Matt 8:5 Καπερναουμ

Only a few manuscripts originating before the tenth century spell Capernaum as Καφαρναουμ in Matt 8:5 (ℵ B 0233 33 399*), but the spelling Καπερναουμ predominates in the manuscript tradition during the same period (C E K L M N S U V W X Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Ω 047 0211 f1 f13 f35 399c 461 565 566 892 1080 1143 1424 1500 2224) and afterwards. Although many editors preferred the minority spelling (e.g, Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf [7th, 8th], Vogels), it likely reflects an early attempt to mimic the widespread Romanized spelling Capharnaum or promote the more Semitic spelling that was familiar to those who knew Hebrew (e.g., Josephus, Origen). See also Matt 4:13 Καπερναουμ.

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 6:32 επιζητει

Largely the same few witnesses that alter the verbal number from singular to plural in 6:28 also do so here, from επιζητει (E G K L M N S U V W Δ Π Σ Φ 0211 0233 [Byz ca. 1500 mss] 565. 892. 1424; Chr), which Vogels adopts, to επιζητουσιν (ℵ B Θ f1.13 33 pc), likely indicating the same origin for both alterations, which seem to have been made in conformation with 6:26 or any of the early versions, which as a rule require subject-verb agreement in regard to number (unlike Greek in the case of neuter plural subjects). Cf. the fuller explanation on Matt 6:28 αυξανει ... κοπια ... νηθει. Cf. also the parallel in Luke 12:30, where basically the same class of witnesses again produces επιζητουσιν (P75 ℵ B L X 070 f13 33 pc) in place of επιζητει (P45 A [D: ζητει] E H K M N Q S U W Y Γ Δ Θ Λ Π Ψ Ω [Byz ca. 1600 mss] f1 565. 892. 1424).

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 6:21 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 6:5 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 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 5:32 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 5:30 βληθη εις γεενναν

Some manuscripts (ℵ B f1 33 205 892 pc [lat] sy-c [mae1] bo) alter the word order and the verb to read εις γεενναν απελθη against the reading of most manuscripts (including E G K [L] M S U V W Γ Δ Θ Π Σ 0233 f13 f vg-ms sy-p.h sa [L: βληθησει εις την γεεναν]). Matthäi (72–3), commenting on 5:29, blames the the widespread influence of Origen for the alteration of βληθη into απελθη, which is represented there in D/05, the Old Latin (a b c d g1 h), the Old Syriac (sy-s.c), and the Bohairic (bo). These same versions also in 5:30 form the major support for απελθη, which is in only two Greek manuscripts from before the ninth century (ℵ B). From this situation it is at least possible, as many early Western and Alexandrian manuscripts were bilingual, that the alteration toward απελθη in Greek in both 5:29 and in 5:30 occurred due to versional cross-contamination. Also in this connection is Codex Bobiensis (k/1), an early and influential Old Latin manuscript with strong and sometimes unique affinities with ℵ B, which has no verb at all for rendering βληθη/απελθη in either verse, a circumstance that could have prompted the introduction of a verb other than the original in any descending copies and then in those that depended on them. Alternatively, Wettstein (1:302), Griesbach (1:52–3), Fritzsche (235), Kühnöl (152), and Bloomfield (GNT, 35) all consider απελθη to be an alteration derived from Mark 9:43, where that word fits well to the context but is "less suitable" (so Griesbach) and "thoroughly inept" (so Fritzsche) at this place in Matthew, perhaps due to the subject (το σωμα). Fritzsche also suggests a solution involving error of the eye (or one should say more likely of the ear while a scribe copied by dictation), namely, that the last syllable of γεενναν before βληθη caused confusion and resulted in αβληθη, which was immediately altered by conjecture to απελθη. This solution requires the earlier transposition of words, perhaps from 3:10 or 7:19. Another passage that could have suggested απελθη is 25:46. Yet Whitney (1:66) reasons that απελθη was "originally an endeavor to avoid the harsher word βληθη," and rightly cautions that internally the dissimilarity of βληθη in 5:29 and απελθη in 5:30 should carry no weight in the decision, since Jesus' "discourses, parables, and conversations generally are distinguished for the sameness of the phraseology in which identical thoughts are expressed," noting elsewhere (1:150) Jesus' fondness for lack of variety of expression, one example being ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη (5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43). In the end, versional influence or harmonization to Mark 9:43 seem the most likely explanations for prompting the editorial alteration.

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 4:13 Καπερναουμ

     Some manuscripts and versions (ℵ B D W* Z 0233 33 pc lat co) show preference for the spelling Καφαρναουμ, which admittedly is more similar to the Hebrew (כפר נחום). Matthäi (56) claims that Origen imported Καφαρναουμ into the text, and that Jerome followed Origen; furthermore: "Each changed particular names elsewhere according to his own judgment." This particular spelling variation may date to the very origin of the major text-types or early editions of the New Testament, since the same variation occurs everywhere (Matt 8:5; 11:23; 17:24; Mark 1:21; 2:1; 9:33; Luke 4:23, 31; 7:1; 10:15; John 2:12; 4:46; 6:17, 24, 59). While it is possible that scribes would have updated the text to reflect that name more familiar to them, it is hard to account for the fact that so many manuscripts from everywhere have Καπερναουμ. Consequently, Καφαρναουμ may reflect a critical attempt to restore a more orthographically Semitic pronunciation, a change that would have occurred very early since that spelling was used by Josephus in the first century and the Latin version depends on such a spelling (Capharnaum). Subsequently, some later occurrences of Καφαρναουμ may reflect assimilation to the predominant influence of the Latin version, or to esteemed fathers (like Origen) who frequently commented on such minutiae. The reading of most manuscripts is not without significant and diverse support (including C E K L M P S U V Wc Γ Δ Σ f1.13 [Θ: Καπαρναουμ]; Eus) and therefore cannot easily be ignored. See also Matt 8:5 Καπερναουμ.

Matt 4:3 αυτω ο πειραζων ειπεν

     Some manuscripts have αυτω ο πειραζων και ειπεν αυτω (D a b c g h sy-s.c) and others ο πειραζων ειπεν αυτω (p101vid ℵ B W f1.13 33 205 700 892vid al aur ff1 l vg sy-p mae1 bo). Griesbach (1:33–4) defends the consensus reading and describes the genealogy of the variations in this way: first the reading of Bezae (D) and some Old Latin manuscripts arose from scribes adding αυτω after ειπεν, "as happens 600 times elsewhere," but the double αυτω recurring on the same line struck some poorly, and so, second, some naturally omitted the first αυτω and retained only the second, giving rise to the reading in Sinaiticus (ℵ), Vaticanus (B), and others; "and so out of the received reading the origin of all the others is most easily explained" (1:34). Griesbach also cautions that the extra αυτω in similar places in Matthew was added either just after the προσελθων or just after the ειπεν. Bloomfield (GNT, 1:22) argues that "internal evidence is rather in favour of the position after προσ[ελθων] as being the less likely to come from the polishing school of the Alexandrian critics," and that the received reading is "most agreeable to the evangelist's simple phraseology" (Annotations, 3).
     Matthew's usual pattern is to use προσελθων/προσελθοντες absolutely, i.e., without the goal of motion specified (cf. 8:19, 25; 9:20; 13:10, 27; 14:12; 15:12, 23; 16:1; 17:7 [Byz]; 25:20, 22, 24; 26:50, 60, 73; 28:2, 9, 18). Also in 8:2 and 9:18, where the participle varies in the MSS between ελθων and προσελθων, it is in either case absolute. Verses where the goal of motion is indicated after προσελθων/προσελθοντες (by a dative pronoun or articular noun) include 17:19, 21:28, 30; 26:49; 27:58. In 4:3 and 18:21 the Byz MSS indicate the goal but Alexandrian MSS do not; in 19:16 the reverse occurs. As the absolute use of προσελθων was much more common, the likelihood for scribes to have preferred προσελθων without αυτω is increased. Of the various constructions of clauses that contain προσελθων/προσελθοντες in Matthew, the most common is participle—noun phrase/subject—verb—dative pronoun (5x: 8:19; 13:10, 27; 15:12; 28:18). The pattern participle—dative pronoun—noun phrase/subject—verb only occurs twice (4:3 and 18:21), and in both cases it is more likely that the Alexandrian text alters it to the more common pattern than the reverse. In 19:16, however, as in 8:2 and 9:18, the pattern is different in that the subject comes before the participle along with the emphatic ιδου. This appears to require the main verb to follow the participle according to Matthew's usage. (The entire substance of this paragraph is Tony Pope's.)
     Furthermore, as in, e.g., 4:4, Matthew need not always include an indirect object after verbs of speaking, yet it is not unreasonable to suggest that the frequency of occurrence of αυτω after verbs of speaking (as, e.g., in 4:6, 7, 9, 10) could have prompted the transposition in a minority of manuscripts. Also important is the theoretical observation laid out by Griesbach that the consensus reflects the original, the Western reading came second, and the Alexandrian reading came third and is dependent on the earlier Western corruption.