Re: Matt 25.15-16 Codex B/03
- --- In email@example.com, Bob's Home IMAP <bob@...>
> On 7/29/2011 2:57 AM, wengurobo wrote:
> > According to the 19th c. facsimile of Vercellone and Cozza the
> > 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
> > in the sense and regularly squeezes letters in at the end of a line,Well, that space before EUQEWS does not seem to me any larger than
> > 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 ??????????.
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
> > interpretation, H A W Meyer, while accepting the text that includesDE
> > after POREUQEIS, argued that "And it is precisely in connection withthat,
> > APEDHMHSEN that EUQEWS is seen to have a peculiar significance,
> > namely, of showing that absolute independence was allowed in regardto
> > the way in which the money was to be employed by those to whom ithad
> > been entrusted, which is admirably in keeping with KATA THN IDIANI don't think it's unusual, it simply bears witness to the scribe of B
> > 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?
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.