Editing Codex Alexandrinus (section)

== History ==

=== Place of origin ===
The codex's original provenance is unknown. [[Cyril Lucaris]] was the first to suggest [[Alexandria]] as its place of origin, which has been the traditional view and is the most probable hypothesis.{{r|Hernandez|p=100}} This popular view is based on an Arabic note on folio 1 (from the 13th or 14th century), which reads: "Bound to the Patriarchal Cell in the Fortress of Alexandria. Whoever removes it thence shall be excommunicated and cut off. Written by Athanasius the humble."{{r|Scot-Dangers|p=6}} "Athanasius the humble" is identified with [[Patriarch Athanasius III of Alexandria|Athanasius III]], Patriarch of Alexandria from 1276 to 1316.<ref name="prov-Alex">{{Cite book | first=T. C. | last=Skeat | contribution=The Provenance of the Codex Alexandrinus | title=The collected biblical writings of T. C. Skeat | date=January 2004 | publisher=BRILL | isbn=9004139206 | url=https://books.google.com/books?id=td_OLXo4RvkC&pg=pl }}</ref>{{rp|119}}

[[Burnett Hillman Streeter]] proposed Caesarea or [[Beirut]] for three reasons: 1) after the New Testament it contains the two Epistles of Clement; 2) it represents an eclectic text in the New Testament (Antiochian in the Gospels and Alexandrian in the Acts and Epistles), suggesting some place where the influence of Antioch and of Alexandria met; 3) the text of the Old Testament appears to be a non-Alexandrian text heavily revised by the [[Hexapla]], as the Old Testament quotations in the New Testament portion more often agree with Alexandrinus against Vaticanus than not.<ref>{{Cite book | first=Burnett Hillman | last=Streeter | author-link=Burnett Hillman Streeter | title=The Four Gospels: A Study of Origins | pages=120–121 | year=1924 | publisher=Macmillan and Co., Ltd | location=London }}</ref>

[[Theodore Cressy Skeat|Theodore C. Skeat]] disputed the notion that the Codex Alexandrinus "had been in Alexandria from time immemorial".<ref name="Skeat">{{Cite journal | last=Skeat | first=Theodore Cressy | date=1955 | title=The Provenance of the Codex Alexandrinus | journal=The Journal of Theological Studies | series=New Series | volume=6 | number=2 | url=https://www.jstor.org/stable/23952726}}</ref>{{rp|p=235}} Instead, he thought that the codex was brought to Alexandria from Constantinople between 1308 and 1316.{{R|Skeat|page=235}} Cyril Lucaris then brought it back to Constantinople in 1621, and it was given to Charles I in 1627.{{R|Skeat|page=235}} 

McKendrick proposed an Ephesian provenance for the codex.{{r|Scot-Dangers|pp=10–11}}

A 17th-century [[Latin]] note on a flyleaf (from the binding in a royal library) states the codex was given to a patriarchate of Alexandria in 1098 (''donum dedit cubicuo Patriarchali anno 814 Martyrum''), although this may well be "merely an inaccurate attempt at deciphering the Arabic note by Athanasius" (possibly the patriarch Athanasius III).<ref>Westcott, "Canon", Appendix D. XII. p. 8</ref> The authority for this statement is unknown.{{r|FKenyon}}

===Date===
According to an Arabic note on the reverse of the first volume of the manuscript, the manuscript was written by the hand of Thecla, the martyr, a notable lady of Egypt, a little later than the [[First Council of Nicaea|Council of Nicaea]] (A.D. 325).{{r|Greg-Canon|p1=341|Scot-Dangers|p2=5–6}} [[Samuel Prideaux Tregelles|Tregelles]] made another suggestion, the New Testament volume has long been mutilated, and begins now in the twenty-fifth chapter of Matthew, in which chapter the lesson for Thecla's Day stands. "We cannot be sure how the story arose. It may be that the manuscript was written in a monastery dedicated to Thecla."{{r|Greg-Canon|p=341}} Tregelles thought that Thecla's name might have on this account been written in the margin above, which has been cut off, and that therefore the Egyptians imagined that Thecla had written it.{{r|Tregelles|pp=152–153}} [[Cyril Lucaris]] believed in Thecla's authorship, but the codex cannot be older than from late 4th century.{{r|FKenyon|Scot-Dangers|p2=5}}

Codex Alexandrinus contains the Epistle of Athanasius on the Psalms to Marcellinus, so it cannot be considered earlier than A.D. 373 (''[[terminus post quem]]''). In the Acts and Epistles we cannot find such chapter divisions, whose authorship is ascribed to [[Euthalius]], Bishop of Sulci, come into vogue before the middle of the fifth century.{{r|Scrivener|p=102}} It is ''[[terminus ad quem]]''. The presence of [[Epistle of Clement]], which was once read in Churches recalls to a period when the canon of Scripture was in some particulars not quite settled. It is certain that the writing of the manuscript appears to be somewhat more advanced than that of the Vaticanus or Sinaiticus, especially in the enlargement of initial letters. It is also more decorated, though its ornamentations are already found in earlier manuscripts.{{r|FKenyon}}

Codex Alexandrinus was written a generation after codices Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, but it may still belong to the fourth century. It cannot be later than the beginning of the fifth.{{r|Scrivener|p=54}} It is currently dated by the [[INTF]] to the 5th century.{{r|Aland}}