Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dlnhk Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:08:42.142Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Gothic Evidence for “Euthalian Matter”

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 August 2011

James W. Marchand
James W. Marchand
Affiliation:
Washington University, St. Louis, Missouri
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

It is a well-known fact that, sometime between the 4th and 7th centuries, a recension of the NT, or at least of the Pauline and Catholic epistles, into thought-lines was made. This recension is attributed variously to Euthalius, to Evagrius, even to Pamphilius. In spite of the fact that its authorship is unclear, this recension into thought-lines, along with certain other matter which is normally found with it, is traditionally called “Euthalian matter” or “Euthalian apparatus.” There are two important problems concerning Euthalian matter which are at present unsolved: (1) the date of Euthalius (or of the author of the recension, whom I shall henceforth call Euthalius for convenience sake); (2) which parts of the Euthalian matter are to be ascribed to the original author?

Type
Research Article
Information
Harvard Theological Review , Volume 49 , Issue 3 , July 1956 , pp. 159 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © President and Fellows of Harvard College 1956

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 E. von Dobschütz (“Euthalius Studien,” ZfK XIX, 2) was, as far as I know, the first to place quotes around the name Euthalius. Erhard, A. first proposed Evagrius as the author of “Euthalian Matter” (Centralblatt für das Bibliothekwesen (1891) VIII, 385–411Google Scholar). To my knowledge, E. Nestle is the only scholar who suggested Pamphilius as the author: “In any case, this ms. (H) is our principal witness for the recension of Pamphilius or, as it used to be called, the recension of Euthalius” (Nestle, E., Introduction to the Criticism of the Greek N.T., trans, by Edie, W., London, 1901, p. 188 f.Google Scholar).

2 von Soden, H., Die Schriften des NT, 1902, Vol. I, 637–682Google Scholar.

3 Robinson, J. A., “Euthaliana,” Texts and Studies, No. 3, Cambridge, 1895Google Scholar; “Recent Work on Euthalius,” JTS VI (1904–05), 87–90Google Scholar.

4 Conybeare, F. C., “The Date of Euthalius,” ZfnW V (1904), 39–52Google Scholar; “On the Codex Pamphili and the Date of Euthalius,” The Journal of Philology XXIII (1895), 241–259Google Scholar.

5 Von Dobschütz, op. cit., and Centralblatt für das Bibliothekwesen X (1893), 49–70Google Scholar.

6 New Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge IV (1909), 215Google Scholar b–216 a (by von Dobschutz): “A greater difficulty is that of reconstructing the true text used and approved by Euthalius.”

7 Cf. van den Hout, Michiel, “Gothic Palimpsests of Bobbio,” Scriptorium VI (1952), 91–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See also the present author's “Notes on Gothic MSS,” to appear in JEGPh.

8 The destruction of the Visigoths at the hands of Byzantine generals has always been the terminus post quern non for Gothic scholars. It seems extremely unlikely that any Gothic manuscript could have been written down after 555.

9 Braun, W., “Die Lese- und Einteilungszeichen in den gotischen Handschriften der Ambrosiana in Mailand,” ZfdPh XXX (1898), 433–448Google Scholar, gives an excellent discussion of the punctuation and division of the Codices Ambrosiani, along with new readings of these codices. See further Kauffmann, Fr., “Beiträge zur Quellenkritik der gotischen Bibelübersetzung. 7. Der codex Carolinus,” ZfdPh XLIII (1911), 401–428Google Scholar, and Braun, W., “Ein satzphonetisches Gesetz des Gotischen mit vorwiegender Rücksicht auf die Codices Ambrosiani,” Germanisch-Romanische Monatschrift V (1913), 367–391Google Scholar. My discussion is based in the main on these three articles. It should be mentioned that scholars are not agreed on the value and correctness of Braun's readings.

10 On the origin of the Gothic alphabet, see Fairbanks, S. and Magoun, F. P., “On Writing and Printing Gothic,” Speculum XV (1940), 313–330CrossRefGoogle Scholar; von Friesen, O. and Grape, Anders, Om Codex Argenteus, Uppsala, 1928, pp. 87 ff.Google Scholar; also the author's article, “Der Ursprung des gotischen born-Zeichens,” PBB 77 (1955), 490–494Google Scholar, and “Das akrophonische Prinzip und Wulfilas Alphabet,” ZfdA (1956), 34–42Google Scholar.

11 See the author's, “Two Alleged Late-Gothic Sound-Changes,” to appear soon in JEGPh.

12 Traube, Ludwig, Nomina Sacra, Munich, 1907, 271–275Google Scholar.

13 Kauffmann, op. cit., p. 406 ff.

14 W. Braun, “Lese- und Einteilungszeichen,” pp. 435 ff.

15 Cf. Kauffmann, op. cit., p. 406. The first two lines are separated by ca. 1 cm., the second two lines by ca. 1 cm.; the third and the fourth vertical lines are separated by 6.5 cm.; the other lines are separated by 1 cm. each. The Latin begins in the eighth column, and is displayed on its side of the page in the same manner as the Gothic. The Gothic and Latin words are, of course, not separated; they are separated here for convenience.

16 Cf. Friedrichsen, G. W. S., The Gothic Version of the Epistles, Oxford, 1939, pp. 65 ffGoogle Scholar.

17 Cf. Braun, “Ein satzphonetisches Gesetz,” p. 375.

18 Cf. O. von Friesen and Anders Grape. Codex Argenteus Upsaliensis Iussu Senatus Universitatis phototypice editus, “Praefatio,” pp. 38, 57 f.

19 Glaue, Paul and Helm, Karl, “Das gotisch-lateinische Bibelfragment der Universitätsbibliothek zu Giessen,” ZfnW XI (1910), pp. 10 ffGoogle Scholar.

20 Jellinek, M. H., Geschichte der gotischen Sprache, Berlin, 1926, p. 15Google Scholar.