# Erasmus and the Vatican Codex



## PointyHaired Calvinist (Mar 1, 2009)

I keep hearing that Dr. Erasmus had access to the Vatican Codex (B), but rejected it as inferior. Are there any references to this?


----------



## JohnGill (Mar 1, 2009)

From W. Willker Codex Vaticanus 1209, B/03: The Umlauts




> Dating:
> The dating of the umlauts is very problematic. Payne and Canart think that they were all written by the first hand and that many of them have been enhanced later by the reinforcer. They think so because there are some umlauts (probably overseen by the reinforcer) which show the same brown ink as the original script. Some umlauts appear to be slightly imperfectly enhanced so that the original brown ink below it can be seen. This is a good argument.
> It is not sure though that the original scribe wrote these umlauts. It is also possible that they have been added even a century later or so. The brown ink is not confined to the first hand. The larger amount of the "old stuff" in Vaticanus looks like this. E.g. there are many marks of unknown meaning (probably pericope/reading markers). These all show the same faint, brown colour. The question is, in what period can we file all those brown things. Probably early, to allow for the significant fading. Maybe we can say 4th to 6th CE?
> It is also possible, and difficult to disprove that the reinforcer added umlauts on his own. He presumably new about the meaning, because he reinforced them (he did not for instance, enhance the ">" marks for OT quotations). So it might be the case that he added some umlauts. There are many umlauts where it is impossible to judge if there was an original below it. We see only the dark, near black ink.
> ...



The Unquenchable Fire - Google Book Search

I find the quote by Kenyon in the above book to be the most interesting part as it refutes Kutilek on this issue. The quote is from Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 4th Edition, 1939, pgs 138-139. Which can be downloaded here: Our Bible and the Ancient ... - Google Book Search

You'll notice the page in the google edition is 133. The passage begins on 132.

Hope this helps.


----------



## Thomas2007 (Mar 1, 2009)

PointyHaired Calvinist said:


> I keep hearing that Dr. Erasmus had access to the Vatican Codex (B), but rejected it as inferior. Are there any references to this?



Here's a couple of quotes from works you can look more into if it interests you.


"When Erasmus classified the texts into two classes, one representing the Complutenian edition and the other the Vaticanus, he specified the positive grounds upon receiving the former and rejecting the latter. The former was in the possession of the Greek Church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently provides that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted." An Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate or Received Text of the New Testament, 1815, p 413ff​
Erasmus was in the service of Pope Julius II for some time either during or after the time he lived with Aldus Manutius in Italy, I don't remember the exact details at the moment. But from his annotations, which are confirmed by De Jonge, Erasmus had contact with the Vaticanus during the those years. The following is some of my notes in a lecture I did a year or so ago on the subject. Unfortunately, I didn't make very good notes as to my sources, so I would have to go back and find where this quote from De Jonge is - I can do that if it is of interest to you.


Since the Latin Vulgate came into existence in 382 AD, he characterized Greek manuscripts of this era that maintained these readings as being corrupted by Arians and Origenists. As he said: “We too came across a manuscript of this nature, and it is said that such a manuscript is still preserved in the papal library written in majuscule characters.” Dr. DeJong says of this note in Erasmus annotations: “The manuscript to which Eramus refers at the end of this passage is the Codex Vaticanus…designated B, Erasmus regarded the text of this codex as…inferior.” In his textual work from 1519 to 1535 Paul Bombasius and Sepulveda would provide Erasmus some 650 readings from the Vaticanus.​


----------



## ThomasCartwright (Mar 2, 2009)

There are a number of questions about Erasmus that are not answered. If Erasmus backtranslated from Vulgate when there was no Greek manuscript support (as so many TR critics allege), then why did he not add the Johannine Comma of I John 5:7? Despite the claims that he backtranslated from the Vuklgate at the end of Revelation, Herman C. Hoskier carefully collated a majority of the 200 available manuscripts containing the text of Revelation and marvelled, “I may state that if Erasmus had striven to found a text on the largest number of existing MSS in the world of one type, he could not have succeeded better.” (Herman C. Hoskier, The John Rylands Bullentin, 19-1922/23: 118.)

Edward F. Hills also makes it clear,



> Through his study of the writings of Jerome and other Church Fathers Erasmus became very well informed concerning the variant readings of the New Testament text. Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness (1 Tim. 3:16).



CT advocates do not face up candidly to the problematic evidence of the older texts. If a particular version or manuscript is not truthful, pure and does not faithfully represent what God said, it cannot properly be called “the word of God.” For instance, the NIV perverts Mark 1:2-3 into a lie as it reads, “It is written in Isaiah the prophet: I will send my messenger ahead of you, who will prepare your way-a voice of one calling in the desert, Prepare the way for the Lord, make straight paths for him.” The RV, ASV, NASB, ASV and the Chinese Union Version also read, “As it is written in Isaiah the prophet.” Interestingly, the corrupt Douay Rheims of Rome reads, “As it is written in Isaias the prophet,” However, it is not written in Isaiah, but in Malachi 3:1. The King James following the TR correctly reads, “As it is written in the prophets.” This TR quote is also consistent with the writings of the Church Fathers two hundred years before the Alexandrian manuscripts and they follow the TR reading. Irenaeus in 202 AD (Against Heresies, Book III: Chapt. 10:5) writes, 



> Wherefore also Mark, the interpreter and follower of Peter, does thus commence his Gospel narrative: “The beginning of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God; as it is written in the prophets,….” Plainly does the commencement of the Gospel quote the words of the holy prophets, and point out Him at once, whom they confessed as God and Lord.



Another example of an attack on the truthfulness of Christ by the Critical Text is in John 7:8 where it states that Christ tells his brethren that He will not go to the feast; then two verses later, He goes. However, in the TR it maintains the integrity of Christ by quoting Jesus’ words, “I go not up yet.”


----------



## TimV (Mar 2, 2009)

> If a particular version or manuscript is not truthful, pure and does not faithfully represent what God said, it cannot properly be called “the word of God.”





> For instance, the NIV perverts Mark 1:2-3 into a lie as it reads



A point of clarification. Are you saying the ESV, NIV, ASV etc.. are not the word of God? Or are you saying that only in *those parts* of the ESV, NIV, ASV etc...which use as an underlying text something different than the TR are not the word of God.


----------

