Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Euthalius - per cola et commata - κατὰ κῶλα καὶ κόμματα - sense-lines - Uspensky key to later date

  1. Default Euthalius - per cola et commata - κατὰ κῶλα καὶ κόμματα - sense-lines - Uspensky key to later date

    κατὰ κῶλα καὶ κόμματα
    per cola et commata

    Canonizing Paul: Ancient Editorial Practice and the Corpus Paulinum (2013)
    Eric W. Scherbenske

    (quote needed) p. 149

    ... dated to sometime near the end of the fourth century,
    180-p312 contemporaneous with the production of the Euthalian edition. p. 156

    The alternative goals in these examples of Graeco-Roman and early Christian editorial practice serve to differentiate those pursued by Euthalius. Euthalius’s edition transmits none of these specific features of scholarly editions. Although the colophon associated with the Euthaliana and affixed to Codex Coislinianus discusses collation and correction, evidence indicates that it most likely represents a later interpolation into Euthalius’s edition not long after its publication. In contrast to preparation for a scholarly audience, Euthalius deliberately used colometric sense-lines to assist initiates or the unlearned—a utility that I have shown was echoed by other pagan and Christian writers. This is not to suggest that scholars could not have used or profited from the text or paratexts of Euthalius’s edition. The stichometric calculations, “Divine Testimonies,” and kephalaia could all be employed profitably by scholars; even the colometric lineation of the text, while designed for novices or initiates, could aid a scholar in translation. But such widespread utility should not overshadow the fact that Euthalius himself identified a catechetical purpose for his edition. While we would imagine that such catechesis would, of course, have theological content, Euthalius’s concerns also do not reflect the pressing theological Questions of the time in which he issued his edition. p. 156-157

    C. Codex Coislinianus (Hp, 015) and the Euthaliana

    Scholars noticed early on that the sixth-century manuscript Codex Coislinianus had numerous features in common with the Euthalian edition of Paul’s letters.181 Along with the transmission of a text arranged in Euthalian fashion, that is, roughly κατὰ κῶλα καὶ κόμματα., H preserves the Euthalian kephalaia, a colophon associated with the Euthaliana, and remnants of the Euthalian divine testimonies. Since Codex Coislinianus represents our earliest physical evidence for the Euthalian edition of the Corpus Paulinum, there is arguably no better candidate for investigating the relationship between the Euthalian text and paratexts. p. 157

    Problems associated with the purported correction of Codex Coislinianus as reported in its colophon have already been broached. It was noted that, although Murphy did not rule out that H may have been corrected toward this manuscript of Pamphilus, he demonstrated that there was no necessary connection between the colophon and the Euthalian text. p. 158

    First, as has been noted, Euthalius made no mention of undertaking a programmatic revision of the text; his work on the text extended merely to its layout κατὰ κῶλα καὶ κόμματα. p. 158

    Uspensky understood this well, and therefore said that Sinaiticus could be no earlier than c. 445 AD, based on his understanding of the date of Euthalius, the deacon of Alexandria.

    Such a formulation of letters without grammatical prosody (versification), and the way of the writing of the sacred text, invented by the Alexandrian deacon Euthalius about 446 AD, and soon abandoned due to the many gaps between the columns on the expensive parchment, prove that this manuscript was published in the fifth century.
    More from Scherbenske in his disseratation:

    Eric W. Scherbenske

    Scholars have tried to reconcile the edition produced by Euthalius with his words in the following ways. Robinson concluded that Euthalius’s work on the text was limited to facilitating “an intelligent reading of the sacred text by distributing it into short sentences.”116 Against those who saw in Euthalius the founder of stichometry in the NT, J. Rendel Harris, distinguished Euthalius’s format from this textual arrangement." Stichometry was the arrangement of a text in lines corresponding to a sixteen syllable, thirty-six letter ideal line;118 Euthalius’s work corresponded to colometry, i.e. the arrangement of the text in sense-lines κατὰ κῶλα καὶ κόμματα. (per cola et commata).119 The measurement of the text and paratexts in Euthalius’s edition corresponded to stichometry;120 his arrangement of the text, colometry. p. 315
    Principles of per cola et commata
    Rebecca Harisson per cola et commata/

    For more, see my article:

    "A Structural Arrangement of Text to Facilitate Reading," Classical Journal 102.3 (2007) 291-303.
    On Biblical Poetry (2015)
    F. W. Dobbs-Allsopp

    Called p. 233 in the center of the book but hard to get the direct url.

    Bible Biography: Or, The Lives and Characters of the Principal Personages Recorded in the Sacred Writings; Practically Adapted to the Instruction of Youth and Private Families; Together with an Appendix, Containing Thirty Dissertations on the Evidences of Divine Revelation from Timpson's Key to the Bible; Being a Complete Summary of Biblical Knowledge, Carefully Condensed and Compiled from Scott, Doddridge, Gill [etc.] ... (1842)
    Robert Sears

  2. Default Michaelis on the Euthalian sense-lines

    Does Vaticanus have sense-lines in the uncial part?

    Michaelis, citing Montfaucon, says no here:

    Introduction to the New Testament, Volume 2, Part 2 (c. 1790, 1823 English edition)
    By Johann David Michaelis

    Michaelis has about two pages.

    So, one argument for Codex Bezae being later, after Euthalius, is the presence of sense-lines. These are often in Codex Sinaiticus, so Uspensky was simply making the same point with Sinaiticus as Michaelis makes with Bezae.

    Canon and Text of the New Testament (1907)
    Caspar Rene Gregory

    Codex Bezae ... Claromontanus ... Both manuscripts are of the sixth century, both are Greek and Latin, and both place the text before us that appears to have ... The Latin letters are in a way assimilated to the Greek letters, being rounded off like the latter. The words run together, save in titles and subscriptions. Here we meet a text that is not written straight ahead, but which is cut up into lines according to the sense. These are the oldest sense-lines for this part of the New Testament.
    Except that Sinaiticus, if it was actually a 350 AD ms. is hundreds of years older, has many sense lines, and was copied from a sense-line ms., as you see in the homoeoteleutons!

    Text and Interpretation:Studies in the New Testament Presented to Matthew Black
    - (1979)
    Nils Astrup Dahl

    Euthalian Traditions: Text, Translation and Commentary (2012)
    Vemund Blomkvist

  3. Default CCEL - Euthalius

    Euthalius (5), deacon of Alexandria

    Euthalius (5), a deacon of Alexandria, afterwards bp. of Sulca; fl. a.d. 459. This date is confirmed by the fact that his works are dedicated to Athanasius the Younger, who was bp. of Alexandria about that time. Euthalius appears to have been then a deacon, devoted to the study of the N.T. text. He is now best known as the author of the Euthalian Sections.

    The books of N.T. were written without any division into chapters, verses, or words. The first steps towards such a convenient division seem to have proceeded from the wish for easy reference to parallel passages. This was done by what are known as the Ammonian Sections, together with the Eusebian Canons. [Eusebius of Caesarea.] Ammonius of Alexandria, in the 3rd cent., is generally credited with dividing the gospels into sections, but the principle had not been applied to other books of N.T. Euthalius introduced a system of division into all those not yet divided, except the Apocalypse, which spread rapidly over the whole Greek church and has become, by its presence or absence, a valuable test of the antiquity of a MS. In the Epp. of St. Paul, Euthalius tells us, he adopted the scheme of a certain "father," whose name is nowhere given. But by his other labours, and the further critical apparatus which he supplied, Euthalius procured for it the acceptance it soon obtained. In Romans there were 19 capitula; in Galatians, 12; in Ephesians, 10; in I. Thessalonians, 7; 350in II. Thessalonians, 6; in Hebrews, 22; in Philemon, 2; and so on.
    Three points in connexion with the text especially occupied Euthalius.

    (1) The Larger Sections or Lessons. Fixed lessons for public worship no doubt passed from the synagogue into the Christian church, at least as soon as the canon was settled. But there seems to have been little or no uniformity in them. Individual churches had divisions of their own. The scheme proposed by Euthalius, however, speedily became general in all Greek-speaking churches. The whole N.T., except the Gospels and Apocalypse, was divided into 57 portions of very varying length (in Acts there were 16; in the Pauline Epp. 31; 5 in Rom.; 5 in I. Cor.; 4 in II. Cor.; in the Catholic Epp. 10; 2 in James; 2 in I. Pe.; 1 in II. Pe., etc.) Of these, 53 were for Sundays, which seem alone to have been provided for in the Alexandrian Synaxes, and Mill supposes that the other 4 were for Christmas, Good Friday, Easter, and Epiphany (Proleg. in N.T. p. 90).

    (2) The smaller divisions were the well known στίχοι—i.e. "lines" (Lat. versus), each containing either a few words complete in themselves, or as much as it was possible to read without effort at one breath. Like that of the capitula formerly spoken of, the plan of these "verses" was not introduced by Euthalius. It had already been adopted in some of the poetical books, and in poetical parts of the prose books of the O.T. The LXX had occasionally employed it. It had been sanctioned by Origen. The Vulgate had used it, and it is found in the psalms of the Vatican and Sinaitic MSS. It had been partially applied to N.T., for Origen speaks of the 100 στίχοι of II. and III. John., of a few in St. Paul's Epistles, and very few in I. John; while Eustathius of Antioch, in the 4th cent., is said to reckon 135 from John viii. 59 to x. 31 (Scrivener, Intro. to Codex D, p. 17). But these figures shew that many of these divisions cannot have been στίχοι in the strict sense, but of very unequal length, and generally much larger. What was before partially and imperfectly done Euthalius extended upon better principles and with greater care. In Rom. he made 920 such στίχοι; in Gal. 293; in Eph. 312; in I. Thess. 193; in II. Thess. 106; in Heb. 703; in Philemon, 37; and so on.

    (3) The third part of his labour was an enumeration of all the quotations from O.T., and even from profane writers, found in those books of N.T. of which he treated. These he numbered in one catalogue; assigned to the various books whence they were taken in a second; and quoted at length in a third. If we may look upon the Argumenta as really the work of Euthalius, and not, as Zacagnius argues (Praef. p. 60), as the production of a later hand, he went also into the substance and meaning of the books edited by him, as the Argumenta contain short and excellent summaries of them. Euthalius also wrote a short Life of St. Paul, prefixed to his work on the 14 epistles of that apostle, but it is bald and meagre. It has been said that he also wrote comments on Acts and Luke; and that in an ancient catena on Romans there were fragments of his writings; but these statements seem to be incorrect (ib. p. 71).
    In later life he became a bishop, and was known as Episcopus Sulcensis. Scrivener suggests Sulci in Sardinia as the only see of that name (Intr. p. 53, n. 1), but so distant a place is unlikely. Zacagnius thinks that Sulca may represent Psilca, a city of the Thebaid near Syene; but Galland throws doubt on this, and the point must be left unsolved.

    His works remained long unknown, but in 1698 they were ed. and pub. at Rome by Laurentius Alexander Zacagnius, praefect of the Vatican Library, in vol. i. of his Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum Ecclesiae Graecae ac Latinae, in the long preface of which different questions relating to Euthalius are discussed with much care. This ed. has been printed in Galland (Biblioth. Pat. x. 197) and in Migne (Patr. Gk. lxxxv. 621). Notices of Euthalius may be found in the Prolegomena of N. T. of Wetstein and Mill, and in Scrivener's Intro. to the Criticism of N.T. But much light has recently been thrown on Euthalius by Dean Armitage Robinson in his "Euthaliana" (Texts and Stud. iii. 3), and in an article "Recent Work on Euthalius" in the Journ. of Theol. Stud. vol. vi. p. 87, Oct. 1904. In the latter art. the recent work on the subject by Von Soden and Zahn is noticed.

  4. Default

    More from the dissertation, pointing out some usage of sense-line writing before Euthalius.

    Although Euthalius claimed that he was aware of no precedent for the utilization of this format for scripture, there were in fact antecedents in pagan and Christian literature. We have evidence for the division of bilingual Greek-Latin Christian scriptural texts into sense-lines perhaps by beginning of the third century.134 We have also observed above that lyric poetry was reported to have been organized in such format already by Aristophanes of Byzantium (ca. 257-180 B.C.E.).135 In his preface to his revision of Isaiah, Jerome corroborates the early use of this format in editions of pagan authors, when he informs his readers he will issue this work “per cola.. .et coinmata” after the example of Demosthenes and Cicero so as to aid the reader.136 Hesychius of Jerusalem’s (died after 451) introduction to his edition of the twelve prophets echoes the utility of this arrangement, which he actually models on a book of the Apostle—likely an early fifth-century reference to the Euthalian edition.137

    (continues explaining the format)

    Yet even more important was this format’s relation to Euthalius’s ultimate goal: Euthalius intended this textual layout to have a chrestomathic effect on the reader so that through then daily meditation on scripture their souls might ascend step by step to contemplation of the divine.
    p. 308-310

    135 Sed et Paulus grammaticis istis silentium imponit dicens: Misit deus filium suum factum ex muliere. Numquid per mulierem, aut in muliere? Hoc quidem impressius, quod factum dicit quam natum; Simplicius enim enuntiasset natum. Factiun autem dicendo et uerbum caro factum consignauit et camis veritatem ex uirginis factae adseuerauit (Cam. Chr. 20.2-3 [CCSZ, 2 909,13-19]).
    I plan to add a bit more here, especially from the Jerome section, it can be found by simply searching commata.

    Also I have a few more books that might have helpful references (searching "sense line" in my bookmark program.)

  5. Default Sinaiticus sense-lines - Euthalius - discussion on textual criticism forum - March 2017

    [textualcriticism] This set of posts are 8655-8681

    [textualcriticism] Claromontanus --> Sinaiticus homoeoteleutons

    James Miller
    Relatively few New Testament manuscripts were copied in
    cola; sense-lines wasted too much expensive writing material. Also, a stichos is a rather long line, and early manuscripts tended to use shorter lines. So stichoi count rarely corresponds to the actual number of lines in a manuscript. Among the relatively few manuscripts arranged in cola are Dea, Dp, Ea, and Hp. In addition, Fp and Gp seem — based on the size and arrangement of letters — to derive from an original in stichoi, though the lineation has not been preserved directly; the same is true of Δ. A number of vulgate manuscripts, includling Amiatinus, are also arranged in sense lines.

    [textualcriticism] 2 sense-lines are a later (than Sinaiticus) manuscript feature -

    Steven Avery

    Mar 31, 2017
    Hi textualcriticism forum,

    First let us start with a basic point that Tommy Wasserman misses totally.

    sense-lines are a later (than Sinaiticus) manuscript feature

    Textual theory has been, up to this point, that the sense-line manuscripts take root around the 6th century. And Bezae, Claromontanus and Coislinianus are given as the three main examples of colometrically arranged manuscripts. Earlier mss were based on the box-column writing, often including the stichometry that gives the counts for the box writing.

    A very good summary is given by Jack Finegan (1908-2000). Pages 39-42 are superb.

    Encountering New Testament Manuscripts: A Working Introduction to Textual Criticism (1980)
    Jack Finegan

    The homoeoteleutons from Claromontanus taught us, surprisingly, that often the exemplar of Sinaiticus is written with sense-lines.
    (Why was this not noticed earlier? With Sinaiticus, often the textual experts are not looking, since they "know" the ms. is fourth century.)

    Since Tommy Wasserman did not really state his explanation of the phenomenon, let's try to state his necessary position here. The theory that would have to be propounded to keep a 4th-century date as possible with Sinaiticus, and yet acknowledges the homoeoteleutons, is rather a quirky and unusual and probability-difficult set of circumstances.

    1) Claromontanus (likely in Sardinia) and Sinaiticus just coincidentally have the world's best fit for homoeoteleutons of any extant two mss. They are different in location, time, format, yet they fit incredibly. Again and again and again, the lines of Claromontanus are perfect for the Sinaiticus omission. Thus we have the Claromontanus-Sinaiticus homoeoteleuton "textbook case" lineups.

    2) Sinaiticus was copied from a totally different manuscript that must be dated c. 300 and yet somehow had this 6th century feature of sense-lines.

    3) The formatting of the unknown non-extant c. 300 AD ms. was, surprisingly, in many salient spots, identical to that of Claromontanus. (This even extends to some auxiliary formatting features beyond the strict homoeoteleuton.) An amazing coincidence. And this has nothing to do with vorlage, the point brought up by James Miller.

    If Tommy Wasserman has a better explanation, consistent with the 4th century theory, please share. That is, if he has not departed to forums more controlled, and hostile to Sinaiticus examination.


    A lot was made by Tommy Wasserman about the fact that Claromontanus was not consistently the exemplar for Sinaiticus. Fair enough.

    We can share the style of Simonides of using multiple manuscripts, as seen in the Barnabas 1843 edition printed in Smyrna. And the Hermas editions, the first one in 1855. Both date before Sinaiticus, and both utilized the technique of multiple manuscript sources. In fact, the research on Barnabas is currently being done by David W. Daniels. And I expect that he will be able to give a short summary about the interspersing of different manuscripts in Barnabas (where Simonides gives much more information than Hermas.) Understanding this should make it easy to see:

    the limited value of a counter-response to the Claromontanus-Sinaiticus homoeoteleutons that is based on pointing out that there are significant spots where Claromontanus could, but does not, match up with Sinaiticus.

    Hopefully the textualcriticism forum will remain open to the examination. The "facts on the ground" will always trump perceived expertise that does not actually fit the facts.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts