* 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 Robinson’s tentative results have been superseded by the discovery next to be mentioned ; but the value fe his method is independent of it and unaffected ry it.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 ihrer dltesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte, 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, sec. 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 (Ecumenical 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 Tijs Sovearfs dpxfs, 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 a name anything like Sulea—that is to say, Sulei 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 Euthalius 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 Laudian MS of the Acts, which we know to have been in Sardinia ab some date before 735. The third correcting hand, which is attributed 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,
526 PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES
a eS Ee ee ee aie ele atts te Sg. Ge ee er ee
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: mpdroyos mporacodmuevos Tey 18! émuoro- Av Havdov. 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: ra pey kar’ ércrophy map hud elphrOw epi adra&v ert rocofrov: Kad éexdorny d€ cuvTéuws emcoroAyy ev Tots é&s mpordéomwer Thy TOV kepadalwy éxOeow evi rdv copwrdrwy rwl Kal pidoyxpla- Tav TaTépwy judy wemovnuevyv? ob phy add Kal Thy Tov dvayricewy axplBeoTaTny Touhy, tiv re [v.l. dé] Tay Oelwv japrupiav evarbdexrov eUpeow tues TeXvo- Noyjoavres dvexeparawaoducda emimopevduevor TH Tis Upfs dvayvicer* exOnobucba 8 ody ravrnv evOds merd rovde Tov mpddoyor. 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 from an earlier Father. What the ‘exact division of the avayvuoers’ 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. 535: wapriproy Tavdov. 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 Il.,’ é.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. (iil.) p. 587: dvaxedadalwors roy dvayvadcewy Kab Gy exovor keparalwy kat waprupiay Kad’ éxdorny émiorodyy Tod dmooré\ov Kal Sowv éxdorn To'Twv orlywv TVYXavEL. 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 dvdyrwors or lection is a division of an epistle, containing several xepddaa or chapters. The orlxos 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 erixo 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 orlyo, the Martyrium (not including the second date) at 16 ortyo.,t the summary with which we are now concerned at 60 ortxot,—and it may be conjectured that their pres- ence or absence is a criterion which distinguishes one stratum from another in the ‘Euthalian’ collection.