Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: 2813: copy of printed manuscript?

Expand Messages
  • james_snapp_jr
    Daniel Buck, 2813 is definitely not a copy of a printed TR. I checked the text in the opening verses of Luke 5; at first the only difference was the spelling
    Message 1 of 10 , Dec 20, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      Daniel Buck,

      2813 is definitely not a copy of a printed TR. I checked the text in the opening verses of Luke 5; at first the only difference was the spelling of "Nazareth," but in verse 6 there is a transposition (PLHQOS ICQUWN -- disagreeing with Stephanus 1550 and agreeing with RP-2005) and then, after the last word of verse 6 (AUTWN), there is a reading that is definitely not TR.

      DB: "There is still the matter of the alleged 16th century colophon to deal with. Perhaps a Greek scholar would like to comment on the meaning of META CRONOUS DEKAPENTE."

      It looks to me like this is not a colophon about the production-date of the MS, but about the production-date of the Gospel of Luke itself (i.e., it is a statement about when Luke wrote the book). Without investigating this too much, I'd say that the note simply claims that Luke wrote 15 years after Christ's ascension.

      DB: "What is the date of the Greek text on the end paper? It must be very old, as it contains rubrication and ligatures."

      I don't know. If I had to guess, I'd say 1700's.

      DB: "What is the printed text--is it biblical?"

      It's part of an Orthodox liturgy-book -- it includes a Theotokion, a hymn in praise of Mary.

      DB: "Is 2813 a hand-copy of the TR, or Byzantine?"

      It is essentially Byzantine. (But I only looked at a few verses of Luke 5.)

      Yours in Christ,

      James Snapp, Jr.
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.