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.
Review of deSilva, Hebrews in Social-Scientific Perspective
-
David A. deSilva. *The Letter to the Hebrews in Social-Scientific
Perspective*. Cascade Companions. Eugene, OR: Cascade Books, 2012. Pp. xv +
187.
First...
1 hour ago
Posts
9 Comments:
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.
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?
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.
Interesting! I suspect some kind of idiom, too. Von Soden is listing three mss, which also add MH.
Pete, the spelling of weird looks weird ;-). Sorry I couldn't resist that. Normally other people correct me.
The article is linked to lect 2282 in the INTF Handschriftenliste. See:
list
Thanks Martin!
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?
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.
Post a Comment