Codex, The Ancient Versions of Bible, Gospel

THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF BIBLE


Sometimes the Christians make statements to the effect

that the copies of the sacred books written in the period

prior to the emergence of Islam are still in existence and

that the present books are in accordance with them

This statement, in fact, consists of two separate claims:-

First that those versions were written before

the emergence of Islam

Second that the present books are identical

copies of them Cont..

THE ANCIENT VERSIONS OF BIBLE ..Cont..

Both claims are false and incorrect

because:-

The clear statement of Dr. Kennicott and others that

the Jews themselves destroyed all the copies of the

sacred books written in the seventh and eighth

centuries, and that no copy of the Hebrew version

written in these two centuries could be obtained

There were no copies to be found in any period

preceding the tenth century

The oldest copy that Dr Kennicott was able to get was

the Codex Laudianus which he claimed was written in

the tenth century while de Rossi situated it in the

eleventh century Cont..


Both claims are false and incorrect

because:- ..Cont

Van der Hooght published a copy of the Hebrew

version with a claim that it was the most correct

of all the Hebrew versions. One can analyse the

profusion of errors that this copy contained

THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE

There are three versions that are considered among the Christians to be the oldest:-

• The Codex Alexandrinus, is in London. It was this

copy that was used for the first revision or correction

of the present books

• The Codex Vaticanus is in Italy and was used for the

second revision • The Codex Ephraemi, is in Paris and bears the title

“The Old Testament”. It does not, however, contain the books of the Old Testament


We can easily ascertain the position of all three

versions through the witnesses provided by history:-

The Codex Alexandrinus:-

In volume 2 of his book, Horne said describing the

Codex Alexandrinus,

Cont..

THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS..Cont..

“This copy consists of four volumes. The first three volumes contain the canonic as well as the apocryphal books of the Old Testament. The fourth volume consists of the New Testament and the First Epistle of Clement to Corinthians and the unacknowledged Book of Psalms which is attributed to Solomon. Before the Book of Psalms it has an epistle of Athanasius.

Cont..

THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS..Cont..

This precedes with the prayers that are recited in

everyday rituals offered every hour. Then there are

fourteen psalms related to the faith. The eleventh of

these psalms is an eulogy to Mary. Some of these

psalms are false, while others are derived from the

Gospels. The arguments of Eusebius are written on

the book of Psalms while his legislative notes are

inscribed on the Gospels

Cont..

THE CODEX ALEXANDRINUS..Cont

Some scholars have exaggerated in its praise

while others disapproved of it in equally

exaggerated fashion. Wettstein is considered

to be its chief opponent”

THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE The Codex Alexandrinus:-The question of its antiquity has also been debated.

Grabe and Sholtz estimated that it was written towards the end of the fourth century while Michaelis claimed that it was the oldest copy available and no other copy could be older than it because it contained the Epistle of Athanasius

Woide, on the other hand, situates it in the tenth century. He also surmised that this was one of the copies that were collected in 615 in Alexandria for the Syrian translation

Dr Semler thinks that it was written in the seventh century

Cont..

THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE The Codex Alexandrinus:- ..Cont..

Montfaucon said that none of these copies, including the Codex Alexandrinus, can be said with certainty to have been written prior to the sixth century

Michaelis claimed that it was written after Arabic had become the language of Egypt. This places it one or two hundred years after the Muslim conquest of Alexandria. The basis of his claim is that the copier interchanged M and B with each other according to the Arabic rules of recitation

Woide concluded that since it is subdivided into chapters and various sections and bears the canonical notes of Eusebius it cannot be older than the fourth century

Cont..


The Codex Alexandrinus:- ..Cont

Spohn raised the following objections against the arguments forwarded by Woide:-

The epistles of Paul (included in this copy) have not been divided into two chapters and sections when this division was made in 396

It contains the epistles of Clement when the reading of these letters was prohibited by the councils of Laodicea and Carthage. Sholtz deduced from this that it was written prior to 364

THE CODEX VATICANUS

THE LATIN VERSIONS OF THE BIBLE The Codex VATICANUS :-

Horne said describing the Codex Vaticanus,

“The introduction to the Greek translation printed in

1590 includes the claim that this codex was written

sometime prior to 388. Montfaucon and Bianchini

placed it in the fifth or sixth century. Dupin put it in the

seventh century while Hug places it at the beginning

of the fourth century and Marsh situates it towards the

end of the fifth century. He has concluded that no

other two copies are so completely different from

each other as the Codex Alexandrinus and this codex Cont..


The Codex VATICANUS :-

..Cont

Dr. Kennicott also deduced that neither this codex nor

the Codex Alexandrinus has been copied from the

version of Origen nor from the copies of it prepared in

the period immediately after it. Both were copied from

a version that does not bear any sign of the Origen

version”

THE CODEX EPHRAEMI


The Codex Ephraemi :-

Home, describing the Codex Ephraemi, observed in the

same volume,

“Wettstein considers it to be one of the copies that

were collected in Alexandria for the revision of the Syrian

translation but there is nothing to support this opinion.

He inferred this opinion from the marginal note that

appeared against verse 7 of chapter 8 of the Epistle to

Hebrews, saying that this version was prepared before

544 but Michaelis refuted this argument, only saying that

it was an ancient version. Marsh has suggested that it

was written in the seventh century”

CONCLUSIONS

• Facts stated are more than enough to convince

us that no definite proof exists to specify the

year of the compilation of these revisions

• The scholars have only made calculations and

conjectures about the date of their origin on the

basis of some indefinite indications which they

have found in their books

CONCLUSIONS

• These vague calculations obviously cannot

authenticate any of the sacred books

• Most of the arguments cited above are of the

kind that do not stand up to reason

• Semler's statement with regard to the Muslim

domination over Egypt is unacceptable, as the

language of a country could not possibly take

over in such a short time

CONCLUSIONS

• Alexandria was conquered by the Muslims in the

seventh century, in the twentieth year of Hijra.

Michaelis, however, forwarded strong arguments

placing its writing in the tenth century

• Woide's opinion that it was written in the tenth

century seems quite logical because it was in

this century that the practice of distorting the

sacred texts became commonplace

CONCLUSIONS

• Another indication of this is the fact that this

copy contains three books that are not genuine,

indicating that it must belong to a period in which

it was difficult to distinguish between true and

false which definitely applied to the tenth century

CONCLUSIONS

• This proves the falsity of the claim that

these books were written before the

emergence of Islam

CONCLUSIONS

• The other claim is also disproved by the fact that the Codex Alexandrinus contains books that are not genuine and that it has been condemned by some scholars, Wettstein being foremost among them, and that no other two copies are so completely different from each other as are the Codex Vaticanus and the Codex Alexandrinus

CONCLUSIONS

Now if, for a moment, we grant that the above three

versions were written prior to the appearance of

Islam, it does not make any difference to our

contention, because we have never said that the

sacred books were not distorted in the period

preceding Islam and that all the distortions were

only made after it. What we contend is that these

books existed prior the period of Islam but they did

not possess an unbroken chain of authority to

prove their authenticity

CONCLUSIONS• They were certainly distorted even before the time

of Islam.

• The presence of a number of books in the pre-Islamic period does not, therefore, help prove their authenticity.

• The presence of the above three versions in that period, if ever proved, would only add to the number of the books distorted by earlier generations

Codex, The Ancient Versions of Bible, Gospel

Documents