Monday, June 24, 2013

Unpublished manuscript on ebay

The bidding on this item is over, but it just shows that if you have only a little money around there are still interesting bits for sale. The interesting part is in the vellum binding, of course. I think we have a manuscript of Matthew used as a protective cover with a very nice minuscule.

I don't know where the manuscript has gone (I certainly did not buy it), but at least we have some pictures for posterity. Would just the picture warrant a mention in the Liste?

Feel free to give a transcription, a guess on the date of the script, and any relevant variants.


  1. I sent to the INTF a similar documentation some years ago, but they did not register the MS to my knowledge because of its very fragmentary nature.

    Look at Plimpton MS 14 in this list:

    I have more examples...

  2. if I had to hazard a guess here, I would say it looks about 11th century.

  3. The content of the fragments is as follows:

    Mt 12:48 APOKRIQEIS ... 13:1 EKAQHTO

    (several lines missing, apparently due to binding)

    Mt 13:2 KAI PAS ... 13:4 KAI KATE[FAGEN]

    The third fragment is mostly unreadable, but from the few words that can be read, it appears to continue the parable of the Sower from the same document.

    The only notable variant is Mt 13:3, with the trasnposition ~EN PARABOLAIS POLLA, found also in C/04, 157 -- which means even small fragments in minuscule script have something important to contribute, and therefore they should be included in the official list, just as with various papyrus and uncial fragments.

  4. I just completed a quick collation of the manuscript against NA27 and found it covers the following:

    (first image)
    Matthew 12:48 (minus first two words)
    Matthew 12:49
    Matthew 12:50
    Matthew 13:1
    (second image)
    Matthew 13:2 (minus first 12 words)
    Matthew 13:3
    Matthew 13:4 (minus last two words)

    There are only two meaningful variations, both in agreement with the Majority Text, against NA27. These are in 12:48 where eiponti is read instead of legonti, and in 13:4 where hlthe is read instead of elthonta.

  5. I should have said three meaningful variations, the transposition mentioned above being the third. And yes, I agree this should get a GA number and be included. I also wonder if it is possible these pages are from an already cataloged manuscript with missing pages.

    Dr. Robinson, what do you think about a date for this?

  6. Since I do not pretend to be a paleographical expert, I offer no valid opinion as to date, although from what I have seen among other MSS the handwriting almost certainly predates the 13th century.

  7. If all you want is the text of the book, you can get a facsimile in paperback for $13.88