Bezae John 6:56 addition

I have found an interesting addition in the codex Bezae in both the Latin and Greek of John 6:56. Here is a comparision between the Bezae and Vulgate with the Bezae on top and Vulgate below, and my translation below them. The addition is in red.

56 qui edet meam carnem et uibet meum sanguem in me manet et ego in eum.* sicut in me Pater et ego in Patre amen amen dico uobis nisi acceperitis corpus fili hominis sicut panem uitae non habetis uitam in aeo

qui manducat meam carnem et bibit meum sanguinem in me manet et ego in illo

Bezae reads: He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me: and I in him. Just as the Father is in me and I am in the Father, amen amen I say to you, unless you receive the body of the Son of Man as the bread of life, you have no life in you.

Vulgate reads: He that eats my flesh and drinks my blood abides in me: and I in him.

If the Vulgate is our official Bible why is the Bezae important?

If the Vulgate is our official Bible why is the Bezae important?

I need to continue to assure people that I am not exulting the Bezae, I am simply studying the ancient manuscript and just comparing it with the Vulgate readings.

Because the Bezae is among the number of manuscripts that preserve a Vetus Latina (‘Old Latin’; i.e. Latin Bibles translated and used by various local churches before St. Jerome completed the Vulgate) translation of the Scriptures.

Sorry if I may sound rude, but that question is very much like ‘If the Byzantine textual tradition is the one used by the Eastern Church why is the Alexandrian/Western/Caesarian textual tradition important?’ However, I could be wrong.

The main reason why I have been studying the Bezae Latin portion of the manuscript is because I have been wanting to do it for years. I know quite a bit about the Greek poriton of the manuscript because I have studied it and even translated parts of it, but I have never taken the time to study the Latin portion. I have not found much said and done concerning the Latin portion, and I have had questions about it that I am seeking to answer, such as,

Is the Latin portion a translation from the Greek portion of that manuscript, or is the Latin portion independent or a translation of a different Greek or Aramaic manuscript?

Does the Latin Bezae differ much from the Vulgate?

Did the scribe and Latin translator of the Bezae do a good job?

Is the Latin portion valuable to textual criticism?

All these questions I am finding out as I go along. I don’t plan on translating a great deal of it, just some key passages that spark my interest.

As for my posts about this topic, I realize that it may puzzle some people on the forum concerning my motives and purpose for the topic, but I hope people understand better by my explanation. Also I think some people on here who like textual criticism may find some of these posts concerning the Bezae to be interesting, and not to leave out the fact that I appreciate those who contribute to the topic!

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit