Description
The lower text of the manuscript contains fragments of the chapters 1:1-11:33 of the Gospel of Luke. The codex comprises 86 thick, coarse parchment leaves and three partial leaves; it measures 36 x 29 cm. The text was written in a single column with well-formed uncial script. The letters are large, round and narrow, without spiritus asper, spiritus lenis, or accents. The manuscript was written by two scribes.
Abbreviations are rarely used in the codex. The handwriting is very close to that of the Rossano Gospels. The errors of itacism occur, but not so often as in Codex Sinaiticus and Codex Vaticanus. It uses grammatical forms typical of the ancient manuscripts (e.g. ειπαν, ηλθαν, ευραν), which are not used in later medieval manuscripts.
The codex uses a peculiar system of chapter divisions, which it shares with Codex Vaticanus and Minuscule 579. A more common system divides chapters according to their titles. The capital letters at the beginnings of sections stand out in the margin as in the Codices Alexandrinus and Ephraemi.
The text is surrounded by a marginal commentary; it is the only codex that has both text and commentary in uncial script. The commentary is a catena of quotations of nine church fathers: Origen, Eusebius, Titus of Bostra, Basil, Isidore of Pelusium, Cyril of Alexandria, Sever from Antioch, Victor from Antioch, and Chrysostom. The commentary surrounds the single-column text of Luke on three sides. Patristic text is written in small uncial letters. Most of the quotations are those of Ciril of Alexandria (93 scholia); next comes Titus of Bostra (45 scholia). The commentary was written in a different kind of uncial script than the biblical text.
Read more about this topic: Codex Zacynthius
Famous quotes containing the word description:
“A sound mind in a sound body, is a short, but full description of a happy state in this World: he that has these two, has little more to wish for; and he that wants either of them, will be little the better for anything else.”
—John Locke (1632–1704)
“I fancy it must be the quantity of animal food eaten by the English which renders their character insusceptible of civilisation. I suspect it is in their kitchens and not in their churches that their reformation must be worked, and that Missionaries of that description from [France] would avail more than those who should endeavor to tame them by precepts of religion or philosophy.”
—Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)
“Why does philosophy use concepts and why does faith use symbols if both try to express the same ultimate? The answer, of course, is that the relation to the ultimate is not the same in each case. The philosophical relation is in principle a detached description of the basic structure in which the ultimate manifests itself. The relation of faith is in principle an involved expression of concern about the meaning of the ultimate for the faithful.”
—Paul Tillich (1886–1965)