Matt 8:5 εισελθοντι δε αυτω

Due to its infrequency, the dative absolute construction εισελθοντι δε αυτω was modified in several ways: (1) into the genitive absolute εισελθοντος δε αυτου (ℵ B C* Z f1 f13 33 399), (2) into the partial genitive absolute εισελθοντι δε αυτου (E* 565), or (3) a reference to Jesus in place of the pronoun with εισελθοντι (δε) τω Ιησου (C3 [L] [Ωmg] 0211). Editors Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (8th), and Vogels followed variant one (1), but Tischendorf (7th) retained the dative absolute that appears in most witnesses (Ec K M N S U [V] W [X] Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Ω 047 0233 f35 461 566 892 1080 1143vid 1424 1500 2224 [V X: omit δε]). As in Matt 8:1 καταβαντι δε αυτω, the alteration of a rare form in favor of the commoner one effected only an artificial improvement of style.

Matt 8:2 ελθων

The compound verb προσελθών is supported by a wide variety of Greek witnesses (ℵ B E M N Δ Θ Σ Ω 0211 f1.13 565. 892) and many editors (Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf [7th, 8th], Vogels), while the simple form ἐλθών appears in similarly early and most later witnesses (C K L S U V W X Zvid Γ Π 047 Byz f35 33. 461. 1500. 2224). The compound προσελθών is often argued for on the ground that the prepositional prefix προσ- dropped out by homoeoteleuton error due to the final syllable of the preceding word λεπρος (so, e.g., Meyer, 174; Alford, 1:77).

Wettstein (1:347) however prefers ἐλθών, suggesting that the compound form's origin owes to "the preceding word's final syllable [i.e. -πρός from λεπρός] having been repeated." After echoing Wettstein, Griesbach (1:84) concedes, "But yet we must confess that it might also have been that προς either disappeared by accident after λεπρος or was intentionally deleted in order to avoid the cacophony of προς recurring three times among three contiguous words: λεπρος προσελθων προσεκυνησε. . . . Consequently [reasons] are not lacking which may be brought forward to vindicate the reading προσελθων." Nevertheless, Griesbach shows his primary reliance on external evidence, concluding, "But we still prefer ελθων, since most of the more excellent manuscripts," at least in his estimation at the time, "uphold it."

Fritzsche (305) reacts, "I am in no way persuaded in place of ελθων to concede as much weight to the reading προσελθων as Griesbach assigns to it . . . . For almost nothing is more frequent when two words were arranged together—the one simple, the other equipped with a prefix—than that scribes indeed shared the small prefix in turn with the other word as a rule . . . . Neither does προσελθων possess any excellence from the line of thought, but the words προσελθων ... προσεκυνει rather take on a good deal of sluggishness." Bloomfield (Annotations, 7) thinks προσελθών seems like "a mere correction of somewhat homely Greek," noting that the "simple verb has elsewhere been converted into the compound by critics for the sake of imparting more of definiteness to the sense," and citing Matt 2:21 (ἦλθεν to εἰσῆλθεν); 9:18; 14:25; Mark 5:14; and Luke 8:51.

Although Matthew uses the compound προσέρχομαι with προσκυνέω elsewhere (20:20; 28:9), whenever using this particular construction (i.e., an adverbial participial introducing the finite form of προσκυνέω), Matthew prefers the simple ἔρχομαι over the compound προσέρχομαι. Interestingly, also in these places some witnesses show a proneness to assimilate the simple form to the compound form perhaps in connection with the prefix used in the following finite verb προσκυνέω (cf. Fritzsche's identical assertion above):

2:8 ἐλθὼν προσκυνήσω

9:18 ἐλθὼν (ℵ B F G L U f13: προσελθών) προσεκύνει

14:33 ἐλθόντες (Θ f13 1424: προσελθόντες; ℵ B C N Σ f1 892: OM. ἐλθόντες/προσελθόντες) προσεκύνησαν

15:25 ἐλθοῦσα (Δ: προσελθοῦσα; S V: ἀπελθοῦσα) προσεκύνει/προσεκύνησεν

Although the two probabilities explaining the gain or loss of προσ- are conflicting, in view of (1) Matthew's apparent style when using this particular construction, (2) the seeming fact that in three of the four examples above (NA27/28 accept ἐλθών in 9:18) some scribes were guilty of expanding the simple form to the compound form with προσ- probably due to the following προσκυνέω, and (3) the possibility that unintentional duplication of the final syllable of λεπρός in 8:2 could have contributed to the larger number and variety of witnesses exhibiting the compound form, it is best not to overlook the simple ἐλθών supported by most manuscripts in Matt 8:2.

Matt 8:1 καταβαντι δε αυτω

Some witnesses (ℵ2 B C Nvid W [Z] Θ f1.[13] 33. 892) and editors (Bover, Greeven, [Lachmann], Merk, Soden, Vogels) prefer the more standard genitive absolute construction καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ, but most Greek manuscripts and Tischendorf (7th, 8th) retain the less common and perhaps to some less polished καταβάντι δὲ αὐτῷ in the dative case (ℵ* E K L M S U [V] X Γ [Δ] Π Σ Ω 047 0211 Byz f35 461. 565. 1424. 1500. 2224).

Wettstein (1:346) thinks the change to the genitive occurred "so that αὐτῷ might not appear twice in the same phrase," a sentiment Griesbach (1:83–4) affirms, adding that V/031 omitted the first αὐτῷ for the same reason, and concludes, "That the text was intentionally altered is clear from this, that in verse 5, for the same recurring reason, the same variety of reading is also discovered in nearly the same manuscripts." Kühnöl (226) calls the pronoun αὐτῷ after the verb ἠκολούθησαν redundant but in accordance with the style of the Hebrews and not unknown to pure Greek writers, and agrees that the genitive alteration arose "in order to avoid repetition of the pronoun αὐτῷ."

Fritzsche (304–5) calls the genitive "a wrong correction by one who faltered at the double occurrence of the dative, and about this there can be very little doubt for this very reason, that also elsewhere (see comments below on Matt 8:5, 28, Mark 5:2, and above on Matt 4:16) such places were wrongly handled in order to remove this stumbling block." For evidence of the same corrective phenomenon, Bloomfield (Annotations, 7) adds Matt 9:27, "where some copies substitute the genitive; others, as B D, remove the second αὐτῷ." Meyer (174) rejects καταβάντος δὲ αὐτοῦ as "a mere correction, like the similarly attested εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ" in 8:5.

The scribal agitation at the grammatical construction generally seems to have been remedied by (1) altering the dative construction to a genitive absolute, (2) omitting the following "superfluous" dative pronoun, or (3) altering the dative construction to a finite verbal form.

(1) Altering the dative construction to a genitive absolute:

Matt 8:5 εἰσελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... προσῆλθεν αὐτῷ
     VS. εἰσελθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ... προσηλθεν αὐτῷ (ℵ B C* Z f1.13 33)
Matt 8:28 ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ ... ὑπήντησαν αὐτῷ ([ℵ] B C Θ f1.13 33vid)
Matt 9:28 ἐλθόντι δὲ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐλθόντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (700)
Matt 21:23 ἐλθόντι αὐτῷ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐλθόντος αὐτοῦ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (ℵ B C D L Θ f1.13 33)
Mark 5:2 ἐξελθόντι αὐτῷ ... ἀπήντησεν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐξελθόντος αὐτοῦ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ (ℵ B C L Δ Θ f1.13 565)

(2) Omitting or altering the following "superfluous" dative pronoun

Matt 8:23 ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ ... ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐμβάντι αὐτῷ ... ἠκολούθησαν (ΟΜ. αὐτῷ) (565)
Matt 9:27 παράγοντι ... τῷ Ἰησοῦ ... ἠκολούθησαν αὐτῷ
     VS. παράγοντι ... τῷ Ἰησοῦ ... ἠκολούθησαν (ΟΜ. αὐτῷ) (B D 892)
Luke 8:27 ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ
     VS. ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν (ΟΜ. αὐτῷ) (p75 ℵ B E W Ψ Ξ f1 33)

(3) Altering the dative construction to a finite verbal form

Matt 9:28 ἐλθόντι δὲ ... προσῆλθον αὐτῷ
     VS. καὶ ἔρχεται ... καὶ προσῆλθον αὐτῷ (D)
Luke 8:27 ἐξελθόντι δὲ αὐτῷ ... ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ
     VS. καὶ ἐξῆλθον ... καὶ ὑπήντησεν αὐτῷ  (D)

That all of the questionable cases either occur in Matthew or conceivably derive from Matthean material (Mark 5:2 and Luke 8:27 parallel Matt 8:28) suggests a Matthean stylistic option that scribes frowned upon and variously sought to change to a more standard construction. Otherwise, a great number of scribes not only altered the more common form to a less common one, but also were remarkably selective in doing so. Hence no internal rule of textual criticism can admit the priority of the genitive construction to the dative one, and furthermore the internal rule only suggests the external excellence of those manuscripts that retain the less common (i.e. harder) readings both in Matt 8:1 and in the other examples cited above. See also Matt 8:5 εισελθοντι δε αυτω.

Matt 7:24 ομοιωσω αυτον

The reading ὁμοιωθήσεται is contained in some witnesses (ℵ B Z Θ Φ 0281 f1.13 33. 892 al ff1 l vg sy-p sa mae; Or Did) and preferred by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (8th), and Vogels, but ὁμοιώσω αὐτόν is well represented (C E G K L M S U V W X Δ Π Σ Ω 047. 0211 Byz f35 565. 1424. 1500. 2224 h k q sy-c.h bo goth; Cyp), was preferred by Tischendorf (7th), and has internal criteria strongly in its favor.

Metzger (TCGNT [2d ed.], 17) reasons that "the passive verb . . . is more likely to have been altered to the active form . . . than vice versa, especially if the copyist recalled the Lukan form of the saying," but this internal argument is unconvincing for several reasons:

First, the expression in Luke 6:47 (ὑποδείξω ὑμῖν τίνι ἐστὶν ὅμοιος· ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνθρώπῳ . . .) is entirely different from the simple ὁμοιώσω αὐτον ἀνδρί seen here, both in the verb, the syntax, and the additional words used.

Second, ὁμοιωθήσεται harmonizes precisely with the wording two verses later in 7:26, and for this reason was rejected by Mill (Prolegomena, §889), Bengel (Apparatus, 111), Wettstein (1:345), Alford (1:74), etc.

Third, the nominative absolute construction of πᾶς οὖν ὅστις . . . , if the consensus reading is original, is less common and would have been more perturbing to a scribe than the same nominative clause acting as the subject of the passive verb, were the minority reading original, just as occurs without any disturbance in the Greek and Latin manuscripts in 7:26. Thus Fritzsche (299) comments, "The reading ὁμοιωθήσεται, as is written in v. 26, was without doubt advanced by those who either did not understand [linguistically] or had too little tolerance for the joining together of πᾶς ὅστις ἀκούει [with ὁμοιώσω αὐτόν]." Kühnöl (223) offers a similar comment: "πᾶς οὖν ὅστις, whoever therefore, in Hebrew אֲשֶׁר, in Greek ὃς ἄν, was placed in the absolute case [or construction] after the manner of the Hebrews, and accordingly ὁμοιωθήσεται should not, along with some, be repeated from v. 26 in place of ὁμοιώσω." Cf. also Meyer, 161.

Fourth, Bloomfield (GNT, 1:55) mentions that Matthew's usage of ὁμοιώσω is confirmed in 11:16, that ὁμοιωθήσεται seems to be a conformation to 7:26 by a critic or else the gloss of a scholiast, and that, paraphrasing the note of bishop John Jebb, "the distinction here between ὁμοιώσω and ὁμοιωθήσ[εται] was studiously designed; for when the fruitful hearer is to be characterized, our Lord himself institutes the comparison: when the foolish and unprofitable hearer, it is otherwise managed; the comparison is then matter of common fame—he shall be likened to, as though he were unworthy of Christ's own personal attention."

Fifth, Zahn (321) calls ὁμοιώσω αὐτόν "the more widespread reading and earlier verifiable [reading] among the Latins as well as the Syriac" and comments: "Whereas ὁμοιώσω in v. 26 is completely unattested in Greek and Latin biblical manuscripts, and in the same place is judged to be assimilation to v. 24 in the Coptic and a few Latin citations (Cyprian, Test. 3.96; Lucifer, De Athanasio 5: similem aestimabo), ὁμοιωθήσεται in v. 24  seems to be assimilation to v. 26 (ℵ B Z Φ f13 and a few minuscules, Sahidic, Armenian, Syraic-Palestinian & margin of -Harclean, the younger Latins a b c Vulgate), and ὁμοιώσω on the other hand original (C E G Δ Π Σ, Syriac-Curetonian, -Peshitta, & -Harclean, the oldest Latin k, Cyprian, Lucifer, Hilary, Coptic, Gothic)."

Lastly, Cyprian's support for the consensus reading counters Origen, whose citation of 7:24 in De principiis 3.1.6 is itself guilty of harmonization to 7:26 in another respect:

Origen, De principiis 3.1.6: [7:24] ὁ ἀκούων μου τοὺς λόγους τούτους καὶ ποιῶν αὐτοὺς ὁμοιωθήσεται ἀνδρὶ φρονίμῳ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν . . . [7:26] ὁ δὲ ἀκούων καὶ μὴ ποιῶν ὅμοιός ἐστιν ἀνδρὶ μωρῷ, ὅστις ᾠκοδόμησεν . . . .

Here Origen himself harmonizes Matthew's wording of 7:24 (ὅστις ἀκούει . . . ποιεῖ) to that of 7:26 (ὁ ἀκούων . . . ποιῶν), and thus there is little reason to doubt that by the same method Origin, or the manuscripts on which he depended and other manuscripts since, could have come to read ὁμοιωθήσεται in Matt 7:24.

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 7:12 αν

The form εαν (ℵ C O W Θ Σ f13 1500) is favored by Bover, Greeven, Merk, and Tischendorf (8th), but Lachmann, Soden, Tischendorf (7th), and Vogels print αν as in most manuscripts (including B E G K L M N S U V X Δ Π Φ Ω 047 0211 Byz f1.35 33. 565. 1424. 2224). Weiss (86), but probably too mechanically, receives αν on the ground that critics preferred εαν after the relative pronoun. While such might explain the presence of εαν in some witnesses (e.g., ℵ C Θ), it is at least as likely that in the other witnesses (i.e., O W Σ f13 1500) scribal assimilation to the εαν form that occurs in 7:9, 10 may be blamed. Since Matthew is not averse to using both forms (cf., e.g., 5:19, 32, where both constructions appear even in the same verse), and in light of the above considerations, it seems best not to spurn the well-supported αν in this place.

Matt 7:6 καταπατησωσιν

Some manuscripts (B C L N W X Θ Σ 047 0211 f13 33 al) and editors (Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Tischendorf [7th, 8th]) alter the first verb following μηποτε to the future indicative καταπατησουσιν from the aorist subjunctive καταπατησωσιν present in most witnesses (including ℵ E G K M S U V Δ Π Φ Ω 0281 [Byz ca. 1450] f1.35 565. 892. 1424. 1500. 2224; Cl), which Merk, Soden, and Vogels follow. Although in Hellenistic Greek the future indicative may follow μηποτε, Matthew's own style elsewhere is to use the aorist subjunctive (4:6; 5:25; 13:15, 29; 15:32; [25:9]; 27:64). Also in many of those places, as here in 7:6, there is a preference in some manuscripts for the future indicative:

• 5:25 - μηποτε ... παραδωσει ... βληθησει (D* al) VS. παραδω ... βληθηση
• 13:29 - μηποτε ... εκριζωσετε (Γ) VS. εκριζωσητε
• 25:9 - μηποτε ... αρκεσει (D 28. 33 al) VS. αρκεση
• 27:64 - μηποτε ... κλεψουσιν ... ειπωσιν (ℵ) VS. κλεψωσιν ... ειπωσιν

     Weiss (66) follows most witnesses here with the following explanation: "As hardly anyone at all holds that μηποτε κλεψουσιν και ειπωσιν (ℵ) in Matt 27:64 is possible, since the aorist subjunctive can well turn into the future but not vice versa, so in 7:6 one should hardly write καταπατησουσιν (Tsch Blj) with B C L X instead of –σωσιν."

     Another possible cause for the rise of the minority reading is assimilation to the future indicative pattern in the preceding verses (κριθησεσθε, μετρηθησεται [7:2]; ερεις [7:4]; διαβλεψεις [7:5]). Cf. also the similar nearby emendations emanating from Matt 7:9 αιτηση and Matt 7:10 εαν ιχθυν αιτηση.

Matt 7:5 την δοκον εκ του οφθαλμου σου

Apparently only four largely related Greek manuscripts (ℵ B C 0281), influenced by the order of the words in 7:3, transpose την δοκον from before the prepositional phrase εκ του οφθαλμου σου to the more emphatic position following it. However, most witnesses, followed by Greeven, preserve the more common word order (E G K L M N S U V W X Δ Θ Π Σ Φ Ω 047 0211 0233 [Byz ca. 1520 mss] f1.13.35 33. 565. 892. 1424. 1500. 2224 latt sy-h; Ir-lat Chr).
     Many editors (Bover, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf [7th, 8th], Vogels) follow the minority  of manuscripts on the ground that all the others assimilated to the order in 7:5b or the parallel passage in Luke 6:42 (so, e.g., Alford, 1:70; Soden, 2:17). For this reason alone Soden (1:1448) remarks that the minority reading might even be the reading of the Jerusalem-Egyptian-Byzantine archetype!
     Alternatively, it seems much more likely that four related manuscripts should share a common ancestor that had the transposition, the origin of which was caused by (a) assimilation to the order of words in 7:3 (εν τω σω οφθαλμω δοκον), (b) a desire to emphasize the object δοκον, or (c) an initial accidental omission of την δοκον by homoeoteleuton error (ον...ον) which the scribe repaired by adding the skipped words after copying the prepositional phrase without doing harm either to the sense or to the beauty of the exemplar. It is hardly necessary to point out that the order εν τω οφθαλμω σου δοκον also appears in Luke 6:42, although accidental or intentional assimilation by the few related manuscripts to the nearer preceding order in 7:3 seems more likely than to the same in Luke.
     In short, due to the conflicting claims of internal evidence, the question is whether just four manuscripts of one type harmonized the text or whether all other manuscripts of all types did so. If the former scenario is not more likely, judgment on this variation may be held in suspense until the character of the few manuscripts in question might be ascertained from the examination of all other variations where a judgment is more certain.

Matt 6:25 και τι πιητε

While some witnesses followed by Tischendorf (ℵ f1 892 pc a b ff-1 k l vg sy-c sa-mss) omit και τι πιητε either due to homoeoteleuton (ητε...ητε) or harmonization to Luke 12:22, others (B W Φ f13 33 al it sa-mss mae bo) have η τι πιητε either for stylistic reasons or from assimilation to 6:31. Most witnesses, however, retain the somewhat less proper and non-harmonized (and thus more likely authentic) και τι πιητε (E G K L M N S U V Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Ω 0233 [Byz ca. 1450 mss] 565. 1424 sy-p.h go), which von Soden and Vogels adopt. As Origen's wording in Contra Celsum 7.24 is too close to Luke's, the earliest attestation of the minority reading with η may be found in Acta Thomae 36 (Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, [2 vols. in 4 parts; Lipsiae: Hermannum Mendelssohn, 1891–1903] 2.2:153).
     Erasmus (2:35) in arguing against the words ironically offers a motive for why some could have omitted them: "Although 'what you should drink' is found added in some manuscripts, it is superfluous since 'drink' is contained in the word 'food,' and a drink of water may not be accessible to everyone. It is certainly not present in Chrysostom, neither in Hilary. Jerome indicates that it had been added in some manuscripts but neglects to elaborate. We have allowed it to be added lest the Latin not correspond with the Greek. At any rate, it is not written in the most ancient exemplars, although in a few of inferior [quality] mention of drink may indeed be found."
     Wettstein (1:333), who virtually echoes Whitby (144), remarks, "But since Erasmus, Mill, and Bengel have retained the reading in verse 31, there seems to be no reason why they should have disturbed the present one, even less so since the words are read in Exod 15:24."
     Matthäi (94) draws attention to two places of harmonization of this passage in Chrysostom and Photius, and warns, "Frequently did variant readings arise from parallelisms of this kind, as I have just shown. For it altogether appears that the greatest portion of their observations were patched together from some Harmony in their own time, but one not very accurate."
     Griesbach's note (Commentarius, 1:74–75) deserves attention: "We think the question whether the words και τι πιητε, which are read in the common text, are genuine or have been imported here from another place is so uncertain that a rationale should be offered to the reader. Those words easily disappeared either by homoeoteleuton or on account of the similar passage in Luke 12:22 from which they are missing. Moreover, although only two manuscripts, 1 and 22, survive for us that omit them; those manuscripts nevertheless are exceptional (cf. what is said at 5:44): for that the words formerly went missing from many Greek manuscripts we gather from the versions and fathers which cite the text without και τι πιητε. And also surely the words were able to creep back in easily from verse 31 or from Luke 12:29; this circumstance, because of the true appearance that some old manuscripts exhibent η τι πιητε instead of και τι πιητε in the present passage, likewise makes it appear that it was taken from those very passages from which some harbor suspicion that the present passage was interpolated. Certainly Chrysostom's commentary does not supply the occasion for the omission of the words, for they are already missing from the beautifully woven citations of Basil and Hilary."
     Bloomfield (GNT, 48–9) comments, "There is no tolerable authority for the latter [i.e., omission of και τι πιητε], and still less for the former change [i.e., alteration of και into η], espec[ially] as internal evidence is against it, and it was evidently an alteration of some critic who thought the disjunctive particle [was required rather] than the conjunctive. . . . However, this use of και where one would rather expect, and strict propriety would require, η, is occasionally found in even the purest Greek Class[ical] writers, espec[ially] Thucyd[ides] . . . . I need scarcely say that this idiom being somewhat rare, internal evidence is always in favour of the και and opposed to the η, espec[ially] in writers like those of the N. Test. and of such Class. writers, even Thucyd. and Aristotle, as did not aim at the greatest exactness in the minutiae of critical accuracy in the use of particles." Bloomfield also suggests some passages where "the same class of MSS. [that alter και into η here] elsewhere introduce και instead of η," such as, e.g., Mark 3:33; 14:17; Acts 10:14; Eph 5:4, which, if "internal evidence is always in favour of the και," would require some other explanation from Bloomfield.
     Soden (1:1009), under his subtitle "Instances where it cannot safely be decided whether the Egyptian archetype or whether only the Jerusalem archetype provided the reading occuring in several Egyptian mss" notes that the η reading and the omission of και τι πιητε "may well be the effect of the Jerusalem text," that is, he thinks that the Egyptian archetype had και τι πιητε but some of its descendents later contracted the variations from cross-contamination with the Jerusalem text.
     Finally, as mentioned above, the omission of και τι πιητε could have occurred due to homoeoteleuton error (ητε...ητε) or harmonization to Luke 12:22, and a repair based on 6:31 could have caused the introduction of η. In addition, other witnesses without the omission could have introduced η purely for stylistic reasons or by assimilation either to 6:31 or the reading of many manuscripts in Luke 12:29.

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 6:12 αφιεμεν

A few related manuscripts (ℵ* B Z f1 pc vg-mss) have the aorist αφηκαμεν, either a theological embellishment in view of 6:14–15 that follows (cf. also 5:23–24) or, more likely, a stylistic improvement toward the tense that traditionally expresses custom or habit. All other manuscripts and versions have the present αφιεμεν/αφιομεν (including ℵ1 D E G K L M S U W Δ Π* Σ Φ Ω f13 565 1424 it vg sy-c sa bo; Didache). Some claim the Peshitta in support of the aorist, but as Cook (54–56) rightly notes, that version "has ܫܒ݂ܰܩܢ [šəḇaqn] the first person plural of Peal, which however stands for the present when it denotes a habit or condition." This point is further substantiated by the fact that the Peshitta has the same word in Luke 11:4, where all Greek manuscripts have the present.
     Bloomfield (GNT, 1:44-5) remarks, "I can scarcely doubt . . . that αφηκαμεν was an alteration proceeding from the Alex[andrian] Critics, who thought that the Aorist expressive of custom would be better Greek." Conversely, others claim that the present tense is a harmonization to Luke 11:4 (cf. Metzger, 13, et al.), but such is not convincing. For which is more likely: that about six related Greek manuscripts from before the 14th century should use an alternate and more polished way to express the custom of the Koine present, or that all other Greek manuscripts and even the Greek origin from which all subsequent translations descended should have harmonized the text away from the more famous version of the Lord's Prayer and toward the less famous one? The paucity of the witnesses for αφηκαμεν combined with their frequent alliance elsewhere indicates that they likely represent merely a relatively late and localized intrusion into the manuscript tradition that should therefore 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.

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 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 5:36 μιαν τριχα λευκην η μελαιναν ποιησαι

The word order found in most manuscripts (including E K M S U V Δ Π Σ 1006 1506 sy-p.h) contributed to the many existing variations of this phrase, either through (1) scribal desire to bring the complementary infinitive closer to the verb, (2) editorial attempt to polish the expression, (3) imperfect correction of an initial homoeoteleuton error from δυνασαι to ποιησαι, which resulted in a text without μιαν τριχα λευκην η μελαιναν ποιησαι, (4) attempted repair of a conjecture, or (5) a combination of these factors. As this pericope is unique to Matthew, there was no standard to which scribes could turn for help, and consequently the following variations appear:

(1) μιαν τριχα λευκην ποιησαι η μελαιναν (ℵ B W Θ 33 892 1342 pc lat) [ℵ*: τριχαν]
(2) μιαν τριχα λευκην ποιησαι μελαιναν (L pc; Chr) [L: τριχαν]
(3) μιαν τριχα ποιησαι λευκην η μελαιναν (0250 f13 700 h)
(4) ποιησαι τριχα μιαν λευκην η μελαιναν (D f1 205 k; Cl Cyp GrN Aug) [D*: ποιειν; f1 205: μιαν τριχαν]

Fritzsche (240–41) thinks reading #2 arose from someone trying to remove a perceived absurdity, namely, that no one would ever even want to make or produce a white hair, which is a sign of age, and so the expression "you cannot make a white hair black" arose. Incidentally, Kühnöl (159) mentions an expositor (Wakefield) who actually conjectures this reading, but with a different word order (μιαν τριχα λευκην μελαιναν ποιησαι). Still the reading (or conjecture) is old as confirmed by Codex L/019 and Chrysostom, but, not surprisingly, it also created another difficulty, namely, that people can make a white hair black through dye. Thus Bloomfield (GNT, 1:36) considers reading #1 "a vain alteration proceeding from the polishing school of Critics . . . for the sake of removing a difficulty," and indeed the reading is a more classical construction, making it, all things being equal, less likely to be original.

Matt 5:32 μοιχασθαι

Due to the widespread understanding that the verb μοιχαομαι was to be used for a man and μοιχευομαι (passive voice) for a woman, it is not surprising that some scribes, influenced by patristic comments or a desire for Atticistic purity, altered μοιχασθαι into μοιχευθηναι (as reflected in ℵ B D W Θ f1.13 22. 33. 157. 660. 892; Cl Or Chr Theoph). The original μοιχασθαι is nevertheless preserved in most manuscripts (including E K L M S U V Δ Π Σ Ω [Byz ca. 1450 mss] 565. 579. 700. 1006. 1241. 1342. 1424. 1506; Bas). Wettstein (1:303) explains the alteration first by pointing to Theodoret and other passages where the passive verb is used for an adulteress and then by citing Thomas Magister, who cites the critical canon that "the man μοιχαται, but the woman μοιχευεται" (μοιχαται ο ανηρ, μοιχευεται δε η γυνη). "But," reasons Tischendorf (8th ed., 1:21), "this is not such a distinction that we think the evangelist neglected more than copyists, to whom μοιχασθαι, which without doubt was used in the same sense, could have seemed more suitable to be put down in conformation with μοιχαται (both here and in 19:9)." Yet, as Bloomfield (GNT, 1:36–7) states, if Mark could have neglected the distinction (cf. Mark 10:12), why not Matthew? Griesbach (1:54) provides a good summary: "μοιχασθαι is to be preferred over μοιχευθηναι. The latter was substituted in place of the former to satisfy the precepts of the grammarians, who wish to use μοιχευειν and μοιχασθαι with regard to husbands, but μοιχευεσθαι with regard to wives, and to clarify that the verb in this place should be taken in the passive sense. Hence also in 19:9 some [i.e. B C* N f1 ff1 bo] wrote ποιει αυτην μοιχευθηναι instead of μοιχαται, and already Clement of Alexandria in that very place by reason of explanation added the following to the words μοιχαται αυτην: τουτ εστιν, αναγκαζει μοιχευθηναι ["that is, he causes her to commit adultery"]. Therefore it is not at all remarkable that Origen also exhibits μοιχευθηναι in our passage.” Similarly, Meyer (303) calls μοιχευθηναι a "gloss (to be seduced to adultery) to distinguish it from μοιχαται, which follows." Hence the consensus reading should be retained.

Matt 5:32 ος αν απολυση

Influenced by the beginning of the identical formulation of words in 5:22, 28 (i.e., εγω δε λεγω υμιν οτι πας ο . . .), the expression ος αν απολυση not surprisingly was altered into the more emphatic πας ο απολυων as reflected in many manuscripts (ℵ B K L M W Θ Δ Π Σ f1.13 33 157 565 700 892 1241 al c f ff1 g2 l m vg sy-p; Or-pt). The original ος αν απολυση is found in most Greek witnesses (including D E G S U V [0250] 346 579 1006 [0250: οστις αν απολυση]), the oldest and more significant Old Latins (a/3, 4th cent.; b/4, 5th cent.; h/12, 5th cent.; k/1, 400), the Old Syriac (sy-s, 400; sy-c, 5th cent.), the Bohairic, and is corroborated by a citation of Origen in the third century. The harmonization of most witnesses here to Matt 19:9, as Michael Holmes suggests ("The Text of the Matthean Divorce Passages: A Comment on the Appeal to Harmonization in Textual Decisions," Journal of Biblical Literature 109:4 [1990]: 651–64 [specifically, 659]), seems less likely than the reasons adduced below on the ground of its further distance from the present passage and that the many other discrepancies between the two passages appear completely untouched (i.e., accidental harmonization of just these words to a more remote passage than those adduced below seems less likely, while intentional harmonization of just these words is hard to imagine).
     On the origin of the minority reading, Wettstein (1:303), Kühnöl (153), and Bloomfield (GNT, 1:36) call it a harmonization from Luke 16:18, while Griesbach (1:53–4), Fritzsche (236), and Meyer (110) mention (in addition) assimilation to 5:22, 28 as the cause. No doubt the latter of these explanations is most likely. Griesbach rightly notes that the majority reading is "not free from the appearance" that it "was repeated from the preceding sentence," but it nevertheless should be preferred, since it seems that "Matthew deliberately used the same words that he had used in the preceding verse. Πας ο απολυων, which could have been more pleasing to some as it is more emphatic, was imported to this place from 5:22 and 5:28 or from Luke 16:18.” Fritzsche simply says that πας ο απολυων "smells like a gloss, for which verses 22 and 28 gave opportunity." Therefore, although the result of internal considerations is somewhat conflicting, it seems best in this case to follow those many manuscripts that have preserved the better text on a more habitual basis, and thus ος αν απολυση is preferable.

Matt 5:25 εν τη οδω μετ αυτου

Although the phrase is transposed to read μετ αυτου εν τη οδω in a number of witnesses (ℵ B D L W 0275 f1.13 33 205 892 pc it sy-s.c.p sa-mss bo-pt; Did), the word order of most witnesses (including E K M S U V Γ Δ Θ Π Σ 0233 f ff1 g2 k vg sy-h sa-mss mae1) is corroborated by  Clement of Alexandria in the third century (Stromata 4.95). Bloomfield (Annotations, 5) calls the transposition an apparent "correction of position such as was likely enough to occur to Alexandrian critics." The transposition in the versions may be due to idiomatic usage, and once entrenched in enough Old Latin, Old Syriac, and even Coptic manuscripts, the regard for those better-understood languages in bilingual manuscripts of the earliest centuries would naturally have led to alterations in some of their Greek counterparts and then in their descendents in turn. Hence the endurance of this transposition, which easily could have occurred independently in Greek copies regardless, would have been strengthened. Still the preponderance of the consensus reading, now extant in nearly 1600 Greek manuscripts and supported by the diversity of major representatives from every text-type, could hardly be diminished. Moreover, were the transposition as reflected in the few Greek manuscripts original, there is no good reason why nearly all the Greek copies would have militated against it.

For Clement of Alexandria, Stromata 4.95, cf. Wilhelm Dindorf, Clementis Alexandrini opera (4 vols.; Oxonii: Clarendoniano, 1869) 2:371.

Note: Carpocrates of the second century (as cited by Epiphanius, Panarion 27.5.3 [Karl Holl, Epiphanius {2 vols.; Die griechische christliche Schriftsteller der ersten drei Jahrhunderte 25, 31; Leipzig: J.C. Hinrichs, 1915, 1922} 1:306]) indeed has "ισθι ευνοων τω αντιδικω σου εν ω ει εν τη οδω μετ αυτου," yet after this he has elements that are more Lukan, such as "και δος εργασιαν απηλλαχθαι απ αυτου" and "και ο υπηρετης βαλη σε εις φυλακην." Nevertheless, the precision of the former definitely aligns with the corresponding Byzantine form of Matt 5:25.

Matt 5:20 η δικαιοσυνη υμων

Almost all earlier and many later manuscripts prepose the pronoun to read υμων η δικαιοσυνη (p64[67]vid ℵ B E K L M S V W Γ Δ Θ Π Ω 047 0211 892 1241 pm; Ju Cl-pt), but many manuscripts (perhaps most according to Tischendorf and Soden) place the pronoun after the subject (including U Σ f1.35 33. 565. 1424 pm latt; Cl-pt Or). Lachmann's departure (1:20) from the earlier manuscripts is remarkable if not accidental. While the reading with the preposed pronoun could have originated due to the order of the words in 5:16 (υμων τα καλα εργα), it is equally likely (if not more so) that this reading could have prompted scribes to place the pronoun after the subject in conformity with its more usual position. The preposing of the pronoun may indicate an emphasis, either by the author himself or secondarily by scribes, on the nature of the listeners' righteousness in contradistinction to that of the scribes and the Pharisees (cf. Bengel, Gnomon, 171–2). Griesbach (1:46) notes that "not a few manuscripts, having changed the order, read υμων η δικαιοσυνη," and further cautions that "rarely can a decisive judgment be rendered due to the great license of scribes in transposing words and the negligence of the majority of learned men who have examined manuscripts in noting discrepancies of this kind." Because (a) the reading with the preposed pronoun has impressive external support as well as perhaps a slight advantage on internal grounds, and (b) the picture of most Byzantine minuscules is not sufficiently clear (cf. Hodges-Farstad's "Mpt" [indicating a Byzantine split] for both readings), it seems best to acknowledge the intrinsic value of both readings until the state of the early minuscules (9th–11th centuries) is better known.