Lewis Charles Willard
not Murphy
full text
8. Colophon In a number of the Euthalian manuscripts, there is a colophon attesting the comparison of the text with an exemplar (or exemplars) found in the library of Caesarea. The text that we are citing is primarily that found in 015, based on Omont’s transcription.1 The annotations of the text show the variants in 88 and parallel passages from several points in other parts of the Euthalian apparatus, which happen to be largely from Acts and the Catholic epistles. In the section that follows the text and the annotations, we take up the theories that have been advanced regarding this colophon, including the discussions of the Armenian and Syriac traditions. 1. . . 2 5cqaxa ja· 1neh´lgm jat± d¼malim steiwgq¹m 3 tºde t¹ te¼wor Pa¼kou toO !postºkou pq¹r 4 1ccqall¹m ja· eqjat²kglptom !m²cmysim t_m 5 jah( Bl÷r !dekv_m, paq’ ¨m "p²mtym tºklgr 6 sucm¾mgm aQt` eqw+ t0 rp³q 1l_m t m 7 sumpeqivoq±m jolifºlemor7 8 !mtebk¶hg d³ B b¸bkor pq¹r t¹ 1m jaisaq¸ô 9 !mt¸cqavom t/r bibkioh¶jgr toO "c¸ou Palv¸kou weiq· 10 cecqall]mom7 aqtoO 11 pqosv¾mgsir. 12 joqym·r eQl· docl²tym he¸ym did²sjakor7 13 !m t¸mi le wq¶sgr7 !mt¸bibkom kalb²me oR 14 c±q !pºdotai jajo¸. 15 !mt¸vqasir. 16 hgsauq¹m 5wym se pmeulatij_m !cah_m ja· 17 p÷sim !mhq¾poir pohgtºm7 "qlom¸air te ja· 18 poij¸kair cqalla?r jejoslgl´mom7 m t m 19 !k¶heiam· oq d¾sy se pqowe¸qyr tim¸7 oqd( 20 aw vhom´sy t/r ¡veke¸ar7 wq¶sy d³ to?r 21 v¸koir !niºpistom !mt¸bibkom kalb²mym.
1
Henri Auguste Omont, Notice sur un tr s ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des p tres de Saint Paul, conserv la Biblioth que Nationale, in Notices et Extraits des Manuscrits de la Biblioth que Nationale 33.1 (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, 1889), 141 – 92.
Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Bloomfield Library for Humaniti Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
84
Part Two: Minor Pieces
Notes to Colophon Line 1: This line is virtually obliterated in 015. Ehrhard2 believes the line originally contained the name Eq²cqior ; Omont confirmed for him that this name could probably be traced in the erased material. Ehrhard further suggests that the line might have been completed with the phrase b 1m sj¶tei or b 1m jekk¸oir.3 Robinson conjectures that the original first line included the name E£ACQIOC, rendering the last two letters as a ligature, then E£HAKIOC EPISJOPO overwritten, also with the final two letters as a ligature.4 The probability of reading 1p¸sjopor at the end of the line is also offered by von Gebhardt.5 Line 2: 88 reads Eq²cqior 5cqaxa for 5cqaxa. 88 reads stiwgq¹m for steiwgq¹m. Lines 2 ff.: The following parallels were originally cited by Ehrhard6 and elaborated by Conybeare.7 The numbers in parentheses in these and later parallels refer to pages in the editions of Zacagni and Migne: t m !postokij m b¸bkom stoiwgd¹m !macmo¼r te, ja· cq²xar (Z 404; M 629A). stiwgd¹m t±r jahokij±r . . . 1pistok±r !macm~solai (Z 477; M 668B). t m Pa¼kou b¸bkom !mecmyj~r (Z 405; M 629B). t±r p÷sar 1pistok±r !macmo»r Pa¼kou toO )postºkou . . . toO !postokijoO te¼wour (Z 548 f.; M 725Bf.). Line 4: 88 reads !jat²kgptom for eqjat²kglptom. Parallel: pq¹r eusglom !m²cmysim (Z 410; M 633C). Lines 5 f.: Parallels: succm~lgm ce pke¸stgm aQt_m 1p( !lvo?m, tºklgr bloO, ja· pqopete¸ar t/r 1l/r, ûpamt²r te eQjºtyr joim0 jahijete¼ym !dekvo¼r te, ja· pat´qar (Z 405; M 629B). aQtoOmter succm~lgm pqopete¸ar Ble?r (Z 428; M 652B).
2 3 4
5 6 7
Ehrhard, “Codex H,” 397, 406. Cf. Robinson, Euthaliana, 5. Ehrhard, “Codex H,” 407. Joseph Armitage Robinson, “The Armenian Version,” in Edward Cuthbert Butler, The Lausiac History of Palladius: a Critical Discussion Together with Notes on Early Egyptian Monachism (TS 6.1; Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1898), 106, n. 1. Cited by von Dobschütz (“Euthaliusfrage,” 60) and von Soden (Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 681). Ehrhard, “Codex H,” 389 f. Conybeare, “Codex Pamphili,” 246 f.
Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Bloomfield Library for Humaniti Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
Notes to Colophon
85
Line 6: 88 reads succm~lgm for sumcm~lgm. 88 reads rl_m for 1l_m. Von Dobschütz8 believes this is the best evidence for the dependence of 88 on 015, unless it is also an error. Lines 6 f.: Parallels: eqw0, t0 rp³q Bl_m, t m sulpeqivoq±m jolifºlemoi (Z 428; M 652B). eqw0 t0 rp³q Bl_m Bl÷r t/r peihoOr digmej_r !leibºlemor (Z 477; M 668B). Line 7: 88 reads sulpeqivoq±m for sumpeqivoq±m. Line 8: 88 reads jaisaqe¸a for jaisaq¸a. Lines 8 – 10: Parallel: )mtebk¶hg d³ t_m Pq²neym, ja· Jahykij_m 1pistok_m t¹ bibk¸om pq¹r t± !jqib/ !mt¸cqava t/r 1m Jaisaqe¸ô bibkioh¶jgr Eqseb¸ou toO Palv¸kou (Z 513; M 692Af.). Line 10: aqtoO is omitted by 88 and by Omont’s transcription of
015.9 Von Dobschütz refers to Montfaucon (Coislin), who shows the last letter of aqtoO barely legible.10 Von Dobschütz argues, against von Soden,11 that the line, including the aqtoO, is connected with the preceding material.12 Conybeare, who prints the text of 015 “as it stands in Tischendorf’s copy in his edition of the N.T. of l849,” includes the aqtoO.13 Zuntz shows the aqtoO in his notes on 015 and 88, citing14 Omont and Ehrhard. The manuscript evidence is, thus, erratically cited. Conybeare’s translation of the Armenian and Zuntz’ Syriac both support reading aqtoO.15 Devreesse argues, “Mais l’u n’est autre que celui de la seconde lettre du premier mot du colophon dont le dessin s’est imprimé dans la feuille de parchemin.”16 8 Dobschütz, “Euthaliusfrage,” 60. 9 Omont, Notice sur un tr s ancien manuscrit grec, 189. Also von Dobschütz (“Euthaliusfrage,” 59, n. 1) referring both to 88 and to 015. See also Johann Albert Fabricius, Bibliotheca graeca (ed. by Gottlieb Christoph Harles; vol. 5; Hamburg: C. E. Bohn, 1796), 789. 10 Dobschütz, “Euthaliusfrage,” p. 50, citing Montfaucon. The reference is to Henry Charles du Cambout, duc de Coislin, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, olim Segueriana (Paris: L. Guerin & C. Robustel, 1715), 260 ff., in which the first line of 14v of 015 is transcribed cecqall´mom aqtoO. 11 Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 680 f. 12 Ernst von Dobschütz, “The Notices Prefixed to Codex 773 of the Gospels,” HTR 18 (1925): 284, n. 6. Zahn supports von Dobschütz here (“Neues und Altes,” 322) . 13 Conybeare, “Codex Pamphili,” 244, n. 1. 14 Zuntz, Ancestry, 15, n. 7. 15 Conybeare, “Codex Pamphili,” 243, n.1; and Zuntz, Ancestry, 13, 23, respectively. 16 Robert Devreesse, Introduction l’ tude des manuscrits grecs (Paris: Imprimerie Nationale, l954), 163, n. 5.
Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Bloomfield Library for Humaniti Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
86
Part Two: Minor Pieces
Line 11: 88 inserts the pkoOr between lines 10 and 11. Line 12: 88 reads oqym·r, omitting the preliminary initial. Robinson conjectures the omission of he¸ym.17 Line 13: 88 reads wq¶seir for wq¶sgr. Line 14: Robinson conjectures the insertion of kabºmter bibk¸ following c±q.18 Cf. Conybeare’s rendering of the Armenian, “. . . for those who ( ? add ‘have to’) restore (i. e., books) are evil.”19 Line 15: 88 omits this title. 773 reads !mtiv~mgsir. Lines 17 f.: 773 omits "qlom¸air te ja· poij¸kair. Line 19: 773 omits se. Line 20: 88 reads vhom²sy for vhom´sy. Ehrhard20 transcribes Omont aqvhom´sy against von Dobschütz21 and Robinson.22 Von Dobschütz notes some verbal parallels between words in this line and the prologue to Acts (Z 404, lines 13, 17; M 629A).23 The fragmentary text of 015 breaks off following t/r. The remainder of the colophon is provided from 88. Cf. Omont24 and von Dobschütz.25 The more extensive form of the text, as we have it in 015 and 88, exists also in several Armenian manuscripts that Conybeare has studied, principally B. M. Add 19,730 (ca. 1270) as well as a codex of the whole Bible (1220) at S. Lazzaro and another belonging to Lord Zouche.26 In the Armenian codices and in 88, the colophon comes at the end of Philemon; in 015, it follows Titus. The parallel cited for lines 8 ff. occurs in 181 at the conclusion of the Catholic epistles, as a subscription. This subscription also occurs in a number of other Greek manuscripts, 623 635 1836 1898, i. e., 1875.27 In Cambridge Add. 1700 (1170 A.D.), a 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27
Robinson, Euthaliana, 4. Ibid. Conybeare, “Codex Pamphili,” 243. Erhard, “Codex H,” 388. Dobschütz, “Euthaliusfrage,” 59, n. 2. Robinson, Euthaliana, 3. Dobschütz, “Euthaliusfrage,” 59, n. 2. Omont, Notice sur un tr s ancien manuscrit grec, 189. Dobschütz, “Euthaliusfrage,” 60. Conybeare, “Codex Pamphili,” 242 f. Soden, Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 681. Cf. Hans Lietzmann, Einf hrung in die Textgeschichte der Paulusbriefe: An die Rçmer erkl rt (HNT 8; 3d ed.; Tübingen: Mohr [Siebeck], 1928), 13, cited by Harold S. Murphy, “The Text of Romans and 1 Corinthians in Minuscule 93 and the Text of Pamphilus,” HTR 52 (1959): 121, n. 18.
Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Bloomfield Library for Humaniti Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
Notes to Colophon
87
Syriac manuscript, this same part of the colophon is imbedded in a more extensive colophon attached to the Pauline epistles.28 In addition to these instances, there is a remarkable parallel to the Armenian text of lines 2 – 4, which Robinson discovered in a manuscript dealing with Evagrius; the colophon connects the life of Evagrius with his works.29 Finally, von Dobschütz found in 773, a manuscript of the Gospels, an extended introduction to the text that begins with the curious dialogue at the end of our text, lines 11 – 21.30 Shortly following the publication by Omont of the text of 015, Ehrhard wrote an article on the relationship between 015 and 88 and the identity of the author of the so-called Euthalian material.31 Although Montfaucon had previously noted a parallel between part of the colophon in 015 and parts of the Euthalian apparatus,32 Ehrhard was the first to collect systematically the parallels in the Euthalian material to phrases in the colophon. Ehrhard is persuaded by these parallels that the colophon is the work of Euthalius, or Evagrius, which Ehrhard believes is the name of the author.33 Ehrhard reviews several judgments of the date of 015, which place it in the fifth century or the sixth.34 He argues on other grounds that the original edition of the Euthalian apparatus appeared in 396; he does not believe these theories necessarily contradict the possibility that 015 was produced by the author of the prologues, or was at least one of the first copies of the original. He claims that a paleological argument cannot be raised against dating 015 near 396.35 88, he argues, does not go directly back to 015, as several orthographical variants, together with the insertion of the pkoOr Pa¼kou and the omission of the phrase !mt_vqasir, show.36 In a subsequent article, von Dobschütz attacks Erhard’s theory of the production of the colophon.37 Von Dobschütz believes that 015 is not the original edition and that the colophon was compiled from Euthalian 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37
Zuntz, Ancestry, l3 f. Robinson, “Armenian Version,” 104 f. Dobschütz, “Notices Prefixed to Codex 773,” 280 – 84. Ehrhard, “Codex H.” Coislin, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, 261. He refers to Pamphilus as the author of the Euthalian material that appears in Coisliniana XXV, i. e., 307. See Ehrhard, “Codex H,” 389 f., 397, and elsewhere. Ibid., 395 f. Ibid., 407, 409. Ibid., 389. Dobschütz, “Euthaliusfrage.”
Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Bloomfield Library for Humaniti Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
88
Part Two: Minor Pieces
phrases in parts of the apparatus. He is concerned with transcriptional errors of Ehrhard and the problems of ascribing itacisms to one who speaks of collation with the Musterexemplar. Moreover, he does not accept Ehrhard’s treatment of the possible date of 015, preferring the standard sixth or second half of the fifth century as early limits.38 In terms of 88, von Dobschütz agrees that the name Evagrius must have been in the Vorlage of 88 and that the signs in 015 point to Evagrius, not Euthalius. He does not believe, however, that 88 is an independent witness; if 015 is not directly the source of 88, it does lie in its background, and the subscription has been borrowed from it.39 Peter Corssen scrutinized the points of comparison between the colophon in 015 and the Euthalian apparatus; he notes that the verbal parallels occur primarily at three points in the Euthalian edition of Acts.40 Corssen argues that it is quite unlikely that an editor or scribe would compose a subscription to the Pauline material from three disparate places in a prologue to Acts and the subscription to the collection. He concludes that nothing speaks against the Euthalian origin of the subscription and much speaks for it.41 015, then, borrowed the subscription from Euthalius; the claim that 015 was compared to a manuscript of Pamphilus has no special significance for 015.42 Robinson, beforehand, took issue with this interpretation of the colophon. He recognized the similarities between parts of the Euthalian apparatus and the colophon.43 In arguing that these parallels were due to the work of an editor, he had the predisposition of the strong case for a similar process in the Martyrium. Moreover, he offers the following observations: 1. The colophon is written in the singular, a characteristic of pieces whose authenticity Robinson has already rejected. 2. In addition to the parallels that Erhard produced, Robinson found these: a. To 1neh]lgm in line 2, 1jh]lemor akicost m !majevaka_ysim (Z 410; M 633C) and 1jtih´leha coOm aqt m (sc. jevaka¸ym 5jhesim) 38 Ibid., 50. 39 Ibid., 60. 40 Peter Corssen, Review of Eduard von der Goltz, Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts, GGA 161 (1899): 671. 41 Ibid., 672, in which he is supported by Conybeare (“Date of Euthalius,” 49). 42 Corssen, Review, 676 f. 43 Robinson, Euthaliana, 70 f.
Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Bloomfield Library for Humaniti Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
Notes to Colophon
89
jah( Qstoq¸am Kouj÷ j.t.k. (Z 428; M 652B). Robinson claims that Euthalius does not use 1jt¸hgli “in speaking of his edition
as a whole,” but in a different sense.44 b. To steiwgq¹m in line 2, he argues that there is a confusion here between stiwgq_r and stiwgdºm, “the latter being the word used by Euthalius.”45 c. Robinson urges that the textual problem with 1l_m in line 6 is the result of the necessary alteration in the number of jolifºlemoi to bring it into conformity with the colophon. Robinson suggests that the original editor or more likely the scribe of 015 altered Bl_m in the parallel to 1l_m. Von Dobschütz had already described 1l_m as an impossible reading, arguing that the rl_m in 88 is either an emendation (if it is dependent upon 015) or a scribal error for Bl_m in its Vorlage, which indeed may be the case with the reading in 015.46 Given the association with the name Evagrius that this colophon has in 88 and the dating of the three paragraph version of the Martyrium at 396, Robinson is inclined to attribute this editorial work to Evagrius Ponticus. Corssen’s assertion that the claim of the colophon has no special significance for the text of the manuscript points up another question, namely, the relationship between the text of a manuscript and the claims made for it by, for example, a colophon of the sort found in 015; secondly, one may ask about the relationship between the texts of two manuscripts with colophons making identical claims. Harold S. Murphy has published in two articles the results of his consideration of these questions in the instance of our materials.47 His conclusions are as follows: 1. The two codices do not have the same text.48 2. The nature of the variants is such that it is impossible to think that the texts have been corrected against the same master manuscript.49 44 45 46 47
Ibid., 70. Ibid. Dobschütz, “Euthaliusfrage,” 60. Harold S. Murphy, “On the Text of Codices H and 93,” JBL 78 (1959): 228 – 37; the other article is “The Text of Romans and 1 Corinthians in Minuscule 93 and the Text of Pamphilus,” previously cited. 48 Murphy, “Codices H and 93,” 235. 49 Ibid.
Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Bloomfield Library for Humaniti Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
90
Part Two: Minor Pieces
3. To answer the question of which, if either, of these manuscripts may have been corrected against an exemplar of Pamphilus, Murphy takes 1739, Eusebius in Romans, and Eusebius in 1 Corinthians as possible representatives of the text such an exemplar may have had. He finds the resemblance of 88 to these texts is low. 015, on the other hand, which has a colophon like 88, apparently has a text like Eusebius.50 Conybeare observes that the full colophon appears in several Armenian manuscripts.51 He argues that they can hardly be peculiar to any one Armenian copy and must, therefore, have stood in the Greek copy from which the Armenian version was translated. He is persuaded by his own comparison of parallels between the language of 015 and parts of the Euthalian apparatus that the colophon was written by Euthalius, or at least that the author of the colophon was the author of the prologues.52 In terms of text, he believes that the Armenian text is a more accurate representation of the original text than that of 015.53 Günther Zuntz focusses his attention, insofar as the colophon is concerned, on the colophon to the Pauline epistles appearing in the Syriac manuscript Cambridge Add. 1700 (1170 A.D.).54 The relevant parallel, to lines 8 – 10, is a relatively small part of the whole Syriac colophon; however, this parallel, together with the several lines that follow in the Syriac version, constitutes an important part of Zuntz’ thesis regarding the background of the Syriac version of the New Testament. On the basis of his manuscript, Zuntz offers a reconstruction of the subscription in the Greek manuscript from which the Philoxenian version was made:55 )mtebk¶hg pq¹r t¹ !mt¸cqavom t¹ 1m Jaisaqe¸ô t/r Pakaist¸mgr· t/r bibkioh¶jgr toO "c¸ou Palv¸kou· weiq· cecqall´mom aqtoO· (quae erant [i.e., fpeq Gsam ?]) 1pistoka· dejat´ssaqer· ¨m eQs·m p²mtym bloO· !macm~seir kaf· jev²kaia qlff· laqtuq¸ai qjff· st¸woi tetqajisw¸kioi ²k¬f.
A crucial element in the link that Zuntz wishes to establish between the early forms of the Syriac version and Caesarea is the theory that the last three lines of the reconstructed subscription are quoted from Pamphilus’ 50 51 52 53 54 55
Murphy “Romans and 1 Corinthians,” 131. Conybeare, “Codex Pamphili,” 243. Ibid., 246 f.; also Conybeare, “Date of Euthalius,” 49. Conybeare, “Codex Pamphili,” 259. Zuntz, Ancestry, l3 f. Ibid., 77.
Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Bloomfield Library for Humaniti Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
Notes to Colophon
91
autograph and are not “an independent extract from the properly ‘Euthalian’ tables.”56 Without passing under review all of the evidence that Zuntz gathers, we are able to report that his general conclusions regarding the form of the materials, which provided the basis for the original edition of the Euthalian apparatus, seem logically sound. It is necessary, however, to modify somewhat Zuntz’ comprehensive statement:57 An identical subscription, modelled on various passages from the “Euthalian” prologues and testifying to collation with Pamphilus’ autograph, recurs under the Greek “Euthalian” MSS. H and 88 as well as under the Armenian “Euthalius” codices and in turn the Philoxenian colophon. It is naive to ascribe this coincidence to the caprice of an obscure scribe miraculously perpetuated in manuscripts not directly interdependent. This subscription was an integral part of the original equipment of this 5jdosir.
The subscriptions to which Zuntz refers are not, of course, identical. None of the others has the added note considered so crucial to Zuntz’ case. While all of the manuscripts cited either contain or are wholly parallel to the first part of the reconstruction offered by Zuntz, 015, 88, and the Armenian manuscripts have considerable matter preceding and succeeding this part. Thus, it is not so clear as it seemed just what form the colophon had in its earliest edition. One could argue, as von Dobschütz does on the basis of the presence in a Gospel manuscript, 773, of the concluding dialogue also found in 015 and 88, that the dialogue was taken from a Gospel manuscript, where it better fits, into the ancestor of the group of Euthalian manuscripts represented by 015 and 88, characterized by the name Evagrius instead of Euthalius.58 Zuntz, however, disagrees with this supposition59 and appears to think that this concluding dialogue was at least part of the Euthalian 1jdºseir. It is possible to bring together some of these interpretations of the colophon without producing an incompatible arrangement. The work of an editor, while it would be unacceptable to Corssen, does not conflict with the concerns of Zuntz, for the part of the colophon connecting the work with Caesarea, lines 8 – 10, is the very part that is common to all of the recensions of the subscription. Further, we have learned from Murphy not to place great stress upon the witness of a colophon 56 57 58 59
Ibid., 78. See also 16, n. (c). Ibid., 87. Dobschütz, “Notices Prefixed to Codex 773,” 284. Zuntz, Ancestry, 101, n. 5.
Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Bloomfield Library for Humaniti Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
92
Part Two: Minor Pieces
in evaluating the probable worth and/or provenance of a text to which it may be attached. This makes any firm conclusions difficult. A priori, we are inclined to agree with the doubts of Corssen as to the probability of any editor functioning in the fashion described, yet the conclusions of Robinson regarding the background of the Martyrim suggest a precedent. Whether the facts are sufficiently unlike in the second instance, or even whether Robinson’s case is sustained in the first, is not certain. Further, we are attracted by Zuntz’ general theory regarding the composition of the exemplar upon which Euthalius based his work. We are not, however, so clearly persuaded that his argument regarding the original form and source of the colophon is conclusive or that, as such, it is an integral part of his general reconstruction or the history of the Euthalian apparatus.
Brought to you by | The Hebrew University of Jerusalem (Bloomfield Library for Humaniti Authenticated | 172.16.1.226 Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
