Matt 5:48 ωσπερ

There are several reasons why ωσπερ, supported by most manuscripts (including D E K M S U W Δ Θ Π 346 565 579 1006 1342), came to be altered to the shorter ως (ℵ B L Z Σ f1.13 33 892 1241; Cl Or). First, it seemed too difficult to some that man should be "just like" or equal to (ωσπερ) God's perfection rather than simply "as" or similar to (ως) it. Second, the far less common ωσπερ (42x in the NT) is much more likely to have yielded to the more common ως (500x in the NT), than vice versa. Third, parablepsis error could have aided the omission of -περ, either (a) from the -π- of ωσπερ to the π- of πατηρ or (b) from the similarity of -ΠΕΡ to the nomen sacrum for father, ΠΗΡ. Furthermore, the alteration of ωσπερ to ως is not unique here, but also occurs elsewhere in a minority of manuscripts or fathers:

Matt 6:5 (ℵ B D Z 33 pc)
Matt 6:16 (ℵ B D Δ f1 892 pc)
Matt 12:40 (Or)
Matt 24:38 (ℵ B L 33 892*)
Luke 18:11 (D L Q Ψ 892 1241 pc)
John 5:21 (ℵ)
John 5:26 (ℵ* D W; Epiph)
Acts 11:15 (D)
1 Cor 10:7 (C D* K P pc)
2 Cor 1:7 (ℵ A B C D* E M P 33 pc)
Eph 5:24 (ℵ A D* F G P 33 pc; omit: B Ψ pc b)

Cf. also the notes on Matt 6:5 ωσπερ, Matt 6:16 ωσπερ, and Matt 24:38 ωσπερ.

Matt 5:30 βληθη εις γεενναν

Some manuscripts (ℵ B f1 33 205 892 pc [lat] sy-c [mae1] bo) alter the word order and the verb to read εις γεενναν απελθη against the reading of most manuscripts (including E G K [L] M S U V W Γ Δ Θ Π Σ 0233 f13 f vg-ms sy-p.h sa [L: βληθησει εις την γεεναν]). Matthäi (72–3), commenting on 5:29, blames the the widespread influence of Origen for the alteration of βληθη into απελθη, which is represented there in D/05, the Old Latin (a b c d g1 h), the Old Syriac (sy-s.c), and the Bohairic (bo). These same versions also in 5:30 form the major support for απελθη, which is in only two Greek manuscripts from before the ninth century (ℵ B). From this situation it is at least possible, as many early Western and Alexandrian manuscripts were bilingual, that the alteration toward απελθη in Greek in both 5:29 and in 5:30 occurred due to versional cross-contamination. Also in this connection is Codex Bobiensis (k/1), an early and influential Old Latin manuscript with strong and sometimes unique affinities with ℵ B, which has no verb at all for rendering βληθη/απελθη in either verse, a circumstance that could have prompted the introduction of a verb other than the original in any descending copies and then in those that depended on them. Alternatively, Wettstein (1:302), Griesbach (1:52–3), Fritzsche (235), Kühnöl (152), and Bloomfield (GNT, 35) all consider απελθη to be an alteration derived from Mark 9:43, where that word fits well to the context but is "less suitable" (so Griesbach) and "thoroughly inept" (so Fritzsche) at this place in Matthew, perhaps due to the subject (το σωμα). Fritzsche also suggests a solution involving error of the eye (or one should say more likely of the ear while a scribe copied by dictation), namely, that the last syllable of γεενναν before βληθη caused confusion and resulted in αβληθη, which was immediately altered by conjecture to απελθη. This solution requires the earlier transposition of words, perhaps from 3:10 or 7:19. Another passage that could have suggested απελθη is 25:46. Yet Whitney (1:66) reasons that απελθη was "originally an endeavor to avoid the harsher word βληθη," and rightly cautions that internally the dissimilarity of βληθη in 5:29 and απελθη in 5:30 should carry no weight in the decision, since Jesus' "discourses, parables, and conversations generally are distinguished for the sameness of the phraseology in which identical thoughts are expressed," noting elsewhere (1:150) Jesus' fondness for lack of variety of expression, one example being ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη (5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43). In the end, versional influence or harmonization to Mark 9:43 seem the most likely explanations for prompting the editorial alteration.

Matt 1:19 παραδειγματισαι

Three related witnesses (ℵ1 B Z) and one secondary witness (f1) have δειγματισαι while all the rest have παραδειγματισαι. Suggesting that alliteration between -δειγ- and the preceding δικαιος may have played a role in the omission of the prepositional prefix παρα, Bengel (Apparatus, 92) states that hasty scribes often omitted the conjoined preposition and gave the simple form of a verb, a circumstance Kühnöl (13) says is well-known and happens a hundred times over. Both Wettstein (1:233) and Griesbach (1:16) agree that παραδειγματισαι carried a worse connotation than δειγματισαι, and hence (so Wettstein) some ancient critics preferred the less harsh word since Mary was of such great excellence that even the thought of Joseph doing something harsher to her might have caused some to lessen their high view of her (or him). It matters little if the meanings of the two words are not really different (so Fritzsche), only that ancient scribes and critics thought they were different (leading one to correct the harsher word to the less harsh), and supporting this fact are many fathers and two scholia that Matthäi (34) quotes and says are "very ancient" and "without question" were assembled from Origen. Griesbach is more balanced but argues that while either reading may be seen as a gloss, in such cases one may more safely rest assured in the reading that is more numerous among the old and weighty witnesses (in this case including at least ℵ* E N P W Σ), and for this reason he says that παραδειγματισαι must be preferred. Fritzsche (41) likewise agrees that παραδειγματισαι is original on internal and external grounds, but rightly cautions against the notion that scribes universally changed the complex form of the verb into the simple form, suggesting instead that scribes would often prefer whichever form of the verb was more common to them, be it the simple or the complex form. Therefore, based on substantial external support for the complex form, παραδειγματισαι should be considered original, especially since the origin of the simple form is accounted for by internal and transcriptional reasons and its support is notably non-diverse.