HistoricalChristian.Faith

The Codex Amiatinus on the Old Testament Canon

Dates: c. 700 AD (written c. 692–716 at the twin monastery of Wearmouth–Jarrow in Northumbria under Abbot Ceolfrith, and carried toward Rome in 716 as a gift for the pope) · Wikipedia
Verdict on the deuterocanon: YES — by its contents. The Amiatinus is the oldest surviving complete single-volume Latin Vulgate Bible — a "pandect," the whole of Scripture between two covers — and as such it physically carries the longer Western canon: Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach (Ecclesiasticus), and 1–2 Maccabees stand among its Old Testament books (the separate book of Baruch is the one absentee, with the Epistle of Jeremiah appended to Jeremiah). What makes it singular on this timeline is its front matter: the opening leaves reproduce diagrams of three different divisions of Scripture — Jerome's Hebrew-sized scheme, the larger Septuagint scheme (labelled here for "Hilary"), and Augustine's — so the very Bible that embodies the longer canon also prints, on its own first pages, the competing Hebrew-sized count. It is a Bible that hands the reader the disagreement before the text begins.

Claims & evidence

The oldest complete Vulgate — a pandect that carries the deuterocanon

The Amiatinus is "the earliest surviving manuscript of the complete Christian Bible in the Latin Vulgate version" and was "produced around 700 AD… in the northeast of England, at the Benedictine Monkwearmouth–Jarrow Abbey in the Kingdom of Northumbria."¹ A pandect — the entire Bible in one volume — was an extraordinary thing to attempt in the seventh century; Ceolfrith commissioned three, of which this is the lone survivor. And because it is the Vulgate whole, its Old Testament is the long Western one. The deuterocanonical books are present and distributed through the codex's five-part Old Testament: by the Augustinian grouping the Amiatinus follows, Tobit, Judith, and 1–2 Maccabees sit among the "Narratives," while Wisdom and Sirach (Ecclesiasticus) stand with the books of David and Solomon.² This is the same longer canon the Latin West had already fixed at the Council of Rome (382), the African councils under Augustine, and the letter of Innocent I (405) — now materialized in a single Northumbrian codex.

The one gap: Baruch absent, the Epistle of Jeremiah appended

The codex "is usually said to contain the whole Bible; but it should be noted that the Book of Baruch is missing, though the Epistle of Jeremias, usually incorporated with it, is here appended to the Book of Jeremias."³ This is not a verdict against Baruch but the ordinary state of the early Vulgate: the separate book of Baruch was not regularly copied into Latin Bibles until the ninth century, so its absence here is a transmission accident, not a canonical judgment — and the deuterocanonical Epistle of Jeremiah is in fact present, tucked onto Jeremiah exactly as the Greek and earlier Latin tradition carried it (the same bundling Cyril of Jerusalem and Origen show in the East). So of the seven disputed books, six stand as full books and one (the Epistle) rides inside Jeremiah; only Baruch-proper is wanting.

The front matter prints the disagreement: three divisions of Scripture

The heart of this witness is its prefatory quaternion. Before a word of Genesis, the Amiatinus sets out, among its opening leaves, "a list of the books contained in the codex, a picture of the Tabernacle…, a division of the Biblical books according to Jerome, another according to Hilary and Epiphanius, and a third according to Augustine."³ Three rival maps of the canon, drawn side by side at the front of a Bible that has already chosen one of them. These diagrams correspond to chapters 12–14 of Book I of Cassiodorus's Institutiones — whose chapter-titles read "Divisio Scripturae divinae secundum sanctum Hieronymum," "… secundum sanctum Augustinum," and "… secundum LXX" — and Cassiodorus tied each to a book-count he found significant, reckoning Jerome's division at forty-nine books (with the mystical fifty in view) and the Septuagint division at seventy-one (with seventy-two in view).⁴ So the codex does not merely contain the long canon; it displays that the long canon is one scheme among several, including Jerome's shorter Hebrew-sized count — the very count Jerome himself pressed and that the Masoretic Hebrew kept.

"Hilary" is the Septuagint scheme — and what that scheme means

The middle diagram, captioned in the Amiatinus for Hilary (and Epiphanius), is in substance the Septuagint division — Cassiodorus's own term for it was "secundum LXX," and the scholarship that traces the page back to him prefers Cassiodorus's "Septuaginta" to the later "Hilary" label, treating the patristic attribution as a secondary gloss.⁴ The point for the canon question is that the largest of the three diagrams is the Greek Bible's own reckoning — the one that gives the broadest list — set against Jerome's narrowest. A reader of the Amiatinus thus met, in a single opening, the whole fault line this timeline traces: the Hebrew count of Jerome over against the fuller Septuagintal and Augustinian canons that the codex's own table of contents followed.

Descended from Cassiodorus's Codex Grandior

The Amiatinus's prefatory apparatus is so close to what is reported of Cassiodorus's sixth-century pandect, the Codex Grandior — which the Wearmouth–Jarrow library possessed — that early scholars "supposed that the leaves were transferred from it bodily," though it is more likely the Grandior "served as the model."³ Cassiodorus had placed these three divisions of Scripture in the Grandior itself, and it is generally taken as the vehicle that carried them north to Northumbria, where the monks reworked the diagrams onto the Amiatinus's leaves.⁴ The codex that prints the canon's disagreement, in other words, inherited that disagreement from a Roman senator-monk's library two centuries before, and faithfully copied it out at the top of the world.

The dedication and the later forgery

Ceolfrith set out for Rome with the pandect in 716, intending it as a gift to St Peter's (he died en route, at Langres, on 29 September 716).¹ Its dedication page once read, in part, "CORPUS AD EXIMII MERITO VENERABILE PETRI… CEOLFRIDUS, ANGLORUM EXTIMIS DE FINIBUS ABBAS" — the body of Scripture dedicated to Peter by Ceolfrith, abbot from the utmost bounds of the English. Centuries later, at the monastery of San Salvatore on Monte Amiata (whence "Amiatinus"), the names were erased and rewritten so that "PETRUS LANGOBARDORUM," Peter of the Lombards, appeared as donor and the abbey itself as recipient — a substitution betrayed by the erasures and undone when F. J. A. Hort matched the surviving verses to the original preserved in the anonymous Life of Ceolfrith, restoring the Northumbrian origin.⁵

Notes

• A manuscript, not a man — its "verdict" is its table of contents. The Amiatinus does not argue for a canon; it embodies one. As the oldest complete Vulgate, it is the physical proof that the Latin church of c. 700 read the long Old Testament — Tobit, Judith, Wisdom, Sirach, the Maccabees — as Scripture bound with the rest. That is a witness by reception, the same kind of evidence the great Greek codices (Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus) give for the East.
• Why the three diagrams matter so much. Most witnesses on this timeline pick a side; the Amiatinus hands the reader all three at once. It is a rare case where a Bible openly registers that the canon's extent was disputed — Jerome's shorter count, the Septuagint's larger one, Augustine's — and then quietly follows the larger. That self-awareness is the page's chief interest: the longer canon, carrying its own minority report.
• Baruch's absence is not a "No" to Baruch. The missing book of Baruch reflects the early Vulgate's copying habits, not a canonical exclusion — the rest of the deuterocanon is fully present, and the Epistle of Jeremiah is here, appended to Jeremiah. Read as a canon-witness, the Amiatinus is a clear "Yes," with one mechanical lacuna.
• The Cassiodorus thread. Because the prefatory divisions descend from Cassiodorus's Codex Grandior and his Institutiones, the Amiatinus also preserves, secondhand, a sixth-century Italian way of schematizing the canon — the link by which the patristic-era debate over the Hebrew versus the Greek Old Testament reached eighth-century England intact.

Sources