Reset Password
Reset Link Sent
| Blogs > Katididaustralia > Katididaustralia |
|
The Vatican Codex - Why A Treasure? The Vatican is a veritable treasure trove. Its frescoes, sculptures and architecture are prized for their beauty and splendor. Yet, access to one of its greatest treasures was limited for hundreds of years. Housed in the Vatican Library, a precious manuscript illuminates portions of God's Word that were written thousands of years ago. It is known as the Vatican Codex but is also referred to as Vatican Manuscript 1209 or Codex Vaticanus, designated "B" by most scholars. (The codex was the prototype of today's book.) A Hidden Treasure Where did the Vatican Codex come from? The earliest reference to it is a 15th-century entry in the Vatican Library catalogue. Scholars have suggested that it may have been produced in Egypt, Caesarea or even Rome. After evaluating these theories, however, Professor J. Neville Birdsall of the University of Birmingham, England, concluded: "In short, we cannot be certain of the exact date nor the place of origin of Codex Vaticanus, nor, in spite of scholarly efforts, can its history before the 15th century be traced." Nevertheless, the Vatican Codex has been called one of the most important single Bible manuscripts. Why? Over the centuries, some copyists introduced errors into the Bible text. The challenge for translators seeking textual integrity, then is to find reliable manuscripts that convey what appeared in the original writing. So imagine how eager scholars were to examine the Vatican Codex, a Greek manuscript dating from the 4th century C.E., less that 300 years after the Bible was completed! This codex contains a complete text of the Hebrew and the Christian Greek Scriptures, except for a few portions that were lost over time. For a long time, Vatican authorities were reluctant to make the codex available to Bible scholars. Eminent textual scholar Sir Frederic Kenyon related: "In 1843 the great English scholar Tregelles was allowed indeed to see it but not to copy a word." Tischendorf applied to see the codex again but he was denied permission after copying 20 pages. Yet, as Kenyon reported, "renewed entreaty procured him 6 days' longer study, making in all14 days of 3 hours each; and by making the very most of his time Tischendorf was able in 1867 to publish the most perfect edition of the manuscript which had yet appeared." The Vatican later made a better copy of the codex available. Careful Preservation What kind of text did the Vatican Codex reveal? The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible states that it "shows both consistency of spelling and accuracy of copying, and a quality in the text thus carefully reproduced." The same reference work continues: "It is thus possible to conclude that this text is the product of a tradition of scholarly coping. Two noteworthy scholars who were struck by the virtues of the Vatican Codex were B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort. Their New Testament in the Original Greek, released in 1881 and based on the Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts, is still the primary text for several modern translations of the Christian Greek Scriptures, including The Emphasised Bible, by J.B. Rotherham and the New World Translation. Some critics, however, thought that Westcott and Hort's trust in the Vatican codex was misplace. Was the codex an accurate rendering of the original text? The publication of the Bodmer papyri between 1956 and 1961 excited scholars because the papyri included portions of Luke and John from the early 3rd century C.E. Would these support what later appeared in the Vatican Codex? "There is a remarkable convergence between the text of Vaticanus and the surviving text of the Bodmer papyri," wrote Philip B. Payne and Paul Canart in Novum Testamentum. "In the light of this convergence, it is reasonable to concluded that the original scribe of Vaticanus copied a manuscript closely related to the Bodmer papyri. Thus, the scribe must have copied either a very old manuscript or one that was based on a very old manuscript." Professor Birdsall stated: "The two manuscripts stand in close relationship with one another....(The Codex) is a careful test: the editing lying behind it has a tradition of careful preservation of what has been received." Useful to Translators Of course, the oldest manuscript does not always qualify as being the closest to the original text. However, comparing the Vatican Codex with other manuscripts has been very helpful to scholars in determining what appeared in the original text. For e.g., the surviving part of the Sinaitic Manuscript, also produced in the 4th century C.E., is missing most of the historical books from Genesis to 1Chronicles but their appearance in the Vatican Codex helps to confirm their rightful place in the Bible canon. According to The Oxford Illustrated History of the Bible, "passages touching on the person of Christ and on the holy trinity" were particularly controversial amoung scholars. How has the Vatican Codex helped to clarify these passages? Consider an example. As recorded at John 3:13, Jesus said: "No man has ascended into heaven but he that descended from heaven, the of man," Some translators have added the words "which (or, who) is in heaven." Those additional words suggest that Jesus was in heaven and on earth at the same time - a notion that supports the idea of the trinity. That added phrase appears in a few manuscripts from the 5th and 10th centuries C.E. However, its omission in the earlier Vatican and Sinaitic manuscripts has led many modern translators to remove the phrase. This clear sup confusion about the identity of Christ and harmonizes with the rest of the Scriptures. Rather than being in two places at the same time, Jesus had come from the heavens and would soon return to the heavens, "ascending to" his Father. (John 20:17) The Vatican Codex also sheds light on verses regarding God's purpose for the earth. Note an example. According to the King James Version, the apostle Peter prophesied that "the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up." (2Peter 3:10) Other translations read similarly, basing this rendering on the 5th century Alexandrine Codex and later manuscripts. Many sincere Bible readers have thus concluded that God will destroy the earth. However, about a century before the Alexandrine Codex was produced, the Vatican Codex (and the contemporary Sinaitic Manuscript) rendered Peter's prophecy "earth and the works in it will be discovered." Does this harmonize with the rest of the Bible? Certainly! The literal earth "will not be made to totter to time indefinite, or forever." (Psalm 104:5) How, then, will the earth be "discovered"? Other scriptures show that the expression "earth" can be used figuratively. "The earth" can speak a language and sing songs. (Genesis 11:1; Psalms 96:1) So "earth" can refer to mankind, or human society. Is it not comforting to know that God will not destroy our planet but will thoroughly expose and bring an end to wickedness and those who promote it? It Will Last to Time Indefinite Sadly, access to the Vatican Codex was severely curtailed for centuries, and Bible readers were often misled as to the true meaning of certain Bible texts. However, since its publication, the Vatican Codex and modern, reliable Bible translations have helped truth-seekers to learn what the Bible really teaches. Early copyists often included in their manuscripts the note: "The hand that wrote this moulders in a tomb, but what is written abides across the years." Today we appreciate the tireless efforts of those anonymous copyists but the credit for preserving the Bible ultimately goes to its Author, who long ago inspired His prophet to write: "The green grass has dried up, the blossom has withered: but as for the word of our God, it will last to time indefinite." (Isaiah 40:8) Dating Ancient Manuscripts Although some copyists recorded the date they completed their work, most Greek manuscripts lack this specific information. How, then, do scholars determine when a Bible manuscript was produced? Just as language and artwork differ form one generation to the next, so too does handwriting. For e.g., uncial letters, characterized by curved capital letters and even lines of text, were used by the 4th century and continued for hundreds of years. Careful scholars who compare undated uncial manuscripts with similar dated documents can more precisely determine when early manuscripts were produced. There are, of course, limits to this method. Princeton Theological Seminary Professor Bruce Metzger noted: "Since the style of a person's handwriting may remain more or less constant throughout life, it is unrealistic to seek to fix upon a date narrower than a 50 year spread." Based on such careful analysis, there is general agreement among scholars that the Vatican Codex was produced in the 4th century C.E. Wow! Isn't this a wonderfully informative article. I am always blown-away by those who put in such close study and comparison of what may seem to be a tedious task. Of course, unlike other ancient texts and archeological finds, discovering God's Word is far from tedious or boring. So many before us have contributed so much so that we may have the best of understanding in these 'last days' and it is uplifting to read about some of them. How wonderful a reward they will have in the coming New World. I especially like reading of those who persevered during 'the dark ages' to bring the Bible to the light of the common man. They have given us so very much. Of course, all praise goes to Jehovah for His brilliant timing and His inspiration of 'right-hearted' men. Yours, Katidid. |
|||
|
Hi User, mate, I guess the most quoted verse and the most contentious would be..... John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was a god (The New World Translation) As you can see, in the King James Bible it leaves out the 'definitive article'...... John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The whole issue of God being God and Jesus being His Son is the biggest sticking point....the biggest misnomer satan and the churches ever perpetuated to back up their false trinity doctrine. Jesus' name actually means 'Jehovah Is Salvation'. Gee, this is quite a big subject User.....I will try my best to summarize it for you as the Insight On The Scriptures Book II goes into great grammatical detail............ ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Cardinal John O'Connor stated about the trinity: "We know that it is a very profound mystery, which we don't begin to understand." The Illustrated Bible Dictionary says, speaking of the trinity, this publication admits: "It is not a biblical doctrine in the sense that any formulation of it can be found in the Bible." So, those who espouse the trinity doctrine have been desperately looking for bible tests - even twisting them - to find support for their teaching. Just looking at my Insight On The Scriptures Book II it says that the original Greek text actually says.... John 1:1 In beginning was the word, and the word was toward the god, and god was the word. The translator must provide the capital letters as needed in the language into which he translates the text. It is clearly proper to capitalize "God" in translating the phrase "the god", since this must identify the Almighty God with whom the Word was but the capitalizing of the word "god" in the second case does not have the same justification. This verse contains two forms of the Greek noun 'The.os' (god). The first is preceded by ton (the), a form of the Greek definite article, and in this case the word the'on' refers to Almighty God. In the second instance, however, the.os' has no definite article. John's Gospel was written in Koine, or common Greek, which has specific rules regarding the use of the definite article. Bible scholar A.T.Robertson recognizes that if both subject and predicate have articles, "both are definite, treated as identical, one and the same, and interchangeable." However, if the subject has a definite article but the predicate does not, as in John 1:1, James Allen Hewett emphasized: "In such a construction the subject and predicate are not the same, equal, identical or anything of the sort." Many Greek scholars and Bible translators acknowledge that John 1:1 highlights, not the identity, but a quality of "the Word." Says Bible translator William Barclay: "Because (the apostle John) has no difinite article in front of theos it becomes a description....John is not here identifying the Word with God. To put it very simply, he does not say that Jesus was God." Scholar Jason David BeDuhn likewise says: "In Greek, if you leave off the article from theos in a sentence like the one in John 1:1c, then your readers will assume you mean 'a god.'....Its absence makes theos quite different than the definite ho theos, as different as 'a god' is from 'God' in English." Dubuhn adds: "In John 1:1, the Word is not the one-and-only God, but is a god, or divine being." To put it in the words of Joseph Henry Thayer, a scholar who worked on the American Standard Version: "The Logos (or Word) was divine, not the divine Being himself." Does the identity of God have to be "a very profound mystery"? It did not seem so to Jesus, In His prayer to His father, Jesus made a clear distinction between Him and His Father when He said: "This means everlasting life, their taking in knowledge of You, the only true God, and of the one whom You sent forth, Jesus Christ."(John 17:3) If we believe Jesus and understand the plain teaching of the Bible, we will respect Him as the divine Son of God that He is and we will also worship Jehovah as "the only true God." ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ As is the case in many Bible translations, the New International Version, in its Preface states: "In regard to the divine name YHWH (tetragrammaton), the translators adopted the device used in most English versions of rendering that name as "Lord" in capital letters to distinguish it from Adonai, another Hebrew word rendered "Lord" for which small letters are used. Wherever the two names stand together in the Old Testament as a compound name of God, they are rendered "Sovereign Lord". This does nothing more than confuse the reader as to who the Scripture is actually meaning. Either God or Jesus. The Insight On The Scriptures Book II says: " It is true that the most complete manuscript copies of the Septuagint now known do consistently follow the practice of substituting the Greek word Ky'ri.os (Lord) or The.os' (God) for the Tetragrammaton, but these major manuscripts date back only as far as the 4th or 5th centuries C.E. More ancient copies, though in fragmentary form, have been discovered that prove that the earliest copies of the Septuagint did contain the divine name. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Now, when you add this to the fact that the apostates 'bought into' the Jewish superstition of not mentioning God's name (both for the same reason - to garnishee power for themselves and to keep the common people as ignorant as possible) along with the fact that God's name is used throughout the Hebrew texts in the form of the Tetragrammaton you will see that there is a distinct difference between Jehovah God and Jesus His Son. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Looking at my What Does The Bible Really Teach book, it says it quite simply: "If you want someone to get to know you, what might you do? Would you not tell the person your name? Does God have a name? Many religions answer that His name is "God" or "Lord", but those are not personal names, they are titles, just as "king" and "president" are titles. The Bible teaches that God has many titles. "God" and "Lord" are amoung them. However, the Bible also teaches that God has a personal name: Jehovah(English translation). At Psalm 83:18 it says: "You, whose name is Jehovah, you alone are the Most High over all the earth." Some translations don't even have this but The King James does. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Gee, User, as I mentioned, this is a huge subject. I have done much reading and scanning of my study books and I hope it all makes sense for you. Basically, Jehovah is the one, true, living God and Jesus is His only-begotten Son. (That alone has significance as Jesus is the only one that was created by Jehovah alone. ) Everything else was created with Jesus. Colossians 1:15-17 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; because by means of him all other things were created in the heavens and on the earth, the things visible and the things invisible, whether they are thrones or lordships or governments or authorities. All other things have been created through him and for him. Also, he is before all other things, and by means of him all other things were made to exist, Jesus is also called the Word as at John 1:1 because he spoke for God, no doubt delivering messages and instructions to the Father's other sons, both spirit and human. Is the firstborn Son equal to God, as some believe? That is not what the Bible teaches. As we noted, the Son was created. Obviously, then, He had a beginning, whereas Jehovah God has no beginning or end. Psalm 90:2 Before the mountains were born or you brought forth the earth and the productive land, from everlasting to everlasting, you are God. Jehovah and his firstborn Son enjoyed close association for, perhaps, billions of years - long before the starry heavens and the earth were created. How they must have loved each other! John 3:35: The Father loves the Son and has given all things into his hand. John14:31 But for the world to know that I love the Father, I am doing just as the Father has commanded me to do. This dear Son was just like His Father. That is why the Bible refers to the Son as.... Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation Jesus reflected His Father's qualities and personality perfectly. Just as you might say of an earthly son toward his father.....'gee, your the spitting image of your dad.' ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Ok User, I am quite worn out mate, grin, and I think I have raved quite enough for now......hehehehehehe.....I sure hope this is clearly written for you and it provides good spiritual food for thought. Love, Katidid. P.S. I don't really dislike any Bible translations as they all have their uses in comparative study, I look up many different ones, but the best translation, the one I love, is the new New World Translation which was brought out only last year.
|
×
×