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 7:21 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 5:39 την δεξιαν σιαγονα

The Greek manuscript tradition is significantly divided between two readings:

(1) την δεξιαν σιαγονα (ℵ W Σ f1 33 892 1241 pm a f [h])
(2) την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα (E G K L M S U V Δ Π Θ f13 565 579 700 1424 pm c g1)

Reading one (1) is printed in the text of Robinson-Pierpont (2005) and Wilbur Pickering; reading two (2) is printed in Hodges-Farstad (1985), the bracketed text of Robinson-Pierpont (1991), and the margin of Robinson-Pierpont (2005). A third reading (3), την δεξιαν σιαγονα σου, preferred by the editors of NA27/UBS4, is only minimally supported (B; Eus), and may reflect a scribal attempt to place the possessive pronoun in its default position. A fourth reading (4), την σιαγονα σου (without δεξιαν), no doubt reflects versional and patristic influence (D k sy-s.c). Transcriptional considerations between readings one (1) and (2) are divided. On the one hand, as Rinck (250) notes, "It appears that σου arose from the following syllable σιαγ. being read twice and therefore it should be rejected. For it is absent from eastern witnesses (and 1. 33), and in western witnesses traces survive where it was either written above the line or in the margin. For a reason later emerged that δεξιαν should be omitted in some Latin documents and that the σου should be transposed to follow σιαγονα.” Maurice Robinson (in private correspondence) also notes that σου could have arisen due to its presence in Matt 5:30, yet likeness of construction could also indicate likeness of authorship, i.e., Matthew for both (cf. η δεξια σου χειρ in 5:30 with την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα in 5:39). Arguing for reading two (2), Bengel (Apparatus, 99) states that σου "easily disappeared before σιαγονα, since it was left out by Luke [6:29]," or "because it could be left out due to the preceding σε" (so Wettstein, 1:309), or, as Griesbach (1:55–6) adds, "especially because the sense remains unharmed without it." Assuming, then, the priority of reading two (2) over readings three (3) and four (4), Griesbach continues, "But those who transposed σου to follow σιαγονα either wished to avoid cacophony or [simply] did it carelessly.” As scribes tended to omit words, especially short ones,  Robinson fairly admits the possibility of the σου dropping out by homoeoarchton error (a scribe skipping from the first letter of σου to the first letter of σιαγονα). Matthäi (76–7), perhaps rightly, argues that the omission of δεξιαν in reading four (4) is related to a perceived difficulty in the phrase and quotes Origen's observation of the improbability of the right cheek being struck first, since most people, being right-handed and thus swinging with their right hand, would not strike the right cheek first but rather the left. And so the omission of δεξιαν removed the apparent difficulty. In the end, either reading one (1), την δεξιαν σιαγονα, or reading two (2), την δεξιαν σου σιαγονα, is to be preferred.

Matt 4:4 ανθρωπος

Most manuscripts (including K M S Γ Ω f13) do not have the article (ο) before ανθρωπος, but the earliest surviving manuscripts do (ℵ B C D E L P U V W Z Δ Θ Σ f1 33 892 al). Wettstein (1:270), Kühnöl (93), Rinck (249), and others suggest the article was introduced from Deut 8:3 (LXX) and Luke 4:4. In Luke more manuscripts than here, but still not the consensus, have the article. The word ανθρωπος with the article appears to be a Hebraism, with which usually only a minority of manuscripts finds fault. Fritzsche (161–2) argues that the article was omitted by those who wanted to clarify that ανθρωπος was generic, whereas by the presence of the article Matthew, and even Jesus himself, meant to signify the man, i.e., the Messiah. But perhaps it was just this theologically motivated enhancement, suggested by the Hebrew האדם and the Septuagint's ο ανθρωπος at Deut 8:3, that brought about the addition of the article at this place in Matthew and in many manuscripts of Luke.
     Additionally, the circumstance that the noun ανθρωπος is usually accompanied by the definite article normally would have caused scribes to add rather than remove it, but the transcriptional possibility of accidental omission must also be considered. If most Greek manuscripts are correct, it would appear that the addition of the article was made very early and in a variety of unrelated streams of the textual tradition, either due to assimilation to the passage in the Old Testament, theological motivation, or both. Cf. also the addition of the article before ανθρωπος by a few manuscripts in John 7:23 (B N Θ 0250 33 pc).