Re: [textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."
- Who really cares whether the KJV translators had accept to Vaticanus or any other Alexandrian text? It's clear from the translation that they prefers the Byzantine text type since it is mostly the TR with some pre-1599 Geneva readings mixed into it that deviate from the TR but agree with older English translations. If they were only interested in commerical success, the Byzantine text would be what we would expect them to use. Perhaps someone did a translation of one of the Alexandrian texts back in the 17th century but it did not survive to this day due to a lack of commercial success.The 1611 KJV was mostly a reaction to the changes in the Geneva Bible in 1599. They didn't like the changes and wanted to go back to older readings that most English translations traditionally used. That's why there's numerous places where it agrees with the Vulgate against the TR it is allegedly translated from.Joe----- Original Message -----From: K.Martin HeideSent: Saturday, June 09, 2007 9:21 AMSubject: [textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."
just came back from a short trip and read all that stuff about Erasmus.
Actually, I dealt with that in detail in my book "Der einzig wahre Bibeltext? Erasmus von Rotterdam und die Frage nach dem Urtext", 5th edition.
The best way is to read the sources, which means here: the letters Erasmus and Sepulveda
exchanged, pertaining to the question of the Codex Vaticanus.
As I am squeezed by a lot of work, I hope you are not disappointed when I post some of the most important quotations in Latin & German. Perhaps someone of our English native speakers is moved to translate them into English. The numbers "EE" are the numbers of the Latin edition of Erasmus' letters (Allen, "Opus epistolarum Desiderii Erasmi Roterodami") .
Sepulveda first of all informed Erasmus, that a very old codex was found, which agreed more with the Latin than the Byzantine manuscripts Erasmus had used in Basel, and that he had prepared a list of 365 readings, and that, with the help of this codex, Erasmus could even emendate the common Greek manuscripts he knew so far:
J. G. de Sepulveda bezog sich auf den Codex Vaticanus mit den Worten: In der vatikanischen Bibliothek befindet sich in der Tat ein sehr alter griechischer Text, sehr genau und akkurat in Majuskelschrift geschrieben (»diligentissime et accuratissime litteris maiusculis conscriptum«), sehr verschieden von den gewöhnlichen [griechischen] Texten (»longe diversum ab vulgatis exemplaribus«) [ ] Dieser Text ist der am sorgfältigsten überlieferte von allen (»omnium esse emendatissimum«), ersichtlich aus seinem Alter und der Gewissenhaftigkeit des Schreibers. Er stimmt oft mit unserer alten Übersetzung [d.h. der lateinischen Vulgata] überein, die ja zweifellos aus sehr alten und genauen Exemplaren übersetzt und uns überliefert wurde. Ob die übrigen [griechischen] Handschriften entsprechend der Genauigkeit jenes Exemplars als eine Art Referenztext korrigiert und berichtigt werden sollten (»Cum igitur ad illius exemplaris fidem et quasi normam caeteri libri sint emendandi ac dirigendi«), entscheide du selbst [ ] Wir haben 365 abweichende Schriftstellen aufgezeichnet (Brief an Erasmus vom 23. Oktober 1533, EE 2873: 19-34).
1533 exzerpierte also Johannes Genesius de Sepulveda nach eigenen Angaben 365 Lesarten dieses Codex; ob er sie alle Erasmus zugesandt hat, wissen wir nicht. Erasmus hat nur wenige der Vaticanus-Varianten verwertet. Er gab eine Lesart dieses Codex in den Annotationen zu Apg 27,16 an und verwies beim Streit um das CJ darauf, daß der Codex Vaticanus das CJ nicht habe.
Erasmus believed, by mistake, in addition - and that may have been the reason why he was very reluctant to inspect the Vaticanus-readings more closely - that the Codex Vaticanus was tampered with after the Council of Florence, 1435. Sepulveda argued that this is totally wrong; Erasmus, in turn, agreed in so far, that he knew of this idea only second-hand, but nevertheless that did not convince him of the Codex Vaticanus ... so, nothing was changed.
Erasmus glaubte außerdem, Codex B sei 1435 nach dem Konzil von Florenz durch einen Erlaß (die Aurea Bulla, die aber davon nichts berichtet) des byzantinischen Imperators an die Vulgata angepaßt worden (EE 2905: 37-46 vom 17. Februar 1534). Das konnte ihm Sepulveda widerlegen (EE 2938: 69ff. vom 23. Mai 1534). Erasmus gab zu, er habe dies nur über dritte gehört (EE 2951: 49-54 vom 3. Juli 1534), blieb aber bei seiner Einschätzung: Die oben erwähnten Codices seien nach den lateinischen emendiert, und um letztendliche Gewißheit zu erlangen, solle man doch die griechischen Kirchenväter aufsuchen: Sed Graecorum lectio petenda est ex Graecis auctoribus, Athanasio, Basilio, Origene, Chrysostomo, Nazianzeno, Cyrillo (EE 2905: 45-46). Zu dieser Zeit bereitete Erasmus bereits die letzte Auflage des NT vor (EE 2951: 12-13).
Hope these little hints help,
Daniel Buck -
Michael Marlowe writes, ". . . the Codex Vaticanus, the readings of which were previously known to most scholars only from the scanty extracts included in the sixth volume of Walton 1657."
Papal librarian Paulus Bombasius apparently had sent some B readings to Erasmus, which he did not use to change the text of his GNT. But it doesn't appear possible that anyone outside the Vatican would have had access to Vaticanus itself, and it was not fully collated
until hundreds of years later.
Actually, there are reports of receiving Vaticanus readings from two separate sources.
I have a number of secondary sources here that give primary sources, some may do
well to be checked for accuracy. Some reports indicate that he only asked Bombasius
about a couple of specific readings, including the Johannine Comma. However there
appears to be a secondary source who sent him many more readings.
http://openaccess. leidenuniv. nl/dspace/ bitstream/ 1887/1023/ 1/279_050. pdf
Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum - H. J. De Jonge
On 18 June 1521 Paul Bombasius, the secretary of the influential cardinal Lorenzo Pucci at Rome, sent a letter to Erasmus containing a copy of l John 4, l-3 and 5,7-11 from the Codex Vaticanus
( P S ALLEN IV, p 530 , Opus Epistolaium Des Eiasmi Rötetodami, II Oxford 1910,)
http://www.pathligh ts.com/onlineboo ks/KJV-HB/ KJV-early% 20Centuries. htm
The King James Bible and the Modern Versions by Vance Farrell
there is evidence that Erasmus was told about many variant readings in the Vaticanus, by Sepúlveda, and from the papal librarian, Paul Bombasius, as early as 1521
(see Wetsteins Prolegomena to the New Testament, Vol. 1, p. 23).
http://av1611. com/kjbp/ articles/ jones-whynew. html#_ftnref12
Which Version is the Bible? - Frank Nolen Jones (1996)
Erasmus was in regular correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius, the Papal librarian, who sent him any variant readings which he desired.  In fact, in 1533, a correspondent of Erasmus (a Catholic priest named Juan Sepulveda) sent Erasmus 365 selected readings from Vaticanus B as proof of its superiority to the Textus Receptus.  He offered to make the entire document available to Erasmus for use in his latest edition of the TR. However, Erasmus rejected the readings of the Vatican manuscript because he considered from the massive evidence of his day that the Textus Receptus data was correct. Thus Erasmus knew about Vaticanus nearly one hundred years before the King James Bible ever saw the light of day!
 Samuel Prideaux Tregelles, An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament with Remarks on Its Revision upon Critical Principal Together with a Collation of Critical Texts, (London: Samuel Bagster and Sons, 1854), p. 22.
 Marvin R. Vincent, A History of the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, (New York: MacMillian, 1899), p. 53; F.H.A. Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, 4th ed., ed. Edward Miller, 2 Vols., (London: George Bell and Sons, 1894), Vol I, p. 109.
http://www.present- truth.org/ Wilkinson/ authorizedbible5 .htm
Our Authorized Bible Vindicated - Benjamin G. Wilkinson
We are informed by another author that, if Erasmus had desired, he could have secured a transcript of this manuscript.( 17) There was no necessity, however, for Erasmus to obtain a transcript because he was in correspondence with Professor Paulus Bombasius at Rome, who sent him such variant readings as he wished.(18)
"A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Codex B), as proof of its superiority to the Received Text."(19)
(17) Bissell, Historic Origin of the Bible, p. 84
(18) S.P. Tregelles, On the Printed Text of the Greek Test., p. 22
(19) Kenyon, Our Bible, p. 133
http://www.kjvonly. org/doug/ kutilek_wilkinso n_incred. htm
An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament
Wilkinson .. cites .. Tregelles .. the page in question gives a somewhat different picture. Erasmus didnt request readings, only a reading: I John 5:7.
Erasmus requested his friend, Paulus Bombasius, at Rome, to examine the Codex Vaticanus for him as to this passage (emphasis added); and accordingly, in a letter, dated Rome, June 18, 1521, he sent him a transcript of the introductory verses of both the 4th and 5th chapters of St. Johns 1st article. (An Account of the Printed Text of the Greek New Testament - Tregelles)
http://www-user. uni-bremen. de/~wie/Vaticanu s/umlauts. html
Codex Vaticanus Graece 1209, B/03 The Umlauts: - Wieland Willker
"Sepulveda had access to Codex Vaticanus (from 1521 on) and supplied Erasmus with 365 readings in the year 1533 to show that these readings agreed with the Vulgate against the TR"
http://omega. cohums.ohio- state.edu/ mailing_lists/ CLA-L/Older/ log98/9804e/ 9804e.165. html
Pfeiffer's History of CPh. .See pp. 94f :.. . - David Lupher
A more competent and sensible Spanish opponent of Erasmus than Stunica [Zun~iga] was Juan Ginez Sepulveda [sic] (1491-1572). .......... Sepulveda was the first to collate the fourth-century Vatican manuscript of the Bible, later called Vaticanus B. Though it was in the Vatican before 1481 and known to Stunica, it was not used for the Complutensian Polyglot. Sepulveda compiled a list of 365 variant readings in B, as he wrote to Erasmus in 1533, but whether he sent him the list, we cannot tell .... Pfeiffer
For more information on Sepulveda and Erasmus, see Marcel Bataillon's huge and magisterial book on Erasmus and Spain (avail. in both French and Spanish versions).
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= ====
http://edburrell. com/Defense_ Erasmus.html
IN DEFENSE OF ERASMUS Dr. John Cereghin
Erasmus did have access to Codex B readings (2) and rejected them because he knew how corrupt they were. After all, B is the Pope's manuscript, and since Erasmus was anti-Catholic, he rejected it. Paulus Bombasius discovered the neglected Codex B in the Vatican library in 1521 and in June of that year sent Erasmus its readings from I John 4:1-3 and I John 5:7. (3)
These same readings of Sinaiticus and Vaticanus were very much before the scholars in the 1611 AV as represented in the Latin Vulgate. Erasmus was a personal friend of Leo X (from his earlier days) and had access to every library in Europe (because of his reputation as a scholar), including the Vatican. Erasmus had access to Vaticanus if he wanted it. He didn't need the manuscript itself because Paulus Bombasius, who was in Rome, was sending him B readings.
Erasmus was furnished with 365 readings of B by Sepulveda, who was in possession of them as early as 1521. (5)
2) Thomas Strouse, "The 19th Century Baptists, Bible Translations and Bible Societies." Tabernacle Baptist Theological Journal, Summer, 1994, Vol., I, No. 2, p. 7.
3) Michael Maynard, A History of the Debate Over I John 5:7,8. Tempe AZ: Comma Publications, 1995, p. 75.
4) David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible: Reformation Editors Lacked Sufficient Manuscript Evidence. Way of Life Literature: Oak Harbor WA, 1993, p. 10.
5) Frederick Scrivener, A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament for the Use of the Biblical Student, ed. Edward Miller, 2 volumes. London: George Bell and Sons, 1894, 2:226, cited by William Grady, Final Authority, Schereville, IN: Grady Publications, 2993, page 113 and David Cloud, Myths About the King James Bible, op. cit., p. 9. Also Frederick Kenyon, Our Bible, page 133, cited in Benjamin Wilkinson, "Our Authorized Version Vindicated," cited by David Otis Fuller, ed. Which Bible? page 225. Maynard says, "A good Catholic would honor the 365 Vaticanus readings collected by J.G. Sepulveda, which agreed with the Vulgate. But Erasmus rejected these (p. 319). How could Erasmus reject Vaticanus readings unless he had them to reject? Maynard says on page 88 that Sepulveda supplied Erasmus with these readings because he was opposed to the manuscripts Erasmus was using to translate and edit his Greek text and was trying to influence Erasmus away from those manuscripts. Erasmus had these B readings to use for his 5th edition but rejected every single reading.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========= =======
http://www.biblebel ievers.com/ JEcob1.html
MODERN VERSIONS AND ANCIENT MANUSCRIPTS By J. Ecob
It is noteworthy that, though Erasmus had correspondence with three (3) Popes, (Julius II, Leo X and Adrian VI) and spent some time at Rome, he did not use Codex Vaticanus (b) when compiling the first printed text. (Codex B was the prime authority used by Westcott and Hort whose text is the basis for most modern translations. )
In 1533 Sepulveda furnished Erasmus with 365 readings of Codex B to show its agreement with the Latin Version against the Common Greek Text. It is therefore evident that Erasmus rejected the readings of Codex B as untrustworthy and it is probable that he had a better acquaintance with it than did Tregelles in the 19th Century.
============ ========= ========= ========= ========= ========
http://www.geocitie s.com/Heartland/ Plains/8936/ TEXTUS.HTM
"A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it (Codex B) as proof of its superiority over the Received Greek Text" Sir Fredrick Kenyon, "Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts" p133.
http://groups. yahoo.com/ group/Messianic_ Apologetic/
- Thank-you very much Martin Heide and Larry Overton and Steven Avery and everyone else for your replies.I do care about what the KJV translators based their translation on, since the KJV is an extremely important and influential English document and Bible translation.I am only interested in truth in this matter, for the sake of getting all Christians on the same page and happy and harmonious as much as possible.Several years ago, King James Onlyists would email me and assert that the King James translators had access to Codex Sinaiticus and rejected it as well. I think it has finally been proven to them, and they are convinced, that Codex Sinaiticus could not possibly have been consulted by Erasmus and the KJV tranlators, since it was discovered many years subsequent in time to the time of their work. KJV onlyists have subsequently stopped saying this. That is progress.Steven Avery quoted Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones. I recently rebutted another quotation from him concerning 1 John 5:7, wherein he gives Greek manuscript evidence supporting the KJV text. If anyone would care to check the accuracy of my rebuttal I would greatly appreciate it. I posted it in PDF format, so everyone should be able to view it: http://www.bibletranslation.ws/trans/FirstJohnCh5v7.pdfThank-you.David Robert Palmer----- Original Message -----From: JovialSent: Monday, June 11, 2007 5:41 AMSubject: Re: [textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."
Who really cares whether the KJV translators had accept to Vaticanus or any other Alexandrian text?.
- David Robert Palmer,
I didn't double-check all the overlapping Tischendorf-and-Gregory
numbers but your basic point clearly stands; Dr. Jones was using both
In the excerpt from Metzger's Textual Commentary, the word "not"
should be added to the second line of the third point listed under
External Evidence, so that the sentence reads, "it is not found"
instead of "it is found."
Also, Metzger's paragraph which begins "For the story of how the
spurious passage came to be included" unquestionably should be
supplemented -- i.e., corrected -- by Metzger's statements which
appear in the appendix of "Text of the NT" 3rd edition, in the
appendix, where Metzger acknowledges that the story about Erasmus'
rash promise (apparently the same tale spread by Tregelles, and
spread further by Ezra Abbot in the 1800's, and still being spread to
this day) has been shown by deJonge to be historically unverifiable;
i.e., it is only true to about the same extent that the claim that
the KJV-translators had access to the contents of Codex Vaticanus is
Yours in Christ,
James Snapp, Jr.
Minister, Curtisville Christian Church
Tipton, Indiana (USA)
- "David Robert Palmer" wrote:
>> I recently rebutted another quotation from him concerning 1 John5:7, wherein he gives Greek manuscript evidence supporting the KJV
text. If anyone would care to check the accuracy of my rebuttal I
would greatly appreciate it.
>>The UBS4 footnote is apparently your source for "the" text of the
Johannine Comma in Greek. What sources Münster uses for the texts
they relegate to footnotes is still a mystery to me, as they don't
seem to bother to give the mss evidence for what they do provide.
In fact, there is no one Greek text of the Comma, nor should anyone
expect there to be one, if each individual mss editor used
independent translation from Latin to produce a Greek version. Latin
and Greek are near opposites when it comes to the use of articles.
Therefore, as one would suspect, the various Greek versions of the
Comma differ widely on the use of articles.
A few years ago I read a collation of several Greek versions of the
Comma in ms and print, which hopefully will come online in the near
future, once Unicode problems can be worked out.
Bravo. A very good rebuttal of Jones’ claims concerning Greek MSS evidence pertaining to the Comma Johanneum. I would, however, like to ask for some clarification, if I may.
Regarding your citation of data, specifically of “The footnote apparatus herein is data as of about 1993,” would you please elaborate on the sources for the data you mentioned here? On my first reading of that sentence I took it to mean that you were quoting the footnote on 1 John 5:7-8 in the first printing of the fourth edition of the United Bible Societies’ Greek New Testament (a.k.a., UBS4), since that particular edition was published in 1993. However, the data you give is not a verbatim quote of the footnote on 1 John 5:7-8 in either UBS3 (page 824) or UBS4 (page 819).
For example, you do not indicate, as does UBS4, that MSS Ψ, 1844 & 1852 are enclosed in parentheses for having the reading μαρτυρουσιν instead of μαρτυρουντες. (UBS3 has only MS Ψ enclosed in parentheses).
Another example: your citation of MS 048 lacks the superscript “vid” (048vid, as found in UBS4), indicating its inclusion at that place in the apparatus is indicative of the “most probable reading” of the MS. It appears on this point you took UBS3 as your source, which also lacks the superscript “vid.”
Furthermore, you reference uncial MSS 049, 056, 0142 & 0296, but these are not found in the footnote in UBS4. MSS 049, 056 & 0142 (but not 0296) are found in UBS3.
After citing various “patristic” writers as omitting the Comma, you referred to Hodges-Farstad, Robinson-Pierpont and NA27 as additional editorial support for the omission of the added words in 1 John 5:7-8. However, the apparatus in each of these respective texts do not supply the kind of MS citations you gave in your data.
So I respectfully ask for some clarification on your sources for this portion of your document. Thanks in advance, and again, Bravo. Job well done.
Larry G. Overton
From: David Robert Palmer [mailto:watutman@...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 12, 2007 8:56 PM
Subject: Re: [textualcriticism] "The KJV translators had access to Codex Vaticanus and rejected it."
Thank-you very much Martin Heide and Larry Overton and Steven Avery and everyone else for your replies.
I do care about what the KJV translators based their translation on, since the KJV is an extremely important and influential English document and Bible translation.
I am only interested in truth in this matter, for the sake of getting all Christians on the same page and happy and harmonious as much as possible.
Several years ago, King James Onlyists would email me and assert that the King James translators had access to Codex Sinaiticus and rejected it as well. I think it has finally been proven to them, and they are convinced, that Codex Sinaiticus could not possibly have been consulted by Erasmus and the KJV tranlators, since it was discovered many years subsequent in time to the time of their work. KJV onlyists have subsequently stopped saying this. That is progress.
Steven Avery quoted Dr. Floyd Nolen Jones. I recently rebutted another quotation from him concerning 1 John 5:7, wherein he gives Greek manuscript evidence supporting the KJV text. If anyone would care to check the accuracy of my rebuttal I would greatly appreciate it. I posted it in PDF format, so everyone should be able to view it: http://www.bibletra nslation. ws/trans/ FirstJohnCh5v7. pdf
David Robert Palmer