(xiii.) p. 573: exdeois xepadatwy KafodKdy Kab? éxdorny émicto\y Tov Amooré\ov, éxdvTwy Tidy Kal mepixds Hrroduacpécers TAS did TOD KivvaBdpews. ‘ 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. That for the Romans immediately follows.
(xiv.) p. 573: keddAaca ris mpds ‘Pwmalous émearodjjs 16’ (37 orlxo). In the list which follows, one chapter, the 17th, has subdivisions: in other epistles—their xe@ddava (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 ought 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 onl 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 crixos is marked in the margin (Ro 1” orixou Vv, 24 grixor p', and so on), and that each epistle has a subscription signifying (a) its place of writing —cef. No. vi. above,—and (6) the number of orixou contained in it;* generally also (c) its bearer. Thus for 1 Corinthians, IIpds KopiwOlous a’ éypadn amd bitlrrov sia Drepava Kal Poprovydrov kat ’Axaixod kat Tiwodéov" orixor wo (870): for Titus, pds Terov ras Kpnray éxxdnolas mp&rov émloxomov xelporovnbévra eypddn amd Nixowddews rijs Maxedovlas' orlxo pf’
107).
“ SOURCES EARLIER THAN THE SEVENTH CENTURY WHICH INCLUDE ANY EHUTHALIAN MATTER.—To show how much of all this matter is earlier than Euthalius we have the direct evi- dence of the fragmentary 6th century MS of the Pauline epistles known as H, reinforced up to a certain point by the Naples codex, and the less direct. evidence of various Syriac MSS of the Epistles written between 400 and 625 A.D., as well as the dates contained in the Martyrium Paulo.
(a) Codex H was once a complete MS of the epistles of St. Paul, and belonged apparently before the end of the 10th cent. to the monastery of Athanasius on Mount Athos, where it was taken
* The following is the Euthalian stichometry for the text of the Epistles, as collected out of Zacagni: Romans, 920; 1 Corin- thians, 870; 2 Corinthians, 690; Galatians, 293 ; Ephesians, 312 ; Philippians, 208 ; Colossians, 208 ; 1 Thessalonians, 193 ; 2 Thes- salonians, 106; Hebrews, 703; 1 Timothy, 280; 2 Timothy, 172; Titus, 107 [but codex H gives 97]; Philemon, 47.
PATRISTIC COMMENTARIES 527
to pieces, and the leaves, or many of them, were employed in the binding of other MSS. The leaves thus distributed accompanied of course the MSS with which they had been incorporated, and are now dispersed throughout Europe: of the 41 leaves known to exist, 8 are still at Athos, 22 are at Paris, 2 at Turin, and the remaining 9 in various Russian libraries. Portions of nine epistles are preserved, the only ones unrepresented being Romans, Ephesians, Philippians, 2 Thessalonians, Philemon. The signatures us and 16’ (46 and 49) have been deciphered at He 12” and 1 Ti 6" re- spectively: from which it may be reckoned that each gathering contained nearly three pages of Westcott and Hort’s smaller edition; and that, as the whole matter down to He 12” occupies about 122 pages in that edition, while 46 gatherings would be equivalent to 130 pages, the MS must have originally contained enough in the way of ad- ditional or prefatory matter, other than cedddaca,* to account for the balance between the two figures. A complete transcription of all the 41 leaves was published in 1889 by M. Henri Omont (Notices et Extraits, xxxiii. 1); Dr. Robinson in his Luthali- ana, pp. 48-69, added parts of 16 more pages, which he restored from the ‘ set-off’ or traces which these pages, before they were lost, had left of their text on the pages that were originally next to them. From these two sources, combined with Dr. Ehrhard’s paper, it results that codex H is distinguished by the following characteristics :—
a. The manuscript is written in ‘sense lines.’ At atime when manuscripts were written without anything like a developed system of punctuation, some imitation of the arrangement that already existed for the poetical books of the OT was one obvious means of filling the gap; the end of each arixos, or ‘verse,’ was made to correspond to some sort of break in the sense, and, so far, was more or less equivalent to a comma. But as the original ortxos was the hexameter line, and this always remained the standard by which in ordinary cases the size of books or chapters was calculated, the sense orixos naturally aimed at something like the same average length, and was therefore often a good deal shorter than the modern interval between comma and comma. Conversely, it was much longer than the actual line of a MS written, as so many uncial MSS were written, in narrow columns. In codex H itself (to judge from Dr. Robinson’s transcriptions) the line in the literal sense never contains more than 21 letters, and the orlxos—which is distinguished by beginning further out to the left than the lines in the middle of a orixos do—covers one, two, three, or sometimes even four, lines: the average is a little over two lines, and apparently about 37 letters.