Cyril: p. 515.—The only source from which any additions to Pusey’s collection could be hoped for would be a re-edited Oecumenius.
Gennadius: p. 518*.—Oecumenius and the various Catenz on Romans ought between them to add something, though perhaps it may not be much, to the fragments put together by Migne.
Photius: p. 520*.—Here again a separate edition, for which the Photian recension of Oecumenius would supply the main material, is an imperative and prebeal a not really difficult task.
D. Authors preserved independently of Catene.—
In this department, as was to be expected, more work has already been done; but something still remains to do. ‘The commentaries of Chrysostom (p. 506°) and Theodoret (p. 516%), and the Latin version of Theodore (p. 5114), have been adequately edited by English scholars: Rufinus’ version of Origen on the Romans is to be expected in the Berlin series of the Ante-Nicene Fathers: with regard to the letters of Isidore of Pelusium, the need for a new and better edition, and the material which would make such an edition feasible, were pointed out with sufficient emphasis on p. 513. And besides the many Fathers who extpouittell the Epistles there were some also who edited them. It will be seen in the course of the next (and concluding) section that patient investigation may hope ultimately to restore, with approximate cor- rectness, the text and apparatus of these early editions of St. Paul.
v. PATRISTIC EDITORS OF THE PAULINE 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 rapidly, 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) ‘ Kuthalian 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
‘ 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 ublished with any approach to completeness by
. A. Zacagni, Collectanea monumentorwnr veterunr ecclesie Greece ac Latine que hactenus in Vati- cana bibliotheca delitwerunt (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 Hv@aNlov dtaxdvou or EvOaNlov éemicxémov SovAxys. 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- position of his two works. Zacagni printed the fullest 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. 385-411. 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 ozixo. 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 Neapolitanus II. a7 of the Acts and Epistles (in Gregory’s notation =Ac. 83=Paul. 93), a later but completer MS, comprising much Euthalian 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 Sulca with any known historical per- sonage; and Ehrhard proposed to eject him alto- gether, 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 Martyriwm 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 Euthaliana (‘Cambridge Texts and Studies,’ iii, 3, A.D. 1895) 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. Ehrhard’s con- nexion of the Martyriwm Pauli with the year 396 and with the name Evagrius, Dr. Robinson maintained that the Martyriwm isitself a secondary document, dependent on the Euthalian prologue to the Pauline epistles; and he argued back to an original Euthalius, to whom 1s due the pro- logue and whatever in the Euthalian collection is covered by the sketch which the prologue gives of its author’s proposed edition. The table of