Contrary to what I originally thought and wrote (see here), the Universal (or Catholic) Epistles are found only in the 9th manuscript, Theol. gr. 79, and in Casanatense 1395. This post will explain certain misunderstandings I had developed at the beginning of this project and seek to correct them.
The title Comm. in Epistulas Pauli
On Pinakes, the title of this work is Comm. in Epistulas Pauli, that is, Commentary on the Epistles of Paul, and under it are listed the 8 manuscripts that are known to contain this work. Since Pinakes, on the same page, lists Nikiforos Kalogeras‘ printed edition from 1887 under the section for bibliographic editions, and since his edition contains commentaries on all of the Epistles of Paul and all of the Universal Epistles, I assumed that the work titled Comm. in Epistulas Pauli on Pinakes was synonymous with Commentary on the Epistles (i.e. ALL of the Epistles.)
My above assumption though was incorrect, and, in my post on the 9th Manuscript, I incorrectly said that “many of those 8 manuscripts also contain the Universal Epistles” and that “[Theol. gr. 79] should be listed as the 9th manuscript under Comm. in Epistulas Pauli.”
I held this opinion strongly, until I discovered, through indexing most of the manuscripts, that my first assumption was completely wrong. Of the five manuscripts that I have indexed (i.e. Vat. gr. 646, Vat. gr. 1501, Panteleimon 770, Meteoron 65, Casanatense 1395) that are listed under Comm. in Epistulas Pauli, only Casanatense 1395 contains the Universal Epistles. The others do not.
I also know that СПБ.ДА.62 at the National Library of Russia (one of the manuscripts that I am interested in digitizing and the latest of the 8), does not contain them either, since my correspondent from the library’s manuscript department wrote to me saying that it contains only the commentaries on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians. It so happens that Cod.graec. 259 at the Staatsbibliothek zu Berlin (the other manuscript that I have been wanting to digitize and which I recently paid for) also contains only the commentaries on Paul’s Epistle to the Romans and his 1st Epistle to the Corinthians.
I have not indexed Vat. gr. 636 yet because of the condition it is in (see this post where I briefly discuss indexing it), but my first assumption is that it does not contain them either. If my assumption is correct, which it probably is, then only Casanatense 1395 and Theol. gr. 79 contain the commentaries on the Universal Epistles.
The second thing that I said in my post on the 9th manuscript, that “[Theol. gr. 79] should be listed as the 9th manuscript under Comm. in Epistulas Pauli,” is therefore wrong because Theol. gr. 79 only contains the commentaries on the Universal Epistles and not the commentaries on Paul’s Epistles, so that manuscript cannot be categorized under the work Comm. in Epistulas Pauli.
The Title Enarratio In Septem Epp Catholicas
On Pinakes, the work that Theol. gr. 79 is listed under is Enarratio In Septem Epp Catholicas, that is, Exposition on the Seven Universal Epistles. The problem that I now see is that only Theol. gr. 79 is listed there.
After “finishing” indexing Casanatense 1395, that is, after finishing indexing folios 70v-456v which are enumerated on Pinakes’ listing for Casanatense 1395 as containing the commentaries, I was perplexed where Kalogeras got the content for his edition from. The commentary on the Epistle to the Romans starts on f. 71v and the commentary on the Epistle to Titus ends on f. 456v. Where then were the Universal Epistles that Kalogeras transcribed for his edition? I spent an hour or so quickly skimming his long introduction to the first volume of his publication, and it never once mentioned that he drew on Theol. gr. 79 for them. At the end of my reading and rereading the introduction, I did not find anything, but in the first footnote of the commentary on the Epistle of James in the second volume, I read that Kalogeras took the first pages, up to James 1:18, from Cramer’s edition (note that I do not know who Cramer is or which edition he has, neither do I know which manuscript his edition draws from, but I will be researching this at some point) because the manuscript was missing those first few folios. In examining the first folio of the manuscript myself, I saw that, indeed, where Kalogeras’ except from Cramer ends is where this manuscript begins.
Another reason for my confusion was that Pinakes has f. 70v-456v of Casanatense 1395 listed under Comm. in Epistulas Pauli and f. 98r-118v of Theol. gr. 79 under Enarratio in Septem Epp Catholicas, but it does not have f. 1r-70v of Casanatense 1395 under Enarratio in Septem Epp Catholicas, as it should. Pinakes contains both mistakes (like stating that Comm. in Epistulas Pauli starts on f. 70v of Casanatense 1395 instead of on 71v, like it actually does) and parts that are incomplete, like what I just mentioned, and it is seemingly impossible to get anyone to fix anything. I have emailed people who have pointed me in the direction of other people who are responsible for the theological manuscripts in the database, but I have not received any response from them about any of the issues that I have brought up. If Casanatense 1395 were also listed under Enarratio in Septem Epp Catholicas, I would not have made the mistakes that I did.