Matt 7:10 εαν ιχθυν αιτηση

As in Matt 7:9 εαν αιτηση, a few manuscripts (with Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Tischendorf [8th]) omit εαν and use the future indicative αιτησει (ℵ B C L Δ 0281 f1 33. 892 [f1: αιτηση]) in conformity with almost all manuscripts in Luke 11:11 (cf. the evidence presented in Matt 7:10 και)(so Wettstein, 1:340; Griesbach, Commentarius, 1:76; Meyer, 161) or with the same pattern in Luke 11:12 (so Soden, 1:1424). However, most witnesses (followed by Soden, Tischendorf [7th], and Vogels) use the conjunction εαν with either the aorist subjunctive αιτηση (so Soden and Vogels, following E G K M O S U V X Δ Θ Π Φ Ω [Byz] f35 565. 1500. 2224) or the future indicative αιτησει (so Tischendorf [7th], following L N W Σ 047 0211 f13 1424), the form of the latter easily arising from that of the former (cf. Weiss' comment on Matt 7:6 καταπατησωσιν), the change perhaps being exacerbated by the letter Η being easily confused for the letters ΕΙ in uncial script.

Matt 7:9 εαν αιτηση

Most witnesses (along with Soden, Tischendorf [7th ed.], and Vogels) have εαν (or αν) with the aorist subjunctive αιτηση (including E G K M Ν Ο S U V W X Π Σ Φ Ω 0281 [Byz ca. 1500 mss] f1.13.35 33. 565. 892. 2224) or with the future indicative αιτησει (ℵ1 L Δ 047 0211 1424), but at least five witnesses (ℵ* B C Θ 1500), followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, and Tischendorf (8th ed.), both omit εαν and alter the verb to αιτησει either by (a) symmetrical conformation to the tense of the verb that follows (επιδωσει) or (b) harmonization to Luke 11:11 (so Soden, 2:18). Harmonization to Luke may also explain the omission of εστιν in B* L 565. 1424 al here in 7:9.
     In Matt 12:36 where most manuscripts have εαν λαλησωσιν (including E G K [L] M N S U V W X Y Γ Δ Π Ω 0250 [Byz 1540 mss] f1.13.35 565. 892. 1424; [Or]), probably symmetrical conformation to the tense of the following verb (αποδωσουσιν) is similarly to be blamed for the omission of εαν (ℵ B D [Byz 3 mss]) and the change to the future indicative λαλησουσιν (ℵ B C Θ [Byz 32 mss] 33), not incidentally involving the same witnesses as in 7:9.
     For similar alterations in this section by the same class of witnesses cf. Matt 7:6 καταπατησωσιν and Matt 7:10 εαν ιχθυν αιτηση.

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 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 5:42 διδου

A few early witnesses (ℵ B D W f13 892 pc; Cl) have the aorist imperative δος instead of the present imperative διδου of most witnesses (including E G K L M S U V Δ Θ Π Σ f1 33 1006 1342 1506). While some, as Meyer (111), argue that most manuscripts were corrupted from the parallel of Luke 6:30, which has διδου, such a judgment unjustly discounts other internal considerations, such as: (1) the manuscripts that have δος are largely related, lessening the impact of their testimony; (2) Matthew uses διδωμι with an imperfective kind of action elsewhere (7:11; 13:8; 24:45); (3) the aorist δος may reflect assimilation to the tense of the nearby aorist imperatives στρεψον (5:39) and αφες (5:40); (4) in the NT δος (15 times) is used far more than διδου (2 times), making the latter more likely to be altered into the former than vice versa; and (5) the presence of δος in the famous nearby passage of the Lord's model prayer (6:11) may have influenced some to use it here. For these reasons it would seem imprudent to reject the reading διδου that appears in most witnesses.

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 4:9 λεγει

A few manuscripts (ℵ B C D Z f13 33 pc lat) have λεγει instead of the historic present λεγει preserved in most manuscripts (including E K L M P S U V W Γ Δ Θ Σ Ω f1). This variation mirrors the identical alteration by a few manuscripts in 4:6 (ℵ1 W Z pc). Meyer (92) judges that "it is not to be adopted . . . instead of λεγει" as it is taken from Luke 4:6. In addition to its support by the great consensus of Greek manuscripts, see the note on Matt 4:5 for a broader range of reasons why λεγει is also secure on internal grounds.

Matt 4:5 ιστησιν

A few manuscripts (ℵ B C D Z f1 33 205 pc lat sa) alter the present ιστησιν into the aorist εστησεν, disturbing the representation of the narrative as present (παραλαμβανει . . . ιστησιν . . . λεγει) and borrowing the tense of the verb from the parallel passage in Luke 4:9 (so Wettstein, 1:271; Bloomfield, GNT, 23; Meyer, 92). Most manuscripts (including E K L M P S U V W Γ Δ Θ Σ Ω f13), however, preserve ιστησιν. Griesbach (1:35–6) counters that Matthew altogether should have written the present, but that he sometimes mixes the tenses such as in 4:11 (αφιησιν . . . προσηλθον . . . διηκονουν), and that εστησεν would have displeased the grammarian who would have wanted to conform the tenses. Yet in that case (Matt 4:11) the narrative is interrupted by ιδου, where, in addition, the same supposed grammarian, if legitimate, appears completely unconcerned about the mixture of tenses. Moreover, as Fritzsche (164) rightly judges, scribes were more prone accidentally to change the historic present into a past tense; and after ιστησιν was altered (probably accidentally) into εστησεν, even though εστησεν was indeed "inept," it was nevertheless tolerated because of its presence in Luke 4:9, although in that place its presence is most suitable (ηγαγεν . . . εστησεν), "for not everywhere does a variation involving tenses have reason." Indeed, it is clear that a few manuscripts in any given place are always prone to change the historic present into the aorist (e.g.: 2:13, εφανη [B sa mae1]; 2:19, εφανη [sa mae]; 4:6 ειπεν [ℵ1 W Z pc] 4:9, ειπεν [ℵ B C D Z f13 33 pc], etc.). For these reasons the reading reflected in the vast consensus of the manuscripts, namely the historic present ιστησιν, should be retained.