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.