Matt 7:4 απο

While most Greek manuscripts (including E G K L M S U V W X Δ Θ Π Φ Ω 047 0211 [Byz ca. 1490 mss] f35 565. 892. 1500. 2224) retain the preposition απο, which Greeven, Soden, Tischendorf (7th ed.), and Vogels approve, a few (ℵ B N Σ f1.13 33. 1424), followed by Bover, Lachmann, Merk, and Tischendorf (8th ed.), alter απο to εκ either by accommodation to the preposition of the preceding compound verb εκβαλω, by assimilation to the same expression in 7:5, or because the expression with εκ seemed more customary than with απο.
     Alford (1:70) and Soden (2:17) indicate that εκ arose from assimilation to 7:5, and Meyer (161) similarly notes, "With εκβαλω and ver. 5 before them, the copyists involuntarily wrote the εκ." Weiss (101–2) concurs, "But then all the newer [copies] resisted the mechanical assimilation of εκβαλω—εκ in Matt 7:4 (ℵ B), which anyway arose on account of the εκβ. εκ of v. 5 being so near, and similarly with the εξελθων εκ in 24:1 (B), where it is rather overlooked that the απο τ. ιερου does not at all belong to this verb, but rather to επορευετο, which is also why C X Maj. place it after the [verb]."
     Fritzsche (288) explains the origin of εκ but also the reason for απο thus: "The reading εκ has no power to stand randomly in the place of the common απο. And in fact εκ either came here from vs. 5 or απο was altered into the more common εκ by a scribe on account of its being less customary. But the difference is this, that εκ signifies that something has fastened to another thing out of which it is now moving, απο that something has been in a nearby thing from which it is now being separated." Also instructive is Cook's observation (64–5): "The word εκ is physically correct, but απο is better as referring to the intention. . . . In v. 5, εκ is generally adopted. The intention has been marked sufficiently by the old reading in the preceding clause; the act itself is now distinctly described."
     As compelling internal arguments corroborate the preponderance of external witnesses, there is little doubt that απο should be retained in the text.

Matt 5:39 ραπισει επι

Some witnesses (ℵ* B W Σ pc) have the more vivid present tense with a different preposition (ραπιζει εις) instead of the future ραπισει with επι as in most witnesses (including D L Θ f1.13 892 1006 1506 mae1 bo). The variations ραπισει/ραπιζει and επι/εις could have arisen through attempted repair of a common transcriptional error, namely, the scribe skipping the six letters after "ραπι" due to the identical letters that make up the end of επι. Meyer's suggestion (110) that the future ραπισει is a conformation to 5:41 is unlikely, since it is at least equally possible that a scribe merely wanted to enliven the expression, conform the tense to previous usage (5:29, 30, 32, 36), or both. Furthermore, the preposition εις would have garnered sympathy over επι due to the following accusative case, when the genitive case following ραπιζω + επι was rather to be expected as in classical usage (cf. Bloomfield, GNT, 1:37). Not unsurprisingly, a few manuscripts (ℵ* D W Θ 700 892 2542 pc) also read εις instead of επι in the parallel passage of Luke 6:29. There is altogether little reason to abandon the reading of most witnesses which likely reflects intentional authorial conformity within the paragraph, namely, οστις σε ραπισει . . . οστις σε αγγαρευσει . . . . Cf. also the notes on Matt 4:5 ιστησιν and Matt 4:9 λεγει.

Matt 3:3 υπο

     The preposition υπο is changed into δια in a number of manuscripts (ℵ B C D W f1.13 33 157 265 700 1354 lat sy), most of which reflect the same alteration in 2:17. Matthäi (45) states that "no manuscript of good reputation" has δια here. For reasons why the consensus reading υπο cannot easily be rejected, see the note on Matt 2:17 υπο.

Matt 2:17 υπο

The relatively insignificant alteration of υπο into δια (which also occurs in 3:3) is reflected in a number of manuscripts (ℵ B C D W Z 21 33 71 157 372 399 579 892 1170 1588 it vg sy-p.h). Internal evidence is divided, for, on the one hand, it might be argued (so Griesbach, 1:22) that Matthew's custom was to use δια in reference to prophets in such expressions (1:22; 2:15, 23; 4:14; 8:17; 12:17; 13:35; 21:4; 22:31; 24:15; 27:9), while, on the other hand, this very circumstance may have caused some scribes to alter υπο into δια (so Griesbach, who says the reading δια therefore "remains doubtful"; and Fritzsche, 94). While it is known that a minority of scribes altered δια into υπο on other occasions (2:23 [C 472]; 8:17 [517 Chr]; 12:17 [C2 N Π Σ 517 659 954 Chr; 1424 omits δια]; 13:35 [Π]; 21:4 [L Z Γ Δ Θ f13 482 544 700 892 sy-{s}.c]), it is suspicious that the consensus of so many Greek manuscripts, if secondary, would only have made such an alteration here and in 3:3; in other words, if υπο was so common as to cause its introduction by scribes into nearly all the manuscripts both here and in 3:3 (so Rinck, 247), why not elsewhere? Bloomfield (Annotations, 2) argues that δια is "a mere correction for greater exactness" (namely, it was not spoken by but through the prophet), suggested by the constructions previously written (cf. 1:22; 2:5, 15). On the same grounds that led von Soden to accept υπο in Matt 21:4 based on, in our opinion, much slimmer external support than that for υπο both here and in 3:3, the reading υπο cannot easily be dismissed in these two places. Due to the apparent conflict between intrinsic and transcriptional probabilities, one may choose either to leave this variation in "suspense" (so Hort, Introduction, 2) or simply to trust the text that "is found habitually to contain these morally certain or at least strongly preferred readings" (Ibid., 32). Our investigation has led us to believe that the more "habitually" accurate text to be trusted in such situations is none other than the consensus text that is commonly referred to as Byzantine. Consequently, υπο is to be preferred both here and in 3:3.