The Ancients Codex Gigas (the Devil's bible)

Oct 15, 2007
33,996
31,537
PCO
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
This epic creation has interested me for a long time. Supposedly created by one monk over many, many years, it weighs about 75kgs and is the largest known medieval book.

For those who don't know about it, here's excerpts from wiki about it:

The Codex Gigas (English: Giant Book) is the largest extant medieval manuscript in the world.[1] It is also known as the Devil's Bible because of a large illustration of the devil on the inside and the legend surrounding its creation. It is thought to have been created in the early 13th century in the Benedictine monastery of Podlažice in Bohemia (modern Czech Republic). It contains the Vulgate Bible as well as many historical documents all written in Latin. During the Thirty Years' War in 1648, the entire collection was stolen by the Swedish army as plunder, and now it is preserved at the National Library of Sweden in Stockholm, on display for the general public.

The codex is believed to have been created by Herman the Recluse in the Benedictine monastery of Podlažice near Chrudim in the Czech Republic. The monastery was destroyed during the 15th century during the Hussite Revolution. Records in the codex end in the year 1229.

About half of the codex consists of the entire Latin Bible in the Vulgate version, except for the books of Acts and Revelation, which are from a pre-Vulgate version. They are in the order: Genesis-Ruth; Isaiah-Daniel; Hosea-Malachi; Job; Samuel and Kings; Psalms-Song of Solomon; Wisdom of Solomon; Wisdom of Jesus; Esdras; Tobit; Judith; Esther; and Maccabees. Between the Testaments are Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews and De bello iudaico, as well as Isidore of Seville's encyclopedia Etymologiae and medical works of Hippocrates, Theophilus, Philaretus, and Constantinus. Following a blank page, the New Testament commences with Matthew-Acts, James-Revelation, and Romans-Hebrews. Following the picture of the devil, Cosmas of Prague's Chronicle of Bohemia, a list of brothers in the Podlažice monastery, and a calendar with necrologium, magic formulae and other local records round out the codex. The entire document is written in Latin, in addition, it contains Hebrew, Greek, and Slavic alphabets (Cyrillic and Glagolitic).


Illustration of the devil, Folio 290 recto. Legend has it the codex was created by a monk who sold his soul to the devil.
The manuscript includes illuminations in red, blue, yellow, green and gold. Capital letters are elaborately illuminated, frequently across the entire page. The codex has a unified look as the nature of the writing is unchanged throughout, showing no signs of age, disease or mood on the part of the scribe. This may have led to the belief that the whole book was written in a very short time (see Legend), but scientists are starting to believe and research the theory that it took over 20 years to complete.

Folio 290 recto, otherwise empty, includes a unique picture of the devil, about 50 cm tall. Several pages before this are written on a blackening parchment and have a very gloomy character, somewhat different from the rest of the codex. The reason for the variation in coloring is that the pages of the codex are of vellum. Vellum, or scraped and dried animal hide, "tans" when exposed to ultraviolet light. Over centuries, the pages that were most frequently turned to will have a developed this tell-tale darker color. Directly opposite the devil is a full picture of the kingdom of heaven, juxtaposing the "good versus evil", in contrast with the picture of the devil.

According to one version of a legend that was already recorded in the Middle Ages, the scribe was a monk who broke his monastic vows and was sentenced to be walled up alive. In order to forbear this harsh penalty he promised to create in one single night a book to glorify the monastery forever, including all human knowledge. Near midnight he became sure that he could not complete this task alone, so he made a special prayer, not addressed to God but to the fallen angel Lucifer, asking him to help him finish the book in exchange for his soul. The devil completed the manuscript and the monk added the devil's picture out of gratitude for his aid.[1][16][17] In tests to recreate the work, it is estimated that reproducing only the calligraphy, without the illustrations or embellishments, would have taken 5 years of non-stop writing.

-----------------------------------

For me, that last line is a big part of the fascination here. This is an immensely detailed work, and the amount of time that this one monk has dedicated to it is phenomenal. Kind of puts the emo angsts of young adults currently to shame when you think about how much effort this man gave here. Here's some pictures of some of the calligraphy:

Gigas.jpg


tumblr_nhm9m3AU9B1sdtzylo1_500.jpg


2ce0c858b7c37cbbcc80241df359d60b.jpg


But of course it's the picture of the devil that fascinates people the most, and has led to the suggestions that this monk sold his soul to the devil to complete the work, or was in league with him, etc:

gigas.jpg
 

Bennett.

Your training, Matrix
10k Posts Essendon Player Sponsor 2018 Essendon Player Sponsor 2017 Essendon Player Sponsor 2016 Essendon Player Sponsor 2014 Essendon Player Sponsor 2015
Aug 16, 2009
22,111
17,902
Perth
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Maple Leafs, Blue Jays
Probably just a caricature of some other monk that he didn't like
 
Never seen this before, Duritz, will look into it. I've always been fascinated with the Voynich Manuscript (bit like reading the Herald Sun, really... weird, unintelligible content...). This obviously has a different thing at play, none the less, fascinating.
 
Oct 15, 2007
33,996
31,537
PCO
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Never seen this before, Duritz, will look into it. I've always been fascinated with the Voynich Manuscript (bit like reading the Herald Sun, really... weird, unintelligible content...). This obviously has a different thing at play, none the less, fascinating.

Yeah the diff between that codex and this is that this is clearly legit. Now while I personally believe the voynich manuscript is likely the language of a lost tribe, it can't be proven. The codex gigas is from the time it purports, and the words are not in dispute, but the question of how, and why, is.
 
Feb 12, 2009
10,059
1,872
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
Illustration of the devil, Folio 290 recto. Legend has it the codex was created by a monk who sold his soul to the devil.

But of course it's the picture of the devil that fascinates people the most, and has led to the suggestions that this monk sold his soul to the devil to complete the work, or was in league with him, etc:

gigas.jpg

Thanks for starting an interesting thread. He's a view from a denomination of Christianity wrt Satan's appearance.

What does Satan look like?


"No, Satan does not look like the cartoon character in the red suit with a tail and horns and a pitchfork. Angels, including Satan, don't have male or female characteristics in their heavenly state (which Jesus told us through His teaching). However, when they come to earth, they can take on human form. In the Bible, all angels who take on human form appear as males. All biblical references address Satan by the personal pronoun "he."

However, in their heavenly state according to the Bible, a cherub is a large creature—up to 18 feet in height with 8 foot long wings. In the prophet Ezekiel's vision, the cherubim (plural of "cherub") had four wings. Under their wings were human-like hands that could could be used to carry things. All the surfaces of the cherubim, including the wings, were covered with eyes. Each cherub had four faces, one "of a cherub, the second the face of a man, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle." The New Testament book of Revelation describes similar creatures, only with six wings each, with faces of a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle. So, these creatures look nothing like the cute little cherubim you can buy for your garden or bookshelf. Satan himself is described as being "perfect in beauty," being adorned with all kinds of precious stones."
 
Oct 15, 2007
33,996
31,537
PCO
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Thanks for starting an interesting thread. He's a view from a denomination of Christianity wrt Satan's appearance.

What does Satan look like?


"No, Satan does not look like the cartoon character in the red suit with a tail and horns and a pitchfork. Angels, including Satan, don't have male or female characteristics in their heavenly state (which Jesus told us through His teaching). However, when they come to earth, they can take on human form. In the Bible, all angels who take on human form appear as males. All biblical references address Satan by the personal pronoun "he."

However, in their heavenly state according to the Bible, a cherub is a large creature—up to 18 feet in height with 8 foot long wings. In the prophet Ezekiel's vision, the cherubim (plural of "cherub") had four wings. Under their wings were human-like hands that could could be used to carry things. All the surfaces of the cherubim, including the wings, were covered with eyes. Each cherub had four faces, one "of a cherub, the second the face of a man, the third the face of a lion, and the fourth the face of an eagle." The New Testament book of Revelation describes similar creatures, only with six wings each, with faces of a lion, an ox, a man, and an eagle. So, these creatures look nothing like the cute little cherubim you can buy for your garden or bookshelf. Satan himself is described as being "perfect in beauty," being adorned with all kinds of precious stones."

That being the case, why do women refer to babies as "my little cherub", supposedly with affection? o_O
 
Feb 12, 2009
10,059
1,872
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
That being the case, why do women refer to babies as "my little cherub", supposedly with affection? o_O

Because it's what these women choose to believe a cherub looks like. Even some so-called Christians think the Devil looks as is displayed in the picture, even though the bible contradicts this. These same Christians still think upon Jesus as being a helpless baby in a manger rather than what the bible refers to as a powerful king.
 
Oct 15, 2007
33,996
31,537
PCO
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
Because it's what these women choose to believe a cherub looks like. Even some so-called Christians think the Devil looks as is displayed in the picture, even though the bible contradicts this. These same Christians still think upon Jesus as being a helpless baby in a manger rather than what the bible refers to as a powerful king.

 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
Because it's what these women choose to believe a cherub looks like. Even some so-called Christians think the Devil looks as is displayed in the picture, even though the bible contradicts this. These same Christians still think upon Jesus as being a helpless baby in a manger rather than what the bible refers to as a powerful king.

Not exactly, its because that's what biblical teachings have taught them they look like.

It all comes down to artwork. For example how most angels are depicted as humans and wings.

In most of the early art used this motif as a way to illustrate who was an angel and who was not. There was no intention to depict the angels as actual people with wings and halos (although I'm fairly sure halos came a bit later)

No different then an asterisks after a word denoting a foot note, this was simply a way to show who was meant to be an angel and who wasn't. It was never meant to be a literal description.

Over time when Christian teachings shifted from less of a death cult preaching the end of the world to the emphasis on peace and forgiveness and with the artwork people were familiar being pretty much everywhere authorities began to preach it as being accurate.

So it is with the cherub, the ark angels and The Satan (yes every single reference to Satan in the bible is prefixed with Ha which is hebrew for "the")

You can't really blame people for missusing the term when the image associated with the term is one of a baby with wings by and large for the past 800 years.

After all part of the reason was most people couldn't read the bible or understand the Latin services, their understanding came from the images of early Christian art, which unbeknownst to most illiterate peasants at the time weren't literal.
 
Feb 12, 2009
10,059
1,872
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
Not exactly, its because that's what biblical teachings have taught them they look like.

It all comes down to artwork. For example how most angels are depicted as humans and wings.

In most of the early art used this motif as a way to illustrate who was an angel and who was not. There was no intention to depict the angels as actual people with wings and halos (although I'm fairly sure halos came a bit later)

No different then an asterisks after a word denoting a foot note, this was simply a way to show who was meant to be an angel and who wasn't. It was never meant to be a literal description.

Over time when Christian teachings shifted from less of a death cult preaching the end of the world to the emphasis on peace and forgiveness and with the artwork people were familiar being pretty much everywhere authorities began to preach it as being accurate.

So it is with the cherub, the ark angels and The Satan (yes every single reference to Satan in the bible is prefixed with Ha which is hebrew for "the")

You can't really blame people for missusing the term when the image associated with the term is one of a baby with wings by and large for the past 800 years.

After all part of the reason was most people couldn't read the bible or understand the Latin services, their understanding came from the images of early Christian art, which unbeknownst to most illiterate peasants at the time weren't literal.

The bible doesn't teach that cherubim look look pudgy infants with wings. Ezekiel chapters 1 and 10 detail what cherabim look like, and it's nothing like the artwork.

I've read from multiple bibles and haven't come across this "The Satan" you speak of. You're preaching a Judaic, not Christian, teaching. If used in context 'The Satan' means 'The Adversary' and devil means liar. The bible refers to Satan the devil from God's POV as 'my adversary the liar'. The Jewish and Christian concept of the devil are not the same.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
The bible doesn't teach that cherubim look look pudgy infants with wings. Ezekiel chapters 1 and 10 detail what cherabim look like, and it's nothing like the artwork.

I've read from multiple bibles and haven't come across this "The Satan" you speak of. You're preaching a Judaic, not Christian, teaching. If used in context 'The Satan' means 'The Adversary' and devil means liar. The bible refers to Satan the devil from God's POV as 'my adversary the liar'. The Jewish and Christian concept of the devil are not the same.

what the bible says and what stereotypical christian teachings expunge are two very different things. you can't just pretend people aren't influenced by all the culture s**t around them.

As for the satan if you've read the bible and haven't come across it then you haven't read a proper translation of the bible.
at the very least you should have come across it in the old testament. you're right about the meaning of the satan but you can't just alter the old testament to fit with new testament teachings, thats redactive.

it doesn't matter what is meant by the word, its what it says, if its a proper translation The Satan should always appear as its a proper translation of the text, there's no room for interpretation, its what it says. Anything else is.......... we'll let's just say "liberties" have been taken to fit a certain narrative, rather than produce a proper translation of the text.
 

CountryRace

Norm Smith Medallist
Suspended
Oct 25, 2014
5,683
2,879
https://archive.org/details/WarIsARacket
AFL Club
Fremantle
what the bible says and what stereotypical christian teachings expunge are two very different things. you can't just pretend people aren't influenced by all the culture s**t around them.

As for the satan if you've read the bible and haven't come across it then you haven't read a proper translation of the bible.
at the very least you should have come across it in the old testament. you're right about the meaning of the satan but you can't just alter the old testament to fit with new testament teachings, thats redactive.

it doesn't matter what is meant by the word, its what it says, if its a proper translation The Satan should always appear as its a proper translation of the text, there's no room for interpretation, its what it says. Anything else is.......... we'll let's just say "liberties" have been taken to fit a certain narrative, rather than produce a proper translation of the text.

if people are writing bibles with no satan

how do they do they part with jesus in the desert for 40 days
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
if people are writing bibles with no satan

how do they do they part with jesus in the desert for 40 days

from what i understand (and i may be wrong) the alteration only affects the old testament in these bibles. This is to better fit with the narrative of christian teachings.

for example there's one passage in numbers? (atleast i think its numbers) where they actually remove the name "The Satan" from the passage entirely and replace it with "an angel of the lord" this is because it conflicts with the christian role of satan as its old testament written by jews who, As tesseract pointed out have an entirely different role for satan.

From what i gather it's to make the overall narrative flow better with minimal contradictions. it's more redacting the jewish version of satan rather than the later text. one of the key reasons is the trinity issue.

If you take earlier christian teachings where some sects saw jesus as the "son of god" rather than god himself. The old testament version of satan fits. for the Jews God sends satan to "test" man, Hence god would send The satan to test Jesus as well. But this obviously conflicts with trinity teachings if Jesus is part of the godhead why would god send Satan to test himself?

that passage is probably one of the main reasons for the old testament redactions, It recasts satan as an opposer of god, rather than his servant. we can discuss it further in the god thread if you're really interested in it. give you links and stuff.
 
Feb 12, 2009
10,059
1,872
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
what the bible says and what stereotypical christian teachings expunge are two very different things. you can't just pretend people aren't influenced by all the culture s**t around them.

As for the satan if you've read the bible and haven't come across it then you haven't read a proper translation of the bible.
at the very least you should have come across it in the old testament. you're right about the meaning of the satan but you can't just alter the old testament to fit with new testament teachings, thats redactive.

it doesn't matter what is meant by the word, its what it says, if its a proper translation The Satan should always appear as its a proper translation of the text, there's no room for interpretation, its what it says. Anything else is.......... we'll let's just say "liberties" have been taken to fit a certain narrative, rather than produce a proper translation of the text.

There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian denominations due to various interpretations of scripture, so using "stereotypical" wrt Christianity doesn't say much.

I'm not pretending that culture doesn't play an influence in folks' perceptions, I'm just stating that peoples view of cherubim as pudgy infants is mistaken, as the bible contradicts this typical view.

"A proper translation"? According to whom? You!

"The Satan" is a Jewish belief. The Jews don't view Satan the same as Christianity. Your view assumes the bible has been altered by Christians and not the Jews. The bible does speak of the Jews being rejected as God's chosen people due to deviating from God's ways.

"Proper translation", "liberties"? Well let's just say that I disagree with your opinion.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
There are hundreds, if not thousands, of Christian denominations due to various interpretations of scripture, so using "stereotypical" wrt Christianity doesn't say much.

I'm not pretending that culture doesn't play an influence in folks' perceptions, I'm just stating that peoples view of cherubim as pudgy infants is mistaken, as the bible contradicts this typical view.

"A proper translation"? According to whom? You!

"The Satan" is a Jewish belief. The Jews don't view Satan the same as Christianity. Your view assumes the bible has been altered by Christians and not the Jews. The bible does speak of the Jews being rejected as God's chosen people due to deviating from God's ways.

"Proper translation", "liberties"? Well let's just say that I disagree with your opinion.

really? the vast majority of christian teachings use motifs of cute little cherubs and winged people, suggesting its not saying much is a load of bull. by "stereotypical" where talking about exactly that. The imagery used by the vast majority. that which people are familiar with.

as for the rest, its my opinion yes and one shared by the vast majority linguists which have studied the texts, as well as the evolution of said text's. hell its in even touched upon by most theology courses at uni. disagree all you want, but don't pretend likes its something i've pulled out of my arse.

here's something to get you started: http://www.theopedia.com/Satan
 
Feb 12, 2009
10,059
1,872
Perth
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Perth Wildcats, Swan Districts
really? the vast majority of christian teachings use motifs of cute little cherubs and winged people, suggesting its not saying much is a load of bull. by "stereotypical" where talking about exactly that. The imagery used by the vast majority. that which people are familiar with.

as for the rest, its my opinion yes and one shared by the vast majority linguists which have studied the texts, as well as the evolution of said text's. hell its in even touched upon by most theology courses at uni. disagree all you want, but don't pretend likes its something i've pulled out of my arse.

here's something to get you started: http://www.theopedia.com/Satan

The vast majority of Christian denominations aren't following biblical teaching; if they are at all, it very much seems that they're cherry-picking. The bible said that after the apostles of Jesus' time that there would occur a great apostasy - it has occurred and is still on-going to this very day. We can look at the cute little pudgy cherub perception, Christmas, Easter, Good Friday and other non-biblical teachings being taught as Christian to see this apostasy in action.

The linguists are irrelevant considering that you're posting as Christian something that is from Judaism.

As a Christian, I reference from the bible, not theopedia.
 
Apr 7, 2012
18,188
13,947
Sydney
AFL Club
Sydney
Other Teams
Coney Island, GWS, The Exers!
The vast majority of Christian denominations aren't following biblical teaching; if they are at all, it very much seems that they're cherry-picking. The bible said that after the apostles of Jesus' time that there would occur a great apostasy - it has occurred and is still on-going to this very day. We can look at the cute little pudgy cherub perception, Christmas, Easter, Good Friday and other non-biblical teachings being taught as Christian to see this apostasy in action.

The linguists are irrelevant considering that you're posting as Christian something that is from Judaism.

As a Christian, I reference from the bible, not theopedia.

A long rant to agree with me. As I said to begin with stereotypically teachings and the bible two very different things.

As for your continued arguing about The Satan a human with basic education you should understand linguistics and the entomology of words.

This isn't a faith based thing, The word Satan comes from the Hebrew word Ha Satan which is in the original hebrew texts of the old testment. It's not some philosophical or religious debate. It's the study of language.
 
Back