contemporary with the scribes, the other (B{{sup|3}}) worked in about the 10th or 11th century. The theory of a first corrector, B{{sup|1}}, proposed by Tischendorf was rejected by later scholars.{{r|Aland}}{{r|Metzger}} According to Tischendorf, one of the scribes is identical to (and may have been) one of the scribes of [[Codex Sinaiticus]] (scribe D),<ref>Constantin von Tischendorf, ''Editio octava critica maior'', ed. C. R. Gregory (Lipsiae 1884), pp. 346, 360.</ref>{{r|NTV|p=XXI-XXIII}}<ref>{{Cite book | first=James Rendel | last=Harris | title=Stichometry | page=73 | publisher=C. J. Clay and Sons | location=London | url=https://archive.org/stream/stichometry00harruoft}}</ref> but there is insufficient evidence for his assertion.{{r|Kenyon}} Skeat agreed that the writing style is very similar to that of Codex Sinaiticus, but there is not enough evidence to accept the scribes were identical: "the identity of the scribal tradition stands beyond dispute".{{r|Skeat}}

The original writing was retraced by a later scribe (usually dated to the 10th or 11th century), and the beauty of the original script was spoiled.{{r|Metzger}} Accents, breathing marks, and punctuation were added by a later hand.{{r|Metzger}} There are no enlarged initials, no divisions into chapters or sections such as are found in later manuscripts, but a different system of division peculiar to this manuscript.{{r|Kenyon}} There are plenty [[Iotacism|itacistic]] faults, especially the interchange of ει for ι and αι for ε. The exchange of ο for ω is less frequent.<ref>C. R. Gregory, "Canon and Text of the New Testament" (1907), pp. 343–344.</ref><ref>{{cite web | author=Wieland Willker | title=Dittographies and other corrections | access-date= 2011-01-25 | work=Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 | year=2008 | url=http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/dittographies.html | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110531105201/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/dittographies.html | archive-date=2011-05-31 | url-status=dead}}</ref>

The manuscript contains unusual small horizontally aligned double dots in the column margins and are scattered throughout the New Testament.<ref group="n">[http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.txt List of umlauts in the New Testament of the Codex Vaticanus] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090726091645/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.txt |date=2009-07-26 }}</ref> These so-called '''''distigmai''''' (singular '''''distigme''''', {{langx|grc|διστίγμη}}) were formerly called "[[Umlaut (diacritic)|umlauts]]"<ref>{{cite web |last1=Snapp Jr |first1=James |title=Distigmai (Umlauts) - Solving the Mystery |url=https://www.thetextofthegospels.com/2022/08/distigmai-umlauts-solving-mystery.html |website=The Text of the Gospels |access-date=13 April 2025 |language=en}}</ref> (owing to their shape, different from the vertically aligned double-dot [[Aristarchian symbols|Aristarchian]] [[obelism]]s). There are 795 of these clearly seen in the text, and perhaps another 40 that are undetermined. The date of these markings are disputed among scholars. Two such distigmai can be seen in the left margin of the first column (top image). Tischendorf reflected upon their meaning, but without any resolution.<ref name="NTV">{{cite book | first=Constantin von | last=Tischendorf | author-link=Constantin von Tischendorf | title=Novum Testamentum Vaticanum | page=XXI | year=1867 | publisher=[[Giesecke & Devrient]] | place=Lipsiae | url=https://archive.org/stream/novumtestamentum00tisc#page/n3/mode/2up}}</ref> He pointed on several places where these distigmai were used: at the ending of the Gospel of Mark, 1 Thess 2:14; 5:28; Heb 4:16; 8:1.{{r|NTV}} The meaning of these distigmai was recognized in 1995 by [[Philip Payne]]. Payne discovered the first distigme while studying the section 1 Cor 14.34–35 of the codex.<ref>{{Cite journal | first1=Philip B. | last1=Payne | first2=Paul | last2=Canart | title=The Text-Critical Function of the Umlauts in Vaticanus, with Special Attention to 1 Corinthians 14.34–35: A Response to J. Edward Miller | journal=Journal for the Study of the New Testament | volume=27 | issue=1 | pages=105–112 | year=2004 | doi=10.1177/0142064X0402700108 | s2cid=170111716 }}</ref> He suggested that distigmai indicate lines where another textual variant was known to the person who wrote the umlauts. Therefore, the distigmai mark places of textual uncertainty.<ref>G. S. Dykes, ''Using the "Umlauts" of Codex Vaticanus to Dig Deeper'', 2006. See: [http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.html Codex Vaticanus Graece. The Umlauts] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090826085959/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/umlauts.html |date=2009-08-26 }}.</ref><ref>{{Cite book | first1=Philip B. | last1=Payne | first2=Paul | last2=Canart | title=The Originality of Text-Critical Symbols in Codex Vaticanus | series=Novum Testamentum | volume=42 | issue=2 | pages=105–113 | year=2000 | url=http://www.linguistsoftware.com/Payne2000NovT-Vaticanus_umlauts_1Cor14_34-35.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20100508215218/http://www.linguistsoftware.com/Payne2000NovT-Vaticanus_umlauts_1Cor14_34-35.pdf |archive-date=2010-05-08 |url-status=live }}</ref>
The same distigmai were observed in [[Codex Fuldensis]], especially in the section containing 1 Cor 14:34–35. The distigme of two codices indicate a variant of the Western manuscripts, which placed 1 Cor 14:34–35 after 1 Cor 14:40 (manuscripts: [[Codex Claromontanus|Claromontanus]], [[Codex Augiensis|Augiensis]], [[Codex Boernerianus|Boernerianus]], [[Minuscule 88|88]], it{{sup|d, g}}, and some manuscripts of Vulgate).<ref>Curt Niccum, ''The voice of the MSS on the Silence of the Women: ...'', NTS 43 (1997), pp. 242–255.</ref><ref name="payne">{{Cite book | first=Philip B. | last=Payne | title=Fuldensis, Sigla for Variants in Vaticanus and 1 Cor 14.34-5 | volume=41 | year=1995 }}</ref>{{rp|251–262}}

On [[:File:Codex Vaticanus B, 2Thess. 3,11-18, Hebr. 1,1-2,2.jpg|page 1512, next to Hebrews 1:3]], the text contains a marginal note, ''"Fool and knave, leave the old reading and do not change it!" – "{{lang|grc|ἀμαθέστατε καὶ κακέ, ἄφες τὸν παλαιόν, μὴ μεταποίει}}"'' which may suggest unauthorised correcting was a recognized problem in [[scriptorium]]s.<ref name="marginal_note">Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03, {{cite web | author=Wieland Willker | title=A critical note | url=http://www.user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html | access-date=2008-02-12 | publisher=University of Bremen | url-status=dead | archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080915143328/http://www.user.uni-bremen.de/~wie/Vaticanus/note1512.html | archive-date=2008-09-15 }}</ref>