In or previous to the year 396, a deacon called Euthalius, afterwards known as Bishop of Sulce,[73] published an edition of the Acts and Catholic and Pauline Epistles, in which, following the rules laid down by the Greek schools of oratory, the text was carefully broken up into lines, the length of which depended on the sense (_sense-clauses_), and divided into paragraphs or chapters. Euthalius also provided a system of Church lections, added a summary of contents to the various chapters, and catalogued the quotations from the Old Testament and elsewhere in the separate Epistles and in the entire group. This edition became a sort of model for later times, and seems to have been made use of for the Armenian version among the rest. The comparison of the manuscript with those of Pamphilus, as well as other additions, would seem then to have been made on the occasion of a later revision. Ehrhard, however, thinks that we have the autograph edition of this system in Codex H, but that Evagrius is to be read instead of Euthalius in the place where the name has been erased. This view is combated by Dobschütz, and in part rightly. Working independently of both, Conybeare, from Armenian sources, establishes the year 396 as the date of Euthalius. But in a parchment manuscript of the eleventh century in the library of the Laura at Mount Athos, Wobbermin found a fragment of a dogmatic treatise with the inscription, Εὐθαλίου ἐπισκόπου Σούλκης ὁμολογία περὶ τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, from which he makes out that Euthalius lived in the second half of the seventh century and that Sulce was in Sardinia. See G. Krüger in the _Lit. Cent. Blatt_ 1899, No. 14. Omont, _Notice sur un très ancien manuscrit grec en onciales des épîtres de S. Paul_, Paris, 1889. J. A. Robinson, _Euthaliana_, Texts and Studies, iii. 3, 1895. (See S. Berger, _Bull. Crit._, 96, 8.) Th. Zahn, _Euthaliana_, _Theol. Lit. Blatt._, 1895, 593, 601. Ehrhard, _Der codex H ad Epistolas Pauli und Euthalius diaconus, Eine palaeographisch-patrologische Untersuchung_ in the _Centralblatt für Bibliothekswesen_, 1891, pp. 385-411. E. v. Dobschütz, _Ein Beitrag zur Euthaliusfrage_, in the same magazine, 1893, pp. 49-70; _Euthaliusstudien_ in the ZKG. xix. pp. 107-154 (1898): also, _Euthalius_, in the PRE^3, v. pp. 631-633 (1898). Islinger, _Die Verdienste des Euthalius um den neutestamentlichen Bibeltext_, Hof. 1867 (Prog.). Conybeare, _On the Codex Pamphili and date of Euthalius_, in the _Cambridge Journal of Philology_, xxiii. 241 (1895). R. L. Bensly, _The Harklean Version etc._, pp. 9, 27 (1889). See also J. A. Robinson, _Texts and Studies_, vi. 1; C. Butler, _The Lausiac History of Palladius_, p. 104 ff., and note 2, p. 188 below. I_{2}, K_{2}, L_{2}, P_{2}: See above, p. 75. M_{2}. CODEX RUBER, of the ninth century: four leaves written in bright red ink or other colouring matter, two of them in London and the other two in Hamburg.