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 6:21 υμων . . . υμων

A few related witnesses and others (ℵ B 1. 372. 1582 lat co; Bas) twice have the singular personal pronoun σου instead of the plural υμων, as in the general consensus (including E G K L M S U V W Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω 0233 [Byz 1500+ mss] f1.13 33. 565. 1424 f sy bo-pt goth). Griesbach (Commentarius, 74) advocates the minority reading since "υμων could have crept in from the parallel passage of Luke 12:34 and also could have been pleasing to scribes because Jesus in vv. 19 and 20, to which this verse is attached, had addressed the listeners in the plural number. However, in Matthew the singular often displaces the plural, and vice versa."
     But Bengel (Apparatus, 110) judges that the singular entered from the following verse, and further explains (Gnomon, 195–6): "The objects which are mentioned in ver. 22, 23 (consequentia) are in the singular, those which are mentioned in ver. 19, 20 (antecedentia), with which this verse is connected, are in the plural number. The plural therefore must stand in this verse. The singular, 'thesaurus tuus,' 'thy treasure,' easily crept into the Latin Vulgate, and was convenient to the Greeks for ascetic discourses." Wettstein (1:330) rejects the minority reading because in his judgment the witnesses for it are "not very reliable." Bloomfield (GNT, 48) says that σου "was doubtless an alteration to adapt the word better to the singular σου at the next verse; the purblind Critics failing to see that the plural υμων is as suitable to a general injunction as the singular σου is to a particular illustration, which is made such for effect's sake. Thus at v. 24 the plural form is resumed, when the language of injunction is resumed."
     The saying assumes a wide variety of forms in the church fathers:

θησαυρος . . . νους του ανθρωπου (Justin)

νους τινος . . . θησαυρος αυτου (Clement of Alexandria)

νους του ανθρωπου . . . θησαυρος αυτου (Clement of Alexandria)

θησαυρος . . . καρδια (Origen [2x]; Gregory of Nyssa; Catena in Acts; Pseudo-Macarius [2x])

θησαυρος εκαστου . . . καρδια (Origen)

θησαυρος του ανθρωπου . . . καρδια αυτου (John Chrysostom [7x]; Catena in Matthew)

θησαυρος σου . . . καρδια σου (Eusebius; Ephrem; Basil of Caesarea; Evagrius Ponticus; Catena in Luke; Pseudo-Macarius [2x])

θησαυρος σου . . . καρδια (Basil of Caesarea [2x])

θησαυρος . . . καρδια σου (Didymus; John Chrysostom; Pseudo-Macarius)

θησαυρος υμων . . . καρδια υμων (Ephrem, John of Damascus)

θησαυρος . . . καρδια υμων (Photius)

Hans Dieter Betz (The Sermon on the Mount [ed. Adela Y. Collins; Hermeneia 54; Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1995], 437) notes the possibility that an older proverb has been purposefully deplatonized in Matt 6:21, which Justin and Clement have replatonized. Text-critically, an original plural υμων with the singular θησαυρος and καρδια could have provoked natural alterations, such as (1) a change to the third person singular (Justin, Clement, Origen, John Chrysostom), (2) the elimination of the plural pronoun (Origen, Gregory of Nyssa), (3) a change to conform the number of the pronoun to the number of the noun (Eusebius, Ephrem, Basil of Caesarea, Evagrius Ponticus). If Betz' hunch is correct and the saying in the tradition upon which Matt 6:21 hangs had singular genitival nouns/pronouns, this also might explain the wide diversity away from the plural. Additionally, one might argue a common Caesarean origin behind those few witnesses that read soυ (ℵ B 1. 372. 1582) and certain fathers who do so (Eusebius, Basil, Evagrius), although alteration to the second person pronoun for homiletical reasons could also have been in effect.

Matt 6:18 κρυπτω . . . κρυπτω

Very few witnesses (ℵ B [D] f1 pc) twice have κρυφαιω instead of κρυπτω, as in most (including E G K L M S U V W Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω 0233 0250 [Byz 1500+ mss] f13 33. 565. 892. 1424). Griesbach's explanation (Commentarius, 1:73–4) is classic: "Κρυφαιω should not at all be spurned. For this form of the word is not used in the New Testament, but it occurs several times among the Greek translators of the Old Testament. The Westerns, less meticulous in these things, preserved the rarer form; the Alexandrians along with the Byzantines substituted the more familiar [form], which in this very chapter had preceeded four times in vss. 4 and 6 and, having implanted itself in the memory of scribes, began to adhere to this place." Von Soden (1:1014) similarly explains, "As the difference from 6:4, 6 was hard to understand for a scribe, who was much more inclined toward assimilation, so the agreement of ℵ-B with documents completely unrelated to this archetype necessitates the admission of κρυφαιω into a respected class, thus in H [=Egyptian] or I [Jerusalem]."
     The reason for hesitation in accepting the rarer κρυφαιω is primarily methodological but also based on the corresponding internal consideration that the κρυπτ- form is demonstrably Matthean (5:14; 6:4 [twice], 6 [twice]; 10:26; 11:25; 13:33, 35, 44 [twice]; 25:18, 25; Mark's sole instance is in 4:22), whereas the κρυφ- form is otherwise unattested in Matthew (but does occur in Mark, also in 4:22). To quote Hort (2:34–5 [§43]):

[T]he difference between isolated judgements and combined judgements is vital. In the one case any misapprehension of the immediate evidence . . . tells in full force upon the solitary process by which one reading is selected from the rest for adoption, and there is no room for rectification. In the other case the selection is suggested by the result of a large generalisation about the documents . . . [and] rests on too broad a foundation of provisional judgements, at once confirming and correcting each other, to be materially weakened by the chance or probability that some few of them are individually unsound."

     Robinson and Pierpont state the same principle in the preface to their edition (viii): "Byzantine-priority theory does not operate on an eclectic variant-by-variant basis. Rather, it continually investigates the position of all variant units within the history of transmission" (emphasis mine). It is this principle that prevents scholars, e.g., from receiving the rarer φαγεσθε in 1 Cor 10:27, even though it is the earliest attested reading (cf. p46) and appears in distinction to the otherwised harmonized εσθιετε, which appears in 10:25 and 28.
     Consequently, the reason for κρυφαιω's rise in a few witnesses of Matthew, just as for p46's φαγεσθε in 1 Cor 10:27, is necessarily speculative. Matthäi (91) remarks, "Perhaps κρυφαιω was obtained from Origen, whose commentary unfortunately is not extant at this place." Fritzsche (274), on the other hand, greatly wonders whether κρυπτω might not have been "rashly refined into κρυφαιω by those who had referred to God as 'the hidden God' [occulto Deo] from a wrong interpretation of κρυπτω." And in fact Eusebius (Demonstratio evangelica 5.4.4–15 [GCS 9/3:224–6]) abandons the LXX rendering of מסתתר in Is 45:15 as και ουκ ηδειμεν ("and we did not know [him]") in favor of the translations of Aquila (αποκρυπτομενος), Theodotion (κρυφαιος), and Symmachus (κρυφαιος), saying that "very wonderfully does [Isaiah] call Christ the 'Hidden God,'" and using this text to argue for the eternal existence and godhead of Jesus. But neither do Eusebius' interpretation nor Western theology's important Deus Absconditus concept (which is more about absence than blessing) fit very well internally at this place in Matthew.
     On the other hand, the introduction of the synonym κρυφαιω may have been simply an early editorial preference to escape the repition of κρυπτω (4 times in the previous few verses), or for some other unknown reason. In this regard it is not insignificant that the Alexandrian Cyril (Commentarii in Lucam 22.40 [PG 72:921A]), when citing the model prayer in Matthew 6:6, says "προσευξαι τω Πατρι σου τω εν τω κρυφαιω· και ο Πατηρ σου ο βλεπων εν τω κρυφαιω αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω," even though no known manuscripts have κρυφαιω in Matt 6:6 (all have κρυπτω there).
     Finally, we cannot agree that the mere alignment of D and f1 with the archetype of ℵ-B constitutes an outstanding class of evidence. A casual glance at the many coincidences of those witnesses in the first six chapters of Matthew proves that they are not so "completely unrelated" as von Soden claims. Further, it is the combined judgment of the continual sequence of the readings of manuscripts in the manuscript tradition, and not individual and arbitrary judgments without regard to such, that causes the consensus text's κρυπτω to be preferred; that term is also demonstrably more Matthean, while the other is not.

Matt 6:1 ελεημοσυνην

Some witnesses (ℵ*.2 B D 0250 f1 892 pc lat Or-lat Hil Aug Hier) reflect that Jesus' first warning in chapter 6 was against doing one's "righteousness" (δικαιοσυνην) before men to receive their praise instead of one's "alms" (ελεημοσυνην), as most witnesses have (E K L M S U W Z Δ Θ Π Σ Ω 047 f13 33 565 1424 f k sy-p.h mae-1 Chr). In favor of ελεημοσυνην is Walter Nagel, "Gerechtigkeit -- oder Almosen? (Mt 6, 1)," Vigiliae Christianae 15:3 (1961): 141–45," whose main points are summarized below, followed by some further considerations:

1. Citing Bengel as an example, there has been a precedent to receive δικαιοσυνην based primarily on one's exegetical preference for it as the major subject of the Sermon on the Mount (cf. 5:6, 10, 20; 6:33).
2. A major theme of the Sermon on the Mount is not to be assumed from form-critical considerations, and if it were, it would be the "kingdom of heaven" and not "righteousness." Also, since it is doubtful that every original word has been preserved in the so-called great manuscripts of the fourth century, and since we are asking about the text of a much earlier time (second and third centuries), the few so-called great manuscripts should be interpreted in light of the tradition and not the other way around.
3. Structural analysis of Matt 6:1–18 indicates that Matthew introduces each warning with the second person plural (προσεχετε [6:1], προσευχησθε [6:5], νηστευητε [6:16]) and follows with the second person singular (ποιης [6:2], προσευχη [6:6], αλειψαι [6:17]). Thus structural analysis seems to require ελεημοσυνην in 6:1. [Note: almost all Greek witnesses in 6:5 do not have the second person plural but rather the second person singular προσευχη, which Nagel dismisses as secondary due to scribal conformation to the same form in 6:6].
4. The worth of the reading δικαιοσυνην shrivels in light of the ancient versions, since in support are only a few important Greek witnesses, part of the Old Latin tradition, and a single Old Syriac manuscript (sy-s). [Note: although cited in NA25 but not NA27, support of sy-s for δικαιοσυνην is unfounded, since it uses the same word (zdq) in 6:1 as it does in 6:2, 3, 4 for ελεημοσυνην. If anything, this circumstance rather suggests the support of sy-s for ελεημοσυνην!] For ελεημοσυνην are the Old Syriac tradition behind the Peshitta, the Arabic text of the Diatessaron ("alms"), the Curetonian Old Syriac ("gift"), the Nestorian form of the Syriac ("gift of mercy"), the Syriac-dependent Armenian version ("alms"), probably the Sahidic ("things of pity"; the Sahidic omits 6:1, but cf. mntna in 6:3), the Bohairic ("charity"), the sole African Old Latin manuscript (k/1) and the European Old Latin Brixianus (f/10) [both have eleemosyna and not justitia], Origen and Apollinarius are anything but complete (in fact, "For both of these church fathers ελεημοσυνη is the original text," p. 143). "And so of the Greek and extra-Greek material not much remains in support of δικαιοσυνη" (143).
5. On historical grounds, even the witnesses that have δικαιοσυνην do not support the sense of "righteousness," since in many places the LXX translates the Hebrew zdq with "alms," Köhler-Baumgartner suggests "kindness" as the trasnlation of zdq in Isaiah 56–63, in many places the Hillel school says the same (cf. Strack-Billerbeck), Jerome when he prepared this place in the Vulgate said that justitia (righteousness) meant "alms," and even Origen knows the reading δικαιοσυνην only in the sense of "alms." So even though the reading δικαιοσυνην is old, it is seen as a variation of ελεημοσυνην and not vice versa and thus has no intrinsic theological value, much less can it be seen as proof for an interplay with Pauline notions of the word.
6. Lexical considerations offer nothing conclusive in favor of either of the two words in question: "In Greek righteousness and alms are never confused or interchanged with each other. But this possibility due to pronunciation and spelling is clearly evident in the Western Aramaic and Syriac linguistic field" (144). E.g., Dalman's Aramaic-New Hebrew dictionary shows that through a small change "righteousness" (zdqa and zdquta) can be retained under the radical for "alms" (zdqta), and vice versa. In the earliest Syriac spelling or Estrangela, the similar interchange of alms (sdqta) and righteousness (sdiquta) occurs with merely the addition or subtraction of the two smallest letters of the alphabet, yod and waw. Perhaps it was a harmless word game, since the newly created word would have had the same meaning as the word that was changed (cf. sy-s, which uses the same word zdiqut in 6:1, 2, 3, 4). "Thus the reader could find here the well-known identification of alms and righteousness in the LXX and with Hillel certainly and the Judeo-Christian in general. On the same ground a Greek Judeo-Christian scribe unhesitatingly could have translated literally the wording found in sy-s and written δικαιοσυνη in place of the earlier ελεημοσυνη" (144).
7. "In order to avoid every misreading or mispronunciation a new root needed to be selected, in this case a derivative of the root jhb with the meaning 'offering,' which would no longer be deflected into a different word through small alterations." This word is found in sy-c, Ephrem, the first corrector of Sinaiticus, the Coptic, and, although younger than the two readings in question, it stands closer to "alms" and thus must be understood as a confirmation of that reading. "This judgment becomes sound through the observation that the most important Syriac witness presents this word in the plural (cf. Ephrem according to Burkitt: gifts vs. sy-c: auhbtkun). As the Arabic text of Tatian at Matt 6:1 likewise has a plural . . . , therefore Ephrem and Tatian confirm each other through these against the Greek wording with the opposite number and must therefore in this case be regarded as the oldest reading" (145). The plural is only sensible when alms or gifts is written or spoken, since righteousness is always only found in the singular in the OT passages. Sy-c has the singular because it followed sy-s. ℵ1 has the singular either in reference to sy-c or due to the common mistaking of ει and ι (itacism), thus writing δοσις instead of δοσεις. But also possible is an analogous occurrence of the alteration of οφειληματα into οφειλην in Didache 8:2 = Matt 6:12.

     Nagel's argument offers a plausible explanation for how a small minority of manuscripts that are often related could have come to read δικαιοσυνην. Below are some text-critical excerpts and further considerations for the present discussion.
     Erasmus (2:30), apparently unaware of the Greek textual support for δικαιοσυνην, notes that the Greek text has ελεημοσυνην, "not righteousness, in order to correspond with what follows," i.e., 6:2–4. He also notes that although Jerome and Augustine read "righteousness" in their Latin text, they nevertheless expound "alms." Bèze and Grotius both prefer δικαιοσυνην. Mill (14) explains: "I have no doubt but that the interpreter of Matthew thus [i.e., with δικαιοσυνην] rendered Tsedakah in this place; but ελεημοσυνην crept into the text from the margin of certain manuscripts"; and (Prolegomena:42 [§393]), "Righteousness specifically in this place is not strictly kind deeds to the poor, but evangelical righteousness in general, the kinds of which are alms, prayers, fasting, etc. Christ had said above that the righteousness which he examines from his own [children] surpasses the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees," and furthermore the error occurred "since the word ελεημοσυνην occurs in v. 2 and in fact because of the particle ουν it appeared to refer to righteousness, and thinking of the first verse, a certain reader was prone to assign "goodwill," ελεομοσυνην, to δικαιοσυνην from this place of explanation [i.e., from 6:2]. And so it appears to have crept into the place of the other relatively more obscure word from the first centuries of the church."
     Wettstein (1:317) quotes Jerome (c. Pelag. II.), "Beware that you do not do your righteousness [justitiam], that is, alms [eleemosynam] . . . ," and also notes: "[Righteousness] is approved by Grotius, Mill, Bengel, and others, but they do not share the same opinion on the meaning of the word righteousness, as some hold that it may rightly mean everything--especially prayer and fasting--which the following passage is about, while others contend that here the words for righteousness and alms, according to the usage of the Hebrews, are synonyms. But I do not see how, by either (foregoing) method one decides, this [i.e., righteousness] can make sense in the passage. If by the former method, I would like to know the places where fasting and prayer are called righteousness: to live righteously is written δικαιοσυνην ποιειν, certainly not ποιειν την δικαιοσυνην αυτου. If by the latter [method], they will not easily persuade me that Matthew, where he writes about the same thing, referred to it with the same word three times but one time with another [word] which could not have failed to appear obscure; neither to the impartial judge should the authority of the Latins be greater than the testimony of the Greeks."
     Griesbach (1:59–64), who argues for δικαιοσυνην, sounds a familiar refrain: "For if there is a canon as true as it is certain, it is this: that reading is to be preferred which is harder, more obscure, more insolent, and approaching more nearly to the Hebrews' custom of speaking; surely δικαιοσυνη is better than the common ελεημοσυνη" (1:61). Speaking of the fact that the Latin translation of Origen's works often exhibit justitiam, Griesbach concedes, "I certainly grant that it could have been transcribed from the Latin version to which those translators had been accustomed" (1:61–2). "In addition, the gloss ελεημοσυνη obviously was carried over from vss. 2, 3, 4" (1:62).
     The argument that δικαιοσυνην is the harder reading is negated by the plausible reasons for its origin in a few manuscripts that are often related (cf. Nagel's article above). Once the error (or possibly the innocent play on words in the Syriac which influenced the Old Latin) entered the manuscript tradition, there would have been little reason for anyone to remove such a valuable Judeo-Christian gem in this place (cf. 5:20 and the importance scholars such as Mill and Bengel ascribe to the connection). In addition, one cannot discount the possibility that the similar endings of the two words (the last 6 letters of both are identical) could have created the initial introduction of δικαιοσυνην by accident, especially since that word appears 3 times in the previous chapter (5:6, 10, 20) and is 7 times more common in the NT than ελεημοσυνη (92x vs. 13x). The external support for ελεημοσυνην is overwhelming, including almost all Greek manuscripts, arguably the most important Old Latin witness (k/1), the Middle Egyptian (mae-1), and most versions directly or indirectly (cf. Nagel above). The patristic support for dικαιοσυνην is apparently entirely Latin and thus of no primary significance, especially since the origin of the Latin reading has been accounted for. Consequently, there is little reason to reject ελεημοσυνην as the original reading in Matt 6:1.

Matt 5:47 τελωναι ουτως

Some witnesses have εθνικοι το αυτο (including ℵ B D Z f1 33 205 892 1424 al lat sy-c.h co; Bas), but the same internal criterion that would have us accept εθνικοι due to its variance from τελωναι in 5:46 would also have us reject το αυτο due to its apparent assimilation to the same in 5:46. And although some editors (e.g. Griesbach, Fritzsche, Kühnöl, von Soden) have followed this internal criterion strictly and printed εθνικοι ουτως, there are reasons why τελωναι ουτως should not be rejected automatically:

(1) The recurrence of τελωναι (5:46, 47) appeared tautological and invited alteration. Just as Bloomfield (GNT, 1:40) argues that ουτως should be rejected on account of its "great probability" of being a correction "to remove a tautology," it is fair to question why the possible recurrence of the relatively insignificant το αυτο would have prompted correction for this reason rather than the much more noticeable double-occurrence of τελωναι, assuming it to be original.

(2) The nearby use of the relatively rare term εθνικοι (Matt 6:7) in the memorable passage on prayer could have prompted expositors or editors to assimilate one of the occurrences of τελωναι to the expression there, especially since tautology is generally considered a fault of style and thus something to be alleviated rather than created.

(3) Had τελωναι come about by accident, the non-conformity of ουτως is difficult to explain.

(4) The famous ecclesiological passage in Matt 18:17, where both εθνικος and τελωνης are linked together, could have influenced someone toward assimilation. By way of example, Justin (1 Apologia 15.9–10) has οι πορνοι . . . οι τελωναι when citing this pericope, perhaps due to the connection of those terms in Matt 21:31–32. Cf. also the use of τα εθνη in Didache 1.3 in reference to the present pericope, perhaps influenced by the similar comparative technique in Matt 6:32, where τα εθνη occurs.

(5) Although Bloomfield judges that the antithesis favors εθνικοι, he also concedes that the term could have arisen "from a wish to strengthen the antithesis."

(6) Any of the above alterations could have been assisted by the accidental omission of the text in question by two different occurrences of homoeoteleuton error: (a) the skipping from ποι- of ποιειτε to ποι- of ποιουσιν (resulting in the omission of ουχι και οι [τελωναι ουτως]), as actually occurs in one witness (1330); (b) the skipping of the entire verse from ποιουσιν of 5:46 to ποιουσιν of 5:47, as occurs in 18 witnesses (see below).


Text und Textwert #16 results:

1    τελωναι ουτως
07 017 019 028 037 038 041 045 047 055 0257 2 3 6 7 8 9 11 12 14 15 18 23 24 25 26 27 29 30 34 35 36 37 40S 43 45 46 47 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 58 61C 63 65 66 68 70 71 72 73 75 76 77 78 80 83 84 86 89 90 98 100 105 106 107 108 109 111 114 117 119 120 123 125 128 129 130 133 134 136 137 138 140 141 142 143 144 147 148 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 160 162 167 169 170 171 175 178 179 180 182 183 185 186 187 188 189 190 192 195 196 198 200 201 202 204 207 208 211 212 213 214 217 218 219 220 224 225 226 227 228 229 231 232 234 236 237 238 240 243 244 245 246 247 248 259 260 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 274 275 276 278 280 282 283 284 286 288 289 290 291 293 295 296 297 298 301 303 304 305 306 324 329 330 334 343 344 345 347 350 351 353 354 355 358 359 360 361 363 364 365 366 367 373 374 375 376 377 379 380 386 387 388 390 391 392 393 394 399 402 405 406 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 417 419C 420 422 428 431 438 439 440 444 445 446 448 449 461 470 473 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 489 490 491 493 494 495 497 500 501 504 505 506 507 509 510 511 512 516 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 527 528 529 530 535 544 546 547 548 549 550 551 553 554 555 557 558 563 564C 565 568 569 574 575 578 579 581C 583 584 586 592 594 595 597 600 645 649 651 652 655 660 662 663 664 666 668 672 676 677 679 680 683 684 685 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 696 697 699 706 707 708 711 713 714 715 717 718 719 722 724 725 727 728 729 730 731 733 734 735 736 737 738 741 744 746 747 750 751 752 753 754 757 758 761 762 764 765 766 768S 769 772S 774 775 777 778 779 780 781 784 785 786 787 789 790 793 794S 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 804 805 808 809 811 817 818 819 820 824 825 827 830 833 834 835 836 839 842 843 844 845 851 854 855 856 858 860 861 864 872 873 875 877 878 880 881 886 888 889 890 896 899C 900 902 906 922 924 925 926 927 928 929 931 932 933 934 935 938 939 940 942 943 944 945 946 948 949 951 952 954 955 956 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 970 971 972 973 975 980 982 986 987 988 989 991 992 994 995 997 998 999 1003 1005 1007 1008 1010 1011C 1013 1014 1015 1018 1019 1020 1021 1026 1028 1030 1033 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1042S 1043 1046 1047S 1048 1052 1056 1057 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1068 1072 1073 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1088 1089 1090 1092 1095 1096 1097 1110 1111 1114 1117 1120 1122 1123 1125 1126 1127 1130 1131 1132 1133 1135 1137 1138 1145 1146 1149 1152 1155 1159 1160 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1172 1173 1174 1176 1179 1180 1181 1182 1185 1188 1189 1190 1191 1193 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1203 1206 1207 1208 1210 1211 1213 1214 1215 1217 1218 1219 1221 1222 1223 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1238 1239 1240 1242 1243 1247 1250 1251 1252 1261 1262 1263 1266 1278 1280 1281 1290 1291 1292 1293 1296 1297 1298 1299 1301 1302 1303 1305 1310S 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1327 1328 1329 1333 1334 1335 1336 1338 1339 1340 1341 1343 1344 1345 1346 1347 1348 1350 1352 1353 1354 1355 1357 1358 1359 1362 1364 1375 1383 1384 1385 1388 1391 1392 1394 1395 1396 1397 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1406 1407 1409 1410 1413 1414S 1415 1418 1420 1422 1438 1439 1441 1442 1444 1445 1446 1447 1449 1450 1452 1453 1454 1456 1457 1458 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464S 1465 1466 1467 1468 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1480 1482 1483 1484 1486 1487 1488 1489 1491 1492 1493 1495 1496 1498 1499 1501 1503 1505 1506 1508 1510 1511 1521 1530 1531 1532 1533 1536 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1555 1557 1558 1559 1560 1562 1564 1570 1572 1577 1580 1581 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1594 1595 1597 1600 1601 1602 1603 1605 1609 1613 1615 1617 1620 1622 1624 1625 1628 1629 1633 1634 1635 1637 1639 1641 1642 1643 1646 1647 1649 1651 1652 1653 1659 1660 1664 1665 1667 1668 1670 1671 1672 1677 1678T 1680 1682 1685 1686 1687 1688 1690 1691 1694 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703C 1704 1713 1780 1797 1800 1802 1813 1814 2095 2097 2099 2101 2107 2108 2109 2112 2117 2118 2122 2123 2126 2127 2131 2132 2133 2135 2141 2142 2146 2147 2148 2159 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2181 2191 2193 2195 2199 2201 2204 2206 2207 2215 2217 2224 2229 2236 2255 2260 2261 2263 2265 2266 2267 2273 2277 2278 2280 2281 2284 2287 2290S 2291 2292C 2295 2296 2297 2301 2304 2307 2314C 2321 2324 2328 2352 2354 2355 2362 2367 2369 2370 2371 2373 2374 2375 2382 2383 2386 2387 2388 2390 2396 2398 2400 2404 2406 2407 2411 2414 2415 2420 2422 2426 2430 2439 2442 2444 2454 2458 2460 2470 2471 2472 2476 2477 2478 2479 2482 2483 2487 2488 2489 2490 2492 2494 2496 2497 2499 2502 2503 2508 2509 2510 2511 2515 2516 2520 2521 2523 2524 2525 2528S 2539 2545 2551 2554 2555 2559S 2561 2562 2567 2571 2577 2578 2579 2581 2583 2585 2590 2591 2592 2598 2604 2605 2606 2608 2610 2612 2614 2615 2616 2620 2622 2624 2633 2634 2635 2636 2637 2645 2646 2653 2656 2658 2660 2665 2666 2670 2673 2684 2685 2687 2689 2691 2692 2693S 2694 2695 2702 2703 2705 2707 2708 2710 2713 2714 2715 2718 2727 2728S 2729 2730 2735 2745 2749 2754 2756 2760 2765 2766 2767 2770 2775 2781 2783 2787 2788 2806 2808 2809 2812 2836
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1151

1B    τελωναι τουτως
1631
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

1C    τελωνες ουτως
17 287 745
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 3

1D    πλωναι ουτως
61*
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

2    εθνικοι το αυτο
01 03 05 035 1 5 33 44 163 164 184 205 209 262 279 335 348 349 372 395C 418 447 513 517 561 566 803 892 1044 1071 1074 1118 1216 1241 1279 1282 1421T 1424 1443 1481 1502 1573 1579 1582 1666 1675 1678L 1695 1816 1823 2465 2530 2680 2701S 2726 2786
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 56

3    τελωναι το αυτο
021 030 032 042 4 10 13 16 19 21 28 31 38 39 48 57 60 67 112 113 116 118S 124 126 127C 132 135S 146 149 191 193 210 235 263 273 277 285 299 310 331 333 346 352 371 395* 423 471 492 496 498 515 532 534 543 552 556 564* 571 577 580 585 587 588 590 591C 596 700 703 726 732 740 755 759 760 763 776 782 783 788 791 822 826 863 893 895 901 903 923 930 937 953 957 968 969 974 978 979 983 996 1000 1001 1006 1012 1017 1024 1032 1050 1053 1091 1113 1144 1148 1171 1186 1194 1195 1202 1224 1237 1248 1269 1272 1273 1285 1288 1289 1294 1309 1317 1326 1342 1356 1377 1386 1389 1390 1393 1421L 1432 1434 1435 1436 1451 1479 1485 1490 1497 1500 1528 1556 1563 1576 1578 1606 1623 1630 1640 1661 1676 1692 1693 1703* 1712 1808 1901 1966 2120 2139 2182 2213 2220 2221 2283 2292* 2314* 2317 2323 2356 2381 2394 2405 2446 2452 2467 2507 2533 2546 2557 2613 2623 2676 2706 2709 2722 2724 2757 2780 2810
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 198

3B    τελωναι το αυτον
828
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

3C    τελωναι το αυτος
419*
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

4    τελωναι τουτο
582 657C 720 723 871 1029 1178 1387 1534 2100 2322 2372C 2397 2550 2650 2774
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 16

5    εθνικοι τουτο
22 1093 1187 1192 1365 1604 2372* 2831
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 8

6    εθνικοι ουτως
59 131 159 161 165 173 174 199 230 233 251 443 560 716 806 852 904 905 941 1004 1023 1025 1058 1121 1136 1204 1205 1212 1230 1260 1367 1448 1575 1645 2315 2737
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 36

7    εθνικοι ως αυτως
20 215 300 537 773 1404
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 6

8    εθνικοι ως αυτως το αυτο
122 1268 1494 1632 2603C
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 5

U    Homoeoteleuton: περισσον ποι[ειτε ... αυτο ποι]ουσιν
1330
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

V    Omission of vs. 47
0211 64 261 389 435 581* 591* 792 1009 1011* 1408 1455 1519 1535 1804 2518 2586 2734
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 18

W    Uncertain whether #3 or #4
899*
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

Matt 5:47 φιλους

The term φιλους of most manuscripts (including E K L M S U W Δ Θ Π Σ 33 1006 1342 1506 f h sy-h; Bas Lcf) is altered to αδελφους in some Greek manuscripts and other witnesses (ℵ B D Z f1.13 205 892 pc lat sy-c.p co; Cyp), and also the Textus Receptus, in order to provide a Judeo-Christian gloss or to give variation to what was thought tautological, namely, the correspondence of τους φιλους with τους αγαπωντας υμας (5:46). Cf. also the following note, Matt 5:47 τελωναι ουτως.
     Erasmus (2:30) notes that the Jews call each other brothers no matter their relation, and although he states that "most Greek manuscripts have τους φιλους υμων," he nevertheless prints αδελφους, which in turn was followed by nearly all editors until Wettstein (1:316) corrected it in the margin of his text. Bèze (1:41) follows Erasmus but also states that in his time τους φιλους is read "in all the old manuscripts." Grotius (1:213) suggests that φιλους arose in certain manuscripts by way of explanation. Apart from Wettstein (and later von Soden and Vogels), basically everyone supports the authenticity of the minority reading, αδελφους. Fritzsche (252) says that no one would have ever changed φιλους into αδελφους, Bloomfield (GNT, 1:39–40) says φιλους is "evidently a gloss," and even Scholz (1:13), who usually follows the majority text, reads αδελφους.
     Nevertheless, there are several reasons why the reading φιλους, which predominates in the Greek textual tradition, could have given rise to αδελφους.
     First, the meaning of φιλους already present in the preceding verse by way of τους αγαπωντας υμας could have perpetrated an annoyance on certain readers, scribes, editors, translators. For example, one of Mill's reasons for rejecting φιλους is because "mention of those who love, or friends, occurs in the preceding sentence" (14). Griesbach (1:59) likewise mentions that Christ already talks about friends in the previous verse but here wishes to address the Jews specifically; so also Kühnöl (170–1), who contends that "'friends' cannot be understood suitably in this place, since the discussion about them was in verse 46." Thus if the tautology annoyed modern minds, it must also have annoyed the ancients'.
     Second, the sheer frequency and ecclesiological significance (cf., e.g., 1 Thess 5:26) of the term αδελφος, which occurs thirty times more frequently than φιλος in Matthew, not only would have been less likely to have been altered, if original, but also would have been a likely choice to replace the less common term, especially given the similar pronunciation and spelling of φιλους and αδελφους.
     Third, the word αδελφος already occurs earlier in the chapter (5:22, 23, 24) with the same meaning that commentators give to it here, and no scribes felt a desire to alter it there; on the contrary, the very presence of the term in such near vicinity is more likely to have invited alteration toward it in the present case than, were it original, away from it.
     Fourth, seemingly tautological statements are not uncommon in Matthew, and should not be militated against unnecessarily here (cf., e.g., 5:29, 30; 6:14, 15, etc.). For these reasons φιλους, the reading in most manuscripts, may in fact be original.

Matt 1:18 γεννησις

Although instead of γεννησις (birth) a number of old manuscripts (p1 ℵ B C P S W Z Δ Θ Σ f1 579 pc) have γενεσις (birth, origin), the greater antiquity of the former (γεννησις) is demonstrated in part by Irenaeus in the second century and Origen in the third. Grotius (1:21) flatly states that "at one time most manuscripts had γενεσις (beginning)," and that whoever wrote Dialogi adversus Macedonianos not only cites it in this way, but clearly adds, 'η γενεσις ειπεν ουχ η γεννησις' ('beginning' is read, not 'birth'), and used this argument to show οτι τον ναον του σωματος του Χριστου το Πνευμα το αγιον εκτισε (the temple of the body of Christ was built by the Holy Spirit), and once again, πρωτον γενεσιν ακουε του ναου και τοτε γεννησιν (understand first the beginning of the temple, then the birth)." Mill (Prolegomena:72 [§757]) writes: "But there are also many alterations: Ιησου η γενεσις ουτως ην in Matt 1:18, as the author of Dialogi 3 de Trin §25 says, 'η γενεσις ουχι η γεννησις': and so perhaps certain manuscripts of his time. But γενεσις crept in from the beginning of this chapter." Furthermore, in regard to Maximus the Confessor, Mill elaborates (Prolegomena:99 [§1021]): "But also elsewhere in the third Dialogi, so the orthodox one: 'η γενεσις ειπεν, ουχι η γεννησις' (Matt 1:18). But since γενεσις only existed in a certain few manuscripts and indeed appears to have been transferred from the first verse of this chapter, and as γεννησις is in all current manuscripts and is that which accords with [true] orthodoxy, it follows that this one rather than the former is to be read." Bengel (Gnomon, 110) expounds that εγεννηθη in 1:16 and γεννησις here refer mutually to each other, the latter including both the conception (γεννηθεν, 1:20) and the nativity (γεννηθεντος, 2:1). Rinck (247) suggests that this evangelist appears to establish a distinction between the ancestry of Christ (γενεσις) in verse 1 and his nativity (γεννησις) in verse 18. Wettstein (1:222–3) argues that the orthodox would use γενεσις to say that Jesus materially became mankind, that the Greeks used this word in their lectionary title for this passage, that the use of γενεσις in 1:1 signifies something different, and that Jesus, although referred to with γινομαι in Scripture (Gal 4:4; Rom 1:3; John 1:4), is nevertheless clearly referred to with γενναω in Matthew (1:20, 2:1), and for these reasons the reading that appears in the vast majority of all Greek manuscripts, namely, γεννησις, was without doubt the reading that proceeded from Matthew. Matthäi (33) argues that γεννησις was rashly changed into γενεσις from the scholia of scribes, quotes a scholium showing indifference toward distinguishing the two terms, and furthermore notes that scribes repeatedly intermingled the words γενναω and γινομαι even in other writers, just as they do βαλειν and λαβειν. Given that γεννησις is the older reading, reflects the consensus of all Greek and Old Latin manuscripts and is more consistent with Matthew's contextual literary technique (cf. 1:20 and 2:1), that γενεσις is the more classical term and was arguably more apologetically popular to the orthodox (and therefore more likely to elicit assimilation to it than away from it), that various scholia and the Greek lectionary title of the passage could have influenced the alteration of γεννησις in the text, and that the temptation to scribes would have been great to assimilate γεννησις at this place to γενεσις in 1:1 due to the presence of Ιησου Χριστου connected to the terms in both places, it is necessary to retain γεννησις as authentic. Cf. the note on Luke 1:14, where the same variation occurs, and John 8:41, where a few manuscripts alter γεγεννημεθα into γεγενημεθα (p66 N W 0250 f13 565 al). Cf. also the treatment of Burgon (Revision Revised, 119–22), who cites the following fathers in support of γεννησις: Justin, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Clement of Alexandria, Origen, Basil, Athanasius, Epiphanius, Gregory of Nazianzus, Cyril of Alexandria, Nestorius, Chrysostom, Theodore of Mopsuestia; Zahn (69–70), who begins his critical explanation thus: "With still greater certainty is γεννησις to be read in spite of the noble testimony for γενεσις (p1 ℵ B C P S Z Δ Σ pc)" (72); and also Lagrange (8–9). For perhaps the most thorough defense of γεννησις ever published, see Solomon Caesar Malan, A Plea for the Received Greek Text and for the Authorised Version of the New Testament (London: Hatchards, 1869), 1–31.