Codex Sinaiticus: Old Testament (Facsimile)

Column 1

...containing these canons Eusebian canons: a system of ten tables created by Eusebius of Caesarea to cross-reference parallel passages in the four Gospels should come from Caesarea. There is certainly weight in this argument: we would expect the Eusebian system to be 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 regarding the early use of the Eusebian system, the important point is really not the place where Eusebius wrote, but the place where Carpianus, to whom it was sent, received it. Now, our ignorance regarding Carpianus is complete. He may have been from Caesarea, or he may have been from Alexandria or Byzantium: we know nothing about him. Therefore, when we are discussing the origin of the Codex Sinaiticus, we really have no more right to use the Eusebian canons as an argument in favor of Caesarea than we have to use the Ammonian sections Ammonian sections: an early system of dividing the Gospels into smaller numbered sections, traditionally attributed to Ammonius of Alexandria, which are traditionally credited 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 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 left the scriptorium scriptorium: a room in a monastery or library set aside for the copying of manuscripts, has given "in Numbers" original: ἐν ἀριθμοῖς as the source of the quotation "Out of Egypt I called my son" original: ἐξ Αἰγύπτου ἐκάλεσα τὸν υἱόν μου. Professor Burkitt has pointed out to me that this reference is probably to Numbers 24:8, "God led him out of Egypt" original: [ὁ] θεὸς ὡδήγησεν αὐτὸν ἐξ Αἰγύπτου. Now, according to Codex 86,² the Hexapla Hexapla: a massive edition of the Old Testament compiled by Origen of Caesarea, featuring six versions of the text side-by-side at Hosea 11:1 had the note: "Matthew used this [verse], as it was clearly thus in the Hebrew, just as Aquila also interpreted it."³ One may say with some certainty that the Hexapla is here implicitly criticizing and correcting the tradition preserved in the Codex Sinaiticus. The question therefore arises: is this tradition likely to have been

Column 2

preserved in a manuscript made in the scriptorium of the library where the Hexapla was the most treasured possession? The answer is obvious, and, as far as it goes, this point is distinctly against the theory that the Codex is a Caesarean manuscript.

No doubt the problem of the origin of the Codex Sinaiticus does not permit a decisive solution; nevertheless, after weighing all the arguments, I feel that there is much more to be said in favor of Alexandria—or at all events Egypt—than can be brought forward in support of Caesarea. If one accepts this view and wishes to guess at the occasion which led to the writing of such a splendid codex, it would perhaps be best to quote the statement of Athanasius in the Defense to Constantine, chapter 4 (Greek Patrology, volume 25, p. 600 c): "I did not write to your brother (the Emperor Constans), except only when the followers of Eusebius wrote to him against me and I was forced, while still in Alexandria, to defend myself; and when he ordered me to prepare volumes of the Divine Scriptures, I did so and sent them" original: τῷ ἀδελφῷ σου... 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 very probable that Athanasius¹ would have used the work of such a doubtfully orthodox critic as Eusebius. Moreover, the suggestion is clearly unsustainable if Rahlfs’ view is accepted regarding the date as well as the origin of the Codex Vaticanus. As we have seen, Codex Vaticanus should probably be regarded as belonging to the same place and time as the Codex Sinaiticus, and according to Rahlfs' view, the Codex Vaticanus is not earlier than 367. Personally, however, I do not regard his theory to be as convincing regarding the date as it is regarding the origin of the manuscript.

Even if this connection between Athanasius and the Codex Sinaiticus is dismissed as a guess that is too uncertain to consider seriously, it remains true that all the arguments from history, criticism, handwriting original: palaeography, and spelling original: orthography combine to support the view that the codex is an Egyptian manuscript of the fourth century. This probability cannot be matched by any other theory. It would be too much to call it certain, but short of that, it may fairly be regarded as the hypothesis that should be used as the general basis for any discussions regarding the value of the Codex Sinaiticus.

Footnotes

¹ Life of Constantine, iv. 36-7.
² See Field, Hexapla, ii, pp. 957 f.
³ The Septuagint original: 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.

¹ Though it is true that "Euthalius" used the Chronicles of Eusebius and dedicated his work to Athanasius.