Matt 6:28 αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθει

Although the three verbs in most witnesses (E G K L M N S U V W Γ Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 0211 0233 0281 [Byz ca. 1500 mss] f13 565. 892. 1424; Bas), followed by Vogels, are in the singular number and in harmony with the parallel in Luke 12:27 and in general Koine style, a few witnesses (ℵ1 B f1 33; Ath) alter the grammatical number of the verbs from singular to plural (i.e., αυξανουσιν ... κοπιωσιν ... νηθουσιν) either by assimilation to 6:26 (where also a neuter plural subject is used) or by conformation to the influential Latin version, where plural subjects always take plural verbs.
     In Matt 6:26, 28, and 32 the subjects are neuter plural, which usually but not always take third person singular verbs. In most witnesses we find:

1. 6:26 τα πετεινα ... σπειρουσιν ... θεριζουσιν ... συναγουσιν
2. 6:28 τα κρινα ... αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθει
3. 6:32 τα εθνη ... επιζητει

However, in basically the same few related witnesses it seems that the grammatical number of the verbs in the second and third examples are assimilated toward those in the first:

1. 6:26 τα πετεινα ... σπειρουσιν ... θεριζουσιν ... συναγουσιν
2. 6:28 τα κρινα ... αυξανουσιν ... κοπιωσιν ... νηθουσιν (ℵ1 B [Θ] f1 33; Ath)
3. 6:32 τα εθνη ... επιζητουσιν (ℵ B Θ f1.13 33)

     While conformation to 6:26 is the likeliest explanation behind the readings in the minority of witnesses, cross-contamination from the early and influential Latin version (especially a bilingual Greek-Latin manuscript from the 2d century) might also explain the alterations. Such is almost certainly the cause of alteration in the following places involving Codex Bezae (D/05) in Matthew:

• 10:29 - πωλειται VS. πωλουνται (D)
• 13:4 - ηλθεν VS. ηλθον (D L Z al)
• 13:8 - εδιδου VS. εδιδουν (D)
• 13:40 - συλλεγεται  ... (κατα)καιεται VS. συνλεγονται ... κατακαιονται (D)
• 15:27 - εσθιει VS. εσθιουσιν (D)

There are also a few places in Matthew where it seems certain that some witnesses alter the singular verb (with a neuter plural subject) to the plural, including:

• 10:2 - εστιν VS. εισιν (L al)
• 13:7 - επεσεν VS. επεσαν (33)
• 13:8 - επεσεν VS. επεσαν (33; 247: επεσον)
• 15:18 - εξερχεται VS. εξερχονται (F M al)

Further, below are some of the disputed places in Matthew where most witnesses have the singular verb (with a neuter plural subject) but a minority have the plural:

• 13:16 - ακουει (E F G K L S U V W Y Γ Δ Π Φ Ω [Byz] 565)
  
       VS. ακουουσιν (ℵ B C D M N O X Θ Σ f1.[13] 33 1424 al)


• 19:13 - προσηνεχθη (E F G H Ivid K M S U V W Y Γ Δ Θ Π Φ Ω 078vid f1.13 [Byz] 565) 
       VS. προσηνεχθησαν (ℵ B C D L Nvid Σ 33. 1424 al)


• 25:32 - συναχθησεται (A E F H M S V W Y Γ Δ Φ Ω f1 [Byz] 892. 1424)
       VS. συναχθησονται (ℵ B D G K L U Θ Π Σ f13 al)


• 26:31 - διασκορπισθησεται (p37vid D E F G H2 K S U V W Y Γ Δ Π Φ Ω f1 [Byz] 565. 1424)
       VS. διασκορπισθησονται (p53vid ℵ A B C G H* I L M Σ f13 33 al)


• 27:52 - ηγερθη (A C E F H K M S U W Y Γ Δ Π Σ Φ Ω [Byz] 565. 1424)
       VS. ηγερθησαν (ℵ B D G L Θ f1.13 33 al)

     The same phenomenon of scribal conformation to a nearby usage may be observed in Matt 27:52, where some witnesses conform the number of the first verb with a neuter plural subject to that of the second and where some conform that of the second to that of the first, but where, again, the majority of all witnesses is seen to allow the two non-conformed verbal forms to remain side by side:

• 27:52 ανεωχθησαν ... ηγερθη ([C3] E F H K M S U Γ Δ Σ Φ Ω [Byz] 565. 1424)
• 27:52 ανεωχθησαν ... ηγερθησαν (ℵ[2] B D G [L] Θ f[1].13 [33] pc)
• 27:52 ανεωχθη ... ηγερθη (A C* W Y Π pc)

The situation in Matt 27:52 seems to confirm the observation regarding the majority of manuscripts in 6:26, 28, and 32 above, namely, that they have refrained from conforming the verbal number used by the author. In addition, cross-contamination from the plural forms used in an early Greek-Latin bilingual archetype may also be involved in the alterations seen in Matt 10:29; 13:4, 8, 16, 40; 15:27; 19:13; 25:32; 27:52. For these reasons the less-conformed type of text attested in most documents in Matt 6:28 and 32 should not be rejected.

Matt 6:5 προσευχη . . . εση

Some scribes, in favor of better syntax, altered the singular προσευχη and εση (D E K L M S U W Xvid Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω f13 33 k q sy-c.p.h) into the plural προσευχησθε and εσεσθε (ℵ2 B Z f1 892 lat sy-hmg co). Griesbach (1:65) disagrees: "For since the oration advances in the singular number in what precedes and follows (6:2, 3, 4, 6), a scribe or critic could easily have induced his mind to correct the author and write also in verse 5 προσευχη and εση in place of προσευχεσθε and εσεσθε." But this explanation, which dismisses almost the entire Greek tradition, overlooks weightier internal factors.
     Bloomfield (GNT, 42) states that "it is plain that the plural forms were introduced by Critics, who thought them required by the plurals further on, and were not aware that this use of the singular is a characteristic of the popular style in address," and also (Annotations, 5) that the plurals "may have been a correction issuing from critics, and introduced in order to suit the plural at φιλουσι."
     Indeed, it appears that the change to plural in some manuscripts was only natural in order to conform the verbs with the plural number of the subject of comparison that follows, οι υποκριται, which itself requires the understood (but unwritten) plural εισιν, assuming the authenticity of εση for the sake of argument. In 6:2 the subject of comparison (also οι υποκριται) has a plural verb supplied (ποιουσιν), and so the presence of the singular number ποιης and σαλπισης presented no difficulty. In 6:16 a situation similar to the present exists: the plural subject of comparison (again οι υποκριται) has no verb supplied, but since the second person plural forms were used (νηστευητε and γινεσθε), there is no grammatical discrepancy between the number of the subject of comparison and the verbs they serve.
     In 6:5, however, the discrepancy reflected in most manuscripts seemed difficult and thus was altered, naturally and perhaps first in early versions such as Latin and Coptic. Possibly, the origin of the plural number that is so slimly attested in Greek (only 3 manuscripts from before the 9th century) was through versional contamination, since early on bilingual manuscripts in non-Greek-speaking areas were in common use. Although less likely, conformation to the number of the plural verbs (φιλουσιν, φανωσιν, and απεχουσιν) that appear in the same verse might also explain the change.
     Additionally, there is possible evidence of a scribal attempt to cope with the more difficult reading of most manuscripts, namely, the transitional form attested in ℵ*: και οταν προσευχη [singular], ουκ εσεσθε [plural] ως οι υποκριται. Apparently the verb closest to the plural subject of the comparison (and thus thought to govern it since its own verb is unwritten) was altered to make its number conform with it.
     The fact that Matthew frequently switches between the singular and plural, with virtually never any major effect upon scribes, minimizes the weight of Griesbach's explanation and heightens the force of the real reason for the change that caused only a few surviving Greek manuscripts to suffer unnecessary alteration.