Are there ancient editions of Paul's letters?

Abstract

Nils Dahl was an omnivorous scholar, tackling questions related to the composition, redaction, theology, transmission, and history of the New Testament. One area that captured his attention (and the attention of his students and colleagues) was the Euthalian apparatus, a series of complicated and ubiquitous lists, cross-reference systems, biographical texts, and text divisions. Dahl saw the critical value of these traditions for understanding the early transmission of the Pauline corpus, hypothesizing that the material once comprised an official ancient edition connected to the library of Caesarea. This article takes a step back by first examining the flexibility of the Euthalian material in the manuscripts that preserve it, arguing that it is more valuable to understand these features in the context of transmission and reading as opposed to viewing the tradition as evidence for an ancient edition.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Notes

1 Dahl produced multiple exegetical and theological studies, and participated in the intellectual life of the Lutheran church, but the most substantial of his contributions are, at least to my mind, those that work with manuscripts, textual history, and paratexts. See Hansen, Nils Alstrup Dahl for an overview of his biography and (most of) his published works. For a good example of his more theologically oriented studies, see Dahl, The Crucified Messiah and Dahl, Studies in Paul.

2 E.g., Dahl, “Ephesians and Qumran,” 107–44; Dahl, “0230 (=PSI 1306),” 79–98.

3 Of course, more classical forms of historical-critical scholarship that focus on the interpretation of the New Testament in the context of the first century are also legitimate, but it is not the only, or even necessarily the most important, kind of scholarly endeavour.

4 On issues associated with the uncritical acceptance of the reality of “editions,” at least as it related to the Hebrew Bible, see Van Seters, The Edited Bible, who argues to the contrary “that there was never in antiquity anything like ‘editions’ of literary works that were the result of an ‘editorial’ process, the work of editors or redactors” (p. 398). See also Einstein, The Printing Press as an Agent of Change, 11 who states: “What is the ‘average edition’ turned out between 1400 and 1450? The question verges on nonsense. The term ‘edition’ comes close to being an anachronism when applied to copies of a manuscript book.” Johnson, Readers and Reading, 179–80, examining the notion of edition in ancient Roman traditions, is careful to distinguish between ancient editions (“that unique copy belonging to the ancient scholar”) and modern editions. I accept that ancient and medieval scholars sometimes produced and used manuscripts of works that served special configurations of a text, but then every manifestation of a work becomes an edition in this sense and the potential for anachronism and misunderstanding still persists if we insist on using the word “edition.”

5 Dahl, “Euthalian Apparatus,” 231.

6 See Allen and Rodenbiker, “Titles of the New Testament”; Allen et al., “The New Testament in Virtual Research Environments.” See the project website at www.kephalaia.com (accessed 31 October 2022).

7 Zuntz, Ancestry, esp. 77–121. See also Hemmerdinger, “Euthaliana,” 349–55. For work by Dahl and his ilk, see Dahl, “Euthalian Apparatus,” 231–75; Willard, Critical Study; Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions.

8 Other recent examples of engagement with the Euthalian material (and Dahl's work on it) can be seen in Petroelje, Pauline Book, 82–8 and Fewster, “Finding your Place.”

9 And his focus was almost entirely on the Pauline material, not on the Praxapostolos tradition (Acts and Catholic Letters).

10 Dahl uses the language of “edition” in multiple studies, including Dahl, “0230,” where he argues that “early editions of biblical texts is a neglected field of study” (p. 227); and Dahl, “Welche Ordnung,” where he argues that the Muratorian Fragment order of the Pauline letters differs from the “canonical order of the first edition [erste Ausgabe] of the Pauline Corpus” (p. 43) because it attempts to build a seven-form corpus on the model of the letters in Revelation 2–3.

11 Dahl, “0230,” 215 (emphasis original). Dahl views the study of “editions” as an aspect of reception, as part of a broader understanding of “the history of piety,” something particularly important to Protestantism: “the importance of editions can even be illustrated by the various types that have been predominant in Protestantism, from Luther to the present day” (“Euthalian Apparatus,” 234). I suspect that Dahl's interest in ancient editions stems from his theological understanding of more modern instantiations.

12 E.g. Scherbenske, Canonizing Paul, 116–74, who takes Dahl's assertion that editions are key to understanding the development and reception of Paul's letters as his starting point: “since editions of Paul's letters were the very tradents of Pauline traditions, they frames the lineaments of the disputes” (p. 2). Gamble, Books and Readers in the Early Church also uses this language, especially when talking about reconstructed second century collections of Paul's letters: “these second-century collections derive from early editions of the corpus Paulinum that were shaped by ideas about the number of letters or addressees and about the order of the letters and that had distinctive textual complexions” (100). See also Petroelje, Pauline Book, 75–103.

13 See, for example, Trobisch, First Edition, who explores the history of the “final redaction” of the “canonical edition” of the Bible, something that views as definitely “published.” His main augment, which I am ultimately unconvinced by is that “the history of the New Testament is the history of an edition, a book that has been published and edited by a specific group of editors, at a specific place, and at a specific time” (p. 6).

14 Dahl, “Euthalian Apparatus,” 231 himself notes that the Euthalian apparatus eventually comes into contact with most other paratexts found in the manuscripts: “My interest [in the Euthalian apparatus] grew even more after I began to work with Early Church editions of Paul's letters and realized how much of what is found in Greek in the apparatuses for Paul's letters sooner or later was connected to the Euthalian apparatus.”

15 A term borrowed from Robinson, Euthaliana.

16 This approach can be construed as part of a larger discourse on New Philology, which prizes the realia of the existing evidence as the primary source of evidence before working to reconstruct “originals” of one kind or another. For a good discussion of the nuances of New Philology, see Lied, Invisible Manuscripts, 22–32.

17 Zuntz, Ancestry, 84, after describing the functions of the Lection List and its “readings,” “chapters,” and “lines,” acknowledges the boring nature of his own description: “I cherish no allusions with regard to the dullness of the analysis just completed.”

18 Additionally, there is no agreement on the identity of the tradition's initial compiler, be it Euthalius or another figure associated with the tradition. Zacagni was the first to attribute the work to Euthalius, but Ehrhard, “Codex H” attributed the work to Evagrius of Pontus and Zuntz, “Euthalius = Euzoius?” suggested Euzoius, among other proposals. A major issue with exploring the Euthaliana, especially as an edition, is that there exists no consensus as to the identity of its compiler or the date and location where it was made. This lack of consensus contributed to critical disinterest in the material for most of the mid- to late-twentieth century. See Scherbenske, Canonizing Paul, 118–20; Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions, 8–33.

19 Dahl, “Euthalian Apparatus.” See also Allen, “Early Textual Scholarship”; Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions, 8–10; Willard, Critical Study, which is a monograph-length description of the system. And, earlier, see von Soden, Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments, vol. 1/1, 637–82, who also refers to the work of Euthalius as an Ausgabe; and the edition of Zagacnius (or Zacagni), Collectanea monumentorum veterum ecclesiæ græcæ, 403–708. On the Euthaliana in the context of late ancient textual scholarship, see Fewster, “Finding Your Place”; Scherbenske, Canonizing Paul, 122–57.

20 As it is laid out in its fullest form in Zacagni's edition (and some of the manuscripts that underlie it, like GA 181 and 623), the earliest Euthalian edition is buried under detritus that must be excised if we are to recover the unadulterated Euthalius. Dahl, “Euthalian Apparatus,” 233–4 also suggests the editor worked with pre-existing material “in the form of lists and/or notes on the New Testament text,” which suggests that the “Euthalian edition” as Dahl sees it, is already the product of reworking and revision.

21 Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions, 99–111. Scherbenske, Canonizing Paul, 6 argues that prologues are especially relevant because they are “the primary locus for transmitting the editor's hermeneutic.”

22 Another innovative form for larger paratextual traditions on the Pauline letters can be found in the work of Priscillian of Avila in Latin. See Lang, “Arts of Memory.”

23 On the Chronicon and its afterlives, see Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 133–77; Riggsby, Mosaics of Knowledge, 218–21. Crawford, The Eusebian Canon Tables, 106–9 suggests that the Chronicon had both apologetic and scholarly functions, noting that it functioned with a sense of openness to the “ineliminable uncertainty intrinsic to historical investigation” (107).

24 Others have made similar arguments that tie the Euthaliana to a Caesarean context; see, for example, Fewster, “Finding your Place.”

25 See Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions, 207–11 for further comment on this point. Scherbenske, Canonizing Paul, 124 suggests that the outline of Paul's life in the prologue also follows a pattern of repentance, conversion, and salvation, suggesting an exhortative function (παραινέσις) of some of the material. I disagree that the Euthaliana were designed for “catechetical instruction” as he assumes, but Paul's life and the arrangement of his writings are structured to encourage a particular form of faithful pedagogy. See also Petroelje, Pauline Book, 88.

26 Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions, 212 is unsure if the phrase “the most accurate divisions of the readings” (ἠ τῶν ἀναγνώσϵων ἀκριβϵστάτη τομή) refers to the lection list, but I cannot come up with a more likely referent.

27 Dahl identifies multiple diachronic layers in the prologue, arguing that it is a “critical revision of one or two earlier editions” (“Euthalian Apparatus,” 240), perhaps a revision of the prologue of Pamphilus's edition. Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions, 196–7 concurs with Dahl's view that we can reconstruct redactional layers within the prologue, based on its structural variance from other ancient examples of the genre. The details of the relationship between these editions and their content is unclear. Nonetheless, the concept of edition is central to Dahl's view of the transmission of the Pauline corpus: “no manuscript or exact copy of the edition of PAMPH and/or EUTH is known today. The history of transmission is to a large extent a history of omissions and editions” (“Euthalian Apparatus,” 241). In other words, no pure copies of these editions exist, but we can reconstruct them in part by mining the content of their paratexts. Editions are as essential to the history of the New Testament as they are ephemeral in the manuscript tradition, and their development can be traced, at least in outline, in the remnants of the material, according to Dahl.

28 On stichoi in the Euthalian tradition see Harris, “Stichometry II.”

29 The chapter lists for each letter correspond to the number of chapter (κϵφαλαία) for each work in the Euthalian corpus. In other words, the chapter lists and lection list agree on the number of chapter in each work, with the exception of Acts.

30 Some chapter lists for different works do have sub-divisions (ὑποδιαιρέσϵις), additional divisions not mentioned in the lection list For example, see my observations on Acts’ chapter lists in Allen, “Early Textual Scholarship.”

31 On the technical and generic language of the apparatus, see Hellholm and Blomkvist, “Parainesis as an Ancient Genre-Designation.”

32 This last entry is not present in GA 88 as far as I can tell, but the first line of the second column is unreadable in the images I have accessed.

33 The note left of column a here reads η | ησαιου | θ η and the text of the quotation is not otherwise formally demarcated from the main text.

34 Dahl, “Euthalian Apparatus,” 242–3.

35 Dahl nuances this view in places. For example, he suggests that the chapter lists as we know them were part of an edition connected to the hypotheses that precede each letter (“Euthalian Apparatus,” 245).

36 Ibid., 244.

37 Ibid.

38 Translation from Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions, 78–9.

39 Dahl “Euthalian Apparatus,” 253 and Willard, Critical Study, 158–69 (the most serious manuscript survey to date) report that 99% of all manuscripts of the Catholic Epistles, 90% of Paul, and 80% of Acts have the hypotheses.

40 Dahl, “Euthalian Apparatus,” 255. Dahl even suggests that the manuscripts related to GA 181, the manuscript at the base of Zacagni's edition, “must have been based on an edition in which the original prologue edition was fused together with an argumenta-edition that had also contain chapters” (p. 257).

41 Dahl, “Euthalian Apparatus,” 250–3.

42 Ibid., 250.

43 015 was disassembled in the Great Lavra Monastery on Mt Athos and used as binding material or flyleaves in subsequent manuscripts, making its way to major European institutions in the covers of other manuscripts. For example, Duplacy, “Manuscrits,” 169 notes that the folia at the State Historical Museum in Moscow were found in the binding of Vlad. 140, which Arseny Sukhanov had taken from the Great Lavra in 1655. Its 41 folios are held in Paris, BnF coisl. gr. 202 (diktyon 49341); suppl. gr. 1074 (diktyon 53738); Athos, Lavra, s.n. (diktyon 26927); Kyiv, Vernadsky National Library Φ. 301 (KДA) 26п (diktyon 37341); Turin, Biblioteca Naz. Uni. Torino B. I. 5 (A.1) (diktyon 63625); Moscow, State Historical Museum Sinod. gr. Vlad. 563 (diktyon 43625); Moscow, Russian State Library Φ. 270 (gr. 166,1) (diktyon 44350); St Petersburg, Nat. Lib. Rus. Φ. № 906 /Gr. 14 (diktyon 57082). The most recent partial edition is Omont, Notice. Scherbenske, Canonizing Paul, 117 suggests that 015 is associated with “an edition of the Corpus Paulinum fashioned by a certain Euthalius,” drawing again upon editorial language to describe its relationship to a broader hypothetical tradition.

44 See text and translation in Blomkvist, Euthalian Traditions, 16.

45 Omont, Notice, 7. The division of sense units in this manner is further expounded in the Armenian version of Euthalian material. See Conybeare, “On the Codex Pamphili,” 243–44.

46 For a good overview of the complexities of this question, see Scherbenske, Canonizing Paul, 147–50. Additionally, the significance of the layout in 015 has yet to be fully explored. Dahl, “0230,” 227 even notes that “I am inclined to think that the task [of examining the colomentric layout of these manuscripts] can be accomplished but will certainly not have time for it until well after my retirement, if ever.”

47 The same is true of the subscription to Titus, which notes that the work has 97 lines.

48 On the colophon and its transmission, see Murphy, “On the Text of Codices H and 93.”

49 The role of Pamphilus in the library of Caesarea is relayed by Jerome in his De vir. ill. He even refers to the library of Caesarea as the bibliotheca Origenis et Pamphili (De vir. ill. 112). See also Gamble, Books and Readers, 155–61; Grafton and Williams, Christianity and the Transformation of the Book, 192–5. On the library of Caesarea, see Frenschkowski, “Bibliothek von Cäsarea,” esp. 68–76 on Jerome's description in particular; see also Carriker, Library of Eusebius.

50 Other colophons reference Caesarea and Pamphilus as well, like the post-production colophon to Esther in Codex Sinaiticus. See Devreesse, Introduction, 122–5; Frenschkowski, “Geschichte,” 86–91.

51 There were multiple post-production engagements with 015 prior to its disassemblage, including re-inking, accentuation, corrections, tachygraphic notes, and artworks. On some of these see Dobrynina, “On the Dating of Codex H.” On the use of margins as a generative space for scholarship see Kwakkel, “The Margin as Editorial Space.”

52 See the entry in Pinakes for a full overview of its contents: https://pinakes.irht.cnrs.fr/notices/cote/43630/ (accessed 31 October 2022). The images are available at https://ntvmr.uni-muenster.de/manuscript-workspace?docID=30102 (accessed 31 October 2022).

53 See Gregory, Textkritik, 347.

54 Images available at http://mss.bmlonline.it/s.aspx?Id=AWOS3yVeI1A4r7GxMdbd&c=ACTUS%20APOSTOLORUM%20ET%20PAULI%20EPISTOLIS#/book (accessed 31 October 2022).

55 See Parpulov, Catena Manuscripts, 149; Staab, Die Pauluskatenen, 150–60. On the format of Pauline catenae, see Morrill and Gram, “Parsing Paul.”

56 Dahl, “Euthalian Apparatus,” 252–3.

57 See Van Seters, Edited Bible, 400: “the notion of the ancient editor was created out of an obvious anachronism and then developed in the interest of literary and text-critical theories, with the result that it has become devoid of all contact with reality.”

58 Einstein, Printing Press, 24.

59 This is not to mention the fact that new imaging technologies, like multi-spectral imaging (MSI) are becoming the norm for manuscript digitization. MSI for example captures significantly more data than a traditional digital photograph or digitized microfilm. We are continuing to have greater access to the textual and material dimensions of our manuscript patrimony, something that will increase the relevance of the type of study I have suggested here. For an example of how new imaging technologies lead to new scholarship, see Houghton and Parker, eds., Codex Zacynthius, which even boasts a picture of their MSI imaging setup on the back cover.

60 Dahl, “Euthalian Apparatus,” 233.

Additional information

Funding

Research for this publication received support from the TiNT project, funded by the European Research Council (ERC) under the European Union’s Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme (grant agreement no. 847428). This paper was initially given at the Faculty of Theology of the University of Oslo as the 2022 Dahl Lecture. I maintain some conventions of the oral address.