From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In the light of history

It would help those of us who are ignorant of palaeography to hear, briefly perhaps, how well his analyses from 135 years ago have stood up to more recent discoveries, datings and interpretations. What did he get right, what wrong? Probably much of this is at Palaeography but a summary here would be helpful. TSRL ( talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

We are talking about edition from 1911-1913 (not 1879 - two volumes / one volume). This edition is often quoted by Metzger, Parker and other present scholars. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 22:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


In the light of history

It would help those of us who are ignorant of palaeography to hear, briefly perhaps, how well his analyses from 135 years ago have stood up to more recent discoveries, datings and interpretations. What did he get right, what wrong? Probably much of this is at Palaeography but a summary here would be helpful. TSRL ( talk) 22:52, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

We are talking about edition from 1911-1913 (not 1879 - two volumes / one volume). This edition is often quoted by Metzger, Parker and other present scholars. Leszek Jańczuk ( talk) 22:58, 16 February 2011 (UTC) reply

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook