Manuscript study · Vat. gr. 1209
Does older mean better? At the end of Mark, this copy stops before words that Christians were already reading as Scripture. See the page and weigh the witnesses for yourself.
Open the manuscript
The King James Bible continues through Mark 16:20. Vaticanus stops at verse 8. Its third column is blank, and Luke starts on the next page.
Vaticanus · page 1303
King James Bible · Mark 16
“He was received up into heaven, and sat on the right hand of God.”Mark 16:19, KJV
Irenaeus explicitly quotes this verse as part of Mark’s conclusion in the late second century, before Vaticanus was copied.
Read Irenaeus, Against Heresies 3.10.5 ↗It also ends at verse 8, but Luke starts in the next column, with no full blank column between them. The transition is on a replacement sheet. We cannot read the discarded sheet.
This early Greek copy includes the longer ending and has empty space after Mark. A blank by itself does not tell us which ending a scribe knew.
Mark 16:6 still announces the resurrection in Vaticanus. The missing verses contain the appearances, the commission and the ascension. See Patrick Andrist’s facsimile comparisons ↗
Manuscript authentication
Its ink has been tested. The original copy has no published laboratory date that we found. The Vatican catalogue assigns the manuscript to the fourth century based on manuscript study. We found no published radiocarbon result for the original parchment or independent chemical date for the original writing.
Gordon and colleagues used infrared microscopy and micro-X-ray fluorescence. The pairs of margin dots they tested used ink they identified as typical of the 1500s or later, different from the original writing and from the ink used to retrace it. This dates the tested marks broadly, not the book underneath.
In 2026 Philip Payne accepted that some dots are late but challenged whether the tested sample settles the age of the others.
Read the 2024 lab report ↗Read the 2026 critique abstract ↗Check the catalogue date ↗Chicago commissioned testing of 24 parchment, ink and paint samples. Investigators found modern materials, including Prussian blue, and no signs that the pigment was just a later touch-up. Radiocarbon dated the reused skin to 1485–1631. The wording independently matched errors from Buttmann’s printed Greek text. The materials put manufacture after 1874: old skin did not make the writing old.
University of Chicago investigation ↗Extend the mapping of original ink, retracing and decoration. Test whether the coloured initials belong to the same stage as the original writing, rather than assuming that their fit on the page settles it. If conservation permits, radiocarbon dating of original parchment could estimate the age of the skin; it would not directly date the writing. Publish what was tested and the results.
Read the Archaic Mark case ↗One page · several periods of work
The Vatican Library says the faded letters were retraced, letter by letter, probably twice. It places the first retracing in the Middle Ages and a second probably in the sixteenth century. The visible surface shows work from both periods; the underlying copy is dated separately. Why take the Vatican’s word for its age? The Vatican Library holds the manuscript, and an early date adds to its prestige. The date should stand on evidence that others can examine: the handwriting, the manuscript images, and published ink tests. Those tests distinguish some later marks from the original writing, but they do not date the original copy.
Scholars assign the underlying Greek majuscule to the 300s by studying handwriting and manuscript features. This is an estimate, not a lab result.
The Vatican Library suggests a first retracing in the Middle Ages.
A second retracing added much of the darker surface now visible in digital images.
Why the layers matter
It is a working manuscript with missing leaves, correction marks, replaced sheets, retraced letters, decorated initials, and notes from later readers.
Researchers distinguish two main copyists, usually called A and B, and an early correcting hand.
Changes were made at different times. A correction can be ancient or medieval; it is not automatically the work of the original copyist.
Beside Hebrews 1:3, a later note rebukes someone for changing the old reading. It is striking evidence of dispute on the page.
John William Burgon counted 7,578 omissions, additions, substitutions, transpositions, and other differences from the received text in the four Gospels. That is his nineteenth-century textual comparison—not a count of physical corrections in the codex.
Follow the record
The Vatican inventory tells us when the book was in the collection. The hands that wrote on its pages tell us more.
“Oldest” is not a verdict
Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are often named together. That can make them sound like one clear witness. They are not. A full Gospel collation published by Herman Hoskier records more than 3,000 Gospel differences between them.
Many are spelling or small copying differences, and the exact total depends on what is counted. The point remains: age does not make two disagreeing manuscripts say the same thing. Read the research on its earlier Constantinople history ↗
Open Hoskier’s full collationWhat modern readers are actually given
The Nestle-Aland text used by many modern translations is not a copy of Vaticanus. Editors compare thousands of witnesses, place the reading they judge original in the main text, and list important alternatives below. Even the publisher describes these as text-critical decisions.
Old does not mean complete
The surviving codex is important, but it cannot speak where its leaves are missing.
Most of Genesis, part of Psalms, and other leaves are missing from the surviving volume.
The Pastoral Epistles, Philemon, Revelation, and the text after Hebrews 9:14 do not survive in the original Vaticanus volume.
Later hands supplied some missing material. Those replacement pages must not be mistaken for the original copy.
King James Bible Research Council · 4 minutes 51 seconds
These timestamped notes paraphrase the video’s captions. Each point links to the evidence so you can check the claim for yourself.
Watch the film and select “Show transcript”What the film arguesThe film dates the first Vatican listing to 1475 and says Erasmus rejected the readings he requested in 1521.
What the record showsThe Vatican catalogue is a late-fifteenth-century record. Acerbi and Bianconi identify readers’ marks that place the book in Constantinople earlier that century. An-Ting Yi documents Erasmus using some Vaticanus readings as well as questioning the codex later.
Read Yi on Erasmus and Vaticanus ↗What the film arguesThe film lists gaps in Genesis, Psalms, Matthew, Hebrews, the Pastoral Epistles and Revelation, then highlights Mark’s last twelve verses.
What the record showsThe catalogue and surviving pages distinguish lost or replaced leaves from words absent on an intact page. The film names no verse for its Matthew claim. Mark 16:9–20 is absent on a surviving page, so it is a separate case.
Check the catalogue and surviving contents ↗What the film arguesThe film links the shorter ending to a theory about Mark and asks why modern editions put so much weight on Vaticanus and Sinaiticus.
What the record showsMark 16:6 announces the resurrection even here. What is absent is Mark’s account of the appearances, commission and ascension in verses 9–20. These are two important Greek witnesses to an ending at verse 8, but the case also involves other kinds of evidence.
Read the research on the ending of Mark ↗What the film arguesIn the credited McKendrick clip, the later-looking surface is explained by retracing, headings and decoration. The film then argues that such work makes the original handwriting virtually useless for dating.
What the record showsLater ink does obscure much of the earlier hand, but some earlier strokes escaped retracing. A 2024 lab study distinguished selected later marks from original ink. It did not assign a calendar date to the original copy.
Read the 2024 ink study ↗What the film arguesA speaker points to a note in Hebrews rebuking a copyist for changing an older reading.
What the record showsLook at Hebrews 1:3 on page 1512. The note makes the problem concrete: later readers could dispute a change on the same page. It gives a reason to identify the hand behind a reading before citing it as the original copy.
Open the real Hebrews page ↗What the film arguesA speaker argues that large coloured initials are integral to the layout, so the underlying text must also be medieval.
What the record showsA later decorator can work within an older layout. The argument needs evidence that the decoration and first writing are from the same production stage. Appearance and position alone do not establish that.
Read the Vatican Library’s handwriting analysis ↗What the film arguesThe film rejects the authority assigned to Vaticanus and raises physical counterfeiting.
What the record showsAge cannot settle which reading is right. Physical forgery is a stronger claim. An Archaic Mark–style case would require evidence from the underlying materials or wording that cannot be explained by later work.
Compare what the lab evidence can show ↗He asks whether decorated initials date the book and argues that both manuscripts show the same kind of gap. The layouts differ, and a later artist could work inside an existing layout.
Decorated initials · 34:25 ↗The two endings · 36:46 ↗The short describes an older manuscript whose visible text was overwritten and decorated. That distinction matters: later work cannot date the first writing by itself.
Watch the short · 0:08 ↗A clear finding
The visible manuscript is layered and heavily worked. Its original writing was retraced, leaves are missing, corrections came from several periods, and researchers identify evidence of earlier use in Constantinople before it entered the Vatican collection.
Because the physical book looks later and its readings often oppose the received text, the speakers argue that Vaticanus is not the reliable ancient witness modern critics claim.
Later retracing does not by itself prove that the underlying parchment text was created in the Middle Ages. The assigned fourth-century date is a judgment from manuscript study. We found no published laboratory date for the underlying copy in the sources consulted.
Our position: do not set aside the King James Bible’s reading simply because Vaticanus differs. Check which hand wrote the reading, distinguish a lost leaf from a disputed reading, and compare independent evidence. In Mark 16, Irenaeus already knew part of the ending that Vaticanus lacks.