Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Matt 25.15-16 Codex B/03

Expand Messages
  • wengurobo
    ... scribe ... ??????. Many thanks for sending me the image off-line, confirming what the facsimile shows. Yes, there would physically be space even for POR,
    Message 1 of 3 , Aug 2 6:46 AM
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In textualcriticism@yahoogroups.com, Bob's Home IMAP <bob@...>
      wrote:
      >
      > On 7/29/2011 2:57 AM, wengurobo wrote:
      > >
      > >
      > > According to the 19th c. facsimile of Vercellone and Cozza the
      scribe
      > > of B/03 writes at Matt 25.15-16
      > >
      > > IDIANDUNAMINKAIAPe
      > >
      > > DHMHSENEUQEWS
      > >
      > > POREUQEISOTAPENTe
      > >
      > > leaving a space after EUQEWS. Although clearly he had insufficient
      > > space to write POREU, even by using small letters for the EU as at
      > > 25.9 (col. 1 line 2 on the same page), there would have been room to
      > > write PO as at 2.9 (EPo), 2.20 and 21.2.
      > >
      > > Can anyone confirm from the digitized image that PO could have been
      > > written in the space after EUQEWS? (Older sources seem to indicate
      > > that B connects EUQEWS with what follows.)
      > >
      > There appears to be plenty of space to add ?? or even ??? after
      ??????.

      Many thanks for sending me the image off-line, confirming what the
      facsimile shows. Yes, there would physically be space even for POR, but
      comparison with other instances for that sequence of letters in Matthew
      suggests he would have broken the word after PO.


      > >
      > > Given that the scribe of B regularly inserts spaces to indicate
      breaks
      > > in the sense and regularly squeezes letters in at the end of a line,
      > > if the space is after EUQEWS it appears to indicate he construed
      > > EUQEWS with APEDHMHSEN and not with POREUQEIS as in the modern
      > > editions. Any comments?
      > >
      > There also appears to be an abnormally large space between the nu in
      > ?????????? and the epsilon in ??????. Not as large as the paragraph
      > breaks that B uses, but enough to set ?????? off from ??????????.

      Well, that space before EUQEWS does not seem to me any larger than
      occurs in some other places between words part way through a sentence,
      as in line 15 in the same column (verse 12).


      > >
      > > (In case it should be thought that this would result in a totally
      wild
      > > interpretation, H A W Meyer, while accepting the text that includes
      DE
      > > after POREUQEIS, argued that "And it is precisely in connection with
      > > APEDHMHSEN that EUQEWS is seen to have a peculiar significance,
      that,
      > > namely, of showing that absolute independence was allowed in regard
      to
      > > the way in which the money was to be employed by those to whom it
      had
      > > been entrusted, which is admirably in keeping with KATA THN IDIAN
      > > DUNAMIN.")
      > >
      > > My interest here is in knowing what to make of the space in B.
      > >
      > The break is definitely unusual, does anyone know of anywhere else B
      > makes such a break without otherwise indicating a new paragraph?


      I don't think it's unusual, it simply bears witness to the scribe of B
      wishing to connect EUQEWS with APEDEMHSEN, just like in many other
      manuscripts. Most if not all the editions before Tischendorf 8th
      punctuated that way, but reading DE after POREUQEIS.

      It looks to me as though there were some who were bothered by EUQEWS
      appearing at the end of a sentence, as this is unusual though not
      unexampled. (On the B-Greek forum I recently posted 9 examples from
      Josephus out of 84 occurrences of the word in his works.) Some mss (038
      f1 al) have the DE after EUQEWS, thus forcing EUQEWS to be connected
      with the following sentence, and that looks like assimilation to the
      much more common pattern where EUQEWS occurs early in the sentence.

      What is interesting is that B doesn't support the modern punctuation at
      all. (Aleph has no spaces so doesn't witness either way.) So that
      punctuation is made essentially on internal grounds. And that is curious
      because in narrative EUQEWS does not appear to begin a sentence
      asyndetically, certainly not in Matthew.

      Tony Pope
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.