Matt 8:4 προσενεγκε

In 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).

The same occasional encroachment mentioned above is evident in some witnesses elsewhere in Matthew:

Matt 4:3 ειπε (ℵc: ειπον)
Matt 22:17 ειπε (L 33 SBLGNT: ειπον)
Matt 24:3 ειπε (L S f1 33 SBLGNT: ειπον)

Interestingly, the Byzantine consensus does not show a universal aversion to first aorist endings with second aorist stems, as the following places show:

Mark 5:19 αναγ/απαγγειλον
Luke 24:29 μεινον (but 69: μειναι, i.e. μεινε)
Acts 11:13 αποστειλον
Acts 28:26 ειπον (but Y pc: ειπε)

Some places where the Majority Text might be charged with resisting the above-mentioned encroachment include:

Mark 13:4

• ειπον (ℵ B D L W Θ Ψ f1.13 33. 565 pc)
• ειπε (A E F G H K M S U X Y Γ Δ Π Ω f35 1424 Byz)

Luke 20:2

• ειπον (ℵc B L R f1 33 pc)
• 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 Byz)

Luke 22:67

• ειπον (ℵ B L Θ pc)
• ειπε (A E G H K M N S U W Y Δ Λ Π Ψ Ω f1.13.35 565. 1424 Byz)

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).

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, contra NA28 and almost entirely on internal grounds).

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.

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.

Matt 8:3 ο Ιησους

The 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* Zvid 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."
     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.”
     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 nomen sacrum 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 nomen sacrum 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."
     For these reasons the overwhelming external attestation for ο Ιησους in Matt 8:3 should not be overlooked.

Matt 8:2 ελθων

The 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 Zvid Γ Π 047 Byz 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).
     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."
     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 (Annotations, 7) thinks προσελθών seems like "a mere correction of somewhat homely Greek," noting that the "simple verb has elsewhere been converted into the compound by critics for the sake of imparting more of definiteness to the sense," and citing Matt 2:21 (ἦλθεν to εἰσῆλθεν); 9:18; 14:25; Mark 5:14; and Luke 8:51.
     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):

2:8 ἐλθὼν προσκυνήσω

9:18 ἐλθὼν (ℵ B F G L U f13: προσελθών) προσεκύνει

14:33 ἐλθόντες (Θ f13 1424: προσελθόντες; ℵ B C N Σ f1 892: OM. ἐλθόντες/προσελθόντες) προσεκύνησαν

15:25 ἐλθοῦσα (Δ: προσελθοῦσα; S V: ἀπελθοῦσα) προσεκύνει/προσεκύνησεν

     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.

Matt 8:1 καταβαντι δε αυτω

Some witnesses (ℵ2 B C Nvid 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 Byz f35 461. 565. 1424. 1500. 2224).
     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."
     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 (Annotations, 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.
     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.

(1) Altering the dative construction to a genitive absolute:

Matt 8:5 εἰσελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ
     VS. εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ... προσηλθεν αὐτῷ (ℵ B C* Z f1.13 33)
Matt 8:28 ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ ... ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ ([ℵ] B C Θ f1.13 33vid)
Matt 9:28 ἐλθόντι δὲ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐλθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (700)
Matt 21:23 ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (ℵ B C D L Θ f1.13 33)
Mark 5:2 ἐξελθόντι αὐτῷ ... ἀπήντησεν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ (ℵ B C L Δ Θ f1.13 565)

(2) Omitting or altering the following "superfluous" dative pronoun

Matt 8:23 ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ ... ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ ... ἠκολούθησαν (ΟΜ. αὐτῷ) (565)
Matt 9:27 παράγοντι ... τῷ Ἰησοῦ ... ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ
     VS. παράγοντι ... τῷ Ἰησοῦ ... ἠκολούθησαν (ΟΜ. αὐτῷ) (B D 892)
Luke 8:27 ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν (ΟΜ. αὐτῷ) (p75 ℵ B E W Ψ Ξ f1 33)

(3) Altering the dative construction to a finite verbal form

Matt 9:28 ἐλθόντι δὲ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ
     VS. καὶ ἔρχεται ... καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (D)
Luke 8:27 ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ
     VS. καὶ ἐξῆλθον ... καὶ ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ  (D)

     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 internal 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.

Matt 7:29 γραμματεις

While most witnesses end chapter 7 with just γραμματεῖς (E L M S U V X Γ Π2 Ω 047 Byz 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.

     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.

     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. 

     Bengel (Apparatus, 111) suggests that the addition of αὐτῶν owes to harmonization to Luke 5:30, while Bloomfield (Annotations, 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."

     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).

     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.

Matt 7:28 συνετελεσεν

The simple ἐτέλεσεν (ℵ B C W Zvid 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 Byz 2224), which Greeven and Soden prefer, probably rightly, for two reasons:
     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."
     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!"
     Origen's quotation of Matt 7:28 as ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς τοὺς λόγους in his comment on Matt 19:1 (Comm. Matt. 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).
     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).

Matt 7:26 την οικιαν αυτου

Influenced 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 pc) 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 Matt 7:24 την οικιαν αυτου for further explanation on this variant, and also Matt 5:20 η δικαιοσυνη υμων for discussion on a similar transpositional variant.