As mentioned in this post, I was waiting for three bibliographical catalogues to come in that I had hoped would shed light on what Panteleimon 770, f. 208r and 208v are and who wrote them. They finally came in.
While looking at the first two catalogues below, Panteleimon 770 is listed as manuscript number 1678, according to the Gregory-Aland cataloguing system.
Kurzgefaßte Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments
The first book, Kurt Aland‘s Kurzgefaßte Liste der griechischen Handschriften des Neuen Testaments, gives a physical description of the manuscript.
Besides confirming which century the manuscript was written in, this information was not useful at all.
Textkritik des Neuen Testaments
The second book that I took out, Caspar René Gregory‘s Textkritik des Neuen Testaments, gives the same physical descriptions as the previous book did, but in a different format and with more information.
Each of these entries pertains to a different manuscript, and the notation is incredibly abbreviated and concise. In the back of the book there a section on abbreviations that I used to try to decipher the entry on manuscript 1678.
Here are is the section on abbreviations:
Here are the very rough results of my attempt at deciphering this entry:
1678: Athos, Panteleimon 770
Acts of the Apostles
21.2 x 13.3 cm?
1 Column (18.8 x 9.2 cm?)
71+ lines per page;
Large red letters at the beginning of sections;
Writing is very small;
Everything is shortened;
Forward Kosmas (I do not know who Kosmas is, since there is no entry on Kosmas in the back)
Section on the Harmony? of the Gospels compare pp. 861-871 (Mark 237: 16, 15):
Acts of the Apostles
(Gospels Acts of the Apostles Catholic Epistles with Commentary)
Paul (Hebrews Timothy) (Paul without Commentary?),
Apocalypse with Commentary Andreas;
Chapter about the Adulteress, John 7:53-58, on the Gospel is the section for generally 8:2-11 ???
Epistle to the Romans 9, 5 σἀρκα ἀμήν (?).
At the end διδασκαλία τῶν ἀποστολικῶν διαταγμάτων διὰ κλήμεντος.
Soden’s numbering system for this manuscript?
Gregory April 5th, 1092
The Pinakes website mentions two men by the name of Andreas as authors in this manuscript: one is Andreas the Presbyter (f. 193r-207v) and the other is Andreas of Caesarea (f. 282-308), who wrote the Commentary on the Apocalypse that Gregory cites in this entry. But Gregory does not mention any other author’s name, let alone Euthymius Zigabneus, which is what I was looking for, and he does not include an index at all of what the contents are per folio. So this book has also turned out to be rather useless.
Die Schriften des Neuen Testaments in ihrer ältesten erreichbaren Textgestalt hergestellt auf Grund ihrer Textgeschichte
I could not get this book from the library, and I cannot remember why they could not inter-library loan this to me. I am probably not even going to bother with it anymore, since it most likely will not tell me what folios 208v-209r are anyway.
INDENTIFYING 208R Further
I decided to look closely at 208r one day and made a little bit of progress. Though the top few lines are faded and very difficult to read, even with augmentation to brightness and contrast, I was able to figure out that this page seems to be a numbered list. Based on the Catalogue of the Greek manuscripts on Mount Athos / edited for the syndics of the University Press by Spyridon. P. Lambros, 1900, p. 430, as I’ve said in the previous post on this manuscript, the first line says “Ἡ πάσα (;) ἀποδημία Παύλου εἰς τὸ Εὐαγγέλιον” which is “the entire journey abroad of Paul for the Gospel.” The numbered entries of this list, I believe, are an ordered account of his journey.
The sloppy writing and the poor condition of the page coupled together make it very difficult for me to read this, but I think number 45 on line 12 of the page (almost at the end of the line) says “με’ κα’ κεῖθεν εἰς Τύρον,” that is, “45) and from there, to Tyre.” I see that after many of the numbers in the list it says “εἶτα,” which is “then,” probably to say “Then he went here, then he did this, then he did that, etc.”
This is a small victory for me. It does not tell me who wrote 208r nor where it came from, but it does tell me that I do not need to concern myself with it, since it is not part of Euthymius Zigabenus’ Commentary on the Epistles.