Epistles

Evagrius and Euthalius.—The name Euthalius conjures up more questions than with the information at our disposal it is possible to answer. Of late a revolution in Euthalian criti- cism has been made every few years; and though material is accumulating ropes the time has not yet come for the last word to be said. But no estimate of Patristic labours on St.

Paul would be adequate which did not try to give some account of the earliest attempts to produce what would now be called an edition, with Introduction and Prolegomena, of the sacred text. (a) ‘Euthalian matter’ is a convenient term, of which use has already been made (p.

485") in this article, denoting a whole literature of documents, PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES J © prologues, argumenta, programmata, lists of OT citations, lists of chapters, colophons, and scraps of all kinds,’ found in part or in full in many Greek MSS of the Acts and Epistles, and first ae with any approach to completeness by ' L.A. Zacagni, Collectanea monwmentorum veterun ecclesie Grece ac Latine que hactenus in Vati- cana bibliotheca delituerunt (Rome, 1698), pp. liv- Ixxvii, 401-708.

It falls into two parts—an edition of the Pauline epistles, and a subsequent edition of the Acts and Catholic epistles with which we are here concerned only in so far as it may throw light on its author’s previous work on St. Paul. To each of the two editions is prefixed a prologue ; and these prologues in some MSS are anonymous, and in others bear the name of Evé@aNlov diaxdvov or EvdaNlov éricxdrov ZovAkys.

According to Zacagni, the proper title of the Pauline prologue is ‘ Eutha- lius the deacon,’ and of the other prologue ‘ Eutha- lius bishop of Sulca,’ the author having been raised to the episcopate in the interval between the com- osition of his two works. Zacagni printed the llest collection of texts accessible to him; and though he was not prepared to claim the author- ship of Euthalius for all his documents, he cer- tainly attributed the great mass of them to him.

On the strength of a note of time attached in some MSS to one of his Euthalian documents, the Martyrium Pauli, he fixed the date of the edition of the Pauline epistles at A.D. 458. (6) For nearly two centuries no serious advance was made upon Zacagni’s statement of the problem. The credit of the first contribution of new material belongs to a paper by Dr. A. Ehrhard in the Centralblatt fur Bibliothekswesen, 1891, vol. viii. pp. 885-411.

Ehrhard called attention to the occurrence of the name Evagrius in two MSS which contain Euthalian material: (i.) codex H of the Pauline epistles, a fragmentary MS of the 6th cent., written in orlxyo. or sense lines,—‘ per cola et commata,’ to use the more technical term, —the colophon of which is written in the first person, and in clearly ‘Euthalian’ language, by a certain Evagrius;* (ii.) codex Neapolitenus II. a7 of the Acts and Epistles (in Gregory’s notation =Ac. 83=Paul.

93), a later but completer MS, comprising much Enuthalian matter without the name of Euthalius, together with the Evagrius colophon as in cod. H. No one had ever been able to identify Euthalius the deacon or Euthalius the bishop of Sulea with any known historical per- sonage; and Ehrhard proposed to eject him alto- cether, and to substitute instead the name Evagrius.

By moving back the date of the Pauline apparatus from Zacagni’s 458 (a secondary date found in only a few MSS of the Martyrium Pauli) to 396 (a date found in all of them without exception), he brought the work of his Evagrius within the limits of the lifetime of the well-known Origenist writer, Evagrius Ponticus, who died in Egypt about 399. (c) Dr. J. Armitage Robinson’s Luthaliana (‘Cambridge Texts and Studies,’ iii. 3, A.

D, 1595) was principally directed to the analysis of Zacagni’s Euthalian collection, with a view of discriminating the original matter from that which had accrued at later stages. Accepting Dr. Ebrbard’s con- nexion of the Martyriwm Pauli with the year 396 and with the name Evagrius, Dr.

Robinson maintained that the Martyriwm is itself a secondary document, dependent on the Euthalian prologue to the Pauline epistles; and be argued back to an original Euthalius, to whom is due the pro- logue and whatever in the Euthalian collcction is covered by the sketch which the prologue gives of its author’s proposed edition. The table of * The name has been erased, but there appears to be now no doubt at all as to the original reading.

PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES 525 Old Testament quotations, the table of chapter- divisions, and the arrangement of the text by sense lines, constitute the sum, according to Dr. Robinson, of all that we can safely attribute (in addition to the prologue) to the pen of Euthalius himself. The date of Euthalius would then fall somewhere between the date of the Chronicle of Eusebius (which is cited in the prologue) and the date of the Martyriwm Pauli. Dr.

Robinson’s tentative results have been superseded by the discovery next to be mentioned; but the value eS his method is independent of it and unaffected y it. (d) The first part (1902), which alone has yet appeared, of H. v.

Soden’s elaborate but far from lucid textual Introduction to the NT, Die Schriften des NT in threr diltesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellit auf Grund ihrer Teaxtgeschichte, has settled once for all, not indeed the whole problem of Euthalian criticism (as the author seems to suppose), but the vexed questions of Euthalius’ place and date. In his discussion on Euthalius (pp. 637-682), von Soden prints from an Athos codex (Laura 149, see. xi. foll.

1-4) a ‘confession of Euthalius, bishop of Sulca, concerning the orthodox faith.” The document belongs to the days of the Monothelite controversy, after pope Martin’s Lateran Council (A.D. 649), and after the death of Maximus Confessor ‘ of blessed memory’ (A.D. 662), but presumably, since no mention is made of it, before the Sixth Council (A.D. 680).

Latin theologians—Ambrose, Augustine, Leo—are cited in this Greek confession of faith on equal terms with Athanasius and Cyril ; the mention of the ‘ Holy Catholic and Apostolic great church of Rome’ is given precedence over the mention of the ‘four Holy and Gicumenical Synods’; and Western origin is made quite certain, if further proof were needed, when the writer attributes his attack on Maximus, of which he is now making public retractation, to the instigation of John the ‘ex- ceptor’ or official of the ‘duchy,’ 6 éxoxérrwp rijs dovxavas dpxjs, for the term ‘ducatus’ or duchy points to the Western provinces of the Byzantine empire.

Thus there can be no doubt that the see of Euthalius is, after all, the only known city bearing aname anything like Sulea—that is to say, Sulci in Sardinia. The difficulty which was naturally felt in making a Greek writer bishop in Sardinia in the 4th or 5th cent. vanishes when we transfer him to the 7th, a period when even Rome, through the closeness of its renewed relations with Constantinople, became for the time half- Greek again.

* What is the effect of von Soden’s discovery upon the Euthalian question? Its main result is naturally to enhance the importance of Ehrhard’s Evagrian discoveries, since Evagrius, even if he was not the person who in 396 put together the Martyrium Pauli, is mentioned in the 6th cent. codex H, and is consequently earlier than Eutha- lius. Dr.

Armitage Robinson aimed at rescuing out of the Euthalian congeries such documents as he thought could be attributed to Eutbalius him- self rather than to his successors, Evagrius or others: our present aim must be the exact con- verse of this, namely, to discriminate what can be attributed to Evagrius or other predecessors before Euthalius set his hand to the collection.

With this view we proceed, firstly, to draw up a list of the Pauline documents contained in Zacagni’s edition, and, secondly, to enumerate the sources earlier than the 7th cent. which include any of * It is perhaps worth while in this connexion to call attention to the Landian MS of the Acts, which we know to have been in Sardinia at some date before 735. The third correcting hand, which is actributed to the 7th cent.

, added in the margin a series of chapter-divisions which appear to be either those of Euthalius’ edition or at least closely related to them. =e 526 PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES this Euthalian matter, since so much at least must be earlier than Euthalius himself. 1. COMPLETE LIST OF EUTHALIAN DOCUMENTS (with reference to the pages of Zacagni’s edition). (i.) p. 515: wpddoyos mporacobuevos Tv 16’ émioro- Adv Ilatdov.

A sketch of firstly the life, secondly the writings, thirdly the chronology of St. Paul: the latter is summarized, says the writer, from the Xpovixol Kavéves of Eusebius Pamphili, though in fact the History of the same author appears to be as largely employed.

At the end of the second section of this prologue, the analysis of the Epistles, some indication is given of what the reader may expect to find in the sequel: 7a wey Kar’ émiropiy map iudv elpjrOw wepl ait&v éml roooirov: Kab éxdorny 5¢ cuvTduws emiorodi ev rots EAs mpordéouer rhv Trav Kepadaloy ExPeow évl rv copwrdtwrv Twi Kal piroxplo- Tw TaTépwv Hudv werovnuevnv: od pny GAA Kal THY Tov dvayvicewy axpiBeotatny Tounv, Thy re [v.l.

dé] Trav Oelwv paprupidv evamdbdexrov etipecw thuets Texvo- oyjoavres dvexedarawwodpea emimopevduevor TH THS Upis dvayvdoe exOnoducda 5 ody rabrnv evOds pera rovde Tov mpoddoyov. That is to say, immediately after the prologue should come a convenient and summary conspectus of the quotations in the Epistles ; while to each several epistle would be prefixed a list of its chapters, taken over frum an earlier Father.

What the ‘exact division of the dvayvéoes” means, whether it was taken over from the earlier Father or, like the list of quotations, was an original work, and in the latter case whether it too came immediately after the pro- logue, are more difficult questions, the considera- tion of which must for the moment be postponed. (ii.) p. 585: paprvpiov Iavdov.

<A brief statement of the Apostle’s martyrdom at Rome, important as containing a note that the interval since the martyrdom was 330 years ‘down to the present consulship, Arcadius Iv. Honorius IIl.,’ t.e. A.D. 396. One particular class of the MSS contains also the further note that 63 years had elapsed between the last mentioned consulship and ‘this present consulship, Leo Augustus I,’ ¢.e. A.D. 458.

In view both of the statements in the prologue (see just above) and of the order of the documents, ¢.g., in the Naples MS (see p. 528°, below), it is doubtful whether the Martyriwm is in its proper place here —unless, indeed, it is to be treated (as perhaps it should be) as a mere appendix to the prologue. (ili.) p. 537: dvaxedadalwots Tov dvayyvecewy Kal dy tyouet keparalwy kal paprupidv Kad’ éxdorny érioro\yy Tod dmocrbXov Kal Sowv Exdorn TovTwWY oTlywy TYYXaVEL.

A summary of the ‘lections’ for each epistle of the Apostle; and how many chapters, how many quotations, how many verses each ‘lection’ con- tains. In this case there is no doubt that the dvdyrwos or lection is a division of an epistle, containing several xepfddatca or chapters. The otlyos is presumably the measured line of 16 syllables, equivalent to a hexameter verse.* Thus the Epistle to the Romans contained 5 lections, 19 chapters, 48 quotations, 820 verses.

It may be added that the number of oriyo is noted not only for the actual text of the Epistles, but for several of the accompanying documents,—for instance, the prologue is reckoned at 300 ozlxo, the Martyrium (not including the second date) at 16 orixa,+ the summary with which we are now concerned at 60 ortxo.,.—and it may be conjectured that their pres- ence or absence is a criterion which distinguishes one stratum from another in the ‘Euthalian’ collection. (iv.) p. 542: rpdypauya.

Introduction (of 7 ortyo) to No. v. (summary table of Seek ee quotations), explaining the use of black and red numerals in * See, further, for the meaning of orixos, p. 527, below.

t But in the case of the prologue and the Martyrium the 4rixo: are not given in all of Zacagni’s MSS, the following table [this will be best understood from a concrete case; see the next paragraph]: every red numeral would be found repeatec in the margin of the text itself; the series of both red and black numerals would begin afresh for each epistle. (v.) p. 542: dvaxedaralworts Oelwv paprupiav (78 orlxo).

Carrying out the rules just given, the table begins as follows: ‘In the Epistle to the Romans xlviii. [quotations]; Genesis vi., namely, 6, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13; Exodus iii., namely, 15, 16, 40,’ and so on, meaning that the six quotations from Genesis are the 6th, 8th, 9th, 11th, 12th, and 13th in order among the 48 OT quotations in Romans.

The numbers here represented in roman numerals would be black letters in the Greek, those in arabic numerals would be red, and the same red letters would be found opposite to the quotations in the body of the text: thus in the margin of Ro 4% érlorevoev 5¢’ABpadu.7@ Oe, x.T.A.. We Should expect ¢ Tevécews, and of Ro 4!"

rarépa movdGv eOvv ré0eckd ge, we should expect 7 Tevécews (the numeral in each case in red), meaning that the quotations came from Genesis, and were respectively the sixth and eighth OT queries made in the epistle. (vi.) p. 546. List of the places from which the Epistles were written (12 ortxor). (vii.) p. 547. List of the names associated with St. Paul's in the headings to the Epistles (12 orixo). (viii.) p. 548: apéypauya (not reckoned by ortxor). Introduction to No. ix.

(second or fuller table of Scripture quotations), explaining that all St.

Paul’s quotations would be found written in full, with the name of the book from which each was taken, and with two numbers, red and black respectively : the red signified the place in the series of quota- tions contained in that particular epistle,—a fresh reckoning in red yeeros with each epistle,— while the numeration in black was continuous throughout the Epistles, and signified the number in the series of quotations taken from that par- ticular book of the OT.

The same red number (but not the black) recurred in the margin of the text at the point where the quotation was made. (ix.) p. 549: dvaxedadralwors Oelwy paprupidy (not reckoned by orlxot).

To illustrate the above rule, let us turn to the table for 1 Corinthians, and we should find it begin somewhat thus: A’ ’Heatov mpo- pitrou IH’ drove rhv codiay Trav gopav kal Thy cvveoww Tov cuverav d0eriow, Where the A would be in red, signifying the first quotation in 1 Corinthians, and the IE’ in black, signifying the fifteenth quotation from Isaiah, fourteen having been marked already in Romans.* Now it seems obvious that (viii.) (ix.)

are not additional to, but a substitution for, the other table of Scripture quotations described above (iv.) (v.): the title is the same, rpoypayma* avaxeda- Aalwows Oelwv paprupav: the use of the red numbers in the summaries and in the margin of the text is the same, but the use of the black numbers is dif- ferent and inconsistent: the orfyo. are reckoned for the first table, but not for the second. Either table is useful taken by itself, but the table of No. ix.

gives more information than that of No. v.: its black numeration being continuous throughout the Epistles, it enables the reader to see at a glance the total amount of use which St. Paul’s writings make of any particular OT book.

Which of the two is the table promised in the prologue, is a question we need not yet finally answer; but we shall hardly be wrong in supposing that they represent different strata in the development of the collection, and the natural hypothesis to start from will be that the fuller and more elaborate one is the later. * Zacagni inserts a third numeration, which he admits is not in the MSS; he has misunderstood, as Robinson (Huthaliana, p. 19) points out, the language of the rpoypapepm.

i PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES (x.) p. 569. List of the 14 epistles of St. Paul; probably connected with what follows. (xi.) p. 570. ‘Why the epistles of Paul are called 14?’ This is taken from the same source as the next piece. (xii.) p. 570: tad0ects mpwrns pds Pwpalovs ém- erodjs (wncipit ratryny émioréAdet dd KoplvOov, ex- plicit redevot rhy émicrodjv). This and the preceding come, as Matthzi and von Dobschiitz have pointed out, from the pseudo-Athanasian Synopsis sacre scripture.

But now that Euthalius is transferred to the 7th cent., there is no reason why matter which ‘ Euthalian’ MSS have borrowed from the Synopsis should not have been borrowed by Eutha- lius himself. These pieces cannot have belonged to the collection in its original, or what we may without prejudice call the Evagrian, form: that they came to it through Euthalius himself is prob- able enough, but is one of the many things that cannot be decisively asserted until we have more knowledge of the MSS.

None of the last three pieces are reckoned by ortxo. (xili.) p. 573: eos xeparalwy Kabodtkdv Kad’ éxdorny émiro\nyv tod ’Amoord\ov, éxdvTwr tivdy Kal pepixas brodiatpéces Tas dia TOD KwvvaBdpews. ‘ List of all the chapters in each epistle of the Apostle, some chapters having also subdivisions; and such sub- divisions are marked in red.

’ Nothing follows this title in Zacagni’s edition; and it is on the whole probable that nothing was meant to follow, but that the title serves as a general introduction to the chapter-lists which precede each individual epistle. at for the Romans immediately follows. (xiv.) p. 573: xepddata rijs pds ‘Pwuatous émeorodfs 0’ (37 orlxo).

In the list which follows, one chapter, the 17th, has subdivisions: in other epistles—their xefddara (together with the pseudo- Athanasian argumenta) are given later on in Zaca- gni—subdivisions are rather more frequent. There can be no doubt that these chapter-lists correspond exactly with the scheme outlined under No. xiii. (xv.) p. 576: varie lectiones to the Epistles.

— What eae to have appeared here is the text of the Epistles as contained in the Euthalian MSS: but, in order no doubt to save space, Zacagni only collated them with J. Morin’s Paris NT (A.D. 1628). This list of various readings does not concern us, save in so far as we may note that every 50th orixos is marked in the margin (Ro 1™ orlya yr, 2 orixo p', and so on), and that each epistle has a subscription signifying (a) its place of writing —cf. No. vi.

above,—and (6) the number of orlxa contained in it ;* generally also (c) its bearer: Thus for 1 Corinthians, [pds Kopw@lovs a’ éypddn amd G@iNlxrwv 5a Trepava nal Poprovydrov xal ’Axatkod kal Tiobéov' orlxor wo (870): for Titus, [pds Troy tis Kpnrav éxxdnolas wpdrov éricxorov xeporovnbévra ae dwd Nexowbd\ews ris Maxedovias orlyo pt’ 07). 2. SOURCES EARLIER THAN THE SEVENTH CENTURY WHICH INCLUDE ANY EUTHALIAN