ALE 



for he has obfervcd a difference in the ink, and which is of 

 greater moment, even in the ftrokrs of tlie letters. TJie 

 conjeclure of Oudiii, adopted by Wctftein, that the manii- 

 fcript was written by an Acoemet is, in the judgment of 

 Michaelis, worthy ot attention, (See Acoemet.'e) nnd he 

 adds, that this conjtdure does not contradift the account 

 thatThecla was the copyiil, fmce there were not only monks 

 but nuns of tl\is order. 



The antiquity of this manufcript has been alfo the fubjeft 

 of controveriy. Grabe and Schulxe tliink that it might 

 have been written before the end of the fourtli century, 

 which, lays Michaelis, is the very utmoll period that tan be 

 allowed, becaufe it contains the epilllcs of Athanasius. 

 Oudin places it in the tenth century. Wctftein refers it to 

 the tiftli, and fuppofes that it was one of the manufcripts 

 coUetted at Alexandria in 615, for th>: Syrlac vcrfion. Dr. 

 Semler refers it to the fcventh centui-)'. Montfaucon (Pa- 

 Iseug. Grsc. i. p. 185.) is of opinion, that neither the Cod. 

 Alex, nor any Greek manufcript, can be faid with great 

 probibility to be much prior to the fixth ccntvuy. Mi- 

 chaehs apprehends, that this manufcript was written after 

 Arabic was become the native language of the Egyptians, 

 that is, one, or rather two centuries iilter Alexandria was 

 taken by the Saracens, which happened in the year 640, be- 

 caufe the tranfcriber frequently confounds M and B, which 

 is often done in the Arabic : and he concludes, that it is not 

 jinore ancient than the eighth century. ^Voidc, after a great 

 dilplay of learning, with which he examines the evidence for 

 the antiquity of the Cod. Alex, concludes, that it was writ- 

 ten between the middle and the end of the fourth century. 

 It cannot be allowed a greater antiquity, becaufe it has not 

 only the iitXoi or vctpaXaix majora, but the xi^xAxix minora, 

 or Ammoniau lettions, accompanied with the references to 

 the canons of Eufebius. Woide's arguments have been ob- 

 jefted to by Spohn, in p. 42 — 109, of his edition of the 

 " Notitia Codicis Alexandrini." Some of the principal ar- 

 guments advanced by thofe who refer this manufcript to the 

 fourth or fifth centuries are the following : the cpilUes of 

 St. Paul are not divided into chapters like the Goi'pels, though 

 this diviliou took place fo early as 396, when to each chap- 

 ter was prefixed a fuperfcription. The Cod. Alex, has the 

 epillles of Clement of Rome ; but thefe were forbidden to 

 be read in the churches, by the council of Laodicea, in 364, 

 and that of Carthage, in 419. Hence Schulze has inferred, 

 that it was written before the year 364 ; and he produces a 

 new argument for its antiquity, deduced from the lall of the 

 14 hymns found in it after the plalms, which is fupcrfcribed 

 vjAioi fwSivo.;, and is called the grand doxology ; for this hymn 

 has not the claufe ayio-; o G':o;, a^io, ta-^v^oi, ^'lio; a-Occyxtoc, 

 iMnmv »)pa,-, which was ufed between the years 434 and 446 ; 

 and therefore the manufcript muft have been written before 

 this time. Wetilein thinks that it muft; have been written be- 

 fore the time of Jerom, becaufe the Greek text of this manu- 

 fcript was altered from the old Italic. He adds, that the tran- 

 fcriber was ignorant that the Arabs were called Hagarents, 

 becaufe he has written, i Chron. v. 20, ayopaioi for Ayafaiot. 

 Others alledge that ayofatOi is a mere erratum ; becaufe 

 Ayafxi{,!9 occurs in the preceding verfe, Ayaprt; in l Chron. 

 xxvii. 31, and Ayapwoi in Pf. Ixxxii. 7. Thelc arguments, 

 fays Michaelis, afford no certainty, becaufe the Cod. Alex, 

 muft have been copied from a ftill m.ore ancient manuicnpt ; 

 and if this were faithfully copied, the arguments apply rather 

 to this than to the Alexandrian manufcript itfelf. It is the 

 hand-writing alone, or the formation of the letters, with the 

 want of accents, which can lead to any probable decifion. 

 'I'he arguments alledged to prove that it is not fo ancient as 

 the fo'irth. century, are fuch as thefe.- X>r, ticrnltr thinks, 



ALE 



that the epiftic of Athanafius, on the value and excellency of 

 the Pfalms, would hardly have been prefixed to them during 

 his life. But it o\ight to be recolleifted, that Athanafius had 

 many warm and ftrenuous adxocates. From this epiftic 

 Oudin has attempted to deduce an argument, that the manu- 

 fcript was written in the tenth century. This cpiftle, he 

 fays, is fpurious, and could not have been forged during the 

 hfe of Athanafius, and the tenth century was fertile in fpurious 

 productions. Again, the Virgin Mary, in the fuperfcription 

 of the Song of the Bleffed Virgin, is ftiled OioMo;, a name which 

 Wctftein fays betrays the fifth century. Further, from the 

 probable corijefture, tluit this manufcript was written by one 

 of the order of the Acocmeta;, Oudin concludes againft it? 

 anti(piity ; but Wctftein contents hinifelf with afferting, that 

 it could not have been written before the fifth century, be- 

 caufe Alexander, who founded tliis order, lived about the 

 year 420. From this ftatement, purfucd more at large, Mi- 

 chaelis deduces a reafon for paying lefs adoration to the 

 Cod. Alex, than many eminent critics have done, and for 

 the preference tiuit is due, in many refpeds, to ancient ver- 

 fions, before any finglc manufcript, becaufe the antiquity of 

 the foiTuer, which is in general greater than that of the latter, 

 can be determined with more precifion. 



As to tlie value of this manufcript, it has been differently 

 appreciated by different writers. Wctftein, though he de- 

 notes it by A, the firft letter of the alphabet, is no great ad- 

 mirer of it, nor does Michaelis eftimate it highly, either on • 

 account of its internal excellence or the value of its readings. 

 The principal charge which has been produced againft the 

 Alexandrian manufcript, and which has been ftrongly urged 

 by Wetftein, is its having been altered from the Latin vcr- 

 fion. It is incredible, fays Michaelis, who once agreed in 

 opinion with \Vetftein, but found occafion to alter his fcn- 

 tnnents, that a tranfcriber who lived in Egypt, fi-.ould have 

 altered the Greek text from a Latin verfion, becaufe Egypt 

 belonged to the Greek diocefe, and Latin was not under- 

 ftood there. On this fubjeil Woide has eminentl) difplaycd 

 his critical abilities, and ably defended the Greek manu- 

 fcripts in general, and the Codex Alexandrinus in particular, 

 from the charge of having been corrupted from the Latin. 

 Griefbach concurs with Woide, in his " Symbols Critics, " 

 vol. i.p. no — 117; and both have contributed to confirm 

 Micliaelis in his new opinion. If this manufcript has been 

 corrupted from a veifion, it is more reafonable to lufpefl the 

 Coptic, the verfion of the countiy, in which it was written. 

 Between this manufcript and both the Coptic and Syriac 

 verfions, there is a remarkable coincidence. Griefbach has 

 obferved, that this manufcript follows three different edi- 

 tions : the Byzantine in the Gofpels, where its readings are • 

 of the leaft vidue ; the Weftcni edition in the Afts of the 

 Apoftles, and the Cathohc Epiftlcs, which form the middle 

 divifion of this manufcript, and the Alexandrine in the F.piftles 

 of St. Paul. The tranfcriber, if this affertion be true, muft 

 have copied the three parts of the Greek Teftament from 

 three difterent manufcripts, of three different editions. It 

 is obfcrvablc, that the readings of the Cod. Alex, coin- 

 cide very frequently, not only with the Coptic and the old 

 Syriac, but with the new Syriac and the Ethiopic ; and this 

 circumftance favours the hypothefis, that this manufcript 

 was written in Egypt, becaui'e the new Syriac vcrfion having 

 been collated with Egyptian manufcripts of the Greek Tef- 

 tament, and the Ethiopic verfion being taken immediately 

 from them, have neceflarily the readings of the Alexandrine 

 edition. 



This manufcript, as we have already obferved, conuils of 

 four volumes : the three firft of which contain the Old Tef- 

 tumtnt, the fourth the New Teftament, together with the 



firft 



