Codex Sinaiticus

Column 1

certainly weight in this contention: we should expect the
Eusebian apparatus A system of cross-references for the Gospels created by Eusebius of Caesarea. in Caesarea in the fourth century; it
would be rather surprising to find that it had been adopted so
soon in Alexandria.
Nevertheless the obvious force of this argument must be
discounted by the fact that in considering the probability of
one locality over another with reference to the early use of
the Eusebian apparatus, the important point is really not
the place in which Eusebius wrote, but the place in which
Carpianus, to whom it was sent, received it. Now, our
ignorance as to Carpianus is complete. He may have been a
Caesarean, or he may have been an Alexandrian, or Byzantine:
we know nothing about him, and therefore when we
are discussing the provenance of the Codex Sinaiticus we
have really not much more right to use the Eusebian canons
as an argument in favour of Caesarea than we have to use
the Ammonian sections An earlier system of Gospel divisions often attributed to Ammonius of Alexandria., which are traditionally ascribed to an
Alexandrian scholar, as evidence for an Egyptian origin. It
must also be noted that the Caesarean theory has gained
additional attractiveness from the hypothesis so often put
forward, that the Codex Sinaiticus is one of the manuscripts
which Constantine instructed Eusebius to have made for Constantinople.¹ ¹ Life of Constantine, iv. 36-7. But it should be observed that this theory is not
confirmed by the fact that the manuscript was in the library
at Caesarea—not in Constantinople—in the sixth century.
There is also a further point which may be regarded
as counting against Caesarea. In the note attached to
Matthew 2:15 a scribe contemporary with the manuscript, and
working on it before it actually issued from the scriptorium term: scriptorium (a room in a monastery or library set aside for writing and copying manuscripts), has given Numbers original: ἐν ἀριθμοῖς as the source of the
quotation "Out of Egypt I called my son" original: ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου. Prof. Burkitt has
pointed out to me that this reference is probably to Numbers
24:8 "God led him out of Egypt" original: [δ] θεὸς ὡδήγησεν αὐτὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου. Now according to
codex 86² ² See Field, Hexapla, ii, pp. 957 f. the Hexapla Origen's massive six-column edition of the Old Testament. at Hosea 11:1 had the note "Matthew used this, as it was clearly thus in the Hebrew as Aquila also interpreted it" original: τούτῳ ἐχρήσατο ὁ Ματθαῖος, ὡς οὕτως ἔχοντος δηλονότι τοῦ Ἑβραϊκοῦ ὡς καὶ ὁ Ἀκύλας ἡρμήνευσε.³ ³ The Septuagint (LXX) has "out of Egypt I called back his children" original: ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ. It is therefore not surprising that the quotation was not recognized by a generation which never thought of looking beyond the Septuagint. One may say with some certainty that the Hexapla is here implicitly criticizing and correcting the exegetical
tradition preserved in the Codex Sinaiticus. The question
therefore arises, whether this tradition is likely to have been
preserved in a manuscript made in the scriptorium of the library of

Column 2

which the Hexapla was the most treasured possession? The
answer is obvious, and, so far as it goes, this point is distinctly
against the theory that the Codex is a Caesarean manuscript.
No doubt the problem of the provenance of the Codex
Sinaiticus does not permit decisive solution; nevertheless
after weighing all the arguments I feel that there is much
more to be said in favour of Alexandria, or at all events
Egypt, than can be adduced in support of Caesarea. If one
accepts this view, and desires to go on to guess at the occasion
which led to the writing of so splendid a codex, it would
perhaps be best to quote the statement of Athanasius in the
Apology to Constantine, chapter 4 (Greek Patrology xxv, p. 600 c):
"I did not write to your brother (i.e. the Emperor Constans), except only when those around Eusebius wrote to him against me and I had a necessity, while still being in Alexandria, to defend myself; and when he ordered me to prepare volumes of the Divine Scriptures, I did these things and sent them" original: τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου... οὐκ ἔγραψα, ἢ μόνον ὅτε οἱ περὶ Εὐσέβιον ἔγραψαν αὐτῷ κατ᾿ ἐμοῦ καὶ ἀνάγκην ἔσχον ἔτι ὢν ἐν τῇ Ἀλεξανδρείᾳ ἀπολογήσασθαι· καὶ ὅτε πύκτια τῶν θείων Γραφῶν κελεύσαντος αὐτοῦ μοι κατασκευάσαι, ταῦτα ποιήσας ἀπέστειλα. This must have been about A.D. 340, and it
is a not impossible date for the manuscript. The Eusebian canons
were by that time no doubt in existence: nevertheless, attractive though this guess is, I am unable to regard it as quite
probable that Athanasius¹ would have used the work of so
doubtfully orthodox a critic as Eusebius. ¹ Though it is true that ‘Euthalius’ used the Chronica of Eusebius and dedicated his work to Athanasius. Moreover, the
suggestion is clearly untenable if Rahlf’s view be accepted
as to the date as well as the provenance of the Codex Vaticanus, which, as we have seen, ought probably to be regarded
as belonging to the same place and time as the Codex Sinaiticus, for according to his view the Codex Vaticanus is not
earlier than 367. Personally, however, I do not regard his
theory to be as cogent with regard to the date as it is to the
provenance of the manuscript.
Even, however, if this connexion between Athanasius and
the Codex Sinaiticus be given up as a guess which is too
uncertain to render its consideration desirable, it remains true
that all the arguments from history, criticism, palaeography,
and orthography combine to give to the view that the codex
is an Egyptian manuscript of the fourth century a probability which
cannot be approached by any other theory. It would be too
much to call it certain: but short of this it may fairly be
regarded as the hypothesis which ought to be used as the
general basis of any discussions as to the critical value of the
Codex Sinaiticus.

xv