Matt 4:2 τεσσαρακοντα . . . τεσσαρακοντα

     There is no reason to follow the insignificant orthographical variant τεσσερακοντα that is twice read in a few manuscripts (ℵ B* C L P Δ Σ 399), since it merely reflects the Ionic spelling and not the standard Koine spelling that Matthew would have been more likely to have written. Von Soden (2:7) rightly retains τεσσαρακοντα.

Matt 3:16 ανεωχθησαν

     There is no good reason to abandon the common reading of ανεωχθησαν for the orthographical preference of the few manuscripts that read ηνεωχθησαν (B f13 pc). The same may be said in 9:30 regarding ηνεωχθησαν (B D 33) and in 27:52 regarding ηνεωχθησαν (L Θ f1 33 pc), ηνοιχθησαν (A Π* pc), and ηνεωχθη (C* pc). In Luke 1:64 no major manuscripts oppose the standard spelling ανεωχθη (one member of f13 [983] has ηνεωχθη). From a Byzantine-priority perspective it is not surprising that the η of ηνοιγησαν/διηνοιχθησαν in Mark 7:35 is left unharmed, nor that as many as a quarter of all manuscripts in John 9:10 depart from ανεωχθησαν to read ηνεωχθησαν, which may reflect an early editorial assimilation to the nearby majority ηνοιξεν (including ℵ A D etc.) or the minority ηνεωξεν (B X Δ pc) in 9:17, where a few manuscripts (K L Π), as might be expected, have ανεωξεν, which von Soden (2:435) strangely prefers.

Matt 3:16 ανεβη ευθυς

     The few witnesses (ℵ B Ds W f1 33vid 205 700 pc lat sy-p co) that transpose the words to read ευθυς ανεβη reflect either the critical idea to give ευθυς its more usual place before the verb (so Bloomfield, Annotations, 3; Meyer, 72) or harmonization to the word order of Mark 1:10 (cf. von Soden, 2:7). The word order of most manuscripts (including C E K L M P S U V Γ Δ [0233] f13 d h sy-h), as it is not inconsistent with Matthew (cf. 25:15, but note the alternative punctuation in NA27), is less common, and is not in harmony with Mark, is thus more likely to have undergone alteration than the minority reading, were it original. It is also possible that the versions, which frequently alter word order based on their own conventions, could have affected the word order of a minority of manuscripts here or there, especially since it is known that bilingual manuscripts were valued early on as a way of validating the versions, and vice versa.

Matt 3:16 και βαπτισθεις

     A small contingent of manuscripts (ℵ B C* f13 892 pc) alters και βαπτισθεις ο Ιησους into βαπτισθεις δε ο Ιησους reflecting assimilation to the wording of the prior verse, namely, αποκριθεις δε ο Ιησους (3:15). It is far more likely that the very near context would have influenced a change in 10 or so manuscripts out of more than 1600 than that remote and verbally dissimilar parallels would have done so (cf. και εβαπτισθη [Mark 1:9]; και Ιησου βαπτισθεντος [Luke 3:21]). Bloomfield (Annotations, 3) argues that intrinsic probability favors και βαπτισθεις since it is more Hellenistic and founded on the Hebrew idiom, to which he suggests comparing Rom 4:3 and James 2:23 with Gen 15:6 (LXX). According to an email correspondence from Tony Pope, who cites chapter 5 of Stephen Levinsohn, Discourse Features of New Testament Greek (2d ed.; Dallas: SIL International, 2000), a distinctive discourse feature of NT Greek is that δε is used to mark a significant development in the narrative, whereas και is often used at the beginning of the discourse to set the scene for the first significant event or at the end for its conclusion. Pope suggests that a scribe or editor, aware of this feature, could have altered the meaning of an episode or the relationship between episodes through the interchange of δε and και. If και in 3:16 is original, Pope sees it as furnishing "a setting or lead-in for the surprising event of 16b" (και ιδου . . .) and cites 9:19 as a possible similar case. Nevertheless, even if internal evidence is inconclusive, the breadth and diversity of the external support for και βαπτισθεις are superior.

----------

Note the following two constructions in Matthew:

και + partciple + ο Ιησους (20x)
8:14; 9:2, 4, 9, 19, 23; 11:4; 14:13, 14; 15:21, 29; 16:17; 17:7; 18:2; 20:17, 32; 22:1; 24:1, 4; 28:18

partciple + δε + ο Ιησους (16x)
3:15; 4:12; 8:10, 18; 12:25; 16:8, 13; 17:17; 19:26; 20:22, 34; 21:21, 24; 22:18, 29; 26:10

Matt 3:11 αγιω

     After πνευματι αγιω significant and early attestation exists for the addition of και πυρι  (p101vid ℵ B C Ds K L M U W Γ Δ Π Σ 0211 0233 f1.13 33. 399. 565. 892 al lat sy co Ju Ta Ir Tert Or, etc.), which Mill (§§690, 1098, 1177) maintains crept in from the margin. The words are absent in most manuscripts, including E S V Ω 461. 566. 1080. 1424. 2224. Griesbach (1:25–30) argues for the authenticity of the words, in part, on the grounds that they were omitted either because (1) they were considered abrasive, (2) they are lacking in Mark 1:8 and John 1:33, or (3) the church lectionary ended without the words (since the readers did not want to sadden the listeners). As lengthy as Griesbach's defense is, he nevertheless concedes: "Certainly no one is ignorant that very many interpolations of the sacred text entered from the scholia and from the commentaries of the fathers." Indeed, Matthäi (48–9) notes four manuscripts that add the words και πυρι in the margin from the scholia, and two that add the words from Chrysostom, who he says quotes the words twice but "without any doubt" from Luke. The same argues that since the Latin Vulgate was organized nearly within apostolic times it was corrupted from Chrysostom or from the old scholia, "as happens hundred times in other places." He further argues that the words εν πυρι in Luke are commented upon only minimally, and that anyone who has read Chrysostom knows how he frequently makes a harmony from multiple gospels and in the middle of interpreting Matthew and John he suddenly diverts to a different gospel, and thus the correction in Matthew is from harmonization and natural theological explanation of εν πνευματι αγιω, which of course was of paramount importance to the early church (cf. Acts 1:5; 2:3), as they were baptized in the Holy Spirit, the external sign of which was baptism by fire. Rinck (248–9), who rejects the addition, unashamedly states that "everyone acknowledges that the manuscripts strong in age and excellence were just as prone to supplement the context from parallel passages," and that suggesting that the church lectionary influenced the omission is unpersuasive, since the very reason that the church lectionary omitted και πυρι may very well have been because it was not thought to have been a part of Matthew's Gospel. Certainly it is agreed that the words were added to Matthew's Gospel at a very primitive stage, and once added, they could hardly have been omitted by any conscientious scribe who had the words in his exemplar, and those without the words in their exemplars would have felt constant temptation to add the words. Yet, as the evidence suggests, the majority of scribes did not add the words which originally belonged to Luke's Gospel, not Matthew's.

Matt 3:11 βαπτιζω υμας

     After εγω μεν at the beginning of the verse, a few manuscripts (p101 ℵ* B W 33 700 990 f1.13) transpose the words to read υμας βαπτιζω "for the purpose of better adapting the words to those at the end of the verse" (Bloomfield, GNT, 19). There was no need for Matthew to emphasize the first υμας, since doing so would have lessened the significance of the emphasis of the second υμας. By far the more memorable clause is the second of the two that contain υμας, and the word order of the second (υμας βαπτισει εν) may well have influenced an early scribe to conform the word order of the less familiar first occurrence to the more familiar second. Additionally, the critic could have thought to improve the construction by choosing a simple way to avoid the hiatus of βαπτιζω υμας, or to attach the prepositional phrase (εν υδατι) to the verb βαπτιζω just as the more famous prepositional phrase at the end of the sentence (εν πνευματι αγιω) is attached to βαπτισει. It is far less likely that all other manuscripts should reflect harmonization either to Mark 1:8 or Luke 3:16 or alteration of a perfectly fine construction than that a minority of manuscripts would reflect conformation to the word order that appears in the very same verse.

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.