Coislinianus colophon - an exemplar for Sinaiticus?

Steven Avery

A Note from earlier

These colophon notes are similar to extant notes in other known manuscripts. such as Codex Coislinianus, a manuscript about which Tischendorf had published in 1842. So it would be very simple to use one existing note as an exemplar, knowing that they add a lustre of age.

The Collected Biblical Writings of T.C. Skeat (2004)

2) Codex Sinaiticus has links with the sixth century manuscript 015 (HPaul). 015 at the end of Paul notes that this manuscript too was corrected against the copy (in Caesarea) of the manuscript used by Pamphilus.

The Date of Euthalius (1900)

And this is just what we do learn from the colophon which in Armenian MSS of the Paulines, as also in codex H of Paul, follows the Epistle to Philemon:

“I have written out and arranged as far as I could verse by verse the writings of Paul the apostle, disposing them also in easily understood lections for our brethren .... This book was copied after an exemplar of Caesarea, which lies there in the chest of books, and which was written with his own hand by the holy Pamphilus.”

In the Journal of Philology Vol. 23 in an article “on the codex Pamphili and date of Eusebius” I argued that this colophon must be of the same writer, Euthalius or not, who wrote the prologues, because it agrees with them in style and contents. There is a similar colophon at the end of the Catholic epistles. These two colophons are first rate evidence that the author of the argumenta did visit Caesarea. ...

From Constantinople to the Frontier: The City and the Cities (2005)
Jeremiah Coogan

For this project, the corpus of evidence is the dated Greek colophons up to the year ad 1200, a total of some 401 manuscripts. While earlier colophons, such as those in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Coislinianus, offer tantalizing clues about the role of Pamphilus, Origen, and the library of Caesarea Maritima in the manuscript transmission of Late Antiquity, the limited evidence from these colophons remains essentially anecdotal.3

3 Among others, see
Andrew J. Carriker, The Library of Eusebius of Caesarea (Leiden, 2003);

Marco Frenschkowski, "Studien zur Geschichte der Bibliothek von Casarea,” in New Testament Manuscripts: Their Texts and Their World, ed. Thomas Kraus and Tobias Nicklas (Leiden, 2006), pp. 53-104;

Anthony Grafton and Megan Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book: Origen, Eusebius, and the Library of Caesarea (Cambridge, Mass., 2006).

See also Kim Haines-Eitzen, “Imagining the Alexandrian Library and a ‘Bookish’ Christianity,” in Reading New Testament Papyri in Context, ed. Claire Clivaz and Joseph Verheyden (Leuven, 2011), pp. 207-218.

Canon and Text of the New Testament
Caspar René Gregory
We still have in some Greek manuscripts of the Bible notes, subscriptions, telling that they or their ancestors were compared with the manuscripts in Pamphilus’ library at Caesarea, thus attributing to the manuscripts there a certain normative value as carefully written and carefully compared with earlier manuscripts. In one of the older manuscripts of the Epistles of Paul, which unfortunately is but a fragment, we read:

“I wrote and set out (this book) according to the copy in Caesarea of the library of the holy Pamphilus.” In some manuscripts is added: “ written by his hand,”

showing that he himself had shared in the work of writing biblical manuscripts. Such subscriptions are found not only in Greek, but also in Syrian manuscripts.
It will be remembered that Eusebius’ Pamphilus was named some distance back, and his library at Caesarea. At the end of the book of Esther is a subscription which refers to the comparison and correction of this manuscript with a manuscript of Pamphilus’, which is called “ very old.” Adolf Hilgenfeld in Jena found that this manuscript was much too badly, too incorrectly, written to be of the fourth century, and he declared that if this manuscript and its corrector looked up to a manuscript of Pamphilus’—Pamphilus died in the year 309—as very old, it could not possibly itself be of the fourth, but must be of the sixth century. In urging this latter argument, Hilgenfeld overlooked the fact that that subscription to Esther was probably written as late as the seventh century, at which time the corrector might well call Pamphilus’ manuscript very old. And as for the incorrect writing, Hilgenfeld regarded the Vatican manuscript as of the fourth century, and it was as bad as the Sinaitic. Dean Burgon, of Chichester, named a number of points which seemed to him to make the Sinaitic appear to be surely younger than the Vatican, whether fifty or seventy-five or a hundred years. But Ezra Abbot, of Harvard, showed that the reasons given were either founded upon imperfect observation, or were of no weight for the proof of the dating desired by the dean. A palaeographer, Victor Gardthausen, of Leipzig, stated that the forms of the letters found in the Sinaitic manuscript showed that it had been written about the year 400: and he urged in support of this statement particularly a few words written with a brush on the wall of a celL To this it may be freely acknowledged, that if there were good reasons for thinking that the Sinaitic manuscript was written in the year 400, the forms of the letters would scarcely place any bar in the way. But the reasons seem to point to an earlier date, and the letters offer no bar to that. It may, in fact, be asserted that all the palaeographical material that we to-day have in hand does not allow us to distinguish definitely between forms of letters possible in 331 and forms possible in 400. And,

finally, it is really not easy to comprehend how a palaeographer can for a moment entertain the thought of comparing the forms used by a scribe writing with a fine pen on good parchment for a good copy of a sacred book, with the forms dashed with a brush on the wall of a cell.
They contain fragments from a number of the Epistles of Paul, including Hebrews. These leaves are, I think, the oldest, aside from that subscription to Esther in the Codex Sinaiticus, that carry us back to the great library of Pamphilus at Caesarea of which we have spoken more than once. Indeed, if Tischendorf was right in dating that subscription as of the seventh century, and if we are right in thinking that this manuscript is of the sixth century, it was written before that collation was made. Henri Omont published the forty-one leaves. But strange as it may seem, there is something more to tell. Omont published one more page than the eighty-two pages, and J. Armitage Robinson and H. S. Cronin published that one more and fifteen more in addition, and yet no more leaves had been found. The secret was that these sixteen pages had printed themselves off on various of the forty-one leaves, and were now with great pains reproduced as though from the thin air by those scholars.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Codex Coislinianus

Euthaliana: Studies of Euthalius, Codex H of the Pauline Epistles, and the Armenian Version (1895)
Joseph Armitage Robinson

2. A new impetus was given to the study of the Euthalian question, when M. H. Omont1 published a complete transcription, together with two pages of facsimile, of the scanty remains of the Greek Codex H of the Pauline Epistles, whose 41 leaves are scattered in the libraries of Paris, Mt Athos, Moscow, S. Petersburg, Kieff (Kiev) and Turin 2. M. Omont refers the codex to the second half of the fifth or to the sixth century, and connects it with the Euthalian edition of these Epistles on the ground of the distribution of its text (Greek). By a strange good fortune the leaf which contains the colophon at the end of the Pauline Epistles is preserved in the Bibliothbque Nationale, and of its recto M. Omont has given us a photographic reproduction. This colophon is so important to our subject that I must give it in full, only dividing the words and using minuscules for greater clearness.

2 The Biblioth&que Nationale at Paria contains 24 of these leaves, and with them may be seen photographs of the leaves preserved in the other libraries, with the exception of those still at Mt Atbos.
Colophone one.jpg
Colophon two.jpg
After Colophone 3.jpg

This colophon, then, tells us that the codex to which it applies was compared with, that is, corrected by, a codex which was written hy Pamphilns, the famous friend of Eusebius, and was preserved at the time in question in the library of Caesarea. It does not in the least follow that Codex H itself was the manuscript so compared and corrected. Colophons of this kind are frequently copied by scribes from one manuscript into another. I have given an example of this in my edition of the Philocalia of Origen (p. xxviii). The ms of Origen contra Celsum from which all other known mss are taken contains the following colophon: (Greek) But that codex cannot be earlier than the 13th century. Moreover the same words are reproduced in copies taken from it in the 14th and 16 th centuries.

We shall have to return to this colophon and its interesting appendices later on. p 2
Wiki top.jpg
wiki data.jpg
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Coison 202

Need page!


Seen by Tischendorf c. 1840

Ἔγραψα καὶ ἐξεθέμην κατὰ δύναμιν στειχηρὸν τόδε τὸ τεῦχος Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου πρὸς ἐγγραμμὸν καὶ εὐκατάλημπτον ἀνάγνωσιν… ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἀγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον

I, Euthalius, wrote this volume of the Apostle Paul as carefully as possible in stichoi, so that it might be read with intelligence: the book was compared with the copy in the library at Caesarea, written by the hand of Pamphilius the saint.

αντεβληθη προϲ παλαιω
τατον λιαν αντιγραφον
δεδιορθωμενον χειρι
του αγιου μαρτυροϲ παμ
φιλου · προϲ δε τω τελει
του αυτου παλαιωτατου
βιβλιου οπερ αρχην μεν
ειχεν απο τηϲ πρωτηϲ
των βαϲιλειων · ειϲ δε
την εϲθηρ εληγεν . τοι
αυτη τιϲ εν πλατει ϊδιω
χειροϲ ϋποϲημιωϲιϲ του
αυτου μαρτυροϲ ϋπεκειτο
εχουϲα ουτωϲ : μετελημφθη και διορ
θωθη προϲ τα εξαπλα
ωριγενουϲ ϋπ αυτου δι
ορθωμενα · αντωνινοϲ
ομολογητηϲ αντεβαλε ·
παμφιλοϲ διορθωϲα το
τευχοϲ εν τη φυλακη ·
δια την του θυ πολλη
και χαριν και πλατυϲμο
και ει γε μη βαρυ ειπει
τουτω τω αντιγραφω
παραπληϲιω̣ν ευρειν
αντιγραφον ου ραδιον >

αντεβληθη προϲ παλαιω
τατον λιαν αντιγραφον
δεδιορθωμενον χειρι του
αγιου μαρτυροϲ παμφιλου
οπερ αντιγραφον προϲ τω
τελει ϋποϲημειωϲιϲ τιϲ
ϊδιοχειροϲ αυτου ϋπεκειτο
εχουϲα ουτωϲ : μετελημφθη και διορθωθη
προϲ τα εξαπλα ωριγενουϲ
αντωνινοϲ αντεβαλεν ·
παμφιλοϲ διορθωϲα
: > > >
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Euthalius (4th or 5th Century), Deacon of Alexandria, utilized the text of Pamphilius at the library at Caesarea and collated the manuscripts of Acts and the Epistles, dividing the books into lessons, chapters, and verses. For this place in first Timothy, the title of the chapter

περὶ θέιας σαρκώσεως, “Concerning the Divine Incarnation,” and virtually every manuscript derived from this system exhibits Θεὸς ἐφανερώθη ἐν σαρκί. His colophon is still preserved in codex H (at the end of the Epistle to Titus):

“I, Euthalius, wrote this volume of the Apostle Paul as carefully as possible in stichoi, so that it might be read with intelligence: the book was compared with the copy in the library at Caesarea, written by the hand of Pamphilius the saint.” Pamphilius of Caesarea was martyred in 309.

Steven Avery

Eric W. Scherbenske

"it has been reconstructed from MS 88, which also transmits this colophon. . For the text and discussion of notes and variants, see Louis Charles Willard, "A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus," (Ph.D. Dissertation, Yale, 1970) 113-26. "


A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus
Lewis Charles Willard

p. 83-92
8. Colophon

Minuscule 88
Codex Regis
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Finnegan above:
Codex Coislianus (Hp), also called Codex Euthalianus , is a Greek manuscript of the Pauline Letters which once belonged to the Monastery of the Great Laura on Mount Athos .


“As a final comparison, consider the textual layout of Codex Sinaiticus, a fourth-century manuscript that at times also transmits a text with attention to sense-lines (see table 3.1). Even though the text of this manuscript is arranged in a roughly colometric fashion, when it is set alongside Codex Coislinianus the visual prominence of vices in the latter becomes even more conspicuous, as a synoptic comparison makes evident.”

Show pages like Scherbenske
195 Constantin von Tischendorf, Novum Testamentum Sinaiticum (Lipsiae: F. A. Brockhaus, 1863), 86. In transcribing this text I have written out the nomina sacra in full.



(here is the beginning of the layout section of Colossians 3:4-8, p. 164 of the book)
Actually starts on v.3.



By prominently displaying the vices in Col. 3:4-8 in this way, the text
warns the reader of the dangers of the fleshly passions. Christ’s glorious
manifestation and the participation promised to the Colossians (and by
extension the readers/auditors of H) is contingent on conquering the pas-
sions by imitating Christ. The focus on instruction through mimesis sup-
ported by an easy-to-read textual layout highlighting vice (and, by contrast,
Christian virtue) reflects Euthalius’s editorial goals and illustrates how this
manuscript of Paul’s letters visually transmitted this pedagogical legacy.


απεθανετε γαρ και
η ζωη υμων κε
κρυπται ϲυν τω χω
εν τω θω οταν ο
χϲ φανερωθη η
ζωη ϋμων τοτε
και ϋμιϲ ϲυν αυτω
εν δοξη
νεκρωϲατε ουν τα
μελη τα επι τηϲ γηϲ
πορνιαν · ακαθαρ
ϲιαν παθοϲ επιθυ
μιαν κακην και
την πλεονεξειαν
ητιϲ εϲτιν ειδωλο
λατρια δι α ερχεται
η οργη του θυ επι
τουϲ υϊουϲ τηϲ απι
εν οιϲ και ϋμιϲ περι
επατηϲατε ποτε
οτε εζητε εν του
νυνϊ δε αποθεϲθε
τα παντα οργην
θυμον · κακιαν ·
βλαϲφημιαν · αι
ϲχρολογιαν εκ του
ϲτοματοϲ ϋμων



Last edited:

Steven Avery

Colossians 3

3 For ye are dead, and your life is hid with Christ in God.

4 When Christ, who is our life, shall appear, then shall ye also appear with him in glory.

5 Mortify therefore your members which are upon the earth;
* fornication, uncleanness, inordinate affection, evil concupiscence, and covetousness,**
which is idolatry: *

6 For which things' sake the wrath of God cometh on the children of disobedience:

7 In the which ye also walked some time, when ye lived in them.

8 But now ye also put off all these; anger, wrath, malice, blasphemy, filthy communication out of your mouth.

3:3 ἀπεθάνετε γάρ καὶ ἡ ζωὴ ὑμῶν κέκρυπται σὺν τῷ Χριστῷ ἐν τῷ θεῷ·
3:4 ὅταν ὁ Χριστὸς φανερωθῇ ἡ ζωὴ ἡμῶν τότε καὶ ὑμεῖς σὺν αὐτῷφανερωθήσεσθε ἐν δόξῃ

3:5 Νεκρώσατε οὖν τὰ μέλη ὑμῶν τὰ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς
** πορνείαν ἀκαθαρσίαν πάθος ἐπιθυμίαν κακήν καὶ τὴν πλεονεξίαν **
ἥτις ἐστὶν εἰδωλολατρεία,

3:6 δι᾽ ἃ ἔρχεται ἡ ὀργὴ τοῦ θεοῦ ἐπὶ τοὺς υἱοὺς τῆς ἀπειθείας
3:7 ἐν οἷς καὶ ὑμεῖς περιεπατήσατέ ποτε ὅτε ἐζῆτε ἐν αὔτοις
3:8 νυνὶ δὲ ἀπόθεσθε καὶ ὑμεῖς τὰ πάντα ὀργήν θυμόν κακίαν βλασφημίαναἰσχρολογίαν ἐκ τοῦ στόματος ὑμῶν·

Greek from TR of Blue letter Bible


To be added:


Laparola variants
or NA - coming soon. - start with the 6 verses

Coislinianus ms. page or two

history of sections

Looking at text on both sides of these 6 verses

Attempts to contact Eric S.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

The First Chapters: Dividing the Text of Scripture in Codex Vaticanus and Its Predecessors (2022)
Charles E. Hill


7 Willard, Critical Study, 114, says that besides 307 (Coislin 25), mss 453, 610, and 1678 attribute the list to Pamphilus, and ms 808 attributes it to Eusebius of Pamphilus.
8 My translation. Greek text from von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 681. (Greek) Cf. Rendel Harris, Stichometry (London: C. J. Clay and Sons, 1893), 87. Note that Euthalius made one book but that it was ‘collated’ with ‘the accurate copies’. This could imply more than one copy of each book was used, but the plural may imply that the Acts and the Catholic Epistles were separate. Cf. the Prologue for Acts, where Euthalius writes, ‘after I had reworked the book of Paul, and straightaway in fact after working on the book of the Acts of the Apostles along with [that of] the seven Catholic epistles... ’ (from Scherbenske, Canonizing Paul, 121, see the Greek on p. 299, n. 22).

3 This is my count from the list in Louis Charles Willard . A Critical Study of the Euthalian Apparatus , ANTF 41 ( Berlin / New York : de Gruyter, 2009 ), 158-69 . 4 Gunther Zuntz , The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament...

Last edited:

Steven Avery

Swete is helpful
Sinaiticus - (1900) Swete - An introduction to the Old Testament in Greek - p. 074 - Esther 2 Esdras - ( colophon Sinaiticus ) "interesting note" Montfaucon and Pamphilus

Hexapla ...
The originals, however, were long preserved at Caesarea in Palestine, where they were deposited, perhaps by Origen himself, in the library of Pamphilus. There they were studied by Jerome in the fourth century (in Psalmos comm. ed. Morin., p. 5: "ἑξαπλοῦς Origenis in Caesariensi bibliotheca relegens"; ib. p. 12: "cum vetustum Origenis hexaplum psalterium revolverem, quod ipsius manu 75fuerat emendatum"; in ep. ad Tit.: "nobis curae fuit omnes veteris legis libros quos v. d. Adamantius in Hexapla digesserat de Caesariensi bibliotheca descriptos ex ipsis authenticis emendare." There also they were consulted by the writers and owners of Biblical MSS.; compare the interesting note attached by a hand of the seventh century to the book of Esther in cod. א : ἀντεβλήθη πρὸς παλαιότατον λίαν ἀντίγραφον δεδιορθωμένον χειρὶ τοῦ ἁγίου `άρτυρος Παμφίλου· πρὸς δὲ τῷ τέλει τοῦ αὐτοῦ παλαιοτάτου βιβλίου . . . ὑποσημείωσις τοῦ αὐτοῦ μάρτυρος ὑπέκειτο ἔχουσα οὕτως·
(O. T. in Greek, ii. p. 780); and the notes prefixed to Isaiah and Ezekiel in Cod. Marchalianus (Q); the second of these notes claims that the copy from which Ezekiel was transcribed bore the subscription
(ib. iii. p. viii.)200. The library of Pamphilus was in existence in the 6th century, for Montfaucon (biblioth. Coisl. p. 262) quotes from Coisl. 202 201, a MS. of that century, a colophon which runs: ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν Καισαρίᾳ ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον αὐτοῦ.

But in 638 Caesarea fell into the hands of the Saracens, and from that time the Library was heard of no more. Even if not destroyed at the moment, it is probable that every vestige of the collection perished during the vicissitudes through which the town passed between the 7th century and the 12th202. Had the Hexapla been buried in Egypt, she might have preserved it in her sands; it can scarcely be hoped that the sea-washed and storm-beaten ruins of Kaisariyeh cover a single leaf.
Last edited:

Steven Avery

Tregelles (1857)βίβλος

Παύλου τοῦ ἀποστόλου πρὸς ἔγγραμ-
μὸν καὶ εὐκατάλημπτον ἀνάγνωσιν τῶν
καθ᾽ ἡμᾶς ἀδελφῶν παρ᾽ ὧν ἁπάντων
τύλμης συγγνώμην αἰτῶ, εὐχὴ τῇ ὑπὲρ
ἐμῶν τὴν συνπεριφορὰν κομιζόμενος"

ἀντεβλήθη δὲ ἡ βίβλος πρὸς τὸ ἐν
Καισαρία ἀντίγραφον τῆς βιβλιοθήκης
τοῦ ἁγίου Παμφίλου χειρὶ γεγραμμένον
αὐτοῦ Ἡ.

Last edited:

Steven Avery

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.


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 | Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM


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 | Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM

Notes to Colophon


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 | Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM


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 | Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM

Notes to Colophon


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 | Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM


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 | Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM

Notes to Colophon


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 | Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM


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 | Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM

Notes to Colophon


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 | Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM


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 | Download Date | 1/23/12 1:31 PM
Last edited:

Steven Avery

To Cast the First Stone

A well-trained scholar in the Alexandrian mold, later editors revered Eusebius for the careful attention he paid to preserving a corrected Septuagint, which helped to certify the reliability of the church’s texts. Though later Gospel copies show no direct evidence of Eusebian correction, beyond the ubiquitous Ammonian sections and Eusebian canons, and, though there are no colophons celebrating his editorial work on the Gospels, which he never explicitly attempted, the bishop certainly had a hand in Gospel production.24

24. R. Devreesse identifies two colophons on the Epistles of Paul and one on a manuscript of Acts and the Catholic Epistles that attribute editorial work to Pamphilus (Devreesse 160,163, 168; cited and discussed by Carriker, Library of Eusebius, isn66). Moreover, there is a note on James 2:13 in minuscule 1739, copied by the scribe Ephraim in the tenth century, that refers to a manuscript written by Eusebius of Caesarea “with his own hand ” In view of this and other criti- cal notes in the same manuscript, Kirsopp Lake and Silva New stated that “there is a possibility that Ephraim ... in the tenth century copied a critical edition of the New Testament which had been made in Caesarea from manuscripts and patristic writings preserved in the great library of Pamphilus” (Kirsopp Lake and Silva New, Six Collations of New Testament Manuscripts, HTS 17 [Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1932], 144). Nevertheless, there is no certain evidence that either Eusebius or Pamphilus attempted to prepare a critical edition (fcSocn^) of the New Testament. The existence of a “Caesarean" text of the Gospels has been disproved. See Eldon J. Epp, “Textual Clusters: Their Past and Future in New Testament Textual Criticism,” in The Text of the New Testament, 542-43.