¹ Codices Graeci MSS. Regiae Bibliothecae Borbonicae descripti atque illustrati, Naples, 1726, I, 13–24. I have not had access to this volume, but cite it from the only study on MS. II A 7 itself which has come to my attention, E. von Dobschütz, “A Hitherto Unpublished Prologue to the Acts of the Apostles (Probably by Theodore of Mopsuestia),” American Journal of Theology, II, 1898, 355.

² Textkritik des Neuen Testamentes, Leipzig, 1909, pp. 271, 299, 321. Gregory's numbers: 83 of the Acts and Catholic epistles, 93 of the epistles of Paul, 99 of the Apocalypse.

³ Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, Berlin, 1902, I. i, 224, 677 f. Soden's number, α200.

⁴ Evagrius Ponticus, 346–399?. So Albert Ehrhard, “Der Codex H ad epistulas Pauli und ‘Euthalios diaconos',” Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen, VIII, 1891, 409; J. A. Robinson, “Euthaliana,” Texts and Studies, III, iii, Cambridge, 1895, p. 71. But cf. Dobschütz, “Ein Beitrag zur Euthaliusfrage,” Centralblatt, X, 1893, 61 ff.

⁵ Soden, Schriften, gives the Greek MSS. containing Euthalian material, I. 1, 674–679, as well as a discussion of the Euthalian question, 637–682. The Greek MSS. must be supplemented by reference to the Syriac (see esp. Dobschütz, “Euthaliusstudien,” Zeitschrift für Kirchengeschichte, XIX, 1899, 115–154; Günther Zuntz, The Ancestry of the Harklean New Testament, The British Academy Supplemental Papers, No. VII, London, 1945, esp. pp. 77–121; “Études Harkléennes,” Revue Biblique, LVII, 1950, 550–582Google Scholar; further n. 9); the Armenian (see Conybeare, F. C., “On the Codex Pamphili and Date of Euthalius,” Journal of Philology, XXIII, 1895, 243 f.Google Scholar, 249–252; cf. n. 28; “The Date of Euthalius,” Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, V, 1904, 44–52); the Georgian (cf. Lake, K. and New, S., The Text of the New Testament, 6th ed. rev., London, 1949, p. 60)Google Scholar; and the Latin (Dobschütz, “Euthaliusstudien,” III ). Further, the basic essay of L. A. Zacagni, Collectanea Monumentorum Veterum, Rome, 1698, pp. liv-lxxv, 401–708; reprinted in part by Migne, Patrol. Gr., LXXXV, 619–790, and elsewhere; (I am indebted to the courtesy of Professor William W. Manross, Librarian of the Philadelphia Divinity School, for generous access to the Zacagni volume); “Zacagni veröffentlichte den Apparat des Euthalius aus dieser Handschrift …” [minuscule 40 of Acts and Catholic epistles], Gregory, Textkritik, p. 267; cf. Dobschütz, “Euthaliusstudien,” 108; Robinson, “Euthaliana,” esp. pp. 1–27.

⁶ Omont, M. H., Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des Épîtres de Saint Paul, Paris, 1889, p. 53, cf. 56; also B. de Montfaucon, Bibliotheca Coisliniana, Paris, 1715, p. 262. H, H^p, H³, 015; α1022.Google Scholar

⁷ This was noticed by Ehrhard, Centralblatt, VIII, 1891, 388 ff. The colophon of 93 is printed in part by Fabricius-Harless, Bibliotheca Graeca, ed. tertia, Hamburg, 1796, V, 789, § 223.

⁸ See inter alia Lagrange, M.-J., Critique textuelle, Paris, 1935, II, 144–168.Google Scholar

⁹ Günther Zuntz, “Die Subscriptionen der Syra Harclensis,” Zeitschrift der Deutschen Morgenländischen Gesellschaft, CI, 1951, 180 f.; The Text of the Epistles, (Schweich Lectures), London, 1953, pp. 153 ff.

¹⁰ Cf. O. Bardenhewer, Geschichte der altkirchlichen Literatur, 2te Aufl., Freiburg im Breisgau, 1914, II, 288–291.

¹¹ Only the first book survives in the Latin translation of Rufinus (d. 410); Migne, Patrol. Gr., XVII, 521–616.

¹² The meaning of Eusebius Pamphili, Εὐσέβιος Παμϕίλου, ό τοȗ Παμϕίλου is not known exactly. Eusebius has been supposed the friend (ἀναγκαιος ϕίλος, necessarius, Jerome, Vir. Ill., 75; Migne, Patrol. Lat., XXIII, 721 f.), protégé, slave, spiritual son (usually), nephew (ό τούτου δελϕιδοȗς, Nicephorus Callistus [d. 1335], Hist. Eccl., VI. 37; Migne, Patrol. Gr., CXLV, 1204), and son of Pamphilus.

¹³ In three books (cf. Mart. Pal., 11. 3; Schwartz, Eusebius Werke, GCS, II. ii, 934 f.; Jerome, Vir. Ill., 81; Migne, Patrol. Lat., XXIII, 725–728) a fragment of the third of which is given by Jerome, Adv. Rufin., I. 9; Migne, ibid., 422 f.

¹⁴ Cf. Jerome, Vir. Ill., 113; Migne, Patrol. Lat., XXIII, 745 f.

¹⁵ Eusebius, Hist. Eccl., VI. 20.

¹⁶ Jerome, Epist. 34, Ad Marcellam; Migne, Patrol. Lat., XXII, 448.

¹⁷ Adv. Rufin., II. 27; Migne, Patrol. Lat., XXIII, 471; “Mediae inter [Alexandria-Egypt/Constantinople] has provinciae Palaestinos codices [LXX] legunt, quos ab Origine elaboratos Eusebius et Pamphilus vulgaverunt.”

¹⁸ Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, Leipzig, 1893, I. 2, 543 f., lists and prints the text of several of these; see further the studies of Conybeare, Robinson, and Zuntz in ns. 5 and 9 for reference to the colophons in the Syriac and Armenian MSS. To Harnack's list must also be added the colophon of Cod. H, see n. 6, and that in minuscule 173. 211, α161, if Lietzmann is correct, An die Römer, Handbuch zum Neuen Testament, VIII, Tübingen, 1928, p. 13.

¹⁹ Iosepho Cozza-Luzi, Prophetarum: Codex Graecus Vaticanus 2125, Rome, 1890, p. 568.

²⁰ , H. and Lake, K., Codex Sinaiticus, Oxford, 1922, p. 16.Google Scholar

²¹ Harnack, op. cit., p. 544; Zacagni, Collectanea, p. 513. reads τοȗ παμϕἰλου.

²² Hug, J. L., Einleitung in die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, 4te Aufl., Stuttgart, 1847, I, 171 ff.Google Scholar

²³ See ns. 25, 29, and 30; cf. Vaganay, L., Initiation à la critique textuelle néotestamentaire, Paris, 1934, pp. 96–98.Google Scholar

²⁴ ἀντίγραϕα? cf. the subscription to Jude in the text.

²⁵ Bousset, Wilhelm, “Der Kodex Pamphili,” Texte und Untersuchungen XI. iv, Leipzig, 1894, p. 70 f.Google Scholar “Auch diese Thatsache erklärt sich am besten durch jene Erkenntnis einer von Pamphilus ausgegangenen Recension des neuen Testaments,” p. 71. Cf. Theologische Literaturzeitung, XXV, 1900, 613, “Origenes hat keine Recension des neuen Testamentes hergestellt. …”

²⁶ P, P₂, 025, α3. The upper writing, 1834, α463 is cited by Tichendorf, Novum Testamentum Graece, ed. oct. crit. maior, Leipzig, 1872, as Euthal^cod.

²⁷ Conybeare, Journal of Philology, XXIII, 1895, 258 f.

²⁸ Robinson, “Euthaliana,” pp. 72–98. For reference to F. Macler's “detailed refutation” of Robinson's views, and a critique of Macler's method, see Lake, K., Blake, R. P. and New, S., “The Caesarean Text of the Gospel of Mark,” Harvard Theological Review, XXI, 1928, S307–310.Google Scholar

²⁹ E. F. von der Goltz, “Eine textkritische Arbeit des zehnten bezw. sechsten Jahrhunderts,” Texte und Untersuchungen, N. F. II. iv, Leipzig, 1899, esp. pp. 16, 23.

³⁰ Soden, Schriften, I. ii, 1907, 1506; I. iii, 1910, 2177.

³¹ I. iii, 1951 f.

³² I. iii, 1936–47.

³³ Cf. Eberhard Nestle, Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the Greek New Testament, trans, from the 2nd ed. by Edie, William, London, 1901, p. 188.Google Scholar

³⁴ Cf. Murphy, H. S., “Eusebius’ New Testament Text in the Demonstratio Evangelica,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXXIII, 1954, 166.Google Scholar

³⁵ The readings of 93 are from photographs of the MS. made available to me through the courtesy of the Biblioteca Nazionale in Naples. The other witnesses are cited from the following editions:

Dem, Demonstratio Evangelica, Heikel, GCS, Leipzig, 1913;

P⁴⁶, Chester Beatty Bibl. Papy., Kenyon, London, 1936–7;

(01, δ2), Sinaiticus, Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1865;

A(02, δ4), Alexandrinus, Woide and Cowper, London, 1860;

B(03, δ1), Vaticanus, Bibliorum S. S. Graecorum Codex Vat. 1209, Milan, 1904–7;

C(04, δ3), Ephraemi, Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1834;

D(D^p, D₂, 06, α1026), Claromontanus, Tischendorf, Leipzig, 1852;

G(G^p, G_a, 012, α1028), Boernerianus, C. F. Matthaei, Messina, 1791;

K(K₂, 018, I¹, A^πρ1), Mosquensis, Mattaei, Riga 1872, 1873;

P(P², 025, α3), Porfirianus, Tischendorf, Monumenta Sacra Inedita, Nova Collectio, V, Leipzig, 1865;

1739 (α278), M. S. Enslin, Six Collations of New Testament Manuscripts, ed. by Lake, K. and New, S., Cambridge, Mass., 1932;Google Scholar

1834(Euthal^cod, α463), see n. 26;

TR, Textus Receptus, Oxford, 1873; a reprint of J. Mill's Nov. Test. Gr., Oxford, 1707, the text of which is that of Stephanus’ editio regia of 1550.

³⁶ See Omont, n. 6; in addition, K. Lake, Facsimiles of the Athos Fragments of the Codex H of the Pauline Epistles, Oxford, 1905, and Robinson, “Euthaliana,” pp. 50–65.

³⁷ Lacunae in Romans: P⁴⁶, i. 1—v. 17, xi. 2–3; C, i. 1–3, ii. 5—iii. 21, ix. 5—x. 15; D, i. 1–3; G, i. 1–5; K, x. 18 to end; P, ii. 15—iii. 5. Lacunae in 1 Corinthians: P⁴⁶, i. 23; A, xv. 55; C, vii. 18—ix. 6; K, i. 1—vi. 13; 93, i. 23, εθνεσι/ελλησι obscure.

³⁸ For κραζει (70, 36), (68, 33) reads κραυγαζει, sg. rd.

³⁹ ix. 29. (70, 36) reads προειρηκεν, but (68, 33) reads προειπεν, sg. rd.

⁴⁰ (68, 33), (70, 36) read υπολειμμα; (79, 25) καταλειμμα; cf. Isaiah x. 22, LXX, καταλ(ε)ιμμα. υπολειμμα may be a scribal correction in 1739.

⁴¹ (70, 36) omits εν δικαιοσυνη οτι λογον συντετμημενον, but (68, 33) has οτι λογον συντετμημενον: cf. Isaiah x. 2 2, LXX, εν δικαιοσυνη οτι λογον συντετμημενον.

⁴² xi. 2. (69, 4) reads του Ισραηλ with all witnesses, but (71, 6) τον Ισραηλ, sg. rd.; (71, 6) reads κατα with all witnesses, (69, 4) περι, sg. rd.

⁴³ xi. 3. (69, 4) reads την ψυχην μου with all witnesses, but (71, 6) μου την ψυχην, sg. rd.; cf. 1 Kings xix. 10, 14, LXX reading both. (69, 4) and (71, 6) read του λαβειν αυτην, sg. rd., with I Kings xix. 10 and 14, LXX. xi. 4. (71, 6) reads λεγει αυτω with all witnesses, but (69, 4) omits αυτω, sg. rd.

⁴⁴ τομος ΙΑ΄ ος ου ϕερεται. Goltz, “Eine textkritische Arbeit,” p. 58.

⁴⁵ Of the original fifteen books of the Greek Commentary, only fragments survive: in the Philocalia, in the Catenae, in St. Basil, and on papyrus; for details see Johannes Quasten, Patrology, Utrecht, 1953, II, 49 f. Rufinus' Latin translation is given by Migne, Patrol. Gr., XIV, 833–1292.

⁴⁶ “K. W. Kim, “Codices, 1582, 1739, and Origen,” Journal of Biblical Literature, LXIX, 1950, 168.

⁴⁷ Cf. Bauernfeind, O, “Der Römerbrieftext des Origenes nach dem Codex von der Goltz,” Texte und Untersuchungen, III. xiv, Leipzig, 1924, 1–119, esp. 90–119.Google Scholar

⁴⁸ The principal MS. of the Demonstratio is the twelfth-century Paris. 469 (P); Heikel, Demonstratio Evangelica, pp. ix ff.; Harnack, Geschichte der altchristlichen Litteratur, I. ii, p. 568.

⁴⁹ (314, 8) reads οϕειλει ο αροτριων επ ελπιδι, sg. rd.

⁵⁰ Cf. Goltz, “Eine textkritische Arbeit,” p. 9.

⁵¹ “Le text [of Cod. H] appartient au type B…,” Lagrange, Critique textuelle, II, 467.

⁵² Cf. Robinson, “Euthaliana,” pp. 34–36; Zuntz, Revue Biblique, LVII, 1950, 552–555.

⁵³ According to Conybeare, Zeitschrift für die neutestamentliche Wissenschaft, V, 1904, 43, P. Corssen did not find any affinity of textual tradition among MSS. of the eighth to the eleventh centuries which contain the Euthalian apparatus; Gött. gel. Anz., 1899, No. 9.