Matt 7:21 ουρανοις

Some early manuscripts (ℵ B C Z Δ Θ 0281vid 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 Byz 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 except when πατηρ and its accompanying articles are in the genitive case:

nominative/vocative:
ο πατηρ υμων ο εν τοις ουρανοις/ο ουρανιος (5:48; 7:11)
Πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις (6:9)
ο πατηρ μου ο εν τοις ουρανοις (16:17)
[ο πατηρ υμων/μου ο ουρανιος (6:14, 26, 32; 15:13; 18:35)]

dative:
τω πατρι υμων τω εν τοις ουρανοις (6:1)
τω πατρι σου τω εν τω κρυπτω (6:6, 18)

accusative:
τον πατερα υμων τον εν τοις ουρανοις (5:16)

BUT:

genitive:
του πατρος μου του εν ουρανοις (12:50; 18:10, 19)
του πατρος υμων του εν ουρανοις (18:14)

     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 Matt 5:45 τοις, 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 Matt 5:45 τοις for an initial discussion of the textual problem.

Matt 7:16 σταφυλην

Although 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 Byz 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:

Matt 7:16b: μήτι συλλέγουσιν ἀπὸ ἀκανθῶν [σταφυλὰς/σταφυλὴν] ἢ ἀπὸ τριβόλων σῦκα;
Luke 6:44b: οὐ γὰρ ἐξ ἀκανθῶν συλλέγουσιν σῦκα, οὐδὲ ἐκ βάτου σταφυλὴν τρυγῶσιν.

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.

Matt 7:15 δε

Very few witnesses (ℵ B Ω 565. 1424 pc), 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 Byz 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 (GNT, 1:53; Annotations, 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 Matt 1:22 του. See also the note on Matt 6:1 προσεχετε, where reasons are adduced why the δε in that case may not be primary.

Matt 7:13 εισελθετε

As in Matt 2:5 ειπον and Matt 5:1 προσηλθον, here some manuscripts (ℵ B C L N O W Δ Θ Σ Φ f13 33. 1424 al) 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 Byz 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:

Matt 6:10 - ελθατω (ℵ D G W Δ)
Matt 10:13 - ελθατω in (ℵ C L N W f13 33)
Matt 26:39 - παρελθατω (p37vid ℵ A C D E F G H L Δ Θ Ω 33)
Mark 13:15 - εισελθατω (ℵ A D L Δ f13)
Luke 11:2 - ελθατω (p75 ℵ C P W Δ f13)
2 Cor 6:17 - εξελθατε (p46 ℵ B C F G 33)
Rev 18:4 - εξελθατε (ℵ A)

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 guessed by means of attention to such matters.

Matt 7:12 αν

The 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 Byz 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.

Matt 7:10 εαν ιχθυν αιτηση

As in Matt 7:9 εαν αιτηση, 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 Matt 7:10 και)(so Wettstein, 1:340; Griesbach, Commentarius, 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 [Byz] 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 Matt 7:6 καταπατησωσιν), the change perhaps being exacerbated by the letter Η being easily confused for the letters ΕΙ in uncial script.

Matt 7:10 και

Most 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 [Byz] 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 pc) 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, Commentarius, 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 [Byz 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 pc), perhaps from parablepsis error.
     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.

Matt 7:9 εαν αιτηση

Most 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 [Byz 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 al here in 7:9.
     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 [Byz 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 [Byz 3 mss]) and the change to the future indicative λαλησουσιν (ℵ B C Θ [Byz 32 mss] 33), not incidentally involving the same witnesses as in 7:9.
     For similar alterations in this section by the same class of witnesses cf. Matt 7:6 καταπατησωσιν and Matt 7:10 εαν ιχθυν αιτηση.

Matt 7:6 καταπατησωσιν

Some manuscripts (B C L N W X Θ Σ 047 0211 f13 33 al) 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 [Byz ca. 1450] f1.35 565. 892. 1424. 1500. 2224; Cl), which Merk, Soden, and Vogels follow. Although in Hellenistic Greek the future indicative may 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:

• 5:25 - μηποτε ... παραδωσει ... βληθησει (D* al) VS. παραδω ... βληθηση
• 13:29 - μηποτε ... εκριζωσετε (Γ) VS. εκριζωσητε
• 25:9 - μηποτε ... αρκεσει (D 28. 33 al) VS. αρκεση
• 27:64 - μηποτε ... κλεψουσιν ... ειπωσιν (ℵ) VS. κλεψωσιν ... ειπωσιν

     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."

     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.

Matt 7:5 την δοκον εκ του οφθαλμου σου

Apparently 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 [Byz ca. 1520 mss] f1.13.35 33. 565. 892. 1424. 1500. 2224 latt sy-h; Ir-lat Chr).
     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!
     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 also 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.
     In short, due to the conflicting claims of internal evidence, the question is whether just four manuscripts of one type harmonized the text or whether all other manuscripts of all types 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.

Matt 7:4 απο

While most Greek manuscripts (including E G K L M S U V W X Δ Θ Π Φ Ω 047 0211 [Byz 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.
     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]."
     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."
     As compelling internal arguments corroborate the preponderance of external witnesses, there is little doubt that απο should be retained in the text.

Matt 6:34 τα

A 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 [Byz 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 [Byz ca. 1350 mss] f1.13 33. 1424. 2224c sy-h).
     Mill (Prolegomena, § 1192) rejects the article with the simple words, "τα εαυτης is more elegant, not more genuine," while Griesbach (Commentarius, 1:75–6) is the best exponent for omitting 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."
     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 Matt 1:22 του. 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 "complete action being ascribed to a thing, 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 away from the idea of the day possessing things to worry about or take care of and toward the proverbial day taking care of itself.
     That the proverb existed very early without the article is demonstrated, e.g., by the apocryphal 3d-century Acta Thomae 28 (Maximilian Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, [2 vols. in 4 parts; Lipsiae: Hermannum Mendelssohn, 1891–1903] 2.2:144). 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, Paedagogus 1.5 [PG 8:269B]; Chrysostom, Homliae in Matthaeum 22 [PG 57:303]). 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.

Matt 6:32 επιζητει

Largely 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 [Byz ca. 1500 mss] 565. 892. 1424; Chr), which Vogels adopts, to επιζητουσιν (ℵ B Θ f1.13 33 pc), 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 Matt 6:28 αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθει. 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 pc) 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 [Byz ca. 1600 mss] f1 565. 892. 1424).

Matt 6:28 αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθει

Although 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 [Byz 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.
     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:

1. 6:26 τα πετεινα ... σπειρουσιν ... θεριζουσιν ... συναγουσιν
2. 6:28 τα κρινα ... αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθει
3. 6:32 τα εθνη ... επιζητει

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:

1. 6:26 τα πετεινα ... σπειρουσιν ... θεριζουσιν ... συναγουσιν
2. 6:28 τα κρινα ... αυξανουσιν ... κοπιωσιν ... νηθουσιν (ℵ1 B [Θ] f1 33; Ath)
3. 6:32 τα εθνη ... επιζητουσιν (ℵ B Θ f1.13 33)

     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:

• 10:29 - πωλειται VS. πωλουνται (D)
• 13:4 - ηλθεν VS. ηλθον (D L Z al)
• 13:8 - εδιδου VS. εδιδουν (D)
• 13:40 - συλλεγεται  ... (κατα)καιεται VS. συνλεγονται ... κατακαιονται (D)
• 15:27 - εσθιει VS. εσθιουσιν (D)

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:

• 10:2 - εστιν VS. εισιν (L al)
• 13:7 - επεσεν VS. επεσαν (33)
• 13:8 - επεσεν VS. επεσαν (33; 247: επεσον)
• 15:18 - εξερχεται VS. εξερχονται (F M al)

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:

• 13:16 - ακουει (E F G K L S U V W Y Γ Δ Π Φ Ω [Byz] 565)
  
       VS. ακουουσιν (ℵ B C D M N O X Θ Σ f1.[13] 33 1424 al)


• 19:13 - προσηνεχθη (E F G H Ivid K M S U V W Y Γ Δ Θ Π Φ Ω 078vid f1.13 [Byz] 565) 
       VS. προσηνεχθησαν (ℵ B C D L Nvid Σ 33. 1424 al)


• 25:32 - συναχθησεται (A E F H M S V W Y Γ Δ Φ Ω f1 [Byz] 892. 1424)
       VS. συναχθησονται (ℵ B D G K L U Θ Π Σ f13 al)


• 26:31 - διασκορπισθησεται (p37vid D E F G H2 K S U V W Y Γ Δ Π Φ Ω f1 [Byz] 565. 1424)
       VS. διασκορπισθησονται (p53vid ℵ A B C G H* I L M Σ f13 33 al)


• 27:52 - ηγερθη (A C E F H K M S U W Y Γ Δ Π Σ Φ Ω [Byz] 565. 1424)
       VS. ηγερθησαν (ℵ B D G L Θ f1.13 33 al)

     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:

• 27:52 ανεωχθησαν ... ηγερθη ([C3] E F H K M S U Γ Δ Σ Φ Ω [Byz] 565. 1424)
• 27:52 ανεωχθησαν ... ηγερθησαν (ℵ[2] B D G [L] Θ f[1].13 [33] pc)
• 27:52 ανεωχθη ... ηγερθη (A C* W Y Π pc)

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.

Matt 6:25 και τι πιητε

While some witnesses followed by Tischendorf (ℵ f1 892 pc a b ff-1 k l vg sy-c sa-mss) omit και τι πιητε either due to homoeoteleuton (ητε...ητε) or harmonization to Luke 12:22, others (B W Φ f13 33 al it sa-mss mae bo) have η τι πιητε either for stylistic reasons or from assimilation to 6:31. Most witnesses, however, retain the somewhat less proper and non-harmonized (and thus more likely authentic) και τι πιητε (E G K L M N S U V Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Ω 0233 [Byz ca. 1450 mss] 565. 1424 sy-p.h go), which von Soden and Vogels adopt. As Origen's wording in Contra Celsum 7.24 is too close to Luke's, the earliest attestation of the minority reading with η may be found in Acta Thomae 36 (Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, [2 vols. in 4 parts; Lipsiae: Hermannum Mendelssohn, 1891–1903] 2.2:153).
     Erasmus (2:35) in arguing against the words ironically offers a motive for why some could have omitted them: "Although 'what you should drink' is found added in some manuscripts, it is superfluous since 'drink' is contained in the word 'food,' and a drink of water may not be accessible to everyone. It is certainly not present in Chrysostom, neither in Hilary. Jerome indicates that it had been added in some manuscripts but neglects to elaborate. We have allowed it to be added lest the Latin not correspond with the Greek. At any rate, it is not written in the most ancient exemplars, although in a few of inferior [quality] mention of drink may indeed be found."
     Wettstein (1:333), who virtually echoes Whitby (144), remarks, "But since Erasmus, Mill, and Bengel have retained the reading in verse 31, there seems to be no reason why they should have disturbed the present one, even less so since the words are read in Exod 15:24."
     Matthäi (94) draws attention to two places of harmonization of this passage in Chrysostom and Photius, and warns, "Frequently did variant readings arise from parallelisms of this kind, as I have just shown. For it altogether appears that the greatest portion of their observations were patched together from some Harmony in their own time, but one not very accurate."
     Griesbach's note (Commentarius, 1:74–75) deserves attention: "We think the question whether the words και τι πιητε, which are read in the common text, are genuine or have been imported here from another place is so uncertain that a rationale should be offered to the reader. Those words easily disappeared either by homoeoteleuton or on account of the similar passage in Luke 12:22 from which they are missing. Moreover, although only two manuscripts, 1 and 22, survive for us that omit them; those manuscripts nevertheless are exceptional (cf. what is said at 5:44): for that the words formerly went missing from many Greek manuscripts we gather from the versions and fathers which cite the text without και τι πιητε. And also surely the words were able to creep back in easily from verse 31 or from Luke 12:29; this circumstance, because of the true appearance that some old manuscripts exhibent η τι πιητε instead of και τι πιητε in the present passage, likewise makes it appear that it was taken from those very passages from which some harbor suspicion that the present passage was interpolated. Certainly Chrysostom's commentary does not supply the occasion for the omission of the words, for they are already missing from the beautifully woven citations of Basil and Hilary."
     Bloomfield (GNT, 48–9) comments, "There is no tolerable authority for the latter [i.e., omission of και τι πιητε], and still less for the former change [i.e., alteration of και into η], espec[ially] as internal evidence is against it, and it was evidently an alteration of some critic who thought the disjunctive particle [was required rather] than the conjunctive. . . . However, this use of και where one would rather expect, and strict propriety would require, η, is occasionally found in even the purest Greek Class[ical] writers, espec[ially] Thucyd[ides] . . . . I need scarcely say that this idiom being somewhat rare, internal evidence is always in favour of the και and opposed to the η, espec[ially] in writers like those of the N. Test. and of such Class. writers, even Thucyd. and Aristotle, as did not aim at the greatest exactness in the minutiae of critical accuracy in the use of particles." Bloomfield also suggests some passages where "the same class of MSS. [that alter και into η here] elsewhere introduce και instead of η," such as, e.g., Mark 3:33; 14:17; Acts 10:14; Eph 5:4, which, if "internal evidence is always in favour of the και," would require some other explanation from Bloomfield.
     Soden (1:1009), under his subtitle "Instances where it cannot safely be decided whether the Egyptian archetype or whether only the Jerusalem archetype provided the reading occuring in several Egyptian mss" notes that the η reading and the omission of και τι πιητε "may well be the effect of the Jerusalem text," that is, he thinks that the Egyptian archetype had και τι πιητε but some of its descendents later contracted the variations from cross-contamination with the Jerusalem text.
     Finally, as mentioned above, the omission of και τι πιητε could have occurred due to homoeoteleuton error (ητε...ητε) or harmonization to Luke 12:22, and a repair based on 6:31 could have caused the introduction of η. In addition, other witnesses without the omission could have introduced η purely for stylistic reasons or by assimilation either to 6:31 or the reading of many manuscripts in Luke 12:29.

Matt 6:22 ο οφθαλμος σου απλους η

Some witnesses (ℵ B W Φ pc lat; Bas) transpose the verb η to the first position in the clause, while most witnesses have it, as in the following apodosis and both clauses of 6:23, in the final position (including E G K L M S U V Γ Δ Θ Σ Π Ω [Byz ca. 1500 mss] f1.13 33. 565. 892. 1424 it; GregThaum? [Fragmentum in evangelium Matthaei 6.22–23 {PG 10:1189}] Chr Aug). Some lectionaries (l 844. l 2211) naturally omit the verb altogether as it is unnecessary.
     While it is more likely, all things being equal, that an editor would have wished to place the verb last in order to harmonize it with the same position of the verbs in the following clauses (the preposing of the same verb in 6:23 in ℵ* W is a case in point!), it is at least possible that the harmonization is by Matthew's own design (cf., e.g., 5:46–47; 10:13; 16:19; 18:18; 20:26–27; 23:18). In this case, however, two transcriptional considerations may account for the divergence of those few witnesses that place the verb first.

1. The accidental dittography of the final letter of ΟΥΝ (i.e. ΟΥΝΝ) could have caused the introduction of the verb (Η) in that position, as the confusion of the letters Η and Ν was one of the most common in the uncial period, especially in old, damaged, or hard-to-read exemplars.
2. Similarly, the confusion of the final letter of the particle ΟΥΝ for the verb Η would have resulted in the ungrammatical and nonsensical εαν ου η, which also might account for the omission of ουν in ℵ (the others in that textual tradition repairing the "ου" by adding a ν where it apparently had been lost), although the omission of the 3-letter ουν in ℵ also may be accounted for by its similarity with the preceding 3-letter word (εαν) or by harmonization toward an early version (cf. lat sy-c mae bo-ms).

     As internal evidence is rather inconclusive, one may preliminarily accept the order of words found in the vast consensus of manuscripts on the ground of their predominant accuracy in such trivial matters throughout the long sequence of variations investigated up to this point.