I translated St Jerome’s prologue to the Gospels several years ago, as part of a project involving the Eusebian canon tables. That translation is here, and a page leading to my information on the canon table system is here. I’ll revisit that translation when I edit the others for consistency. Not right now though. This prologue to the Gospels is the last by St Jerome. That prologue written as an introduction to the Letters of Paul is not by him, as he seems never to have translated or edited any translations of Paul’s Letters. I’m working on that one right now, and it’ll be posted next. It’s the last of the prologues preserved in the Vulgate.
[See also the final draft version of this translation, on this page]
Kevin, amazing site! I greatly appreciate having read Jerome’s prologues. I am currently writing a book on the New Testament reliability and its canon. My level of knowledge is lacking regarding how to read Eusebius’ tables. Are you able to confirm if his tables would include the ‘pericope’ from John of the woman caught in adultery? Thanks, Doug
Thanks, Doug! The evidence in the Eusebian Canons for it is ambiguous because it’s included in a a large section that is listed as in canon X, which is the one which lists all the sections that don’t have parallels in the other gospels. That is, while the whole Eusebian section 86 of John covers all of 7.45-8.19a now, there’s no indication in the tables themselves whether all of the Pericope Adulterae (7.53-8.11) was actually included within that section, since all of it is marked as unique. So, we simply can’t tell whether it was included or not. I don’t recall offhand whether Eusebius refers to that story in others of his writings, but I don’t think he does. Wieland Wilker’s textual commentary presents (some? all?) the earliest witnesses, and Eusebius isn’t among them. Roger Pearse has posted the translations of a number of Eusebius’ writings, and you might be able to find something in there. Happy hunting! Let me know if I can be of any further help!
Dear Kevin, I greatly appreciate your website. At present I am collecting information for an article on Eusebian Canons for Russian Wikipedia, and your site is really helpful.
Among other things, I am trying to find some explanation for the absence of Mark-Luke-John and Mark-John lists in the canons. In doing so I came upon an article by Carl Nordenfalk, who explains it on the basis of sacrality of the number 10. Below is a long excerpt from Nordenfalk’s paper. If you are interested, I can send you the entire pdf.
Carl Nordenfalk, “Canon Tables of Papyrus” (Dumbarton Oaks Papers, Vol. 36. (1982), pp. 29-38.), pp. 29-30:
Nordenfalk continues:
I am sorry for a long quote.
From layman’s point of view, I think that the following objections could be made to Nordenfalk’s suggestion that Eusebius could, but did not, make two more tables:
1) Delimitation of sections could be, to some large extent, not the work of Eusebius but of Ammonius (as suggests Robert Waltz in his Online Encyclopaedia: http://www.skypoint.com/members/waltzmn/Divisions.html). Thus, Eusebius might be simply using what sections he already had without splitting them further to separate more parallel pericopes.
2) Nordenfalk refers to Mark 16:14, but Eusebius had not included the endings of Mark into his canons. In Nestle-Aland, Mark 16:9-20 only is divided into “Ammonian” sections (234)-(241), but these numbers are not included into the canon lists (and they do not derive from the original form of the Eusebian canons).
If you have any time and interest I would greatly appreciate your opinion on this subject.
Thank you,
Constantine
Please, excuse me, but do the comments from non-bloggers pass here? I tried to submit a comment, but nothing changed on page upon submission.