Evangelical Textual Criticism

Tuesday, May 24, 2011

Lectionary 2282

I happened to be talking texts at lunch-time with a friend (as one does), and he said that he had worked on a lectionary manuscript which he found in his seminary library. So I said I'd like to see that and post it on our blog. Which is what I am about to do now.

John W. Taylor, 'A Greek Lectionary Manuscript at Southwestern Seminary', Southwestern Journal of Theology, Vol. 52, No. 1, Fall 2009, 33-51.


It has a nice photo and is a nice write up (esp. of the wierd variant at Luke 18.5). Enjoy.

9 comments:

  1. Maurice Robinson8:33 pm, May 24, 2011

    Actually, yours truly had found that (single-leaf) MS buried among the archives at Southwestern Seminary back in 1977 or 1978, collated it, and sent the information to Münster (which explains its appearance in the second edition of the K.Liste). Dr Taylor was informed of this after his article had appeared; lots of reinventing the wheel, I suppose.

    Too bad I hadn't figured out back in the 70s that a publishable article actually could have been written....However, I didn't consider the leaf or its contents all that significant at the time.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks for posting the link to the article. I noticed a couple of times the author spelled out the word 'miniscule.' I have always seen it and spelled it 'minuscule.' Are both of these options valid or is one wrong?

    ReplyDelete
  3. Re Luke 18.5, might διά γε τὸ μὴ
    παρέχειν μοι κόπον be a construction signalling purpose: "for the sake of her not continuing to bother me"? Sophocles in his lexicon (p. 357, s.v. διά 6.) gives examples of this.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting! I suspect some kind of idiom, too. Von Soden is listing three mss, which also add MH.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Pete, the spelling of weird looks weird ;-). Sorry I couldn't resist that. Normally other people correct me.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Martin Fassnacht6:55 am, May 27, 2011

    The article is linked to lect 2282 in the INTF Handschriftenliste. See:
    list

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dr. Robinson, the paper mentions a note in pencil on the folder and says the note is of unknown origin. Was the folder there in 1977/8 when you examined the leaf?

    ReplyDelete
  8. Bob,

    So far as I can recall (some 34 years later) is that the folder had notes regarding a claimed copying date that appeared to be far too early, as well as a comment that it had been purchased around 1951 by a former professor who had given the leaf to the library. My guess is that the then-librarian was responsible for the note.

    ReplyDelete