Everyone familiar with the early Greek majuscules is used to the absence of word division, which virtually forces you to vocalise every syllable in order to make sense of the text. Latin never had this problem, and I assume that whenever we have (late) majuscules that actually contain consistent word division this is under influence of a Latin parallel. Examples are
G(012) Boernerianus:
![]()
F(010) Augiensis:
![]()
and based on the previous two, I would probable add 0130:
![]()
The current Latin text of 0130 is a late one and is therefore, I guess, the later layer of a re-used manuscript. The Greek in the margin is then part of the original version. Based on the word division and the font that is identical to the two examples above, I would assume that this manuscripts comes from the same Greek - Latin stable. All ninth century, all Swiss. Parker (Bezae, 66) agrees and informs me that the Latin part of the original 0130 was 'quite certainly' never written.
Why Latin script adopted word divisions and Greek did not till very late is still a mystery to me.
G(012) Boernerianus:
F(010) Augiensis:
and based on the previous two, I would probable add 0130:
The current Latin text of 0130 is a late one and is therefore, I guess, the later layer of a re-used manuscript. The Greek in the margin is then part of the original version. Based on the word division and the font that is identical to the two examples above, I would assume that this manuscripts comes from the same Greek - Latin stable. All ninth century, all Swiss. Parker (Bezae, 66) agrees and informs me that the Latin part of the original 0130 was 'quite certainly' never written.
Why Latin script adopted word divisions and Greek did not till very late is still a mystery to me.