Matt 6:5 προσευχη . . . εση

Some scribes, in favor of better syntax, altered the singular προσευχη and εση (D E K L M S U W Xvid Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω f13 33 k q sy-c.p.h) into the plural προσευχησθε and εσεσθε (ℵ2 B Z f1 892 lat sy-hmg co). Griesbach (1:65) disagrees: "For since the oration advances in the singular number in what precedes and follows (6:2, 3, 4, 6), a scribe or critic could easily have induced his mind to correct the author and write also in verse 5 προσευχη and εση in place of προσευχεσθε and εσεσθε." But this explanation, which dismisses almost the entire Greek tradition, overlooks weightier internal factors.
     Bloomfield (GNT, 42) states that "it is plain that the plural forms were introduced by Critics, who thought them required by the plurals further on, and were not aware that this use of the singular is a characteristic of the popular style in address," and also (Annotations, 5) that the plurals "may have been a correction issuing from critics, and introduced in order to suit the plural at φιλουσι."
     Indeed, it appears that the change to plural in some manuscripts was only natural in order to conform the verbs with the plural number of the subject of comparison that follows, οι υποκριται, which itself requires the understood (but unwritten) plural εισιν, assuming the authenticity of εση for the sake of argument. In 6:2 the subject of comparison (also οι υποκριται) has a plural verb supplied (ποιουσιν), and so the presence of the singular number ποιης and σαλπισης presented no difficulty. In 6:16 a situation similar to the present exists: the plural subject of comparison (again οι υποκριται) has no verb supplied, but since the second person plural forms were used (νηστευητε and γινεσθε), there is no grammatical discrepancy between the number of the subject of comparison and the verbs they serve.
     In 6:5, however, the discrepancy reflected in most manuscripts seemed difficult and thus was altered, naturally and perhaps first in early versions such as Latin and Coptic. Possibly, the origin of the plural number that is so slimly attested in Greek (only 3 manuscripts from before the 9th century) was through versional contamination, since early on bilingual manuscripts in non-Greek-speaking areas were in common use. Although less likely, conformation to the number of the plural verbs (φιλουσιν, φανωσιν, and απεχουσιν) that appear in the same verse might also explain the change.
     Additionally, there is possible evidence of a scribal attempt to cope with the more difficult reading of most manuscripts, namely, the transitional form attested in ℵ*: και οταν προσευχη [singular], ουκ εσεσθε [plural] ως οι υποκριται. Apparently the verb closest to the plural subject of the comparison (and thus thought to govern it since its own verb is unwritten) was altered to make its number conform with it.
     The fact that Matthew frequently switches between the singular and plural, with virtually never any major effect upon scribes, minimizes the weight of Griesbach's explanation and heightens the force of the real reason for the change that caused only a few surviving Greek manuscripts to suffer unnecessary alteration.

Matt 6:4 εν τω φανερω

After the words αποδωσει σοι, the inclusion of the words εν τω φανερω predominates in most Greek, Old Latin, and Syriac manuscripts (E K L M S U W Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω 055 0211 0250 0257 f13 [+1410 mss] it sy-s.p.h), but some witnesses do not have them (ℵ B D Z f1 33 [+80 mss] aur ff1 k vg sy-c co; Or). See the note on Matt 6:6 εν τω φανερω, where even more manuscripts (1466) include the words and less (29) exclude them. In 6:18, however, the situation is reversed, and only a minority of manuscripts add the expression. On this basis alone Meyer (141) judges that it "should be retained in vv. 4 and 6, but in ver. 18 it is an interpolation, and ought to be deleted."
     Erasmus (2:30) follows Augustine who, although finding the words in many Old Latin copies but apparently not in the Greek (i.e., probably the Latin Vulgate which Jerome revised according to the Greek), rejects the words. Zahn (264–5) mirrors Bengel (Gnomon, 1:187) who says that the words were added "from a fear that the words might have otherwise been rendered, 'Thy Father, who seeth that, shall reward thee in secret.'" But this construal of the text (if indeed it was ever so construed) presents no theological disturbance; in fact, it accords perfectly with what one might expect after the strong denunciation of public reward in 6:2, 5, 16 and thus should not have invited alteration.
     On the other hand, there are several reasons why the expression might have been expunged, first and foremost due to the theological irritation it could incite. Wettstein (1:320–21) writes: "Augustine (on the Lord's sermon on the mount): 'Many Latin exemplars have "openly" [palam] here. But since we do not find "openly" in the Greek ones, which are earlier, we did not think that here should be any different.' Unless I am mistaken, this reading, as are many others, is owed to the ingenuity of Origen, to whom it did not seem consistent that those who are commanded to shun showing off and to give bountifully in secret should be promised a public reward, which generally excites those who show off. But it was meant to distinguish the glory which is from God from the glory which is from men. One must strive for the former, not the latter. John 5:44; Rom 2:7; Matt 25:31, 34; Luke 14:14; 1 Cor 3:13; 4:8; 2 Cor 5:10; 1 Pet 5:4. Again, Augustine appears to have meant the Greek manuscripts of the version of Jerome who was accustomed to follow Origen. And so there is no reason why the reading should have satisfied Erasmus and Bengel." Fritzsche (259), who suggests that the expression belongs in all three passages (6:4, 6, 18), echoes Wettstein's explanation and also adds that some ancient critics could have omitted the expression due to their dislike of it being repeated so many times, but this latter explanation hardly explains why some would have omitted every occurrence of it. It is also possible that some thought to harmonize the text of 6:4, 6 to that of 6:18, where most manuscripts do not have the expression.
     Therefore, the predominating external support for εν τω φανερω in 6:4, 6 is corroborated by strong internal reasons explaining why some omitted it: it appeared difficult, less orthodox, and different from the wording of 6:18. At the same time, it represents a perfect Hebraic technique (antithesis) and is just what one might expect Matthew to have written.


Text und Textwert #17 results:

1    αυτος αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω
07 017 021 028 032 037 041 042 043 045 055 0211 0257 2 3 6 8 9 10 11 12 14 15 16 17 18 20 21 23 25 28 29 30 34 35 36 37 39 40 43 44 46 49 51 52 53 54 55 61 63 64 65 66 70 71 72 73 74 75* 76 77 78 80 83 84 89 98 99 100 105 106 107 108 109 111 112 113C 114 117 119 120 122 123 125 126 127 128 129 132 134 137 138 140 141 142 147 150 151 152 153 154C 155 158 159 160 161 163 164 165 167 169 170 171 175 178 180 182 185C 186 192 193 194 195 198 199 200 201 202 204 207 208 210 211 212 213 215 217 219 224 225 226 227 228 229 232 234 235 236 237 245 246 248C 251 259 260 261 262 263 265 266 268 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 290 291 293 296 297 298 299 300 301 310 324 330 331 335 343 344 345 347 349 350 351 352 353 355 358 359 360 361 363 365C 366 367 372 373 374 375 376 380 386 387 388 389 390 391 393 394 399 402 405 406 408 409 410 411 412 414 415 419 420 422 431 438 439 443 444 445 446 448 461 471 473 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 489 491 492 495 496 497 498 500 501 504 505 507 509 510 511 512 513 516C 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 527 528 530 534 537 546 547 548 550 551 553 554 555 558 560 561C 563 564 565 566 571 574 575 578 579 580 581 583 584 586 587 588 590 591C 592 594 600 645 649 652 655 660C 662 663 664 666 668 672 677 680 683 684 685 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 697 699 703 706 707 708 711 713 714 715 716 717 718 720 722 724 727 729 738 741 744 745 746 747 750 751 752 753 754 755 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 768S 769 772S 773 774 777 778 779 780 782 783 784 785 786S 787 789 791 794S 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 803 804 805 806 809 811 819 820 822 824 827 830 833 834 835 836 839 843 845 851 852 855 858 861 864 867 875 877 880 881C 886 888 890 893 895 896 898 899 900 902 903 904 905 906 922 923 924 925 928 930 932 933 935 937 938 939 940 941 942 944 945 946 948 951 952 953 954 955 956 957 958 960 961 962 963 965 966 968 969* 971 973 975 978 979 982 986 988 989 991 992 994 995 997 998 999 1000 1001 1003 1004 1005 1007 1008 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1017 1018 1020 1023 1024 1025 1026 1029 1030 1032 1033 1036 1038 1039 1040 1041 1046 1047S 1048 1050 1052 1054S 1056 1058 1059 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1068 1071 1072 1073 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1083 1086 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1095 1096 1097 1110 1111 1114 1117 1118 1120 1121 1122 1123 1125 1126 1127 1131 1132 1133 1135 1136 1139 1144 1145 1146 1148 1149 1152 1155 1158 1163 1165 1167 1168 1169 1171 1172 1173 1174 1179 1180 1181 1182 1185 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1210 1211 1212 1213 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1221 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1232 1233 1234 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1248 1250 1251 1252 1260 1261 1262 1266 1268 1269 1272 1273 1278 1281 1282 1289 1290 1293 1294 1296 1297 1298 1299 1303 1305 1309 1310S 1312 1313 1315 1317 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1334 1335 1336 1338 1339 1340 1341 1343 1345 1346 1347 1348 1351 1355 1359 1362 1364 1365 1367 1377 1384 1385 1388 1389 1390 1392 1394 1395 1397 1400 1401 1402 1404 1407 1408 1409 1410 1414S 1418 1420 1432 1434 1435 1436 1438 1439 1441 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1451 1452 1456 1457 1460 1461 1462 1464S 1466 1467 1468 1470 1471 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1481 1482 1483 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1505 1508 1510 1511 1521 1528 1530 1531 1532 1533 1536 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542C 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1550 1551 1552 1555 1556 1559 1560 1562 1564 1570 1572 1573 1575 1576 1577 1579 1580 1581 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1594 1597 1600 1603 1604 1605 1606 1609 1613 1615 1616 1617 1620 1622 1624 1628 1629 1632 1633 1634 1635 1637 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1645 1646 1647 1649 1652 1653 1659 1660 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1671 1672 1675 1676 1677 1678C 1680 1682 1686 1687 1688 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1697 1698 1699 1700 1702 1703 1704 1712 1713 1800 1802 1804 1808C 1813 1816 1823 1901 2095 2097 2099 2112 2118 2120 2122 2127 2131 2132 2133 2135 2141 2142 2147 2159 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2181 2193 2195 2201 2204 2213 2215 2217 2221 2223 2229 2236 2255 2260 2261 2263 2265 2266 2267 2273 2277 2278C 2280 2281 2287 2290S 2292 2296 2297 2307 2314 2315 2321 2322 2323 2324 2328 2352 2354 2355 2356C 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 2451 2452 2454 2458 2460 2465 2470 2471 2472C 2474 2475 2476 2479 2483 2488 2489 2492 2496 2497 2499 2502 2503 2508 2509 2510 2511 2515 2518 2520 2523 2524 2528S 2530 2533 2539 2545 2546 2550 2551 2554 2557 2559S 2561 2562 2567 2571 2577 2579 2581 2585 2586 2590 2591 2592 2598 2603S 2604 2605 2606 2608S 2610 2612 2614 2616C 2620 2623 2624 2633 2635 2636 2637 2645 2650 2653 2656 2660 2673 2676 2680 2684 2685 2689 2691 2692 2693S 2702 2703 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2714 2724C1 2727 2729 2730 2734 2737 2749 2754 2756 2760 2765 2766 2767 2770 2775 2779 2781 2787 2806 2808 2809 2810 2831
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1126

1B    αυτος αποδωσει σοι εν τω φαρω
2616*
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

1C    αυτος αποδωσει εν τω φανερω
289 1235 1651 2521
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 4

1D    αυτος δωσει σοι εν τω φανερω
346
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

1E    αυτον αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω
1578
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

2    αποδωσει σοι
01 03 035 1 22 24 33 68 118 136 148 183 190 196 205 209 233C 244 269 305 334 379 493 529* 544 549 557 660* 726 730 775 793 844 931 943* 964 983 987 1019 1028 1060 1074 1113 1166 1178 1192 1200 1280 1292 1301* 1319 1321* 1375 1422 1463 1484 1519 1535 1542* 1558 1582* 1631* 1670 1814 2101 2109 2199 2224 2278* 2291* 2301 2472* 2478 2516 2525 2646 2694 2695 2701S 2724* 2724C2 2786 2812 2836
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 84

3    αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω
019 030 038 0250 4 5 7 13 19 26 27 31C 47 48 56 57 58 59 60 67 90 116 124 130 133 135S 143 144 149 154* 156 157 162 173 174 184 187 188 189 191 214 218 220 230 231 233* 238 240 243 247 248* 267 279 280 295 303 304 306 329 333 348 354 364 371 377 392 395 413 417 418 423 428 440 447 449 470 475 490 494 506 515 516* 529C 532 535 543 556 561* 568 577 582 585 591* 595 596 597 651 657 676 679 696 719 723 725 728 731 732 733 734 735 737 766 776 781 788 790 792 808 817 818 825 826 828 842 854 856 860 863 871 873 878 881* 889 892 901 926 927 929 934 943C 949 959 969C 970 972 974 980 996 1006 1009 1021 1035 1037 1042S 1043 1044 1057 1082 1084 1085 1093 1137 1138 1159 1160 1164 1214 1222 1230 1236 1247 1263 1279 1285 1291 1301C 1302 1314 1316 1318 1320 1321C 1333 1342 1350 1352 1353 1354 1356 1357 1358 1383 1386 1387 1391 1393 1396 1399 1403 1406 1415 1421 1424 1442 1453 1454 1455 1458 1465 1472 1480 1485 1495 1506 1534 1549 1553 1557 1563 1582C 1595 1601 1602 1623 1625 1630 1631C 1661 1678* 1685 1701 1780 1966 2100 2108 2117 2123 2126 2139 2146 2148 2206 2207 2220 2238 2283 2284 2291C 2295 2304 2317 2356* 2373C 2446 2477 2482 2487 2490 2494 2507 2555 2578 2583 2613 2622 2634 2658 2665 2670 2687 2713 2715 2718 2722 2726 2735 2745 2757 2774 2780 2788
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 281

3B    αποδωσω σοι εν τω φανερω
047 740 1130 1186 1695
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 5

3C    αποδωσει εν τω φανερω
1331
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

3D    αποδωσει σοι και εν τω φανερω
2107
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

3E    αποδωσει σοι τω φανερω
1797
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

4    αυτος αποδωσει σοι
05 75C 185* 365*
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 4

5    αυτος αποδωσει εν τω φανερω
45 131
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 2

6    αποδωσει σοι αυτος εν τω φανερω
86 146 179 569 700 1170 1223 1413 2191 2375
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 10

U1    Homoeoteleuton: τον μισθον αυτων (6:2) [... τον μισθον αυτων (6:5)]
31* 38 552 1053 1288 1808* 2182
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 7

U2    Homoeoteleuton: εν ταις ρυμαις οπως (6:2) [... προσευχεσθαι οπως (6:5)]
113*
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

V    Omission of 6:5 and 6:6
2615 2728S
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 2

Matt 6:4 αυτος

About a quarter of the Greek manuscript tradition omits the pronoun αυτος before the verb αποδωσει (cf. ℵ B L U Z Θ 047 0250 f13 33 892 1424 [+355 mss] lat sy-s.c; Or), but most witnesses retain it in that position (cf. D E K M S W Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 055 0211 0257 f1 [+1130 mss] h q sy-p.h) and ten place it after σοι. Metzger (12) calls the reading an obvious expansion designed "to heighten the impressiveness of the saying," but this simplistic explanation is not critically sound. From all we know about the early period, it was not addition but omission, especially of single words and particles, that was the predominating characteristic of scribal error (see note on Matt 1:22 του and the literature cited there).
     Briefly, Matthäi (84) notes, "It could be left out and was therefore omitted." Likewise, Kühnöl (175) writes: "Wrongly did Fritzsche and Lachmann judge that αυτος should be expunged, for scribes omitted this pronoun because to them it appeared superfluous." Griesbach (1:64) also judges that αυτος "was omitted in some [manuscripts], either by the negligence of scribes (for it can be left out without harming the sense) or even for this reason, that in verses 6 and 18 the same sentence is repeated without αυτος. . . . Certainly it should be judged that the versions and fathers that do not mention the pronoun do not have as much weight in this kind of reading as they do elsewhere."
     Bloomfield (GNT, 1:42) mentions a few examples where αυτος is used either to take up again the subject or object of the verb (Matt 12:50; Mark 3:35; John 7:4; 14:10; 1 Cor 7:13) or as emphatic (John 1:27; 7:4), where "Classic propriety would require ουτος."
     The various reasons why αυτος came to be omitted, then, are: (1) accident, especially facilitated by homoeoarchton error (α...α); (2) editorial pruning of what was deemed superfluous; (3) conformation to the saying in 6:6, 18 where the word is absent; (4) removal of what could have been deemed unclassical.
     Additionally, a structural reason for including αυτος here but not in verses 6 and 18 may be in view. Matthew is known elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount to repeat similar phrases first in a fuller form and later in an abbreviated form. See, for example, the structural technique as found in most manuscripts (including NA27):

Matt 5:21: ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη τοις αρχαιοις
Matt 5:27: ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη
Matt 5:31: ερρεθη δε

Compare the above structural technique with the following according to most manuscripts:

Matt 6:4: αυτος αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω
Matt 6:6: αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω
Matt 6:18: αποδωσει σοι

Such stands in striking contrast to the harmonized and thus generally less praiseworthy form that appears in NA27:

Matt 6:4: αποδωσει σοι
Matt 6:6: αποδωσει σοι
Matt 6:18: αποδωσει σοι

For complete manuscript data on αυτος at this place, see the following post on Matt 6:4 εν τω φανερω.

Matt 6:1 ελεημοσυνην

Some witnesses (ℵ*.2 B D 0250 f1 892 pc lat Or-lat Hil Aug Hier) reflect that Jesus' first warning in chapter 6 was against doing one's "righteousness" (δικαιοσυνην) before men to receive their praise instead of one's "alms" (ελεημοσυνην), as most witnesses have (E K L M S U W Z Δ Θ Π Σ Ω 047 f13 33 565 1424 f k sy-p.h mae-1 Chr). In favor of ελεημοσυνην is Walter Nagel, "Gerechtigkeit -- oder Almosen? (Mt 6, 1)," Vigiliae Christianae 15:3 (1961): 141–45," whose main points are summarized below, followed by some further considerations:

1. Citing Bengel as an example, there has been a precedent to receive δικαιοσυνην based primarily on one's exegetical preference for it as the major subject of the Sermon on the Mount (cf. 5:6, 10, 20; 6:33).
2. A major theme of the Sermon on the Mount is not to be assumed from form-critical considerations, and if it were, it would be the "kingdom of heaven" and not "righteousness." Also, since it is doubtful that every original word has been preserved in the so-called great manuscripts of the fourth century, and since we are asking about the text of a much earlier time (second and third centuries), the few so-called great manuscripts should be interpreted in light of the tradition and not the other way around.
3. Structural analysis of Matt 6:1–18 indicates that Matthew introduces each warning with the second person plural (προσεχετε [6:1], προσευχησθε [6:5], νηστευητε [6:16]) and follows with the second person singular (ποιης [6:2], προσευχη [6:6], αλειψαι [6:17]). Thus structural analysis seems to require ελεημοσυνην in 6:1. [Note: almost all Greek witnesses in 6:5 do not have the second person plural but rather the second person singular προσευχη, which Nagel dismisses as secondary due to scribal conformation to the same form in 6:6].
4. The worth of the reading δικαιοσυνην shrivels in light of the ancient versions, since in support are only a few important Greek witnesses, part of the Old Latin tradition, and a single Old Syriac manuscript (sy-s). [Note: although cited in NA25 but not NA27, support of sy-s for δικαιοσυνην is unfounded, since it uses the same word (zdq) in 6:1 as it does in 6:2, 3, 4 for ελεημοσυνην. If anything, this circumstance rather suggests the support of sy-s for ελεημοσυνην!] For ελεημοσυνην are the Old Syriac tradition behind the Peshitta, the Arabic text of the Diatessaron ("alms"), the Curetonian Old Syriac ("gift"), the Nestorian form of the Syriac ("gift of mercy"), the Syriac-dependent Armenian version ("alms"), probably the Sahidic ("things of pity"; the Sahidic omits 6:1, but cf. mntna in 6:3), the Bohairic ("charity"), the sole African Old Latin manuscript (k/1) and the European Old Latin Brixianus (f/10) [both have eleemosyna and not justitia], Origen and Apollinarius are anything but complete (in fact, "For both of these church fathers ελεημοσυνη is the original text," p. 143). "And so of the Greek and extra-Greek material not much remains in support of δικαιοσυνη" (143).
5. On historical grounds, even the witnesses that have δικαιοσυνην do not support the sense of "righteousness," since in many places the LXX translates the Hebrew zdq with "alms," Köhler-Baumgartner suggests "kindness" as the trasnlation of zdq in Isaiah 56–63, in many places the Hillel school says the same (cf. Strack-Billerbeck), Jerome when he prepared this place in the Vulgate said that justitia (righteousness) meant "alms," and even Origen knows the reading δικαιοσυνην only in the sense of "alms." So even though the reading δικαιοσυνην is old, it is seen as a variation of ελεημοσυνην and not vice versa and thus has no intrinsic theological value, much less can it be seen as proof for an interplay with Pauline notions of the word.
6. Lexical considerations offer nothing conclusive in favor of either of the two words in question: "In Greek righteousness and alms are never confused or interchanged with each other. But this possibility due to pronunciation and spelling is clearly evident in the Western Aramaic and Syriac linguistic field" (144). E.g., Dalman's Aramaic-New Hebrew dictionary shows that through a small change "righteousness" (zdqa and zdquta) can be retained under the radical for "alms" (zdqta), and vice versa. In the earliest Syriac spelling or Estrangela, the similar interchange of alms (sdqta) and righteousness (sdiquta) occurs with merely the addition or subtraction of the two smallest letters of the alphabet, yod and waw. Perhaps it was a harmless word game, since the newly created word would have had the same meaning as the word that was changed (cf. sy-s, which uses the same word zdiqut in 6:1, 2, 3, 4). "Thus the reader could find here the well-known identification of alms and righteousness in the LXX and with Hillel certainly and the Judeo-Christian in general. On the same ground a Greek Judeo-Christian scribe unhesitatingly could have translated literally the wording found in sy-s and written δικαιοσυνη in place of the earlier ελεημοσυνη" (144).
7. "In order to avoid every misreading or mispronunciation a new root needed to be selected, in this case a derivative of the root jhb with the meaning 'offering,' which would no longer be deflected into a different word through small alterations." This word is found in sy-c, Ephrem, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, the Coptic, and, although younger than the two readings in question, it stands closer to "alms" and thus must be understood as a confirmation of that reading. "This judgment becomes sound through the observation that the most important Syriac witness presents this word in the plural (cf. Ephrem according to Burkitt: gifts vs. sy-c: auhbtkun). As the Arabic text of Tatian at Matt 6:1 likewise has a plural . . . , therefore Ephrem and Tatian confirm each other through these against the Greek wording with the opposite number and must therefore in this case be regarded as the oldest reading" (145). The plural is only sensible when alms or gifts is written or spoken, since righteousness is always only found in the singular in the OT passages. Sy-c has the singular because it followed sy-s. ℵ1 has the singular either in reference to sy-c or due to the common mistaking of ει and ι (itacism), thus writing δοσις instead of δοσεις. But also possible is an analogous occurrence of the alteration of οφειληματα into οφειλην in Didache 8:2 = Matt 6:12.

     Nagel's argument offers a plausible explanation for how a small minority of manuscripts that are often related could have come to read δικαιοσυνην. Below are some text-critical excerpts and further considerations for the present discussion.
     Erasmus (2:30), apparently unaware of the Greek textual support for δικαιοσυνην, notes that the Greek text has ελεημοσυνην, "not righteousness, in order to correspond with what follows," i.e., 6:2–4. He also notes that although Jerome and Augustine read "righteousness" in their Latin text, they nevertheless expound "alms." Bèze and Grotius both prefer δικαιοσυνην. Mill (14) explains: "I have no doubt but that the interpreter of Matthew thus [i.e., with δικαιοσυνην] rendered Tsedakah in this place; but ελεημοσυνην crept into the text from the margin of certain manuscripts"; and (Prolegomena:42 [§393]), "Righteousness specifically in this place is not strictly kind deeds to the poor, but evangelical righteousness in general, the kinds of which are alms, prayers, fasting, etc. Christ had said above that the righteousness which he examines from his own [children] surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," and furthermore the error occurred "since the word ελεημοσυνην occurs in v. 2 and in fact because of the particle ουν it appeared to refer to righteousness, and thinking of the first verse, a certain reader was prone to assign "goodwill," ελεομοσυνην, to δικαιοσυνην from this place of explanation [i.e., from 6:2]. And so it appears to have crept into the place of the other relatively more obscure word from the first centuries of the church."
     Wettstein (1:317) quotes Jerome (c. Pelag. II.), "Beware that you do not do your righteousness [justitiam], that is, alms [eleemosynam] . . . ," and also notes: "[Righteousness] is approved by Grotius, Mill, Bengel, and others, but they do not share the same opinion on the meaning of the word righteousness, as some hold that it may rightly mean everything--especially prayer and fasting--which the following passage is about, while others contend that here the words for righteousness and alms, according to the usage of the Hebrews, are synonyms. But I do not see how, by either (foregoing) method one decides, this [i.e., righteousness] can make sense in the passage. If by the former method, I would like to know the places where fasting and prayer are called righteousness: to live righteously is written δικαιοσυνην ποιειν, certainly not ποιειν την δικαιοσυνην αυτου. If by the latter [method], they will not easily persuade me that Matthew, where he writes about the same thing, referred to it with the same word three times but one time with another [word] which could not have failed to appear obscure; neither to the impartial judge should the authority of the Latins be greater than the testimony of the Greeks."
     Griesbach (1:59–64), who argues for δικαιοσυνην, sounds a familiar refrain: "For if there is a canon as true as it is certain, it is this: that reading is to be preferred which is harder, more obscure, more insolent, and approaching more nearly to the Hebrews' custom of speaking; surely δικαιοσυνη is better than the common ελεημοσυνη" (1:61). Speaking of the fact that the Latin translation of Origen's works often exhibit justitiam, Griesbach concedes, "I certainly grant that it could have been transcribed from the Latin version to which those translators had been accustomed" (1:61–2). "In addition, the gloss ελεημοσυνη obviously was carried over from vss. 2, 3, 4" (1:62).
     The argument that δικαιοσυνην is the harder reading is negated by the plausible reasons for its origin in a few manuscripts that are often related (cf. Nagel's article above). Once the error (or possibly the innocent play on words in the Syriac which influenced the Old Latin) entered the manuscript tradition, there would have been little reason for anyone to remove such a valuable Judeo-Christian gem in this place (cf. 5:20 and the importance scholars such as Mill and Bengel ascribe to the connection). In addition, one cannot discount the possibility that the similar endings of the two words (the last 6 letters of both are identical) could have created the initial introduction of δικαιοσυνην by accident, especially since that word appears 3 times in the previous chapter (5:6, 10, 20) and is 7 times more common in the NT than ελεημοσυνη (92x vs. 13x). The external support for ελεημοσυνην is overwhelming, including almost all Greek manuscripts, arguably the most important Old Latin witness (k/1), the Middle Egyptian (mae-1), and most versions directly or indirectly (cf. Nagel above). The patristic support for dικαιοσυνην is apparently entirely Latin and thus of no primary significance, especially since the origin of the Latin reading has been accounted for. Consequently, there is little reason to reject ελεημοσυνην as the original reading in Matt 6:1.

Matt 6:1 προσεχετε

Some manuscripts (including ℵ L Z Θ f1 33 892 1241 1424 al g1 sy-p.h bo) reflect either scribal error or dissatisfaction with the absence of a transitional conjunction, adding δε after προσεχετε. But most witnesses from a wide variety of traditions (i.e., Alexandrian, Western, Byzantine, Old Latin, Old Syriac, Middle Egyptian) refrain from the addition (B D E K M S U W Δ Π Σ Ω 047 0250 f13.35 565 lat sy-c mae-1 bo-mss goth).
     Had only some witnesses with less diversity omitted the conjunction, one might suspect omission by homoeoteleuton error (ε...ε). Perhaps the addition was facilitated by the initial reduplication of -τε (cf., e.g., ℵ in Mark 11:25; D Θ in Matt 13:48; p37vid in Matt 26:38) followed by the correction of τε to δε, or, especially due to the scribal propensity to err due to the circumstances of continuous script, the initial mistaking or "correction" of -τε to δε, which occurs elsewhere in the NT (e.g., Acts 2:43 [ℵ B 81]; 2:46 [p74]; 4:13 [p74 D Ψ 0165*]; 5:19 [B Ψ 0189]; 8:28 [B C]). Cf. also 1 Cor 6:9–10, where D/06 and E/07 alter 8 occurrences of ουτε into ουδε.