Sunday, October 31, 2010

Matt 4:2 τεσσαρακοντα . . . τεσσαρακοντα

     There is no reason to follow the insignificant orthographical variant τεσσερακοντα that is twice read in a few manuscripts (ℵ B* C L P Δ Σ 399), since it merely reflects the Ionic spelling and not the standard Koine spelling that Matthew would have been more likely to have written. Von Soden (2:7) rightly retains τεσσαρακοντα.

Matt 3:16 ανεωχθησαν

     There is no good reason to abandon the common reading of ανεωχθησαν for the orthographical preference of the few manuscripts that read ηνεωχθησαν (B f13 pc). The same may be said in 9:30 regarding ηνεωχθησαν (B D 33) and in 27:52 regarding ηνεωχθησαν (L Θ f1 33 pc), ηνοιχθησαν (A Π* pc), and ηνεωχθη (C* pc). In Luke 1:64 no major manuscripts oppose the standard spelling ανεωχθη (one member of f13 [983] has ηνεωχθη). From a Byzantine-priority perspective it is not surprising that the η of ηνοιγησαν/διηνοιχθησαν in Mark 7:35 is left unharmed, nor that as many as a quarter of all manuscripts in John 9:10 depart from ανεωχθησαν to read ηνεωχθησαν, which may reflect an early editorial assimilation to the nearby majority ηνοιξεν (including ℵ A D etc.) or the minority ηνεωξεν (B X Δ pc) in 9:17, where a few manuscripts (K L Π), as might be expected, have ανεωξεν, which von Soden (2:435) strangely prefers.

Matt 3:16 ανεβη ευθυς

     The few witnesses (ℵ B Ds W f1 33vid 205 700 pc lat sy-p co) that transpose the words to read ευθυς ανεβη reflect either the critical idea to give ευθυς its more usual place before the verb (so Bloomfield, Annotations, 3; Meyer, 72) or harmonization to the word order of Mark 1:10 (cf. von Soden, 2:7). The word order of most manuscripts (including C E K L M P S U V Γ Δ [0233] f13 d h sy-h), as it is not inconsistent with Matthew (cf. 25:15, but note the alternative punctuation in NA27), is less common, and is not in harmony with Mark, is thus more likely to have undergone alteration than the minority reading, were it original. It is also possible that the versions, which frequently alter word order based on their own conventions, could have affected the word order of a minority of manuscripts here or there, especially since it is known that bilingual manuscripts were valued early on as a way of validating the versions, and vice versa.

Saturday, October 30, 2010

Matt 3:16 και βαπτισθεις

     A small contingent of manuscripts (ℵ B C* f13 892 pc) alters και βαπτισθεις ο Ιησους into βαπτισθεις δε ο Ιησους reflecting assimilation to the wording of the prior verse, namely, αποκριθεις δε ο Ιησους (3:15). It is far more likely that the very near context would have influenced a change in 10 or so manuscripts out of more than 1600 than that remote and verbally dissimilar parallels would have done so (cf. και εβαπτισθη [Mark 1:9]; και Ιησου βαπτισθεντος [Luke 3:21]). Bloomfield (Annotations, 3) argues that intrinsic probability favors και βαπτισθεις since it is more Hellenistic and founded on the Hebrew idiom, to which he suggests comparing Rom 4:3 and James 2:23 with Gen 15:6 (LXX). According to an email correspondence from Tony Pope, who cites chapter 5 of Stephen Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2d ed.; Dallas: SIL International, 2000), a distinctive discourse feature of NT Greek is that δε is used to mark a significant development in the narrative, whereas και is often used at the beginning of the discourse to set the scene for the first significant event or at the end for its conclusion. Pope suggests that a scribe or editor, aware of this feature, could have altered the meaning of an episode or the relationship between episodes through the interchange of δε and και. If και in 3:16 is original, Pope sees it as furnishing "a setting or lead-in for the surprising event of 16b" (και ιδου . . .) and cites 9:19 as a possible similar case. Nevertheless, even if internal evidence is inconclusive, the breadth and diversity of the external support for και βαπτισθεις are superior.

----------

Note the following two constructions in Matthew:
και + partciple + ο Ιησους (20x)
8:14; 9:2, 4, 9, 19, 23; 11:4; 14:13, 14; 15:21, 29; 16:17; 17:7; 18:2; 20:17, 32; 22:1; 24:1, 4; 28:18

partciple + δε + ο Ιησους (16x)
3:15; 4:12; 8:10, 18; 12:25; 16:8, 13; 17:17; 19:26; 20:22, 34; 21:21, 24; 22:18, 29; 26:10

Friday, October 29, 2010

Matt 3:11 αγιω

     After πνευματι αγιω significant and early attestation exists for the addition of και πυρι  (p101vid ℵ B C Ds K L M U W Γ Δ Π Σ f1.13 33 565 579 700 1241 al lat sy co Ju Ta Ir Tert Or, etc.), which Mill (§§690, 1098, 1177) maintains crept in from the margin. Griesbach (1:25–30) argues for the authenticity of the words, in part, on the grounds that they were omitted either because (1) they were considered abrasive, (2) they are lacking in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33, or (3) the church lectionary ended without the words (since the readers did not want to sadden the listeners). As lengthy as Griesbach's defense is, he nevertheless concedes: "Certainly no one is ignorant that very many interpolations of the sacred text entered from the scholia and from the commentaries of the fathers." Indeed, Matthäi (48–9) notes four manuscripts that add the words και πυρι in the margin from the scholia, and two that add the words from Chrysostom, who he says quotes the words twice but "without any doubt" from Luke. The same argues that since the Latin Vulgate was organized nearly within apostolic times it was corrupted from Chrysostom or from the old scholia, "as happens hundred times in other places." He further argues that the words εν πυρι in Luke are commented upon only minimally, and that anyone who has read Chrysostom knows how he frequently makes a harmony from multiple gospels and in the middle of interpreting Matthew and John he suddenly diverts to a different gospel, and thus the correction in Matthew is from harmonization and natural theological explanation of εν πνευματι αγιω, which of course was of paramount importance to the early church (cf. Acts 1:5; 2:3), as they were baptized in the Holy Spirit, the external sign of which was baptism by fire. Rinck (248–9), who rejects the addition, unashamedly states that "everyone acknowledges that the manuscripts strong in age and excellence were just as prone to supplement the context from parallel passages," and that suggesting that the church lectionary influenced the omission is unpersuasive, since the very reason that the church lectionary omitted και πυρι may very well have been because it was not thought to have been a part of Matthew's Gospel. Certainly it is agreed that the words were added to Matthew's Gospel at a very primitive stage, and once added, they could hardly have been omitted by any conscientious scribe who had the words in his exemplar, and those without the words in their exemplars would have felt constant temptation to add the words. Yet, as the evidence suggests, the majority of scribes did not add the words which originally belonged to Luke's Gospel, not Matthew's.

Matt 3:11 βαπτιζω υμας

     After εγω μεν at the beginning of the verse, a few manuscripts (p101 ℵ* B W 33 700 990 f1.13) transpose the words to read υμας βαπτιζω "for the purpose of better adapting the words to those at the end of the verse" (Bloomfield, GNT, 19). There was no need for Matthew to emphasize the first υμας, since doing so would have lessened the significance of the emphasis of the second υμας. By far the more memorable clause is the second of the two that contain υμας, and the word order of the second (υμας βαπτισει εν) may well have influenced an early scribe to conform the word order of the less familiar first occurrence to the more familiar second. Additionally, the critic could have thought to improve the construction by choosing a simple way to avoid the hiatus of βαπτιζω υμας, or to attach the prepositional phrase (εν υδατι) to the verb βαπτιζω just as the more famous prepositional phrase at the end of the sentence (εν πνευματι αγιω) is attached to βαπτισει. It is far less likely that all other manuscripts should reflect harmonization either to Mark 1:8 or Luke 3:16 or alteration of a perfectly fine construction than that a minority of manuscripts would reflect conformation to the word order that appears in the very same verse.

Thursday, October 28, 2010

Matt 3:10 δε και

     A few manuscripts (ℵ B C Ds M W Δ 0233 f1 700 pc co) omit και after δε either by accident or because it was considered redundant. Erasmus (2:19) notes the και is "not an idle conjunction, for it indicates with an increase in force that imminent danger approaches." Wettstein (1:265) follows Erasmus, and Griesbach (1:24–5), noting the same motivation behind the omission of και in Codex Bezae (D/05) at the parallel passage of Luke 3:9, says it was omitted because it appeared superfluous and that scribes failed to understand its force. Such especially applies to the versions, which in turn could have influenced the omission in some Greek copies. Fritzsche (131–2) rightly cautions that just because ηδη δε και was common among Greek writers does not mean that the και would have been spared from tampering had it for some reason been deemed unsuitable, and that at first glance δε pertains to the entire sentence to focus and multiply its greater intensity, and thus the και was thought unnecessary; yet the και indicates that the ax was even brought near to the trees, which, as Kühnöl (70) who says και was wrongly omitted notes, frequently refer to mankind in Scripture (Ps 1:3; Matt 7:17–19; John 15:1; Rom 11:17, etc.). Bloomfield (Annotations, 2–3) notes that the harshness of the construction lowers the possibility that και was introduced from harmonization to Luke 3:9, and that it was removed because it was thought to overload the construction, as was the και that is omitted in some manuscripts in Luke 5:35 (ℵ C F L M Θ f1.13 [and many late minuscules], etc.). Matthew is not unaccustomed to using δε και at the beginning of clauses (10:18 [versus Mark 13:9 and Luke 21:12]; 10:30 [versus Luke 12:7]; 18:17; 24:49 [versus Luke 12:45, which has τε και]; 25:22, 24 [versus Luke 19:18, 20], etc.). Moreover, examples may be multiplied where scribes, and especially the originators of the versions, opted to omit either δε or και when encountering the δε και combination (Matt 25:22 [δε omitted by ℵ B pc sa]; 26:35 [δε omitted by ℵ B C D L 067vid 0281 33 70 al lat sy mae bo-mss]; 27:41 [δε omitted by B K Θ f1.13 33 565 700 al lat sy-[s].p bo-pt; δε και omitted by ℵ A L W pc bo-pt]; Mark 14:31 [δε omitted by B f1 579 pc a c k sa-mss bo-ms]; Luke 6:6 [και omitted by ℵ B L X f1.13 33 pc it co sy-s.c]; 18:1 [και omitted by ℵ B L f13 pc a b c q co], etc.). See also Scholz (1:clxv), who similarly argues against the Alexandrian tampering of the intrinsically Lukan construction verb + δε και. Thus both internal and external evidence firmly support the authenticity of και. Cf. also the note on Matt 1:22 regarding scribal propensity toward omission over addition.

Tuesday, October 26, 2010

Matt 3:6 Ιορδανη

     After Ιορδανη a considerable number of manuscripts add ποταμω (ℵ B C* M S W Δ Σ 0233 f1 33 205 346 579 1424 al q sy sa bo), a probable scribal harmonization to Mark 1:5, as indicated by Wettstein (1:259), Griesbach (1:24), Fritzsche (120), Bloomfield (Annotations, 2), Tischendorf (7th ed., 1:8), Meyer (72), von Soden (1:5), and others. Griesbach, echoing Wettstein and demonstrating his view on the Synoptic Problem, commends the "shorter and older" reading, saying it was unnecessary for Matthew, writing to men who were well acquainted with Palestinian matters, to mention that the Jordan was the name of a certain river, but that Mark, wishing to serve the interests of readers living far from Judea, intentionally clarified Matthew's words through additions of this kind both here and elsewhere. The same logic militates against those few versions (sy sa bo), which also were made for those who were more likely to have been unfamiliar with Palestinian topography. There is no good reason why all other manuscripts, including the oldest Old Latin manuscripts (4th and 5th cent.) and perhaps the oldest Coptic manuscript (mae1, ca. 400), would have deleted the word, if original, just as almost all Greek manuscripts left the word alone at Mark 1:5. Indeed, as may be expected, only a few manuscripts in Mark (D W Θ 565 700 a) harmonize that place to Matthew by omitting ποταμω, just as only a minority of the 1500+ Greek manuscripts available here harmonize this place to Mark.

Matt 3:4 αυτου ην

     Reflecting an attempt to improve the text, a few manuscripts (ℵ B C D W f1) have ην αυτου, an atticism indicative of the critical editing found in those manuscripts and their relatives. Bloomfield (Annotations, 2) judges that ην αυτου is "the very position that a classical Greek writer would have used," while αυτου ην is the one a Hellenistic Greek writer would have used, thus making it intrinsically more probable. A critical desire to give variance to the phraseology repeated already twice in the same verse (το ενδυμα αυτου . . . την οσφυν αυτου . . . η δε τροφη αυτου) may have motivated the change, but such is precisely the style of the kind of Koine Greek that Matthew writes (cf., e.g., 3:12: τη χειρι αυτου . . . την αλωνα αυτου . . . τον σιτον αυτου, etc.). The slim support for ην αυτου cannot overthrow the aggregate weight of all other manuscripts, and since scribes tended to make the text not less elegant but rather, indeed, to polish and refine unexceptional expressions, it is precisely this class of readings that arouses suspicion, especially when found in only a few manuscripts. Cf. Matt 2:22 επι for a similarly-motivated improvement of the text.

Sunday, October 24, 2010

Matt 3:3 υπο

     The preposition υπο is changed into δια in a number of manuscripts (ℵ B C D W f1.13 33 157 265 700 1354 lat sy), most of which reflect the same alteration in 2:17. Matthäi (45) states that "no manuscript of good reputation" has δια here. For reasons why the consensus reading υπο cannot easily be rejected, see the note on Matt 2:17 υπο.

Matt 2:22 Ηρωδου του πατρος αυτου

Reflecting either individual preference or an emphasis on Archelaus' relationship to Herod the Great, a handful of manuscripts (ℵ B C* W) transpose the words to read του πατρος αυτου Ηρωδου, a stylistic adjustment similar to that made by two of the same manuscripts (ℵ B) in Matt 2:3. Such a word order usually reflects emphasis of some kind, and is not uncommon (Mark 11:10; Luke 1:59; John 4:12; cf. also Mark 1:20; Luke 1:59; John 4:12; 8:39, 53; Acts 2:16; 8:28, 30, etc.). Since the word order of the few copies is extremely isolated and, were it original, should hardly have caused all other copies and versions to alter it given its familiarity to scribes, the consensus reading is to be preferred.

Saturday, October 23, 2010

Matt 2:22 επι

Some manuscripts (ℵ B N Σ f1.13 33 565 700 892 pc) reflect a spirit of reviving the pure Attic dialect by omitting επι (commonly used with βασιλευω in the OT) after the verb βασιλευει in order to create a more classical construction. Bloomfield (GNT, 13–14) remarks that the Alexandrian critics knew well that classical usage requires its absence, that it is rarely if not never used by the classical writers, that it was thus cancelled by fastidious critics who wished to get rid of an unnecessary and unclassical construction, and that B and its usual supporters "abound in such uncritical alterations" (emphasis his). Meyer (56) agrees that επι could easily have been omitted as unnecessary, and perhaps even by accident since the syllable ει preceded it. The preposition επι should be retained for these reasons, and also for its early and diverse support (including C D E K L M S U V Γ Δ Π W). Cf. also the note on Matt 1:22 concerning a similar omission of a word most likely deemed superfluous.

Friday, October 22, 2010

Matt 2:21 ηλθεν

     The compound form εισηλθεν that appears in a few manuscripts (ℵ B C 159 273 399) arose, according to Bloomfield (Annotations, 2), either from scribal error or from "critical alteration to a more significant term," as happens at Acts 18:7, where εισηλθεν εις is also found in some manuscripts (p74 ℵ A D* 33 104 323 945 1175 1739 pc lat sy-p.hmg). Alternatively, if the minority reading εισηλθεν is secondary to the reading found in Eusebius and the Sahidic (i.e., επανηλθεν), it is possible that an editor chose to improve the style by conforming the preposition of the compound verb (επαν-) to the preposition that follows (εις). In Matthew, both the constructions ερχομαι + εις (used 20x) and εισερχομαι + εις (used 25x) are common enough, and it is absurd to think that a passage so verbally dissimilar and remote as Mark 1:14 would have caused the alteration of εισηλθεν into ηλθεν at this place, especially since such alterations are commonplace among a minority of manuscripts in the Gospel of Matthew itself (cf. 8:14 [εισελθων in several minuscules]; 9:28 [εισελθοντι in ℵ* Σ Ν]; 13:36 [εισηλθεν in ℵ Or]; 17:25 [ελθοντα in ℵ1 B f1 892]; 18:8 [ελθειν in several minuscules, it sy-s.c]; 19:17 [ελθειν in D 71 sy-s]; 21:10 [ελθοντος in ℵ* 566 1675*]; 21:23 [εισελθοντι in K Π]; 27:53 [ηλθεν in D lat sy-s.c]; 28:11 [εισελθοντες in Σ]). The two other cases of people entering a "land" (εις γην [2:20] and εις την γην [14:34] have the simple form of the verb, but such is hardly enough evidence to build an intrinsic case for the probability of ηλθεν here. Given the state of things, it is reasonable to suppose, as elsewhere in Matthew when the same variations arise, that a minority of manuscripts will generally reflect remote scribal alterations that failed to gain traction against the multiplying numerical superiority of the copies of the original text, and therefore ηλθεν, secured by the preponderate weight of more than 1600 Greek manuscripts from everywhere, is not to be rejected.

Matt 2:19 κατ οναρ φαινεται

Some witnesses (ℵ B D Z Σ 0250 f1.13 157 1574 pc lat) reflect scribal assimilation to the exact expression six verses earlier (2:13) and thus have φαινεται κατ οναρ, but the less exact and slightly more remote passage of 1:20, where the manner of the appearance is given emphasis, demonstrates that κατ οναρ φαινεται is also Matthean, even though at that place some witnesses (Θ 543 788 826 1689 it) alter the word order to εφανη κατ οναρ (removing the emphasis). Fritzsche (98) thinks that Matthew "deliberately preposed κατ οναρ here so that the words more carefully fixed for making up expressions with φαινεται would not perpetrate an annoyance on the reader, had they been reckoned a broken series," namely, "he appears -- (indeed even) in his sleep -- to Joseph -- in Egypt -- with this mandate," etc. There is no good reason to abandon the intrinsically good and externally well-supported reading of the consensus. Note that in 2:13 Codex Vaticanus (B) alone has κατ οναρ εφανη, an obvious assimilation to 1:20, and εις την χωραν αυτων after αυτων, an accretion from 2:12.

Thursday, October 21, 2010

Matt 2:18 θρηνος και

A few witnesses (ℵ B Z 0250 f1 pc lat sy-p co) omit θρηνος και before κλαυθμος και οδυρμος πολυς, eliminating the common "rule of three" formula for emphasis (cf. 5:11; 7:7; 8:12; 13:15; 16:24 22:37, etc.). Wettstein (1:251) proposed that the words could have been omitted in a few manuscripts due to scribal alignment with various versions, the early translators of which having omitted the words because they struggled to find three suitable synonymous words. It is also possible that the words were omitted either because they were deemed superfluous (so Fritzsche, 95–6) or because concerned critics sought to align the text with the "original" words of Jeremiah, perhaps even via Origen's critical masterpiece, the Hexapla. The reading of the Bohairic version (bo), which omits κλαυθμος και οδυρμος πολυς, lends credence to the judgment that at least some versional editors, seeing superfluity in three synonymous words, sought to "improve" the text by means of omission. The omission of the words in the Diatessaron also no doubt contributed to the perpetuation of the error. But as Bloomfield (GNT, 13) has ably shown, it certainly cannot be said that the LXX of Jer 31:15 (= 38:15 LXX) represents an inaccurate translation of the Hebrew, which reads נהי בכי תמרורים (literally: "wailing, weeping, bitter [lamentations]" or "wailing, weeping of bitter [lamentations]"), which the LXX renders as [φωνη . . .] θρηνου και κλαυθμου και οδυρμου. Matthew uses these Greek words but adapts them slightly to the Hebrew expression in the nominative case. It is not surprising that Justin omits the words, since his testimony frequently aligns with Tatian's, but nevertheless Whitby (139–40) rightly cautions that Justin may be citing from a Jeremiah source other than from Matthew. Moreover, since (1) there are sufficient reasons why θρηνος και would have been omitted, (2) Matthew was probably aware of the wording of the LXX and adapted it as needed, (3) early scribes of Matthew omitted text more than twice as often as added it (cf. note: Matt 1:22 του), and (4) the words are upheld by early and diverse testimony (C D L W Σ 0233 f13 33 sy-s.c.h) combined with the consensus of most Greek manuscripts, the words are more likely to have been present originally in Matthew's Gospel than not.


Text und Textwert #5 results:

1    θρηνος και
04 05 07 017 019 021 028 030 031 032 036 037 041 042 045 055 0211 0233 2 3 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40S 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 63 64 65 66 67 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 83 84 86 89 90 98 100 105 106 107 108 109 111 112 113 114 116 117 118S 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135S 136 137 138 140 141 142 143 144 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 160 161 162 163 164 165 167 169 170 171 173 174 178 179 180 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 195 196 198 199 200 201 202 204 205 207 208 209 210 211 212 213 214 215 217 218 219 220 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 240 243 244 245 246 247 248 251 259 260 261 262 263 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 277 278 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 293 296 297 298 299 300 301 303 304 305 306 310 324 329 330 331 333 334 335 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350S 351 352 353 354 355 358 359 360 361 363 364 365 366 367 371 373 374 375 376 377 379 380 386 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 399 402 405 406 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 418 419 420 422 423 428 431 435 438 439 440 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 461 470 471 472 473 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 500 501 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 513 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 527 528 529 530 532 534 535 537 543 544 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 560 561 563 564 565 566 568 569 571 573 574 575 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 591 592 594 596 597 600 645 649 651 652 655 657 660 662 663 664 666 668 672 676 677 679 680 683 684 685 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 696 697 699 700 703 707 708 709 711 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 732 733 734 736 737 738 740 741 744S 745 746 747 750 751 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 769 772S 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 785 786 787 788 789S 790 791 792 793 794S 795 796 797 798 799 801 803 804 805 806 808 809 811 817 818 819 820 822 824 825 826 827 828 830 833 834 835 836 837 839 842 843 844 845 851 852 854 855 856 858 860 861 863 864 871 872 873 875 877 878 880 881 886 888 889 890 891 892 893 895 896 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 978 979 980 982 983 986 987 988 989 992 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1023 1024 1025 1026 1029 1030 1032 1033 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042S 1043 1044 1046 1047S 1048 1050 1052 1053 1054S 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1068 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1095 1096 1097 1110 1111 1113 1114 1117 1118 1120 1121 1122 1123 1125 1126 1127 1131 1132 1133 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1144 1145 1146 1148 1149 1152 1155 1157 1158 1159 1160 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200S 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1247 1248 1250 1251 1252 1253 1261 1262 1263 1266 1268 1269 1272 1273 1278 1279S 1280 1281 1282 1285 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1294 1296 1297 1298 1299 1301 1302 1303 1305 1309 1310S 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1333 1334 1335 1336 1338 1339 1340 1341 1345 1346 1347 1350 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1362 1364 1365 1367 1375 1377 1383 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1406 1408 1409 1410 1413 1414S 1415 1416 1418 1420 1421 1422 1424 1432 1434 1435 1436 1438 1439 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1470 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1501 1502 1503 1505 1506 1508 1510 1511 1519 1521 1528 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1555 1556 1557 1559 1560 1563 1564 1570 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582C 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1594 1595 1597 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1608 1609 1612 1613 1615 1617 1620 1622 1625 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1637 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1645 1646 1647 1649 1651 1652 1653 1659 1660 1661 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1670 1671 1672 1675 1676 1678 1680 1682 1685 1686 1687 1688 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1697 1698 1699 1700 1702 1703 1704 1712 1780 1797 1800 1802 1813 1814 1816 1823 1901 1966 2095 2097 2099 2100 2101 2107 2108 2109 2112 2117 2118 2120 2122 2123 2126 2127 2131 2132 2133 2135 2139 2141 2142 2146 2147 2148 2159 2173 2174 2175 2176 2178 2181 2182 2191 2193 2195 2199 2201 2204S 2207 2213 2215 2217 2220 2221 2223 2224 2229 2236 2238 2255 2260 2261 2263 2265 2266 2267 2273 2277 2278 2280 2281 2283 2284 2287 2290S 2291 2292 2295 2296 2297 2301 2304 2306 2314 2315 2317 2321 2322 2323 2324 2328 2352 2354 2355 2356 2362 2367 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2381 2382 2383 2386 2387 2388 2390 2394 2397 2398 2400 2404 2405 2406 2407 2411 2414 2415 2420 2422 2426 2430 2439 2442 2444 2446 2450 2451 2452 2454 2458 2465 2467 2470 2471 2472 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2482 2483 2487 2488 2489 2490 2492 2494 2496 2497 2499 2502 2503 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2516 2518 2520 2523 2524 2525 2528S 2530 2533 2539 2545 2546 2550 2554 2555 2557 2559S 2561 2562 2567 2571 2579 2581 2583 2590S 2591S 2597 2598 2603 2604 2605 2606 2608S 2610 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2620 2622 2623 2624 2633 2635 2636 2637 2645 2646 2650 2651S 2653 2656 2658 2660 2665 2666 2670 2673 2676 2680 2684 2685 2687 2689 2691 2692 2693S 2694 2695 2701S 2702 2703 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709S 2710 2713 2714 2715 2718 2721 2722 2724 2726 2727 2728S 2729 2730 2734 2735 2745 2749 2754 2756 2757 2760 2765 2766 2767 2770 2773 2774 2775 2779 2780 2786 2788 2806 2808 2809 2810 2812 2826 2827 2831 2835 2836
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1456

1B    θρηνος
2578
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

1C    θηλλος και
1260T
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

1D    θρυλος και
1260L
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

2    Omit
01 03 035 0250 1 22 279 372 1491 1582* 2737
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 11

V    Omission of κλαυθμος to πολυς
2577
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

Wednesday, October 20, 2010

Matt 2:17 υπο

The relatively insignificant alteration of υπο into δια (which also occurs in 3:3) is reflected in a number of manuscripts (ℵ B C D W Z 21 33 71 157 372 399 579 892 1170 1588 it vg sy-p.h). Internal evidence is divided, for, on the one hand, it might be argued (so Griesbach, 1:22) that Matthew's custom was to use δια in reference to prophets in such expressions (1:22; 2:15, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 22:31; 24:15; 27:9), while, on the other hand, this very circumstance may have caused some scribes to alter υπο into δια (so Griesbach, who says the reading δια therefore "remains doubtful"; and Fritzsche, 94). While it is known that a minority of scribes altered δια into υπο on other occasions (2:23 [C 472]; 8:17 [517 Chr]; 12:17 [C2 N Π Σ 517 659 954 Chr; 1424 omits δια]; 13:35 [Π]; 21:4 [L Z Γ Δ Θ f13 482 544 700 892 sy-{s}.c]), it is suspicious that the consensus of so many Greek manuscripts, if secondary, would only have made such an alteration here and in 3:3; in other words, if υπο was so common as to cause its introduction by scribes into nearly all the manuscripts both here and in 3:3 (so Rinck, 247), why not elsewhere? Bloomfield (Annotations, 2) argues that δια is "a mere correction for greater exactness" (namely, it was not spoken by but through the prophet), suggested by the constructions previously written (cf. 1:22; 2:5, 15). On the same grounds that led von Soden to accept υπο in Matt 21:4 based on, in our opinion, much slimmer external support than that for υπο both here and in 3:3, the reading υπο cannot easily be dismissed in these two places. Due to the apparent conflict between intrinsic and transcriptional probabilities, one may choose either to leave this variation in "suspense" (so Hort, Introduction, 2) or simply to trust the text that "is found habitually to contain these morally certain or at least strongly preferred readings" (Ibid., 32). Our investigation has led us to believe that the more "habitually" accurate text to be trusted in such situations is none other than the consensus text that is commonly referred to as Byzantine. Consequently, υπο is to be preferred both here and in 3:3.

Tuesday, October 19, 2010

Matt 2:15 του

Some manuscripts (ℵ B C D W Z Γ Δ Π Σ f1 33 579 pc) omit του before κυριου either by accident, to improve the style, or to assimilate the expression to the common OT usage or to nearby passages where the article is absent (1:20, 24; 2:13, 19, etc.). See previous note: Matt 1:22 του. The presence of του is to be preferred.

Matt 2:5 ειπον

     A few manuscripts (ℵ B pc) have ειπαν, apparently reflecting a preference for the Egyptian manner of spelling ειπον. See also Matt 5:1 προσηλθον and Matt 7:13 εισελθετε.

Monday, October 18, 2010

Matt 2:9 εστη

     A few manuscripts (ℵ B C D f1 33 205 pc) alter the aorist active εστη into the aorist passive εσταθη, perhaps reflecting a pious improvement of the text, namely, as Fritzsche (77) contends, to teach that the star did not stop accidentally by its own power but rather that its course had been prevented by divine influence. Wettstein (1:247), citing Ammonius as an example, notes that the grammarians differentiated the action of the two words, σταθηναι indicating action by means of another and στηναι indicating action by one's own power, but also comments that the biblical authors did not always follow such tidy distinctions (cf. Luke 8:44; 18:11, 40; 19:8; Acts 2:14; 17:22, etc.). Bloomfield (Annotations, 1) agrees that εσταθη is a critical emendation, and chides the critics who should have known that εστη was to be taken in a "popular" sense, namely, that the star "ceased to advance and indeed disappeared." Meyer (56) likewise discerns that εσταθη is "of the nature of a gloss" in order to make the expression more precise, noting the same variation in 27:11 in almost the same manuscripts (ℵ B C L Θ Σ f1 33 pc). These internal reasons support the reading of the consensus of over 1600 Greek manuscripts, and thus εστη is to be retained.

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Matt 2:8 ακριβως εξετασατε

     A few witnesses (ℵ B C* D Σ f1.13 33vid 157 205 pc lat) transpose the words to read πορευθεντες εξετασατε ακριβως, perhaps (so Wettstein, 1:247) an attempted improvement of the text by removing any ambiguity concerning which word ακριβως was to modify (was it "go directly and search" or "go and search accurately"?). Bloomfield (Annotations, 1) argues that the reading of the few manuscripts "certainly makes better composition" and thus is indicative of "critical emendation," whereas Griesbach (1:19) says the transposition was accidental rather than intentional. But if the error was accidental, it is much more likely that scribes, after writing πορευθεντες, would have skipped ακριβως in anticipation of the imperative since such a construction is relatively common (cf. Matt 9:13; 11:4; 28:19; Luke 7:22; 13:32; 17:14; 22:8) than, were the reading of the few manuscripts original, that they would have skipped the imperative and first written ακριβως. Matthew frequently places the adverb before the word it modifies (cf. 1:18, 19; 2:7; 4:20, 22 [versus αφεντες ευθεως in Mark 1:20]; 5:24, 28; 8:8, 21 [versus απελθοντι πρωτον in Luke 9:59]; 21:28; 26:34; 28:7, etc.). See Matt 14:15, where Matthew's ηδη παρηλθεν is transposed by a few manuscripts (ℵ Z f1 pc), a transposition that may or may not have been influenced by the possible earlier omission of ηδη as reflected in some versions (sy-c.p sa bo); cf. also παλιν in 26:44, αρτι in 26:53, εξω in 26:69, etc., for similar examples of transposition with omission. Griesbach notes that two manuscripts of not much authority omit ακριβως, an error that he believes arose due to the earlier transposition, but which was more likely caused by accident, as mentioned above, due to anticipation of the imperative following πορευθεντες. But scribes were more likely to remove possible ambiguity than vice versa. Accordingly, in Matt 26:44 the same principle militates against the reading of some manuscripts (ℵ B C D L 067 pc lat sa bo), which alter the slightly ambiguous απελθων παλιν προσηυξατο ("again he went away and prayed" or "he went away and prayed again") into the less ambiguous παλιν απελθων προσηυξατο ("again he went away and prayed"; note the early omission of παλιν [p37 Θ f1.13 pc a sy-s], presumably to omit what was thought superfluous, especially if παλιν was taken with προσηυξατο which is already modified by εκ τριτου that follows). For all of these reasons the authenticity of the word order reflected in most Greek manuscripts, namely, ακριβως εξετασατε, is to be maintained.

Saturday, October 16, 2010

Matt 2:3 Ηρωδης ο βασιλευς

A few manuscripts (ℵ B D Z f1.13 157 273; b c k bo) transpose the expression to read ο βασιλευς Ηρωδης. However, in a phrase that contains a proper name and a title or other classifying word the normal order in the NT is the title followed by the name. For example, one finds Ιερεμιου του προφητου (2:17; 27:9), Ησαιου του προφητου (3:3; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17), Ιωνα του προφητου (12:39; 16:4), Δανιηλ του προφητου (24:15), Ανδρεαν τον αδελφον (4:18), Ιωαννην τον αδελφον (4:21), Ανδρεας ο αδελφος (10:2), Ηρωδιαδα την γυναικα Φιλιππου του αδελφου αυτου (14:3), Ιωαννην τον αδελφον (17:1), Ιησου χριστου (1:1, 18), Ιησους ο λεγομενος χριστος (1:16), Ιησου υιε του θεου (8:29), Ιησους ο προφητης (21:11, but a few manuscripts have ο προφητης ιησους), Ιησου του Γαλιλαιου (26:69), Ιησου του Ναζωραιου (26:71), Ιησουν τον λεγομενον χριστον (27:17, 22), Ιησους ο βασιλευς των Ιουδαιων (27:37). On the other hand, Matthew also writes της μητρος αυτου Μαριας (1:18) in contrast to Μαριας της μητρος αυτου (2:11), perhaps to draw attention to the relationship. Thus it is possible that the variant reading preposing ο βασιλευς is a critical alteration, either to give variation to the same expression that occurs in 2:1 (so Bloomfield, Annotations, 1) or to put focus on the title to highlight Herod's role as king in the narrative. Matthäi (37) mentions the omission of ο βασιλευς in six manuscripts, which, if not due to simple scribal error, probably resulted because scribes either considered the expression superfluous or sought to conform it to the places in the rest of the chapter where the title is missing (2:7, 12, 13, 15, 16, 19, 22). Especially as many early papyri were originally bilingual Greek/Latin manuscripts, it is also feasible that the title, after being omitted accidentally in some Latin manuscripts where it consists of only three letters (rex), could have contributed to the transposition upon its reintroduction to the text (e.g., it is written above the line in Codex H; 7th cent.). As for other possible causes, it is at least doubtful that the transposition could be due to assimilation to so remote a passage as Mark 6:14, where ο βασιλευς Ηρωδης is secure with only minor variation. In the end, there is little reason to reject the order Ηρωδης ο βασιλευς, which, in addition to most Greek manuscripts, has the support of four Greek manuscripts from the 6th century and earlier (C N W Σ), the oldest Old Latin manuscript (a/3 Vercellensis; 4th cent.) and the important Brixianus (f/10; 6th cent.), and also the Vulgate and Sahidic versions.

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Matt 1:25 τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον

A few witnesses (ℵ B Zvid 071vid 1 33 788 1192 1582* it mae1 [sy-c sa bo]) depart from the consensus and read simply υιον instead of τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον, which latter expression Bengel (Apparatus, 93) and others suggest entered here from Luke 2:7, an explanation Whitney (1:58–61) calls "pure conjecture." The older nature of the longer reading is established by its presence in a completely Matthean sequence of Tatian's Diatessaron (2.1–7 = Matt 1:18–25), a fact openly conceded by Hort (Appendix, 8) and other critics such as von Soden (1:3) and corroborated by its appearance in the Latin translation of Ephrem's commentary, where it is quoted three times as primogenitum (cf. Mösinger, 25). Mill (Prolegomena, §18), Wettstein (1:239), Griesbach (1:17), Meyer (35), and others suggest that the shorter reading originated in a diligent but futile attempt to suppress the notion that Mary gave birth to more babies after Jesus was born (Griesbach logically suggests the same motivation behind the omission of πριν η συνελθειν αυτους in two manuscripts in 1:18). Fritzsche (55) calls this explanation absurd, arguing instead that the phrase was omitted on account of its clearly superfluous appearance, since the child of one expressly referred to as a virgin (1:23) would obviously be her firstborn. Griesbach plainly states that it appears less probable that the phrase was moved to this place from Luke 2:7, and additional evidence confirms his judgment. The probability is great that the appearance of τεξεται υιον not only once in 1:21 but again in 1:23 would have influenced a careless scribe to repeat the manner of expression upon the third appearance of the verb τικτω in so short a space, namely, she shall bear a son . . . she shall bear a son . . . she bore a son). Assimilation to the nearby context is always more probable than harmonization to a remote parallel, especially (so Whitney) if the error occurred in the earliest of times before Matthew's gospel travelled alongside others. Whitney further argues on grammatical grounds that Matthew at the very least would not have written υιον without the definite article after it appeared without such in 1:21 and 1:23 in anticipation of the son that was to be born, pointing to the addition of τον or αυτης or both by scribes who perceived the problem created by earlier scribes, and that πρωτοτοκον completes the idea that Joseph did not "know" Mary until after Jesus' birth, indicating, as is suggested elsewhere (Matt 12:46; 13:55, 56; Mark 6:3, etc.), that Joseph and Mary later had children together. Intrinsically, as Whitney states, the expression is "just what might be expected to have been written by this evangelist." The authenticity of τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον is to be preferred not only because it has second-century attestation and remarkable internal arguments in its favor but primarily because of its presence in the overwhelming consensus of all Greek manuscripts (ca. 1450 manuscripts), including important representatives from every texttype (C D E K L M S U V W Γ Δ Π 087 565 892, etc.); thus the internal evidence merely corroborates the conclusion already called for by the external evidence due to the apparent habitual accuracy of the consensus Greek text.

Text und Textwert #4 results:

1    τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον
04 05* 07 017 021 022 028 030 031 032 036 037 041 042 045 047 055 087 0211 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 26 27C 28 29 31 34 35 36 37 38 39 40S 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 63 65 66 67 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 83 84 86 89 90 98 100 105 106 107 108 109 111 112 113 114 116 117 118S 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135S 136 137 138 140 141 142 143 144 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 160 161 162 163 164 165 167 169 170 171 173 178 179 180 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 195 196 198 199 200 201 202 204 205 207 208 209 210S 211 212 213 214 215 217 218 219 220 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 240 243 244 245 246 247 248 251 259 260 261 262 263 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 280 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 293 295 296 297 298 299 300 301 303 304 305 306 310 324 329 330 331 333 334 335 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350S 351 352 353 354 355 358 359 360 361 363 364 365 367 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 379 380 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 399 402 405 406 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 418 419 420 422 423 428 431 438 439 440 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 461 470 471 472 473 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 500 501 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 527 528 529 530 532 534 535 537 543 544 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 560 561 563 564 565 566 568 569 571 573 574 575 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 591 592 594 596 597 600 645 649 651 652 655 657 660 662 663 664 666 668 672 676 677 679 680 683 684 685 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 696 697 699 700 703 706 707 708 709 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 736 737 738 740 741 744S 745 746 747 750 752 753 754 755 756 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 766 769 772S 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 785 786 787 789S 790 791 792 793 794S 795 796 797 798 799 801 803 804 805 806 808 809 811 817 818 819 820 822 824 825 826 827 828 830 833 834 835 836 837C 839 842 843 844 845 851 852 854 855 856 858 860 861 863 864 871 872 873 875 877 878 880 881 886 888C 889 890 891 892 893 895 896 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 931 932 933 934 935 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 978 979 980 982 983 986 987 988 989 992 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1023 1024 1025 1026 1029 1030 1032 1033 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042S 1043 1046 1047S 1048 1050 1052 1053 1054S 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1068 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1087 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1095 1096 1097 1110 1111 1113 1114 1117 1118 1120 1121 1122 1123 1125 1126 1127 1131 1132 1133 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1144 1145 1146 1148 1149 1152 1155 1157 1158 1159 1160 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1178 1179 1180 1181 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200S 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1247 1248 1250 1251S 1252 1254 1260 1261 1262 1263 1266 1268 1269 1272 1273 1278 1279S 1280 1281 1282 1288 1289 1290 1292 1294 1296 1297 1298 1299 1301 1302 1303 1305 1309 1310S 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1333 1334 1335 1336 1338 1339 1340 1341 1345 1346 1347 1350 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1362 1364 1365 1367 1375 1377 1383 1384 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1401 1402 1403 1404 1406 1408 1409 1410 1413 1414S 1415 1416 1418 1420 1421 1422 1432 1434 1435 1436 1438 1439 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464 1465 1466 1467 1468 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1501 1502 1503 1505 1506 1508 1510 1511 1519 1521 1528 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1545 1547 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1563 1570 1572 1573 1574 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1581 1582C 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1594 1595 1597 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1609 1612 1613 1615 1617 1620 1622 1623 1625 1626 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1637 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1645 1646 1647 1649 1652 1653 1659 1660 1661 1662 1663 1664 1665 1667 1668 1670 1671 1672 1676 1678 1679 1680 1682 1685 1686 1687 1688 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1697 1698 1699 1700 1702 1703 1704 1713 1780 1797 1800 1802 1803 1804 1808 1813 1814 1816 1901 1966 2095 2097 2099 2100 2101 2107 2109 2112 2117 2118 2120 2122 2123 2126 2127 2131 2132 2133 2135 2139 2141 2142 2146 2147 2148 2159 2173 2174 2175 2176 2178 2181 2182 2191 2193 2195 2199 2201 2204S 2206 2207 2213 2215 2217 2220 2221 2223 2224 2229 2236 2238 2255 2260 2261 2263 2265 2266 2267 2273 2277 2280 2281 2283 2284 2287 2290S 2291 2292 2295 2296 2297 2301 2304 2306 2314 2315 2317 2321 2322 2323 2324 2328 2352 2354 2355 2356 2362 2367 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2381 2382 2383 2386 2387 2388 2390 2394 2396 2397 2398 2400 2404 2405 2406 2407 2411 2414 2415 2420 2422 2426 2430 2439 2442 2444 2446 2450 2451 2452 2454 2458 2465 2467 2470 2472 2474 2476 2477 2478 2479 2482 2483 2487 2488 2490 2492 2494 2496 2497 2499 2502 2503 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2516 2518 2520 2521 2523 2524 2525 2528S 2530 2533 2539 2545 2546 2550 2554 2555 2557 2559S 2561 2562 2567 2571 2577 2578 2579 2581 2585 2590S 2591S 2592 2597 2598 2603 2604 2605 2606 2608S 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2620 2622 2623 2624 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2645 2646 2650 2651S 2653 2656 2658 2660 2665 2666 2670 2673 2676 2680 2684 2685 2687 2689 2691 2692 2693S 2694 2701S 2702 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2713 2714 2715 2718 2721 2724 2726 2727 2728S 2729 2730 2734 2735 2737 2745 2749 2756 2757 2760 2765 2767 2770 2773 2774 2775 2780 2786 2788 2806 2808 2809 2810 2812 2831 2835 2836
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1446

1B    τον υιος αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον
30
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

1C    τον υιον αυτοις τον πρωτοτοκον
837* 1546 2695
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 3

1D    τον υιον αυτου τον πρωτοτοκον
279 513
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 2

1E    τον υιον αυτος τον πρωτοτοκον
1374
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

1F    τον υιον αυτης τον υιον αυτης τον πρωτοτοκον
27* 1291
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 2

1G    τον υιον αυτης πρωτοτοκον
888*
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

2    υιον
01 03 035 1 33 788 1192 1582*
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 8

3    τον υιον αυτης
1182
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

4    τον υιον τον πρωτοτοκον
05C2 019
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 2

Monday, October 11, 2010

Matt 1:24 διεγερθεις

     The prepositional prefix of διεγερθεις is removed to read simply εγερθεις in a few manuscripts (ℵ B C* Z 071 f1 205 pc), some of which reflect the same practice in 1:19. Bengel (Apparatus, 93), Wettstein (1:239), Griesbach (1:17), Tischendorf (7th ed., 1:4), and von Soden (2:3) all indicate that εγερθεις entered this place in a few manuscripts from chapter two, where it occurs four times (2:13, 14, 20, 21). Wettstein notes that the preposition δια stretches the meaning of the verb, as Matthew was accustomed to do elsewhere (cf., e.g., διακαθαριει in 3:12 and διεκωλυεν in 3:14), with the meaning that Joseph immediately rose from the bed, but not until he had considered everything maturely and composed himself to do the job. Bloomfield (GNT, 8) notes the abundant use of εγειρω in the NT and sees no reason why Matthew should not have used the compound διεγειρω merely once just as do Mark (4:39), Luke (8:24), and John (6:18), and Meyer (35) echoes the overarching text-critical principle that the less common compound form of the verb gave place to the very common simple form. Consequently, internal evidence strongly commends the authenticity of the compound διεγερθεις that preponderates in the consensus of all manuscripts. Cf. also the note on Matt 1:19.

Matt 1:22 του

As in Matt 2:15, a number of witnesses (ℵ B C D W Z Δ 071 f1.13 33 892vid pc), but still relatively few, omit the article του before κυριου. Consistent with the notion of editorial tampering due to the identical omission in similar witnesses in 2:15, Wettstein (1:238) suggests that scribes omitted it because they thought the expression υπο του κυριου δια του προφητου would flow more smoothly without it. It is also possible that scribes assimilated the phrase to the common usage of the OT or even nearby passages 1:20, 24; 2:13, 19, etc., where the article is missing. But NT authors and speakers need not to have held to this custom absolutely (cf., e.g., 9:38; Luke 1:6, 9; Acts 4:26 [from Psalm 2:2]). Griesbach (1:16), while calling the omission of the article here and in 2:15 "very old," similarly argues that scribes removed it so that the article would not occur twice on the same line; he furthermore reasons that there is "no probable reason why it should have been carried into all the remaining manuscripts in both places," and that "it is well-known that in general unlearned scribes, being too little accustomed to the genius and idioms of the Greek language, were more prone to omit than rashly to add the article."
     Recent studies on scribal habits soundly corroborate Griesbach's judgment, and thus the presence of the article as reflected in the vast consensus of all manuscripts is to be retained. Cf. James R. Royse, "Scribal Habits in the Transmission of New Testament Texts," in The Critical Study of Sacred Texts, ed. Wendy D. O'Flaherty (Berkeley: Graduate Theological Union, 1979), 139–61; idem, "Scribal Tendencies in the Transmission of the Text of the New Testament," in The Text of the New Testament in Contemporary Research: Essays on the Status Quaestionis (ed. Bart D. Ehrman and Michael W. Holmes; Studies and Documents 46; Grand Rapids: Eerdmans, 1995), 239–52; idem, Scribal Habits in Early Greek New Testament Papyri (Leiden: Brill, 2008); Peter M. Head, "Some Observations on Early Papyri of the Synoptic Gospels, Especially Concerning the 'Scribal Habits,'" Biblica 71 (1990): 240–47; idem, "The Habits of New Testament Copyists: Singular Readings in the Early Fragmentary Papyri of John," Biblica 85 (2004): 399–408; and Kyoung Shik Min, Die früheste Überlieferung des Matthäusevangeliums (Arbeiten zur neutestamentlichen Textforschung 34; Berlin: De Gruyter, 2005), who says, "What is customary with the old papyri, and also remarkable, is that omissions are more than twice as likely to be found than additions" (97).

Matt 1:20 Μαριαμ

     A few scribes (B L f1 1241 pc co) altered Μαριαμ into Μαριαν, either in the interest of grammatical purism to denote the accusative case of the name, or by "mere error" (so Bloomfield, Annotations, 1) due to the similarity of the final consonants Μ and Ν not only in appearance but also in speech. But Matthew, as Bengel notes (Apparatus, 93), may well be imitating the Aramaic speech of the angel. See John 11:19, 28, 31, 45, where some of the same witnesses above reflect the opposite change, but where the consensus spelling Μαριαν is nevertheless corroborated by early papyri and other old manuscripts, and also Matt 1:24, where Matthäi (36) notes that before την γυναικα five manuscripts add Μαριαν and one Μαριαμ, indicating at least a scribal knowledge of if not even a preference for the so-called accusative form of the name in that place. Considering the relatively localized appearance of the support for Μαριαν, the above internal reasons, and the general reliability of the spelling of names reflected in the consensus of all manuscripts in other places, the spelling Μαριαμ is to be preferred. Cf. also the notes on Matt 1:5 (two), 7–8, 10, 13, 14, etc.

Saturday, October 9, 2010

Matt 1:19 παραδειγματισαι

Three related witnesses (ℵ1 B Z) and one secondary witness (f1) have δειγματισαι while all the rest have παραδειγματισαι. Suggesting that alliteration between -δειγ- and the preceding δικαιος may have played a role in the omission of the prepositional prefix παρα, Bengel (Apparatus, 92) states that hasty scribes often omitted the conjoined preposition and gave the simple form of a verb, a circumstance Kühnöl (13) says is well-known and happens a hundred times over. Both Wettstein (1:233) and Griesbach (1:16) agree that παραδειγματισαι carried a worse connotation than δειγματισαι, and hence (so Wettstein) some ancient critics preferred the less harsh word since Mary was of such great excellence that even the thought of Joseph doing something harsher to her might have caused some to lessen their high view of her (or him). It matters little if the meanings of the two words are not really different (so Fritzsche), only that ancient scribes and critics thought they were different (leading one to correct the harsher word to the less harsh), and supporting this fact are many fathers and two scholia that Matthäi (34) quotes and says are "very ancient" and "without question" were assembled from Origen. Griesbach is more balanced but argues that while either reading may be seen as a gloss, in such cases one may more safely rest assured in the reading that is more numerous among the old and weighty witnesses (in this case including at least ℵ* E N P W Σ), and for this reason he says that παραδειγματισαι must be preferred. Fritzsche (41) likewise agrees that παραδειγματισαι is original on internal and external grounds, but rightly cautions against the notion that scribes universally changed the complex form of the verb into the simple form, suggesting instead that scribes would often prefer whichever form of the verb was more common to them, be it the simple or the complex form. Therefore, based on substantial external support for the complex form, παραδειγματισαι should be considered original, especially since the origin of the simple form is accounted for by internal and transcriptional reasons and its support is notably non-diverse.

Matt 1:18 γαρ

After μνηστευθεισης a few manuscripts (p1 ℵ B C* Z f1 pc) omit γαρ, but the strong consensus of over 1600 manuscripts combined with Eusebius in the fourth century, W/032 around 400, and representatives from all the text-types (L Θ Δ Π f13 33 892 1241) with the possible exception of the Western indicate that the presence of the conjunction here is older than its absence. Bengel (Gnomon, 1:110) comments that 1:18 contains the introductory statement of the matters that follow, to which also the ουτως refers, and thus the conjunction γαρ (as in Heb 2:8) commences the handling of the subject, which corresponds with the introductory statement. Furthermore, Griesbach (1:15) and Bloomfield (GNT, 1:6) rightly judge that γαρ was omitted by copyists who did not perceive its force and in some versions because in translation it could be disregarded without harming the sense. Burgon (Traditional Text, 192–3) flatly says that the γαρ "is not represented here in so much as a single ancient Version" because it is untranslatable in this sense, and that had it been a scribal addition to the text "it could not by any possibility have universally established itself in copies of the Gospel" to the extent that it has done due to its untranslatable function and thus, to scribes, apparent superfluousness. On the grounds of its overwhelming and relatively equally early external attestation, superior internal character, and sufficient explanation of its absence in a minority of witnesses the presence of γαρ is to be preferred.

Matt 1:18 γεννησις

Although instead of γεννησις (birth) a number of old manuscripts (p1 ℵ B C P S W Z Δ Θ Σ f1 579 pc) have γενεσις (birth, origin), the greater antiquity of the former (γεννησις) is demonstrated in part by Irenaeus in the second century and Origen in the third. Grotius (1:21) flatly states that "at one time most manuscripts had γενεσις (beginning)," and that whoever wrote Dialogi adversus Macedonianos not only cites it in this way, but clearly adds, 'η γενεσις ειπεν ουχ η γεννησις' ('beginning' is read, not 'birth'), and used this argument to show οτι τον ναον του σωματος του Χριστου το Πνευμα το αγιον εκτισε (the temple of the body of Christ was built by the Holy Spirit), and once again, πρωτον γενεσιν ακουε του ναου και τοτε γεννησιν (understand first the beginning of the temple, then the birth)." Mill (Prolegomena:72 [§757]) writes: "But there are also many alterations: Ιησου η γενεσις ουτως ην in Matt 1:18, as the author of Dialogi 3 de Trin §25 says, 'η γενεσις ουχι η γεννησις': and so perhaps certain manuscripts of his time. But γενεσις crept in from the beginning of this chapter." Furthermore, in regard to Maximus the Confessor, Mill elaborates (Prolegomena:99 [§1021]): "But also elsewhere in the third Dialogi, so the orthodox one: 'η γενεσις ειπεν, ουχι η γεννησις' (Matt 1:18). But since γενεσις only existed in a certain few manuscripts and indeed appears to have been transferred from the first verse of this chapter, and as γεννησις is in all current manuscripts and is that which accords with [true] orthodoxy, it follows that this one rather than the former is to be read." Bengel (Gnomon, 110) expounds that εγεννηθη in 1:16 and γεννησις here refer mutually to each other, the latter including both the conception (γεννηθεν, 1:20) and the nativity (γεννηθεντος, 2:1). Rinck (247) suggests that this evangelist appears to establish a distinction between the ancestry of Christ (γενεσις) in verse 1 and his nativity (γεννησις) in verse 18. Wettstein (1:222–3) argues that the orthodox would use γενεσις to say that Jesus materially became mankind, that the Greeks used this word in their lectionary title for this passage, that the use of γενεσις in 1:1 signifies something different, and that Jesus, although referred to with γινομαι in Scripture (Gal 4:4; Rom 1:3; John 1:4), is nevertheless clearly referred to with γενναω in Matthew (1:20, 2:1), and for these reasons the reading that appears in the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts, namely, γεννησις, was without doubt the reading that proceeded from Matthew. Matthäi (33) argues that γεννησις was rashly changed into γενεσις from the scholia of scribes, quotes a scholium showing indifference toward distinguishing the two terms, and furthermore notes that scribes repeatedly intermingled the words γενναω and γινομαι even in other writers, just as they do βαλειν and λαβειν. Given that γεννησις is the older reading, reflects the consensus of all Greek and Old Latin manuscripts and is more consistent with Matthew's contextual literary technique (cf. 1:20 and 2:1), that γενεσις is the more classical term and was arguably more apologetically popular to the orthodox (and therefore more likely to elicit assimilation to it than away from it), that various scholia and the Greek lectionary title of the passage could have influenced the alteration of γεννησις in the text, and that the temptation to scribes would have been great to assimilate γεννησις at this place to γενεσις in 1:1 due to the presence of Ιησου Χριστου connected to the terms in both places, it is necessary to retain γεννησις as authentic. Cf. the note on Luke 1:14, where the same variation occurs, and John 8:41, where a few manuscripts alter γεγεννημεθα into γεγενημεθα (p66 N W 0250 f13 565 al). Cf. also the treatment of Burgon (Revision Revised, 119–22), who cites the following fathers in support of γεννησις: Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia; Zahn (69–70), who begins his critical explanation thus: "With still greater certainty is γεννησις to be read in spite of the noble testimony for γενεσις (p1 ℵ B C P S Z Δ Σ pc)" (72); and also Lagrange (8–9). For perhaps the most thorough defense of γεννησις ever published, see Solomon Caesar Malan, A Plea for the Received Greek Text and for the Authorised Version of the New Testament (London: Hatchards, 1869), 1–31.

Friday, October 8, 2010

Matt 1:14 Αχειμ Αχειμ

The insignificant spelling variation Αχιμ found in a minority of manuscripts (ℵ2 L M V Σ [Αχιν]) was retained by NA27 probably for purposes of orthographic standardization. Yet there is no need to standardize Αχειμ, a name that occurs only here and written as Αχειμ in the consensus of all Greek manuscripts, including ℵ* B C E K P U W Δ (Αχειν) Θ Π f1.13 33, etc. Therefore, Αχειμ is to be preferred. Cf. also the comment on Matt 1:13.

Matt 1:13 Ελιακειμ Ελιακειμ

The insignificant spelling variation Ελιακιμ found in a minority of manuscripts (M V Π) was retained by NA27 probably for purposes of orthographic standardization. Yet there is little need to standardize Ελιακειμ, a name that occurs only here and in Luke 3:30 (where only Σ [for the first occurrence] 33 892 1396 have Ελιακιμ), since it is written as Ελιακειμ by the vast consensus of all Greek manuscripts in both places, including in this place by ℵ B C E K L U W Δ Θ f1.13 33. Therefore, Ελιακειμ is to be preferred. Cf. also the comment on Matt 1:14 Αχειμ Αχειμ.

Matt 1:10 Αμων Αμων

Although some manuscripts have Αμως (ℵ B C [D in Luke] Δ Θ f1 33 205 pc it vg-mss sa bo) instead of Αμων, both the age and broad provenance of the Αμων reading is confirmed not only by the oldest extant Old Latin manuscript (a/3, 4th cent.) and the two Old Syriac witnesses (sy-s.c, 4th and 5th cent., respectively) but also by one of the oldest existing Coptic manuscripts for this passage (mae-1, ca. 400), not to mention the origin of the mainstream Latin and Syriac versions and the large consensus of around 1500 Greek manuscripts. Both Wettstein (1:229) and Griesbach (1:11) agree that scribes would have been more likely to change Αμων to Αμως since Amos the prophet was more familiar to them than Amon the king. As Metzger (2) and Weiss (20) note, a minority of scribes occasionally and "erroneously" (so Metzger) wrote the more familiar Αμως instead of Αμων (2 Kgs 21:18–19, 23–25; 1 Chr 3:14; 2 Chr 33:20–25). That Amos was more familiar to scribes than Amon is further settled by the apparent fact that scribes never wrote Αμων instead of Αμως. Whitney (1:56) additionally suggests that some scribes may have erroneously thought that the Amon of Matthew corresponded to the Amos of Luke 3:25 and then consequently altered the Matthean account to resolve the apparent contradiction. Metzger's surmise that Matthew may have used genealogical lists that contained the erroneous spelling instead of the OT itself fails to answer the literary objection that the author of Matthew still would have discriminated the difference. Lagrange (5) speaks to this, as does James A. Borland ("Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25:4 [1982]: 499–506), who says, "It is difficult to believe that Matthew, no doubt an educated literary Jewish writer, was incapable of distinguishing between the Hebrew אסא and אסף or between the even more distinguishable אמון and עמוס" (p. 503); thus the error was more likely scribal than authorial. And so on both external and internal grounds Αμων is to be preferred. Cf. also the comment on Matt 1:7–8, and Luke 3:32, where it is not suitable to suggest that all 1600+ Greek manuscripts except three (p4 ℵ* B) reflect an attempt to correct Σαλα to Σαλμων, but rather that a few manuscripts departed from the original, either by following the Old Syriac (which also has Σαλα at Matt 1:4–5) or a common intermediary, by assimilation to Luke 3:35 where Σαλα is certain, by an attempt to correct what could have been perceived to have been an egregious error by Luke in referring to King Solomon there (cp. Σαλμων with Σολομων), etc.

Matt 1:7-8 Ασα . . . Ασα

While Metzger (1) calls the variant Ασαφ (p1vid ℵ B C [D in Luke] f1.13 205 700 1506 pc it [sy-hmg] co) an "erroneous spelling" that scribes would have wanted to correct, the antiquity of Ασα reflected in the consensus of all manuscripts (including W/032, ca. 400) is clear based on the agreement of the oldest Old Latin manuscript (a/3, 4th cent.) with the combination of the two Old Syriac manuscripts (sy-s.c [4th and 5th cent., respectively). Both Wettstein (1:229) and Griesbach (1:11) argue that scribes would have been more likely to change Ασα into Ασαφ since Asaph the poet was more familiar to them than Asa the king. Weiss (20) calls this very alteration "thoughtless" and "characteristic" of the oldest text. The two names are never interchangeable in the OT narratives, although occasionally the following spelling variations occur in the LXX: Ασαφατ for Ασα (1 Kgs 15:25 by 501); Ασαφ for Ασα (1 Kgs 15:33 by N*); Ασαβ for Ασα (1 Chr 3:10 by "ms. 60" [so Metzger]; 2 Chr 16:7 by 120); Ασα for Ασαφ (2 Chr 29:13 by B 55 127). That only these few comparable examples exist out of 90 or so instances of the two names in the LXX demonstrates just what one should expect: while the vast consensus of manuscripts always distinguished the names, less than 10 percent of the time a single scribe (with the exception of 2 Chr 29:13 where 3 manuscripts vary) wrote one name for the other; furthermore, in the few interchanges of the names, Ασα was four times more likely to be confused for Ασαφ/Ασαβ/Ασαφατ than was Ασαφ for Ασα. Such a circumstance explains the minority reading in this place and corroborates the authenticity of the reading reflected in the consensus of all manuscripts. See also James A. Borland ("Re-examining New Testament Textual-Critical Principles and Practices Used to Negate Inerrancy," Journal of the Evangelical Theological Society 25:4 [1982]: 499–506), who calls the reading Ασαφ "an early scribal blunder unjudiciously copied into fortunately but a handful of Greek MSS" (503). Cf. also the comment on Matt 1:10, and Luke 3:32, where it is not suitable to suggest that all 1600+ Greek manuscripts except three (p4 ℵ* B) reflect an attempt to correct Σαλα to Σαλμων, but rather that a few manuscripts departed from the original, either by following the Old Syriac (which also has Σαλα at Matt 1:4–5) or a common intermediary, by assimilation to Luke 3:35 where Σαλα is certain, or by an attempt to correct what could have been perceived to have been an egregious error by Luke in referring to King Solomon there (cp. Σαλμων with Σολομων), etc. In addition, Rendel Harris ("Conflate Readings of the New Testament," American Journal of Philology 6:1 [1885]: 25–40) suggests that both Asaph and Amos (1:10) came about by "ghastly line-errors," namely, that "Ασαφ arises simply from the corresponding letters in the word Ιωσαφατ" and Αμως from the corresponding letters in Ιωσειαν, and that such an explanation "is not to be shaken by an array of excellent MSS in which the archaic error may be preserved" (26–7).

Thursday, October 7, 2010

Matt 1:6 ο βασιλευς

Some manuscripts (p1 ℵ B Γ f1.13 205 579 700 pc g1 k vg-mss sy-s.c.p co) omit the appellation ο βασιλευς after Δαυιδ δε. Bengel notes that the title was intentionally mentioned twice just as the Babylonian captivity afterwards to emphasize the kingship promised to the Messiah (Gnomon, 1:84), and that scribes immediately skipped to εγεννησεν after δε in order to assimilate the construction to that which occurs (12x) in the preceding verses (Apparatus, 91). Wettstein (1:228) mentions the authorial intention of repeated mention of the dignity of David's ancestors, and that this kind of repetition is not uncustomary for biblical writers (cf. 1 Kgs 1:1, 13, 28, 31, 32, 37, 38, 43, 47). Griesbach (1:10) concurs that the repeated use of εγεννησεν δε before this variation caused scribes, accustomed as they were to the rhythm, to skip over ο βασιλευς. Corroborating Griesbach's explanation is one witness (700) that omits both kingly references, most likely to conform the text to the rather mechanical style that saturates the entire genealogy (i.e., name in the accusative case + name in the nominative case + δε). Furthermore, Fritzsche (16) and Meyer (34) argue that the title was omitted on the grounds that it appeared superfluous to scribes since Matthew had just called David τον βασιλεα two words earlier. For these reasons the reading reflected in the large consensus of most manuscripts should be retained.

Matt 1:5 Ωβηδ . . . Ωβηδ

Wettstein (1:228) mentions Jerome's opinion in De situ et nominibus locorum Hebraicorum (PL 28:889) that Ιωβηδ (p1 ℵ B C* Δ), a variation that also appears in Luke 3:32, perhaps arose because Job was more familiar to scribes than Obed. Griesbach (1:10) observes in addition that Obed occasionally appears as Ιωβηδ in a few manuscripts of the LXX and that Hebrew names in both testaments often begin with Ιω-, a circumstance that would have led scribes to assimilate the less familiar orthography of Ωβηδ to the more familiar orthography of other names, and thus the spelling found in the majority of manuscripts (Ωβηδ) is to be preferred.

Matt 1:5 Βοοζ . . . Βοοζ

Whereas early but slim attestation for Βοες (p1 ℵ B k co) reflects localized orthography and that for Βοος (C [D in Luke] 33 pc g1) assimilation to the predominant usage of the LXX, the broad consensus of the remaining 1400+ manuscripts indicates Βοοζ to be original.