From time to time bloggers have posted a manuscript and for fun had their readers identify it. For example, see this copy of the Codex Hierosolymitanus on the Evangelical Textual Criticism blog, or Mike Bird’s posting of Vaticanus. So, for fun, I thought I’d post something here and see who the first person to identify it is.
Click on the image to see a larger version of it.
I’m going to guess those are notes you’ve written for a paper after an all nighter with little to no coffee. ;-)
Seriously, what language is that? At first I thought maybe Syriac, but it doesn’t match any Syriac MS I’ve looked at.
LOL, no it’s not mine and I didn’t make it up. It’s not from a modern manuscript. No more hints for now.
Well, it’s the Peshetta, (I think) are you looking for more specifics than that?
or maybe I’m completely wrong and it’s not even the peshetta.
No, it’s definitely not Syriac. This document is written left to right (note that the left margin consistently lines up while the right margin does not).
Beyond that I can’t even convince myself it’s not written in an alphabet I should recognize (English, Latin, Greek:)….
Robert, you’re correct about the left-to-right orientation, which rules out Syriac and related languages.
Wow Brandon that is a tough one. I can name a lot of manuscripts it is not. Even with my experience reading the shorthand of later century monks I still cannot make anything out. You may have to get the reknowned Peter Head to unravel this mystery.
I would be very surprised if this is indeed an actual MS. There do seem to be a few reoccurring letters (i.e., something kin to the Hebrew ayin and lamed), but that’s about it. No consistency.
Here’s another hint. It’s not a biblical manuscript, but it is a manuscript of a Christian text. We still haven’t determined the language or approximate date.
Alright, I’ll take another stab at it. I’m going to guess it’s an Armenian MS (don’t know which one) of the fragments of Papias.
Well Brandon you sure picked a hard one to identify. The quiz/poll over at my place is substantially easier.
Kevin, the MS you chose was easy.
Nick, that’s a good guess, but again, off the mark. Here’s another hint, the language in the text is one of the more traditional languages that students of the ancient world study.
I was going to guess Roman cursive but beyond that I have no idea.
My son says this looks like Aquinas’s handwriting. So Latin…
Exellent, Fernando’s son! Not only is it Latin, but it is Aquinas’s handwriting. Any guesses which work of Aquinas?
Is it Summa Theologica?
Good guess, but nope, it’s not the Summa Theologiae.
Um . . . Aquinas’ Catena Aurea?
Nope, although that’s a good guess given the content of this blog.
Brandon. I must agree I selected about the easiest manuscript I could. However, only 4 people have claimed that they recognize it.
I think P52 would have been slightly more recognizable, but that doesn’t cover your interest area of course. ;-)
I’m clueless, but this is fun. I’ll try the only Aquinas book that I’ve ready and on my library shelf: is it Summa Contra Gentiles?
You win Rob! My Aquinas prof last year gave us this sample of Aquinas’s writing and I was utterly amazed at how difficult it was to read. I recently came across it and thought I’d post it to the blog, so that’s how this started. Here’s the bibliographical data attached to the writing sample:
Sorry I don’t have a prize to offer you, except the joy of knowing you guessed the manuscript. This isn’t one of those blogs that gives away free gifts to acquire more readers. Unfortunately! ;-)
woohooo! I knew this Aquinas book on my shelf was good for something. :-)