Codex Vaticanus

  • Thread starter Thread starter EdBeckley
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
E

EdBeckley

Guest
In which Bible can I get an accurate English translation of John 1:1 stemming from the Codex Vaticanus. And which Catholic Bible editions stem from that codex?
 
Hi Ed,

Most major contemporary translations, such as the RSV or NIV (if you prefer the Protestant bent on scriptural interpretations), will rely in part on Codex Vaticanus.

Alternatively - and this is my suggestion, if you want a pure translation of the codex - visit an online site that has the entire text, such as csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_03, and translate it for yourself. There are lots of useful online sites as well that can help you with basic translation issues of the Greek.

Hope that helps,

Jonathan
 
Thank you so much for the ideas, which are excellent. I will follow up, and be sure to get a Catholic version of the RSV.
 
EdBeckley said:
In which Bible can I get an accurate English translation of John 1:1 stemming from the Codex Vaticanus. And which Catholic Bible editions stem from that codex?
Click to expand...
Thing is, there is no translation which uses only Vaticanus or Sinaiticus or any other manuscript. Most translations of the New Testament today use what is called a ‘critical text’. What happens is that scholars compare the different surviving manuscripts of the NT in order to determine which reading is most likely to be closest to the original. They use a number of factors to help determine probable readings (for example, the date of the manuscripts, the likelihood of accidental or intentional corruptions, etc.).
 
Hi Ed,

Looking at my Nestle New Testament (critical edition), there is no variant in John 1 until verse 3.

Verbum
 
I thank you all immensely. I actually took Patrick’s advice and worked through the translation from Koine Greek sources on line, but could not find a translation for the word TON. I also was confused as to why the words for God (theta sigma and theta nu) were different, and actually the Koine dictionary I used had many more Greek letters after theta as the name for God, so that confused me, and I would like to reconcile that. So you are very kind, Patrick, to make copies of all these documents, and to translate for me, and confirm my finding. In fact, I was about to do the same for Codex Sinaiticus next, so you saved me all that. There are many avenues online to explore Koine. If you know of an online source that is a good way to further my education in that language, I would value your knowledge about it.
 
EdBeckley said:
I thank you all immensely. I actually took Patrick’s advice and worked through the translation from Koine Greek sources on line, but could not find a translation for the word TON.
Click to expand...
I actually only know only a little Greek (mostly limited to reading it and a few words - don’t ask me about the specifics of grammar :D), but to answer your question (I’d appreciate the (name removed by moderator)ut of someone more knowledgeable in the language here):

Ton (τόν) is simply the accusative singular masculine definite article. The nominative form is ho (ὁ).

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

The definite article in Greek functions differently than the word “the” in English does. Proper names usually take a definite article, as do abstract nouns: so for example, pros ton Theon (πρὸς τὸν θεόν) would literally be “with the God,” and edakrysen ho Iēsous (ἐδάκρυσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς) would be “wept the Jesus.” In English, we would render this as “with God” and “Jesus wept,” with no definite article.

The definite article also agrees with its associated noun in number, gender and case. Going back to the two examples, both tos and theon are accusative masculine singular, while ho and Iēsous are both nominative singular masculine.
I also was confused as to why the words for God (theta sigma and theta nu) were different, and actually the Koine dictionary I used had many more Greek letters after theta as the name for God, so that confused me, and I would like to reconcile that.
Click to expand...
Christian scribes had this practice of abbreviating certain frequently occurring ‘sacred’ words like ‘God’, ‘Lord’, or ‘Jesus (Christ)’. This practice is known as nomina sacra. Back when people still wrote books by hand and when writing materials cost some money, abbreviating words served the practical purpose of conseing both space and energy. Now we don’t exactly know why the practice of nomina sacra started: there could be the practical element involved, or perhaps Christians (also) wanted to visibly denote that these names and titles are in some way special.

Nomina sacra is still practiced today in some form in Eastern iconography, BTW. Have you ever seen an icon of Jesus? You’ll often see the words IC XC (Ἰ(ησοῦ)ς Χ(ριστό)ς = Jesus Christ) on the left and right of the icon.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)
 
You are very helpful. What still remains for me to find out, and I think there may be an Episcopal minister local to me who reads liturgical Greek, is why the two abbreviations for God would be different. I would hope the author is not trying to differentiate between the Father and the Son or Spirit through this spelling nuance. I want to be certain about the meaning. Another reason I am interested in getting to the bottom of the interpretation of this piece is I have befriended a Jehovah’s Witness over the past couple of years, and we have discussed the Bible at a high level and friendly level. I have discussed with him my concern about his religious founders’ changing the language of the Bible, and in a nice way he has challenged me to research it. I am all about truth and research, and very concerned about this man’s soul. I would like to give him the definitive answer on this one section of the Bible in hopes that he will finally realize that he has been led down a seriously dangerous spiritual path.
 
EdBeckley said:
You are very helpful. What still remains for me to find out, and I think there may be an Episcopal minister local to me who reads liturgical Greek, is why the two abbreviations for God would be different. I would hope the author is not trying to differentiate between the Father and the Son or Spirit through this spelling nuance. I want to be certain about the meaning.
Click to expand...
As you probably inferred from the stuff about the definite article, Greek is actually an inflected language, meaning that each word actually changes form (inflection) based upon the role that it plays in the sentence. Inflection is the modification of a word to express different grammatical categories like tense, grammatical mood, person, gender or case. (The inflection of verbs is called conjugation, while declension is the inflection of nouns, adjectives and pronouns.)

Simply put, ΘϹ is the abbreviation of the nominative θεός (theos). ΘΝ, meanwhile, is the abbreviation of the accusative θεόν (theon). It’s the same word, just declined differently. (The genitive θεοῦ (theou), meanwhile, would be abbreviated as ΘΥ, while the dative θεῷ (theō) would be abbreviated as Θω, and the vocative θεέ (thee) as ΘΕ.) Nomina sacra were formed by taking the first one or two letters of the words, plus the final letter(s) to determine the inflection.
 
Outstanding. By helping me and hopefully my Jehovah friend, you help the least of your brothers, and thereby help Him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top