First off, let me mention that you can see Codex Regius here:
http://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/btv1b5 ... 62.langFR
Let me attempt an answer to a few things you said. I am not expert on this, but there are people here who are, and they will correct me where I am wrong.
R. Perkins wrote: ↑December 30th, 2017, 2:23 am
I came across Codex Regius recently & have been reading about it. Not sure why I don't read much about this codex since it's relatively early & it's my understanding that it's approx. 5th in line of the great uncial MSS (i.e., Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, Ephraemi, Regius).
As I understand it, the
great uncial codices contain the entire Greek Bible, both Septuagint and New Testament:
The great uncial codices or four great uncials are the only remaining uncial codices that contain (or originally contained) the entire text of the Greek Bible (Old and New Testament).
Only four great codices have survived to the present day: Codex Vaticanus, Codex Sinaiticus, Codex Alexandrinus, and Codex Ephraemi Rescriptus.
Codex Regius contains only the Gospels (with some gaps), so it doesn't meet that definition.
R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 1st, 2018, 5:49 am
Yes, ca. 8th cent., but, it is a majuscule obviously copied from a parent document. I just saw where someone had posted that it was considered 4th or 5th in the line of early NT documents (following Ephraemi Rescriptus), but I rarely ever see this MS referenced in publications (seems like I mostly just read of Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus & [less often] Ephraemi Rescriptus).
I don't know who is meant when you say "it was considered". Presumably, anyone who produces a critical edition quotes the manuscripts that it considers most significant and most reliable, and you can see that in the apparatus. If a manuscript is rarely referred to, that may indicate that it is considered less important or less interesting. If it is important or reliable, you would expect to see it in the apparatus. If it is only 4th or 5th in line for the Gospels, you might well hear less about it than you hear about the top 4 or so. And outside of the Gospels, you would not expect to hear of this Codex at all.
R. Perkins wrote: ↑January 1st, 2018, 5:49 amThere is quite a different reading on John 1.1c in this MS - as well as Codex Washingtonianus (
http://www.csntm.org/Manuscript/View/GA_032) - that actually reads καὶ
ὁ θεὸς ἦν ὁ λόγος. Of course, this would make the preverbal PN articular - which would seem to have huge ramifications IMO
![Question :?:](./images/smilies/icon_question.gif)
.
Just find it interesting that we rarely read about this meaningful variant & yet it appears in two unrelated majuscules (& NA28/UBS-5 do not even list it as a variant). Washingtonianus is actually quite earlier that Regius (4th-5th century) & reads the same way at J. 1.1c. From my (quite limited) perspective it would seem that text-critics would say more about these variants (?).
I am away from my library. What text critics have you read on John 1:1? What do they say about which sources they rely on and why? On B-Greek, we won't debate which reading is correct, of course, but text critics usually document this kind of thing.
FWIW,
Alan's site clearly shows the variant in Washingtonianus:
![Screen Shot 2018-01-01 at 4.37.24 PM.png](./download/file.php?id=457&sid=9e5240e0667243df790a51ef944d208c)
- Screen Shot 2018-01-01 at 4.37.24 PM.png (257.73 KiB) Viewed 8026 times
ἐξίσταντο δὲ πάντες καὶ διηποροῦντο, ἄλλος πρὸς ἄλλον λέγοντες, τί θέλει τοῦτο εἶναι;
http://jonathanrobie.biblicalhumanities.org/