THE ORIGINAL PROVENANCE AND DATE OF THE MS.

early as any which can be adduced in Latin, and even if it be ultimately a Latinism, it affords no argument against the Egyptian provenance The place of origin or discovery. of any individual MS.

Thus the argument from orthography Spelling systems. does nothing to impugn the probability of the Egyptian provenance of the Codex Sinaiticus, and in the case of krabaktos original: "κράβακτος" — a Greek word for a cot or pallet-bed, often cited as a regional linguistic marker. even gives it somewhat strong support, though it is well to remember that orthography and palaeography The study of ancient handwriting. can only define the nationality of the scribe, not the locality of the scriptorium A room in a monastery or library set aside for writing and copying manuscripts.: there is always a probability that an Egyptian was writing in Egypt, but he may have been living in a foreign land.

Partly, but not mainly, palaeographical is a further argument which seeks to bind up the Codex Sinaiticus with that of the Codex Vaticanus, and thus to establish their common provenance. This argument is somewhat complicated, and may best be divided into three stages. First, there is the palaeographical question of the relationship between the two codices, of which the most famous point is the attempt made by Tischendorf Constantin von Tischendorf (1815–1874), the biblical scholar who discovered the Codex Sinaiticus. to identify the scribe of Codex Vaticanus with the scribe D (who is also corrector A¹) of the Codex Sinaiticus; secondly, there is the treatise of Dr. Rahlfs connecting Codex Vaticanus with Athanasius A 4th-century Bishop of Alexandria.; and, thirdly, there is an attempt first made by Dr. Rendel Harris, and afterwards more completely by Dr. Armitage Robinson, to connect both MSS. with ‘Euthalius’, and probably with Caesarea.

Tischendorf’s view that the body of the text of Codex Vaticanus was written by the scribe D of the Codex Sinaiticus is unfortunately indefensible.¹ A comparison of the two hands, which can easily be made on Plate III, will convince any one of this fact. It would be absurd to contend that on that plate the hand which wrote col. 3 is different from that which wrote col. 2, but nevertheless identical with that which wrote col. 4, and this is the contention which Tischendorf’s theory implies. If it be said that there is an even greater difference between col. 3 (the writing of scribe D) and the script of corrector A², which are nevertheless to be regarded as by the same hand, the answer is that the instances are not of the same kind. Corrector A² and scribe D may be identical, in spite of superficially great difference of script, because two different kinds of writing were employed for the text, and for the corrections. The same scribe may write many distinct types of script, but the point is that he will not write the same type in two ways. The script of A¹ is distinct in type from that of scribe D, while the script of Codex Vaticanus is the same type as scribe D’s, but written in a different way. It is therefore necessary to abandon Tischendorf’s view that part of the text of Codex Vaticanus was written by the scribe of the text of Codex Vaticanus. Nevertheless there is, if the main body of the text be put aside, a high probability for the view that the two codices came from the same scriptorium. This view is based on the remarkable similarity subsisting between the hands of the scribes who added the superscriptions to Acts in both MSS. Typical specimens of these are placed together in the fourth column of Plate III, and it will be seen that the resemblance is so great that it is impossible to say with complete confidence that they are not by the same scribe.

Especially noticeable is the occurrence of the cursive xi original: "ξ" — the Greek letter 'x'. in the middle of an otherwise uncial A script written entirely in capital letters. script. I am, however, convinced that the probability is rather that we have to deal with two hands of the same scriptorium. The tail of the xi original: "ξ" is more carefully rounded in Codex Vaticanus, and the iota original: "ι" — the Greek letter 'i'. in the second syllable of praxeis original: "πράξεις" — meaning 'Acts' (as in the Acts of the Apostles). is exaggeratedly long in Codex Sinaiticus, and these differences, which are constant, seem sufficient to distinguish the two hands. Nevertheless the similarity is extremely great, and is scarcely explicable unless we assume that both hands come from the same scriptorium, while the differences might conceivably be taken merely to mean that there is a difference of time between the two hands,—that is to say that the praxeis original: "πράξεις" of Codex Vaticanus was written by a scribe in his youth, and the praxeis original: "πράξεις" of Codex Sinaiticus by the same scribe in his old age.

But whether this be so or not is not really of great importance : the serious thing is that there is in any case good evidence for thinking that the two great codices come from the same scriptorium, in spite of the fact that Tischendorf was wrong in thinking that they were written by the same scribe.

The only possibilities which can really be regarded as weakening the force of this evidence, and preventing it from being demonstrative, are (1) it may be that the significant praxeis original: "πράξεις" were written by two scribes who had learnt in the same school, but practised in separate scriptoria ; (2) it may be that the

¹ This is, I may add, the opinion of every palaeographer who has seen the proofs of the facsimile. I have found none who are inclined to agree with Tischendorf, or even to hesitate on the subject.