Matt 8:3 ο Ιησους

The articular proper name ο Ιησους appears before λεγων in most Greek witnesses (C2 E K L M N S U V W X Γ Δ Θ Π Σ Ω 047 0211 f35 399. 461. 565. 566. [1424]. 1500 2224), but is lacking in a few (ℵ B C* Zvid f1.13 33. 892) and is rejected by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, Soden, Tischendorf (7th, 8th), and Vogels. Mill (Prolegomena, §1400) remarks that "Ἰησοῦς long ago had already crept into the middle [of ἥψατο αὐτοῦ and λέγων], as 600 times elsewhere, for the sake of clarity in the story."

Griesbach (1:84) largely defends the omission: “Ο Ιησους, which a few manuscripts but those of good repute and also some versions omit, may cause some hesitation regarding which is genuine. It could have been added so that the reader, having been misled by the ambiguity of the words and having paid less attention to the following λεγων, might not refer εκτεινας to the one diseased with leprosy. For the same reason the Syriac version and Latin manuscripts transpose ο Ιησους to precede the word ηψατο. If more old witnesses had omitted the name, we would have decided that it should be removed once and for all; especially since nothing is found in the context which might have given rise to the omission.”

However, there are indeed reasons why the presence of Jesus’ name may be authentic here. First, the initial lack of clarity regarding who was touching whom is within the realm of what the author himself might have sought to rectify (so Fritzsche, 306). Second, the placement of the name so far after the supposed ambiguity, rather than at the point of it (e.g. και ο Ιησους εκτεινας . . .), is rather odd, especially for apparently no scribes to have done, even though at just that point the same variation occurs in Mark 1:41. Third, if the ambiguity were really so pronounced, it is suspicious that a similar attempt to alter the same wording of Luke 5:13 did not arise. Fourth, the omission could be from unintentional assimilation to the wording of the previous verse, i.e., participle + finite verb + personal pronoun + λεγων. Fifth, the omission could have arisen from failure to correct a primitive error involving the nomen sacrum following the personal pronoun, i.e., ΑΥΤΟΥΟΙΣ --> ΑΥΤΟΙΣ (skipping from the first omicron to the second), in which case in a subsequent copy both the number and case of the pronoun would have been automatically corrected (although αυτοις still appears in 579); and this natural correction would not miss the loss of ο Ιησους, especially if Luke 5:13 were consulted in the correction process. See also Matt 26:52 for a similar case of confusion involving the same nomen sacrum following αυτω. Lastly, Rinck (252): "In some manuscripts ὁ Ἰησοῦς is missing on account of the parallel passage in Luke 5:13, where in turn λέγων is written in certain ones from here [in Matthew] instead of εἰπών. Therefore I refuse to doubt the correctness of the received reading, which seemed suspicious to Griesbach in both places."

For these reasons the overwhelming external attestation for ο Ιησους in Matt 8:3 should not be overlooked.

Matt 7:15 δε

Very few witnesses (ℵ B Ω 565. 1424 pc), followed by Bover, Greeven, Lachmann, Merk, and Tischendorf (8th), omit δε after προσεχετε, while all others predating the 10th century retain it (including C E G K L M O S U V W X Δ Θ Π Σ Φ 047 0211 0281 Byz f1.13.35 33. 892. 1500. 2224*), which Soden, Tischendorf (7th), and Vogels support. Weiss (159) comments that "omission of δε through scribal error is of course very frequent . . . especially after προσεχετε, as in ℵ D in Luke 21:34, D in Matt 10:17 and 16:11, B D Δ Byz in Matt 6:1, and ℵ B in Matt 7:15, where only Tregelles in brackets retains it." Bloomfield (GNT, 1:53; Annotations, 6), in addition to mentioning that the conjunction was "lost by the carelessness of scribes, who often omit δε," later judges that it was "more probably removed by critics unable to follow up the thread of the connexion . . . , and who, observing its absence from the lectionaries, where from a lectio commencing with this verse the particle could not be used, accordingly expunged it." In addition to mere accident (-ΤΕ followed by ΔΕ) and possible lectionary influence, the omission could also have been facilitated by an early versional diglot that omitted the word, as almost certainly occurs with the omission of the same word after προσεχετε in Matt 10:17 (by D it sy-s sa-mss mae). Although far less likely, it is possible that some manuscripts omit the conjunction by assimilation to Matt 6:1, where δε is missing after προσεχετε in 3 of the 5 pre-10th-century manuscripts that omit it here (i.e., B Ω 565). For literature on the prevalence of omission (especially of smaller words/particles) over addition in the early period, see the note on Matt 1:22 του. See also the note on Matt 6:1 προσεχετε, where reasons are adduced why the δε in that case may not be primary.

Matt 6:34 τα

A good number of manuscripts (and most modern editors of the Greek NT) omit the article τα before εαυτης (ℵ B G L S W Ω 0211 [Byz ca. 150 mss] 892. 2224* co), either by accident or, more likely, because it seemed either superfluous or even slightly obnoxious to the meaning. Most manuscripts, however, retain the article (including E K M N U Δ Π Σ Φ 0233 [Byz ca. 1350 mss] f1.13 33. 1424. 2224c sy-h).
     Mill (Prolegomena, § 1192) rejects the article with the simple words, "τα εαυτης is more elegant, not more genuine," while Griesbach (Commentarius, 1:75–6) is the best exponent for omitting the article: "Instead of τα εαυτης old and good manuscripts have εαυτης, and it seems that this reading should be preferred, inasmuch as it is harder, less usual, and so situated that the origin of all the others may easily be derived from it. Certainly, by reason of clarification, εαυτης was altered into εαυτη (17. 485; cf. 6:25), into περι εαυτης ([Δ]; Chrysostom; cf. 6:28 and Luke 12:26), into εαυτην (700; cf. Phil 4:6), and into τα εαυτης (cf. 1 Cor 7:32, 33, 34). If τα εαυτης, which should not have appeared obscure or ambiguous to anyone, had been written originally, scarcely should anyone have thought about altering the text."
     Griesbach's analysis provokes two considerations. First, it overlooks the tendency of scribes to omit material, both short words for no apparent reason and also longer stretches of text either by haplography or for no apparent reason (accidental "leaps" forward). Cf. the literature cited in the note on Matt 1:22 του. Second, Griesbach's analysis overlooks the fact that some people (e.g., Erasmus, below) do in fact see no difference between the expression with or without the article. That is, if both τα εαυτης and just εαυτης were thought to mean simply "itself" (so Erasmus, 2:36), then the article τα may have been thought unnecessary and for this reason omitted by some. Bloomfield (1:50–51), while conceding that internal evidence is against the presence of τα, since "an expression is not to be brought in which is quite contrary to propriety of language," he nevertheless judges that the τα could have been omitted by hesitant critics who balked at the idea of a "complete action being ascribed to a thing, as discharging the business and consulting for cares of the day." In other words, the proverb sounded better and less odd in the form of "Tomorrow will take care of itself" rather than "Tomorrow will take care of its own things/possessions." Thus most of the various readings mentioned by Griesbach (to which may be added το εαυτης [Θ 565] and αυτης [B L]) may be seen as alterations away from the idea of the day possessing things to worry about or take care of and toward the proverbial day taking care of itself.
     That the proverb existed very early without the article is demonstrated, e.g., by the apocryphal 3d-century Acta Thomae 28 (Maximilian Bonnet, Acta apostolorum apocrypha, [2 vols. in 4 parts; Lipsiae: Hermannum Mendelssohn, 1891–1903] 2.2:144). It also seems that the proverb circulated without the entire clause in question, i.e., as μη (ουν) μεριμνατε (-νησητε) περι της αυριον· αρκετον γαρ τη ημερα η κακια αυτης  (cf. Clement of Alexandria, Paedagogus 1.5 [PG 8:269B]; Chrysostom, Homliae in Matthaeum 22 [PG 57:303]). Because Matt 6:34 is without parallel in the Synoptics, if the entire clause happened to go missing in an early exemplar (either by intentional pruning, by accident, or by following some fathers), later attempts to restore the clause (from other Greek manuscripts, versions, or, more precarious still, other fathers) could have contributed to some of the confusion observed in the manuscript tradition.

Matt 6:10 της

A few notable witnesses (ℵ B W Z Δ Σ Φ f1 pc; Cl Or-pt Chr-pt) do not have the definite article before γης as most witnesses do (including D E G K L M S U Θ Π Ω f13 565 1424; Or-pt Eus Chr-pt). The fact that the expression occurs far more often with the article (i.e., επι της γης or επι την γην) than without might suggest that it was added in conformation with its more common usage elsewhere. Nevertheless, Bloomfield (Annotations, 5) remarks that the article "was doubtless removed for the sake of adaptation to εν ουρ[ανω]," which appears without the article. There is also the possibility that the three-letter word, two letters of which are identical with the three-letter word that follows, dropped out accidentally (cf. Matt 1:22 του) or even intentionally since it is unnecessary. Cf. also Matt 28:18, where a few manuscripts (B D 892 pc) add the article, perhaps in accordance with common usage, and 1 Cor 8:5, where many manuscripts do the same (probably for the same reason).
     From a strictly theoretical perspective, the Byzantine-priority suggestion of the article's possible authenticity here is no different than Nestle-Aland's suggestion of its possible authenticity in Matt 28:18: the manuscripts that are deemed to be habitually more accurate on internal grounds can never easily be dismissed. Consequently, as there are internal reasons why the article could have been omitted in a few manuscripts regardless of time and place, the tentative retention of the article here in accordance with most manuscripts does not seem inappropriate.

Matt 6:5 αν

After οπως a minority of witnesses omit the superfluous particle αν (ℵ Β D K L Z Π* Ω f1.13 33 1424 al; Or Chr), but most retain it (including E M S U W Δ Θ Π1 Σ Φ 28 565 700 1241). Griesbach (1:66) writes: "[The particle] αν either arose from the ΦΑΝωσι immediately following or was omitted on account of the word itself, whether by a scribe easily skipping over a particle introduced merely to take up space, it being useless, or through eagerness to avoid cacophony, or because in vs. 2 οπως and in vs. 16 the very same οπως φανωσι appear without αν. Therefore, arguments are not lacking with which αν may be defended." Von Soden (1:1424) similarly judges: "The omission of αν after οπως (cf. 6:2, 16) is secondary, since there is no conceivable reason for K [i.e., the Koine tradition] to have inserted αν only here."
      The construction οπως αν is relatively rare in the NT, being used only four times elsewhere (Luke 2:35; Acts 3:20; 15:17; Rom 3:4), two of which within LXX quotations. In Matt 6:16 only a few manuscripts (Δ pc) add αν after οπως (probably in conformation to 6:5), as similarly happens in 23:35 (ℵ2 C2 Mmg 33 pc). A number of the primary witnesses that omit αν here also omit it elsewhere in Matthew: 5:18 (B*); 5:26 (33 pc); 12:20 (L X pc); 12:50 (D pc); 24:34 (ℵ 1241 pc); 24:43 (D 33 pc). Furthermore, the particle αν is likely original in Matt 6:5 due to its being omitted by some for the following reasons: (1) accident, of which kind this especially characterizes the early period (cf. note on Matt 1:22 του), and aided by the possibility of initial homoeoteleuton error (αν . . . αν, producing οπως ανωσιν), which later was easily corrected by adding Φ in view of 6:2, 16; (2) it was thought superfluous; (3) conformation to 6:2, 16, where it is absent; (4) the rarity of the expression οπως αν (4x in the NT) yielded to the more general usage without αν (more than 50x in the NT); (5) the sound ΑΝΦΑΝ- was thought undesirable (cf. Griesbach above).

Matt 6:4 αυτος

About a quarter of the Greek manuscript tradition omits the pronoun αυτος before the verb αποδωσει (cf. ℵ B L U Z Θ 047 0250 f13 33 892 1424 [+355 mss] lat sy-s.c; Or), but most witnesses retain it in that position (cf. D E K M S W Δ Π Σ Φ Ω 055 0211 0257 f1 [+1130 mss] h q sy-p.h) and ten place it after σοι. Metzger (12) calls the reading an obvious expansion designed "to heighten the impressiveness of the saying," but this simplistic explanation is not critically sound. From all we know about the early period, it was not addition but omission, especially of single words and particles, that was the predominating characteristic of scribal error (see note on Matt 1:22 του and the literature cited there).
     Briefly, Matthäi (84) notes, "It could be left out and was therefore omitted." Likewise, Kühnöl (175) writes: "Wrongly did Fritzsche and Lachmann judge that αυτος should be expunged, for scribes omitted this pronoun because to them it appeared superfluous." Griesbach (1:64) also judges that αυτος "was omitted in some [manuscripts], either by the negligence of scribes (for it can be left out without harming the sense) or even for this reason, that in verses 6 and 18 the same sentence is repeated without αυτος. . . . Certainly it should be judged that the versions and fathers that do not mention the pronoun do not have as much weight in this kind of reading as they do elsewhere."
     Bloomfield (GNT, 1:42) mentions a few examples where αυτος is used either to take up again the subject or object of the verb (Matt 12:50; Mark 3:35; John 7:4; 14:10; 1 Cor 7:13) or as emphatic (John 1:27; 7:4), where "Classic propriety would require ουτος."
     The various reasons why αυτος came to be omitted, then, are: (1) accident, especially facilitated by homoeoarchton error (α...α); (2) editorial pruning of what was deemed superfluous; (3) conformation to the saying in 6:6, 18 where the word is absent; (4) removal of what could have been deemed unclassical.
     Additionally, a structural reason for including αυτος here but not in verses 6 and 18 may be in view. Matthew is known elsewhere in the Sermon on the Mount to repeat similar phrases first in a fuller form and later in an abbreviated form. See, for example, the structural technique as found in most manuscripts (including NA27):

Matt 5:21: ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη τοις αρχαιοις
Matt 5:27: ηκουσατε οτι ερρεθη
Matt 5:31: ερρεθη δε

Compare the above structural technique with the following according to most manuscripts:

Matt 6:4: αυτος αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω
Matt 6:6: αποδωσει σοι εν τω φανερω
Matt 6:18: αποδωσει σοι

Such stands in striking contrast to the harmonized and thus generally less praiseworthy form that appears in NA27:

Matt 6:4: αποδωσει σοι
Matt 6:6: αποδωσει σοι
Matt 6:18: αποδωσει σοι

For complete manuscript data on αυτος at this place, see the following post on Matt 6:4 εν τω φανερω.

Matt 5:45 τοις

This represents one of many variations between the Textus Receptus and the Byzantine textform. Many witnesses do not have the article τοις before ουρανοις (ℵ B D L W Δ Σ f1 33 157 565 700 892 1241 pm), and consequently it is not received in the editions of Erasmus, Estienne, Bèze, Mill, Bengel, Wettstein, Matthäi, Griesbach, or even the Byzantine text proponent Scholz, who indicates that manuscripts with τοις are in the minority.
     On the other hand, the Complutensian Polyglot includes it along with a divided but (according to Soden) apparent majority of Greek manuscripts (including K S U Θ Π f13 33 124 205 209 565 661 1006 1342 1424 1506 1582c pm), Clement, Origen (3x), the Apostolic Constitutions, Chrysostom, etc., and it is received in Hodges-Farstad and Robinson-Pierpont, although the latter indicates relative uncertainty by placing the omission in the margin. Matthew certainly makes use of the expression elsewhere both with and without the article:

With the article:
5:16 τον πατερα υμων τον εν τοις ουρανοις
6:1 τω πατρι υμων τω εν τοις ουρανοις
6:9 πατερ ημων ο εν τοις ουρανοις
7:11 ο πατηρ υμων ο εν τοις ουρανοις
16:17 ο πατηρ μου ο εν τοις ουρανοις

Without the article:
12:50 του πατρος μου του εν ουρανοις
18:14 του πατρος υμων του εν ουρανοις
18:19 του πατρος μου του εν ουρανοις

     It is certainly possible that a few scribes could have added the article as apparently happens in a few manuscripts in 10:32, 33 (B f13 892 al), 18:10 (B 892 pc), 22:30 (ℵ B L I f1.13 33 892 1424 al), etc., just as also a few apparently omitted it in 6:1 (ℵ* D Z 0250 f1 33 pc), 16:17 (B), 23:9 (D W Δ Θ f1 pc), etc. Three possible reasons in favor of the addition of τοις include: (1) individual scribes often carelessly omitted especially small and unnecessary words (see note on Matt 1:22 του); (2) it was thought the text would read better without two dental-initial articles on the same line (cf. Griesbach's comment on Matt 1:22 του); (3) it reflects cross-contamination from 2nd-century bilingual Latin-Greek manuscripts, since Latin has no definite article.
     On the other hand, Matthew's style is to omit the article before ουρανοις when the prepositional phrase follows a genitive expression (e.g., 7:21; 12:50; 18:10, 14, 19), and for this reason the large minority of manuscripts (without τοις) is likely correct. Cf. the note on Matt 7:21 ουρανοις for a fuller discussion of the situation.

Matt 5:31 οτι

The conjunction οτι following ερρεθη δε came to be missing in a number of witnesses (ℵ B D L f1.13 33 565 700 892 1241 1424 pc lat; Chr) for any of several reasons: (1) scribal error; (2) superfluousness; (3) assimilation to the repeated nearby expression where no οτι follows ερρεθη (5:21, 27, 33, 38, 43). Griesbach (1:53) suggests transcriptional error and, rather significantly, appeals to the number of manuscripts in such cases: "Although the select manuscripts B C D 1. 33 with a few others and Chrysostom omit οτι, I rather prefer to retain it, since, with ος following, it most easily could have escaped the notice of the eyes of one or another scribe. In judging omissions of this kind, where that in broad daylight could have caused scribes to err, we think that some degree of weight ought to be assigned to the number of manuscripts." Bloomfield (GNT, 1:36) remarks that critics "cancelled the word as pleonastic and unnecessary," that "internal evidence is in favour of the word, from the greater probability of its being removed than inserted," and that in such cases "ancient Versions and Fathers are of little weight." Thus the presence of οτι, contained in most manuscripts (including E G K M S U V W Δ Θ Π Σ) and corroborated by reasonable internal evidence, is preferable to the omission. Cf. also the note on Matt 6:5 οτι.

Note: Bloomfield lists a number of passages, such as the following, where οτι is absent in particularly influential witnesses: Matt 9:18 (ℵ D f1.13 33 892 pc lat); 20:12 (ℵ B D 085 f1 1424 pc lat sy-s.c.p); 21:16 (ℵ D 983 1506 pc it vg-mss); 23:36 (P77 ℵ B D L Θ f1.13 205 579 700 892* pc); 26:29 (P45 ℵ B D Z Θ f1.13 33 205 892* al); Mark 1:27 (ℵ B L 33 f1 205 565*), 40 (D lat sy-p); 2:16 (ℵ B Cvid D L W Θ 33 1342 1424 2542 pc latt sa bo); 5:23 (D f13 a c e sy-p); 6:16 (ℵ B D L Θ f1 33 205 565 700 892 1342 pc latt sy-s.p), 18 (D 892 pc lat); 7:6 (ℵ B L Δ Θ 33 579 1342 pc sy-s.p); 8:24 (D W Θ f1.13 205 565 700 1424 2542 al latt co); 12:6 (L W Δ 1 33 788 892* al it), 29 (D W Θ f1 205 565 700 788 2542 al it sy-s); Luke 7:22 (ℵ B L W Θ Ξ Ψ f1.13 205 579 700 892 1342 1424 2542 pc it bo); 19:46 (ℵ B L Θ f1.13 892 2542 pc c l co); John 4:42 (B Ws pc b f r1 sy-c; Ir-lat); 7:31 (ℵ B D L T U X Δ f1 33 lat sy-c.p); 8:33 (f1 al b c ff2 l vg); 9:23 (D L a c e l); 13:33 (P66 ℵ* D W 579 1241 pc lat); 18:6 (ℵ A B D L N W Θ Ψ 0250 f1 33 565 al latt), etc.

Matt 5:22 εικη

Only eight Greek manuscripts from before the 13th century omit εικη (p64 ℵ* B Ω 135 137* 364 371*), which Metzger (13) nevertheless dismisses with a single sentence: "Although the reading with εικη is widespread from the second century onwards, it is much more likely that the word was added by copyists in order to soften the rigor of the precept, than omitted as unnecessary."

Metzger's statement mirrors that of Erasmus (2:25–26), who after invoking the authority of Jerome who said that it was "not found in the old and trustworthy exemplars" states, "And it appears that it was added by some impudent person who wanted, as it were, to mitigate that which in general appeared to be a rather hard saying." Bèze (1:31) offers no reasons but assumes the authenticity of εικη: "Therefore not all anger is to be condemned, such as that kind which is commended in the name of zeal and also that which the Peripatetic philosophers not insincerely call 'the crag of fortitude': but in the end what is censured is that [anger] which is either unjust or immoderate (Eph 4:26)." Grotius (1:117) likewise concurs: "The anger which has the best justification is that which is derived from the indignation of the offended Divine, namely, that of which kind Christ exhibited in Mark 3:5." Mill (12) boldly states that "there is no reason why the expression εικη should have been omitted" (emphasis mine), and that although it was admitted into the text from the margin of some manuscript to soften what was thought to be a rather hard saying, it nevertheless is "ancient" because "it entered the manuscripts basically from apostolic times." Whitby (Examen, 108–9) responds to the notion that εικη was added from the margin of some manuscripts thus: "Indeed I favor very little this kind of reasoning, neither do I easily believe that something uncustomary could have crept into the text that was publicly recited in the Churches of Christianity without a rather weighty cause which I wholly fail to discover in this place." He nevertheless does agree with a certain sentiment of Mill, namely, that "indeed no one would have omitted the expression on purpose; however, it could have been omitted from the negligence of scribes, since it is generally admitted that such occurred very often in other places." Whitby (Paraphrase, 5:72–3) rightly judges that Justin's citation (ος δ αν οργισθη, ενοχος εστιν εις το πυρ) cannot be considered as evidence against εικη, since it is "only a brief recapitulation of the whole: and you may as well argue, that neither Raca nor μωρε was in that verse, as that εικη was not there." Mastricht (Appendix:2) comments in favor of the word: "Sense does not escape the expression should the passage be alleviated or explained rightly; for 'anger' passion is natural to man, and if it is controlled, he does not sin in his behavior. Cf. Eph 4:26 where it says 'without a cause' in certain Latin manuscripts." Bengel (Apparatus, 98; Gnomon, 174) defends the omission and likewise mentions no reason why εικη, if original, might have been omitted.

The primary patristic comments are conveniently quoted in Wettstein (1:296–7). Jerome (Commentariorum in Matthaeum) at Matt 5:22: "In certain manuscripts 'without a cause' [sina causa] is added. As for the rest, in the true ones the sentence is definite, and anger is completely taken away, with the Scripture saying, 'He who is angry with his brother.' For if we are commanded to offer the other cheek to the one striking us, and to love our enemies, and to pray for those who persecute us, every occasion for anger is removed. Therefore 'without a cause' must be erased, since the anger of man does not perform the righteousness of God." Jerome (Commentariorum in Epistulam ad Ephesios) at Eph 4:31: "'Without a cause' was added in vain, for we are not permitted to be angry even with a cause." Jerome (Adversus Pelagianos 2): "But 'without a cause' was not added in most old manuscripts with the result of course that we should not be angry even for any reason." Augustine (Retractationum 1.19): "The Greek manuscripts do not have 'without a cause,' as placed here, although the sense itself is the same." John Cassian (De institutis coenobiorum 8.20): "'Without a cause' is superfluous and was added by those who did not at all think that anger should be excluded in the case of just causes, since certainly no one, however provoked without reason, says that he is angry without a cause. Therefore it appears that it was added by those who did not understand the intention of Scripture to cut off the fuel of voluntary anger by all means and to leave no occasion at all for indignation, lest, when we are commanded to be angry with justification, even without justification an occasion is provided for us to become angry."

Wettstein (1:296–7) observes that Augustine's comment that the Greek copies did not have "without a cause" is uncritical since he was merely copying Jerome, and Jerome was speaking to the situation of the Latin manuscripts and not of the Greek. Against Jerome's theological reason for omitting εικη, Wettstein responds that it is "rather light," for "it is just as much that the Legislator can command that we take off natural anger as that we cut off all anger; which is why anger is so often spoken of, being attributed so many times to God, and to Christ in Mark 3:5. Paul certainly in Eph 4:26 does not forbid us to be angry, but rather wants us to be so angry that we do not sin. . . . Consequently, the sole authority of Jerome could not induce us to attempt to change anything whatsoever against the consensus of the Greek and Latin fathers and versions."

Matthäi (68–9) judges that εικη was removed "on the authority of certain interpreters," and calls attention to this passage's Greek scholium which is entitled "The practice of the law" and the origin of which he connects with Origen: "But others say that εικη was added by some in vain. Wherefore one must not be angry at all. For how is a place left open for some to be angry when we are commanded to love even our enemies?" The verbal similarities ("almost word for word") between this scholium and Jerome's quotations led Matthäi to use violent language: "Jerome . . . judged that εικη should be erased. Why? Of course, because it was omitted by Origen, whom he imitated like a slave, but also whose commentaries and other written works he fraudulently and criminally commends in place of the manuscripts of the New Testament."

Griesbach (1:46–50) boldly introduces a more mature argument for the authenticity of εικη: "We have no doubt that it was omitted on purpose. For so rigid was the teaching on behavior among most of the teachers of the ancient church that they supposed that not only 'to be angry without a cause' but also all anger whatsoever was to be prohibited under Christian law. One of them supposed that the εικη, as if impeding the zeal of Christian perfection and being less suitable to our most holy teacher, had been inserted into the text by those who were wishing to reach heaven by a more favorable way. Therefore he erased it by dots above or below in his own manuscript. He was followed afterwards by others who were influenced by the same prejudiced opinions when coming across the verse." Griesbach concedes that the variation already existed in Origen's time, but that Origen approved of the shorter reading, partly for theological reasons, partly also perhaps because εικη seemed superfluous. He also notes that the witnesses against εικη "are refuted by other equally old and weighty manuscripts originating from the same families," not to mention the manuscripts that even Jerome and Augustine confessed to contain it, including "all other Greek manuscripts (Alexandrian, Western, and Byzantine) . . . . And so εικη is victorious both by the multitude and, which is greater, by the weightiness of the witnesses. . . . But yet in this kind of reading, where integrity of judgment is very easily corrupted by comments of theological opinions, we very willingly concede that one cannot assign so much weight to the allegations of the fathers as he can to them in places of a different kind." He continues, "What pertains to the internal importance of probability, everyone who is acquainted with the spirit of the first centuries and the character of the earlier fathers will grant to us that there were by far more incentives present for the word εικη to have been deleted than added." Moreover, after reviewing the statements of Jerome and John Cassian, Griesbach observes, "Jerome attributes so much to reasons of this kind that when he was observing that manuscripts disagreed among themselves he boldly (see his comment in that place) pronounced: 'Therefore "without a cause" ought to be scratched off!' This because he considered it so wrong that not long before he seriously asked someone whether any prudent man would bring together documentation of some importance that would be of such critical understanding to the faith [as this passage without εικη]."

Kühnöl (143–4) defends the expression, while Bloomfield (Annotations, 4–5) says the problem in his mind remains "an open question." Scrivener (Six Lectures, 119–22) deals with the passage at length, calling Jerome Origen's "follower" and the later versions that omit εικη "distinctly traceable to the influence of Origen over Jerome's mind." Scrivener, like Griesbach, compares the motive for the omission here with that for the omission of "falsely" (ψευδομενοι) in 5:11 by D and some Latin manuscripts. He continues, "We will not hesitate to say that on the whole external evidence preponderates in favour of the retention of 'without cause.' It is the earlier, fuller, less equivocal."

Whitney (1:64–5) rightly explains that anger is "a feeling perfectly compatible with a holy, sinless frame of mind," and, considering Mark 3:5 and Eph 4:26, that there is "a holy anger as well as one that is sinful; the former awakened by a just provocation, being a righteous indignation, while the latter is without just ground, and is to be condemned. . . . Εικη seems to have been stricken out of the text under a misapprehension of the true meaning of οργιζομενος," for if one gives to οργιζομενος "the stronger sense of cherishing angry feelings or harboring a wrathful, malicious purpose, of course the bracketed words are not only superfluous, but altogether inappropriate. But this is a sense which the word hardly admits." Whitney's concluding sentence well summarizes transmissional probabilities: "The false reading of these manuscripts was evidently confined within comparatively narrow limits, and soon disappeared, the offensive word being everywhere recognized as genuine."

To summarize: (1) at least 1449 Greek manuscripts have εικη, including the Old Latin, Syriac, Coptic, and others, and many church fathers; (2) the word was offensive to some, like Jerome, a circumstance that easily could have occasioned its removal; (3) a misapprehension of οργιζομενος to mean malicious hatred, which is always sinful (cf. Matt 5:44, and Jesus' correspondence of anger and hatred in 5:21–22), could have caused some to omit the word as superfluous; (4) εικη could have been omitted accidentally, either from the sheer brevity of the word, from parablepsis error (ε . . . ε), or both. For a brief modern treatment of the passage, see David Alan Black ("Jesus on Anger: The Text of Matthew 5:22a Revisited," Novum Testamentum 30:1 [1988]: 1–8).

Text und Textwert #13 results:

1    αυτου εικη
01C2 05 07 017 019 021 028 030 031 032 036 037 038 041 042 047 055 0211 0233 0257 0287 1 2 3 4 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 43 44 45 46 47 49 51 52 53 54 55 57 58 59 60 61 63 64 65 66 67 68 70 71 72 74 75 76 77 78 80 83 84 86 89 90 98 100 105 107 108 111 112 113 116 117 118 119 120 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 136 137C 138 140 141 142 143 144 146 147 148 149 150 151 152 153 154 155 156 157 158 160 161 162 163 164 167 169 170 171 174 175 178C 179 180 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 199 200 201 202 204 205 207 208 209 210 212 213 214 215 217 218 219 220 224 225 226 227C 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 240 243 244 245 246 247 248 251 259 260 261 262 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277C 278 279 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 293 296 297 298 299 300 301 303 304 305 306 310 324 329 330 331 333 334 335 343 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 353 354 355 358 359 360 361 363 366 367 371C 373 374 375 376 377 379 380 386 387 388C 390 391 392 393 394 395 399 402 405 406 408 409 410 411 413 414 415 418 419 420 422 423 428 431 435 438 439 440 443 444 445 446 447 448 449 461 470 471 473 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485C 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 501 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 511 512 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 523 524 525 527 528 529 530 532 534 535 537 543 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555 556 557 558 560 561 563 564 565 566 568 569 571 573 574 575 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 590 592 594 596 597 600 645 649 651 652 655 657 660 662 664 666 668 672 676 677C 679 680 683 684 685 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 696 697 699 700 703 706 707 708 709 711 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 733 734 735 736 737 738 740 741 744 745 746 747 750 751 752 753 754 755 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 764 765 768 769 772 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 783 785 786 787 788 789 791 792 793 794 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 803 804 806 808 809 811 817 818 819 820 822 824 825 826 827 828 830 833 834 835 836 837 839 842 843 844 845 851 852 854 855 856 858 860 861 863 864 871 872 873 875 877 878 880 886 888 889 890 891 892 893 895 896 898 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 922 923 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 937 938C 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 948 949 951 952 953 954 955 956 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 978 979 980 982 983 986 987 988 989 992 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1017 1018 1019 1020 1021 1023 1024 1025 1026 1028 1029 1030 1032 1033 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1042 1043 1044 1046 1047 1048 1050 1052 1053 1054 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1068 1071 1072 1073 1074 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1095 1096 1097 1110 1111 1113 1114 1117 1120 1121 1122 1123 1125 1126 1127 1130 1131 1132 1133 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1144 1145 1146 1148 1149 1152 1155 1158 1159 1160 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172C 1173 1174 1178C 1179 1180 1181 1182 1185 1186 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1198 1199 1200 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1221 1222 1223 1224 1225 1226 1227 1228 1229 1230 1232 1233 1234 1235 1236 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1247 1248 1250 1251 1252 1260 1261 1262 1263 1266 1268 1269 1273 1278 1279 1280C 1281 1282 1285 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1296 1297 1298 1299 1301 1302 1303 1305 1309 1310 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1333 1334 1336 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1343 1345 1346 1347 1350 1352 1353 1354 1355 1357C 1358 1359 1362 1364 1365 1367 1375 1377 1383 1385 1386 1387 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393C 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1406 1408 1409 1410 1413 1414 1415 1416 1418 1420 1421 1422 1424 1432 1434 1435 1436 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1460 1461 1462 1463 1465 1466 1467 1468 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1505 1506 1508 1510 1511 1519 1521 1528 1530 1531 1532 1533 1534 1535 1536 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1546 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1555 1556C 1557 1558 1559 1560 1562 1563 1564 1570 1572 1573 1575 1576 1577 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1594 1595 1597 1600 1601 1602 1603 1604 1605 1606 1608 1612 1613 1615 1617 1620 1622 1623C 1624 1625 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1637 1639 1640 1641 1642 1645 1646 1647 1649 1651 1652 1653 1659 1660 1661 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1670 1671 1672 1675 1676 1677 1678 1680 1682 1685 1686 1687 1688 1690 1691 1692 1694 1695 1697 1698 1699 1700 1701 1702 1703 1704 1712 1713 1780 1797 1800 1802 1804 1808C 1813 1814 1816 1823 1901 1966 2095 2097 2099 2100 2101 2107 2108 2109 2112 2117 2118 2120 2122 2126 2127 2131 2132 2133 2135 2141 2142 2146 2147 2148 2159 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2181 2182 2191 2193 2195 2199 2201 2204 2206 2207 2213 2215 2217 2220 2221 2223 2224 2229 2236 2238 2255 2260 2261 2265 2266 2267 2273 2277 2278 2280 2281 2284 2287 2290 2291 2292 2295 2296 2297 2301 2304 2314 2315 2317 2321 2322 2323 2324 2328 2352 2354 2355 2356 2362 2367 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2375 2382 2383 2386 2387 2388 2390 2394 2398 2400 2404 2406 2407 2411 2414 2415 2420 2422 2426 2439 2442 2444 2446 2451 2452 2454 2458 2465 2467 2470 2471 2472 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2482 2483 2487 2488 2489 2490 2492 2494 2496 2497 2499 2502 2503 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2518 2520 2521 2523 2524 2525 2528 2530 2533 2539 2545 2546 2550 2554 2555 2557 2559 2561 2562 2567 2571 2577 2578 2579 2581 2583 2585 2590 2591 2592 2598 2603 2604 2605 2606 2608 2610 2612C 2613 2614 2615 2616 2620 2622 2623 2624 2633 2635 2636 2637 2645 2646 2650 2653 2656 2658 2660 2665 2670 2676 2680 2684 2685 2687 2689 2691 2692 2693 2694 2695 2697 2701 2702 2703 2705 2707 2708 2709 2710 2713 2714 2715 2718 2722 2724 2726 2727 2728 2729 2730 2734 2735 2745 2749 2754 2756 2757 2760 2765 2766 2767 2770 2774 2775 2779 2780 2781 2783 2786 2787 2788 2806 2808 2809 2810 2812 2826 2831 2835 2836
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1437

1B    αυτω εικη
165 1118 1187 1609 1643
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 5

1C    αυτου {οργιζομενος} εικη
939
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

2    αυτου
P64 01* 03 045 48 73 109 135S 137* 198 263 364 371* 372 500 663 782 784 1001 1272 1356 2263 2283 2397 2405 2430S 2706 2737
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 28

3    εικη
5 388* 412 732 938* 1693
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 6

U1 Homoeoteleuton: τη κρισει (5:21) [... τη κρισει (5:22)]
173 178* 211 227* 277* 295 344 389 485* 522 544 546 591 677* 805 1009 1015 1172* 1178* 1280* 1357* 1393* 1556* 1623* 1808* 2381 2516 2673
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 28

U2    Homoeoteleuton: τω αδελφω αυτου [... τω αδελφω αυτου]
1312
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

Matt 5:11 ρημα

Although three old Greek manuscripts (ℵ B D) omit ρημα after πονηρον, as do several versions (lat sy-s.c sa bo) and Tertullian, the preponderance of the external evidence in favor of ρημα is corroborated by the following internal considerations: (1) its Hebraistic character is internally consistent with Matthew; (2) its Hebraistic, unclassical, and seemingly superfluous character, especially as the expression πονηρον ρημα is not found in the rest of the NT, is expected to have occasioned its omission in some witnesses (so Bloomfield, GNT, 1:31); (3) especially applicable to the versions, it "could be left out without harming the sense" and so "was neglected by a hurrying scribe" (Griesbach, 1:44; cf. also Meyer, 110); and (4) its position following the syllable ρον (of πονηρον) could have contributed to its omission (Meyer, 110). In addition, the suspicion of contamination from the versions is greatly increased when a small minority of Greek manuscripts omits a single word in unison with parts of the three major early versions. Not insignificantly, OL q/13 (6th/7th cent.), the Syriac Peshitta and Harklean, and the oldest Coptic witness (mae-1) include ρημα (in addition to C W Θ Σ f1.13, etc.).

Text und Textwert #12 results:

1    παν πονηρον ρημα καθ υμων
04 07 017 021 028 030 031 032 036 037 041 042 045 047 055 0211 0257 0297 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40S 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 59C 60 63 64 65 66 67 68 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 80 83 84 86 89 90 98 100 105 106 107 108 109 111 112 113 116 117 118S 119 120 121 122 123 124 125 126 127 128 129 130 131 132 133 134 135S 136 137 138 140 141 142 143 144 146 147 148 149 150 151 153 154 155 156 157 158 160 161 162 163 164 165 167 169 170 171 173 174 175 178 180 182 183 184 185 186 187 188 189 190 191 192 193 194 195 196 198 199 200 201 202 204 205 207 208 209 211 212 213 214 217 218 219 220 224 225 226 227 228 229 230 231 232 233 234 235 236 237 238 240 243 244 245 246 247 259 260 261 262 263 265 266 267 268 269 270 271 272 273 274 275 276 277 278 279 281 282 283 284 285 286 287 288 289 290 291 293 295 296 297 299 300 301 303 304 305 306 310 324 329 330 331 333 334 335 343 344 345 346 347 348 349 350 351 352 354 355 358 359 360 361 363 364 365 366 367 370 371 372 373 374 375 376 377 379 380 386 387 388 389 390 391 392 393 394 395 399 402 405 406 408 409 410 411 412 413 414 415 418 419 420 422 423 428 431 435 438 439 440 443 445 446 447 448 449 461 470 473 475 476 477 478 479 480 481 482 483 484 485 489 490 491 492 493 494 495 496 497 498 500 501 504 505 506 507 508 509 510 512 514 515 516 517 518 519 520 521 522 523 524 525 527 528 529 530 532 534 535 537 543 544 546 547 548 549 550 551 552 553 554 555S 556 557 558 560 561 563 564 565 566 568 569 571 573 574 575 577 578 579 580 581 582 583 584 585 586 587 588 590 591 592 594 596 597 600 645 649 651 652 655 657 660 662 663 664 666 668 672 676 677 679 680 683 684 685 688 689 690 691 692 693 694 696 697 699 700 703 706 707 709 711 713 714 715 716 717 718 719 720 722 723 724 725 726 727 728 729 730 731 732 733 734 735 736 737 738 740 744 745 746 747 750 751 752 753 754 755 757 758 759 760 761 762 763 765 766 768S 769 772S 773 774 775 776 777 778 779 780 781 782 783 785 786 787 788 789S 791 793 794S 795 796 797 798 799 800 801 803 804 805 806 808 809C 811 817 818 819 820 822 824 825 826 827 828 830 833 834 835 836 837 839 842 843 844 845 851 852 854 856 858 860 861 863 864 871 872 873 875 877 878 880 886 888 889 890 891 892 893 895 896 899 900 901 902 903 904 905 906 922 924 925 926 927 928 929 930 931 932 933 934 935 937 938 939 940 941 942 943 944 945 946 947 948 949 951 952 953 954 955 956 958 959 960 961 962 963 964 965 966 968 969 970 971 972 973 974 975 978 979 980 982 983 986 987 988 989 992 994 995 996 997 998 999 1000 1001 1003 1004 1005 1006 1007 1008 1009 1010 1011 1012 1013 1014 1015 1017 1018 1019 1021 1023 1024 1025 1026 1028 1029 1030 1032 1033 1035 1036 1037 1038 1039 1040 1041 1043 1044 1046 1047S 1048 1050 1052 1053 1054S 1056 1057 1058 1059 1060C 1061 1062 1063 1064 1065 1068 1071 1072 1073 1075 1076 1077 1078 1079 1080 1081 1082 1083 1084 1085 1086 1088 1089 1090 1091 1092 1093 1095 1097 1110 1111 1113 1114 1117 1118 1120 1121 1122 1123 1125 1126 1127 1130 1131 1132 1133 1135 1136 1137 1138 1139 1144 1145 1146 1148 1149 1152 1155 1158 1159 1160 1163 1164 1165 1166 1167 1168 1169 1170 1171 1172 1173 1174 1178 1179 1180 1181 1182 1185 1186 1187 1188 1189 1190 1191 1192 1193 1194 1195 1196 1197 1198 1199 1200 1202 1203 1204 1205 1206 1207 1208 1209 1210 1211 1212 1213 1214 1215 1216 1217 1218 1219 1221 1222 1224 1225 1227 1228 1229 1230 1232 1233 1234 1235 1237 1238 1239 1240 1241 1242 1243 1247 1248 1250 1251 1252 1253 1260 1261 1262 1263 1266 1268 1269 1272 1273 1278 1279 1281 1282 1285 1288 1289 1290 1291 1292 1293 1294 1296 1297 1298 1299 1301 1302 1303 1305 1309 1310S 1312 1313 1314 1315 1316 1317 1318 1319 1320 1321 1322 1323 1324 1325 1326 1327 1328 1329 1330 1331 1333 1334 1336 1338 1339 1340 1341 1342 1345 1346 1347 1350 1352 1353 1354 1355 1356 1357 1358 1359 1362 1364 1365 1367 1375 1377 1383 1385 1386 1387C 1388 1389 1390 1391 1392 1393 1394 1395 1396 1397 1398 1399 1400 1401 1402 1403 1404 1406 1408 1409 1410 1413 1414S 1415 1416 1418 1421 1422 1424 1432 1434 1435 1436 1438 1439 1440 1441 1442 1443 1444 1445 1446 1447 1448 1449 1450 1452 1453 1454 1455 1456 1457 1458 1460 1461 1462 1463 1464S 1465 1466 1467 1468 1470 1471 1472 1473 1474 1475 1476 1477 1478 1479 1480 1481 1482 1483 1484 1485 1486 1487 1488 1489 1490 1491 1492 1493 1494 1495 1496 1497 1498 1499 1500 1501 1502 1503 1505 1506 1508 1510 1511 1519 1521 1528 1530 1531 1532 1534 1535 1536 1538 1539 1540 1541 1542 1543 1544 1545 1547 1548 1549 1550 1551 1552 1553 1555 1556 1557 1558 1559 1560 1562 1563 1570 1572 1573 1575 1576 1578 1579 1580 1581 1582S 1583 1584 1585 1586 1587 1588 1589 1590 1591 1592 1594 1595 1597 1600 1601 1603 1604 1605 1606 1608 1609 1612 1613 1615 1617 1620 1622 1623 1625 1628 1629 1630 1631 1632 1633 1634 1635 1637 1639 1640 1641 1642 1643 1645 1646 1647 1649 1651 1652 1653 1659 1660 1661 1664 1665 1666 1667 1668 1670 1671 1672 1675 1676 1678 1680 1682 1685 1686 1687 1688 1690 1691 1692 1693 1694 1695 1697 1698 1699 1700 1702 1703 1704 1712 1713 1797 1800 1802 1804 1813 1814 1816 1823 1901 1966 2095 2097 2099 2101 2109 2112 2117 2118 2120 2122 2123 2126 2127 2131 2132 2133 2135 2139 2141 2142 2146 2147 2148 2159 2172 2173 2174 2175 2176 2177 2178 2181 2182 2191 2193 2195 2199 2201 2204S 2206 2207 2213 2215 2217 2220 2221 2224 2229 2236 2238 2255 2260 2261 2263 2265 2266 2267 2269 2273 2277 2278 2280 2281 2283 2287 2290S 2291 2295 2296 2297 2301 2304 2306 2314 2315 2317 2321 2322 2323 2324 2328 2352 2354 2355 2356 2362 2367 2369 2370 2371 2372 2373 2374 2381 2382 2383 2386 2387 2388 2390 2394 2398 2400 2404 2405 2406 2407 2411 2414 2415 2420 2422 2426 2430S 2439 2442 2444 2446 2451 2452 2454 2458 2465 2467 2470 2471 2472 2474 2475 2476 2477 2478 2479 2483 2487 2488 2489 2490 2492 2494 2496 2497 2499 2502 2503 2507 2508 2509 2510 2511 2516 2518 2520 2523 2524 2525 2528S 2530 2533 2539 2545 2546 2550 2554 2555 2557 2559S 2561 2562 2567 2571 2578 2579 2581 2583 2585 2590S 2591 2592 2598 2603 2604 2605 2606 2608S 2610 2612 2613 2614 2615 2616 2620 2622 2623 2633 2635 2636 2637 2645 2646 2650 2653 2656 2658 2660 2665 2666 2670 2673 2676 2680 2684 2685 2687 2691 2692 2694 2695 2697 2701S 2702 2703 2705 2706 2707 2708 2709 2710 2713 2714 2715 2718 2721 2722 2724 2726 2727 2728S 2729 2730 2734 2735 2737 2745 2749 2754 2756 2757 2760 2765 2766 2767 2770 2773 2774 2775 2780 2781 2783 2786 2788 2806 2808 2809 2810 2812 2835 2836
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1441

1B    παν ρημα πονηρον καθ υμων
1223
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

1C    παν ρημα πονηρον καθ ημων
784
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

1D    παν πονηρον ρημα καθ ημων
59* 179 215 251 280 298 353 471 511 741 792 855 923 957 1020 1042S 1060* 1074 1096 1226 1236 1280 1546 1602 1624 1780 1808 2107 2292 2397 2482 2521 2624 2689S 2693S 2831
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 36

1E    παν πονηρον ρημα καθη υμων
038
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

2    παν πονηρον καθ υμων
01 03
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 2

3    καθ υμων παν πονηρον
05
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

4    παν πονηρον ρημα
1387* 2100 2577
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 3

5    παν ρημα καθ υμων
58 61 444 809* 1533C 2284
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 6

6    παν πονηρον ρημα κατ εμου
248
NUMBER OF WITNESSES: 1

Matt 4:12 ο Ιησους

After ακουσας δε some witnesses omit ο Ιησους (ℵ B C*vid D Z 33 543 700 pc ff1 k vg-st sy-s sa mae1 bo-pt). Mill (Prolegomena:148) says, conversely, that "a scribe's subconscious long ago introduced ο Ιησους into the text." Bengel (Apparatus, 97), Griesbach (1:39–40), Meyer (92), and others, following Mill, argue that the name was introduced either because the place marked the beginning of the pericope or because of lectionary cross-contamination due to the reading that begins with 4:12. Whitby (141) thinks the period is "defective" without ο Ιησους, but Fritzsche (176–7) supports the words not because the sense is unclear without the name, but because intrinsically it is generally Matthew's custom (cf. 4:17, 23; 8:14, 18, 33; 11:1; 12:1; 13:1, 53; 15:21, 29; 16:13; 17:1, etc.). Wettstein (1:274) argues in like manner, noting similar places (1:18, 24; 8:13, 14, 18). Matthäi (55) notes that the expression is preserved not only in all the Gospel lectionaries but also in all the manuscripts he has collated, whereas Bloomfield (GNT, 23; Annotations, 3) confirms it with little doubt but says the internal evidence is "equally balanced."
     In addition, there are several reasons for maintaining the authenticity of ο Ιησους. First, omission among the early manuscripts is more than twice as common as addition (cf. note on Matt 1:22). Second, although less likely, the omission could reflect conformation to the exact expression 30 verses earlier (2:22). Third, the omission may be accounted for by the transcription error known as homoeoarchton (ο...ο), the probability for which is increased due to the likelihood that the number of the letters of the expression written as a nomen sacrum would have equalled the number of the letters of the following word (ΟΙΣ ΟΤΙ). Fourth, if scribes were really so prone to add the name as frequently as some allege, there are many likelier places where the name should have been added but where not a single scribe has done so (cf. the beginning of arguably the most famous sermon in the Bible, the Sermon on the Mount (Matt 5:1–7:29). Fifth, the claim of lectionary cross-contamination is overstated; cf. Scholz, 1:458–9, where most Greek manuscripts containing the nearby pericopes were unaffected by the beginning of lectionary readings (τω καιρω εκεινω περιπατων ο Ιησους παρα [4:18–23]; το καιρω εκεινω ηκολουθησαν τω Ιησου [4:25–5:11]; ειπεν ο κυριος τω αιτουντι [5:42–48]; ειπεν ο κυριος [7:9–18]). Sixth, due to perceived superfluousness, names are frequently omitted by a minority of manuscripts at any given place (cf., e.g., the omissions of: Ιωαννης in 3:14 (by ℵ* B sa); ο Ιησους in 4:23 (by B k sy-c sa mae); κυριε in 8:6 (by ℵ* k sy-s.c; Hil); Ιησους in 8:22 (by ℵ 33 b c k q sy-s), etc. For these internal and external reasons the presence of ο Ιησους should be considered original.

Matt 3:10 δε και

     A few manuscripts (ℵ B C Ds M W Δ 0233 f1 700 pc co) omit και after δε either by accident or because it was considered redundant. Erasmus (2:19) notes the και is "not an idle conjunction, for it indicates with an increase in force that imminent danger approaches." Wettstein (1:265) follows Erasmus, and Griesbach (1:24–5), noting the same motivation behind the omission of και in Codex Bezae (D/05) at the parallel passage of Luke 3:9, says it was omitted because it appeared superfluous and that scribes failed to understand its force. Such especially applies to the versions, which in turn could have influenced the omission in some Greek copies. Fritzsche (131–2) rightly cautions that just because ηδη δε και was common among Greek writers does not mean that the και would have been spared from tampering had it for some reason been deemed unsuitable, and that at first glance δε pertains to the entire sentence to focus and multiply its greater intensity, and thus the και was thought unnecessary; yet the και indicates that the ax was even brought near to the trees, which, as Kühnöl (70) who says και was wrongly omitted notes, frequently refer to mankind in Scripture (Ps 1:3; Matt 7:17–19; John 15:1; Rom 11:17, etc.). Bloomfield (Annotations, 2–3) notes that the harshness of the construction lowers the possibility that και was introduced from harmonization to Luke 3:9, and that it was removed because it was thought to overload the construction, as was the και that is omitted in some manuscripts in Luke 5:35 (ℵ C F L M Θ f1.13 [and many late minuscules], etc.). Matthew is not unaccustomed to using δε και at the beginning of clauses (10:18 [versus Mark 13:9 and Luke 21:12]; 10:30 [versus Luke 12:7]; 18:17; 24:49 [versus Luke 12:45, which has τε και]; 25:22, 24 [versus Luke 19:18, 20], etc.). Moreover, examples may be multiplied where scribes, and especially the originators of the versions, opted to omit either δε or και when encountering the δε και combination (Matt 25:22 [δε omitted by ℵ B pc sa]; 26:35 [δε omitted by ℵ B C D L 067vid 0281 33 70 al lat sy mae bo-mss]; 27:41 [δε omitted by B K Θ f1.13 33 565 700 al lat sy-[s].p bo-pt; δε και omitted by ℵ A L W pc bo-pt]; Mark 14:31 [δε omitted by B f1 579 pc a c k sa-mss bo-ms]; Luke 6:6 [και omitted by ℵ B L X f1.13 33 pc it co sy-s.c]; 18:1 [και omitted by ℵ B L f13 pc a b c q co], etc.). See also Scholz (1:clxv), who similarly argues against the Alexandrian tampering of the intrinsically Lukan construction verb + δε και. Thus both internal and external evidence firmly support the authenticity of και. Cf. also the note on Matt 1:22 regarding scribal propensity toward omission over addition.

Matt 2:22 επι

Some manuscripts (ℵ B N Σ f1.13 33 565 700 892 pc) reflect a spirit of reviving the pure Attic dialect by omitting επι (commonly used with βασιλευω in the OT) after the verb βασιλευει in order to create a more classical construction. Bloomfield (GNT, 13–14) remarks that the Alexandrian critics knew well that classical usage requires its absence, that it is rarely if not never used by the classical writers, that it was thus cancelled by fastidious critics who wished to get rid of an unnecessary and unclassical construction, and that B and its usual supporters "abound in such uncritical alterations" (emphasis his). Meyer (56) agrees that επι could easily have been omitted as unnecessary, and perhaps even by accident since the syllable ει preceded it. The preposition επι should be retained for these reasons, and also for its early and diverse support (including C D E K L M S U V Γ Δ Π W). Cf. also the note on Matt 1:22 concerning a similar omission of a word most likely deemed superfluous.