Codex Sinaiticus (1860) - Page 12

THE ORIGINAL PROVENANCE AND DATE OF THE MS.

Column 1

with ‘Euthalius’ which are important for the present purpose.
There are found in many Greek MSS. Manuscripts and in many versions
the traces of something resembling a critical edition of the
Acts and Epistles, giving a series of prologues and chapter
divisions, and dividing the text stichometrically term: stichometrically — written in lines corresponding to the natural pause of the voice or sense. Traditionally
this edition was made by Euthalius—an unknown person who
is sometimes referred to as a deacon, sometimes as a bishop,
sometimes of Alexandria, sometimes of Soulka, which is
probably Sulci in Sardinia. It is, however, one of the many
difficulties connected with this question that critics are not
agreed as to whether the name of Euthalius, or at least the
name of Sulci, be not a later growth in the tradition.
It is therefore wiser at present to speak of ‘Euthalius’
rather than Euthalius, in order to show that the name is used
as a symbol for the original author of this edition of Acts
and Epistles, rather than as the name of an historical
person. At one point in its history this edition was compared
with the MSS. of Pamphilus in Caesarea by a certain
Evagrius whose name is found in the colophon term: colophon — a finishing stroke or inscription at the end of a book giving facts about its production attached to
Cod. H^paul—the oldest MS. of the ‘Euthalian’ edition. In
this respect the history of the edition is precisely similar to
that of the Codex Sinaiticus, which was corrected by a
C corrector by means of the same MSS. in parts of the
Old Testament; but this does not prove that the edition was
originally made in Caesarea, any more than it proves that the
Codex Sinaiticus was written there. Now, among the character-
istics of the earliest form of this edition—belonging, that is to
say, to the original ‘Euthalian’ recension term: recension — a revised edition of a text, and not due to the
further work of Evagrius—is a rather elaborate system of divid-
ing the Acts into chapters, and these chapters into smaller
divisions, and a corrupt form of the same system is found both in
the Codex Sinaiticus and the Codex Vaticanus. That this is so
is the discovery of Dr. Armitage Robinson,¹ who has shown that
though both codices have the same corrupt form, each has
mistakes which the other has avoided. In the Codex Sinai-
ticus the chapter divisions were added by the corrector A¹, who
worked in the scriptorium term: scriptorium — a room set apart for writing, especially in a monastery, and it is usually stated that in
Codex Vaticanus they were also added by a very early hand.
From this therefore Dr. Armitage Robinson concluded that
the numeration ‘must go back to a common source—some
MS. which gave its numeration to them both: and this seems

¹ Euthaliana (Texts and Studies, iii. 3), pp. 36-43.
xiv

Column 2

to imply that ℵ The symbol for Codex Sinaiticus and B The symbol for Codex Vaticanus were at an early stage of their history
lying side by side in the same library’. So far as the first
part of this argument goes it holds good; but unfortunately a
glance at the facsimile of Codex Vaticanus¹ shows that the
hand which added the numeration is not really very early.
It cannot well be put before the sixth century, and I should
think that it more probably belongs to the eighth. Thus this
argument throws no special light on the provenance term: provenance — the place of origin or earliest known history of something of the
Codex Vaticanus. However, the ‘Euthalian’ character of the
numeration in the Codex Sinaiticus remains a valuable fact.
It is important in two ways: in the first place it takes away
the force of a suggestion made by Westcott and Hort² to the
effect that the Codex Sinaiticus came from the West. They
were struck by the similarity between its chapter numeration
and that in the Codex Amiatinus and other Vulgate The 4th-century Latin translation of the Bible MSS.
In the light of Dr. Armitage Robinson’s work we can see that
this similarity is merely due to a common use of a ‘Euthalian’
system, and one is inclined to guess that if it be Hieronymian term: Hieronymian — relating to St. Jerome (Hieronymus)
in the Vulgate it may be that the Evagrius who was a friend
of Jerome is the same as he who collated the ‘Euthalian’
edition with the MSS. of Pamphilus in Caesarea, and that he
is the connecting link between Jerome and the ‘Euthalian’
numeration. In the second place it is important because the
only clue—admittedly a slight one—which we possess for the
provenance of ‘Euthalius’ is that in the prologue to Acts the
whole is dedicated to Athanasius. It is true that critics have
doubted the authenticity and the meaning of this dedication;
but they have done so partly on erroneous theories as to the
date of ‘Euthalius’. There is not in fact any reason why he
should not have been a younger contemporary of the great
Athanasius. In any case, so far as it goes, this tradition
certainly lends support to the theory that the Codex Sinaiticus
came from an Egyptian provenance.
All these arguments point to Egypt, but inasmuch as they
are not quite conclusive, it is necessary to point out the one
serious argument which really seems to direct us to Caesarea
for the provenance of the Codex Sinaiticus. It possesses the
Eusebian canons A system of dividing the four Gospels to show parallel passages, created by Eusebius of Caesarea, and the earlier the date assigned to the MS.,
the more probable, it may be thought, is it that a MS. con-
taining these canons should come from Caesarea. There is

¹ An example will be found in the specimen on Plate III, col. 4.
² The New Testament in the Original Greek, first edition, p. 266.