Abstract:
The manuscripts of Iveron Monastery of Athos were described by Alexander Tsagareli
(in 1886) and Robert Blake (in 1931). Manuscript number 62 in Blake's description is
mistakenly known as the Gospel manuscript from Oshki in scientific literature. We have
marked the manuscript with the conventional sign o.
The Gospel manuscript from Oshki is preserved in the collection of the manuscripts at
Iveron Monastery on Athos. Photocopy and microfilm of the manuscript are kept at the
National Centre of Manuscripts (Tbilisi, Georgia). The manuscript is dated to the 11th
century.
Some of the Georgian researchers even thought that Oshki Monastery was on Athos.
The researchers were mistaken because of the fact that in the colophons of some manuscripts
discovered on Athos, Oshki was indicated as the place of their rewriting, although wellknown
Athonite figures – Ioane-Tornike and Ioane-Varazvache were mentioned; they were
the persons who ordered these manuscripts.
Robert Blake thinks that Ath. 62 should have been rewritten on Athos. But some of
the Georgian researchers think that it belongs to that manuscripts discovered in Iveron
Monastery on Athos, but originated in Oshki.
There is a fragment of colophon in the description of Alexander Tsagareli: `...Pray for
Giorgi as I have translated this”. This fragment is omitted from the photocopy which we
possess now. That fragment coincides with Giorgi Mtatsmindeli's well-known colophon
according to which Giorgi Mtatsmindeli is a repeated translator of the Gospel.
Alexander Tsagareli supposes that Ath. 62 should have been rewritten by Giorgi
Mtatsmindeli himself. According to our textual study, it is established that two people were
working at the Ath. 62 manuscript, a scribe and the editor. The scribe writes the main, initial
text and the editor corrects the main text, erases or adds in it the readings of other edition.
It is well known that vulgate version by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli is that compared with the
Greek original text for three times. In our opinion, it is less possible that Giorgi Mtatsmindeli
rewrote the main, initial text of Ath. 62 because it represents the version twice compared
with the Greek original of the Gospel by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli. As for the second text, it is
corrected according the text recognized by Georgian church as vulgate and it is identical to
Giorgi's edition. It is logical to think that exactly the second text is produced by correcting
the main text of the Gospel manuscript from Oshki by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli. The assumption
of Alexander Tsagareli that Ath. 62 should have been rewritten by Giorgi Mtatsmindeli
himself is just a version, needing more arguments.
