Matt 5:32 ος αν απολυση

Influenced by the beginning of the identical formulation of words in 5:22, 28 (i.e., εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο . . .), the expression ος αν απολυση not surprisingly was altered into the more emphatic πας ο απολυων as reflected in many manuscripts (ℵ B K L M W Θ Δ Π Σ f1.13 33 157 565 700 892 1241 al c f ff1 g2 l m vg sy-p; Or-pt). The original ος αν απολυση is found in most Greek witnesses (including D E G S U V [0250] 346 579 1006 [0250: οστις αν απολυση]), the oldest and more significant Old Latins (a/3, 4th cent.; b/4, 5th cent.; h/12, 5th cent.; k/1, 400), the Old Syriac (sy-s, 400; sy-c, 5th cent.), the Bohairic, and is corroborated by a citation of Origen in the third century. The harmonization of most witnesses here to Matt 19:9, as Michael Holmes suggests ("The Text of the Matthean Divorce Passages: A Comment on the Appeal to Harmonization in Textual Decisions," Journal of Biblical Literature 109:4 [1990]: 651–64 [specifically, 659]), seems less likely than the reasons adduced below on the ground of its further distance from the present passage and that the many other discrepancies between the two passages appear completely untouched (i.e., accidental harmonization of just these words to a more remote passage than those adduced below seems less likely, while intentional harmonization of just these words is hard to imagine).
     On the origin of the minority reading, Wettstein (1:303), Kühnöl (153), and Bloomfield (GNT, 1:36) call it a harmonization from Luke 16:18, while Griesbach (1:53–4), Fritzsche (236), and Meyer (110) mention (in addition) assimilation to 5:22, 28 as the cause. No doubt the latter of these explanations is most likely. Griesbach rightly notes that the majority reading is "not free from the appearance" that it "was repeated from the preceding sentence," but it nevertheless should be preferred, since it seems that "Matthew deliberately used the same words that he had used in the preceding verse. Πας ο απολυων, which could have been more pleasing to some as it is more emphatic, was imported to this place from 5:22 and 5:28 or from Luke 16:18.” Fritzsche simply says that πας ο απολυων "smells like a gloss, for which verses 22 and 28 gave opportunity." Therefore, although the result of internal considerations is somewhat conflicting, it seems best in this case to follow those many manuscripts that have preserved the better text on a more habitual basis, and thus ος αν απολυση is preferable.