The question is more complex than it might at first appear.

Codex Vaticanus is an early complete manuscript in book form, but it is by no means the earliest manuscript. However, "authoritative" is a slippery word. Modern translations use many of the very oldest manuscripts and partial manuscripts, so if you're using a modern translation, then you're basically accepting those manuscripts as authoritative.

Other translations, such as the KJV and its ilk, don't use the earliest manuscripts, in part because some of them hadn't been found yet, and in part because they were focusing on a different collection of manuscripts that were more complete and more familiar to them (but much later on turned out to be considerably less reliable). If you take KJV as your preferred translation, then you probably do not consider the older manuscripts (not used by KJV) to be authoritative.

And then it depends on what you mean by "Bible." There are Hebrew Bible manuscripts that are older than Vaticanus, such as what we find in the Dead Sea Scrolls. But, again, whether or not they would be considered "authoritative" depends on what you mean by that word.

Any Bible in Aramaic is a translation from the original languages (Hebrew and Greek) with the slight exception of parts of Daniel.