Editing Codex Alexandrinus (section)

===Textual criticism===
[[File:british library london.jpg|thumb|200px|The [[British Library]] in London]]
According to Bentley the codex is "the oldest and best in the world". Bentley assumed that by supplementing this manuscript with readings from other manuscripts and from the [[Latin Vulgate]], he could triangulate back to the single recension which he presumed existed at the time of the [[First Council of Nicaea]].<ref>{{Cite book | first=William L. | last=Petersen | contribution=What Text can New Testament Textual Criticism Ultimately Reach | editor1-first=Barbara | editor1-last=Aland | editor1-link=Barbara Aland | editor2-first=J. | editor2-last=Delobel | title=New Testament Textual Criticism, Exegesis and Church History | page=137 | year=1994 | publisher=Kok Pharos Publishing | location=Kampen | isbn=978-9039001059}}</ref><ref>{{Cite book | first=Richard Claverhouse | last=Jebb | author-link=Richard Claverhouse Jebb | title=Richard Bentley | page=163 | year=1882 | publisher=Macmillan & Co. | location=London | url=https://archive.org/details/bentley_00jebbuoft/page/n5/mode/2up}}</ref> Wettstein highly esteemed the codex in 1730, but changed his opinion in 1751 and was no longer a great admirer of it. He came to the conviction that [[Mount Athos|Athos]] was the place of its origin, not Alexandria.<ref name="Wettstein">{{cite book | first=Johann Jakob | last=Wettstein  | author-link=Johann Jakob Wettstein | title=Novum Testamentum Graecum editionis receptae cum lectionibus variantibus codicum manuscripts | publisher=Ex Officina Dommeriana | year=1751 | location=Amsterdam | url=https://archive.org/stream/hekainediatheken00clem#page/10/mode/2up}}</ref>{{rp|10}} Michaelis also did not esteem it highly, either on account of its internal excellence or the value of its readings. The principal charge which has been produced against the manuscript, and which had been urged by Wettstein, was it had been altered from the Latin version.{{r|Horne224}} Michaelis countered that the transcriber who lived in Egypt would not have altered the Greek text from a Latin version, because Egypt belonged to the Greek diocese, and Latin was not understood there. Woide, who defended the Greek manuscripts in general, and the Codex Alexandrinus in particular, from the charge of having been corrupted from the Latin,{{r|Horne224}} discerned two hands in the New Testament.<ref>[http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04080c.htm Codex Alexandrinus] at the ''Catholic Encyclopedia''.</ref>

[[Johann Jakob Griesbach|Griesbach]] agreed with Woide and expanded on Michaelis' point of view. If this manuscript has been corrupted from a version, it is more reasonable to suspect the Coptic, the version of the country in which it was written. Between this manuscript and both the Coptic and Syriac versions there is a remarkable coincidence.{{r|Horne224}} According to Griesbach the manuscript follows three different editions: the Byzantine in the Gospels, the Western in the Acts and General epistles, and the Alexandrian in the Pauline epistles. Griesbach designated the codex by letter '''A'''.{{r|Horne224}}

Tregelles explained the origin of the Arabic inscription, on which Cyril's statement appears to rest, by remarking that the text of the New Testament in the manuscript begins with Matthew 25:6, this lesson (Matthew 25:1–13) being that appointed by the Greek Church for the festival of St. Thecla.{{r|Scrivener|p=102}} {{r|Greg-Canon}}