tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-22980623306074943382023-12-07T21:22:30.686-05:00A Textual Commentary on the Greek New TestamentA website designed to foster discussion and to employ the canons of New Testament textual criticism to determine the earliest form of the transmitted text of the New Testament through a systematic study of every difference between the Nestle-Aland <i>Novum Testamentum graece</i> (28th ed., 2012) and the Robinson-Pierpont <i>The New Testament in the Original Greek: Byzantine Textform</i> (2005).maurice a robinsonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06207682737855397058noreply@blogger.comBlogger117125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-9192666916109714192017-01-11T09:52:00.002-05:002023-04-11T21:34:31.500-04:00Matt 8:4 προσενεγκεIn Matt 8:4 Soden and Vogels print προσενεγκε (ℵ E K L M N S U V W X Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Ω 047 0211 f1.13.[35] 33. 399. 461. 565. 566. 892. [1424]. 1500 2224 [f35 1424: προσενεγκαι]), which appears basically everywhere, but two manuscripts predating the 10th century (out of 30+) have προσενεγκον (B C), reflecting the occasional Koine encroachment of first aorist endings on second aorist stems. The minority reading is also printed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, and Tischendorf (7th, 8th).<br />
<br />
The same occasional encroachment mentioned above is evident in some witnesses elsewhere in Matthew:<br />
<br />
Matt 4:3 ειπε (ℵc: ειπον)<br />
Matt 22:17 ειπε (L 33 SBLGNT: ειπον)<br />
Matt 24:3 ειπε (L S f1 33 SBLGNT: ειπον)<br />
<br />
Interestingly, the Byzantine consensus does not show a universal aversion to first aorist endings with second aorist stems, as the following places show:<br />
<br />
Mark 5:19 αναγ/απαγγειλον<br />
Luke 24:29 μεινον (but 69: μειναι, i.e. μεινε)<br />
Acts 11:13 αποστειλον<br />
Acts 28:26 ειπον (but Y <i>pc</i>: ειπε)<br />
<br />
Some places where the Majority Text might be charged with resisting the above-mentioned encroachment include:<br />
<br />
Mark 13:4<br />
<ul>
<li>ειπον (ℵ B D L W Θ Ψ f1.13 33. 565 <i>pc</i>)</li>
<li>ειπε (A E F G H K M S U X Y Γ Δ Π Ω f35 1424 <i>Byz</i>)</li></ul>
Luke 20:2<br />
<ul>
<li>ειπον (ℵc B L R f1 33 <i>pc</i>)</li>
<li>ειπε (A D E G H K M N Q S U W Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ Ω f13.35 565. 1424 <i>Byz</i>)</li></ul>
Luke 22:67<br />
<ul>
<li>ειπον (ℵ B L Θ <i>pc</i>)</li>
<li>ειπε (A E G H K M N S U W Y Δ Λ Π Ψ Ω f1.13.35 565. 1424 <i>Byz</i>)</li></ul>
Even in these places the external evidence is not automatically decisive; indeed, the witnesses deduced in some of them are not much superior to those that are rejected by NA28 above (i.e. Matt 4:3; 22:17; 24:3).<br />
<br />
Furthermore, since in the NT both first and second aorist endings appear with second aorist stems, a textual decision based on internal probability alone proves tenuous (note SBLGNT's acceptance of the minority readings in Matt 22:17 and 24:3, <i>contra</i> NA28 and almost entirely on internal grounds).<br />
<br />
For practitioners of a Byzantine-priority hypothesis based on “reasoned transmissionalism,” however, a primary consideration for the present passage and similarly attested ones involves whether a scribal preference for Atticistic purism or the parallel passages (Mark 1:44; Luke 5:14) in favor of προσενεγκε could and almost did universally displace προσενεγκον, supposing the latter's authenticity. If not, the minimal presence of προσενεγκον, a form that should not have caused a problem for most Koine scribes (cf. Mark 5:19; Luke 24:29; Acts 11:13; 28:26 above), would reflect no more than a ripple in the vast ocean of the manuscript tradition.<br />
<br />
Given the above discussion and slim manuscript attestation for προσενεγκον, it seems more likely that that term reflects a localized orthographical preference and was introduced into the manuscript tradition at a relatively late date (i.e., 3rd or 4th century as opposed to the initial reading from the 1st century). Finally, the possibility that the –ον ending originated by scribal accident owing to the imperative δειξον just four words prior should not be overlooked.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-13873172992866402992016-02-23T11:52:00.002-05:002022-03-28T11:48:00.444-04:00Matt 8:3 ο ΙησουςThe articular proper name ο Ιησους appears before λεγων in most Greek witnesses (C2 E K L M N S U V W X Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Ω 047 0211 f35 399. 461. 565. 566. [1424]. 1500 2224), but is lacking in a few (ℵ B C* Z<i>vid</i> f1.13 33. 892) and is rejected by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels. Mill (Prolegomena, §1400) remarks that "Ἰησοῦς long ago had already crept into the middle [of ἥψατο αὐτοῦ and λέγων], as 600 times elsewhere, for the sake of clarity in the story."<br />
Griesbach (1:84) largely defends the omission: “Ο Ιησους, which a few manuscripts but those of good repute and also some versions omit, may cause some hesitation regarding which is genuine. It could have been added so that the reader, having been misled by the ambiguity of the words and having paid less attention to the following λεγων, might not refer εκτεινας to the one diseased with leprosy. For the same reason the Syriac version and Latin manuscripts transpose ο Ιησους to precede the word ηψατο. If more old witnesses had omitted the name, we would have decided that it should be removed once and for all; especially since nothing is found in the context which might have given rise to the omission.”<br />
However, there are indeed reasons why the presence of Jesus’ name may be authentic here. First, the initial lack of clarity regarding who was touching whom is within the realm of what the author himself might have sought to rectify (so Fritzsche, 306). Second, the placement of the name so far after the supposed ambiguity, rather than at the point of it (e.g. και ο Ιησους εκτεινας . . .), is rather odd, especially for apparently no scribes to have done, even though at just that point the same variation occurs in Mark 1:41. Third, if the ambiguity were really so pronounced, it is suspicious that a similar attempt to alter the same wording of Luke 5:13 did not arise. Fourth, the omission could be from unintentional assimilation to the wording of the previous verse, i.e., participle + finite verb + personal pronoun + λεγων. Fifth, the omission could have arisen from failure to correct a primitive error involving the <i>nomen sacrum</i> following the personal pronoun, i.e., ΑΥΤΟΥΟΙΣ --> ΑΥΤΟΙΣ (skipping from the first omicron to the second), in which case in a subsequent copy both the number and case of the pronoun would have been automatically corrected (although αυτοις still appears in 579); and this natural correction would not miss the loss of ο Ιησους, especially if Luke 5:13 were consulted in the correction process. See also Matt 26:52 for a similar case of confusion involving the same <i>nomen sacrum</i> following αυτω. Lastly, Rinck (252): "In some manuscripts ὁ Ἰησοῦς is missing on account of the parallel passage in Luke 5:13, where in turn λέγων is written in certain ones from here [in Matthew] instead of εἰπών. Therefore I refuse to doubt the correctness of the received reading, which seemed suspicious to Griesbach in both places."<br />
For these reasons the overwhelming external attestation for ο Ιησους in Matt 8:3 should not be overlooked.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-56725543821417495372015-07-02T08:55:00.000-04:002016-07-26T22:57:39.379-04:00Matt 8:2 ελθωνThe compound verb προσελθών is supported by a wide variety of Greek witnesses (ℵ B E M N Δ Θ Σ Ω 0211 f1.13 565. 892) and many editors (Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf [7th, 8th], Vogels), while the simple form ἐλθών appears in similarly early and most later witnesses (C K L S U V W X Z<i>vid</i> Γ Π 047 <i>Byz</i> f35 33. 461. 1500. 2224). The compound προσελθών is often argued for on the ground that the prepositional prefix προσ- dropped out by homoeoteleuton error due to the final syllable of the preceding word λεπρος (so, e.g., Meyer, 174; Alford, 1:77).<br />
Wettstein (1:347) however prefers ἐλθών, suggesting that the compound form's origin owes to "the preceding word's final syllable [i.e. -πρός from λεπρός] having been repeated." After echoing Wettstein, Griesbach (1:84) concedes, "But yet we must confess that it might also have been that προς either disappeared by accident after λεπρος or was intentionally deleted in order to avoid the cacophony of προς recurring three times among three contiguous words: λεπρος προσελθων προσεκυνησε. . . . Consequently [reasons] are not lacking which may be brought forward to vindicate the reading προσελθων." Nevertheless, Griesbach shows his primary reliance on external evidence, concluding, "But we still prefer ελθων, since most of the more excellent manuscripts," at least in his estimation at the time, "uphold it."<br />
Fritzsche (305) reacts, "I am in no way persuaded in place of ελθων to concede as much weight to the reading προσελθων as Griesbach assigns to it . . . . For almost nothing is more frequent when two words were arranged together—the one simple, the other equipped with a prefix—than that scribes indeed shared the small prefix in turn with the other word as a rule . . . . Neither does προσελθων possess any excellence from the line of thought, but the words προσελθων ... προσεκυνει rather take on a good deal of sluggishness." Bloomfield (<i>Annotations</i>, 7) thinks προσελθών seems like "a mere correction of somewhat homely Greek," noting that the "simple verb has elsewhere been converted into the <i>compound</i> by critics for the sake of imparting more of <i>definiteness</i> to the sense," and citing Matt 2:21 (ἦλθεν to εἰσῆλθεν); 9:18; 14:25; Mark 5:14; and Luke 8:51.<br />
Although Matthew uses the compound προσέρχομαι with προσκυνέω elsewhere (20:20; 28:9), whenever using this particular construction (i.e., an adverbial participial introducing the finite form of προσκυνέω), Matthew prefers the simple ἔρχομαι over the compound προσέρχομαι. Interestingly, also in these places some witnesses show a proneness to assimilate the simple form to the compound form perhaps in connection with the prefix used in the following finite verb προσκυνέω (cf. Fritzsche's identical assertion above):<br />
<br />
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-left: 0.2in; text-indent: -0.2in;">
2:8 ἐλθὼν προσκυνήσω</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-left: 0.2in; text-indent: -0.2in;">
9:18 ἐλθὼν (ℵ B F G L U f13: προσελθών) προσεκύνει</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-left: 0.2in; text-indent: -0.2in;">
14:33 ἐλθόντες (Θ f13 1424: προσελθόντες; ℵ B C N Σ f1 892: OM. ἐλθόντες/προσελθόντες) προσεκύνησαν</div>
<div style="font-weight: normal; margin-left: 0.2in; text-indent: -0.2in;">
15:25 ἐλθοῦσα (Δ: προσελθοῦσα; S V: ἀπελθοῦσα) προσεκύνει/προσεκύνησεν</div>
<br />
Although the two probabilities explaining the gain or loss of προσ- are conflicting, in view of (1) Matthew's apparent style when using this particular construction, (2) the seeming fact that in three of the four examples above (NA27/28 accept ἐλθών in 9:18) some scribes were guilty of expanding the simple form to the compound form with προσ- probably due to the following προσκυνέω, and (3) the possibility that unintentional duplication of the final syllable of λεπρός in 8:2 could have contributed to the larger number and variety of witnesses exhibiting the compound form, it is best not to overlook the simple ἐλθών supported by most manuscripts in Matt 8:2.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-83237165495232473712015-06-29T12:03:00.001-04:002015-06-29T20:27:10.772-04:00Matt 8:1 καταβαντι δε αυτωSome witnesses (ℵ2 B C N<i>vid</i> W [Z] Θ f1.[13] 33. 892) and editors (Bover, Greeven, [Lachmann], Merk, Soden, Vogels) prefer the more standard genitive absolute construction καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, but most Greek manuscripts and Tischendorf (7th, 8th) retain the less common and perhaps to some less polished καταβάντι δὲ αὐτῷ in the dative case (ℵ* E K L M S U [V] X Γ [Δ] Π Σ Ω 047 0211 <i>Byz</i> f35 461. 565. 1424. 1500. 2224).<br />
Wettstein (1:346) thinks the change to the genitive occurred "so that αὐτῷ might not appear twice in the same phrase," a sentiment Griesbach (1:83–4) affirms, adding that V/031 omitted the first αὐτῷ for the same reason, and concludes, "That the text was intentionally altered is clear from this, that in verse 5, for the same recurring reason, the same variety of reading is also discovered in nearly the same manuscripts." Kühnöl (226) calls the pronoun αὐτῷ after the verb ἠκολούθησαν redundant but in accordance with the style of the Hebrews and not unknown to pure Greek writers, and agrees that the genitive alteration arose "in order to avoid repetition of the pronoun αὐτῷ."<br />
Fritzsche (304–5) calls the genitive "a wrong correction by one who faltered at the double occurrence of the dative, and about this there can be very little doubt for this very reason, that also elsewhere (see comments below on Matt 8:5, 28, Mark 5:2, and above on Matt 4:16) such places were wrongly handled in order to remove this stumbling block." For evidence of the same corrective phenomenon, Bloomfield (<i>Annotations</i>, 7) adds Matt 9:27, "where some copies substitute the genitive; others, as B D, remove the second αὐτῷ." Meyer (174) rejects καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ as "a mere correction, like the similarly attested εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ" in 8:5.<br />
The scribal agitation at the grammatical construction generally seems to have been remedied by (1) altering the dative construction to a genitive absolute, (2) omitting the following "superfluous" dative pronoun, or (3) altering the dative construction to a finite verbal form.<br />
<br />
(1) Altering the dative construction to a genitive absolute:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Matt 8:5 εἰσελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ<br />
VS. <b>εἰσελθόντος</b> δὲ <b>αὐτοῦ</b> ... προσηλθεν αὐτῷ (ℵ B C* Z f1.13 33)<br />
Matt 8:28 ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ<br />
VS. <b>ἐλθόντος</b> <b>αὐτοῦ</b> ... ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ ([ℵ] B C Θ f1.13 33<i>vid</i>)<br />
Matt 9:28 ἐλθόντι δὲ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ<br />
VS. <b>ἐλθόντος</b> δὲ <b>αὐτοῦ</b> ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (700)<br />
Matt 21:23 ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ<br />
VS. <b>ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ</b> ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (ℵ B C D L Θ f1.13 33)<br />
Mark 5:2 ἐξελθόντι αὐτῷ ... ἀπήντησεν αὐτῷ<br />
VS. <b>ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ</b> ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ (ℵ B C L Δ Θ f1.13 565)</blockquote>
(2) Omitting or altering the following "superfluous" dative pronoun<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Matt 8:23 ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ ... ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ<br />
VS. ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ ... ἠκολούθησαν (<b>ΟΜ. αὐτῷ</b>) (565)<br />
Matt 9:27 παράγοντι ... τῷ Ἰησοῦ ... ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ<br />
VS. παράγοντι ... τῷ Ἰησοῦ ... ἠκολούθησαν (<b>ΟΜ. αὐτῷ</b>) (B D 892)<br />
Luke 8:27 ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ<br />
VS. ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν (<b>ΟΜ. αὐτῷ</b>) (p75 ℵ B E W Ψ Ξ f1 33)</blockquote>
(3) Altering the dative construction to a finite verbal form<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Matt 9:28 ἐλθόντι δὲ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ<br />
VS. <b>καὶ ἔρχεται</b> ... <b>καὶ</b> προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (D)<br />
Luke 8:27 ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ<br />
VS. <b>καὶ ἐξῆλθον</b> ... <b>καὶ</b> ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ (D)</blockquote>
That all of the questionable cases either occur in Matthew or conceivably derive from Matthean material (Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 parallel Matt 8:28) suggests a Matthean stylistic option that scribes frowned upon and variously sought to change to a more standard construction. Otherwise, a great number of scribes not only altered the more common form to a less common one, but also were remarkably selective in doing so. Hence no <i>internal</i> rule of textual criticism can admit the priority of the genitive construction to the dative one, and furthermore the internal rule only suggests the external excellence of those manuscripts that retain the less common (i.e. harder) readings both in Matt 8:1 and in the other examples cited above.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-8602424913227814702015-01-27T05:28:00.000-05:002015-01-27T18:07:24.600-05:00Matt 7:29 γραμματειςWhile most witnesses end chapter 7 with just γραμματεῖς (E L M S U V X Γ Π2 Ω 047 <i>Byz</i> f35 565. 1424. 2224 goth), some along with the Latin and Syriac traditions have γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (C2 W 0211 33 lat sy), which Lachmann prefers and which may have been pruned either to γραμματεῖς καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι (C*) or γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν (ℵ B C3 K Δ Θ Π* Σ f1.13 892. 1500 co), the latter adopted by Bover, Greeven, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels.<br />
<div>
Some claim that the shorter reading preserved in most manuscripts reflects accidental or intentional deletion by harmonization to Mark 1:22 (e.g. Alford, 1:76; Rinck, 252). On the other hand, Matthew himself could have been faithfully depending on Mark here (or Mark on Matthew or on a source common to both). Indeed, the following 16 words from Matt 7:28–29 are identical with Mark 1:22: . . . ἐπὶ τῇ διδαχῇ αὐτοῦ· ἦν γὰρ διδάσκων αὐτοὺς ὡς ἐξουσίαν ἔχων καὶ οὐχ ὡς οἱ γραμματεῖς.</div>
<div>
Mill (Prolegomena, §736) suggests that the addition of the Pharisees in some manuscripts in Matt 7:29 originated from 5:20, since the Lord had specifically referred to them there alongside the scribes. Regarding the additions of αὐτῶν, of καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, and of both together, Griesbach (1:83) remarks: "All these have sprung from similar passages. Additions of the same kind are also found in Mark 1:22." In addition to Matt 5:20, other similar passages in Matthew that mention the Pharisees together with the scribes include 12:38; 15:1; 23:2, 13, [14], 15, 23, 25, 27, 29. </div>
<div>
Bengel (<i>Apparatus</i>, 111) suggests that the addition of αὐτῶν owes to harmonization to Luke 5:30, while Bloomfield (<i>Annotations</i>, 7) judges that "internal evidence is rather against than for the word, which, from the state of the internal evidence, was more likely to be brought in, from Lk. v. 30, than to have been put out because not in Mk. i. 22." To what extent or even whether Luke 5:30 is involved in the origin of αὐτῶν cannot be demonstrated; it is not even parallel to Matt 7:29. Perhaps for this reason Kühnöl (226) merely remarks, "Moreover, the words αὐτῶν and καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι, which having been added are read in some manuscripts, are glosses."</div>
<div>
Moreover, scribal activity surrounding the αὐτῷ that appears on the next line of text (i.e. Matt 8:1) in most manuscripts could have contributed to the addition of αὐτῶν at the end of 7:29 in some witnesses. For at least one manuscript (Δ) that omits αὐτῷ in 8:1 adds αὐτῶν in 7:29, while others (e.g. ℵ*) that originally had αὐτῷ in 8:1 have it altered to αὐτοῦ later on, but leave the αὐτῷ intact nearby. In this context of correction, an αὐτῷ in the margin of 8:1 or above the line could easily have been assimilated into the text of 7:29 above, especially as the final -ν is often written as a slender and sometimes imperceptible line above the word, and also as αὐτῷ is sometimes wrongly written as αὐτῶν (cf. codex N/022 in 8:15).</div>
<div>
Finally, the dominance of the longer reading γραμματεῖς αὐτῶν καὶ οἱ Φαρισαῖοι in the Latin and Syriac traditions in conjunction with such slim attestation in the Greek tradition suggests that an early and outside influence may have been at work, namely, Tatian's Diatessaron.</div>
Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-48971865448297770172015-01-19T11:29:00.000-05:002015-01-19T11:41:48.294-05:00Matt 7:28 συνετελεσενThe simple ἐτέλεσεν (ℵ B C W Z<i>vid</i> Γ Σ f1.13 33. 565. 892. 1424. 1500) is received by Bover, Lachmann, Merk, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels, but most Greek witnesses have the compound συνετέλεσεν (E K L M S U V X Δ Θ Π Ω 047 0211 f35 <i>Byz</i> 2224), which Greeven and Soden prefer, probably rightly, for two reasons:<br />
1. Assimilation. While it is true that συντελέω occurs nowhere else in Matthew, Griesbach (1:83) submits to a basic canon of textual criticism: "In some manuscripts and Fathers ἐτέλεσεν crept into the place of συνετέλεσεν from similar passages. For wherever else this phrase occurs, ἐτέλεσεν is had consistently. Cf. Matt 11:1; 13:53; 19:1; 26:1. We do therefore retain the terminology less used."<br />
2. Transcriptional error. Another but less likely explanation is found in Meyer (161): "But how easily might the syllable συν drop out between ΟΤΕ ΕΤΕ!"<br />
Origen's quotation of Matt 7:28 as ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους in his comment on Matt 19:1 (<i>Comm. Matt.</i> 14.14) demonstrates how naturally the other instances of the phrase were known and compared, increasing the scribal temptation to assimilate the one deviating term (i.e. συνετέλεσεν) to the one used everywhere else (i.e. ἐτέλεσεν).<br />
Finally, if συνετέλεσεν is original, it may reflect another of Matthew's intentional references to the wording of Deuteronomy (e.g., Deut 31:1, 24; 32:45), similar to Jesus' going up the mountain (Matt 5:1; cf. Exod 19:3; 34:4) and coming down the mountain (Matt 8:1; cf. Exod 19:14; 34:29).Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-13960598285340831032015-01-15T05:01:00.000-05:002015-01-30T06:12:44.654-05:00Matt 7:26 την οικιαν αυτουInfluenced by the word order of the preceding μου τοὺς λόγους in 7:24, 26, the common ancestor of certain manuscripts (ℵ B W Z Θ Σ f1 892 <i>pc</i>) both here and in 7:24 reflects αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν, but most scribes resisted the transposition and retain the more common order of τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ (including C E K L M S U V X Γ Δ Π Ω 047 0211 f13.35 Byz 565. 1424. 1500. 2224). Yet the minority reading is followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels. Cf. the note on <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2015/01/matt-724_10.html" target="_blank">Matt 7:24 την οικιαν αυτου</a> for further explanation on this variant, and also <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2011/07/matt-520.html" target="_blank">Matt 5:20 η δικαιοσυνη υμων</a> for discussion on a similar transpositional variant.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-37761453722635356342015-01-13T04:57:00.001-05:002015-01-13T04:57:56.975-05:00Matt 7:25 προσεπεσονIn this insignificant spelling variation some manuscripts of every text type support the spelling προσέπεσαν (ℵ B C E X Z Δ 047 f1.13 892. 1500. 2224), followed by Bover, Greeven, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), Vogels (Lachmann has προσέπαισαν), but most manuscripts contain the regular spelling προσέπεσον (including K L M S U V Π Φ Ω <i>Byz</i> f35. 565). Codex W has προσέκρουσαν, Θ Σ προσέρρηξαν, and 1424 προσέκοψαν.<br />
By rule προσπίπτω is a second aorist verb due to the stem change from -πιπτ- to -πεσ-, and thus <i>should</i> take the second aorist suffixes (i.e., -ον, -ες, -ε, etc.). But due to the second aorist stem of this word ending in <i>sigma</i>, some scribes apparently assimilated the suffix forms to those of the first aorist (i.e., -σα, -σας, -σε, etc.). Additionally, the idiosyncrasies of certain areas caused the first aorist forms to intrude elsewhere in second aorist verbs, just as, e.g., codex B has ἦλθαν instead of ἦλθον earlier in this verse. Perhaps also the -σαν ending in some witnesses came in consequence of the ending of ἔπνευσαν preceding. On the other hand, if Matthew originally wrote the minority reading προσέπεσαν, the temptation to "correct" it with the regular spelling could have influenced some scribes. Nevertheless, due to the conflicting results of internal criteria, the retention of the reading that appears in that grouping of manuscripts that has proven itself more habitually correct elsewhere does not seem altogether unsatisfactory, and thus προσέπεσον may be retained.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-79267019869181850532015-01-10T10:03:00.000-05:002015-01-30T06:11:28.180-05:00Matt 7:24 την οικιαν αυτουA small but diverse contingent of manuscripts (ℵ B C W Z Θ Σ f1 33. 892 <i>al</i>), along with Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels, supports the word order αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν instead of the more common τὴν οἰκίαν αὐτοῦ, as appears in most manuscripts (including E G K L M S U V X Δ Π Φ Ω 047. 0211 f13.35 <i>Byz</i> 565. 1424. 1500. 2224).<br />
Alford (1:75) plausibly reasons that the majority reading reflects "a transposition to more usual order," while Bloomfield (<i>Annotations</i>, 7), after conceding the possibility of Alford's explanation, counters, "but so may the other have been a transposition to a more classical order, such as may be found in very many other passages, . . . and in all of them, with the present, the transp[ositio]n was more likely to attach to a few than to many copies."<br />
Admittedly, the present textual variation involves merely a word order trifle that does no harm to the sense. Nevertheless, it is notable that no reasoned eclectic editor (to my knowledge) supports or even indicates the critical observation that the order with the preposed personal pronoun (i.e. αὐτοῦ τὴν οἰκίαν) in both 7:24 and 7:26 might reflect assimilation to the identically less common and unasailable word order of the expression μου τοὺς λόγους that occurs earlier in both verses.<br />
A brief investigation indicates that of the roughly 420 times where the genitive of ἐγώ (70x), σύ (120x), or αὐτός (230x) modifies a noun or noun phrase in Matthew, only 20 times (5%) does the pronoun precede the modified word(s) without much doubt:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
2:2 αὐτοῦ τὸν ἀστέρα<br />
5:39 σου σιαγόνα<br />
6:4 σου ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη<br />
6:17 σου τὴν κεφαλήν<br />
7:24 μου τοὺς λόγους<br />
7:26 μου τοὺς λόγους<br />
8:3 αὐτοῦ ἡ λέπρα<br />
8:8 μου ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην<br />
9:5 σου αἱ ἁμαρτίαι<br />
9:6 σου τὴν κλίνην<br />
9:30 αὐτῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί<br />
13:25 αὐτοῦ ὁ ἐχθρός<br />
15:28 σου ἡ πίστις<br />
16:18 μου τὴν ἐκκλησίαν<br />
17:15 μου τὸν υἱόν<br />
22:13 αὐτοῦ πόδας καὶ χεῖρας<br />
23:8 ὑμῶν ὁ καθηγητής/διδάσκαλος<br />
26:43 αὐτῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί<br />
26:51 αὐτοῦ τὸ ὠτίον<br />
28:9 αὐτοῦ τοὺς πόδας</blockquote>
<div>
Only very rarely is the order in the above passages altered to the "more usual order" in any significant witnesses:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
5:39 σιαγόνα σου - B D<br />
6:4 ἡ ἐλεημοσύνη σου - D<br />
9.30 οι οφθαλμοι αυτων - D it vg<br />
13.25 ο εχθρος αυτου - <i>pc</i> it vg etc.<br />
16:18 τὴν ἐκκλησίαν μου - D it vg<br />
28.9 τοὺς πόδας αὐτοῦ - D it vg</blockquote>
Moreover, not including the present case of 7:24, 26, and also 9:2 (which involves a possible omission and assimilation to 9:5), only 6 passages are in dispute. Four involve a change in one direction:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
12:13 σου τὴν χεῖρα - ℵ* B L f1 33 <i>pc</i><br />
23:9 ὑμῶν ὁ πατήρ - ℵ B 0102 33. 892 <i>pc</i><br />
23.30 αὐτῶν κοινωνοί - B D f1.13 700 <i>pc</i><br />
27:49 αὐτοῦ τὴν πλευράν - ℵ B C L Γ <i>pc</i> (but Origen: τὴν πλευρὰν αὐτοῦ)</blockquote>
But two involve a change in the opposite direction:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
20:33 οἱ ὀφθαλμοί ἡμῶν - ℵ B D L Z 0281vid 33. 892 <i>pc</i>; Or<br />
26:52 τὴν μάχαιράν σου - ℵ B D L 0281vid f1.13 892 1424 <i>pc</i></blockquote>
In the two places just mentioned, Alford inconsistently rejects the less common word order predominating in the textual tradition (i.e. ἡμῶν οἱ ὀφθαλμοί in 20:33 and σου τὴν μάχαιραν in 26:52), demonstrating the lack of or at least inconsistent value that may be attached to his explanation for rejecting the consensus reading in 7:24, 26.<br />
Furthermore, in other places in Matthew the pronoun is found to be <i>preposed</i> in certain witnesses, especially Alexandrian ones, in opposition to the very rule that forms the foundation of internal evidence for rejecting the less common word order in 7:24, 26. In fact, from the following alterations a case might be made that scribes were just as likely to alter the word order in one direction as they were the other:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
4.24 αὐτοῦ ἡ ἀκοή - D<br />
18.31 αὐτοῦ οἱ σύνδουλοι - B<br />
20.13 αὐτῶν ἑνί - B<br />
20.34 αὐτῶν τῶν ὀμμάτων - B<br />
22.6 αὐτοῦ τοὺς δούλους - Origen<br />
24.47 αὐτοῦ τοῖς ὑπάρχουσιν - K Π<br />
27.29 αὐτοῦ τῇ κεφαλῇ - 33</blockquote>
For all of the above observations the likeliest explanation for the preposed personal pronoun in a minority of witnesses in both 7:24 and 7:26 remains assimilation to the same word order that occurs just words before both occurrences, i.e. μου τοὺς λόγους. If so, the consensus reading in both passages actually reflects the one less harmonized to the immediate context and therefore the most likely to be original. For why would so many witnesses reflect conscious alteration of the "uncommon" word order of the second expression in both places while leaving the same "uncommon" word order just words before in both places completely untouched? For a similar transpositional variant, see <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2011/07/matt-520.html" target="_blank">Matt 5:20 η δικαιοσυνη υμων</a>.</div>
Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-42818029577705778052015-01-04T08:52:00.000-05:002015-01-10T13:01:58.632-05:00Matt 7:24 ομοιωσω αυτονThe reading ὁμοιωθήσεται is contained in some witnesses (ℵ B Z Θ Φ 0281 f1.13 33. 892 <i>al</i> ff1 l vg sy-p sa mae; Or Did) and preferred by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (8th), and Vogels, but ὁμοιώσω αὐτόν is well represented (C E G K L M S U V W X Δ Π Σ Ω 047. 0211 <i>Byz</i> f35 565. 1424. 1500. 2224 h k q sy-c.h bo goth; Cyp), was preferred by Tischendorf (7th), and has internal criteria strongly in its favor.<br />
Metzger (<i>TCGNT</i> [2d ed.], 17) reasons that "the passive verb . . . is more likely to have been altered to the active form . . . than vice versa, especially if the copyist recalled the Lukan form of the saying," but this internal argument is unconvincing for several reasons:<br />
First, the expression in Luke 6:47 (ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος· ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ . . .) is entirely different from the simple ὁμοιώσω αὐτον ἀνδρί seen here, both in the verb, the syntax, and the additional words used.<br />
Second, ὁμοιωθήσεται harmonizes precisely with the wording two verses later in 7:26, and for this reason was rejected by Mill (Prolegomena, §889), Bengel (<i>Apparatus</i>, 111), Wettstein (1:345), Alford (1:74), etc.<br />
Third, the nominative absolute construction of πᾶς οὖν ὅστις . . . , if the consensus reading is original, is less common and would have been more perturbing to a scribe than the same nominative clause acting as the subject of the passive verb, were the minority reading original, just as occurs <i>without any disturbance</i> in the Greek and Latin manuscripts in 7:26. Thus Fritzsche (299) comments, "The reading ὁμοιωθήσεται, as is written in v. 26, was without doubt advanced by those who either did not understand [linguistically] or had too little tolerance for the joining together of πᾶς ὅστις ἀκούει [with ὁμοιώσω αὐτόν]." Kühnöl (223) offers a similar comment: "πᾶς οὖν ὅστις, <i>whoever therefore</i>, in Hebrew אֲשֶׁר, in Greek ὃς ἄν, was placed in the absolute case [or construction] after the manner of the Hebrews, and accordingly ὁμοιωθήσεται should not, along with some, be repeated from v. 26 in place of ὁμοιώσω." Cf. also Meyer, 161.<br />
Fourth, Bloomfield (<i>GNT</i>, 1:55) mentions that Matthew's usage of ὁμοιώσω is confirmed in 11:16, that ὁμοιωθήσεται seems to be a conformation to 7:26 by a critic or else the gloss of a scholiast, and that, paraphrasing the note of bishop John Jebb, "the distinction here between ὁμοιώσω and ὁμοιωθήσ[εται] was studiously designed; for when the fruitful hearer is to be characterized, our Lord <i>himself</i> institutes the comparison: when the foolish and unprofitable hearer, it is otherwise managed; the comparison is then matter of common fame—<i>he shall be likened to</i>, as though he were unworthy of Christ's own personal attention."<br />
Fifth, Zahn (321) calls ὁμοιώσω αὐτόν "the more widespread reading and earlier verifiable [reading] among the Latins as well as the Syriac" and comments: "Whereas ὁμοιώσω in v. 26 is completely unattested in Greek and Latin biblical manuscripts, and in the same place is judged to be assimilation to v. 24 in the Coptic and a few Latin citations (Cyprian, <i>Test</i>. 3.96; Lucifer, <i>De Athanasio</i> 5: <i>similem aestimabo</i>), ὁμοιωθήσεται in v. 24 seems to be assimilation to v. 26 (ℵ B Z Φ f13 and a few minuscules, Sahidic, Armenian, Syraic-Palestinian & margin of -Harclean, the younger Latins a b c Vulgate), and ὁμοιώσω on the other hand original (C E G Δ Π Σ, Syriac-Curetonian, -Peshitta, & -Harclean, the oldest Latin k, Cyprian, Lucifer, Hilary, Coptic, Gothic)."<br />
Lastly, Cyprian's support for the consensus reading counters Origen, whose citation of 7:24 in <i>De principiis</i> 3.1.6 is itself guilty of harmonization to 7:26 in another respect:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Origen, <i>De principiis</i> 3.1.6: [7:24] <b>ὁ ἀκούων</b> μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ <b>ποιῶν</b> αὐτοὺς ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν . . . [7:26] <b>ὁ</b> δὲ <b>ἀκούων</b> καὶ μὴ <b>ποιῶν</b> ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνδρὶ μωρῷ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν . . . .</blockquote>
Here Origen himself harmonizes Matthew's wording of 7:24 (ὅστις ἀκούει . . . ποιεῖ) to that of 7:26 (ὁ ἀκούων . . . ποιῶν), and thus there is little reason to doubt that by the same method Origin, or the manuscripts on which he depended and other manuscripts since, could have come to read ὁμοιωθήσεται in Matt 7:24.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-66100751263444988282015-01-01T01:59:00.000-05:002015-01-03T17:19:28.087-05:00Matt 7:22 προεφητευσαμενA few manuscripts (ℵ B* C L W Z f13 33 <i>pc</i>), followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels, have επροφητευσαμεν with the augment before the preposition of the compound verb rather than after it, while all the rest exhibit προεφητευσαμεν (B2 E G K M O S U V X Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 047. 0211 <i>Byz</i> f1.35 565. 1424. 1500. 2224). Although the general rule is that the augment of compound verbs be placed after the prefixed preposition, the preposed augment with προφητευω frequently appears in both early and later Greek authors. The divided manuscript evidence in other places (see below) indicates that both forms were used in the early period. Obviously the Egyptian orthographical preference was for the preposed augment, but most manuscripts elsewhere maintained the "regular" form. Interestingly, the editors of NA27/28 reject the preposed augment of p72 B* in Jude 14, but accept it in the other passages below.<br />
<br />
<div>
<div>
Matt 11:13</div>
<div>
προεφητευσαν - B2 E F G K L M N S U V W Y Θ Γ Π Σ Φ Ω <i>Byz</i> f35 565. 1424</div>
<div>
επροφητευσαν - ℵ B* C D Z f1.13 33</div>
<div>
προφητευσαν - Δ</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Matt 15:7</div>
<div>
προεφητευσεν - B2 E F G K M N S U V W X Γ Π Σ Φ Ω <i>Byz</i> f1.13.35 33. 565. 1424</div>
<div>
επροφητευσεν - ℵ B* C D L Θ</div>
<div>
προφητευσεν - Δ</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Mark 7:6 (|| Matt 15:7)</div>
<div>
προεφητευσεν - A B2 E F G H K M S U X Y Γ Π Σ Φ Ω <i>Byz</i> f1.35 1424</div>
<div>
επροφητευσεν - ℵ* B* D L Δ Θ f13 33. 565</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Luke 1:67</div>
<div>
προεφητευσεν - Β2 Ε F G H K M U Y Γ Δ Ω <i>Byz</i> f35 1424</div>
<div>
επροφητευσεν - p4vid ℵ* A B* C L W Θ Ψ f1.13 33. 565<br />
επροεφητευσεν - Λ Π<br />
προφητευσεν - 0130</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
John 11:51</div>
<div>
προεφητευσεν - A Ε G H I K S U W Y Γ Δ Λ Π Ψ Ω <i>Byz </i>f1.13.35 565. 1424</div>
<div>
επροφητευσεν - p45.66.75vid ℵ B D L X Θ 33</div>
<div>
προφητευσεν - M</div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Acts 19:6</div>
<div>
προεφητευον - E G H L P Ψ 049. 056 <i>Byz</i> f35 1424</div>
<div>
επροφητευον - p74vid ℵ A B D </div>
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
Jude 14</div>
<div>
προεφητευσεν - A B2 C Ψ 049 <i>Byz </i>f35 1424</div>
<div>
<div>
επροφητευσεν - p72 B*</div>
</div>
<div>
προεπροφητευσεν - ℵ</div>
</div>
Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-28012110241268965292014-06-28T21:08:00.003-04:002014-10-29T10:21:51.711-04:00Matt 7:21 ουρανοιςSome early manuscripts (ℵ B C Z Δ Θ 0281<i>vid</i> f1 33. 892. 1424) and most editors (Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf [8th], Vogels) naturally add τοις before ουρανοις, but authorial usage indicates that after this particular construction with the genitive, the anathrous ουρανοις (without the article) is to be preferred, as evidenced by most pre-10th-century witnesses (E G K L M O S U V W X Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 047 <i>Byz</i> f13.35 565. 1500. 2224) and Tischendorf (7th). In considering Matthew's style for the construction πατηρ + PRONOUN + ARTICLE + εν +/- ARTICLE + ουρανοις, only the indisputable passages are considered (i.e., where the Nestle-Aland and Robinson-Pierpont editions agree), laying aside temporarily the four disputable passages (i.e., 5:45; 7:21; 10:32, 33). What is discovered is that the article always precedes ουρανοις <i>except</i> when πατηρ and its accompanying articles are in the genitive case:<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>nominative/vocative:</b><br />
ο πατηρ υμων ο εν <b>τοις</b> ουρανοις/ο ουρανιος (5:48; 7:11)<br />
Πατερ ημων ο εν <b>τοις</b> ουρανοις (6:9)<br />
ο πατηρ μου ο εν <b>τοις</b> ουρανοις (16:17)<br />
[ο πατηρ υμων/μου ο ουρανιος (6:14, 26, 32; 15:13; 18:35)]<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>dative:</b><br />
τω πατρι υμων τω εν <b>τοις</b> ουρανοις (6:1)<br />
τω πατρι σου τω εν <b>τω</b> κρυπτω (6:6, 18)<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>accusative:</b><br />
τον πατερα υμων τον εν <b>τοις</b> ουρανοις (5:16)<br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>BUT:</b><br />
<b><br /></b>
<b>genitive:</b><br />
του πατρος μου του εν ουρανοις (12:50; 18:10, 19)<br />
του πατρος υμων του εν ουρανοις (18:14)<br />
<br />
Allowing Matthew's indisputable custom to inform the disputable cases leads to the probability that in those three passages where after the genitive construction (i.e., after του πατρος ... του εν ...) a minority of witnesses adds the article before ουρανοις (i.e. Matt 7:21; 10:32, 33), the addition should be considered secondary. Likewise in <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2011/12/matt-545.html" target="_blank">Matt 5:45 τοις</a>, where a divided majority of witnesses adds the article after the same construction, the addition of τοις is likely secondary. In all four of these variations, the addition of the article may be seen as assimilation to the pattern following the constructions with all of the other cases, i.e., after the nominative, dative, accusative, and vocative constructions. Moreover, preference for assimilation as the likeliest cause of the addition of τοις in the present case is increased due to the presence of τοις in every preceding such construction in Matthew up to this point (5:16, 48; 6:1, 6, 9, 18; 7:11), with the nearest such occurrence just 10 verses earlier (7:11). See the note on <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2011/12/matt-545.html" target="_blank">Matt 5:45 τοις</a> for an initial discussion of the textual problem.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-61389832503440220122014-06-28T15:38:00.000-04:002014-06-28T15:38:56.555-04:00Matt 7:16 σταφυληνAlthough the plural σταφυλας is present in a few mostly-related witnesses predating the 10th century (ℵ B C1 0281 f1 892 lat sy-h co) and followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, and Tischendorf (8th), there are several reasons why the plural appears to be a secondary correction for the singular σταφυλην, which appears in all the other early witnesses (C*.2 E G K L M O S U V W X Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω 047 0211 <i>Byz</i> f13.35 565. 1424. 1500. 2224) and is followed by Vogels and Tischendorf (7th). First, the wording of the parallel in Luke 6:44b is so different that supposed harmonization in so many diverse witnesses to the singular form there is unlikely. Compare:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Matt 7:16b: μήτι συλλέγουσιν ἀπὸ ἀκανθῶν [σταφυλὰς/σταφυλὴν] ἢ ἀπὸ τριβόλων σῦκα;<br />
Luke 6:44b: οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἀκανθῶν συλλέγουσιν σῦκα, οὐδὲ ἐκ βάτου σταφυλὴν τρυγῶσιν.</blockquote>
Second, as Meyer (161) notes, the plural naturally could have originated in consequence of the plural συλλεγουσιν and especially in conformation to the plural συκα in the coordinate clause. Third, facilitating the alteration just mentioned are transcriptional considerations, which favor a possible original loss of the singular ending -ην in an early Egyptian archetype due to homoeoteleuton error from the particle η that follows (η...η). Finally, a few witnesses (L Ψ f13 it-c.e sy co go) make the same alteration (i.e., σταφυλας for σταφυλην) in Luke 6:44, an indication that the tendency of the alteration was not isolated, especially in the versions, where in an early diglot the chance of the plural form passing from a vernacular version into the Greek column greatly increases.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-67243964605849185192014-06-27T06:38:00.000-04:002014-06-27T06:38:10.267-04:00Matt 7:15 δεVery few witnesses (ℵ B Ω 565. 1424 <i>pc</i>), followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, and Tischendorf (8th), omit δε after προσεχετε, while all others predating the 10th century retain it (including C E G K L M O S U V W X Δ Θ Π Σ Φ 047 0211 0281 <i>Byz</i> f1.13.35 33. 892. 1500. 2224*), which Soden, Tischendorf (7th), and Vogels support. Weiss (159) comments that "omission of δε through scribal error is of course very frequent . . . especially after προσεχετε, as in ℵ D in Luke 21:34, D in Matt 10:17 and 16:11, B D Δ Byz in Matt 6:1, and ℵ B in Matt 7:15, where only Tregelles in brackets retains it." Bloomfield (<i>GNT</i>, 1:53; <i>Annotations</i>, 6), in addition to mentioning that the conjunction was "lost by the carelessness of scribes, who often omit δε," later judges that it was "more probably removed by critics unable to follow up the thread of the connexion . . . , and who, observing its absence from the lectionaries, where from a lectio commencing with this verse the particle could not be used, accordingly expunged it." In addition to mere accident (-ΤΕ followed by ΔΕ) and possible lectionary influence, the omission could also have been facilitated by an early versional diglot that omitted the word, as almost certainly occurs with the omission of the same word after προσεχετε in Matt 10:17 (by D it sy-s sa-mss mae). Although far less likely, it is possible that some manuscripts omit the conjunction by assimilation to Matt 6:1, where δε is missing after προσεχετε in 3 of the 5 pre-10th-century manuscripts that omit it here (i.e., B Ω 565). For literature on the prevalence of omission (especially of smaller words/particles) over addition in the early period, see the note on <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2010/10/matt-122.html" target="_blank">Matt 1:22 του</a>. See also the note on <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2012/06/matt-61.html" target="_blank">Matt 6:1 προσεχετε</a>, where reasons are adduced why the δε in <i>that</i> case may not be primary.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-44020588739843633522014-06-26T15:20:00.000-04:002014-06-26T15:20:52.344-04:00Matt 7:13 εισελθετεAs in <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2010/10/matt-25.html" target="_blank">Matt 2:5 ειπον</a> and <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2010/11/matt-51.html" target="_blank">Matt 5:1 προσηλθον</a>, here some manuscripts (ℵ B C L N O W Δ Θ Σ Φ f13 33. 1424 <i>al</i>) and editors (Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf, Vogels) favor the supposedly Alexandrian spelling εισελθατε (with an -α-) over the more common spelling εισελθετε (with an -ε-), represented by most manuscripts (including E G K M S U V X Π Ω [047] 0211 <i>Byz</i> f1.35 565. 1500. 2224). Wordsworth (25) notes that εισελθατε is an alteration in favor of the Alexandrian pronunciation, which, for example, favors the first person singular forms ἔφυγα, ἔλαβα, and εἶδα (for ἔφυγον, ἔλαβον, and εἶδον, respectively) and the third person plural forms ἔφυγαν, ἔλαβαν, εἶδαν, εὗραν, ἦλθαν, εἶπαν (for ἔφυγον, ἔλαβον, εἶδον, εὗρον, ἦλθον, and εἶπον, respectively). That particular phenomenon perhaps developed and was popularized to distinguish the otherwise identical first person singular and third person plural forms. But there is little reason to suppose that the NT authors would have preferred the "Alexandrian" forms any more than they would the common ones. For many examples of sporadic alterations away from the -ο- form toward the "Alexandrian" -α- form in primary Alexandrian witnesses, see Soden, 1:1392. From the same source, several examples more directly related to the present case of εισελθετε vs. εισελθατε include:<br />
<blockquote class="tr_bq">
Matt 6:10 - ελθατω (ℵ D G W Δ)<br />Matt 10:13 - ελθατω in (ℵ C L N W f13 33)<br />Matt 26:39 - παρελθατω (p37vid ℵ A C D E F G H L Δ Θ Ω 33)<br />Mark 13:15 - εισελθατω (ℵ A D L Δ f13)<br />Luke 11:2 - ελθατω (p75 ℵ C P W Δ f13)<br />2 Cor 6:17 - εξελθατε (p46 ℵ B C F G 33)<br />Rev 18:4 - εξελθατε (ℵ A)</blockquote>
Trivialities of this sort generally play little role in New Testament textual criticism, except perhaps in the chance that the provenance of a manuscript might be <i>guessed</i> by means of attention to such matters.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-4944859369980542692014-06-16T00:42:00.000-04:002014-06-16T09:24:49.022-04:00Matt 7:12 ανThe form εαν (ℵ C O W Θ Σ f13 1500) is favored by Bover, Greeven, Merk, and Tischendorf (8th), but Lachmann, Soden, Tischendorf (7th), and Vogels print αν as in most manuscripts (including B E G K L M N S U V X Δ Π Φ Ω 047 0211 <i>Byz</i> f1.35 33. 565. 1424. 2224). Weiss (86), but probably too mechanically, receives αν on the ground that critics preferred εαν after the relative pronoun. While such might explain the presence of εαν in some witnesses (e.g., ℵ C Θ), it is at least as likely that in the other witnesses (i.e., O W Σ f13 1500) scribal assimilation to the εαν form that occurs in 7:9, 10 may be blamed. Since Matthew is not averse to using both forms (cf., e.g., 5:19, 32, where both constructions appear even in the same verse), and in light of the above considerations, it seems best not to spurn the well-supported αν in this place.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-7697574242569830522014-02-14T12:23:00.000-05:002014-02-14T12:23:50.292-05:00Matt 7:10 εαν ιχθυν αιτησηAs in <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2014/02/matt-79.html" target="_blank">Matt 7:9 εαν αιτηση</a>, a few manuscripts (with Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Tischendorf [8th]) omit εαν and use the future indicative αιτησει (ℵ B C L Δ 0281 f1 33. 892 [f1: αιτηση]) in conformity with almost all manuscripts in Luke 11:11 (cf. the evidence presented in <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2014/02/matt-710.html" target="_blank">Matt 7:10 και</a>)(so Wettstein, 1:340; Griesbach, <i>Commentarius</i>, 1:76; Meyer, 161) or with the same pattern in Luke 11:12 (so Soden, 1:1424). However, most witnesses (followed by Soden, Tischendorf [7th], and Vogels) use the conjunction εαν with either the aorist subjunctive αιτηση (so Soden and Vogels, following E G K M O S U V X Δ Θ Π Φ Ω [<i>Byz</i>] f35 565. 1500. 2224) or the future indicative αιτησει (so Tischendorf [7th], following L N W Σ 047 0211 f13 1424), the form of the latter easily arising from that of the former (cf. Weiss' comment on <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2014/02/matt-76.html" target="_blank">Matt 7:6 καταπατησωσιν</a>), the change perhaps being exacerbated by the letter Η being easily confused for the letters ΕΙ in uncial script.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-13932913091769525072014-02-12T21:42:00.000-05:002014-02-14T09:14:29.440-05:00Matt 7:10 καιMost witnesses along with Soden and Vogels begin Matt 7:10 with just και (including E G L N O U V W X Δ Θ Σ Φ 047 0211 [<i>Byz</i>] f35 1424), but others (followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Tischendorf [7th, 8th]) add the conjunction η either before και (ℵ B C K M S Π Ω 0281 f1.13 33. 565. 1500. 2224 <i>pc</i>) or in place of it (892 lat). The addition of η probably arose either from a desire to create symmetry with the preceding question that begins with η (7:9) or from harmonization to Luke 11:12 (so Soden, 2:18) or 11:11 (so Griesbach, <i>Commentarius</i>, 1:76; Meyer, 161), since the conjunction η is present in almost all the manuscripts of Luke 11:11 (ℵ A C D E G H K L M Ρ R S U W Χ Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ Ω 0211 [<i>Byz</i> ca. 1650 mss] f1.13.35 33. 565. 892. 1424) and missing in only a few witnesses that also omit the five preceding words there (P45.75 B <i>pc</i>), perhaps from parablepsis error.<br />
Soden's decision (1:1424) is based on his judgment that the omission of η against the Lukan parallel in the Byzantine (K) text is harder to believe than the double influence from the parallel, namely the adoption of αιτησει and the omission of εαν by the Egyptian (H) and various Palestinian (Hr J Ir?) types from the Egyptian text of Luke 11:12.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-68005013922760294862014-02-11T15:02:00.000-05:002014-02-14T12:30:30.590-05:00Matt 7:9 εαν αιτησηMost witnesses (along with Soden, Tischendorf [7th ed.], and Vogels) have εαν (or αν) with the aorist subjunctive αιτηση (including E G K M Ν Ο S U V W X Π Σ Φ Ω 0281 [<i>Byz</i> ca. 1500 mss] f1.13.35 33. 565. 892. 2224) or with the future indicative αιτησει (ℵ1 L Δ 047 0211 1424), but at least five witnesses (ℵ* B C Θ 1500), followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, and Tischendorf (8th ed.), both omit εαν and alter the verb to αιτησει either by (a) symmetrical conformation to the tense of the verb that follows (επιδωσει) or (b) harmonization to Luke 11:11 (so Soden, 2:18). Harmonization to Luke may also explain the omission of εστιν in B* L 565. 1424 <i>al</i> here in 7:9.<br />
In Matt 12:36 where most manuscripts have εαν λαλησωσιν (including E G K [L] M N S U V W X Y Γ Δ Π Ω 0250 [<i>Byz</i> 1540 mss] f1.13.35 565. 892. 1424; [Or]), probably symmetrical conformation to the tense of the following verb (αποδωσουσιν) is similarly to be blamed for the omission of εαν (ℵ B D [<i>Byz</i> 3 mss]) and the change to the future indicative λαλησουσιν (ℵ B C Θ [<i>Byz</i> 32 mss] 33), not incidentally involving the same witnesses as in 7:9.<br />
For similar alterations in this section by the same class of witnesses cf. <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2014/02/matt-76.html" target="_blank">Matt 7:6 καταπατησωσιν</a> and Matt 7:10 εαν ιχθυν αιτηση.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-8992055054938278762014-02-10T14:25:00.001-05:002014-02-14T09:09:48.145-05:00Matt 7:6 καταπατησωσινSome manuscripts (B C L N W X Θ Σ 047 0211 f13 33 <i>al</i>) and editors (Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Tischendorf [7th, 8th]) alter the first verb following μηποτε to the future indicative καταπατησουσιν from the aorist subjunctive καταπατησωσιν present in most witnesses (including ℵ E G K M S U V Δ Π Φ Ω 0281 [<i>Byz</i> ca. 1450] f1.35 565. 892. 1424. 1500. 2224; Cl), which Merk, Soden, and Vogels follow. Although in Hellenistic Greek the future indicative <i>may</i> follow μηποτε, Matthew's own style elsewhere is to use the aorist subjunctive (4:6; 5:25; 13:15, 29; 15:32; [25:9]; 27:64). Also in many of those places, as here in 7:6, there is a preference in some manuscripts for the future indicative:<br />
<div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>5:25 - μηποτε ... παραδωσει ... βληθησει (D* al) VS. παραδω ... βληθηση</li>
<li>13:29 - μηποτε ... εκριζωσετε (Γ) VS. εκριζωσητε</li>
<li>25:9 - μηποτε ... αρκεσει (D 28. 33 <i>al</i>) VS. αρκεση</li>
<li>27:64 - μηποτε ... κλεψουσιν ... ειπωσιν (ℵ) VS. κλεψωσιν ... ειπωσιν</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Weiss (66) follows most witnesses here with the following explanation: "As hardly anyone at all holds that μηποτε κλεψουσιν και ειπωσιν (ℵ) in Matt 27:64 is possible, since the aorist subjunctive can well turn into the future but not vice versa, so in 7:6 one should hardly write καταπατησουσιν (Tsch Blj) with B C L X instead of –σωσιν."</div>
<div>
Another possible cause for the rise of the minority reading is assimilation to the future indicative pattern in the preceding verses (κριθησεσθε, μετρηθησεται [7:2]; ερεις [7:4]; διαβλεψεις [7:5]). Cf. also the similar nearby emendations emanating from Matt 7:9 αιτηση and Matt 7:10 εαν ιχθυν αιτηση.</div>
Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-60506333682955855552014-02-08T01:03:00.000-05:002014-02-14T09:06:43.917-05:00Matt 7:5 την δοκον εκ του οφθαλμου σουApparently only four largely related Greek manuscripts (ℵ B C 0281), influenced by the order of the words in 7:3, transpose την δοκον from before the prepositional phrase εκ του οφθαλμου σου to the more emphatic position following it. However, most witnesses, followed by Greeven, preserve the more common word order (E G K L M N S U V W X Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω 047 0211 0233 [<i>Byz</i> ca. 1520 mss] f1.13.35 33. 565. 892. 1424. 1500. 2224 latt sy-h; Ir-lat Chr).<br />
Many editors (Bover, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf [7th, 8th], Vogels) follow the minority of manuscripts on the ground that all the others assimilated to the order in 7:5b or the parallel passage in Luke 6:42 (so, e.g., Alford, 1:70; Soden, 2:17). For this reason alone Soden (1:1448) remarks that the minority reading might even be the reading of the Jerusalem-Egyptian-Byzantine archetype!<br />
Alternatively, it seems much more likely that four related manuscripts should share a common ancestor that had the transposition, the origin of which was caused by (a) assimilation to the order of words in 7:3 (εν τω σω οφθαλμω δοκον), (b) a desire to emphasize the object δοκον, or (c) an initial accidental omission of την δοκον by homoeoteleuton error (ον...ον) which the scribe repaired by adding the skipped words after copying the prepositional phrase without doing harm either to the sense or to the beauty of the exemplar. It is hardly necessary to point out that the order εν τω οφθαλμω σου δοκον <i>also</i> appears in Luke 6:42, although accidental or intentional assimilation by the few related manuscripts to the nearer preceding order in 7:3 seems more likely than to the same in Luke.<br />
In short, due to the conflicting claims of internal evidence, the question is whether <i>just four manuscripts of one type</i> harmonized the text or whether <i>all other manuscripts of all types</i> did so. If the former scenario is not more likely, judgment on this variation may be held in suspense until the character of the few manuscripts in question might be ascertained from the examination of all other variations where a judgment is more certain.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-74168518097273085172014-02-07T12:58:00.000-05:002014-02-14T09:05:30.010-05:00Matt 7:4 αποWhile most Greek manuscripts (including E G K L M S U V W X Δ Θ Π Φ Ω 047 0211 [<i>Byz</i> ca. 1490 mss] f35 565. 892. 1500. 2224) retain the preposition απο, which Greeven, Soden, Tischendorf (7th ed.), and Vogels approve, a few (ℵ B N Σ f1.13 33. 1424), followed by Bover, Lachmann, Merk, and Tischendorf (8th ed.), alter απο to εκ either by accommodation to the preposition of the preceding compound verb εκβαλω, by assimilation to the same expression in 7:5, or because the expression with εκ seemed more customary than with απο.<br />
Alford (1:70) and Soden (2:17) indicate that εκ arose from assimilation to 7:5, and Meyer (161) similarly notes, "With εκβαλω and ver. 5 before them, the copyists involuntarily wrote the εκ." Weiss (101–2) concurs, "But then all the newer [copies] resisted the mechanical assimilation of εκβαλω—εκ in Matt 7:4 (ℵ B), which anyway arose on account of the εκβ. εκ of v. 5 being so near, and similarly with the εξελθων εκ in 24:1 (B), where it is rather overlooked that the απο τ. ιερου does not at all belong to this verb, but rather to επορευετο, which is also why C X Maj. place it after the [verb]."<br />
Fritzsche (288) explains the origin of εκ but also the reason for απο thus: "The reading εκ has no power to stand randomly in the place of the common απο. And in fact εκ either came here from vs. 5 or απο was altered into the more common εκ by a scribe on account of its being less customary. But the difference is this, that εκ signifies that something has fastened to another thing out of which it is now moving, απο that something has been in a nearby thing from which it is now being separated." Also instructive is Cook's observation (64–5): "The word εκ is physically correct, but απο is better as referring to the intention. . . . In v. 5, εκ is generally adopted. The intention has been marked sufficiently by the old reading in the preceding clause; the act itself is now distinctly described."<br />
As compelling internal arguments corroborate the preponderance of external witnesses, there is little doubt that απο should be retained in the text.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-65725733953090034742014-02-06T10:57:00.000-05:002014-02-14T00:42:21.323-05:00Matt 6:34 ταA good number of manuscripts (and most modern editors of the Greek NT) omit the article τα before εαυτης (ℵ B G L S W Ω 0211 [<i>Byz</i> ca. 150 mss] 892. 2224* co), either by accident or, more likely, because it seemed either superfluous or even slightly obnoxious to the meaning. Most manuscripts, however, retain the article (including E K M N U Δ Π Σ Φ 0233 [<i>Byz</i> ca. 1350 mss] f1.13 33. 1424. 2224c sy-h).<br />
Mill (Prolegomena, § 1192) rejects the article with the simple words, "τα εαυτης is more elegant, not more genuine," while Griesbach (<i>Commentarius</i>, 1:75–6) is the best exponent for <i>omitting</i> the article: "Instead of τα εαυτης old and good manuscripts have εαυτης, and it seems that this reading should be preferred, inasmuch as it is harder, less usual, and so situated that the origin of all the others may easily be derived from it. Certainly, by reason of clarification, εαυτης was altered into εαυτη (17. 485; cf. 6:25), into περι εαυτης ([Δ]; Chrysostom; cf. 6:28 and Luke 12:26), into εαυτην (700; cf. Phil 4:6), and into τα εαυτης (cf. 1 Cor 7:32, 33, 34). If τα εαυτης, which should not have appeared obscure or ambiguous to anyone, had been written originally, scarcely should anyone have thought about altering the text."<br />
Griesbach's analysis provokes two considerations. First, it overlooks the tendency of scribes to omit material, both short words for no apparent reason and also longer stretches of text either by haplography or for no apparent reason (accidental "leaps" forward). Cf. the literature cited in the note on <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2010/10/matt-122.html" target="_blank">Matt 1:22 του</a>. Second, Griesbach's analysis overlooks the fact that some people (e.g., Erasmus, below) do in fact see no difference between the expression with or without the article. That is, if both τα εαυτης and just εαυτης were thought to mean simply "itself" (so Erasmus, 2:36), then the article τα may have been thought unnecessary and for this reason omitted by some. Bloomfield (1:50–51), while conceding that internal evidence is against the presence of τα, since "an expression is not to be brought in which is quite contrary to propriety of language," he nevertheless judges that the τα could have been omitted by hesitant critics who balked at the idea of a "<i>complete action</i> being ascribed to a <i>thing</i>, as discharging the business and consulting for cares of the day." In other words, the proverb sounded better and less odd in the form of "Tomorrow will take care of itself" rather than "Tomorrow will take care of its own things/possessions." Thus most of the various readings mentioned by Griesbach (to which may be added το εαυτης [Θ 565] and αυτης [B L]) may be seen as alterations <i>away from</i> the idea of the day possessing things to worry about or take care of and <i>toward</i> the proverbial day taking care of itself.<br />
That the proverb existed very early without the article is demonstrated, e.g., by the apocryphal 3d-century <i>Acta Thomae</i> 28 (<a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=9xRWAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA144" target="_blank">Maximilian Bonnet, <i>Acta apostolorum apocrypha</i>, [2 vols. in 4 parts; Lipsiae: Hermannum Mendelssohn, 1891–1903] 2.2:144</a>). It also seems that the proverb circulated without the entire clause in question, i.e., as μη (ουν) μεριμνατε (-νησητε) περι της αυριον· αρκετον γαρ τη ημερα η κακια αυτης (cf. Clement of Alexandria, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=BwcRAAAAYAAJ&pg=PT120" target="_blank"><i>Paedagogus</i> 1.5 [PG 8:269B</a>]; Chrysostom, <a href="http://books.google.com/books?id=gUCHb4ThP84C&pg=PT225" target="_blank"><i>Homliae in Matthaeum</i> 22 [PG 57:303]</a>). Because Matt 6:34 is without parallel in the Synoptics, if the entire clause happened to go missing in an early exemplar (either by intentional pruning, by accident, or by following some fathers), later attempts to restore the clause (from other Greek manuscripts, versions, or, more precarious still, other fathers) could have contributed to some of the confusion observed in the manuscript tradition.Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-59860626032088219292014-01-28T00:11:00.002-05:002014-02-13T12:37:47.444-05:00Matt 6:32 επιζητειLargely the same few witnesses that alter the verbal number from singular to plural in 6:28 also do so here, from επιζητει (E G K L M N S U V W Δ Π Σ Φ 0211 0233 [<i>Byz</i> ca. 1500 mss] 565. 892. 1424; Chr), which Vogels adopts, to επιζητουσιν (ℵ B Θ f1.13 33 <i>pc</i>), likely indicating the same origin for both alterations, which seem to have been made in conformation with 6:26 or any of the early versions, which as a rule require subject-verb agreement in regard to number (unlike Greek in the case of neuter plural subjects). Cf. the fuller explanation on <a href="http://tcgnt.blogspot.com/2014/01/matt-628.html" target="_blank">Matt 6:28 αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθει</a>. Cf. also the parallel in Luke 12:30, where basically the same class of witnesses again produces επιζητουσιν (P75 ℵ B L X 070 f13 33 <i>pc</i>) in place of επιζητει (P45 A [D: ζητει] E H K M N Q S U W Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ Ω [<i>Byz</i> ca. 1600 mss] f1 565. 892. 1424).Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2298062330607494338.post-36090354054896386052014-01-23T19:13:00.000-05:002014-02-13T12:42:39.679-05:00Matt 6:28 αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθειAlthough the three verbs in most witnesses (E G K L M N S U V W Γ Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 0211 0233 0281 [<i>Byz</i> ca. 1500 mss] f13 565. 892. 1424; Bas), followed by Vogels, are in the singular number and in harmony with the parallel in Luke 12:27 and in general Koine style, a few witnesses (ℵ1 B f1 33; Ath) alter the grammatical number of the verbs from singular to plural (i.e., αυξανουσιν ... κοπιωσιν ... νηθουσιν) either by assimilation to 6:26 (where also a neuter plural subject is used) or by conformation to the influential Latin version, where plural subjects always take plural verbs.<br />
In Matt 6:26, 28, and 32 the subjects are neuter plural, which usually but not always take third person singular verbs. In most witnesses we find:<br />
<ol>
<li>6:26 τα πετεινα ... σπειρ<b>ουσιν</b> ... θεριζ<b>ουσιν</b> ... συναγ<b>ουσιν</b></li>
<li>6:28 τα κρινα ... αυξαν<b>ει</b> ... κοπι<b>α</b> ... νηθ<b>ει</b></li>
<li>6:32 τα εθνη ... επιζητ<b>ει</b></li>
</ol>
However, in basically the same few related witnesses it seems that the grammatical number of the verbs in the second and third examples are assimilated toward those in the first:<br />
<ol>
<li>6:26 τα πετεινα ... σπειρ<b>ουσιν</b> ... θεριζ<b>ουσιν</b> ... συναγ<b>ουσιν</b></li>
<li>6:28 τα κρινα ... αυξαν<b>ουσιν</b> ... κοπι<b>ωσιν</b> ... νηθ<b>ουσιν</b> (ℵ1 B [Θ] f1 33; Ath)</li>
<li>6:32 τα εθνη ... επιζητ<b>ουσιν</b> (ℵ B Θ f1.13 33)</li>
</ol>
While conformation to 6:26 is the likeliest explanation behind the readings in the minority of witnesses, cross-contamination from the early and influential Latin version (especially a bilingual Greek-Latin manuscript from the 2d century) might also explain the alterations. Such is almost certainly the cause of alteration in the following places involving Codex Bezae (D/05) in Matthew:<br />
<ul>
<li>10:29 - πωλειται VS. πωλουνται (D)</li>
<li>13:4 - ηλθεν VS. ηλθον (D L Z <i>al</i>)</li>
<li>13:8 - εδιδου VS. εδιδουν (D)</li>
<li>13:40 - συλλεγεται ... (κατα)καιεται VS. συνλεγονται ... κατακαιονται (D)</li>
<li>15:27 - εσθιει VS. εσθιουσιν (D)</li>
</ul>
<div>
There are also a few places in Matthew where it seems certain that some witnesses alter the singular verb (with a neuter plural subject) to the plural, including:</div>
<div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>10:2 - εστιν VS. εισιν (L <i>al</i>)</li>
<li>13:7 - επεσεν VS. επεσαν (33)</li>
<li>13:8 - επεσεν VS. επεσαν (33; 247: επεσον)</li>
<li>15:18 - εξερχεται VS. εξερχονται (F M <i>al</i>)</li>
</ul>
</div>
</div>
<div>
Further, below are some of the disputed places in Matthew where most witnesses have the singular verb (with a neuter plural subject) but a minority have the plural:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>13:16 - ακου<b>ει</b> (E F G K L S U V W Y Γ Δ Π Φ Ω [<i>Byz</i>] 565)<br /><div style="text-align: center;">
<div style="text-align: left;">
VS. ακου<b>ουσιν</b> (ℵ B C D M N O X Θ Σ f1.[13] 33 1424 <i>al</i>)</div>
</div>
</li>
<br />
<li>19:13 - προσηνεχ<b>θη</b> (E F G H Ivid K M S U V W Y Γ Δ Θ Π Φ Ω 078vid f1.13 [<i>Byz</i>] 565) <span style="text-align: center;"><br /> VS. προσηνεχ<b>θησαν</b> (ℵ B C D L Nvid Σ 33. 1424 </span><i style="text-align: center;">al</i><span style="text-align: center;">)</span></li>
<br />
<li>25:32 - συναχ<b>θησεται</b> (A E F H M S V W Y Γ Δ Φ Ω f1 [<i>Byz</i>] 892. 1424)<br /> VS. συναχ<b>θησονται</b> (ℵ B D G K L U Θ Π Σ f13 <i>al</i>)</li>
<br />
<li>26:31 - διασκορπισ<b>θησεται</b> (p37vid D E F G H2 K S U V W Y Γ Δ Π Φ Ω f1 [<i>Byz</i>] 565. 1424)<br /> VS. διασκορπισ<b>θησονται</b> (p53vid ℵ A B C G H* I L M Σ f13 33 <i>al</i>)</li>
<br />
<li>27:52 - ηγερ<b>θη</b> (A C E F H K M S U W Y Γ Δ Π Σ Φ Ω [<i>Byz</i>] 565. 1424)<br /> VS. ηγερ<b>θησαν</b> (ℵ B D G L Θ f1.13 33 <i>al</i>)</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
The same phenomenon of scribal conformation to a nearby usage may be observed in Matt 27:52, where some witnesses conform the number of the first verb with a neuter plural subject to that of the second and where some conform that of the second to that of the first, but where, again, the majority of all witnesses is seen to allow the two non-conformed verbal forms to remain side by side:</div>
<div>
<ul>
<li>27:52 ανεωχ<b>θησαν</b> ... ηγερ<b>θη</b> ([C3] E F H K M S U Γ Δ Σ Φ Ω [<i>Byz</i>] 565. 1424)</li>
<li>27:52 ανεωχ<b>θησαν</b> ... ηγερ<b>θησαν</b> (ℵ[2] B D G [L] Θ f[1].13 [33] <i>pc</i>)</li>
<li>27:52 ανεωχ<b>θη</b> ... ηγερ<b>θη</b> (A C* W Y Π <i>pc</i>)</li>
</ul>
</div>
<div>
The situation in Matt 27:52 seems to confirm the observation regarding the majority of manuscripts in 6:26, 28, and 32 above, namely, that they have refrained from conforming the verbal number used by the author. In addition, cross-contamination from the plural forms used in an early Greek-Latin bilingual archetype may also be involved in the alterations seen in Matt 10:29; 13:4, 8, 16, 40; 15:27; 19:13; 25:32; 27:52. For these reasons the less-conformed type of text attested in most documents in Matt 6:28 and 32 should not be rejected.</div>
Jonathan C. Borlandhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/11617356424135079103noreply@blogger.com0