Da Vinci Code and Codex Bezae: Rennes-le-Chateau, Parchment, Sauniere, Plantard, de Cherisey

(Translated by https://www.hiragana.jp/)
Da Vinci Code and Codex Bezae: Rennes-le-Chateau, Parchment, Sauniere, Plantard, de Cherisey

The Wayback Machine - https://web.archive.org/web/20090107060716/http://www-user.uni-bremen.de:80/~wie/Rennes/

Codex Bezae and the Da Vinci Code A textcritical look at the Rennes-le-Chateau hoax Author: Wieland Willker Comments welcome! Last update: 27. June 2005

First, if this has to be said at all, I don't believe in the Da Vinci code and consider the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery a hoax. Nevertheless the Rennes-le-Chateau mystery makes quite a good story. And there are certain facts in this story that can be objectively studied. As a (hobby) textualcritic I am especially intrigued by the allegedly found parchments.
It was only recently that I took a more detailed look at those parchments. I was irritated by the Da Vinci code hype and wanted to know what this is all about. So I came across those parchments. And I found out (17th Dec. 2004) that the text of the first parchment (the "little one") is from Codex Bezae! This has not been realized as yet.

For those, not familiar with Rennes-le-Chateau hoax, have a look here: Short intro + links

Update: Source found!

1. The parchment:
full size

(I continue to speak of "parchment", because it is the established term, even though there is no proof that a real parchment exists at all. Perhaps it is only paper.) We are dealing here with only one parchment, parchment 1 or the "little one". This parchment shows the text of Luke 6:1-4 in Latin.
It is obvious that this is not the text of the Vulgate. There are many major differences. The conspirators have invented all kinds of theories to explain those differences. The answer is much easier: The text is that of the Old Latin Codex Bezae. The so called Old Latin text of the New Testament is in many respects quite different from the (newer) text of the Vulgate. Before the Vulgate (translated by Jerome in the late 4th CE) various other Latin translations existed that are now commonly called "Old Latin".
The verses on the parchment have been separated by Greek crosses + (something that has also not been realized by the conspirators and led to several geometrical theories).

Have a look at the actual parchment (left) and a transcription (right):
(Disclaimer: I use images found on the web. I have been told that these are only reproductions and that no photos of the original exist.)

Original parchment 1

Transcription parchment 1:
ET FACTUM EST EUM IN SABBATO SECUNDO PRIMO ABIRE PER SCCETES DISGIPULI AUTEM ILLIRIS COEPERUNT VELLERE SPICAS ET FRICANTES MANIBUS + MANDUCABANT QUIDAM AUTEM DE FARISAEIS DTCEBANT EI ECCE QUIA FACIUNT DISCIPULI TUI SABBATIS + QUOD NON LICET RESPONDENS AUTEM INS SEIXIT AD EOS NUMQUAM HOC LECISTIS QUOD FECIT DAUID QUANDO ESURUT IPSE ET QUI CUM EO ERAI + INTRO IBIT IN DOMUM (DUMUM?)
DEI ET PANES PROPOSITIONIS ------------- REDIS
MANDUCAVIT ET DEDIT ET QUI ------------- BLES
CUM ERANT UXUO QUIBUS NO
N LICEBAT MANDUCARE SI NON ---- SOLIS SACERDOTIBUS.

Btw. the "code" in this message is ridiculously simple: Combine those letters that are above the line and you will get the French sentence:
A DAGOBERT II ROI ET A SION EST CE TRESOR ET IL EST LA MORT.

2. Codex Bezae:
Now here is the original Codex Bezae:

Transcription Codex Bezae:
ET FACTUM EST EUM IN SABBATO SECUNDOPRIMO ABIRE PER SEGETES DISCIPULI AUTEM ILLIUS COEPERUNT VELLERE SPICAS ET FRICANTES MANIBUS 2 MANDUCABANT QUIDAM AUTEM DE FARISAEIS DICEBANT EI ECCE QUID FACIUNT DISCIPULI TUI SABBATIS 3 QUOD NON LICET RESPONDENS AUTEM IHS DIXIT AD EOS NUMQUAM HOC LEGISTIS QUOD FECIT DAUID QUANDO ESURIIT IPSE ET QUI CUM EO ERAT 4 INTRO IBIT IN DOMUM DEI ET PANES PROPOSITIONIS MANDUCAVIT ET DEDIT ET QUI CUM ERANT QUIBUS NON LICEBAT MANDUCARE SI NON SOLIS SACERDOTIBUS.

Here is the text of the Vulgate for reference: The differences to Codex Bezae are labeled in red.
1 FACTUM EST AUTEM IN SABBATO SECUNDOPRIMO CUM TRANSIRET PER SATA VELLEBANT DISCIPULI EIUS SPICAS ET MANDUCABANT CONFRICANTES MANIBUS 2 QUIDAM AUTEM PHARISAEORUM DICEBANT ILLIS QUID FACITIS QUOD NON LICET IN SABBATIS 3 ET RESPONDENS IESUS AD EOS DIXIT NEC HOC LEGISTIS QUOD FECIT DAVID CUM ESURISSET IPSE ET QUI CUM EO ERANT 4 QUOMODO INTRAVIT IN DOMUM DEI ET PANES PROPOSITIONIS SUMPSIT ET MANDUCAVIT ET DEDIT HIS QUI CUM IPSO ERANT QUOS NON LICET MANDUCARE NISI TANTUM SACERDOTIBUS.

All words of Codex Bezae are identical to that of parchment 1.
(It might be in order to note here for the uninitiated that Codex Bezae has a very special, a unique text. It is therefore certain that the text of parchment 1 must come from Codex Bezae.)

Since many people ask me:
The text of "parchment 2" is simply Latin Vulgate text, no peculiarities. It could be taken from any Vulgate edition.

3. The differences between parchment 1 and Bezae:

Only a few differences can be noted. They are as follows:

a) Minor differences:
The writer of the parchment seems to confuse similar looking letters:
C for E, G for C, T for I and vice versa, A for d and U for II.
Compare the examples on the left.

There are several possibilities:

The writer did all this deliberate.
The writer copied the text from a source that was difficult to read.
The writer was not fully familiar with Latin.

ILLIUS/ILLIRIS: The last case can also in principle be explained as a transcription error, because it involves one letter only: U becomes RI. Nevertheless it is more striking. (see also below)

b) Major differences:

1. INS: This first instance could also probably be explained as a transcription error. IHS is a Nomen Sacrum (an abbreviation of a holy name), taken over from Greek, where Jesus is written as IHSOUS, abbreviated = IHS.

2. SETXTT: The second SETXTT for DIXIT is very curious. The two T's are confusions with I, but SE for D? (Note that the E of SE is needed for the coded message.)

The last two things are the two really major differences:
3. REDIS BLES: The words are written separated from the main text, bottom right. The word REDIS is supposed to be derived from the old name of Rennes, which was once called "Rhedis", "Rhedae" or something like that. BLES means "corn" and is interpreted as idiom for "money", treasure". In Latin REDIS means "return".

4. UXUO: The last word is the more mysterious. It is inserted between ERANT and QUIBUS in the second last line. It has no meaning in Latin. There is a dot above and below the second U. The last O looks a bit like a Greek Theta Q. There is one other such "Theta" in line two, the O in SECUNDO:

A suggestion by conspirators is to turn the word by 180 degrees and read it in Greek: Theche

It then becomes QHCH which is Greek for "receptacle, for putting something in for safekeeping" like "sheath for a sword". It also can mean "grave". This has something to it, because a) the U's look different and b) there are those two dots which might indicate to turn the word.
Another suggestion is that UXUO is an (erroneously written and inserted) correction of the grammatically incorrect Bezae text. The text misses the IPSO of the normal text (see above). Someone suggested IUXTA.

These last two things (Redis bles and UXUO) have nothing to do with the Biblical text and have simply been added for mystification.

4. Has the parchment been copied from Codex Bezae (facsimile or original) or from a transcription?
What is interesting is that the G's in Bezae look like C's. Compare:

Note how Bezae write ILLIUS:

The parchment has it as ILLIRIS.

Here is the Nomen Sacrum IHS in Bezae:

It looks a bit like Ins, as the parchment has it (INS).

Finally have a look at ERAT in Bezae:

The horizontal bar of the T is quite faded. It can be taken for an I. This is what the parchment has (ERAI).

All this is not conclusive, but interesting. It makes it probable that the text has been copied from a facsimile (or the original).

The verse divisions:
The three crosses are significant (they are indicating the verse divisions, verse 2, 3 and 4) which are not in the original (of course) but also not in Scrivener's transcription. The following is of special importance:
The crosses for verse 2 and 3 are slightly out of order. The correct beginning of verse 2 would be from QUIDAM on and not from MANDUCABANT. Also the correct beginning of verse 3 would be at RESOPONDENS and not at QUOD NON LICET.

5. Why Codex Bezae? - Suggestions:

Codex Bezae is an "enigma" to textual critics of the Bible. It's text is quite different from other copies. It would be a natural choice for a conspirator.
Codex Bezae has some French history. It was in Lyon in the 16th CE, where Theodore Beza found it in a monastery. Beza took it to Cambridge, where it rests since 1581. From before the 16th CE nothing is known for sure about its history. Scrivener published the complete text in 1864, a facsimile appeared in 1899.

6. Other curiosities:

A. DOMUM:
The word DOMUM is written in a slightly different style, similar to that of UXUO. It has therefore been suggested that it has to be reversed, too, and has to be read in Greek.

Turned 180 degrees:

It is not clear what to make of this. It looks something like wDwR. wlenh has been suggested, but I can't see that. It is probably just an accidental variation.

B. SION:
Sion

The first 10 lines are written rather with normal length. Lines 11-14 are stopped short in the middle of the parchment. If one reads the final letters vertically one gets: SION. This is a clue to the order "Priory de Sion", a mysterious organization.
Another reference is the "Priory de Sion" signature P S : Priory de Sion Signature

C. Dots: Some letters are labeled by a dot or accent:

The meaning of those dots (and one "accent" above the A of QUANDO) is unknown. The dot to the right of the T could origin from some kind of correction.

D. The decoded message: In contrast to the very complex coding of the message of the large parchment, the code of the message of the small parchment is very simple. I think it is therefore possible that there is some other code hidden here, perhaps associated with the dots?

7. Conclusion:
From what I have read, I consider this a hoax. It has been said that Plantard and de Cherisey have, under oath, admitted that it was their forgery. Even so, the text has some interesting features, one of them is the use of Codex Bezae.

UPDATE:
I have contacted Jean Luc Chaumeil and he told me (21. April 2005) that the text has been taken from:

"Dictionnaire de la Bible"
Tome 1: A-B
Editor: F. Vigouroux, Paris, 1895

I have looked this up and found exactly the page of Codex Bezae Luke 6:1-9 reproduced as a facsimile between columns 1768 and 1769, as fig. 540, where the entry for "Bezae (Codex)" begins.

What to make of this?
The image in the book is a facsimile. Therefore it looks like the image above. There are no crosses to label the verses and also no added words. We must conclude that these are the invention of de Cherisey, as is the exact arrangement of the words on the lines. What the facsimile explains is why de Cherisey confused several letters: Some letters look very similar.

I haven't checked these massive tomes for the text of "parchment 2". Since its text is normal Vulgate, it is rather improbable, though not impossible, to find it there, too. But it is also not really important because it would prove nothing.

Interestingly there is a connection between Vigouroux and Sauniere. Vigouroux worked as a professor in the seminary of St. Sulpice. St. Sulpice is (allegedly) in several ways connected with the Priory of Sion and it's part of the myth that Sauniere went to St. Sulpice to have his "parchments" analyzed. And take THAT: It is said that Saint Sulpice's feast day, January 17th, is the date of Sauniere's sudden stroke.

Perhaps before long everything will be clarified by Chaumeil. His professional(?) discretion ends this year (2005) and he announced to publish what he knows about the hoax in a book by the end of the year.

Update 2006:
An interview with Chaumeil . From what I understand there's nothing really new. Hmm ...

Mysterium quod absconditum fuit ...

Back

Jun	JAN	Mar
	07
2007	2009	2010