11-06-2012, 04:42 PM
So, in summary (and in essence) we really ARE NOT SURE at all what the colophon of the Khabouris says. This has been guess work all along? With words like "difficult colophon," and "the worn and damaged colophon," and also comments (by Stephen Silver), ". . . some belief has remained and DEBATE HAS PERSISTED over the reading of the colophon, . . ."
what can we conclude of all this? Basically that the Khabouris manuscript is a copy of another manuscript of which we really don't have any cold hard facts of its' DATE (the exempler) AT ALL. Nothing from what I have seen establishes anything on any solid basis pertaining to the date of the Khabouris' exempler copy. And also that we really don't know how many generations of manuscripts that the Khabouris' exempler had: could be 2, or 3 or 5 or 6.
Take care all.
Kindly,
Mike Karoules
what can we conclude of all this? Basically that the Khabouris manuscript is a copy of another manuscript of which we really don't have any cold hard facts of its' DATE (the exempler) AT ALL. Nothing from what I have seen establishes anything on any solid basis pertaining to the date of the Khabouris' exempler copy. And also that we really don't know how many generations of manuscripts that the Khabouris' exempler had: could be 2, or 3 or 5 or 6.
Take care all.
Kindly,
Mike Karoules