A Note from earlier
These colophon notes are similar to extant notes in other known manuscripts. such as Codex Coislinianus, a manuscript about which Tischendorf had published in 1842. So it would be very simple to use one existing note as an exemplar, knowing that they add a lustre of age.
The Collected Biblical Writings of T.C. Skeat (2004)
2) Codex Sinaiticus has links with the sixth century manuscript 015 (HPaul). 015 at the end of Paul notes that this manuscript too was corrected against the copy (in Caesarea) of the manuscript used by Pamphilus.
The Date of Euthalius (1900)
And this is just what we do learn from the colophon which in Armenian MSS of the Paulines, as also in codex H of Paul, follows the Epistle to Philemon:
“I have written out and arranged as far as I could verse by verse the writings of Paul the apostle, disposing them also in easily understood lections for our brethren .... This book was copied after an exemplar of Caesarea, which lies there in the chest of books, and which was written with his own hand by the holy Pamphilus.”
In the Journal of Philology Vol. 23 in an article “on the codex Pamphili and date of Eusebius” I argued that this colophon must be of the same writer, Euthalius or not, who wrote the prologues, because it agrees with them in style and contents. There is a similar colophon at the end of the Catholic epistles. These two colophons are first rate evidence that the author of the argumenta did visit Caesarea. ...
From Constantinople to the Frontier: The City and the Cities (2005)
For this project, the corpus of evidence is the dated Greek colophons up to the year ad 1200, a total of some 401 manuscripts. While earlier colophons, such as those in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Coislinianus, offer tantalizing clues about the role of Pamphilus, Origen, and the library of Caesarea Maritima in the manuscript transmission of Late Antiquity, the limited evidence from these colophons remains essentially anecdotal.3
3 Among others, see
Andrew J. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (Leiden, 2003);
Marco Frenschkowski, "Studien zur Geschichte der Bibliothek von Casarea,” in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World, ed. Thomas Kraus and Tobias Nicklas (Leiden, 2006), pp. 53-104;
Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge, Mass., 2006).
See also Kim Haines-Eitzen, “Imagining the Alexandrian Library and a ‘Bookish’ Christianity,” in Reading New Testament Papyri in Context, ed. Claire Clivaz and Joseph Verheyden (Leuven, 2011), pp. 207-218.
Canon and Text of the New Testament
Caspar René Gregory
We still have in some Greek manuscripts of the Bible notes, subscriptions, telling that they or their ancestors were compared with the manuscripts in Pamphilus’ library at Caesarea, thus attributing to the manuscripts there a certain normative value as carefully written and carefully compared with earlier manuscripts. In one of the older manuscripts of the Epistles of Paul, which unfortunately is but a fragment, we read:
“I wrote and set out (this book) according to the copy in Caesarea of the library of the holy Pamphilus.” In some manuscripts is added: “ written by his hand,”
showing that he himself had shared in the work of writing biblical manuscripts. Such subscriptions are found not only in Greek, but also in Syrian manuscripts.
It will be remembered that Eusebius’ Pamphilus was named some distance back, and his library at Caesarea. At the end of the book of Esther is a subscription which refers to the comparison and correction of this manuscript with a manuscript of Pamphilus’, which is called “ very old.” Adolf Hilgenfeld in Jena found that this manuscript was much too badly, too incorrectly, written to be of the fourth century, and he declared that if this manuscript and its corrector looked up to a manuscript of Pamphilus’—Pamphilus died in the year 309—as very old, it could not possibly itself be of the fourth, but must be of the sixth century. In urging this latter argument, Hilgenfeld overlooked the fact that that subscription to Esther was probably written as late as the seventh century, at which time the corrector might well call Pamphilus’ manuscript very old. And as for the incorrect writing, Hilgenfeld regarded the Vatican manuscript as of the fourth century, and it was as bad as the Sinaitic. Dean Burgon, of Chichester, named a number of points which seemed to him to make the Sinaitic appear to be surely younger than the Vatican, whether fifty or seventy-five or a hundred years. But Ezra Abbot, of Harvard, showed that the reasons given were either founded upon imperfect observation, or were of no weight for the proof of the dating desired by the dean. A palaeographer, Victor Gardthausen, of Leipzig, stated that the forms of the letters found in the Sinaitic manuscript showed that it had been written about the year 400: and he urged in support of this statement particularly a few words written with a brush on the wall of a celL To this it may be freely acknowledged, that if there were good reasons for thinking that the Sinaitic manuscript was written in the year 400, the forms of the letters would scarcely place any bar in the way. But the reasons seem to point to an earlier date, and the letters offer no bar to that. It may, in fact, be asserted that all the palaeographical material that we to-day have in hand does not allow us to distinguish definitely between forms of letters possible in 331 and forms possible in 400. And,
finally, it is really not easy to comprehend how a palaeographer can for a moment entertain the thought of comparing the forms used by a scribe writing with a fine pen on good parchment for a good copy of a sacred book, with the forms dashed with a brush on the wall of a cell.
They contain fragments from a number of the Epistles of Paul, including Hebrews. These leaves are, I think, the oldest, aside from that subscription to Esther in the Codex Sinaiticus, that carry us back to the great library of Pamphilus at Caesarea of which we have spoken more than once. Indeed, if Tischendorf was right in dating that subscription as of the seventh century, and if we are right in thinking that this manuscript is of the sixth century, it was written before that collation was made. Henri Omont published the forty-one leaves. But strange as it may seem, there is something more to tell. Omont published one more page than the eighty-two pages, and J. Armitage Robinson and H. S. Cronin published that one more and fifteen more in addition, and yet no more leaves had been found. The secret was that these sixteen pages had printed themselves off on various of the forty-one leaves, and were now with great pains reproduced as though from the thin air by those scholars.