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 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 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).

Matt 3:16 και βαπτισθεις

     A small contingent of manuscripts (ℵ B C* f13 892 pc) alters και βαπτισθεις ο Ιησους into βαπτισθεις δε ο Ιησους reflecting assimilation to the wording of the prior verse, namely, αποκριθεις δε ο Ιησους (3:15). It is far more likely that the very near context would have influenced a change in 10 or so manuscripts out of more than 1600 than that remote and verbally dissimilar parallels would have done so (cf. και εβαπτισθη [Mark 1:9]; και Ιησου βαπτισθεντος [Luke 3:21]). Bloomfield (Annotations, 3) argues that intrinsic probability favors και βαπτισθεις since it is more Hellenistic and founded on the Hebrew idiom, to which he suggests comparing Rom 4:3 and James 2:23 with Gen 15:6 (LXX). According to an email correspondence from Tony Pope, who cites chapter 5 of Stephen Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2d ed.; Dallas: SIL International, 2000), a distinctive discourse feature of NT Greek is that δε is used to mark a significant development in the narrative, whereas και is often used at the beginning of the discourse to set the scene for the first significant event or at the end for its conclusion. Pope suggests that a scribe or editor, aware of this feature, could have altered the meaning of an episode or the relationship between episodes through the interchange of δε and και. If και in 3:16 is original, Pope sees it as furnishing "a setting or lead-in for the surprising event of 16b" (και ιδου . . .) and cites 9:19 as a possible similar case. Nevertheless, even if internal evidence is inconclusive, the breadth and diversity of the external support for και βαπτισθεις are superior.

----------

Note the following two constructions in Matthew:

και + partciple + ο Ιησους (20x)
8:14; 9:2, 4, 9, 19, 23; 11:4; 14:13, 14; 15:21, 29; 16:17; 17:7; 18:2; 20:17, 32; 22:1; 24:1, 4; 28:18

partciple + δε + ο Ιησους (16x)
3:15; 4:12; 8:10, 18; 12:25; 16:8, 13; 17:17; 19:26; 20:22, 34; 21:21, 24; 22:18, 29; 26:10

Matt 3:11 αγιω

     After πνευματι αγιω significant and early attestation exists for the addition of και πυρι  (p101vid ℵ B C Ds K L M U W Γ Δ Π Σ 0211 0233 f1.13 33. 399. 565. 892 al lat sy co Ju Ta Ir Tert Or, etc.), which Mill (§§690, 1098, 1177) maintains crept in from the margin. The words are absent in most manuscripts, including E S V Ω 461. 566. 1080. 1424. 2224. Griesbach (1:25–30) argues for the authenticity of the words, in part, on the grounds that they were omitted either because (1) they were considered abrasive, (2) they are lacking in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33, or (3) the church lectionary ended without the words (since the readers did not want to sadden the listeners). As lengthy as Griesbach's defense is, he nevertheless concedes: "Certainly no one is ignorant that very many interpolations of the sacred text entered from the scholia and from the commentaries of the fathers." Indeed, Matthäi (48–9) notes four manuscripts that add the words και πυρι in the margin from the scholia, and two that add the words from Chrysostom, who he says quotes the words twice but "without any doubt" from Luke. The same argues that since the Latin Vulgate was organized nearly within apostolic times it was corrupted from Chrysostom or from the old scholia, "as happens hundred times in other places." He further argues that the words εν πυρι in Luke are commented upon only minimally, and that anyone who has read Chrysostom knows how he frequently makes a harmony from multiple gospels and in the middle of interpreting Matthew and John he suddenly diverts to a different gospel, and thus the correction in Matthew is from harmonization and natural theological explanation of εν πνευματι αγιω, which of course was of paramount importance to the early church (cf. Acts 1:5; 2:3), as they were baptized in the Holy Spirit, the external sign of which was baptism by fire. Rinck (248–9), who rejects the addition, unashamedly states that "everyone acknowledges that the manuscripts strong in age and excellence were just as prone to supplement the context from parallel passages," and that suggesting that the church lectionary influenced the omission is unpersuasive, since the very reason that the church lectionary omitted και πυρι may very well have been because it was not thought to have been a part of Matthew's Gospel. Certainly it is agreed that the words were added to Matthew's Gospel at a very primitive stage, and once added, they could hardly have been omitted by any conscientious scribe who had the words in his exemplar, and those without the words in their exemplars would have felt constant temptation to add the words. Yet, as the evidence suggests, the majority of scribes did not add the words which originally belonged to Luke's Gospel, not Matthew's.

Matt 3:6 Ιορδανη

     After Ιορδανη a considerable number of manuscripts add ποταμω (ℵ B C* M S W Δ Σ 0233 f1 33 205 346 579 1424 al q sy sa bo), a probable scribal harmonization to Mark 1:5, as indicated by Wettstein (1:259), Griesbach (1:24), Fritzsche (120), Bloomfield (Annotations, 2), Tischendorf (7th ed., 1:8), Meyer (72), von Soden (1:5), and others. Griesbach, echoing Wettstein and demonstrating his view on the Synoptic Problem, commends the "shorter and older" reading, saying it was unnecessary for Matthew, writing to men who were well acquainted with Palestinian matters, to mention that the Jordan was the name of a certain river, but that Mark, wishing to serve the interests of readers living far from Judea, intentionally clarified Matthew's words through additions of this kind both here and elsewhere. The same logic militates against those few versions (sy sa bo), which also were made for those who were more likely to have been unfamiliar with Palestinian topography. There is no good reason why all other manuscripts, including the oldest Old Latin manuscripts (4th and 5th cent.) and perhaps the oldest Coptic manuscript (mae1, ca. 400), would have deleted the word, if original, just as almost all Greek manuscripts left the word alone at Mark 1:5. Indeed, as may be expected, only a few manuscripts in Mark (D W Θ 565 700 a) harmonize that place to Matthew by omitting ποταμω, just as only a minority of the 1500+ Greek manuscripts available here harmonize this place to Mark.