While translating Matthew 16 today, I ran across what the NET Bible calls a "highly elliptical expression" in verse 22:
καὶ προσλαβόμενος αὐτὸν ὁ Πέτρος ἤρξατο ἐπιτιμᾶν αὐτῷ λέγων·
Ἵλεώς σοι, κύριε· οὐ μὴ ἔσται σοι τοῦτο.
...which they render as:
So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him:
"God forbid, Lord! This must not happen to you!"
Since this struck me as quite a stretch, I checked my (3rd edition) Nestle-Aland and found no critical notes at all for this verse. So I figured I'd cross-check some of the uncials, and started with B, the Codex Vaticanus (lower left corner). This does not match either the Nestle-Aland or SBLGNT as above, but instead reads somethings like this (pardon me if I don't try to reproduce hand-written diacritics or uncial glyphs perfectly):
...which I kinda-sorta can break up as:
ΚΑΙ ΠΡΟϹΛΑΒΟΜΕΝΟϹ ΑΥΤΟΝ Ο ΠΕΤΡΟϹ ΛΕΓΕΙ ΑΥΤω ΕΠΙΤΕΙΜω
ΕΙΛΕωϹ ϹΟΙ ΚΕ ΟΥ ΜΗ EϹΤΑΙ ϹΟΙ ΤΟΥΤΟ·
Interestingly, εἰλέω is a form of εἴλω which means "hinder" or "confine", or "bar", which seems to directly fit the sense and even the translation better than the elliptical ἵλεως....which would render it:
and when Peter took him aside, he says to him [something]
"Barred to you, [Lord]! This must not happen to you!"
Alternately, is εἴλω simply too old of a word, and we should consider the initial epsilon of ειλεωϲ to be an itacism?
What the remaining "ΕΠΙΤΕΙΜω" might mean is still uncertain to me, especially since a) the manuscript looks like it has been retraced at some point, and b) possibly edited right at this point, because there's a strange ligature after the "Τ" over the "Ε". Given the NA and SBL, it might be some form of ἐπιτιμᾶν or ἐπίτιμος, or something completely other like τέμνω if Peter is "cutting him short".
So I have lots of questions, but I'll try to summarize (feel free to answer any of them):
- Is some form of "εἰλέω" possible here or reasonable? If not, what's that initial epsilon doing there? If so, what to do with the trailing uncial sigma?
- Regardless, why is such a major difference in such an important uncial not mentioned in Nestle-Aland's textual apparatus?
- What might the "ΕΠΙΤΕΙΜω" bit be trying to say? Or is there some better spelling? It doesn't seem to be reasonable grammar after "legei autw" no matter what it means or whether we stick with ἵλεως or not.